The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends Part 36

To find something about Zerubbabel, who is said to have been the friend of Darius (Jos., _Ant._ xi. iii. 1), would also be welcome, but this we can hardly dare to hope for. Zerubbabel (better Zeru-Babel, without the doubling of the _b_) is a name which is far from uncommon in the contracts of Babylonia. One, for instance, lived during the time of Nabonidus, and dwelt at Sippara. He was to all appearance of a.s.syrian origin. Another, the descendant of a smith, was the father of a man named Nabu-a?e-bulli?, who lived in the third year of Darius. A third bearing the same name is he who is recorded as having acquired some ewes in the eleventh year of Darius. His father bore the unusual name of Muteri?u. For yet another example, see p. 441. It will thus be seen that the name was far from rare in ancient Babylonia.

And in the published contract-tables of Darius's reign, of which nearly 600 have been made available for study, there is little bearing upon Old Testament history. The same may also be said of his historical inscriptions, of which that engraved on the great rock at Behistun in Persia is the most important. It is in his historical inscriptions, however, that the character of the man may be read. In the first lines, where he tells of his origin, you read of his pride of descent, just as, farther on, he tells the story of his conflicts-how, with the help of his father, Hystaspes, who seconded him loyally and (there is hardly any doubt) affectionately, he overcame all the rebels, and having annihilated the lie which he hated so intensely, he could say, after his successes, that "the land was his."

And through it all s.h.i.+nes at every point, as it were, his adoration of the G.o.d whom he wors.h.i.+pped, Ahuramazda, by whose grace and favour he had been successful. There is no doubt about his religious faith-in his inscriptions he appears as a monotheist of the severest type, and for this reason he must have had but little sympathy with the polytheism of the Babylonians, and the other nationalities over which he ruled, whose faith was in a plurality of G.o.ds. It is true that offerings seem to have been made in his name in the temples of Babylonia, but these must have been due to old grants which had not been rescinded, and which the king and his advisers probably would have regarded as bad policy to abolish.

Naturally there is every probability that such a ruler as Darius would have sympathies with the Jews, on account of their monotheism, and it may be supposed that such a feeling towards them would have led him to consent to the upholding of Cyrus's decree that the Temple at Jerusalem should be finished, as detailed in Ezra vi. 1 ff. Darius relates in the Behistun inscription, that he restored the temples of the G.o.ds (Bab. _bete a ilani_, Median _ziyan nappana_, "temples of the G.o.ds," Pers. _ayadana_, "shrines") which Gomates the Magian, the pseudo-Bardes or Smerdis, had destroyed. That a single word (_ayadana_) is used in Persian, whilst the phrase "temples of the G.o.ds," in the plural, is used in Babylonian and Median, shows merely the desire to speak to the latter nations in the language to which they were accustomed, and at the same time indicates that neither the one nor the other, unlike the Persians, were monotheists.

Gomates was therefore not a monotheist, otherwise he would not have destroyed the temples, which would seem to have been those of Darius's own faith; for this king would hardly have thought it worth while to mention the fact of their destruction, had they been the sacred places of a creed which he despised, and it is only natural to suppose, from his very frequent mention of Ahuramazda, the G.o.d whom he wors.h.i.+pped, that he was proud of being a monotheist.

It may therefore be taken, that if Darius Hystaspis ordered the completion of the Temple at Jerusalem, and the giving of funds in aid of the work, it was out of sympathy with the Jews. As his reign was one of tolerance, he did not interfere with the religion of either the Babylonians or the Medians, but in all probability he did not imitate Cyrus by grants on his own account, and under a royal decree, to the temples of those, to him, heathen countries. There is considerable doubt, however, whether it is this king who is referred to in Ezra and Esdras, as Sir Henry Howorth has shown (_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology_, 1901, pp. 147 ff., 305 ff., 1902, pp. 16 ff.), the ruler intended being in all probability Darius Nothus, whose position agrees with the chronology of these books, and does away with much difficulty as to their acceptance as historical authorities.

According to Darius, twenty-three countries owned his sway: Persia, Elam, Babylonia, a.s.syria, Arabia, Egypt, "by the sea," Sarpada, Ionia, Media, Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Drangiana, Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Paruparaesana, Scythia, Sattagydia, Arachosia, and Maka.

Palestine was evidently included in the district designated "by the sea."

After a most active reign, Darius died in the year 486 B.C., having appointed his son Xerxes as his successor.

The reign of this ruler, and his attempt to reduce Greece to submission, are well known. It was probably after his disastrous failure, when he had returned to Persia, that he took as one of his wives the Jewess Esther, as related in the book bearing her name. His inscriptions are short ones, referring to the buildings erected by his father and himself. In all probability he thought that his warlike exploits, overwhelmed as they were by misfortune, were not of a nature to bear recording. In his own inscriptions, his name is given as ?ii'ari or ?ii'ara'i in Babylonian, and Khshayarsha in Old Persian. In the contract-tablets, however, it appears as A?iaru, A?iwaru, Akiaru, Akkaiaru, and ?iiari. It is from one of the forms with prefixed _a_ that the Hebrew A?ashweros (A.V.

Ahasuerus) has apparently come, the most probable original being one similar to the A?uwaru of a contract-tablet in the Museum at Edinburgh.

Xerxes died in the year 464 B.C., and was succeeded by his son Artaxerxes, the Artakhshatra of the Old Persian inscriptions, and the Artakatsu or Artaka.s.su of Babylonian inscriptions. Though it was not without bloodshed that he reached the throne, he proved to be a successful ruler-more so, in fact, than his predecessor, whose expedition against the Greeks had ended only in disgrace and the loss of an enormous number of troops taken from all the nations over which he ruled. It is therefore not to be wondered at that his reign should have been regarded as wise and temperate. In any case, he was well disposed towards the Jews, and gave permission, in his seventh year, to Ezra, to go up to Jerusalem with a royal grant, to settle affairs there, and sacrifice to the G.o.d of the Jews (Ezra vii., viii.).

Later on, he gave permission to Nehemiah to return to the land of his fathers to restore and rebuild the walls of the city. As Nehemiah was his cupbearer, it is easily conceivable that he did this to please him, and to reward one who had evidently been a faithful servant, but it is not improbable that the king at the same time had in his mind the rebellion of his general Megabysus, who had risen against him in protest against the treatment meted out by his royal master to his captive Inarus. To have a well-fortified city defended by those who had benefited greatly by his rule, must have seemed to the Persian ruler good policy.

Artaxerxes died in the year 425 B.C., and was succeeded by his son, Xerxes II., who reigned only two months, at the end of which time he was murdered by Sogdia.n.u.s, a b.a.s.t.a.r.d son of Artaxerxes, who then became king. Seven months only, however, was the length of this new ruler's reign, he being, in his turn, put to death by another of the b.a.s.t.a.r.d sons of Artaxerxes, Darius Ochus, after he had surrendered to him. This ruler is the Darius Nothus of history, who mounted the throne in 424 B.C. His reign was noted for the numerous insurrections against his dominion which took place, but is of special interest because of the resumption of the work of rebuilding the Temple of Jerusalem, which had been stopped by the decree of Artaxerxes, as recorded in Ezra iv. 21-24. (See Sir H. Howorth in the _P.

S. B. A._, 1901, pp. 307, 308.)

CHAPTER XII. LIFE AT BABYLON DURING THE CAPTIVITY, WITH SOME REFERENCE TO THE JEWS.

The reign of Nebuchadnezzar-The earliest mention of Nabonidus-Neriglissar and his relations with his fellow-citizens before his accession-He marries his daughter Gigitum to the director of e-zida-Prince Laborosoarchod-Nabonidus and the temples at Sippar-Prince Belshazzar's transactions-His offerings at Sippar-His sister's gift to her G.o.d (or G.o.ddess)-Princess Ukabu'sama's transaction-The Jews at Babylon-Babylonian business and other letters-irku's slave-A loan at Erech-Work upon a plantation-Sale of an a.s.s-Jews and Babylonians-The dead slave-A right of way-The story of Abil-Addu-nathanu and Bunanitum-The outcast slave-The Egyptian slave and her infant-irku's transactions-Babylon as the Jewish captives saw it.

I.

If trade-activity be a test of prosperity, then the Babylonians of the period extending from the end of the reign of Nabopola.s.sar to the end of that of Darius could have had but little to complain of on the whole, notwithstanding the changes of dynasty which took place. Over three thousand inscriptions covering this period have been published, and there is every reason to believe that, if all the texts in the various museums were made known, twice this number might be reached. There is, therefore, an abundance of material with which to reconstruct the life of that period. Naturally, many of this enormous number of inscriptions are comparatively uninteresting, and some of the texts are of little or no value, even to specialists. This being the case, it will easily be understood that, as they are mostly of the nature of contracts, with a certain number of legal doc.u.ments, the information which many of them give is comparatively meagre, and there is a great deal of repet.i.tion. That some of them, notwithstanding these disadvantages, are sufficiently interesting, will be seen from the examples which this chapter contains.

Among all these doc.u.ments we find repeated, with some differences which the course of centuries had brought about, the same transactions, and the same daily life as has already been treated of in the fifth chapter, pp.

159-191. There are purchases and sales of land, property, and slaves, loans at interest and without interest, and all the various kinds of contracts which the daily needs of a large population call forth.

Marriage-contracts and contracts of apprentices.h.i.+p are also not uncommon, wills and divisions of property-generally in greater detail than of old-are also to be found. To these must be added the leasing and hire of houses, the purchase and hire of s.h.i.+ps, divisions of property, inventories of the same, receipts of different kinds, etc. etc.

For the most part, the people who pa.s.s before us are slaves, servants, money-lenders, merchants, and other of the common folk, with a sprinkling of scribes, priests, both of the higher and the lower cla.s.ses (generally the latter), palace officials, now and then a judge, or a governor, or one of the subordinate officials. Did we know them all, perhaps we should think more of them, and estimate them at their true worth; but in the appearance and reappearance of their names we see only the plaintiff or the defendant, the buyer or the seller, and it is but rarely that we can recognize them as men of note, though in many cases it is to be conjectured that they were so. It is only seldom that the crown prince or one of his brothers, appears, or a relative of the ruling king comes within our range-as for the king himself, except in the date of a doc.u.ment, his name is rare in the extreme, and when he appears actively, it is in the character of patron of the temples, or something of a similar nature.

Naturally the king was hedged about with a considerable amount of reverence, which must have manifested itself in many ways which we shall probably never know. This consideration for the name of the king would lead to his being represented by an agent, doing away with the necessity of his appearing in person, when dealing with his subjects. Though he prudently keeps out of sight, it is hardly a dignified thing that the great Nebuchadnezzar should appear as a moneylender, even by proxy, as he seems to do in the following doc.u.ment. But we do not know the whole history of the transaction, so must not hastily accuse him of an unkingly action-his appearance may be unauthorized, or the loan may be capable of a perfectly natural explanation.

"Ten shekels (in) ingots (?), the silver of Ina-ei-e?ir, son of Nadin, the king's agent. The king's silver, which was given for gold (? = as capital) to Ina-ei-e?ir, (is) due from Nabu-e?ir, son of ula, descendant of the mead-dealer. At the end of the month Tisri he will give (it) back.

His property, as much as there is, (is) the security, until Ina-ei-e?ir receives the king's silver. Witnesses: Nadin, son of Marduk, descendant of Irani; Nergal-iddina, son of Nabu-ka?ir, descendant of epe-ili; and the scribe, Ana-Bel-upaqu, son of Bel-um-ikun, descendant of the mead-dealer. Babylon, month Tammuz, day 28th, year 21st, Nabu-kudurri-u?ur, king of Babylon."

Though security is referred to, there is no mention of interest, but Ina-ei-e?ir probably expected something of the kind. The question also arises, whether the sum may not have been advanced without the authority of his royal master. The original of the expression translated "ingots"

suggests that the pieces may have been in the form of a sword-blade.

Among the tablets referring to Nebuchadnezzar's offerings, 84-2-11, 23, and its duplicate 270 of the same collection, are probably the most interesting. This inscription is to the effect that Izkur-Marduk had given up with willingness the office of _na-pa?rutu_ to Nabu-bala?-su-iqbi. His duty was to perform the king's sacrifices every year before the G.o.ddess I?ara, "dwelling in e-a-turra, which is within u-anna," and before Pap-sukal, of "the temple e-kidur-kani, the house of the Lady of heaven, of the bank of the water-channel of _alu-eu_ (the new city) which is within Babylon." The animals sacrificed were oxen and sheep, and the parts offered before the two deities are fully specified. The contract ends with a longer curse than usual in tablets of this cla.s.s: "Whoever the words and this gift changes, as much as has been conferred (?) on Nabu-bala?-su-iqbi, may Merodach, Zer-panitum, I?ara, and Pap-sukal bespeak his destruction; may Nebo, the scribe of e-sagila, shorten his long days. The spirit of Marduk, Zer-panitum, (and) his G.o.ds, and Nabu-kudurri-u?ur, the king their lord, they have invoked." The names of three witnesses and the scribe follow this, after which is the date, 29th day of Tammuz, 32nd year of Nebuchadnezzar. A portion of the sacrifices were to be made on the 8th day of Nisan, _i.e._ at the beginning of the second week of the new year.

As stated in his long inscriptions referring to the restoration of the temples at Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar looked upon that city as the one whose temples he especially delighted to honour, and this text referring to his offerings seems to bear out that statement. As, however, his inscribed cylinders from other places show that he did not neglect the shrines of his provincial capitals altogether, so certain inscriptions referring to his offerings elsewhere show that he did not withhold what was considered as due from him to the other shrines of his realm. Thus, in his thirty-fifth year he is recorded to have made a gift or offering of an object, made or set with some kind of stone, to the G.o.ddess of Sippar, Aa, the consort of the Sun-G.o.d, and another object of gold to the G.o.d himself.

In all probability, the text referred to is only one of a number of inscriptions referring to the king's offerings, for even this great and popular ruler would hardly have dared to risk the hostility of the priests merely to gratify his desire to enrich and embellish his capital city. In addition to the king, the officials of his court sometimes made offerings at Sippar, as is indicated by the following short inscription-

"One a.s.s, t.i.the which Nabu-arra-u?ur, the king's captain, has given to the temple e-babbara. Month Iyyar, day 20 less 1, year 42nd, Nabu-kudurri-u?ur, king of Babylon."

To all appearance, Nabu-arra-u?ur was a man sufficiently well off, if, as may well be supposed, he possessed nine other a.s.ses besides the one which he was giving as t.i.the. From the nature of the offering, this could not have been made on account of the king, though he must from time to time have commissioned others to act on his behalf, as the following inscriptions inform us that his sons did-

"..., t.i.the of (Marduk)-um-u?ur, the son of the king, Zubuduru, messenger of Marduk-um-u?ur, the son of the king, has given to e-babbara. The sheep (is) in the cattle-house in the care of ama-ere. Month Adar, day 17th, year 40th, (Nabu-kud)urri-u?ur, (king of Babylon)."

The word to be restored at the beginning is probably "1 sheep," this being the number implied farther on. If so, it cannot be said that he was by any means a large owner of these animals. The following refers to t.i.the in silver paid by the same prince-

"1/3 and 5 shekels (= 25 shekels) of silver (is) the t.i.the which Marduk-um-u?ur, son of the king, has given by the hands of ama-kain-a?i and Aqabi-ilu to e-babbara. Month Iyyar, day 14th, year 42nd, Nabu-kudurri-u?ur, king of Babylon."

Another inscription, dated in the forty-first year of Nebuchadnezzar, refers to another son, named Marduk-nadin-a?i, whose servant, Sin-mar-arri-u?ur, had paid half a mana for fruit (dates). The name of the servant, which means "Moon-G.o.d, protect the son of the king," is interesting, and testifies to the devotion of the family of its owner to the royal house.

These references to the sons of Nebuchadnezzar naturally raise the question of the parentage of Nabonidus, whose son, Belshazzar, is called, in Daniel, the son-_i.e._ descendant-of Nebuchadnezzar. As this is a historical point of some importance, even the most uncertain light, when thrown upon it, may turn out to be of considerable value. In all probability, therefore, this is the most appropriate place to introduce what may be called

The Earliest Mention Of Nabonidus.

This doc.u.ment is preserved on two tablets, the most correct being very much crowded in one part, and the other very neatly and clearly, but at the same time very incorrectly, written. Both are, therefore, in all probability, copies, made at dates some time after the original doc.u.ment was drawn up.

Though the more clearly-written copy is rather incorrect, it furnishes in some cases interesting variants, which will be noticed in their place. The value of the text as a historical doc.u.ment depends, in part, as will easily be recognized, upon the trustworthiness of a statement which the incorrect copyist has read into it.

Both these doc.u.ments belong to the collection obtained by the late George Smith on his last ill-fated journey to the East. They are numbered S +, 769 and 734.

"Adi'ilu, son of Nabu-zer-iddina, and ?uliti, his wife (the divine ?ulitum!(129)) have sold Marduka (Mordecai), their son, for the price agreed upon, to ula, son of Zer-ukin. The liability to defeasor (?) and pre-emptor (?), which is upon Marduka, Adi'ilu and Akkadu respond for."

"Witnesses: Nabu-na'id (Nabonidus), who is over the city(130); Agar'u; Muezib-Bel, son of Marduka(131); Zeria, son of Babilaa; Ukin-zera, son of Yadi'-ilu(132); Remut, son of Marduka; and the scribe Nabu-zer-ikia, son of Marduk- ... ?u??iti-a-Muallim-Marduk, month Sebat, day 16th, year 8th, Nabu-kudurri-u?ur, king of Babylon."

It will probably seem strange to most readers that Babylonian parents, who were as a rule fond of children, should sell their son; but it is impossible to p.r.o.nounce judgment against them without knowing more, so as to be able to take into consideration the circ.u.mstances in which the thing was done. Though the doc.u.ment resembles those recording the sale of slaves, certain phrases are left out (compare the inscriptions referred to on pp. 465 ff.).

The exclamatory addition of the scribe in one case, where he writes the name of the mother, ?ulitum, with the prefix for divinity, shows that he regarded her as being with the G.o.ds-to all appearance she had, at the time of making the copy, departed this life. It may be taken as implying respect, reverence, and something more.

Naturally there is no suggestion that the Nabonidus who is given as the first witness, with the t.i.tle "he who is over the city," was the son of Nabu-bala?-su-iqbi, afterwards king of Babylon. The scribe of the second tablet calls him "the son of the king," but there is no indication, from Babylonian sources, that he was one of the sons of Nebuchadnezzar. It is true that, in Daniel, Belshazzar is spoken of as if Nebuchadnezzar was his father (or, better, grandfather), but this is the first indication that the Babylonians ever thought of Nabonidus, his father, as one of the sons of the great Nebuchadnezzar. The question is, whether the scribe who made the second and more incorrect copy would have read into the doubtful characters which his original evidently contained, a statement which he must have known to be untrue, incorrect, or impossible. In view of the fact that the copy in question must have been made sufficiently near to the time of Nabonidus for the facts to be still known, a wilful error is to all appearance excluded, though, on the other hand, the incorrectness of other parts of the tablet obliges us to take the statement for what it is worth. The traces of a character after the words "son of the king" are doubtful-they look like the remains of three horizontal wedges, the two lower ones being fairly clear. As the topmost wedge is the most doubtful, it is possible that the traces which remain are really part of the sign for "city," in which case the scribe wrote "son of the king of the city,"

placing the determinative prefix for "man" before the character for "king"-a most unusual way of writing the word. It enables us to surmise, however, that the reading of his original was really _a mu??i ali_, instead of _a eli ali_ (both phrases have the same meaning), that he regarded _a_ as _a_, that he thought _mu?-?i_ to be the characters for "man" and "king," and that he read the last of the phrase, the character for "city," correctly.

They are a couple of as interesting, but, at the same time, as unsatisfactory, tablets, as could well be imagined.

It is to be noted that the name of Nabonidus is not altogether uncommon in the inscriptions. In most cases, however, we know that it is either not the well-known king of that name, or that his ident.i.ty with him is doubtful. That the person here referred to was a man of some consequence is indicated by his t.i.tle, "he who is over the city," and it often happens in that case (as here) that the name of his father and other remoter ancestor is omitted. This is sometimes the case with Neriglissar, who is very often named in the contract-tablets of Babylonia, and his name is then either given without any indication of his parentage, or else with the simple addition "son of Bel-um-ikun."