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

Re: [ANE-2] nebuchadrezzar

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 11 , 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
    • 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 2 of 11 , Jul 2, 2008
        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 3 of 11 , Jul 2, 2008
          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 4 of 11 , Jul 2, 2008
            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 5 of 11 , Jul 2, 2008
              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 6 of 11 , Jul 2, 2008
                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 7 of 11 , Jul 2, 2008
                  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 8 of 11 , Jul 2, 2008
                    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 9 of 11 , Jul 2, 2008
                      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 10 of 11 , Jul 2, 2008
                        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.