[641] 2 Kings xxv. 1-3, 8. Jerem. xxxiv. 1-7. Ezek. xxiv. 1.
[642] 2 Kings xxv. 1.
[643] Jerem. xxxiv. 7.
[644] Ezek. xxi. 21, 22, 25, 26.
[645] Jerem. xxi. 1, 10.
[646] Jerem. xxxvii. 5. Ezekiel prophesies the ruin of the Egyptians in the tenth month of the tenth year of his captivity, _i.e._ in the year 587 B.C.; in this year, no doubt, the march of the Egyptians took place.
[647] Jerem. xxxvii. 6-10.
[648] Jerem. xxxvii. 11-21.
[649] Joseph. "Antiq." 10, 7, 1. Ezek. xvii. 17. At the beginning of the eleventh year of Zedekiah (586 B.C.), Ezekiel says: "I have broken the arm of Pharaoh," xxx. 21; cf. xxxi. 1.
[650] 2 Kings xxv. 1-3. Jerem. lii. 4, 5. Cf. Ezek. iv. 2; xvii. 17; xxi. 21.
[651] Jerem. xxxiii. 4.
[652] Jerem. xxxviii. 4.
[653] Jerem. xxxvii. 21; xxxviii. 28.
[654] Jerem. xix. 9. Ezek. iv. 16, 17; v. 11, 12. Lamentations i. 19, 20; ii. 20; iv. 9, 10; ii. 11, 12.
[655] Vol. II., p. 186. Jerem. xxxix. 3; lii. 6, 7. 2 Kings xxv. 3, 4.
It was this outer wall of which the western front had to be pulled down for 400 cubits under Amaziah. Vol. II., p. 261.
[656] The capture took place in the fourth month of the eleventh year of the reign of Zedekiah, in the nineteenth of Nebuchadnezzar. Cf. Ideler, "Handbuch der Chronologie," 1, 529. Ezekiel, chap. xii.
[657] Jerem. xxxix. 6, 7; lii. 11. 2 Kings xxv. 7.
[658] Jerem. xxxix. 6, where the statement is quite general, "all the nobles of Judah also the king of Babylon slew;" and lii. 16, "all the princes of Judah also he slew at Riblah."
[659] 2 Kings xxv. 13-17. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 18. Jerem. lii. 12-28. The ark of the covenant was not mentioned separately; it may have been already taken away in 597 B.C.
[660] 2 Kings xxv. 8-11, 18-21. Jerem. xxxix. 9, 10.
[661] Jerem. xl. 5-10.
[662] Lamentations iv. 12; ii. 7; iv. 1.
[663] Lamentations ii. 14-18; i. 12.
[664] Lamentations v. 1-14.
[665] Lamentations iv. 6.
[666] Lamentations i. 7, 21, 22.
[667] Lamentations v. 7, 21, 22.
[668] Jerem. xl. 9.
[669] Jerem. xl. 6.
[670] Jerem. xl. 8.
[671] Jerem. xxiv. 1, 8; chaps. xl.-xliv. Ezek. i. 1-3, &c.
[672] The announcements of Ezekiel, chaps, xxix.-xxxii., belong to the period from the tenth to the twelfth year of the captivity, _i.e._ to the years 587 to 585 B.C.
[673] Daphne in Herod. 2, 30, 107.
[674] Jerem. xliii. 8-13; xliv. 30.
[675] Ezekiel, chaps, xxvi.-xxviii. The prophecy begins in the eleventh year after the captivity of Jechoniah, on the first day of the month, and therefore four months before the capture of Jerusalem; from xxvi. 7 it is clear that the siege of Tyre had not yet begun: because Tyre rejoiced in the fall of Jerusalem, she also was to be destroyed.
Afterwards, in the year 570 B.C., Ezekiel declares that the Chaldaeans have received no reward for their heavy service against Tyre (xxix. 17).
Hence the siege of Tyre, which, according to Josephus, lasted for 13 years, falls between 586-570 B.C. This result is confirmed by the quotations of Josephus from Phenician annals ("c. Apion." 1, 21; "Antiq." 10, 11, 1). According to these, Cyrus ascended the throne in the fourteenth year of Hiram, king of Tyre. Before Hiram Merbaal reigned for four years; before him the judges Mutton and Gerastrat, and king Balator, for six years, the arch-priest Abbar for three months, the judges Eknibal and Chelbes for 12 months, king Baal for 10 years, and before him Ithobal, under whom Tyre was besieged for 13 years. The reign of Cyrus is obviously calculated from the date at which he conquered Babylon and the Persians took the place of the Chaldaeans, _i.e._ from the year 538 B.C. If we calculate the dates given by Josephus to this point, the siege of Tyre came to an end in the year 573 B.C., and began immediately after the conquest of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. The addition of Josephus that the siege of Tyre began in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar (599 B.C.) is a direct contradiction to the other more detailed statements. No doubt we ought to read the seventeenth year of Nebuchadnezzar for the seventh year with M. Niebuhr ("Assur und Babel,"
s. 107).
[676] Ezek. xxvi. 8, 9, 10.
[677] Ezek. xxvi. 14.
[678] That Tyre, though not captured, was subjugated by the Babylonians, must be concluded from the statement of Berosus, general though that is--that all Phoenicia was subjugated by Nebuchadnezzar (supr. p. 328, _n._), and further from the fact that Josephus ("c. Apion." 1, 21) tells us that Merbaal and Hiram were fetched by the Tyrians from Babylon; and, finally, from the circumstance that the reign of Ithobal ceases with the end of the siege, and that of Baal commences. Hence it follows that Ithobal was deposed, and his race carried away to Babylon. That the deportation of kings and elevation of others in their place was usual among the Babylonians, as among the Assyrians, is clear from the example of Jechoniah, and from 2 Kings xxv. 28.
CHAPTER XV.
NEBUCHADNEZZAR AND HIS SUCCESSORS.
Assyria had become known to the Greeks about the time when Tiglath Pilesar II. had reduced Syria to submission, and the cities of the Phenicians were subject to the kings of Asshur--_i.e._ about the middle of the eighth century B.C. Hence for them the name Assyrians denoted the whole population of Asia from the Syrian coast to the Tigris, and the range of the Zagrus: "Syrians" is merely an abbreviated form of the name "Assyrians." In this sense Herodotus says: "After the fall of Nineveh Babylon was the chief city of the Assyrians."[679] As a fact Nebuchadnezzar had united under his dominion the whole of the Semitic tribes on both sides of the Syrian desert. The stubborn resistance of the Phenicians and Hebrews had been broken by repeated campaigns; at least, after the subjugation of Tyre, we hear no more of rebellion by a Syrian tribe against Babylonia.
Nebuchadnezzar was able to complete the work which his father Nabopolassar had commenced by liberating Babylon from Assyria after two centuries of supremacy and one century of dominion, and had secured by it the annihilation of Assyria. The second king of this name on the throne of Babylon--Nebuchadnezzar I. had fought against Assyria with some success in the first half of the 12th century B.C. (II. 37)--he was the true founder of the new kingdom. Berosus is fully justified in saying of him, that he surpassed the achievements of all the earlier kings of the Chaldaeans, though the addition that he ruled over Egypt, as well Phoenicia, Syria, and Arabia, is to be ascribed to the vainglory of the Babylonian.[680] Nebuchadnezzar was indeed a prince of extraordinary gifts. He proved himself a brave warrior in the great victory which he gained over the Egyptians at Karchemish, and in the subsequent campaigns against the Arabians, Syrians, and Egyptians. The fame of his battles reached the Greeks: we find Hellenic nobles, as Antimenidas of Lesbos, the brother of the poet Alcaeus, in his army.[681]
At Karchemish and in the south of Judah these had an opportunity of measuring themselves against their countrymen in the service of Necho and Hophrah. But Nebuchadnezzar did not allow the successes of his arms to tempt him beyond the limits which he had fixed for himself. He was not a conqueror in the Oriental sense, pressing onward to unlimited dominion. With a clear sense of his power, he placed bounds on his campaigns: as we saw, he refrained from attacking Egypt. His chief care was the secure foundation and continuance of his kingdom, and he clearly recognised the conditions which would promote this aim. The object, which he thus set before himself, he sought to realise with wisdom, with unwearied effort, and the greatest perseverance. He did much to promote the welfare of his kingdom; to encourage agriculture and trade; to improve the communications of Babylon by land and sea. He secured the strongest protection for his land and metropolis by a magnificent and well-considered system of fortifications. He must be numbered among the foremost princes of the ancient East. An engraved stone in the Berlin Museum presents us with a head; the cuneiform letters round it tell us: "To Merodach Nabukudurussur, king of Babylon: in his life he prepared it."[682] It is a portrait in profile, quite different from the only other relief of a Babylonian king which has come down to us (I. 302); quite different also from the delineations of the Assyrian kings.
Instead of the tall _kidaris_, and the long curled hair and beard, this head wears a closing helmet with a low ridge. The hair can be seen beneath it, but it does not fall on the neck: the face is smooth and beardless. The lines are round and full, the neck strong. Under the helmet protrudes the forehead, which slightly recedes; the brows are closely knit; there is a look of authority in the eye. The nose is straight and well-formed: the chin is short and round, and slightly elevated. It is the picture of a strong and even imperious will, a firm self-conscious power.
Babylon must have suffered severely in the repeated campaigns of Tiglath Pilesar II., Sargon, Sennacherib, and Assurbanipal, in the struggle for the possession of the Chaldaean districts, for Bit Yakin and Babylon.
Babylon was besieged and taken by Sennacherib, and severely punished.
The restorations of Esarhaddon were no doubt again destroyed at the second capture of the city by Assurbanipal. How far Nabopolassar succeeded in securing not Babylon only and the larger cities, but the country also from devastation and plunder by the Sacae, we do not know.
In any case there must everywhere have been deep and severe wounds in need of healing.
We saw that the produce of the agriculture of Babylon, the fruit of the field, depended on the irrigation, the system of canals, and the regulation of the overflow of the Euphrates. Nebuchadnezzar must have commenced his work by putting in order the dams of the Euphrates, which it was no easy task to keep up, by providing with water-courses or cleaning out the canals which had become dry or blocked up.[683] The great canals of the old kings were still in existence, the canal of Hammurabi, the Narsares, the Pallakopas, and the connecting canals between the Euphrates and Tigris above Babylon.[684] Nebuchadnezzar must have taken measures for their restoration. He increased the number of the connections between the Euphrates and the Tigris, and made them more useful by cutting a new canal from the Euphrates to the Tigris, of sufficient dimensions to carry the largest vessels. This was the Nahr Malka, _i.e._ the king's trench. Herodotus calls it the largest of the Babylonian canals. According to Xenophon's statement there were four canals connecting the Euphrates and the Tigris, one hundred feet in breadth, and deep enough to carry even corn ships. They were bridged over, and about four miles from each other. From these were derived the canals of irrigation, first the large, then the small, and lastly runnels like those in Greece for watering the fields of millet. The larger canals of irrigation were so deep that the Greeks with Clearchus could not cross them without bridges; and for the construction of these the palms which shadowed the banks of the canals were felled. Clearchus and Xenophon crossed the two northernmost of the connecting canals in order to come from the Median wall to Sittace on the Tigris. The first they crossed by the permanent bridge, the second by a bridge of boats supported by seven merchantmen. The lining of these canals was constructed of bricks, united with asphalt-mortar. There still exist four canals connecting the Tigris and the Euphrates. The Saklawiye is followed by the Nahr Sersar; further to the south is the Nahr Malka, which leaves the eastern bank of the Euphrates below Feludsha, in order to reach the Tigris at the point marked by the ruins of Seleucia--this is the great canal constructed by Nebuchadnezzar: lastly, immediately above Babylon, is the Nahr Kutha, named after the city of Kutha. Thus Nebuchadnezzar completed the old canal system of Babylon; he facilitated the communication between the two rivers in the upper part of the land, and increased the irrigation. He also gave attention to the lower land: between the Narsares and the Pallakopas, which carry away the overflow of the water of the Euphrates, below Babylon, he made trenches in order to drain the marsh, and he caused dams to be erected on the sea-coast in order to keep out the inundations of the sea.[685]