Thus it happened, that Aššur-banî-âpli, on coming to the throne, found

himself involved in a war with Egypt. To such a ruler, it must have seemed

a hard thing to relinquish what his father had fought, and perhaps died,

to acquire and retain. This being the case, he sent forth his army to

reduce the country again to subjection, Tirhakah having taken advantage of

the death of Esarhaddon to revolt. In the course of this campaign his

representative (there is every probability that Aššur-banî-âpli never went

westwards, or, indeed, made any warlike expedition in person whatever)

received the tribute of the kings of the sea-coast and “the middle of the

sea,” _i.e._ Phœnicia and Cyprus. This list is, with few exceptions, the

same as that given by Esarhaddon, and includes Minsê (= Minasê, _i.e._

Menasseh) of the land of Yaudi or Judah. In some cases, however, changes

had taken place and these are duly registered—Yakinlû instead of

Matan-ba’al, king of the land of Aruada (Arvad); Ammi-nadbi (Amminadab),

king of the land of Bît-Ammana (Beth-Ammon), instead of Budu-ilu. For the

kings of Cyprus, however, no change is indicated, a circumstance which

leads one to look upon the list with some suspicion, it being not

impossible that the names of certain rulers are inserted to make a seeming

addition to the Assyrian king’s glory. They are all represented, however,

as supporting, with their troops and their ships, on land and on sea, the

army of Aššur-banî-âpli. The result was the defeat of Tirhakah, and the

restoration of the kings, prefects, and governors whom Esarhaddon had

appointed as rulers of the country.(117)

No sooner had the Assyrians departed, than Tirhakah won over all the

princes they had installed to his side, and the work had to be done over

again. The Assyrian generals, however, returned promptly, and the

rebellion was at once put down. Of the princes who were captured, Necho

alone was spared, and, with his son, set as ruler in Ḫatḫariba (Athribis).

About this time Tirhakah died, and Urdamanê, son of Sabaco, mounted the

throne, and made Thebes and On (Heliopolis) his principal strongholds,

besieging the Assyrian army of occupation in Memphis. Another expedition

on the part of the Assyrians therefore became necessary, and was at once

undertaken, and with complete success, except that Urdamanê remained, to

all appearance, still at large. Practically, however, the greater part of

Egypt became at this time an Assyrian province.

But many were the conquests of this really remarkable king, which his

generals accomplished for him. Soon came the turn of Ba’al, king of Tyre,

whose subjection brought about that of Yakinlû, king of Arvad, Mugallu,

king of Tubal, and Sandasarme of the land of the Ḫilakkâa (Cilicians).

Aššur-banî-âpli also speaks of the mission of Yakinlû, king of Arvad, who

sent his sons to him with presents, and made obeisance. These princes bore

the interesting names Azi-ba’al, Abi-ba’al, Aduni-ba’al, Sapati-baal,

Pudi-baal, Ba’al-yašupu, Ba’al-ḫanunu, Ba’al-maluku, Abi-milki, and

Aḫi-milki, showing the popularity of the element _baal_ in the names of

the people of Arvad. Azi-ba’al was designated as the next king, and all

the brothers were sent back with rich gifts. He also tells the story of

the dream of _Guggu šar Luddi_ (Gyges, king of Lydia), to whom the god

Aššur is said to have appeared, exhorting him to submit to

Aššur-banî-âpli, and overcome his enemies by invoking his name. Following

this advice, he succeeded in conquering the Gimmirrâa (people of Gomer),

capturing their chiefs, of whom he sent two in fetters to the Assyrian

king, with valuable gifts.

Gyges did not send any more embassies, however, and allied himself with

Tušamilki, king of the land of Muṣur (generally regarded as Psammeticus of

Egypt, but to all appearance another Muṣur—probably that to the north—is

meant), and for this he received the curse of the Assyrian king. The

result was, that the Gimmirrâa came and ravaged his country. This being

the case, his son, who succeeded him, thought best to renew the Assyrian

alliance, and therefore sent an embassy with a message to the following

effect—“The king whom god hath chosen art thou; thou cursedst my father,

and evil was wrought before him. As for me, the servant fearing thee, be

gracious to me and let me bear thy yoke.”

[Plate XIII.]

Assur-banî-âpli (Assurbanipal), "The Great and Noble Asnapper," Hunting

Lions. British Museum. Assyrian Saloon.

Gyges, in Assyrian Gug(g)u, is regarded as the original of the mystic Gog

of Ezekiel xxxviii. 39, and his country, Lydia (Luddu), is generally

explained as the Biblical Lud, though a certain amount of doubt regarding

it exists.

Aššur-banî-âpli’s other campaigns were against the Vannites, the Elamites,

the Babylonians (on account of his brother Saosduchinos, king of that

country, refusing to acknowledge his suzerainty), after that twice more

against Elam, then against the Arabians, and finally against Ummanaldaš,

king of Elam, whom he seized as a hawk does his prey. In all, however, he

captured four Elamite princes, whom he caused to be attached to his

carriage (_ina marri šadadi, rukub šarruti-ia_(118)), and as for the

Arabian princes whom he had taken as prisoners, he caused them to wear

chains and badges of service, and to work at the building of his palace,

as was the custom in those days.

We can easily imagine him—the great and noble Aššur-banî-âpli, called by

Ezra (iv. 10) Asnapper (better Asenappar), who transferred the Dinaites,

Apharsathchites, Tarpelites, Apharsites, Archevites, Babylonians,

Susanchites (Susanians), Dehavites, and Elamites, to swell the mixed

multitudes in the cities of Samaria. Many a time is he represented in the

beautiful bas-reliefs which he caused to be carved as the adornments of

his palace at Nineveh, and we there see him, the patron of art, as the

bold sportsman and hunter, just as his tablets show him as the greatest

patron of literature of his time, one who knew the literature of his race,

who took a pride in learning, and himself copied out tablets “in the

assembly of the experts.”

The “great and noble Asnapper” is worthy of a statue in every land where

the languages of Assyria and Babylonia are studied.

How the sudden downfall of the Assyrian empire really came about we do not

know. In all probability it remained intact until the death of

Aššur-banî-âpli, which took place in 626 B.C. His son,

Aššur-êtil-îlāni-ukinni, has left no historical records, though it is not

by any means impossible that some light may ultimately be thrown on his

reign. One of the enigmas of his time is: What was the circumstance which

called forth the following communication?—

“The message of the daughter of the king to Aššurâaitu the queen. As yet

thou writest not thy tablet, and dictatest not thy letter? Shall they say

thus: ‘Is this the sister of Šerû-êṭerat, the eldest daughter of the

Harem-house of Aššur-êtil-îlāni-ukinni, the great king, the mighty king,

the king of the world, the king of Assyria?’ And thou art the daughter of

the bride, the lady of the house of Aššur-banî-âpli, the son of the great

king of the Harem-house, who was Aššur-âḫa-iddina (Esarhaddon), king of

Assyria.”

Some of the expressions in this letter seem obscure, but the probable

explanation is, that the daughter of one of the last Assyrian

kings—perhaps Sin-šarra-iškun (Saracos)—writes to the chief wife of

Aššur-banî-âpli urging her to take action by exhorting the chiefs of the

nation at a crisis in the history of the country, which crisis was

probably that which led to the downfall of the mighty kingdom which had

reached its zenith of power during the reign of Aššur-banî-âpli. At this

time, according to Nabonidus, a king of the Umman-manda or Medes, whose

name is doubtful, but which may be Iriba-tuktê, entered into alliance with

a ruler who must be Nabopolassar of Babylon, the father of Nebuchadnezzar,

and accomplished the vengeance of Merodach, the god of the Babylonians,

who willed that the destruction wrought upon his city by Sennacherib

should be amply avenged. This vengeance was apparently the downfall of the

Assyrian empire and the destruction of Nineveh, in accordance with

statements of Alexander Polyhistor, Abydenus, and Syncellus. It is

Diodorus Siculus, however, who gives the fullest account. He relates that

there was a legend (according to an oracle) that the city could not be

taken until the river became its enemy. Arbaces, the Scythian, was

besieging it, but was unable to make any great impression on it for two

years. In the third year, however, the river(119) was swollen by rains,

and being very rapid in its current, a portion of the wall was carried

away, by which the besiegers gained an entrance. The king, recognizing in

this the fulfilment of the oracle, raised a funeral pyre, and gathering

together his concubines and eunuchs, mounted it, and perished in the

flames. Thus came the great Assyrian empire to an end.

“The oracle concerning Nineveh:

The Lord is a jealous God and avengeth.

Who can stand before His indignation?

With an _overrunning flood_ He will make a full end of the place

thereof, and will pursue His enemies into darkness.

The _gates of the rivers_ are opened, and the palace is dissolved.

Thy shepherds slumber, O king of Assyria, thy worthies are at

rest; thy people are scattered upon the mountains, and

there is none to gather them.”

And there is much more in the same strain that the Hebrew Oracle of Nahum

concerning the fall of Nineveh gives.

But it was not simply the capture of an important city—it was the

enslavement and ultimate annihilation of a whole nation. Who can imagine

their despair? Less than fifty years earlier, Assyria had been the most

powerful nation of the then known world, and the people suddenly saw

themselves deprived of that proud position which they had enjoyed for so

many centuries. Their national existence had, in fact, been brought to an

abrupt end, but the few Assyrian names which appear in Babylonian

contracts many years after their downfall show that theirs was a proud

indomitable spirit, which could not give way to misfortune, and which

probably hoped for better things and more prosperous times. Their

descendants are still to be found among the Chaldean Roman Catholic

Christians of the country which was the scene of their forefathers’

dominion when they ruled the land of their inheritance. Their most worthy

representatives in modern times are the family of the Rassams, one of whom

was for many years British Consul at Mossoul (a post which his nephew now

fills), and another is the well-known veteran, Hormuzd Rassam, Layard’s

helper, for some time Resident at Aden, and later a prisoner with that mad

ruler, King Theodore of Abyssinia. To him we owe the discovery of

Aššur-banî-âpli’s palace, the ruins of Sippara and Cuthah, and many

thousand cylinders and tablets bearing upon the manners, customs, history,

religion, etc., of the Babylonians and Assyrians, which have been used

freely in the compilation of this book.

CHAPTER XI. CONTACT OF THE HEBREWS WITH THE LATER BABYLONIANS.

Nabopolassar and the restoration of the power of

Babylonia—Nebuchadnezzar—Evil-Merodach—Neriglissar and his

son—Nabonidus—The Fall of Babylon—Nabonidus and Belshazzar—Cyrus

and Cambyses—Darius and his successors.

How great the change which came over the Eastern world with the

disappearance from the political horizon of the power of Assyria can

hardly be estimated. In the time of Merodach-baladan, the Chaldean who had

mounted the Babylonian throne, an embassy was sent to the Jewish king

Hezekiah with a present and kind inquiries as to his health, apparently to

see whether it was worth while making an alliance with him.

Merodach-baladan felt that he would need all the outside help that he

could get against the Assyrians, with whom he was in constant conflict.

With the downfall of Assyria, however, all was changed. The Jews’ whilom

friend became their enemy, and, as indicated in 2 Kings xx. 17 ff., the

Israelites were to lose their independence at the hands of the descendants

of those who were then seeking their friendship.

There is hardly any doubt that the later Assyrian kings regarded Babylonia

as an integral part of the Assyrian empire, and had perfect faith in the

fidelity of the inhabitants. It may reasonably be doubted, however,

whether the Babylonians had really forgotten the cruel treatment they had

received at the hands of Sennacherib. In addition to this, there must have

existed for a considerable period the feeling that they, the Babylonians,

were the more ancient people of the two, and that the Assyrians were but a

later offshoot of their own stock, owing to them all their civilization,

manners, customs, laws, and literature. It will thus be seen that they

were sufficiently of the same origin to be regarded as one people, and for

this reason, many of the cities of Babylonia were satisfied and happy

under Assyrian rule, which they preferred, to all appearance, to that of

the Chaldeans, a nation which, though inhabiting their own borders, was in

reality more alien to them than the Assyrians in language, manners, and

customs, and whom they probably regarded as being only half civilized.

The general opinion is, that Nabû-âbla-uṣur (Nabopolassar), the general

whom Sin-šarra-iškun (Saracos), the last king of Assyria, sent against his

enemies (who seem to have invaded Babylonia by sea at the northern end of

the Persian Gulf), was a Chaldean, and this is, in fact, confirmed by the

quotation in Eusebius’s Armenian Chronicle (p. 44) from Polyhistor, where

it is stated that after Samuges (Šamaš-šum-ukîn, the brother of

Aššur-banî-âpli), Sardanapallus (this is a mistake for Nabopollasarus),

the Chaldean, reigned for twenty-one years. If this be the case, it is a

matter of surprise that Sin-šarra-iškun should have given into the hands

of one belonging to a tribe of old hostile to Assyria, the command of his

army at such a critical time. In any case, the result was most disastrous

for Assyria, as the foregoing chapter has shown.

In the opinion of Friedrich Delitzsch, Nabopolassar was not the general of

Sin-šarra-iškun, but in all probability a viceroy installed by

Aššur-êtil-îlāni-ukinni, and retained by Sin-šarra-iškun, in which case it

is to be supposed that he made an alliance with the Medes (as related by

Alexander Polyhistor and Abydenus), and cemented it by marrying his son

Nebuchadrezzar to Amunhean, Amuhean, or Amytis, daughter of Astyages, king

of the Medes; and according to the latter author, it was after this that

he marched against Nineveh. Fried. Delitzsch may therefore be regarded as

most probably right, for the king of the Medes would hardly have consented

to bestow his daughter upon the son of one whom he could not otherwise

have regarded as being of royal race.

Though Nabopolassar had close connection with Syria, his name is not

mentioned in the Bible narrative. For our information concerning him we

are indebted to Josephus, who, quoting the Babylonian writer Berosus,

relates what was recorded in the Babylonian chronicles of that period.

After the division of the territory of Assyria, of which Egypt took a

part, the former allies began to quarrel among themselves, the result

being that Nabopolassar, wishing to regain possession of Syria, which at

this time acknowledged the suzerainty of Egypt, decided to attack that

country. According to Berosus, he not only regarded himself as master of

Coele-Syria and Phœnicia, but also of Egypt. Hearing, therefore, “that the

governor which he had set over Egypt and over the parts of Coele-Syria and

Phœnicia had revolted from him, he was not able to bear it any longer, but

committing certain parts of his army to his son Nabuchodonosor, who was

then but young, he sent him against the rebel.” This is regarded as having

taken place in 605 B.C. The governor attacked by the young Nebuchadnezzar

was apparently Necho, who was completely defeated at Carchemish, and

expelled from Syria.

Whilst upon this expedition, Nebuchadnezzar heard of the death of his

father at Babylon, in the twenty-first year of his reign, as Josephus,

quoting Berosus, has it. This accords with the statement concerning him in

the Canon of Ptolemy, and also with native Babylonian chronology, as may

be seen from a tablet in the Museum of Edinburgh, of which the following

is a translation—

“The 21st year of Nabopolassar a profit was made.

The 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar a profit was made.

The 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar a profit was made.

The 3rd year the same.

The fourth year the same.”

Returning to Babylon, the young prince found that his supporters there had

looked after his interests, and no pretender having appeared to dispute

with him the throne, he was at once acknowledged king. The death of

Nabopolassar and the accession of his son Nebuchadnezzar took place in the

year 604 B.C.

Unfortunately, but few inscriptions of Nabopolassar have been found, and

of them some are duplicates, and all refer to his architectural or

engineering works. The principal treats of his restoration of the temple

Ê-temen-ana-kia, the shrine at Ê-sagila, which the Babylonians regarded as

the Tower of Babel. It is written in the archaic style of writing much

affected by his son Nebuchadnezzar, and has certain peculiarities of

spelling. Like most of the pious architectural inscriptions of Babylonia,

there is no reference to historical events, but the king speaks of

Nabium-kudurra-uṣur (Nebuchadrezzar), “the eldest, firstborn, and beloved

of my heart,” and his younger brother, Nabû-šumam-lìšir. Both the king and

his two sons took part in the restoration of the temple, bringing with

their own hands material for the work, the younger son also assisting by

pulling the cord of the cart which carried it. The receptacles which they

used to carry the material were made of gold and silver. Other

inscriptions of this king refer to the digging out of the canal of the

Euphrates near the city Sippara, and to Nabopolassar’s restoration of the

temple of “the Lady of Sippar,” called Ê-edinna, “the house (temple) of

the plain,” or “of Edina,” _i.e._ Eden.

When Nebuchadnezzar (in Babylonian Nabû-kudurri-uṣur—he was the second of

the name) came to the throne, he found himself in possession of a mighty

kingdom, consolidated by his father’s talent, and he could himself boast

of having had a hand in its enlargement and greater security. Everything

was, to all appearance, at peace, and the new king had no reason to fear

either a pretender to the throne, or the advent of enemies from without.

One of his tributaries, namely, Jehoiakim, king of Judah, after paying

tribute three years (604-602 B.C.), rebelled, but was again reduced to

subjection (2 Kings xxiv. 1 ff.).

Later, however, uprisings of a more earnest nature came to the ears of the

Babylonian king, constraining him to act. Apparently in consequence of the

promises of Egypt, Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim, brought against himself

the hostility of the king of Babylon, who sent an army to besiege

Jerusalem, afterwards journeying thither himself, the result being, that

the city was taken, and the Jewish king, with his court, yielded, and were

carried away to Babylon (598 B.C.). The number of captives on this

occasion exceeded 10,000, and the treasures of the palace and the Temple

formed part of the spoils sent to Babylon. The country was not annexed,

however, for Nebuchadnezzar made Mattaniah king of Judah instead of

Jehoiachin, changing his name to Zedekiah.

Gratitude to the power which had raised him, however, became weakened with

years, and, encouraged by Pharaoh Hophra, he rebelled in the ninth year of

his reign, the result being that Jerusalem was once more besieged. Pharaoh

Hophra now marched with an army across the Egyptian border to the help of

his ally, whereupon the Babylonians raised the siege of Jerusalem for a

time to get rid of the invader (Jer. xxxvii. 5-7). According to Josephus,

the Egyptians were totally defeated, and returned to their own land (Jer.

xxxvii. 7). The siege of Jerusalem was then resumed, and the city was

taken at the end of a year and a half, notwithstanding a very courageous

resistance. The date set down for this event is July 586 B.C.

Zedekiah with his army fled, but was pursued by the Chaldeans, and

captured in the plains of Jericho. Nebuchadnezzar was then at Riblah,

where, to all appearance, a court was held (see 2 Kings xxv. 6), and

sentence pronounced against the faithless vassal, whose sons were then

slain before his eyes, his sight destroyed, and he himself carried captive

to Babylon. It was a barbarous sentence, and was quite in accordance with

the customs of the age, just as the legal formalities were to all

appearance in conformity with Babylonian tradition. The destruction of the

Temple and all the principal houses of the city by fire, followed, this

destruction being wrought by Nebu-zar-adan (Nabû-zēr-iddina), the captain

of Nebuchadnezzar’s guard, who also carried captive all who remained in

the city. Only the lowest class of the people remained to carry on the

cultivation of the land. Others were sent to Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, and

by his orders put to death. Those of the Jews who remained, however, were

not placed, as might reasonably have been expected, under a Babylonian

governor, but under Gedeliah the son of Ahikam, who was made governor. His

death at the hands of his own countrymen took place shortly after, thus

putting an end to the last vestige of native Jewish rule in Palestine.

Next came the turn of Tyre, which the Babylonian king blockaded for no

less than thirteen years (585-573 B.C.), but was apparently successful in

the end, when the inhabitants acknowledged Babylonian overlordship. That

its capture cost him great pains is testified by Ezekiel (xxix. 18), who

states that, to take the city, “every head was bald, and every shoulder

was peeled” in consequence of the carrying of material for the operations

against the city, yet neither he nor his army reaped any material

advantage from this conquest, “for the service that he had served against

it.” The name of a city Ṣûru, which is probably Tyre, occurs on a tablet

dated in Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty-fifth year (569 B.C.—four years after the

city was taken). It refers to a transaction in which sesame is sold, an

official of the city being a party to the contract. Later on, in the

fortieth year of Nebuchadnezzar, a contract was entered into between

Milki-idiri, governor of Kidis (Kedesh), with regard to some cattle. This

document is dated at Tyre (Ṣurru) on the 22nd of the month Tammuz. Not

only Tyre, therefore, but the whole district, owned the dominion of

Nebuchadnezzar at this time.

Just as successful were Nebuchadnezzar’s operations against Egypt.

According to an Egyptian inscription, the Babylonian king attacked Egypt

in the year 572 B.C., penetrating as far as Syene and the borders of

Ethiopia. Hophra, who still reigned, was defeated and deposed, the general

Amasis being raised to the throne in his place to rule the land as a

vassal of the Babylonian king. According to the only historical fragment

of the reign of this king known, Nebuchadnezzar made an expedition to

Egypt in his thirty-seventh year. This was to all appearance against his

vassal Amasis, who, like Zedekiah, had revolted against the power which

had raised him to the throne. The rebellion was suppressed, but the

ultimate fate of Amasis is not stated.

According to Megasthenes, who lived in the time of Seleucus Nicator,

Nebuchadnezzar conquered North Africa, crossing afterwards into Spain by

the Strait of Gibraltar, returning to Babylonia through Europe and Asia

Minor. Such an expedition, however, it is hardly likely that he ever

undertook, and the account of this exploit may therefore be relegated to

the domain of the fables with which the ancient historians sometimes

ornamented their work.

Concerning the relations of Nebuchadnezzar with Daniel, the

wedge-inscriptions of Babylonia give no indication whatever. Four hundred

and fifty or more contract-tablets dated in his reign are known, but in

none of them is there any reference to Daniel, at least in a form that can

be recognized. The Babylonian name given to him, Belteshazzar, is

apparently an abbreviated form, which would be, in Babylonian,

Balaṭ-su-ûṣur, “Protect thou (O God), his life.” If this be the

explanation, a better transcription of the Hebrew form would be

Beletshazzar (making the first sheva vocal and the second silent instead

of the reverse). The name of the deity has, in accordance with custom,

been suppressed in the Hebrew form, but it is probable that either the

patron-deity of Babylon, Bêl, or else the favourite deity of the

Babylonians in general, Nebo, the god of learning, may have preceded the

first element as the name now stands. In the inscriptions of Babylonia and

Assyria, many examples of abbreviated names occur, on account of what we

should consider their inordinate length, and to such an extent was this

customary, that one element only, out of three or four, might alone be

used. Thus, in the contracts of the time of Nebuchadnezzar, at least

fourteen persons of the name of Balaṭu, and seven of the name of Balaṭ-su

occur, and it may be safely taken that they are all abbreviations of names

similar to that bestowed upon Daniel. Apart from the question whether the

Book of Daniel is to be regarded as a part of the Hagiographa or not, the

fact that his descent is not given there would make it impossible to

recognize him, if his name was still further abbreviated by the

Babylonians, among so many bearing names possibly the same as his. Even

though his book be regarded as a romance, there is always the question,

whether the personages mentioned therein may not really have existed.

With regard to the other names in Daniel, it is to be noted that Shadrach

and Meshach, the names given to Hananiah and Mishael, are doubtful in

Babylonian, the corresponding forms not having been found. Abednego, on

the other hand, the Babylonian name of Azariah, has long been recognized

as being written for Abed-Nebo, “servant of Nebo,” either by a scribal

error, or (as seems more probable) in order to deface the name of a

heathen deity. The name of Ashpenaz, the master of the eunuchs, is still

more doubtful, if anything; but that of Arioch, the “king’s captain,” is

one which has been well known for some time, being none other than the

ancient name (cf. Genesis xiv.) corresponding with the Akkadian Êri-Aku or

Êri-Eaku, “servant of the Moon-god,” a rare name in later times (see pp.

222 ff.).

Naturally nothing concerning Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams occurs in the

inscriptions of Babylonia, though dreams which were regarded as having a

signification are sometimes recorded. This being the case, it might be

supposed that something upon the subject would in all probability be

sooner or later found. But what we should expect to find in the extant

inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar is a reference to the golden image,

threescore cubits high and six cubits wide, which he is said to have set

up in the plain of Dura. Had he erected such an enormous thing, even if it

had been merely gilt, and not of solid gold, one would expect that he

would at least have made a slight reference to it. That he may have set up

images of his gods is not only possible, but probable—indeed, he must have

dedicated at least a few during his long reign, but it is evident that

none of them was of sufficient importance to cause him specially to refer

to it in his inscriptions. It is therefore not impossible that there is

some exaggeration in the dimensions of the figure referred to in Daniel.

There is also considerable uncertainty as to the position of the plain of

Dura, in the province of Babylon. The most probable explanation is that of

Prof. J. Oppert, the veteran Assyriologist, who found what appeared to be

the base of a great statue near a mound known as Dúair,(120) east of

Babylon. It is not improbable, however, that “the plain of Dura, in the

province of Babylon,” means simply an extensive open space near one of the

great fortifications (_dûru_) of the city. That all the principal

officials of the kingdom should be expected to come to the dedication of

such an image is exceedingly probable.

[Plate XIV.]

Bas-relief supposed to depict the triple wall of Babylon, with a portion

of the palace within. In the original, water flows at the base of the

lowest wall. The above is the upper part of slab No. 89 in the Assyrian

Saloon of the British Museum, and apparently illustrates Assur-bani-âpli’s

campaign against his brother, Samas-sum-ukin (Saosduchinos), King of

Babylon (cf. p. 391). (Two at least of the walls of Babylon were _much

older_ than the time of Nebuchadnezzar.)

The portion of Daniel referring to Nebuchadnezzar which receives the best

illustration from the inscriptions is that referred to after the relation

of his second dream, where he is represented as walking in or upon his

palace, and one may imagine that he had gone up to enjoy the view of the

city, and whilst doing so, with almost justifiable pride the words, “Is

not this great Babylon, which I have built for the royal dwelling-place,

by the might of my power and the glory of my majesty?” escaped him. From

his inscriptions (and they are fairly numerous) we learn, with regard to

Babylon, that it owed most of its glories as they then existed to this,

the greatest of its kings. That the king did not always distinguish

between what he built and what he rebuilt—indeed, none of his predecessors

seem to have done so either, a circumstance probably due to the poverty of

the Akkadian and Semitic Babylonian languages in that respect—would

explain the words attributed to him.

According to the great India-House inscription, which was carved by order

of Nebuchadnezzar, Nabopolassar had built (= rebuilt) the two great walls

of Babylon, called Imgur-Bêl and Nemitti-Bêl. He had dug the great

city-moat, and raised two strong walls on its banks, similar, in all

probability, to what other kings had done before him. To all appearance

also he lined the banks of the Euphrates with embankments (probably the

quays of which Herodotus speaks), and constructed, within the city, a road

leading from Du-azaga, “the holy seat,” where the oracles were declared,

to Aa-ibur-sabû, Babylon’s “festival-street,” close to the gate of Beltis,

for the yearly procession of the god Merodach.

[Plate XV.]

Bas-relief, supposed to represent the Hanging Gardens at Babylon, about

645 B.C. On the slope is a temple, a stele with the figure of a king, and

an altar on the path in front. On the right pointed arches support a

terrace planted with trees. Streams water the sides of the wooded hill.

British Museum, Assyrian Saloon, No. 92 (upper part). The above, with

Plate XIV., apparently illustrate Assur-bani-âpli’s campaign against his

brother Samas-sum-ukin (cf. page 391).

All these erections Nebuchadnezzar completed or altered and improved. He

added to the defences which his father had built, and raised the level of

the street Aa-ibur-sabû from the “glorious gate” to the gate of Istar. The

raising of the “festival-street” necessitated the raising of the gateways

through which it ran. Gates were made of cedar covered with copper,

probably after the style of the great gate found by Mr. Rassam at Balawat

in Assyria, which was adorned with bands of bronze chased with scenes of

Shalmaneser II.’s warlike exploits in relief. In all probability there

were but few gates in Babylon of solid metal, notwithstanding that there

is no mention in Herodotus of their having been constructed merely of wood

covered with ornamented strips of bronze. The thresholds of these gates

were of bronze, probably similar to that of which a part was found by Mr.

Rassam at Borsippa (evidently the doorstep of one of the entrances to the

temple called Ê-zida), and which may now be seen at the British Museum.

These and other portals at Babylon were guarded by images of bulls and

serpents, also of bronze. In addition to this, Nebuchadnezzar built a wall

on the east side of the city, high like a mountain, so that no enemy could

approach. Access to the city was gained by gates, the doors of which were

likewise of cedar ornamented with bronze. For further protection, he

“caused great waters like the volume of the sea to surround the land,” and

to cross them was “like the crossing of the broad sea, the Salt Stream”

(the Persian Gulf). He then rebuilt the palace of his father, its walls

having been undermined by the waters of the Euphrates, which ran near.

Advantage of the changes made in this building was taken to raise the

gateways, which had become too low in consequence of the raising of the

festival-street of Merodach. In addition to this, he built another palace,

adjoining that of his father, decorating it with cedar, cypress, and other

precious woods; gold, silver, and precious stones; and adorning it with

sculptures and with gates overlaid with bronze. According to the

India-House inscription of Nebuchadnezzar, the fabric of this building was

completed in fifteen days, a fact so remarkable that it is specially

mentioned by Berosus (see Josephus, _Antiquities_, x., xi. 1), whose word

may be taken as proving the translation of the passage in question.

Besides restoring the temples of the cities, or at least the principal

ones, he restored all the chief temples of Babylonia, notably that at

Sippar, the chief centre of the Sun-god worship, and the great

temple-tower dedicated to Nebo at Borsippa. This last, indeed, was one of

the works upon which he prided himself most, as is proved by the fact that

it is mentioned in all his inscriptions, including those on his bricks,

along with the temple known as Ê-sagila (later pronounced Ê-sangil), the

“temple of Belus,” which he calls “the tower of Babylon,” the principal

shrine of which seems to have been called “the House of the Foundation of

Heaven and Earth,” indicating clearly the estimation in which the

Babylonians held it (see p. 138). It was there that the god Merodach, the

principal deity of the Babylonians, and the founder of the temple in

question, was worshipped.

But one might go on for a long time describing what Nebuchadnezzar did for

the city which, more than any other, he loved, and to which he brought the

spoils of his many expeditions. There is no doubt that this, the last

great king of Babylon, was a most successful ruler, of whom his people

were proud. He was pious, and an intense lover of his country—two

characteristics which endeared him, the one to the priesthood, the other

to the people at large. Could we but find the real history of his reign,

it would undoubtedly prove to be full of interest, and also of enormous

importance, not only on account of the light that it would throw upon

Jewish history during his period, but also on account of its bearing upon

a most important epoch in the life of the Babylonian nation.

It is noteworthy that, in Herodotus, many of the great architectural works

of his reign are attributed to Nitocris, who, he states, was the mother of

Labynetus (Book I. 185-188). Now, who this Labynetus was, is clear from

the statement that it was he against whom Cyrus marched—namely the

Nabonidus of other Greek historians, and the Nabû-na’id of the

inscriptions. Nitocris would therefore seem to have been the name of the

queen of Nebuchadnezzar, and if so, it shows upon what grounds Nabonidus

claimed the throne, and how Belshazzar, in the Book of Daniel, could be

described as the son or descendant of Nebuchadnezzar. But in this case

Nitocris must have been another wife of Nebuchadnezzar, and not the Median

princess whom he had married when young. If she supplanted Amytis,

Nebuchadnezzar’s Median wife, in the affections of her husband, it is easy

to see how she could have feared a Median invasion, as indicated by

Herodotus.

Nebuchadnezzar died in the year 561 B.C., leaving his crown to

Awēl-Maruduk, the Evil-Merodach of 2 Kings xxv. 27, and the

Abilamarōdachos of Josephus, who, however, also gives, in his book against

Apion (i. 20), the genuine Babylonian form as transcribed by Berosus,

namely, Eueilmaradouchos. Two other sons of Nebuchadnezzar are also

mentioned in the contract-tablets of his reign, namely, Marduk-šum-uṣur

(in his fortieth year) and Marduk-nadin-âḫi (forty-first year). (See pp.

434, 435.)

The substitution of the mild rule of Evil-Merodach for the vigorous

government of his father must have been witnessed by the Babylonians with

considerable misgiving, for in the East, especially at that period, the

successful ruler was he who was the most energetic. There is every reason

to believe, however, that the character of Evil-Merodach was that of a man

in every way kind and considerate, as is shown by the fact, that he

released Jehoiachin (whom Nebuchadnezzar had taken prisoner), spoke kindly

to him, and set his throne above those of the other vassal kings in

Babylon. The only thing, according to Josephus, recorded about him by

Berosus was, that “he governed public affairs lawlessly and

extravagantly”—words which imply that he displeased the priestly class, of

which Berosus was one. His name appears in certain contracts (published by

Mr. Evetts) as ruler of Babylonia for about two years, from the 26th of

Elul of his accession year to the 4th day of Ab of his second year—about

two years and five months in all. According to Berosus, he was slain by

his sister’s husband, Nēriglissöoros, the Nergal-šar-uṣur of the

inscriptions, who then ascended the throne.

The name is the same as that given as Nergal-sharezer in Jer. xxxix. 3,

13, one of the princes of the Babylonians who was present at the taking of

Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and who at that time bore the title of

Rab-mag, which is to all appearance the Rab-mugi of the Assyro-Babylonian

inscriptions. It is thought by many, and is not by any means improbable,

that the Nergal-sharezer of the passage referred to and the

Nergal-šar-uṣur of Babylonian history are one and the same, though there

is no evidence that the latter ever bore the title of Rab-mag.

It was in the year 559 B.C. that Evil-Merodach was murdered, and

Neriglissar at once seized the throne of his brother-in-law. Berosus (as

quoted by Josephus) gives no details as to his reign. In his inscriptions

he states that he was (like Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar before him)

patron of Ê-sagila and Ê-zida, the temple of Belus at Babylon and that of

Nebo at Borsippa, and that the great gods had established his dominion.

After speaking of the god Nebo, he makes a reference to Ura, the god of

death, which, under the circumstances, one can hardly regard as otherwise

than significant—

“Nebo, the faithful son, a just sceptre has caused his hands to

hold.

To keep the people, preserve the country,

Ura, prince of the gods, gave him his weapon.”

He then mentions his father, Bêl-šum-iškun, whom he calls “king of

Babylon,” and describes the restoration and decoration of Ê-zida and

Ê-sagila, together with the palace which he built for himself at Babylon,

and other architectural work.

But to describe his father as “king of Babylon” was a statement somewhat

removed from the truth. In the contract-tablets of the time of

Nebuchadnezzar and Evil-Merodach, where the name of Neriglissar occurs

somewhat frequently as a purchaser of houses, land, etc., he is called

simply “son of Bêl-šum-iškun,” without any other title whatever (see p.

438). But perhaps Neriglissar’s statement is due to some historical event

of which we are ignorant.

Neriglissar died in the month Nisan or Iyyar of the fourth year of his

reign, and was succeeded by his son Labāši-Marduk, the Labarosoarchod of

the Greek writers. According to Berosus (Josephus against Apion, i. 20),

he was no more than a child, and it may be supposed that he was a younger

son of Neriglissar, though concerning this we have no information. He only

reigned nine months, a plot having been laid against him by his friends,

and he was tormented to death, “by reason of the very ill-temper and ill

practices he exhibited to the world” (Berosus). After his death, according

to the same historian, the conspirators met, and elected one of their

number, Nabonnedus (Nabuna’id), as king. “In his reign it was that the

walls of the city of Babylon were curiously built with burnt brick and

bitumen,” is all that Berosus has to say with regard to the sixteen years

of his reign which preceded his overthrow.

Many inscriptions of the reign of this king exist, and we are able to gain

from them an excellent idea of the state of the country and the historical

events of this important period. All that Nabonidus tells us concerning

his origin is, that he was the son or descendant of Nabû-balaṭ-su-iqbî,

whom he calls _rubû êmqu_, “the deeply-wise prince.” Who he may have been

is not known, but there exist two tablets of the nature of letters written

by a certain Nabû-balaṭ-su-iqbî to Aššur-banî-âpli, whose faithful servant

he professed to be, protesting against the treatment which he had received

at the hands of certain men who were hostile to him. If both these letters

were written by the same person, they must belong to about the year 652

B.C. (the eponymy of Aššur-naṣir, which is mentioned in one of them). As

that was about one hundred years before Nabonidus came to the throne, this

personage, if related to him, must have been his grandfather or

great-grandfather. Other persons of the same name are mentioned in the

fifth, eleventh, eighteenth, and thirty-fourth years of Nebuchadnezzar,

but it seems very unlikely that the father of Nabonidus should be one of

these.

According to the Babylonian Chronicle, Nabonidus was at the beginning of

his reign engaged in the west, to all appearance cutting down, among other

things, trees on Mount Amanus for building purposes at Babylon. Something

also took place by the Mediterranean (_tâmtim ša mât Amurrî_, “the sea of

the land of Amoria”). Apparently he had also troops in this district, and

sacrifices were performed there.

After this there is a gap until the sixth year of his reign, the entry for

which, however, refers wholly to Astyages’ operations against Cyrus, and

its disastrous results, for he was made prisoner, Ecbatana sacked, and the

spoil brought to Anšan, Cyrus’s capital.

Previous to this, as Nabonidus informs us in his cylinder-inscription

found by Mr. Rassam at Abu-habbah (Sippar), the Medes had been very

successful in their warlike operations, and had even besieged Haran,

making it impossible for Nabonidus to carry out the instructions of his

god Merodach, revealed to him in a dream, to restore the temple of Sin in

that city. On the king of Babylon reminding the deity of the state of

things in that part, and speaking of the strength of the Median forces, he

was told that in three years’ time their power would be destroyed, which

happened as predicted. He now caused his “vast army” to come from Gaza and

elsewhere to do the needful work, and when completed, the image of the god

Sin was brought from Babylon, and placed in the restored shrine with joy

and shouting. Naturally the Babylonian king was overjoyed at the release

of Haran from the power of the Medes—could he have foreseen that Cyrus,

their conqueror, would one day hurl him from his throne, his enthusiasm

concerning the success of “the young servant of Merodach” (as he calls

him) would have been greatly abated.

In his seventh and eighth years the king was in Temâ, and the crown prince

(apparently Belshazzar is meant), with the great men and the army, was in

Akkad (the northern part of Babylonia, of which the city of Agad or Agadé

was the capital). The king did not go to Babylon, Nebo did not go to

Babylon, Bel did not go forth, the festival _akitu_ (new year’s festival)

was not performed, though the victims seem to have been offered in

Ê-sagila and Ê-zida as usual, and (the king) appointed a priest

(_uru-gala_) of the weapon (?) and the temple. In the ninth year also the

same state of things existed, and this year the mother of the king died,

to the great grief of the people. It is also recorded for this year that

Cyrus, apparently in the course of one of his military expeditions,

crossed the Tigris above Arbela.

From the fact that the religious processions and ceremonies are given as

being unperformed every year from the seventh to the eleventh of his

reign, it is clear that a great deal of discontent was caused thereby, as

is, in fact, indicated by the cylinder-inscription of Cyrus detailing

under what conditions he himself entered Babylon. It was evidently one of

the duties of the Babylonian kings (and, as we have seen, the Assyrian

kings conformed to this when they became kings of Babylonia) to perform

the usual ceremonies, and the ruler neglecting this was certain to fall

into disfavour with the priesthood, and, by their influence, with the

people as well.

Whatever may have been the sins of omission of Nabonidus—whether they were

trivial or otherwise—there is no doubt that they made a bad impression on

the people, and gave rise to all kinds of statements against him when the

days of misfortune came. For the scribe who drew up Cyrus’s record after

the taking of Babylon, all Nabonidus’s doings with regard to the temples

and statues of the gods were to be quoted against him. The temple dues had

been allowed to fail, and the gods quitted their shrines, angry at the

thought that Nabonidus had brought foreign gods to Šu-anna (a part of

Babylon). With regard to this last accusation, it may be remarked that a

popular ruler would in all probability have been praised for bringing the

gods of other places to Babylon—it would have been either a tribute to the

power of Babylonia in war (a power conferred upon her, in their opinion,

by her gods); or else the payment of homage by the gods of other cities to

those of Babylon, acknowledging at the same time their (and her)

supremacy.

The fact is, Nabonidus was either the most intelligent, or one of the most

intelligent, men in Babylonia. To all appearance he was not a ruler, but a

learned man, full of love for his country and its institutions, and

desirous of knowledge, which he obtained at all costs. Whenever he had to

restore a temple, he at once excavated in its foundations for the records

of early kings which he knew to be there, and he was often successful in

finding what he wanted. As he always recorded what he found, his

cylinder-inscriptions nearly always possess a value far beyond those of

other kings of Babylon. He seems to have delighted in what he saw when

engaged in this work—he not only tells you that he read the texts thus

discovered, but he refers to their perfect condition, and nearly always

says something about the ruler who caused them to be placed in the

foundations. He, too, is worthy of a statue in every place where the

language of his native land is studied.

Naturally, his antiquarian researches, necessitating, as they did, the

destruction of a part of the fabric of the temple under repair at the

time, were not looked upon altogether with favour by the priests and the

people, hence the dissatisfaction to which the scribes, who were probably

of the priestly caste, afterwards gave vent. Besides this, was it not

necessary that they should justify themselves for accepting a foreign

ruler, of a different religion from their own?

Nabonidus gives no hint in his inscriptions that he was aware of any

dissatisfaction at what he was doing. In all probability he was as

religious as any of his predecessors had been, and his son Belshazzar was

as the second ruler in the kingdom. Records exist showing that Belshazzar

sent offerings to the temple at Sippar whilst he was in that

neighbourhood, and the king’s own offerings are sometimes mentioned with

them. The king had therefore a good deputy performing his work. With

regard to the bringing of foreign gods to Šu-anna, Cyrus’s scribe probably

refers to the deities of Haran, which were taken thither before the siege

of the place by the Medes. When the enemy had departed, Nabonidus restored

the temple in that city, and replaced the deities referred to in their

shrines. The transport of the idols may have been merely to place them for

the time being in a place of greater security.

There is, then, every probability that Belshazzar, son of Nabonidus, was

the real ruler. What an excellent understanding existed between him and

his father may be gained from the inscription which Nabonidus caused to be

composed to place in the foundations of the temple of the Moon (the god

Sin) at Ur (identified with Ur of the Chaldees), the concluding lines of

which run as follows—

“As for me, Nabonidus, king of Babylon,

from sin against thy great divinity

save me, and

a life of remote days

give as a gift;

and as for Belshazzar, the eldest son,

the offspring of my heart, the fear of thy great

divinity cause thou to exist in his heart, and

let not sin possess him, let him be satisfied with fulness of

life.”

The text being undated, there is no means of ascertaining in what year the

restoration of the temple of the Moon at Ur took place.

The story of the downfall of the Babylonian empire and the end of native

rule in Babylonia is told by the Babylonian Chronicle as follows—

“(Year 17th), Nebo to go forth (?) from Borsippa ... the king entered the

temple E-tur-kalama. In the month (?) ... and the lower sea, revolted ...

went (?). Bêl went forth, the festival Akitu (new year’s festival) they

held as usual (?). In the month ... the gods (?) of Marad, Zagaga and the

gods of the city of Kiš, Beltis and the gods of Ḫursag-kalama, entered

Babylon. At the end of the month Elul the gods of the land of Akkad who

were above the atmosphere and below the atmosphere entered Babylon, the

gods of Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippar did not enter. In the month Tammuz

Cyrus made battle at Opis on the Tigris among the soldiers of Akkad. The

people of Akkad raised a revolt; people were killed; Sippar was taken on

the 14th day without fighting. Nabonidus fled. On the 16th day Ugbaru

(Gobryas), governor of the land of Gutium, and the soldiers of Cyrus

entered Babylon without fighting—after Nabonidus they pursued (?), he was

captured in Babylon. At the end of the month the regiment (?) of the land

of Gutium surrounded (?) the gates of Ê-sagila (the temple of Belus). A

celebration (?) of anything, in Ê-sagila and the shrines, was not being

made, and a (lunar ?) festival was not proceeding. Marcheswan, the third

day, Cyrus descended to Babylon; they filled the roads before him. Peace

was established to the city—Cyrus promised peace to Babylon, all of it.

Gubaru (Gobryas), his governor, appointed governors in Babylonia, and from

the month Kisleu to the month Adar the gods of the land of Akkad, whom

Nabonidus had sent down to Babylon, returned to their places. The month

Marcheswan, the night of the 11th day, Ugbaru (Gobryas) (went?) against

... and the son (?) of the king died. From the 27th of the month Adar to

the third of the month Nisan, there was weeping in Akkad, all the people

bowed down their heads. On the 4th day Cambyses, son of Cyrus, went to

Ê-nig-ḫad-kalama-šummu (‘the house where the sceptre of the world is

given,’ the temple of Nebo). The man of the temple of the sceptre of

Nebo....”

(The remainder is mutilated, and the sense not clear—to all appearance it

refers to religious ceremonies and sacrifices in which Cambyses took

part.)

Here, again, the suggestion seems to be, that because the king thought fit

to send the statues of the various gods of the land to other cities than

their own “on a visit,” as it were, the priesthood was justified in

renouncing allegiance to him (and in this the people naturally followed

them), and in delivering the kingdom to a foreigner. It has been said that

the success of Cyrus was in part due to the aid given to him by the Jews,

who, sympathizing with him on account of his monotheism, helped him in

various ways; but in all probability he could never have achieved success

had not the Babylonian priests (as indicated by their own records) spread

discontent among the people.

More important, however, are the details of the conquest by Cyrus. He must

have entered Babylonia on the north-east, and met the Babylonian army at

Opis. That the conflict went against the Babylonians may be taken for

granted, though it is not stated. Apparently the country was divided into

two parties—those for resistance, and those who were probably discontented

on account of the king’s reputed unorthodoxy. A conflict between these

took place, and there was bloodshed, the result being that no resistance

could be offered to the army of Cyrus, who entered Sippar, the seat of the

worship of the Sun-god, without fighting. To all appearance Nabonidus was

at his post, but recognizing that all was lost, fled. Two days later

Gobryas (not Cyrus, be it observed) entered Babylon with the army of Cyrus

without fighting, and apparently captured Nabonidus there. This took place

about the end of June, and it was October before Cyrus entered the city.

Judging from the text, he was well received, and the result of the

conference between him and Gobryas was, that the latter “appointed

governors in Babylon,” or “in Babylonia,” as the words may be also read.

Another stroke of policy was the return to their habitations of the images

of the gods which Nabonidus had transferred to other places, thus

appeasing the priests.

At this point come some very important and difficult phrases. On the night

of the 11th of Marcheswan, Gobryas descended (or went) upon or against

something, and the king, or the son of the king, died. The combination of

these two statements, taken in connection with the record in Daniel v. 30,

suggests that the latter reading is the correct one, though the first,

which would make it to mean that the king was slain, is not excluded, and

would make very little difference in the record, it being possible that

Belshazzar, as the successor of Nabonidus, might be meant. An earlier

explanation was, that the doubtful group stood for “the wife” of the king,

but in this case it would be difficult to explain how it is that the

verbal form (which is ideographically written, and may be read either

_imât_, “he dies,” _tamât_, “she dies,” or _mêtat_, “she died”) should

differ from that used in the case of the king’s mother, where _imtût_, the

historical tense of the secondary form of the kal, is the form used. The

use of _imât_ for _imût_, “he died,” would be paralleled by the use of

_irab_ or _irub_, “he entered,” in other parts of the inscription.

Naturally, in a case of doubt, the seeker after truth in the matter of

Babylonian history consults the record of the Babylonian historian

Berosus. In the case of the taking of Babylon, however, there are such

noteworthy differences, that one may well be excused for doubting his

statements, notwithstanding his trustworthiness in other matters. He says

that when Nabonnedus saw that Cyrus was coming to attack him, he met him

with his forces, was beaten, and fled with a few of his troops to

Borsippa. Cyrus then took Babylon, and gave order that the outer walls

should be demolished, the city having proved very troublesome to him, and

cost him much pains to capture. He then proceeded to besiege Nabonnedus in

Borsippa, but the Babylonian king decided not to attempt to resist, and

yielded. Cyrus therefore treated him kindly, and though he would not allow

him to remain in Babylonia, he gave him Carmania as a place where he might

dwell. “Accordingly Nabonnedus spent the rest of his time in that country,

and there died.”

The Babylonian Chronicle, however, says nothing about Nabonidus having

taken refuge in Borsippa, nor of his being besieged there, nor of his

having submitted at that place. On the contrary, he was taken in Babylon,

which city had been captured without fighting, and there was on that

account no immediate excuse for demolishing the walls, which, as native

records tell us, were dismantled in the time of the Seleucidæ. The fact

is, Berosus did not wish it to be thought that the Babylonians had allowed

their country to pass into the hands of a foreign ruler without

resistance, hence this statement as to the capital holding out. To all

appearance, Berosus is truthful where it is not to his interest to be

otherwise.

The probability is, therefore, that “the son of the king,” Belshazzar,

held out against the Persians in some part of the capital, and kept during

that time a festival on the 11th of Marcheswan, when Gobryas pounced upon

the place, and he, the rightful Chaldean king, was slain, as recorded in

Daniel. In this case, Darius the Mede ought to be “Gobryas of Gutium,”

who, like the former, appointed governors in Babylonia, and “received the

kingdom” for Cyrus. If this be the case, Daniel would seem to have been in

Belshazzar’s power, though his knowledge of what was going on on the

Persian side gave him courage to reject that prince’s favours with scorn.

Officially, Belshazzar is never mentioned as king, though the Jewish

captives must have regarded him as such, and probably spoke of him

humorously as being the true ruler. This alone can account for his being

called “king of the Chaldeans,” and for his appointing Daniel to be the

“_third_ ruler in the kingdom,” as has been already suggested. That he was

also confused with his father is shown by the statement in Josephus, where

he is spoken of (_Antiq._ x. xi. 2) as being called Nabonidus by the

Babylonians (“Baltasaros, who by the Babylonians was called Naboandelos”),

though Josephus’s transcription of the names is as incorrect as a Greek’s.

Cyrus now found himself master of Babylonia, without any pretender to

molest him; and being the acknowledged ruler of the land, he made himself

as popular as he could by protecting the various religions which were to

be found in his new dominions. The Jews are said to have sympathized with

him on account of his being a monotheist, but to the Babylonians he seemed

to be of the same religion as themselves, and his inscriptions show that,

whether with his consent or not, the gods of the Babylonians were spoken

of and invoked on his behalf just as if this were the case, and we know

that he allowed his son to take part in the Babylonian religious

ceremonies.

But to show clearly the way in which Cyrus ruled, a portion of his

cylinder-inscription, found by Mr. Rassam at Babylon, is given here—

(To all appearance Nabonidus had tried to make various religious changes

and reforms, the words “in the likeness of Ê-sagila” suggesting that he

had at least thought of building another temple similar to that venerable

fane.)

“The gods, who dwelt in the midst of them (_i.e._ the temples), forsook

their dwellings in anger that he (Nabonidus) had made (them) enter within

Šu-anna.(121) Marduk in the presence of ... was going round to all the

states whose seat had been founded, and the people of Šumer and Akkad, who

had been like the dead,(122) became active(123) ... he had mercy upon the

whole of the lands—all of them found (and) looked upon him. He sought also

a just king, the desire of his heart, whose hand he might hold, Cyrus,

king of the city Anšan, he called his title, to all the kingdoms together

(his) na(me) was proclaimed.

“The land of Qutû, the whole of the troops of the Manda, he (Merodach)

placed under his feet, he caused his hands to capture the people of the

dark head,(124) in righteousness and justice he cared for them. Merodach,

the great lord, the protector of his people, looked with joy upon his

fortunate work and his just heart. He commanded that he should go to his

city Babylon, he caused him to take the road to Tindir,(125) like a friend

and a companion he walked by his side. His vast people, which, like the

waters of a river, cannot be numbered,(126) had their weapons girded, and

marched by his side. Without fighting and battle he caused him to enter

into Šu-anna. His city Babylon he protected in (its) trouble. Nabonidus,

who did not fear him (_i.e._ Merodach), he delivered into his hand. The

people of Tindir, all of them, the whole of the land of Šumer and Akkad,

princes and high-warden, bowed down beneath him, and kissed his feet—they

rejoiced for his sovereignty, their countenances were bright.

“The lord who, in trust that he (Merodach) gives life to the dead, spared

on every side from destruction and injury. Well did they do him

homage—they held in honour his name. I am Cyrus, king of the host, the

great king, the powerful king, king of Tindir, king of the land of Šumer

and Akkad, king of the four regions, son of Cambyses, the great king, king

of the city of Anšan, grandson of Cyrus, the great king, king of the city

of Anšan, great-grandson of Šišpiš (Teispes), the great king, king of the

city of Anšan, the all-enduring royal seed whose reign Bêl and Nebo love,

for the contenting of their heart they desired his rule.

“When I entered in peace into (the midst) of Babylon, I founded in the

king’s palace a seat of dominion with pleasure and joy. Merodach, the

great lord, broad-hearted for ... the sons ... Tindir and ... me, and

daily I looked upon his image (?). My vast army marches in the midst of

Babylon peacefully, the whole of (the people of Šumer and) Akkad I made to

have no opposition. Within Babylon and all its districts in peace I had

care for the sons of Tindir ... as without heart (?) ... and a yoke (which

was) unseemliness for them was imposed (?). I comforted their sighing, I

did away with their distress. For the work Merodach, the great lord,

established the command—to me, Cyrus, the king his worshipper, and

Cambyses, the son (who is) the offspring of my heart ... all of my army

graciously he approached, and in peace before it kindly did he lead (?).

(By his) supreme (command) the whole of the kings dwelling in the royal

abodes of every region from the upper sea to the lower sea, (those)

dwelling ... the kings of the Amorites(127) (and) the dwellers in tents,

all of them, brought their valuable tribute and kissed my feet within

Šu-anna. From ... -a, the city of Aššur,(128) and Susa, Agadé, the land of

Ešnunak (Umliaš), Zamban, Mê-Turnu, (and) Dûr-îlu to the border of Qutû,

the districts (on the banks) of the Tigris—from old time had their seats

been founded—the gods dwelling within them I returned to their places, and

caused eternal seats to be founded, all their people I collected and

returned to their dwellings. And the gods of Šumer and Akkad, which

Nabonidus, to the anger of the lord of the gods, had caused to enter

within Šu-anna, by the command of Merodach, the great lord, I set in peace

in their shrines—seats of joy of heart. May the whole of the gods whom I

caused to enter into their places pray daily before Bêl and Nebo for the

lengthening of my days, may they announce the commands for my happiness,

and may they say to Merodach that ‘Cyrus, thy worshipper, and Cambyses,

his son, ... (in) the countries (?), all of them, he has founded a seat of

rest’....”

(Here follow the ends of nine more lines, from which, however, no certain

sense can be gained.)

It will be seen, that this interesting and valuable inscription is in

substantial agreement with the Chronicle. The grievance concerning the

transference of the statues of the divinities is repeated and amplified,

and the fact that Cyrus entered Babylon without fighting is confirmed

(against Berosus, Xenophon, and the other Greek authors who describe the

taking of Babylon).

Cyrus, however, here appears before us in quite a new character, namely,

as the champion of Babylonian religious orthodoxy against Nabonidus’s

heterodoxy! That Cyrus was ignorant of the contents of this inscription

(which must have been written by his orders) is in the highest degree

improbable. That he may have been affected by Zoroastrian monotheism is

likely, but if so, it was but a thin varnish, for he was to all appearance

a polytheist at heart, as his Anzanian fathers (who, as we know from

recent discoveries at Susa, were largely influenced by the religion of

Babylonia) had been from the earliest times. He had chosen well the time

of his invasion, as is shown by the revolt (apparently against Nabonidus)

which is referred to in the Chronicle. It is strange how the Babylonians

were in the main ready to accept a new ruler. In the earliest times we

have mention of the Arabic dynasty which the native records call the

dynasty of Babylon; later on came Cassites, Elamites and Assyrians, and

now the country received an Elamite king who ruled over Persia. In the

course of time other aliens would come and rule over them, but their

acceptance of these was much less a matter of choice, or, rather, of

apathetic acquiescence than on the occasion when they accepted Cyrus king

of Anšan.

We see, moreover, from this inscription, that Cyrus did restore the

various exiles to their homes, thus securing as far as possible the

fidelity of those whom he wished to secure as his supporters. Among these

were the Jews, and it is on account of this that his name is so favourably

mentioned in the Old Testament. Cyrus himself says, that he caused all the

gods whose statues had been brought to Babylon to be returned to the

places whence they had come, and it is clear that, as the Jews had no

divine statues, Cyrus did what he could for them, and sent back to

Jerusalem the sacred vessels (Ezra i. 7), and also gave a grant for the

rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra iii. 7). In the decree quoted in Ezra (i. 2

ff.), where he is represented as saying that “the Lord God of heaven” had

given him all the kingdoms of the earth, it is best to see in that, as in

his Babylonian cylinder-inscription, a desire, for policy’s sake, to be

“all things to all men.” His success must have been largely due to the

fact, that he had learned the art of ruling men.

It is to be supposed that he continued as he had begun, and that his rule

was tolerated by the people. According to the contract-tablets, he

associated his son with him on the throne during part of his first year,

Cambyses becoming king of Babylon, whilst Cyrus retained the wider title

of “king of countries.” Probably Gobryas had died, hence this change.

Cyrus died in 529 B.C., and Cambyses took the throne. During his reign the

Babylonians seem to have become discontented, desiring, perhaps, to have a

ruler elected by themselves. Whilst, therefore, Cambyses was absent in

Egypt, which country he conquered in the year 527 B.C., a Median, who was

a Magian named Gomates, taking advantage of the dissatisfaction which

prevailed, gave out that he was Bardes or Smerdis (called by the

Babylonians Barzia), declared himself the son of Cyrus, whom Cambyses had

murdered, and mounted the throne. Media, Persia, and Babylonia at once

went over to him, and Cambyses hastened from Egypt to meet the pretender.

Whilst in Syria, on the way home, he killed himself (521), perhaps by

accident, though it is not impossible that it was a case of suicide, and

the pretender retained for a very short period possession of the throne.

Another prince of the same family, Darius son of Hystaspes, now came

forward, and after defeating Bardes and a number of other pretenders,

among them Nidintu-Bêl, son of Aniru, who claimed to be Nebuchadnezzar the

son of Nabonidus, mounted the throne. In fact, almost every province of

the Persian empire had a pretender of its own, so that Darius found plenty

of work ready to his hand. One by one, however, they were defeated, and

“the lie” was put down in all the countries acknowledging Persian

rule—Darius was sole and undisputed king.

It is unfortunate that no historical records referring to the reigns of

Cyrus and Cambyses exist, except the Chronicle, which, however, ends with

the accession year of the former. We have, therefore, no independent

records of what took place in Syria, though it must be confessed, that

there is great doubt whether the composer of the Chronicle at the time

would have considered the return of the Jews and the rebuilding of the

Temple as of sufficient importance to place on record there. The Bible and

Josephus give circumstantial accounts of what occurred, but the official

view of the circumstances of the granting of the permission to rebuild the

Temple and the city by Cyrus, and its countermanding, at the instance of

the Samaritans, during the reign of Cambyses, would be interesting in the

extreme.

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 Assyrian origin. Another,

the descendant of a smith, was the father of a man named Nabû-âḫê-bulliṭ,

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 Mutêriṣu. 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 shines at every point, as it were, his adoration of the

god whom he worshipped, 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 gods. 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 gods (Bab. _bêtê ša

îlāni_, Median _ziyan nappana_, “temples of the gods,” Pers. _āyadāna_,

“shrines”) which Gomates the Magian, the pseudo-Bardes or Smerdis, had

destroyed. That a single word (_āyadāna_) is used in Persian, whilst the

phrase “temples of the gods,” 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 god whom he worshipped, 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 Archæology_, 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, Assyria, 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 Ḫiši’arši or Ḫiši’arša’i in Babylonian,

and Khshayarsha in Old Persian. In the contract-tablets, however, it

appears as Aḫšiaršu, Aḫšiwaršu, Akšiaršu, Akkašiaršu, and Ḫišiarši. It is

from one of the forms with prefixed _a_ that the Hebrew Aḫashwērôs (A.V.

Ahasuerus) has apparently come, the most probable original being one

similar to the Aḫšuwaršu 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 Artakšatsu or

Artakšassu 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 God 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 Sogdianus, a bastard 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 bastard 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 Gigîtum to the

director of Ê-zida—Prince Laborosoarchod—Nabonidus and the temples

at Sippar—Prince Belshazzar’s transactions—His offerings at

Sippar—His sister’s gift to her god (or goddess)—Princess

Ukabu’sama’s transaction—The Jews at Babylon—Babylonian business

and other letters—Širku’s slave—A loan at Erech—Work upon a

plantation—Sale of an ass—Jews and Babylonians—The dead slave—A

right of way—The story of Abil-Addu-nathānu and Bunanitum—The

outcast slave—The Egyptian slave and her infant—Širku’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 Nabopolassar 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 documents, the information which many of them give

is comparatively meagre, and there is a great deal of repetition. That

some of them, notwithstanding these disadvantages, are sufficiently

interesting, will be seen from the examples which this chapter contains.

Among all these documents 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 apprenticeship 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 ships, divisions of property, inventories

of the same, receipts of different kinds, etc. etc.

For the most part, the people who pass 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 classes (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

document, 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 document. 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-êši-êṭir, son of Nadin,

the king’s agent. The king’s silver, which was given for gold (? = as

capital) to Ina-êši-êṭir, (is) due from Nabû-êṭir, son of Šulâ, 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-êši-êṭir

receives the king’s silver. Witnesses: Nadin, son of Marduk, descendant of

Irani; Nergal-iddina, son of Nabû-kaṣir, descendant of Êpeš-îli; and the

scribe, Ana-Bêl-upâqu, son of Bêl-šum-iškun, descendant of the

mead-dealer. Babylon, month Tammuz, day 28th, year 21st,

Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, king of Babylon.”

Though security is referred to, there is no mention of interest, but

Ina-êši-êṭir 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 _naš-paṭrūtu_ to Nabû-balaṭ-su-iqbî. His

duty was to perform the king’s sacrifices every year before the goddess

Išḫara, “dwelling in Ê-ša-turra, which is within Šu-anna,” and before

Pap-sukal, of “the temple Ê-kidur-kani, the house of the Lady of heaven,

of the bank of the water-channel of _âlu-eššu_ (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 class: “Whoever the words and

this gift changes, as much as has been conferred (?) on

Nabû-balaṭ-su-iqbî, may Merodach, Zēr-panitum, Išḫara, and Pap-sukal

bespeak his destruction; may Nebo, the scribe of Ê-sagila, shorten his

long days. The spirit of Marduk, Zēr-panitum, (and) his gods, and

Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, 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 goddess of Sippar, Aa,

the consort of the Sun-god, and another object of gold to the god 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 ass, tithe which Nabû-šarra-uṣur, the king’s captain, has given to

the temple Ê-babbara. Month Iyyar, day 20 less 1, year 42nd,

Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, king of Babylon.”

To all appearance, Nabû-šarra-uṣur was a man sufficiently well off, if, as

may well be supposed, he possessed nine other asses besides the one which

he was giving as tithe. 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—

“..., tithe of (Marduk)-šum-uṣur, the son of the king, Zubuduru, messenger

of Marduk-šum-uṣur, the son of the king, has given to Ê-babbara. The sheep

(is) in the cattle-house in the care of Šamaš-êreš. Month Adar, day 17th,

year 40th, (Nabû-kud)urri-uṣur, (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 tithe in

silver paid by the same prince—

“1/3 and 5 shekels (= 25 shekels) of silver (is) the tithe which

Marduk-šum-uṣur, son of the king, has given by the hands of Šamaš-kain-âḫi

and Aqabi-îlu to Ê-babbara. Month Iyyar, day 14th, year 42nd,

Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, king of Babylon.”

Another inscription, dated in the forty-first year of Nebuchadnezzar,

refers to another son, named Marduk-nadin-aḫi, whose servant,

Sin-mâr-šarri-uṣur, had paid half a mana for fruit (dates). The name of

the servant, which means “Moon-god, 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 document 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 document

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 document depends, in part, as will

easily be recognized, upon the trustworthiness of a statement which the

incorrect copyist has read into it.

Both these documents 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’îlu, son of Nabû-zēr-iddina, and Ḫulîti, his wife (the divine

Ḫulîtum!(129)) have sold Marduka (Mordecai), their son, for the price

agreed upon, to Šulâ, son of Zēr-ukîn. The liability to defeasor (?) and

pre-emptor (?), which is upon Marduka, Adi’îlu and Akkadu respond for.”

“Witnesses: Nabû-na’id (Nabonidus), who is over the city(130); Agar’u;

Mušêzib-Bêl, son of Marduka(131); Zērîa, son of Bâbîlâa; Ukîn-zēra, son of

Yadi’-îlu(132); Rêmut, son of Marduka; and the scribe Nabû-zēr-ikîša, son

of Marduk- ... Ḫuṣṣiti-ša-Mušallim-Marduk, month Sebat, day 16th, year

8th, Nabû-kudurrî-uṣur, 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 pronounce judgment against them without knowing more, so as

to be able to take into consideration the circumstances in which the thing

was done. Though the document 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, Ḫulîtum, with the prefix for divinity, shows that he

regarded her as being with the gods—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 title “he who is over the city,” was the son of

Nabû-balaṭ-su-iqbî, 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 _ša muḫḫi âli_,

instead of _ša êli âli_ (both phrases have the same meaning), that he

regarded _ša_ as _a_, that he thought _muḫ-ḫi_ 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 identity with him is

doubtful. That the person here referred to was a man of some consequence

is indicated by his title, “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 Bêl-šum-iškun.”

Another figure which appears at this time is that same Neriglissar who was

to play so important a part in the affairs of Babylonia at a later date.

In the case of this prince (unlike the Nabonidus of the inscription

translated above) we are not tormented by any doubts whatever. It is

really and truly Neriglissar, and none other. He first appears in

Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty-fourth year, in the following legal document—

“100 sheep of Kili(gug?), servant of Nergal-šarra-uṣur, concerning which

Abî-nadib, son of Ya-ḫata, said to Nergal-šarra-uṣur, son of

Bêl-šum-iškun, thus—

“ ‘Nabû-ṣabit-qâtâ, servant of Nergal-šarra-uṣur, brought them by my

hand.’

“If Abî-nadib (and) Nabû-ṣabit-qâtâ prove (this), Abî-nadib is free; if he

prove it (not), Abî-nadib will give to Nergal-šarra-uṣur 100 sheep, (with)

wool (?) and young (?).

“Witnesses: Ṣilli-Bêl, son of Abî-yadiša; Kabtia, son of Marduk-zēr-ibnî,

descendant of the potter; Nabû-naṣir, son of Zillâ; and the scribe,

(Nabû)-âḫê-iddina, son of Šulâ, descendant of Êgibi. Takrētain (?), month

Elul, day 2nd, year 34th, Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, king of Babylon.”

Neriglissar must therefore have been an extensive cattle-owner, and had

many servants, some of whom at least must have been men of substance, like

Abî-nadib, who engages to restore to his master the 100 sheep, if it could

be proved that they had been lost by his fault. Judging from the name,

Abî-nadib (= Abinadab) must have come from the west, his Biblical

namesakes being Israelites. Nabû-ṣabit-qâtâ elsewhere appears as the

major-domo of the crown prince (? Laborosoarchod = Labâši-Marduk) during

the reign of Neriglissar, and of Belshazzar during the reign of his father

Nabonidus. The reader will meet his name again in the translations which

follow.

A similar transaction to the above is one in which two servants of

Neriglissar were concerned, but in which the prince himself seems not to

have been directly interested. It is as follows—

“(At the end?) of the month Sivan, Šarru-îlûa, servant of

Nergal-šarra-uṣur, will bring his witness and will prove to Ḫatānu,

servant of Nergal-šarra-uṣur, that Šarru-îlūa gave to Ḫatānu the iron

_raqundu_. If he prove it, Ḫatānu will give to Šarru-îlūa a _raqundu_.

“Witnesses: Mušêzib-Bêl, son of Nabû-iltama’, and the scribe,

Nabû-âḫê-iddina, descendant of Êgibi. Upia (Opis), month Nisan, day 29th,

(year ...)th, Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, king of Babylon.”

During the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, the “chief of the house” or major-domo

of Neriglissar was Bêl-êṭiranni, who is mentioned as having borrowed

money, whether on his own or his master’s behalf is not known. This took

place in the forty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar. The following is an order

for the delivery of goods to the prince—

“Cause ... iron implements (and) 80 _kudutum_ to be taken to

Nergal-šarra-uṣur by the hands of Nabû-šum-iddina, secretary of

Nergal-šarra-uṣur. Month Iyyar, day 12th, year 43rd, Nabû-kudurri-uṣur,

king of Babylon.”

To all appearance prince Neriglissar was a very busy man, who sought to

add to his worldly goods by every means in his power, and did not disdain

to engage in trade in the attainment of wealth. What he had apparently

begun in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, he continued in the time of

Evil-Merodach, during whose reign there are several inscriptions referring

to his transactions with regard to houses. In the first of these

inscriptions he hires a house for 11 mana of silver from Nabû-âbla-iddina,

by his agent, Nabû-kain-âbli (first year of Evil-Merodach, month and day

lost).

In another contract he acquires 4 canes, 1 cubit, 8 fingers (of land) from

Marduk-šakin-šumi, and 2 canes, 6-2/3 cubits from Kurbanni-Marduk, for a

total of 4 mana 19 shekels of silver. (Babylon, month Tebet, day 9th, 1st

year of Evil-Merodach.)

In the third contract it would seem that the property in land of

Nabû-âbla-iddina had been given over to his creditors, of whom

Nabû-banî-âḫi was one, the amount due to him being, in all, 53 shekels of

silver, due to him from Nabû-âbla-iddina in the name of a third party. By

the authority of Neriglissar it would seem that 42-1/3 shekels of silver

were paid to Nabû-banî-âḫi, who then gave to Neriglissar a contract for 53

shekels of silver, promising, at the same time, to speak to the king’s

scribes, and draw up and deliver to Neriglissar a _sealed_ document. If he

did not do this, he was to be liable for the silver and its interest.

By advancing the money to this creditor, Neriglissar became himself a

creditor of the estate of Nabû-âbla-iddina (15th of Adar, 1st year of

Evil-Merodach), and it seems to have been his intention to get the whole

of the land and the houses thereon into his own hands. He therefore

acquired further interest in the property a few weeks later (26th of

Nisan, 2nd year of Evil-Merodach), and again after a further interval of

three months (14th of Tammuz, 2nd year of Evil-Merodach). To all

appearance, the amounts advanced by Neriglissar to the creditors of the

estate were less than the sums due to them from Nabû-âbla-iddina on

account of their claims. He seems, however, to have got them to give him

receipts in full, and they had to promise to deliver sealed documents. He

must have made a considerable profit out of this species of

bill-discounting.

The last tablet referring to the estate of Nabû-âbla-iddina is dated in

the accession year of Neriglissar’s own reign (9th of the 2nd Adar), and

in this Nabû-âḫê-iddina secures an interest by paying 26-¼ shekels of

silver on account of a sum of 52-½ shekels—just half. The land is stated

to have been “sold for silver for a palace,” and the money was paid by the

intermediary of Nabû-âḫê-iddina, Neriglissar’s representative in such

matters before he ascended the throne. The following is a translation of

this interesting document—

“52-½ shekels of silver due to Ikîšâ, son of Gilûa, descendant of

Sin-šadûnu, which is upon (_i.e._ due from) Nabû-âbla-iddina, son of

Balaṭu, descendant of the butler (?), in (part payment) of the price of

the house of Nabû-âbla-iddina, which has been sold for silver for the

palace. In agreement with the creditors, Ikîša, son of Gilûa, descendant

of Sin-šadûnu, has received 26-¼ shekels of silver from the hands of

Nabû-âḫê-iddina, son of Šulâ, descendant of Êgibi, and has given the

contract for 52-½ shekels of silver, which is upon (_i.e._ due from)

Nabû-âbla-iddina, to Nabû-âḫê-iddina.

“Witnesses: Dâanu-šum-iddina, son of Zēru-Bâbîli, descendant of the

dagger-bearer; Nabû-nadin-šumi, son of Ablâ, descendant of Sin-nadin-šumi;

Bêl-šunu, son of Uššâa, descendant of Âḫi-banî;

“and the scribe, Nabû-balaṭ-su-iqbî, son of Ikîšâ, descendant of

Sin-šadûnu. Babylon, month of the later Adar, day 9th, year of the

beginning of dominion of Nergal-šarra-uṣur, king of Babylon.”

But Neriglissar was now king, and had no need and but little desire to

appear before his subjects as a purchaser of houses, or as a trader in any

way (it is probably on this account that his name does not occur in the

above document). When he engaged in anything of the kind, it was

henceforth through agents. The only exception known is the

marriage-contract of his daughter Gigîtum, who espoused the high priest of

Nebo at Borsippa. The following is a translation of this document, as far

as it is preserved—

“Nabû-šum-ukîn, priest of Nebo, director of Ê-zida, son of

Širiktum-Marduk, descendant of Išdē-îlāni-dannu, said to

Nergal-šarra-uṣur, king of Babylon: ‘Give Gigîtum, thy virgin daughter, to

wifehood, and let her be my wife.’ Nergal-šarra-uṣur (said) to

Nabû-šum-ukîn, priest of Nebo, director of Ê-zida....”

(About twenty-eight lines are wanting here, the text becoming again

legible at the end of the list of witnesses on the reverse.)

“..., son of Nabû-šum-lišir, ...; ...-ri, son of Nabû-šarra-uṣur, the

judge (??);

“Nabû-šum-uṣur, the scribe, son of Aššur ... Babylon, month Nisan, day

1st, year 1st, (Nergal-šarra)-uṣur, king of Babylon. Copy of Ê-zida.”

The mutilation of the record is unfortunate, as the conclusion of the

matter cannot be ascertained, but it may be regarded as fairly certain

that Neriglissar really did give his daughter Gigîtum in marriage to

Nabû-šum-ukîn, for had it been otherwise, there would have been but little

need to draw up the document of which the fragment here translated has

been preserved to us. The remainder of the tablet was probably taken up

with the usual conditions—the penalty Nabû-šum-ukîn would have to pay

should he divorce or abandon his wife; the penalty Gigîtum would have to

suffer if she disowned or forsook her husband; directions with regard to

the amount and disposal of her dowry, etc. This and similar inscriptions

seem to suggest that Herodotus was probably wrongly informed with regard

to the compulsory nature of the public prostitution of unmarried women

which, he says, was practised in Babylonia, the expressions found in these

inscriptions often pointing, as in the present case, to a belief, on the

part of the bridegroom, in the chastity of the woman chosen by him to be

his wife.

The date corresponds with the Babylonian New Year’s Day, 559 B.C.

With this inscription we take leave of Neriglissar except as the ruler

whose name the scribes used to date by.

Though, according to Berosus, Laborosoarchod (Labāši-Marduk) was a mere

child when he came to the throne, there is no doubt, from the inscription

which follows, that he was old enough to have an establishment of his own,

and also to carry on the business of money-lender, Nabû-ṣabit-qâtâ (see p.

439) being his representative in the transactions in which he engaged. As

it is an inscription typical of its class, it is given here in full—

“12 mana of silver of the son of the king, which (has been advanced

through) the hand of Nabû-ṣabit-qâtâ, chief of the house of the son of the

king, is upon (_i.e._ due from) Šum-ukîn, son of Mušallim-îlu. In the

month Nisan the silver, 12 mana, in its full amount, he will repay.

Everything of his, in town and country, all there is, is the security of

the king’s son—another creditor shall not have power over it until

Nabû-sabit-qâtâ receives the money. Nabû-âḫê-iddina, son of Šulâ,

descendant of Êgibi, takes responsibility for the receipt of the money.

“Witnesses: Šamaš-uballiṭ, son of Ikîšâ; Kalbâ, son of Bêl-êreš; the

scribe Bêl-âḫê-ikîšâ, son of Bêl-êṭeru. Babylon, month Elul, day 10th,

year 2nd, Nergal-šarra-uṣur, king of Babylon.”

What the crown prince did, it goes without saying that all the court

officials sought to do. An instance of this is Bêl-âḫê-iddina, the king’s

captain, who is recorded as having lent 2/3 of a mana of silver to Ardîa

and Šulâ, at an interest of one shekel upon every mana monthly—twenty per

cent. yearly—a sufficiently high interest, though it was the usual rate in

Babylonia. This inscription is dated at Babylon, 7th day of Kisleu, 2nd

year of Neriglissar. It is noteworthy, however, that there is no mention

of interest in the document drawn up for Labāši-Marduk’s major-domo.

Interesting is the inscription in which two partners engage to meet two

other men, also partners, at the gate of the house of the king’s son to

come to an arrangement concerning profits which they had made _ša zallānu

u dusê_, _i.e._ with regard to two “lines” of leather goods (9th day of

Tammuz, 3rd year of Neriglissar). It also furnishes further testimony to

the fact that this prince had a separate establishment.

After Laborosoarchod’s nine months came the reign of Nabonidus, whom, as

will be remembered, the Babylonians and Cyrus, his conqueror, accused of

neglecting the gods, and sending them forth from their shrines to the

cities around. Perhaps his crime consisted in his preference for the gods

of other cities than Babylon, the city which Nebuchadnezzar’s lavish

favours had somewhat spoilt, and who resented her neglect at the hands of

the antiquarian king. However that may be, contemporary records show that

he gave to the benefit of Sippar, the city of the Sun-god, not

unfrequently. A mutilated inscription refers to full-grown oxen and sheep

from the son of the king, for the king’s sacrifices, divided between two

temples at Sippar, one of them being that of Anunitu[m] (7th of Adar, 9th

year of Nabonidus); and things from the _bît makkur nidinit šarri_

(“warehouse of the king’s gifts”) are often mentioned. Naturally he had to

make gifts to many shrines in Babylonia.

Whether the following refers to oxen for sacrifice or not is doubtful—

“20 shekels of silver have been given to Nabû-šarra-uṣur, the sec(retary)

of the king, for oxen for the husbandmen who are in the city Ḫa(buru). He

has not given the oxen. Month Nisan, day 16th, year 7th, Nabû-na’id, king

of Babylon.”

The above inscription comes from Sippar, near which the city referred to

must have stood.

Several inscriptions refer to the storehouse into which the king’s gift

was delivered. The following is a specimen of these texts—

“Fruit, the amount of the 10th year, Ana-âmat-Bêl-atkal has given into the

storehouse of the gift of the king. Month Kisleu, day 14th, year 10th,

Nabû-na’id, (king) of Êridu.

“35 _gur_, Šamaš-killi-anni.

“12 _gur_ 90 _qa_, Šum-ukîn and Rêmut.

“65 _gur_ 144 _qa_, Ikîšâ.

“45 _gur_ 72 _qa_, Kinâ.

“62 gur, Niqu(du).

“17 _gur_ 72 _qa_, ...

“Altogether 23(8 _gur_ 18 _qa_).”

This and other inscriptions, especially one referring to 250 _gur_ of

grain, shows that Nabonidus was fairly liberal to the temples at Sippar.

It is also very probable that he provided for the needful repairs of this

and other temples from time to time, one of the inscriptions (dated in his

third year) recording a contribution of half a talent and 7 mana of silver

for work done on the great temple-tower of Sippar, Ê-babbara, besides 8

mana 20 shekels of silver as tithe, seemingly for grain for the city

Ḫaburu, where, it is to be conjectured, an agricultural farm belonging to

one of the temples of Sippar was situated.(133)

It is not by any means improbable that Nabonidus had a residence at

Sippar, and if so, this would explain the reason of his favouring that

city, and at the same time add to the causes of the discontent of the

“sons of Babylon.” This is implied by a small tablet apparently inscribed

with an account of the receipts and expenditure of the temple Ê-babbara at

Sippar, which occupied the position of purveyor of water, and took the

place of the water-company of the cities of modern Europe—

“2 mana 13 shekels of silver, the price of the king’s water, which is from

Bêl-âbla-iddina, the overseer of(134) Kî-Bêl, the chief man of the king’s

water, has been brought by the hands of Šamaš-kain-âbli, son of Balatu.

“From the amount, 2 mana of silver have been given for 80 measures (?) of

oil to Nabû-uṣur-šu, son of Dummuq, descendant of Gaḫal, in the presence

of Kalbâ, the secretary. 13 shekels of silver are in the treasury.

“Silver, 2 mana, is with Nabû-dûr-pâniâ. Of the amount, 4 shekels of

silver have been paid for 2 _parrum_(135)-stones, which were given to

Aššur-rîmananni, son of Nabû-balaṭ-su-iqbî.

“Month later Adar, day 27th, year 6th, Nabû-na’id, king of Babylon.”

Another tablet, dated in Nabonidus’s accession year, indicates that the

temple supplied water, for a fixed sum, to a part of Sippar called “the

city of the Sun.”

From other tablets we obtain also information about the family of

Nabonidus. Most of them, as is to be expected, refer to Belshazzar, the

heir to the throne, who is conjectured to have been the second ruler in

the kingdom, thus explaining how it was that the position of “third ruler

in the kingdom” could be offered to the Prophet Daniel. Like the other

rulers of Babylonia, Nabonidus had granted to Belshazzar, or at least

permitted him to occupy, a separate house, which was situated within

Babylon, beside the house of Marduk-îriba, son of Rêmut, descendant of

Miṣrâa. From the inscription referring to this which has come down to us,

it may be conjectured that Marduk-îriba was a minor, and his sister,

Bau-êṭirat, therefore acted for him. Bêl-rêṣūa, servant of Belshazzar,

approached her and succeeded in acquiring her brother’s land for 45

shekels of silver, which was duly paid to Marduk-îriba. Though it is not

stated, this transaction probably took place on behalf of Belshazzar, who

wished to add to his possessions, and as it is dated in the month Adar, in

the 1st year of Nabonidus, it would seem that he decided to enlarge the

domain he was entitled to as crown prince shortly after he found himself

occupying that position.

Another tablet referring to Belshazzar is a contract drawn up for one of

his secretaries (on the one hand), by which he obtained the occupation of

a house in exchange for a loan of silver—a common arrangement in those

days in Babylonia. The following translation will enable the reader to see

the terms of this, the type of a numerous series of documents—

“The house of Nabû-âḫê-iddina, son of Šulá, descendant of Êgibi, which is

beside the house of Bêl-iddina, son of Rêmut, descendant of the _dikû_,

(is granted) for 3 years to Nabû-kain-âḫî, secretary of Bêl-šarra-uṣur,

the son of the king, for 1-½ mana of silver. He has let (it) upon (the

condition that) ‘there is no rent for the house, and no interest for the

money.’ He shall repair the woodwork and renew the dilapidation of the

house. After 3 years, the silver, 1-½ mana, Nabû-âḫê-iddina shall (re)pay

to Nabû-kain-âḫi, and Nabû-kain-âḫi shall leave the house in the

possession of Nabû-âḫê-iddina.”

Here follow the names of three witnesses and the scribe, after which comes

the date: “Babylon, month Nisan, day 21st, year 5th, Nabû-na’id, king of

Babylon.”

As the 1-½ mana of silver would have brought in 18 shekels at the usual

rate of interest, that sum may be taken as representing the rent of the

house in question.

Another inscription, dated two years later, shows that Nabû-kain-âḫi,

Belshazzar’s secretary, borrowed 35 shekels of silver from

Nabû-ṣabit-qâtâ, that prince’s major-domo, to purchase a slave, and that

the loan was duly repaid. The curious thing in connection with this

transaction is, that the money advanced is stated to be “tithe of Bêl,

Nebo, Nergal, and the lady (_i.e._ Ištar) of Erech,” implying that

Nabû-ṣabit-qâtâ was entitled to certain sums from this source, or else

that he had control of them, and could advance money to others therefrom.

Information concerning all the items of income and expenditure of the

temples would probably furnish interesting reading, showing, as it should,

who were the people who benefited from the funds available, and upon what

grounds.

It is noteworthy that, in these inscriptions referring to transactions

between the members of Belshazzar’s household, no interest seems to have

been charged on the loans granted; and if this was really so, it indicates

a considerable amount of loyalty among these men towards each

other—indeed, it is doubtful if it could be surpassed at the present day.

Strangest of all these contracts in which Belshazzar is mentioned, is

probably that in which the prince himself seems to appear as one of the

contracting parties—as a dealer in clothes. As it is the only one

referring to him thus, a translation of the inscription in question is

here given in full—

“20 mana of silver, the price of the garments(136) (which were) the

property of Bêl-šarra-uṣur, the son of the king, which (are due), through

Nabû-ṣabit-qâtâ, chief of the house of Bêl-šarra-uṣur, the son of the

king, and the secretaries of the son of the king, from Iddina-Marduk, son

of Ikîšā, descendant of Nûr-Sin. In the month Adar of the 1(1th) year, the

silver, 20 mana, he shall pay. His house, which is beside the

(plantation?), his slave, and his property in town and country, all there

is, is the security of Bêl-šarra-uṣur, the son of the king, until

Bêl-šarra-uṣur receives his money. (For) the silver, as much as (from the

sum) is withheld, interest he shall pay.

“Witnesses: Bêl-iddina, son of Rêmut, descendant of the _dikû_; Êtel-pî,

son of ..., descendant of ‘the father of the house’; Nadin, son of

Narduk-šum-uṣur, descendant of the master-builder; Nergal-ušallim, son of

Marduk-..., descendant of Gaḫal; Marduk-naṣir, son of Kur-..., descendant

of Dabibu; and the scribe, Bêl-âḫê-ikîša, son of Nabû-balat-su-iqbî.

Babylon, month ..., day 20th, year 11th, Nabû-na’id, king of Babylon.”

But Belshazzar did not confine himself to dealing in woollen stuffs or

clothes, as many another inscription indicates. This was but an

unimportant incident in his life which chance has preserved to us, and how

far the transaction may have taken place with (or without) his own

knowledge, it is impossible to say. For a considerable time, however, he

was with the army in Akkad, and whilst there, he interested himself

greatly in the welfare of the temples at Sippar, making donations to them,

not only on his own behalf, but also for his father. Thus, on the 11th of

Iyyar, in the 9th year of his father’s reign, he gave to the god Šamaš a

tongue of gold weighing one mana; and on the 7th of Adar of the same year

he gave two full-grown oxen for sacrifice (his father gave one on that

occasion), together with fourteen sheep, and in addition other sacrifices

were made on his and his father’s behalf in the temple of the goddess

Annunitum. The following little inscription, being rather out of the

common, is probably above the average in the matter of interest—

“1 shekel and a quarter of silver for the hire of a ship for 3 oxen and 24

sheep, the sacrifices of the king’s son, which went in the month Nisan for

Šamaš and the gods of Sippar.

“In the presence of Bêl-šarra-bulliṭ, who has given the offerings of the

king to Šamaš-iddina and Dannu-Âddu. He has given 60 _qa_ of fruit as

their offerings. Month Nisan, day 9th, year 10th, Nabû-na’id, king of

Babylon.”

Seemingly Belshazzar sent the sheep and oxen from his estate to Sippar by

water.

Interesting to an equal degree is likewise the inscription recording a

gift made by his sister—

“27 shekels of silver is the weight of one cup, tithe of

Ina-Ê-sagila-rêmat, the daughter of the king. By the hands of

Bêl-šarra-(bulliṭ), as a king’s offering, she has given (it) to the

god.... The cup is in the treasure-house.

“Month Ab, day 5th, year 17th, (Nabû-na’id) king of Babylon.”

Though this inscription is defective in places, there is every probability

that little or nothing more than the name of the god is wanting. The name

of Bêl-šarra-(bulliṭ) shows that the inscription must belong to the time

of Nabonidus, and, in fact, the initial wedges of his name are visible.

The name of a second daughter of Nabonidus seems to appear in another

inscription from Sippar, though, as it is rather carelessly written, this

is doubtful. Notwithstanding the uncertainty attending the name, however,

the inscription is worth quoting in full—

“3 _gur_ 75 _qa_ of sesame Ukabu’sama (?), daughter of the king, has sold,

through Tattanu, for silver, to Ê-babbara. The silver has not been

received.

“Month Ab, day 7th, year 16th, Nabû-na’id, king of Babylon.”

With this we take leave of Nabonidus and his family, as revealed by the

contracts and temple accounts from Babylon and Sippar. The picture these

and the historical inscriptions give of the Babylonian royal family is not

altogether unpleasing, and that this king, with his son, were the last

rulers of their race, is greatly to be regretted. But, alas, they had

offended the priesthood of Babylon, and all the people accepted, without a

murmur, the alien ruler, of a differing faith from theirs, who presented

himself, in hostile array, at their doors. It was the beginning of the end

of their life as a nation, and who shall say that they did not deserve it?

If they had made even a show of resistance, the world could hold them

excused, but this was not the case, as their own records show, and

whatever Nabonidus’s faults may have been, they do not attain to the

culpability of the nation, which, instead of protecting him—if for no

other reason, it ought to have done this for his son’s sake—practically

betrayed him to the enemy.

II.

So far, in depicting the life which the Jews, during the Captivity, must

daily have seen around them, we have given the tablets whereon the court

and its officials are referred to, and though these reveal certain phases

of life in Babylonia among the people, typical of the time, they can

hardly be held to show the life _of_ the people—those engaged in the

life-struggle of which every great city is the battlefield, and has been

the battlefield since the first gathering of large bodies of men in one

place.

Who among us can estimate the misery caused by the tearing away of the

slave from the home of the master with whom he had for many years dwelt in

content?—it must have far outweighed the few cases in which a slave in

those days benefited by such a change. That the loss of his slaves was

sometimes also a wrench to the owner is indicated by the fact that he is

generally—if not always—made to say, that he parts with them cheerfully.

He had to admit this for the satisfaction of the buyer, who naturally

feared that the old master would return and ask for the contract to be

annulled, saying that it was all a mistake on his part—he did not really

wish to get rid of them, and would like to have them back again.

Naturally the tablets do not reveal to us all this, nor the joys and

sorrows, the successes and the failures, which those great cities of the

ancient East must have contained. But they allow us to guess a great deal.

Did the man ever get the money back which he had lent? Did he receive the

money for the things he had sold and given credit for? These and other

similar questions are always occurring to the student of these documents,

which reveal always the grave side of life in that ancient land—never the

gay side—even a wedding, being a contract, was a thing much too serious to

allow its joyful nature to shine through at any point.

As the documents which best represent the character of the Babylonians are

the letters, it has been thought well to begin (as in the case of the

chapter upon the earlier Babylonians) with a few specimens of these, and

in the forefront the following may be cited as not unworthy of a prominent

place—

“Tablet of Nabû-zēr-ibnî to Ugarâ, Balaṭu, Nabû-bêl-šumāti, and

Šamaš-udammiq, his brothers.

“Now to Bêl and Nebo for the preservation of the life of my brothers I

pray.

“Bêl-epuš, who is along with you, is my brother. Whoever speaks his evil

words, as my brothers wish, let him be silent. As for him, from the

beginning to the end, brothers of each other are we. As warning to my

brothers I send this. Let my brothers do what is right. I should like to

see an answer (to this) letter from my brothers.”

Whether we are to substitute “friend” and “friends” for “brother” and

“brothers” is uncertain, but is very probable. In any case, the writer

would seem to show considerable courage in the course he was taking, as

well as confidence in the righteousness of his cause.

The following is apparently the letter of a father in poverty to his more

successful son—

“(Letter of) Iddina-âḫâ (to) Rêmūt, his son.

“May (Bêl) and Nebo bespeak peace and life for my son.

“He, my son, knoweth that there is no corn in the house. Let my son cause

2 or 3 _gur_ of corn to be brought by the hands of some one whom thou

knowest. Wilt thou not send by the hands of the boatman whom thou

indicatedst? As for him, (he is coming?) to me—send a gift, cause it to go

forth to (thy) father. To-day I pray Bêl and Nebo for the preservation of

the life of my son. Rêmat asks after the peace of Rêmūt, her son.”

The change from the third person to the second is noteworthy, and may have

been caused by the necessity of distinguishing between the son and the

messenger to whom the writer referred. Rêmat was evidently the writer’s

wife.

The following is a letter of a different nature, and leads to speculations

as to the state of things—

“Letter of Marduk-zēr-ibnî to Šulâ his brother.

“May Bêl and Nebo bespeak the peace of my brother.

“Why dost thou destroy my house? thou goest before the destruction of

thine (own) house. When thou hadst taken the responsibility of holding the

field, my field was sold, and the date-palms which I grow have been

destroyed. And thou (remainest) contented in thy house!(137) Now (as for)

the corn which I have planted in my field, thou (always) takest the whole.

I am now sending to my lord: Come, enter my field, and give me my

harvests. Behold, the corn which has been got ready thou (always)

deliverest: Ikîšā and Nabû-âḫa-iddina, if they wish, can take it. Speak to

the judges about it.”

Apparently the writer of the letter was vexed because his friend (and

lord) had not fulfilled his undertaking to look after his interests.

Letters of a business nature are not unfrequent, and are generally dry and

uninteresting. The character of the inscriptions of this class which least

exhibit these defects may be gathered from the following text, which also

has an interest because the sender was a slave. The original belongs to

the collection of tablets acquired by the late Sir Cuthbert Peek for his

father, the late Sir Henry Peek:—

“Letter from Dâan-bêl-uṣur to Širku, my lord. I pray to-day to Bêl and

Nebo for the preservation of the life of my lord.

“Concerning the lambs which my lord sent, Bêl and Nebo indeed know that

there is a lamb (for them) from thee. I have made the irrigation-channel

and the wall. Behold, send thy servant with the sheep and thy servant with

the lambs, and a command that they may cause a sheep to be brought up as

an offering (?) to Nebo (?), for I have not acquired a single lamb for

money. (On) the 20th day I worked for Šamaš; lo, (there were) 56—I caused

20 head to be bought for my lord from his hand. (As for) the garlic for

the governor, which my lord bought, the lord of the fields (? the chief

overseer), when he came, took possession of (it), and it was sold to the

governor of the district of our fields for silver, but enough (?) thereof

I have retained (?); and as my lord said thus: ‘Why hast thou not sent the

messenger? the ground is suitable (?)—I sent thee a number (?) of (them).’

Let one messenger take thy message (?), and depart.”

Portions of this inscription, especially towards the end, being very

obscure, the translation is not so sure as could be wished. Nevertheless,

it may be taken as indicating fairly well the drift of the whole, and thus

answer the purpose for which it is given, namely, to show what texts of

this class generally refer to, and how excellently they reveal to us the

conditions of Babylonian life at the time when they were written.

This tablet belongs to the reign of Darius Hystaspis, and is addressed to

one of the most prominent men of Babylon at the time, Širku, otherwise

“Marduk-naṣir-âblu, son of Iddinā, descendant of Êgibi.”(138) He was an

active man, and his business transactions, which begin, as far as we have

record of them, in the third year of the king named, consist of the usual

loans, exchanges, purchases, sales, agreements, etc., which exist in large

numbers during this period. In the third year of Darius he seems to have

been in Elam, perhaps upon business of state, the name of a high

Babylonian official being mentioned on the tablet which records this fact.

Later on, he comes before us as a large owner and dealer in ships, some of

which, of small size, he seems to have used for the construction of a

bridge of boats. He owned Dâan-bêl-uṣur, the writer of the tablet

translated above, Nanaa-bêl-uṣri, his wife, and their six children, who

dwelt on his property in the city of Šuppatum. On one occasion, as

recorded on a tablet in the Louvre, they formed part of the security for a

sum of 45 mana of silver, advanced by Širku to Šarru-dûri, “the king’s

captain, son of Idra’.” Further references to both master and slave will

be found farther on.

As the tablets referring to life at Babylon are exceedingly numerous, and

many of them have special interesting points of their own, a few selected

specimens are here translated, and may be regarded as characteristic and

typical in their class and subject.

A Loan Granted On Security At Erech.

“One mana of silver of Nabû-banî-âḫi, son of Ablaa, son of the gatekeeper,

unto Bâbîa, son of Marduk-êreš, and Ša-Nanaa-šî, his wife. The door of the

gatekeepers of the Salimu-gate, and his property, of (both) town and

country, all there is, are the security of Nabû-banî-âḫi.

“Witnesses: Bêl-âḫê-iddina, son of Gudadū; Nabû-zēr-ukin, son of Sumâ;

Nabû-zēr-ikîša, son of Ginnâ; and the scribe Mušêzib-Bêl, son of

Nanaa-têreš. Erech, month Tisri, day 15th, year 21st, Nabû-kudurri-usur,

king of Babylon.”

In all probability, the possession of the door carried with it the right

of receiving any toll or dues connected therewith. As Nabû-banî-âhi, the

lender, belonged to the family or clan of gatekeepers, he would not be

regarded altogether as an interloper. The name of one of the borrowers,

Bâbîa, “my gate,” is suggestive, and shows the enthusiasm of his parents

for their profession.

The Work Upon A Plantation.

“144 _qa_ (is the amount needed for) the seeding of the plantation of

Nabû-šum-lîšir, which Nabû-šar-îlāni has taken for cultivation.(139)

(During) 4 years, everything, whatever grows on the date-palms and in the

earth, belongs to Nabû-šar-îlāni; (during the succeeding 4 ?) years a

third, and 4 years (after that) a fourth. Nabû-šum-lîšir with

Nabû-šar-îlāni (?) ... 10 years Nabû-šar-îlāni ... gardener of

Nabû-šum-lîšir ... everything, whatever (gro)ws in the earth, belongs to

Nabû-šar-îlāni.

“(The duty) of doing the work, digging (the irrigation-channels), raising

(?) embankments (?), protecting the plantation, restoring what is wanting

of the date-palms, raising water, Nabû-šar-îlāni undertakes. (If) he

contravene (this contract), he shall compensate (to the extent of) 1 mana

of silver.”

Here follow the names of three witnesses and the scribe, the date being—

“City of Sûqâain, month Elul, day 26th, year 11th, Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, king

of Babylon.”

Sale Of An Ass.

“The ass of Ârad-Meme, son of Gimillu, descendant of Êpeš-ili, he (the

owner) has sold to Šubabu-sara’, son of Temišâa, for half a mana six and a

half shekels of silver. Êtillu, son of Rêmut, descendant of Dabibi (and)

Nergal-iddina, son of Dâanu-Marduk, descendant of Lugal-arazū, guarantee

the serviceableness of the ass. It is a branded ass, upon whose front is a

mark.”

Here come the names of three witnesses and the scribe, followed by the

date—

“City of the land of Ṣuma’, (or Ṣuba’), month Tammuz, day 16th, year 40th,

Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, king of Babylon.”

From a tablet in the Edinburgh Museum it would seem that asses were

branded to distinguish them, and that, in place of a mere mark, the name

of the owner was somehow impressed. Cattle were marked with the letters of

the Aramaic alphabet.

Jews And Babylonians During The Captivity.

“When Nabû-na’id, son of Nabû-gamil, brings his witness, and proves to

Aâḫḫa’u, son of Šanîāwa, that Nabû-na’id has given the proceeds of 2-½

mana of silver to Aâḫḫa’u and Baruḫi-îlu, (then) the profit which has been

made with them (the 2-½ mana) belongs to Nabû-na’id, and all right to the

share which belongs to him remains—one do. (? share) (belongs to) Aâḫḫa’u.

If the witness do not prove it, his property, as much as Nabû-na’id has

taken, one do. (? share) he will return and will give to Aâḫḫa’u.

“Witnesses: Iddina-Marduk, son of Akkîa, Yašum-ma, son of Âḫê-šu;

Balaṭ-su, son of Âḫê-šu, and the scribe, Nabû-âḫê-iddina, son of Êgibi.

Upê (Opis), month Tammuz, day 21st, year 40th, Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, king of

Babylon.”

Apparently it was a dispute about profits, which was to be settled, as was

usual in such cases, by producing a witness. Šanîāwa is one of those names

ending in _iāwa_ which were certainly not Babylonian, and which are

generally regarded as Israelite, like Šubunu-yāwa = Shebaniah;

Nathanu-yāwa = Nathaniah, and many others; and its later form would

probably be Shaniah. Baruḫi-îlu is probably for Baruchiel, and, if so,

would show that the pronunciation of the aspirated _k (ch)_ as _ḫ (kh)_,

common among Jews on the Continent and in the East, is of very ancient

date.

The Dead Slave.

“On the 5th day of the month Kisleu, Šarru-kînu, son of Ammanu, will bring

his witness to the city Piqudu (Pekod), and he will testify to Idiḫi-îli,

son of Dînâ, that Idiḫi-îli sent to Šarru-kînu thus: ‘Do not litigate

against me concerning thy slave who was killed—I will make up to thee the

life of thy slave.’ If he prove it, Idiḫi-îli shall pay to Šarru-kînu 1

mana of silver, the price of his slave. If he do not prove it (he is

free).”

After the names of three witnesses and the scribe, is the date—

“Upê, month Marcheswan, day 7th, year 40th, Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, king of

Babylon.”

A Right Of Way.

“Marduk-iriba, son of Rêmut, descendant of the Miṣirite,(140) and Kalbâ,

son of Balaṭu, descendant of the chief of the construction (?), in their

going forth, shall go forth over the brook; they have no power over the

exit of the wall of the house of Nabû-âḫê-iddina, son of Šulâ, descendant

of Êgibi; the exit of the wall of the house of Nabû-âḫê-iddina belongs to

Nabû-âḫê-iddina.”

Here come the names of five witnesses, including the scribe, and then the

date—

“Babylon, month of the later Adar, day 24th, year 1st, Nabû-na’id,(141)

king of Babylon.”

The Story Of Abil-Addu-Nathanu And Bunanitum.

This is contained, as far as it is preserved, on a series of five tablets,

four of which are in the British Museum, and the fifth in the Museum of

Art at New York. Abil-Addu-nathānu would seem, from his name, which would

be the West-Semitic Ben-Hadad-nathan, to have come from Damascus, and

settled at Babylon, and afterwards at Borsippa. His wife Bunanitum (or

Bunanith) was to all appearance a Babylonian.

The Purchase Of The House At Borsippa.

“7 canes, 5 cubits, 18 fingers, a built house, the territory of a

plantation(142) which is within Borsippa, which Dâan-šum-iddina, son of

Zērîa, descendant of Nabâa, has bought from Ibâ, son of Zillâ, descendant

of the carpenter, for 11-½ mana of silver, for the price complete, by the

authority of Abil-Addu-nathānu, son of Addîa, and Bunanitu, his wife,

daughter of Ḫariṣâa. That house he has received, the silver of

Abil-Addu-nathānu and Bunanitu as the price of the house has been given.

Dâan-šum-iddina has no share in the house or the silver. The tablet which

Dâan-šum-iddina has sealed in his name, he has given to Abil-Addu-nathānu

and Bunanitu. The day a copy of the sealed document of the purchase or any

contract for that house appears in the house of Dâan-šum-iddina or in any

other place, it belongs to Abil-Addu-nathānu and Bunanitu.”

Here follow the names of four witnesses and two scribes. The date is—

“Babylon, month Shebat, day 24th, year 2nd, Nabû-na’id, king of Babylon.”

The agent through whom the purchase was made has to declare that no part

of the property or the money belonged to him, hence the final clause of

the contract, which was intended to prevent trouble at any future time.

At the end are the seal-impressions of the two scribes.

The Loan To Make Up The Sum Required To Purchase The Property.

“1-½ mana 8-½ shekels of silver of Iddina-Marduk, son of Ikîšā, descendant

of Nûr-Sin, upon (= due from) Abil-Addu-nathānu, son of Addîa, and

Bunanitu, his wife. It increases to them monthly at the rate of 1 shekel

of silver upon each mana. They shall pay the interest from the month Sivan

of the 5th year of Nabû-na’id, king of Babylon. The silver was the balance

of the silver for the price of a house, which was paid to Ibâ. They shall

pay the interest monthly.”

After the names of two witnesses and the scribe comes the date—

“Barsip (Borsippa), month Iyyar, day 3rd, year 5th, Nabû-na’id, king of

Babylon.”

As this tablet was written two years and three months after the house at

Borsippa was bought, it is clear that the money had been advanced, but the

indebtedness of Abil-Addu-nathānu had not been placed, until the date of

the second tablet, on a legal footing. Probably he intended to pay the

money, but had not the wherewithal, and this being the case, the lender

agreed to allow the debt to remain unpaid, stipulating only that the

interest should be paid at the usual rate of one mana upon every mana

monthly. As will be seen from the other documents, the principal was not

paid for many years after this. There is no record whether any payment of

interest had been made in the meanwhile, but, in any case, the rate is far

beyond what at the present time is considered fair.

A First Payment Made After The Death Of Abil-Addu-Nathānu.

This is a small tablet similar in shape to the last, and is now preserved

in the Museum of Art at New York.

“8 shekels of silver Iddina-Marduk, son of Ikîšā, descendant of Nûr-Sin,

has received from the hands of Bunanitu, with the first payment, which

(has been made) since the death of Ablada-nathanu, her husband, from the

interest of his money. In the presence of Tabnêa, son of Nabū-âḫê-iddina,

descendant of the priest of ...; Nabû-kain-âbli, son of Marduk-šum-ibnî,

descendant of Dannu-Nabû. Barsip (Borsippa), month Adar, day 18th, year

8th, Nabû-na’id, king of Babylon.

“There is to be no abatement (?).”

As the loan was contracted in the second year of Nabonidus, it cannot be

said that Iddina-Marduk had been by any means pressing in the matter. The

numerous documents which exist show that the Babylonians were good at

making contracts, but they were probably not so strict in keeping them,

and certainly not so merciless (to judge from the history here unfolded)

as the people of the modern West in enforcing them.

The phonetic spelling of the name of the husband, Ablada-nathānu, is

interesting, as it shows the Babylonian pronunciation. Ben-Addu-nathan,

however, was a possible form, and may have been even a fairly common one.

The Legal Action After The Death Of Abil-Addu-Nathānu.

“Bunanitu, daughter of Ḫariṣâa, said thus to the judges of Nabû-na’id,

king of Babylon—

“ ‘Abil-Addu-nathān, son of Nikmadu’, had me to wife, and he took 3-½ mana

of silver as my dowry, and one daughter I bore to him. I and

Abil-Addu-nathān, my husband, traded with the silver of my dowry, and we

bought 8 canes, a built house, the territory of a large property,(143)

which was within Barsip, for 9-2/3 of a mana of silver, with 2-½ mana of

silver which was from Iddina-Marduk, son of Ikîšā, descendant of Nûr-Sin,

as balance, and we fixed (it) as the price of that house, and we paid and

received it together. In the 4th year of Nabû-na’id, king of Babylon, I

made an agreement with Abil-Addu-nathān, my husband, concerning my dowry,

and Abil-Addu-nathān, in the kindness of his heart, sealed the 8 canes,

(and) that house which is within Barsip, and bequeathed it to me for

future days, and on my tablet made it known thus: ‘2-½ mana of silver,

which Abil-Addu-nathān and Bunanitu took from Iddina-Marduk, and paid as

the price of that house, they received together.’ He sealed that tablet,

and wrote thereon the curse of the great gods. In the 5th year of

Nabû-na’id, king of Babylon, I and Abil-Addu-nathān, my husband, took

Abil-Addu-amara as our son, and wrote the tablet of his sonship, and made

known 2 mana 10 shekels of silver and the furniture of a house as the

dowry of Nûbtâ, my daughter. Fate took my husband, and now Aqabi-îlu, the

son of my father-in-law, has laid claim upon the house and everything

which had been sealed and bequeathed to me, and upon Nabû-nûr-îli, (the

slave) whom we had acquired by the hands of Nabû-âḫê-iddina for silver. I

have brought it before you, make a decision.

“The judges heard their words, they read the tablets and contracts which

Bunanitu brought before them, and they caused Aqabi-îlu not to have power

over the house at Barsip, which had been bequeathed to Bunanitu instead of

her dowry, over Nabû-nûr-îli, whom she and her husband had bought for

silver, or over anything of Abil-Addu-nathānu; Bunanitu and

Abil-Addu-amara, by their tablets, they caused to be confirmed.

Iddina-Marduk pleads for (?), and will receive, the 2-½ mana of silver

which had been given towards the price of that house. Afterwards Bunanitu

will receive the 3-½ mana of silver, her dowry, and her share besides.

Nûbtâ will receive Nabû-nûr-îli, according to the contracts of her father.

“By the decision of this judgment.

“Nergal-banû-nu, the judge, son of the builder;

“Nabû-âḫê-iddina, the judge, son of Êgibi;

“Nabû-šum-ukîn, the judge, son of Irani;

“Bêl-âḫê-iddina, the judge, son of ...

“Bêl-êṭir, the judge, son of ...

“Nabû-balaṭ-su-iqbî, the judge, son of ...

“Nadinu, the scribe, son of ...

“Nabû-šum-iškun, the scribe, son of the ...

“Babylon, month Elul, day 26th, year 9th, Nabûna’id, king of Babylon.”

Two copies of this document exist, neither of them being the original.

They were probably made for persons interested in the result of the

judgment.