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

nebuchadrezzar

Expand Messages
  • frankclancy
    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
    Message 1 of 11 , Jul 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      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
    • Tory Thorpe
      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
      Message 2 of 11 , Jul 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        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
      • frankclancy
        Dear Tony - sorry - my mistake. You are correct - 9th month - I was thinking about the time he had to reach Jerusalem and erred. I assume he took the city on
        Message 3 of 11 , Jul 2, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Tony - sorry - my mistake. You are correct - 9th month - I was
          thinking about the time he had to reach Jerusalem and erred. I
          assume he took the city on the same day that he reached Jerusalem
          although there may have been one or two days of negotiations. I
          doubt that there was any resistence. Probably Jehoiachin and his
          court had sent messages when they learned the Babylonians were coming
          begging for forgiveness for causing problems and so on.

          Inter-calary days - I was under the impression that several days were
          added at the end of the year to keep the Calendar up to date. These
          often were treated as a holiday. I should assume the king was here.
          The idea that a king would not be at his home city for the new year
          festival would be very odd. It is clear that neither he nor his
          father missed the new year in Babylon so this would be a major
          exception. Also, the festival was an important ideological display -
          the King and the prosperity of the kingdom as one.

          In 605, when he heard his father died, he was at Carchemish and he
          was able to dash down the Euphrates - not a problem. However, I
          think he heard the news in August ( or sometime close to August) so
          the routes would be dry, the rivers would be low for crossing at
          various fords etc. However, in 598-7, it was the winter and spring
          months, the routes would not be dry and the Euphrates River and other
          rivers would have high water.

          If you are correct, and the capture of the city was perhaps a week
          later than the 2nd day of the last month, then the time line shrinks
          even more. I was trying to give him as much time as possible.

          Your point about hard riding on horseback is a good one. Would the
          direct route east through the desert from Jordan to Babylon have
          horses ready for him and his personal guard along that route? I
          think not. It is a long way to go north to Palmyra and then east to
          the Euphrates and south to Babylon. My joints hurt just thinking
          about it - not to mention my backside!

          So I was wondering if anyone calculated the time necessary to travel
          from Jerusalem to Babylon on horseback using various routes.

          The reason I am asking is this - I think it was Jehoiachin who was
          the rebel and not his father. The Babylonian king made an unusual
          military foray so late in the year and risked not being at the new
          year festival. In addition, it seems he did not take the full army.
          This suggests he received news of a possible problem, decided to stop
          it before it spread and dashed off to Jerusalem. This would mean, of
          course, that Jehoiachin was on the throne for much longer than 3
          months.

          Thanks for your response.

          Frank Clancy
        • Gene Greenwood
          Frank, I Luv Ya . . . But: There is so much guessing, flat-out made up stories and conjecture in this that it s laughable. Were you there? Do you have a
          Message 4 of 11 , Jul 2, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Frank,
            I Luv Ya . . . But: There is so much guessing, flat-out made up stories and conjecture in this that it's laughable. Were you there? Do you have a way-back machine or what?
            Gene Greenwood
            Tahoe City, CA





            ----- Original Message ----
            From: frankclancy <clancyfrank@...>
            To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2008 1:47:13 AM
            Subject: [ANE-2] Re: nebuchadrezzar


            Dear Tony - sorry - my mistake. You are correct - 9th month - I was
            thinking about the time he had to reach Jerusalem and erred. I
            assume he took the city on the same day that he reached Jerusalem
            although there may have been one or two days of negotiations. I
            doubt that there was any resistence. Probably Jehoiachin and his
            court had sent messages when they learned the Babylonians were coming
            begging for forgiveness for causing problems and so on.

            Inter-calary days - I was under the impression that several days were
            added at the end of the year to keep the Calendar up to date. These
            often were treated as a holiday. I should assume the king was here.
            The idea that a king would not be at his home city for the new year
            festival would be very odd. It is clear that neither he nor his
            father missed the new year in Babylon so this would be a major
            exception. Also, the festival was an important ideological display -
            the King and the prosperity of the kingdom as one.

            In 605, when he heard his father died, he was at Carchemish and he
            was able to dash down the Euphrates - not a problem. However, I
            think he heard the news in August ( or sometime close to August) so
            the routes would be dry, the rivers would be low for crossing at
            various fords etc. However, in 598-7, it was the winter and spring
            months, the routes would not be dry and the Euphrates River and other
            rivers would have high water.

            If you are correct, and the capture of the city was perhaps a week
            later than the 2nd day of the last month, then the time line shrinks
            even more. I was trying to give him as much time as possible.

            Your point about hard riding on horseback is a good one. Would the
            direct route east through the desert from Jordan to Babylon have
            horses ready for him and his personal guard along that route? I
            think not. It is a long way to go north to Palmyra and then east to
            the Euphrates and south to Babylon. My joints hurt just thinking
            about it - not to mention my backside!

            So I was wondering if anyone calculated the time necessary to travel
            from Jerusalem to Babylon on horseback using various routes.

            The reason I am asking is this - I think it was Jehoiachin who was
            the rebel and not his father. The Babylonian king made an unusual
            military foray so late in the year and risked not being at the new
            year festival. In addition, it seems he did not take the full army.
            This suggests he received news of a possible problem, decided to stop
            it before it spread and dashed off to Jerusalem. This would mean, of
            course, that Jehoiachin was on the throne for much longer than 3
            months.

            Thanks for your response.

            Frank Clancy






            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Robert M Whiting
            On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, frankclancy wrote: ... Apparently you are confusing the Babylonian calendar with the Egyptian one. The Babylonian calendar was
            Message 5 of 11 , Jul 2, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, frankclancy wrote:

              <snip>
              > Inter-calary days - I was under the impression that several days were
              > added at the end of the year to keep the Calendar up to date. These
              > often were treated as a holiday.

              Apparently you are confusing the Babylonian calendar with the Egyptian
              one. The Babylonian calendar was luni-solar as far back as we can trace
              it. The calendar consisted of lunar months determined by the first
              visibilty of the moon after the new moon syzygy. Twelve lunar months are
              shorter than a solar year by about 11 days. In order to keep the
              calendar in line with the seasons (solar year) it is necessary to add an
              intercalary month periodically. Intercalation was done by adding an
              entire lunar month to the calendar approximately every three years, not by
              adding a few days at a time. Actually one needs 7 intercalary months
              every 19 years to keep the calendars in line so the time needed between
              intercalations is slightly less than three years. The intercalary month
              was usually added at the end of the year, but sometimes after the 6th
              month rather than the 12th.

              There was an "ideal" calendar of 12 thirty-day months (= 360 days) but
              this was used for administrative purposes and in astronomical treatises
              (that is why a circle has 360 degrees), not for keeping time.

              > I should assume the king was here. The idea that a king would not be at
              > his home city for the new year festival would be very odd. It is clear
              > that neither he nor his father missed the new year in Babylon so this
              > would be a major exception. Also, the festival was an important
              > ideological display - the King and the prosperity of the kingdom as one.

              While the Akitu festival at the new year was indeed important for royal
              ideology, the key to whether the king could make it back to Babylon for
              the festival hinges more on whether his seventh year was an intercalary
              one or not. If it was, he has an extra month of 29 or 30 days to make it
              back between the end of the twelfth month and the beginning of the new
              year.

              > In 605, when he heard his father died, he was at Carchemish and he
              > was able to dash down the Euphrates - not a problem. However, I
              > think he heard the news in August ( or sometime close to August) so
              > the routes would be dry, the rivers would be low for crossing at
              > various fords etc. However, in 598-7, it was the winter and spring
              > months, the routes would not be dry and the Euphrates River and other
              > rivers would have high water.
              <snip>

              He may also have had a tailwind.


              Bob Whiting
              whiting@...
            • Tory Thorpe
              Hi Frank: After defeating the Egyptian army at Carchemish on the Euphrates, Nebuchadnezzar chased the remainder and caught up with them in Hamath. Then
              Message 6 of 11 , Jul 2, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Frank:

                After defeating the Egyptian army at Carchemish on the Euphrates, Nebuchadnezzar chased the remainder and caught up with them in Hamath. Then Chronicle 5 says he "conquered all of Ha[ma]th" (obv. line 8). It does not say exactly where he was when he received word about his father's death, but apparently he was far to the south of Carchemish at the time. And of course, II Kings 24:7 states that he took "from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates all that pertained to the king of Egypt."

                Berossus knew some of the events this year as well: "Nabouchodonosoros learned of his father's death shortly thereafter. After he arranged affairs in Egypt [at the border of Egypt?] and the remaining territory, he ordered some of his friends to bring Jewish, Phoenician, Syrian, and Egyptian prisoners together with the bulk of the army and the rest of the booty to Babylonia. He himself set out with a few companions and reached Babylon BY CROSSING THE DESERT" (FGrH 2a). So Berossus would put Neb somewhere in the southern Levant at the time of his father's death on 8 Ab (16-Aug, 605). It would have taken a week or so for this news to reach him by fast mounted couriers, and this makes the desert crossing the only route short enough to get him back to Babylon the day of his coronation on 1 Elul (7-Sep, 605).

                AFAIK, there was no intercalary month xii (Addaru) at the end of the Babylonian year 598/597. There was an additional month vi (Elul) added in 598 and beginning on 21-Sep (Julian); see Parker & Dubberstein _Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C-A.D. 75_ (1956) 27. I also have never heard of the entire intercalary month being treated as a holiday, but that would be some party!

                It is I believe still the conventional view that Jehoiachin was the king mentioned in the Babylonian Chronicle as being captured on or after 2 Addaru (16-Mar, 597), but I do think his father is the one meant. The chronology of Late Judah is still problematic. If you think Neb never ever ever skipped a new year festival at the capital, what was Nabonidus' precedent or did he not have one?

                Regards,

                Tory Thorpe
                Modiin, Israel
              • frankclancy
                Dear Robert - thank you for the information. I do know about the Egyptian Calendar but I was working on what I had been told for the Babylonian Calendar -
                Message 7 of 11 , Jul 2, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Robert - thank you for the information. I do know about the
                  Egyptian Calendar but I was working on what I had been told for the
                  Babylonian Calendar - which only goes to show how important it is to do
                  your own checking.

                  If you are correct, then 598-597 BCE had an extra month because it was
                  his 7th year - am I correct? That gives him much more time and the
                  dash back to Babylon would be not be much of my type of dash -slow and
                  easy. Thank you for your response. This helps.

                  Frank Clancy
                • frankclancy
                  Dear Gene - no I was not there and as far as I know -with the possible exception of the late David Noel Freedman who loved to say he knew everything - no one
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jul 2, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Gene - no I was not there and as far as I know -with the possible
                    exception of the late David Noel Freedman who loved to say he knew
                    everything - no one else was there either.

                    There are problems with the Biblical story and when he look at the very
                    slim account in the Babylonian Chronicles and what very little we know
                    about the situation in Palestine at the time, then we should start to
                    question what happened.

                    Every scholar I know assumes Jehoiakim started his rebellion years
                    before 598 BCE - possibly after the defeat of Nebuchadrezzar in 601 BCE
                    as he tried to invade Egypt. Look at the evidence.

                    The text about the last 4 kings of Judah has a chronology that seems
                    utterly artificial. There are so many patterns that make it unlikly to
                    be historically realistic - 3 months, 11 years, 3 months, 11 years.
                    The Babylonians had a myth where the number 70 and the number 11 played
                    an important role. In Babylonian counting system, when you switch the
                    two symbols about you have 70 or 11. The 11 years of Jehoiakim and his
                    revolt and the 11 years for Zedekiah and his revolt led to 70 years of
                    exile -according to the text in Jermiah. Ezekiel gives Zedekiah 12
                    years -if we read his text correctly- but the number 12 represented the
                    12 months of the year and a year was created by God and has the idea of
                    perfection so a later scribe may think why should Zedekiah be given a
                    term of perfection? When you look at the chronological information in
                    the end of Kings and in Ezra-Nehemiah you can see one whole system of
                    artificial numbers which have a great reliance on the number 70.
                    Finally, the last 4 kings plus Manasseh, Amon and Josiah means that
                    after Hezekiah saved the city, you have 7 kings leading to its
                    destruction. Is this an artificial number of kings?

                    Next, when did Jehoiakim revolt? If it was in 601 BCE as many claim,
                    why did Nebuchadrezzr wait so long? He was back in the region in 599
                    BCE and I doubt he would have left a rebellious king in power then.
                    The Babylonian kings did not allow rebellion to stick around for years
                    to be a role model for other places in the region and to allow
                    rebellion to grow.

                    Why did Nebuchadrezzar attack Jerusalem at that time of the year? When
                    you look at the Babylonian Chronicles, both Naboploasser and his son
                    usually returned to Babylon in the 9th-10th month and stayed for the
                    winter. 598-7 was the lone exception. Why? Why not wait until after
                    the festivals as they usually did? Also, did Nebuchadrezzar take his
                    whole army with him? As far as I can read in the work of scholars, the
                    answer is no. It looks as though he received news of a possible
                    rebellion in Jerusalem with a new king, he decided to rush over and put
                    an end to it before the rebellion spread, and he took only a small army
                    of professionals with him.

                    Finally, if Jehoiakim was the rebel and the son was not, why remove
                    Jehoiachin from the throne and install Zedekiah? It is evident he had
                    no wish to end the royal family's rule just to punish the rebellious
                    king who was dead.

                    The Biblical story looks artificial. What I suggest is conjecture but
                    it is not as wild as you might think. There was an intense effort to
                    make Jehoiachin innocent and pure and legitimate heir of the Davidic
                    throne. Why not make his father the rebel - the king who would not
                    listen to the prophet of Yahweh- Jeremiah.

                    Frank Clancy
                  • Gene Greenwood
                    Frank, Thank You for the good info. Yes we must question biblical history because the popular interpretations don t fit the archaeology. Would you please
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jul 2, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Frank,
                      Thank You for the good info. Yes we must question biblical history because the popular interpretations don't fit the archaeology. Would you please supply references for the following:

                      - "The Babylonian kings did not allow rebellion to stick around for years to be a role model for other places in the region and to allow rebellion to grow."

                      - " It is evident he had no wish to end the royal family's rule just to punish the rebellious king who was dead."

                      - "There was an intense effort to make Jehoiachin innocent and pure and legitimate heir of the Davidic throne."

                      Thanks,
                      Gene Greenwood
                    • Robert M Whiting
                      ... Yes, the information is too readily available to be able to safely ignore it. ... No. The fact that it was his 7th year has nothing to do with it. The
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jul 2, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, frankclancy wrote:

                        > Dear Robert - thank you for the information. I do know about the
                        > Egyptian Calendar but I was working on what I had been told for the
                        > Babylonian Calendar - which only goes to show how important it is to do
                        > your own checking.

                        Yes, the information is too readily available to be able to safely ignore
                        it.

                        > If you are correct, then 598-597 BCE had an extra month because it was
                        > his 7th year - am I correct?

                        No. The fact that it was his 7th year has nothing to do with it. The
                        cycle of lunar months is continuous and kings did not start the calendar
                        over when they came to the throne. The entire purpose of intercalation is
                        to keep the lunar calendar in line with the seasons. In Babylonia it
                        meant keeping the beginning of the year close to the vernal equinox. In
                        rough numbers, a lunar month averages about 29.5 days in length. Twelve
                        lunar months is thus about 354 days. This is is about 11 days shorter
                        than the solar year. If your calendar is strictly lunar (as for example
                        the modern Islamic calendar) then the beginning of the year will be about
                        eleven days earlier than the equinox every year and will eventually cycle
                        all the way through the calendar. The luni-solar calendar keeps this from
                        happening by letting an additional month pass before the beginning of the
                        year every three years or so, so that the 33 days that have been lost over
                        the past three years are made up.

                        > That gives him much more time and the dash back to Babylon would be not
                        > be much of my type of dash -slow and easy. Thank you for your response.
                        > This helps.

                        I don't know that there was a second Addar at the end of Nebuchannezzar's
                        7th year and I don't have Parker and Dubberstein here to check. Tory says
                        that P&D says that there was a second Ulul in 598 (year 7), but Goetze, in
                        his additions to P&D (JNES 3 [1944], 43-46) says that there was a second
                        Ulul in year 5 also. I wouldn't want to commit myself on this without
                        checking the texts. But in any case, I was merely trying to point out the
                        futility of speculating on the nature of imaginary events.


                        Bob Whiting
                        whitng@...
                      • Yitzhak Sapir
                        ... The text of Berossus is available here: http://books.google.com/books?id=1SIAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA38#PPA38,M1 Oded Lipschitz discusses Nebuchadrezzar s return to
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jul 2, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Tory Thorpe wrote:

                          > Berossus knew some of the events this year as well: "Nabouchodonosoros
                          > learned of his father's death shortly thereafter. After he arranged affairs in
                          > Egypt [at the border of Egypt?] and the remaining territory, he ordered some
                          > of his friends to bring Jewish, Phoenician, Syrian, and Egyptian prisoners
                          > together with the bulk of the army and the rest of the booty to Babylonia. He
                          > himself set out with a few companions and reached Babylon BY CROSSING
                          > THE DESERT" (FGrH 2a).

                          The text of Berossus is available here:
                          http://books.google.com/books?id=1SIAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA38#PPA38,M1

                          Oded Lipschitz discusses Nebuchadrezzar's return to Babylon for the New
                          Year celebrations in his book, "The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem", p. 60-61.
                          http://books.google.com/books?id=78nRWgb-rp8C&pg=PA61&vq=year&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1_1&sig=ACfU3U0rZ1DmjF7RoSmL-MeFk-2Fm5r4KA#PPA60,M1

                          He also mentions how, in another case, Nebuchadrezzar returned to Babylon
                          alone at the end of the year, while leaving his army behind:
                          http://books.google.com/books?id=78nRWgb-rp8C&pg=PA51&vq=year&source=gbs_search_s&cad=4&sig=ACfU3U34WSfwKcuQZIvyD5xr1QKsaXijDQ

                          Yitzhak Sapir
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.