Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8615Re: [ANE-2] nebuchadrezzar

Expand Messages
  • Tory Thorpe
    Jul 1, 2008
      Dear Frank,

      According to Chronicle 5 (Grayson, ABC, 102), Nebuchadnezzar and the royal army left Akkad in the 9th month (Kislimu): "The 7th year, in the month of Kislimu, the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah on the second day of the month Addaru. He captured the city (and) seized (its) king. A king of his own choice he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon." Did he capture Jerusalem on 2 Addaru or was this the day on which the seige commenced and the actual day of Jerusalem's submission is not mentioned in Chronicle 5? Either way, to be back at the capital of Babylon before 1 Nisannu and in time for the akitu or new year's festival, the king would have to leave Jerusalem without most of his army and dash across the desert the way he apparently did when news of his father's death reached him in Hattu in 605. I could be wrong but I don't believe Jerusalem to Babylon in
      just over three weeks, and on the same horse, could be done any other way in those days. It's also possible Nebuchadnezzar skipped the new year festival in 597.

      What exactly do you mean by "festivities of the inter-calary period at the end of the year"?

      Tory Thorpe
      Modiin, Israel


      --- On Tue, 7/1/08, frankclancy <clancyfrank@...> wrote:

      > From: frankclancy <clancyfrank@...>
      > Subject: [ANE-2] nebuchadrezzar
      > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2008, 11:40 PM
      >
      > According to the Babylonian Chronicles, Nebuchadrezzar lwft
      > Baylon in the 10th month, travelled to Jerusalem and captured that
      > city on the second day of the 12th month. It is very unlikely that he
      > would not be in Babylon for the festivities of the inter-calary
      > period at the end of the year.
      >
      > In the Biblical texts (2 Kings 24:10), we have "the
      > servants" of Nebuchadrezzar taking the city but in the LXX and other
      > texts claim it was the king himself. Probably, the LXX is correct as
      > the Babylonian Chronicle seems to support this version.
      >
      > So if the king took Jerusalem in the 2 day of the last
      > month, he would have a day or two to settle affairs and give orders
      > etc, then he wuld have rushed hom to Babylon. In effect, he would
      > have about 25 days to reach Babylon.
      >
      > There must be at least 3 routes he may have taken.
      > 1. due east from Jordan across the dessert. There is evidence such
      > a route did exist but water was scarce and it may have been too
      > dangerous;
      > 2.travel north to Dascus region and then along the route to Palmyra;
      > 3. further north to meet the Euphrates.
      >
      > Given the uncertainties of weather and flooding on the
      > Euphrates and other rivers and the short time available, what would have
      > been his most likely route both to reach Jerusalem in the first
      > place with his troops and to go home to Babylon? Has anyone done
      > calculations on this?
      >
      > Frank Clancy
    • Show all 11 messages in this topic