Aššur-Banî-Âpli.
Thus it happened, that Aššur-banî-âpli, on coming to the throne, found himself involved in a war with Egypt. To such a ruler, it must have seemed a hard thing to relinquish what his father had fought, and perhaps died, to acquire and retain. This being the case, he sent forth his army to reduce the country again to subjection, Tirhakah having taken advantage of the death of Esarhaddon to revolt. In the course of this campaign his representative (there is every probability that Aššur-banî-âpli never went westwards, or, indeed, made any warlike expedition in person whatever) received the tribute of the kings of the sea-coast and “the middle of the sea,” i.e. Phœnicia and Cyprus. This list is, with few exceptions, the same as that given by Esarhaddon, and [pg 389] includes Minsê (= Minasê, i.e. Menasseh) of the land of Yaudi or Judah. In some cases, however, changes had taken place and these are duly registered—Yakinlû instead of Matan-ba'al, king of the land of Aruada (Arvad); Ammi-nadbi (Amminadab), king of the land of Bît-Ammana (Beth-Ammon), instead of Budu-ilu. For the kings of Cyprus, however, no change is indicated, a circumstance which leads one to look upon the list with some suspicion, it being not impossible that the names of certain rulers are inserted to make a seeming addition to the Assyrian king's glory. They are all represented, however, as supporting, with their troops and their ships, on land and on sea, the army of Aššur-banî-âpli. The result was the defeat of Tirhakah, and the restoration of the kings, prefects, and governors whom Esarhaddon had appointed as rulers of the country.[117]
No sooner had the Assyrians departed, than Tirhakah won over all the princes they had installed to his side, and the work had to be done over again. The Assyrian generals, however, returned promptly, and the rebellion was at once put down. Of the princes who were captured, Necho alone was spared, and, with his son, set as ruler in Ḫatḫariba (Athribis). About this time Tirhakah died, and Urdamanê, son of Sabaco, mounted the throne, and made Thebes and On (Heliopolis) his principal strongholds, besieging the Assyrian army of occupation in Memphis. Another expedition on the part of the Assyrians therefore became necessary, and was at once undertaken, and with complete success, except that Urdamanê remained, to all appearance, still at large. Practically, however, the greater part of Egypt became at this time an Assyrian province.
But many were the conquests of this really remarkable king, which his generals accomplished for him. Soon came the turn of Ba'al, king of Tyre, whose subjection brought about that of Yakinlû, king of Arvad, Mugallu, king of Tubal, and Sandasarme of the land of the Ḫilakkâa (Cilicians). Aššur-banî-âpli also speaks of the mission of Yakinlû, king of Arvad, who sent his sons to him with presents, and made obeisance. These princes bore the interesting names Azi-ba'al, Abi-ba'al, Aduni-ba'al, Sapati-baal, Pudi-baal, Ba'al-yašupu, Ba'al-ḫanunu, Ba'al-maluku, Abi-milki, and Aḫi-milki, showing the popularity of the element baal in the names of the people of Arvad. Azi-ba'al was designated as the next king, and all the brothers were sent back with rich gifts. He also tells the story of the dream of Guggu šar Luddi (Gyges, king of Lydia), to whom the god Aššur is said to have appeared, exhorting him to submit to Aššur-banî-âpli, and overcome his enemies by invoking his name. Following this advice, he succeeded in conquering the Gimmirrâa (people of Gomer), capturing their chiefs, of whom he sent two in fetters to the Assyrian king, with valuable gifts.
Gyges did not send any more embassies, however, and allied himself with Tušamilki, king of the land of Muṣur (generally regarded as Psammeticus of Egypt, but to all appearance another Muṣur—probably that to the north—is meant), and for this he received the curse of the Assyrian king. The result was, that the Gimmirrâa came and ravaged his country. This being the case, his son, who succeeded him, thought best to renew the Assyrian alliance, and therefore sent an embassy with a message to the following effect—“The king whom god hath chosen art thou; thou cursedst my father, and evil was wrought before him. As for me, the servant fearing thee, be gracious to me and let me bear thy yoke.”
Assur-banî-âpli (Assurbanipal), "The Great and Noble Asnapper," Hunting Lions. British Museum. Assyrian Saloon.
Gyges, in Assyrian Gug(g)u, is regarded as the [pg 391] original of the mystic Gog of Ezekiel xxxviii. 39, and his country, Lydia (Luddu), is generally explained as the Biblical Lud, though a certain amount of doubt regarding it exists.
Aššur-banî-âpli's other campaigns were against the Vannites, the Elamites, the Babylonians (on account of his brother Saosduchinos, king of that country, refusing to acknowledge his suzerainty), after that twice more against Elam, then against the Arabians, and finally against Ummanaldaš, king of Elam, whom he seized as a hawk does his prey. In all, however, he captured four Elamite princes, whom he caused to be attached to his carriage (ina marri šadadi, rukub šarruti-ia[118]), and as for the Arabian princes whom he had taken as prisoners, he caused them to wear chains and badges of service, and to work at the building of his palace, as was the custom in those days.
We can easily imagine him—the great and noble Aššur-banî-âpli, called by Ezra (iv. 10) Asnapper (better Asenappar), who transferred the Dinaites, Apharsathchites, Tarpelites, Apharsites, Archevites, Babylonians, Susanchites (Susanians), Dehavites, and Elamites, to swell the mixed multitudes in the cities of Samaria. Many a time is he represented in the beautiful bas-reliefs which he caused to be carved as the adornments of his palace at Nineveh, and we there see him, the patron of art, as the bold sportsman and hunter, just as his tablets show him as the greatest patron of literature of his time, one who knew the literature of his race, who took a pride in learning, and himself copied out tablets “in the assembly of the experts.”
The “great and noble Asnapper” is worthy of a statue in every land where the languages of Assyria and Babylonia are studied.
How the sudden downfall of the Assyrian empire [pg 392] really came about we do not know. In all probability it remained intact until the death of Aššur-banî-âpli, which took place in 626 b.c. His son, Aššur-êtil-îlāni-ukinni, has left no historical records, though it is not by any means impossible that some light may ultimately be thrown on his reign. One of the enigmas of his time is: What was the circumstance which called forth the following communication?—
“The message of the daughter of the king to Aššurâaitu the queen. As yet thou writest not thy tablet, and dictatest not thy letter? Shall they say thus: ‘Is this the sister of Šerû-êṭerat, the eldest daughter of the Harem-house of Aššur-êtil-îlāni-ukinni, the great king, the mighty king, the king of the world, the king of Assyria?’ And thou art the daughter of the bride, the lady of the house of Aššur-banî-âpli, the son of the great king of the Harem-house, who was Aššur-âḫa-iddina (Esarhaddon), king of Assyria.”
Some of the expressions in this letter seem obscure, but the probable explanation is, that the daughter of one of the last Assyrian kings—perhaps Sin-šarra-iškun (Saracos)—writes to the chief wife of Aššur-banî-âpli urging her to take action by exhorting the chiefs of the nation at a crisis in the history of the country, which crisis was probably that which led to the downfall of the mighty kingdom which had reached its zenith of power during the reign of Aššur-banî-âpli. At this time, according to Nabonidus, a king of the Umman-manda or Medes, whose name is doubtful, but which may be Iriba-tuktê, entered into alliance with a ruler who must be Nabopolassar of Babylon, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, and accomplished the vengeance of Merodach, the god of the Babylonians, who willed that the destruction wrought upon his city by Sennacherib should be amply avenged. This vengeance was apparently the downfall of the Assyrian empire and the destruction [pg 393] of Nineveh, in accordance with statements of Alexander Polyhistor, Abydenus, and Syncellus. It is Diodorus Siculus, however, who gives the fullest account. He relates that there was a legend (according to an oracle) that the city could not be taken until the river became its enemy. Arbaces, the Scythian, was besieging it, but was unable to make any great impression on it for two years. In the third year, however, the river[119] was swollen by rains, and being very rapid in its current, a portion of the wall was carried away, by which the besiegers gained an entrance. The king, recognizing in this the fulfilment of the oracle, raised a funeral pyre, and gathering together his concubines and eunuchs, mounted it, and perished in the flames. Thus came the great Assyrian empire to an end.
“The oracle concerning Nineveh:
The Lord is a jealous God and avengeth.
Who can stand before His indignation?
With an overrunning flood He will make a full end of the place thereof, and will pursue His enemies into darkness.
The gates of the rivers are opened, and the palace is dissolved.
Thy shepherds slumber, O king of Assyria, thy worthies are at rest; thy people are scattered upon the mountains, and there is none to gather them.”
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 [pg 394] city—it was the enslavement and ultimate annihilation of a whole nation. Who can imagine their despair? Less than fifty years earlier, Assyria 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 Assyrian 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 Rassams, 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 Rassam, 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 Aššur-banî-âpli'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 Assyrians, which have been used freely in the compilation of this book.
Chapter XI. Contact Of The Hebrews With The Later Babylonians.
Nabopolassar 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 Assyria can hardly be estimated. In the time of Merodach-baladan, the Chaldean who had mounted the Babylonian throne, an embassy 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 Assyrians, with whom he was in constant conflict. With the downfall of Assyria, 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 friendship.
There is hardly any doubt that the later Assyrian kings regarded Babylonia as an integral part of the Assyrian empire, and had perfect faith in the fidelity of the inhabitants. It may reasonably be doubted, however, whether the Babylonians had really forgotten [pg 396] 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 Assyrians 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 Assyrian 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 Assyrians in language, manners, and customs, and whom they probably regarded as being only half civilized.
The general opinion is, that Nabû-âbla-uṣur (Nabopolassar), the general whom Sin-šarra-iškun (Saracos), the last king of Assyria, 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 (Šamaš-šum-ukîn, the brother of Aššur-banî-âpli), 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-šarra-iškun should have given into the hands of one belonging to a tribe of old hostile to Assyria, the command of his army at such a critical time. In any case, the result was most disastrous for Assyria, as the foregoing chapter has shown.
In the opinion of Friedrich Delitzsch, Nabopolassar was not the general of Sin-šarra-iškun, but in all probability a viceroy installed by Aššur-êtil-îlāni-ukinni, and retained by Sin-šarra-iškun, in which case it is to be supposed that he made an alliance with the [pg 397] 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 Nabopolassar 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 Assyria, of which Egypt took a part, the former allies began to quarrel among themselves, the result being that Nabopolassar, wishing 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 Phœnicia, but also of Egypt. Hearing, therefore, “that the governor which he had set over Egypt and over the parts of Coele-Syria and Phœnicia 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 [pg 398] 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 Nabopolassar 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 Nabopolassar and the accession of his son Nebuchadnezzar took place in the year 604 b.c.
Unfortunately, but few inscriptions of Nabopolassar have been found, and of them some are duplicates, and all refer to his architectural or engineering works. The principal treats of his restoration of the temple Ê-temen-ana-kia, the shrine at Ê-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-uṣur (Nebuchadrezzar), “the eldest, firstborn, and beloved of my heart,” and his younger brother, Nabû-šumam-lìšir. 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 assisting by pulling the cord of the [pg 399] 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 canal of the Euphrates near the city Sippara, and to Nabopolassar's restoration of the temple of “the Lady of Sippar,” called Ê-edinna, “the house (temple) of the plain,” or “of Edina,” i.e. Eden.
When Nebuchadnezzar (in Babylonian Nabû-kudurri-uṣur—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.
Gratitude 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 [pg 400] 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. xxxvii. 5-7). According to Josephus, the Egyptians were totally defeated, and returned to their own land (Jer. xxxvii. 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 pronounced against the faithless vassal, 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 principal houses of the city by fire, followed, this destruction being wrought by Nebu-zar-adan (Nabû-zēr-iddina), the captain of Nebuchadnezzar's guard, who also carried captive all who remained in the city. Only the lowest class 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 [pg 401] b.c.), but was apparently successful in the end, when the inhabitants acknowledged Babylonian overlordship. 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 Ṣûru, 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 document is dated at Tyre (Ṣurru) 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 vassal 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 vassal 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 [pg 402] 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, Balaṭ-su-ûṣur, “Protect thou (O God), 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, Bêl, or else the favourite deity of the Babylonians in general, Nebo, the god of learning, may have preceded the first element as the name now stands. In the inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria, 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 Balaṭu, and seven of the name of Balaṭ-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 [pg 403] 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 Êri-Aku or Êri-Eaku, “servant of the Moon-god,” 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 gods is not only possible, but probable—indeed, he must have dedicated at least a few during his long [pg 404] 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 Assyriologist, who found what appeared to be the base of a great statue near a mound known as Dúair,[120] east of Babylon. It is not improbable, however, that “the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon,” means simply an extensive open space near one of the great fortifications (dûru) of the city. That all the principal officials of the kingdom should be expected to come to the dedication of such an image is exceedingly probable.
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 Assyrian Saloon of the British Museum, and apparently illustrates Assur-bani-âpli'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 illustration 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 circumstance probably due to the poverty of the Akkadian [pg 405] 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, Nabopolassar had built (= rebuilt) the two great walls of Babylon, called Imgur-Bêl and Nemitti-Bêl. 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-sabû, Babylon's “festival-street,” close to the gate of Beltis, for the yearly procession of the god Merodach.
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, Assyrian Saloon, No. 92 (upper part). The above, with Plate XIV., apparently illustrate Assur-bani-âpli'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-sabû 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. Rassam at Balawat in Assyria, 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. Rassam at Borsippa (evidently the doorstep of one of the entrances to the temple called Ê-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 [pg 406] 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 passage in question. Besides restoring the temples of the cities, or at least the principal ones, he restored all the chief temples of Babylonia, notably that at Sippar, the chief centre of the Sun-god worship, 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 Ê-sagila (later pronounced Ê-sangil), the “temple of Belus,” which he calls “the tower of Babylon,” the principal 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 [pg 407] it (see p. [138]). It was there that the god Merodach, the principal deity of the Babylonians, and the founder of the temple in question, was worshipped.
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 Nabû-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 [pg 408] his crown to Awēl-Maruduk, the Evil-Merodach of 2 Kings xxv. 27, and the Abilamarōdachos 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-šum-uṣur (in his fortieth year) and Marduk-nadin-âḫi (forty-first year). (See pp. [434], [435].)
The substitution 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 vassal 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 class, 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, Nēriglissöoros, the Nergal-šar-uṣur of the inscriptions, who then ascended the throne.
The name is the same as that given as Nergal-sharezer in Jer. xxxix. 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 title of Rab-mag, which is to all appearance the Rab-mugi of the Assyro-Babylonian inscriptions. It is [pg 409] thought by many, and is not by any means improbable, that the Nergal-sharezer of the passage referred to and the Nergal-šar-uṣur of Babylonian history are one and the same, though there is no evidence that the latter ever bore the title of Rab-mag.
It was in the year 559 b.c. that Evil-Merodach was murdered, and Neriglissar at once seized the throne of his brother-in-law. Berosus (as quoted by Josephus) gives no details as to his reign. In his inscriptions he states that he was (like Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar before him) patron of Ê-sagila and Ê-zida, the temple of Belus at Babylon and that of Nebo at Borsippa, and that the great gods had established his dominion. After speaking of the god Nebo, he makes a reference to Ura, the god of death, which, under the circumstances, one can hardly regard as otherwise than significant—
“Nebo, the faithful son, a just sceptre has caused his hands to hold.
To keep the people, preserve the country,
Ura, prince of the gods, gave him his weapon.”
He then mentions his father, Bêl-šum-iškun, whom he calls “king of Babylon,” and describes the restoration and decoration of Ê-zida and Ê-sagila, together with the palace which he built for himself at Babylon, and other architectural work.
But to describe his father as “king of Babylon” was a statement somewhat removed from the truth. In the contract-tablets of the time of Nebuchadnezzar and Evil-Merodach, where the name of Neriglissar occurs somewhat frequently as a purchaser of houses, land, etc., he is called simply “son of Bêl-šum-iškun,” without any other title whatever (see p. [438]). But perhaps Neriglissar's statement is due to some historical event of which we are ignorant.
Neriglissar died in the month Nisan or Iyyar of the [pg 410] fourth year of his reign, and was succeeded by his son Labāši-Marduk, the Labarosoarchod of the Greek writers. According to Berosus (Josephus against Apion, i. 20), he was no more than a child, and it may be supposed that he was a younger son of Neriglissar, though concerning this we have no information. He only reigned nine months, a plot having been laid against him by his friends, and he was tormented to death, “by reason of the very ill-temper and ill practices he exhibited to the world” (Berosus). After his death, according to the same historian, the conspirators met, and elected one of their number, Nabonnedus (Nabuna'id), as king. “In his reign it was that the walls of the city of Babylon were curiously built with burnt brick and bitumen,” is all that Berosus has to say with regard to the sixteen years of his reign which preceded his overthrow.
Many inscriptions of the reign of this king exist, and we are able to gain from them an excellent idea of the state of the country and the historical events of this important period. All that Nabonidus tells us concerning his origin is, that he was the son or descendant of Nabû-balaṭ-su-iqbî, whom he calls rubû êmqu, “the deeply-wise prince.” Who he may have been is not known, but there exist two tablets of the nature of letters written by a certain Nabû-balaṭ-su-iqbî to Aššur-banî-âpli, whose faithful servant he professed to be, protesting against the treatment which he had received at the hands of certain men who were hostile to him. If both these letters were written by the same person, they must belong to about the year 652 b.c. (the eponymy of Aššur-naṣir, which is mentioned in one of them). As that was about one hundred years before Nabonidus came to the throne, this personage, if related to him, must have been his grandfather or great-grandfather. Other persons of the same name are mentioned in the fifth, eleventh, eighteenth, and thirty-fourth years of Nebuchadnezzar, [pg 411] but it seems very unlikely that the father of Nabonidus should be one of these.
According to the Babylonian Chronicle, Nabonidus was at the beginning of his reign engaged in the west, to all appearance cutting down, among other things, trees on Mount Amanus for building purposes at Babylon. Something also took place by the Mediterranean (tâmtim ša mât Amurrî, “the sea of the land of Amoria”). Apparently he had also troops in this district, and sacrifices were performed there.
After this there is a gap until the sixth year of his reign, the entry for which, however, refers wholly to Astyages' operations against Cyrus, and its disastrous results, for he was made prisoner, Ecbatana sacked, and the spoil brought to Anšan, Cyrus's capital.
Previous to this, as Nabonidus informs us in his cylinder-inscription found by Mr. Rassam at Abu-habbah (Sippar), the Medes had been very successful in their warlike operations, and had even besieged Haran, making it impossible for Nabonidus to carry out the instructions of his god Merodach, revealed to him in a dream, to restore the temple of Sin in that city. On the king of Babylon reminding the deity of the state of things in that part, and speaking of the strength of the Median forces, he was told that in three years' time their power would be destroyed, which happened as predicted. He now caused his “vast army” to come from Gaza and elsewhere to do the needful work, and when completed, the image of the god Sin was brought from Babylon, and placed in the restored shrine with joy and shouting. Naturally the Babylonian king was overjoyed at the release of Haran from the power of the Medes—could he have foreseen that Cyrus, their conqueror, would one day hurl him from his throne, his enthusiasm concerning the success of “the young servant of Merodach” (as he calls him) would have been greatly abated.
In his seventh and eighth years the king was in Temâ, and the crown prince (apparently Belshazzar is meant), with the great men and the army, was in Akkad (the northern part of Babylonia, of which the city of Agad or Agadé was the capital). The king did not go to Babylon, Nebo did not go to Babylon, Bel did not go forth, the festival akitu (new year's festival) was not performed, though the victims seem to have been offered in Ê-sagila and Ê-zida as usual, and (the king) appointed a priest (uru-gala) of the weapon (?) and the temple. In the ninth year also the same state of things existed, and this year the mother of the king died, to the great grief of the people. It is also recorded for this year that Cyrus, apparently in the course of one of his military expeditions, crossed the Tigris above Arbela.
From the fact that the religious processions and ceremonies are given as being unperformed every year from the seventh to the eleventh of his reign, it is clear that a great deal of discontent was caused thereby, as is, in fact, indicated by the cylinder-inscription of Cyrus detailing under what conditions he himself entered Babylon. It was evidently one of the duties of the Babylonian kings (and, as we have seen, the Assyrian kings conformed to this when they became kings of Babylonia) to perform the usual ceremonies, and the ruler neglecting this was certain to fall into disfavour with the priesthood, and, by their influence, with the people as well.
Whatever may have been the sins of omission of Nabonidus—whether they were trivial or otherwise—there is no doubt that they made a bad impression on the people, and gave rise to all kinds of statements against him when the days of misfortune came. For the scribe who drew up Cyrus's record after the taking of Babylon, all Nabonidus's doings with regard to the temples and statues of the gods were to be quoted against him. The temple dues had [pg 413] been allowed to fail, and the gods quitted their shrines, angry at the thought that Nabonidus had brought foreign gods to Šu-anna (a part of Babylon). With regard to this last accusation, it may be remarked that a popular ruler would in all probability have been praised for bringing the gods of other places to Babylon—it would have been either a tribute to the power of Babylonia in war (a power conferred upon her, in their opinion, by her gods); or else the payment of homage by the gods of other cities to those of Babylon, acknowledging at the same time their (and her) supremacy.
The fact is, Nabonidus was either the most intelligent, or one of the most intelligent, men in Babylonia. To all appearance he was not a ruler, but a learned man, full of love for his country and its institutions, and desirous of knowledge, which he obtained at all costs. Whenever he had to restore a temple, he at once excavated in its foundations for the records of early kings which he knew to be there, and he was often successful in finding what he wanted. As he always recorded what he found, his cylinder-inscriptions nearly always possess a value far beyond those of other kings of Babylon. He seems to have delighted in what he saw when engaged in this work—he not only tells you that he read the texts thus discovered, but he refers to their perfect condition, and nearly always says something about the ruler who caused them to be placed in the foundations. He, too, is worthy of a statue in every place where the language of his native land is studied.
Naturally, his antiquarian researches, necessitating, as they did, the destruction of a part of the fabric of the temple under repair at the time, were not looked upon altogether with favour by the priests and the people, hence the dissatisfaction to which the scribes, who were probably of the priestly caste, afterwards gave vent. Besides this, was it not necessary that [pg 414] they should justify themselves for accepting a foreign ruler, of a different religion from their own?
Nabonidus gives no hint in his inscriptions that he was aware of any dissatisfaction at what he was doing. In all probability he was as religious as any of his predecessors had been, and his son Belshazzar was as the second ruler in the kingdom. Records exist showing that Belshazzar sent offerings to the temple at Sippar whilst he was in that neighbourhood, and the king's own offerings are sometimes mentioned with them. The king had therefore a good deputy performing his work. With regard to the bringing of foreign gods to Šu-anna, Cyrus's scribe probably refers to the deities of Haran, which were taken thither before the siege of the place by the Medes. When the enemy had departed, Nabonidus restored the temple in that city, and replaced the deities referred to in their shrines. The transport of the idols may have been merely to place them for the time being in a place of greater security.
There is, then, every probability that Belshazzar, son of Nabonidus, was the real ruler. What an excellent understanding existed between him and his father may be gained from the inscription which Nabonidus caused to be composed to place in the foundations of the temple of the Moon (the god Sin) at Ur (identified with Ur of the Chaldees), the concluding lines of which run as follows—
“As for me, Nabonidus, king of Babylon,
from sin against thy great divinity
save me, and
a life of remote days
give as a gift;
and as for Belshazzar, the eldest son,
the offspring of my heart, the fear of thy great
divinity cause thou to exist in his heart, and
let not sin possess him, let him be satisfied with fulness of life.”
The text being undated, there is no means of ascertaining in what year the restoration of the temple of the Moon at Ur took place.
The story of the downfall of the Babylonian empire and the end of native rule in Babylonia is told by the Babylonian Chronicle as follows—
“(Year 17th), Nebo to go forth (?) from Borsippa ... the king entered the temple E-tur-kalama. In the month (?) ... and the lower sea, revolted ... went (?). Bêl went forth, the festival Akitu (new year's festival) they held as usual (?). In the month ... the gods (?) of Marad, Zagaga and the gods of the city of Kiš, Beltis and the gods of Ḫursag-kalama, entered Babylon. At the end of the month Elul the gods of the land of Akkad who were above the atmosphere and below the atmosphere entered Babylon, the gods of Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippar did not enter. In the month Tammuz Cyrus made battle at Opis on the Tigris among the soldiers of Akkad. The people of Akkad raised a revolt; people were killed; Sippar was taken on the 14th day without fighting. Nabonidus fled. On the 16th day Ugbaru (Gobryas), governor of the land of Gutium, and the soldiers of Cyrus entered Babylon without fighting—after Nabonidus they pursued (?), he was captured in Babylon. At the end of the month the regiment (?) of the land of Gutium surrounded (?) the gates of Ê-sagila (the temple of Belus). A celebration (?) of anything, in Ê-sagila and the shrines, was not being made, and a (lunar ?) festival was not proceeding. Marcheswan, the third day, Cyrus descended to Babylon; they filled the roads before him. Peace was established to the city—Cyrus promised peace to Babylon, all of it. Gubaru (Gobryas), his governor, appointed governors in Babylonia, and from the month Kisleu to the month Adar the gods of the land of Akkad, whom Nabonidus had sent down to Babylon, returned to their places. The month [pg 416] Marcheswan, the night of the 11th day, Ugbaru (Gobryas) (went?) against ... and the son (?) of the king died. From the 27th of the month Adar to the third of the month Nisan, there was weeping in Akkad, all the people bowed down their heads. On the 4th day Cambyses, son of Cyrus, went to Ê-nig-ḫad-kalama-šummu (‘the house where the sceptre of the world is given,’ the temple of Nebo). The man of the temple of the sceptre of Nebo....”
(The remainder is mutilated, and the sense not clear—to all appearance it refers to religious ceremonies and sacrifices in which Cambyses took part.)
Here, again, the suggestion seems to be, that because the king thought fit to send the statues of the various gods of the land to other cities than their own “on a visit,” as it were, the priesthood was justified in renouncing allegiance to him (and in this the people naturally followed them), and in delivering the kingdom to a foreigner. It has been said that the success of Cyrus was in part due to the aid given to him by the Jews, who, sympathizing with him on account of his monotheism, helped him in various ways; but in all probability he could never have achieved success had not the Babylonian priests (as indicated by their own records) spread discontent among the people.
More important, however, are the details of the conquest by Cyrus. He must have entered Babylonia on the north-east, and met the Babylonian army at Opis. That the conflict went against the Babylonians may be taken for granted, though it is not stated. Apparently the country was divided into two parties—those for resistance, and those who were probably discontented on account of the king's reputed unorthodoxy. A conflict between these took place, and there was bloodshed, the result being that no resistance could be offered to the army of Cyrus, who entered Sippar, the seat of the worship of the [pg 417] Sun-god, without fighting. To all appearance Nabonidus was at his post, but recognizing that all was lost, fled. Two days later Gobryas (not Cyrus, be it observed) entered Babylon with the army of Cyrus without fighting, and apparently captured Nabonidus there. This took place about the end of June, and it was October before Cyrus entered the city. Judging from the text, he was well received, and the result of the conference between him and Gobryas was, that the latter “appointed governors in Babylon,” or “in Babylonia,” as the words may be also read. Another stroke of policy was the return to their habitations of the images of the gods which Nabonidus had transferred to other places, thus appeasing the priests.
At this point come some very important and difficult phrases. On the night of the 11th of Marcheswan, Gobryas descended (or went) upon or against something, and the king, or the son of the king, died. The combination of these two statements, taken in connection with the record in Daniel v. 30, suggests that the latter reading is the correct one, though the first, which would make it to mean that the king was slain, is not excluded, and would make very little difference in the record, it being possible that Belshazzar, as the successor of Nabonidus, might be meant. An earlier explanation was, that the doubtful group stood for “the wife” of the king, but in this case it would be difficult to explain how it is that the verbal form (which is ideographically written, and may be read either imât, “he dies,” tamât, “she dies,” or mêtat, “she died”) should differ from that used in the case of the king's mother, where imtût, the historical tense of the secondary form of the kal, is the form used. The use of imât for imût, “he died,” would be paralleled by the use of irab or irub, “he entered,” in other parts of the inscription.
Naturally, in a case of doubt, the seeker after truth in the matter of Babylonian history consults the record [pg 418] of the Babylonian historian Berosus. In the case of the taking of Babylon, however, there are such noteworthy differences, that one may well be excused for doubting his statements, notwithstanding his trustworthiness in other matters. He says that when Nabonnedus saw that Cyrus was coming to attack him, he met him with his forces, was beaten, and fled with a few of his troops to Borsippa. Cyrus then took Babylon, and gave order that the outer walls should be demolished, the city having proved very troublesome to him, and cost him much pains to capture. He then proceeded to besiege Nabonnedus in Borsippa, but the Babylonian king decided not to attempt to resist, and yielded. Cyrus therefore treated him kindly, and though he would not allow him to remain in Babylonia, he gave him Carmania as a place where he might dwell. “Accordingly Nabonnedus spent the rest of his time in that country, and there died.”
The Babylonian Chronicle, however, says nothing about Nabonidus having taken refuge in Borsippa, nor of his being besieged there, nor of his having submitted at that place. On the contrary, he was taken in Babylon, which city had been captured without fighting, and there was on that account no immediate excuse for demolishing the walls, which, as native records tell us, were dismantled in the time of the Seleucidæ. The fact is, Berosus did not wish it to be thought that the Babylonians had allowed their country to pass into the hands of a foreign ruler without resistance, hence this statement as to the capital holding out. To all appearance, Berosus is truthful where it is not to his interest to be otherwise.
The probability is, therefore, that “the son of the king,” Belshazzar, held out against the Persians in some part of the capital, and kept during that time a festival on the 11th of Marcheswan, when Gobryas pounced upon the place, and he, the rightful [pg 419] Chaldean king, was slain, as recorded in Daniel. In this case, Darius the Mede ought to be “Gobryas of Gutium,” who, like the former, appointed governors in Babylonia, and “received the kingdom” for Cyrus. If this be the case, Daniel would seem to have been in Belshazzar's power, though his knowledge of what was going on on the Persian side gave him courage to reject that prince's favours with scorn.
Officially, Belshazzar is never mentioned as king, though the Jewish captives must have regarded him as such, and probably spoke of him humorously as being the true ruler. This alone can account for his being called “king of the Chaldeans,” and for his appointing Daniel to be the “third ruler in the kingdom,” as has been already suggested. That he was also confused with his father is shown by the statement in Josephus, where he is spoken of (Antiq. x. xi. 2) as being called Nabonidus by the Babylonians (“Baltasaros, who by the Babylonians was called Naboandelos”), though Josephus's transcription of the names is as incorrect as a Greek's.
Cyrus now found himself master of Babylonia, without any pretender to molest him; and being the acknowledged ruler of the land, he made himself as popular as he could by protecting the various religions which were to be found in his new dominions. The Jews are said to have sympathized with him on account of his being a monotheist, but to the Babylonians he seemed to be of the same religion as themselves, and his inscriptions show that, whether with his consent or not, the gods of the Babylonians were spoken of and invoked on his behalf just as if this were the case, and we know that he allowed his son to take part in the Babylonian religious ceremonies.
But to show clearly the way in which Cyrus ruled, a portion of his cylinder-inscription, found by Mr. Rassam at Babylon, is given here—
(To all appearance Nabonidus had tried to make various religious changes and reforms, the words “in the likeness of Ê-sagila” suggesting that he had at least thought of building another temple similar to that venerable fane.)
“The gods, who dwelt in the midst of them (i.e. the temples), forsook their dwellings in anger that he (Nabonidus) had made (them) enter within Šu-anna.[121] Marduk in the presence of ... was going round to all the states whose seat had been founded, and the people of Šumer and Akkad, who had been like the dead,[122] became active[123] ... he had mercy upon the whole of the lands—all of them found (and) looked upon him. He sought also a just king, the desire of his heart, whose hand he might hold, Cyrus, king of the city Anšan, he called his title, to all the kingdoms together (his) na(me) was proclaimed.
“The land of Qutû, the whole of the troops of the Manda, he (Merodach) placed under his feet, he caused his hands to capture the people of the dark head,[124] in righteousness and justice he cared for them. Merodach, the great lord, the protector of his people, looked with joy upon his fortunate work and his just heart. He commanded that he should go to his city Babylon, he caused him to take the road to Tindir,[125] like a friend and a companion he walked by his side. His vast people, which, like the waters of a river, cannot be numbered,[126] had their weapons girded, and marched by his side. Without fighting and battle he caused him to enter into Šu-anna. His city Babylon he protected in (its) trouble. Nabonidus, who [pg 421] did not fear him (i.e. Merodach), he delivered into his hand. The people of Tindir, all of them, the whole of the land of Šumer and Akkad, princes and high-warden, bowed down beneath him, and kissed his feet—they rejoiced for his sovereignty, their countenances were bright.
“The lord who, in trust that he (Merodach) gives life to the dead, spared on every side from destruction and injury. Well did they do him homage—they held in honour his name. I am Cyrus, king of the host, the great king, the powerful king, king of Tindir, king of the land of Šumer and Akkad, king of the four regions, son of Cambyses, the great king, king of the city of Anšan, grandson of Cyrus, the great king, king of the city of Anšan, great-grandson of Šišpiš (Teispes), the great king, king of the city of Anšan, the all-enduring royal seed whose reign Bêl and Nebo love, for the contenting of their heart they desired his rule.
“When I entered in peace into (the midst) of Babylon, I founded in the king's palace a seat of dominion with pleasure and joy. Merodach, the great lord, broad-hearted for ... the sons ... Tindir and ... me, and daily I looked upon his image (?). My vast army marches in the midst of Babylon peacefully, the whole of (the people of Šumer and) Akkad I made to have no opposition. Within Babylon and all its districts in peace I had care for the sons of Tindir ... as without heart (?) ... and a yoke (which was) unseemliness for them was imposed (?). I comforted their sighing, I did away with their distress. For the work Merodach, the great lord, established the command—to me, Cyrus, the king his worshipper, and Cambyses, the son (who is) the offspring of my heart ... all of my army graciously he approached, and in peace before it kindly did he lead (?). (By his) supreme (command) the whole of the kings dwelling in the royal abodes of every region from the upper sea to [pg 422] the lower sea, (those) dwelling ... the kings of the Amorites[127] (and) the dwellers in tents, all of them, brought their valuable tribute and kissed my feet within Šu-anna. From ... -a, the city of Aššur,[128] and Susa, Agadé, the land of Ešnunak (Umliaš), Zamban, Mê-Turnu, (and) Dûr-îlu to the border of Qutû, the districts (on the banks) of the Tigris—from old time had their seats been founded—the gods dwelling within them I returned to their places, and caused eternal seats to be founded, all their people I collected and returned to their dwellings. And the gods of Šumer and Akkad, which Nabonidus, to the anger of the lord of the gods, had caused to enter within Šu-anna, by the command of Merodach, the great lord, I set in peace in their shrines—seats of joy of heart. May the whole of the gods whom I caused to enter into their places pray daily before Bêl and Nebo for the lengthening of my days, may they announce the commands for my happiness, and may they say to Merodach that ‘Cyrus, thy worshipper, and Cambyses, his son, ... (in) the countries (?), all of them, he has founded a seat of rest’....”
(Here follow the ends of nine more lines, from which, however, no certain sense can be gained.)
It will be seen, that this interesting and valuable inscription is in substantial agreement with the Chronicle. The grievance concerning the transference of the statues of the divinities is repeated and amplified, and the fact that Cyrus entered Babylon without fighting is confirmed (against Berosus, Xenophon, and the other Greek authors who describe the taking of Babylon).
Cyrus, however, here appears before us in quite a new character, namely, as the champion of Babylonian religious orthodoxy against Nabonidus's heterodoxy! [pg 423] That Cyrus was ignorant of the contents of this inscription (which must have been written by his orders) is in the highest degree improbable. That he may have been affected by Zoroastrian monotheism is likely, but if so, it was but a thin varnish, for he was to all appearance a polytheist at heart, as his Anzanian fathers (who, as we know from recent discoveries at Susa, were largely influenced by the religion of Babylonia) had been from the earliest times. He had chosen well the time of his invasion, as is shown by the revolt (apparently against Nabonidus) which is referred to in the Chronicle. It is strange how the Babylonians were in the main ready to accept a new ruler. In the earliest times we have mention of the Arabic dynasty which the native records call the dynasty of Babylon; later on came Cassites, Elamites and Assyrians, and now the country received an Elamite king who ruled over Persia. In the course of time other aliens would come and rule over them, but their acceptance of these was much less a matter of choice, or, rather, of apathetic acquiescence than on the occasion when they accepted Cyrus king of Anšan.
We see, moreover, from this inscription, that Cyrus did restore the various exiles to their homes, thus securing as far as possible the fidelity of those whom he wished to secure as his supporters. Among these were the Jews, and it is on account of this that his name is so favourably mentioned in the Old Testament. Cyrus himself says, that he caused all the gods whose statues had been brought to Babylon to be returned to the places whence they had come, and it is clear that, as the Jews had no divine statues, Cyrus did what he could for them, and sent back to Jerusalem the sacred vessels (Ezra i. 7), and also gave a grant for the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra iii. 7). In the decree quoted in Ezra (i. 2 ff.), where he is represented as saying that “the Lord God of heaven” [pg 424] had given him all the kingdoms of the earth, it is best to see in that, as in his Babylonian cylinder-inscription, a desire, for policy's sake, to be “all things to all men.” His success must have been largely due to the fact, that he had learned the art of ruling men.
It is to be supposed that he continued as he had begun, and that his rule was tolerated by the people. According to the contract-tablets, he associated his son with him on the throne during part of his first year, Cambyses becoming king of Babylon, whilst Cyrus retained the wider title of “king of countries.” Probably Gobryas had died, hence this change. Cyrus died in 529 b.c., and Cambyses took the throne. During his reign the Babylonians seem to have become discontented, desiring, perhaps, to have a ruler elected by themselves. Whilst, therefore, Cambyses was absent in Egypt, which country he conquered in the year 527 b.c., a Median, who was a Magian named Gomates, taking advantage of the dissatisfaction which prevailed, gave out that he was Bardes or Smerdis (called by the Babylonians Barzia), declared himself the son of Cyrus, whom Cambyses had murdered, and mounted the throne. Media, Persia, and Babylonia at once went over to him, and Cambyses hastened from Egypt to meet the pretender. Whilst in Syria, on the way home, he killed himself (521), perhaps by accident, though it is not impossible that it was a case of suicide, and the pretender retained for a very short period possession of the throne.
Another prince of the same family, Darius son of Hystaspes, now came forward, and after defeating Bardes and a number of other pretenders, among them Nidintu-Bêl, son of Aniru, who claimed to be Nebuchadnezzar the son of Nabonidus, mounted the throne. In fact, almost every province of the Persian empire had a pretender of its own, so that Darius found plenty of work ready to his hand. One by one, however, they were defeated, and “the lie” was put [pg 425] down in all the countries acknowledging Persian rule—Darius was sole and undisputed king.
It is unfortunate that no historical records referring to the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses exist, except the Chronicle, which, however, ends with the accession year of the former. We have, therefore, no independent records of what took place in Syria, though it must be confessed, that there is great doubt whether the composer of the Chronicle at the time would have considered the return of the Jews and the rebuilding of the Temple as of sufficient importance to place on record there. The Bible and Josephus give circumstantial accounts of what occurred, but the official view of the circumstances of the granting of the permission to rebuild the Temple and the city by Cyrus, and its countermanding, at the instance of the Samaritans, during the reign of Cambyses, would be interesting in the extreme.
To find something about Zerubbabel, who is said to have been the friend of Darius (Jos., Ant. xi. iii. 1), would also be welcome, but this we can hardly dare to hope for. Zerubbabel (better Zeru-Babel, without the doubling of the b) is a name which is far from uncommon in the contracts of Babylonia. One, for instance, lived during the time of Nabonidus, and dwelt at Sippara. He was to all appearance of Assyrian origin. Another, the descendant of a smith, was the father of a man named Nabû-âḫê-bulliṭ, who lived in the third year of Darius. A third bearing the same name is he who is recorded as having acquired some ewes in the eleventh year of Darius. His father bore the unusual name of Mutêriṣu. For yet another example, see p. [441]. It will thus be seen that the name was far from rare in ancient Babylonia.
And in the published contract-tables of Darius's reign, of which nearly 600 have been made available for study, there is little bearing upon Old Testament history. The same may also be said of his historical [pg 426] inscriptions, of which that engraved on the great rock at Behistun in Persia is the most important. It is in his historical inscriptions, however, that the character of the man may be read. In the first lines, where he tells of his origin, you read of his pride of descent, just as, farther on, he tells the story of his conflicts—how, with the help of his father, Hystaspes, who seconded him loyally and (there is hardly any doubt) affectionately, he overcame all the rebels, and having annihilated the lie which he hated so intensely, he could say, after his successes, that “the land was his.”
And through it all shines at every point, as it were, his adoration of the god whom he worshipped, Ahuramazda, by whose grace and favour he had been successful. There is no doubt about his religious faith—in his inscriptions he appears as a monotheist of the severest type, and for this reason he must have had but little sympathy with the polytheism of the Babylonians, and the other nationalities over which he ruled, whose faith was in a plurality of gods. It is true that offerings seem to have been made in his name in the temples of Babylonia, but these must have been due to old grants which had not been rescinded, and which the king and his advisers probably would have regarded as bad policy to abolish.
Naturally there is every probability that such a ruler as Darius would have sympathies with the Jews, on account of their monotheism, and it may be supposed that such a feeling towards them would have led him to consent to the upholding of Cyrus's decree that the Temple at Jerusalem should be finished, as detailed in Ezra vi. 1 ff. Darius relates in the Behistun inscription, that he restored the temples of the gods (Bab. bêtê ša îlāni, Median ziyan nappana, “temples of the gods,” Pers. āyadāna, “shrines”) which Gomates the Magian, the pseudo-Bardes [pg 427] or Smerdis, had destroyed. That a single word (āyadāna) is used in Persian, whilst the phrase “temples of the gods,” in the plural, is used in Babylonian and Median, shows merely the desire to speak to the latter nations in the language to which they were accustomed, and at the same time indicates that neither the one nor the other, unlike the Persians, were monotheists. Gomates was therefore not a monotheist, otherwise he would not have destroyed the temples, which would seem to have been those of Darius's own faith; for this king would hardly have thought it worth while to mention the fact of their destruction, had they been the sacred places of a creed which he despised, and it is only natural to suppose, from his very frequent mention of Ahuramazda, the god whom he worshipped, that he was proud of being a monotheist.
It may therefore be taken, that if Darius Hystaspis ordered the completion of the Temple at Jerusalem, and the giving of funds in aid of the work, it was out of sympathy with the Jews. As his reign was one of tolerance, he did not interfere with the religion of either the Babylonians or the Medians, but in all probability he did not imitate Cyrus by grants on his own account, and under a royal decree, to the temples of those, to him, heathen countries. There is considerable doubt, however, whether it is this king who is referred to in Ezra and Esdras, as Sir Henry Howorth has shown (Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology, 1901, pp. 147 ff., 305 ff., 1902, pp. 16 ff.), the ruler intended being in all probability Darius Nothus, whose position agrees with the chronology of these books, and does away with much difficulty as to their acceptance as historical authorities.
According to Darius, twenty-three countries owned his sway: Persia, Elam, Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, “by the sea,” Sarpada, Ionia, Media, Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Drangiana, Aria, Chorasmia, [pg 428] Bactria, Sogdiana, Paruparaesana, Scythia, Sattagydia, Arachosia, and Maka. Palestine was evidently included in the district designated “by the sea.” After a most active reign, Darius died in the year 486 b.c., having appointed his son Xerxes as his successor.
The reign of this ruler, and his attempt to reduce Greece to submission, are well known. It was probably after his disastrous failure, when he had returned to Persia, that he took as one of his wives the Jewess Esther, as related in the book bearing her name. His inscriptions are short ones, referring to the buildings erected by his father and himself. In all probability he thought that his warlike exploits, overwhelmed as they were by misfortune, were not of a nature to bear recording. In his own inscriptions, his name is given as Ḫiši'arši or Ḫiši'arša'i in Babylonian, and Khshayarsha in Old Persian. In the contract-tablets, however, it appears as Aḫšiaršu, Aḫšiwaršu, Akšiaršu, Akkašiaršu, and Ḫišiarši. It is from one of the forms with prefixed a that the Hebrew Aḫashwērôs (A.V. Ahasuerus) has apparently come, the most probable original being one similar to the Aḫšuwaršu of a contract-tablet in the Museum at Edinburgh.
Xerxes died in the year 464 b.c., and was succeeded by his son Artaxerxes, the Artakhshatra of the Old Persian inscriptions, and the Artakšatsu or Artakšassu of Babylonian inscriptions. Though it was not without bloodshed that he reached the throne, he proved to be a successful ruler—more so, in fact, than his predecessor, whose expedition against the Greeks had ended only in disgrace and the loss of an enormous number of troops taken from all the nations over which he ruled. It is therefore not to be wondered at that his reign should have been regarded as wise and temperate. In any case, he was well disposed towards the Jews, and gave permission, in his seventh year, to Ezra, to go up to Jerusalem with a [pg 429] royal grant, to settle affairs there, and sacrifice to the God of the Jews (Ezra vii., viii.). Later on, he gave permission to Nehemiah to return to the land of his fathers to restore and rebuild the walls of the city. As Nehemiah was his cupbearer, it is easily conceivable that he did this to please him, and to reward one who had evidently been a faithful servant, but it is not improbable that the king at the same time had in his mind the rebellion of his general Megabysus, who had risen against him in protest against the treatment meted out by his royal master to his captive Inarus. To have a well-fortified city defended by those who had benefited greatly by his rule, must have seemed to the Persian ruler good policy.
Artaxerxes died in the year 425 b.c., and was succeeded by his son, Xerxes II., who reigned only two months, at the end of which time he was murdered by Sogdianus, a bastard son of Artaxerxes, who then became king. Seven months only, however, was the length of this new ruler's reign, he being, in his turn, put to death by another of the bastard sons of Artaxerxes, Darius Ochus, after he had surrendered to him. This ruler is the Darius Nothus of history, who mounted the throne in 424 b.c. His reign was noted for the numerous insurrections against his dominion which took place, but is of special interest because of the resumption of the work of rebuilding the Temple of Jerusalem, which had been stopped by the decree of Artaxerxes, as recorded in Ezra iv. 21-24. (See Sir H. Howorth in the P. S. B. A., 1901, pp. 307, 308.)
Chapter XII. Life At Babylon During The Captivity, With Some Reference To The Jews.
The reign of Nebuchadnezzar—The earliest mention of Nabonidus—Neriglissar and his relations with his fellow-citizens before his accession—He marries his daughter Gigîtum to the director of Ê-zida—Prince Laborosoarchod—Nabonidus and the temples at Sippar—Prince Belshazzar's transactions—His offerings at Sippar—His sister's gift to her god (or goddess)—Princess Ukabu'sama's transaction—The Jews at Babylon—Babylonian business and other letters—Širku's slave—A loan at Erech—Work upon a plantation—Sale of an ass—Jews and Babylonians—The dead slave—A right of way—The story of Abil-Addu-nathānu and Bunanitum—The outcast slave—The Egyptian slave and her infant—Širku's transactions—Babylon as the Jewish captives saw it.