The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia

by Theophilus G. Pinches

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.