APPENDICES
APPENDIX A.
THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF PROPHETIC CHRONOLOGY.
"SURE AS THE STARS."
THE uncertainty which attaches to remote periods of secular chronology
disappears at the date of the accession of Nabonassar, with whose reign
the times of the four Gentile empires commence. From this time forward
we are able to verify the chronological records of the past; and the dates
of ancient history are confirmed by astronomic observations.
The astronomical records of the ancients, by whose means we are able to
fix with certainty the chronology of the earlier centuries of the "times
of the Gentiles," are contained in the "Syntaxis," or "Almagest"
of Ptolemy.
In the existence of this invaluable work, and in its preservation as a
precious remnant of antiquity, the hand of Providence can clearly be traced.
The same Divine care which raised up Herodotus and other Greek historians
to carry on the records of the past from the point to which they had been
brought by the writings of the prophets at the close of the Babylonish
captivity ;-the Providence which raised up Josephus, the Jewish historian,
at the termination of New Testament history, to record the fulfilment
of prophecy in the destruction of Jerusalem,- raised up also Ptolemy in
the important interval which extended from Titus to Hadrian, that of the
completion of Jewish desolation, to record the chronology of the nine
previous centuries, and to associate it in such a way with the revolutions
of the solar system as to permit of the most searching demonstration of
its truth. Ptolemy’s great work, the "Almagest," is a treatise
on astronomy, setting forth the researches of ancient observers and mathematicians
with reference to the position of the stars, the exact length. of the
year, and the elements of the orbits of the sun, moon, and planets. This
work was written in Greek, and subsequently translated into Arabic, Persian,
Hebrew, and Latin, etc.; it became the text-book of astronomic knowledge
both in the East and in Europe, and retained that high position for about
fourteen centuries, or till the time of Copernicus, the birth of modern
astronomy, three centuries ago.
The chronological value of the "Almagest" is owing to the fact
that it interweaves a series of ancient dates with a series of celestial
positions. It contains a complete catalogue of the succession of Babylonian,
Persian, Grecian, and Roman monarchs, from Nabonassar to Hadrian and Antoninus,
together with the dates of their accession and the duration of their reigns.
Its astronomic events are referred to definite historic dates, and by
this connexion there is conferred on the latter the character of scientific
certainty.
This important feature of the "Almagest" is described as follows
in the "Chronoastrolabe," by James B. Lindsay, a work published
in 1858, demonstrating the authenticity of Hebrew, Greek, and Roman chronology,
etc., by astronomic methods:
"The ’Syntaxis’ of Ptolemy contains an account of many
historic events, and blended with them is a multitude of astronomic observations.
The astronomic and historic cannot be separated, and they must both stand
or fall together. The astronomic can be rigidly verified, and the truth
of the historic is a legitimate deduction."
In the "Almagest," "a celestial phenomenon is coupled with
a terrestrial event. An eclipse of the moon or an acronic of Mars is assigned
to a given year and day of a king’s reign. The celestial mechanism,
though complicate, is intelligible; the motions are calculable, and we
can verify or falsify the recorded observations." With reference
to Ptolemy’s Canon, or chronological list of the monarchs of the
four great empires, Lindsay says: "The complete harmony that is to
be found in this canon with the dates previously determined by eclipses,
entitles it to our highest confidence. That Ptolemy was its author and
not Theon, is confirmed by the fact that it is not continued beyond Antoninus,
in whose reign our author dates most of his observations. We have had
abundant evidence that he was a lover of labour and a lover of truth,
and are fully warranted to regard this canon as giving to ancient history
mathematical exactness. . . . The motions and phases of the luminaries
are visible every day, and with these alone we have been able to authenticate
the whole of the ‘Almagest.’ Even the errors of Ptolemy augment,
if possible, the evidence for the authenticity of the ‘Syntaxis,’
and a foundation is laid for chronology sure as the stars. The external
evidence for the text-book is most abundant. It is mentioned in terms
of the highest approbation by Greek, Hebrew, and Arabian historians. In
the ninth century the celebrated caliph, Al Mamun, caused it to be translated
into Arabic. Persic and Hebrew versions engaged the attention of oriental
savants in our middle ages, and at the dawn of printing Latin translations
were abundantly diffused. . . . It is to Ptolemy that our modern astronomy
is almost wholly due; but those who enjoy the benefit have forgotten the
benefactor. The name of Ptolemy, who was certainly not inferior, perhaps
superior, to Newton, is seldom mentioned but to be covered with pity or
with ridicule. Even men of science have not given to Ptolemy the honour
that belongs to him. Delambre has fancied that he was a mere copyist of
Hipparchus, and that to the latter the excellences found in the ‘Syntaxis’
are all to be attributed. Far be it from us to deny the greatness of Hipparchus,
but Ptolemy was greater. His account of the ancient eclipses, and of their
connexion with historic facts, is more precious than gold, and guarantees
a translation of the ‘Almagest’ into every language. In the
want of modern instruments he may have made an error in the observation
of the equinoxes, and all facts then known sanctioned the earth’s
stability. Veritas proevalehit, and the worth of Ptolemy is again appreciated.
La Place, ‘ Systhmo du Mondo,’ has seen his value."
In order to obtain a safe and scientific foundation for his mathematical
calculations as to solar and lunar movements, including his valuable astronomic
tables, Ptolemy compares three carefully selected, well attested ancient
eclipses, observed at Babylon in the reign of Mardocempadus, with three
other eclipses which he had observed at Alexandria in the seventeenth,
eighteenth, and twentieth years of the reign of Hadrian. He similarly
compares three eclipses which took place in the fourth century after Nabonassar,
referred to by the celebrated Greek astronomer Hipparchus, with three
other eclipses recorded by the same astronomer, which occurred two centuries
later.
In this comparison Ptolemy deals with no less than four groups of ancient
eclipses, Babylonian, Grecian, and Roman, containing three in each, twelve
in all. These eclipses have been frequently verified by modern astronomers,
and they combine to fix the chronological dates with which they are connected
with the utmost certainty. If a single eclipse is sufficient to attest
an ancient date, how conclusive the concurrent evidence afforded by four
groups of eclipses! But these are not all the astronomic phenomena which
Ptolemy records. We append a list of no less than eighty-five solar, lunar,
and planetary positions, with their dates, as given in the "Almagest,"
and as verified by modern astronomers. This list contains four vernal
equinoxes, eight autumnal, four summer solstices, nineteen lunar eclipses,
nine lunar observations, and forty-one planetary observations, including
sixteen of Mercury, ten of Venus, five of Mars, five of Jupiter, and five
of Saturn. The time of the occurrence of these astronomic phenomena is
measured by Ptolemy from noon of the first of the Egyptian month Thoth,
in the first year of Nabonassar. The verification of the time of any of
these events is the verification of the initial data from which the whole
series is reckoned. Thoth 1 Nab. 1 is thus abundantly determined to be
noon February 26th, B.C. 747.
[ As an illustration of Ptolemy’s use of the Nabonassar era as a
fixed and constant epoch from which to measure various astronomic events,
we quota the following, from his chapter on the epoch of the main movements
of the moon in longitude and anomaly: "In order to reduce these epochs
to noon of the first day of the Egyptian month Thoth of the first year
of Nabonassar, we have taken the interval of time which elapses from this
day to the middle of the second of the three first and nearest eclipses
which happened, as we said, in the second year of Mardocempadus, between
the 18th and 19th of the Egyptian month Thoth, at one- half and one-third
of an equinoctial hour before midnight, which made an interval of twenty-seven
Egyptian years (years of 365 days) seventeen days and 111 hours very nearly;
and casting out two complete revolutions in longitude, 123 22’ and
103 35’, if we subtract respectively those quantities from the positions
of the middle of the second eclipse, we shall have for the first year
of Nabonassar, the first day of the Egyptian month Thoth, at noon, the
mean place of the moon 11 22’ of Taurus in longitude, and 263 49’
anomaly, from the apogee of the epicycle, that is to say, at 7 37’
elongation; the sun, as has been proved, being then in 00 45’ of
Picas."-" Almagest," chap. vii..]
In addition to this primary Babylonian date, these astronomic records
fix directly the times of the Babylonian monarchs Mardocempadus and Nabopolassar,
the Persian monarchs Cambyses and Darius, the Grecian dates employed by
Hipparchus, and the dates of the Roman emperors Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian,
and Antoninus Pins; while indirectly they enable us to determine the dates
of all the intermediate reigns recorded in Ptolemy’s ASTRONOMICAL
CANON, a list of fifty-five successive reigns, extending over a period
of 907 years, from Nabonassar of Babylon to the Roman emperor Antoninus
Pius.
This invaluable Canon, representing the unbroken imperial rule administered
by successive dynasties of Gentile empires, is divided by Ptolemy into
four distinct parts.
1.Babylonian kings, twenty in number.
2.Persian kings, ten in number, terminating with Alexander the Great,
of Macedon, eleven names in all.
3.Grecian kings, twelve in number.
4.Roman emperors, twelve in number.
The sum of years given in the calendar is divided into two parts: first,
424 years, from Nabonassar to Alexander of Macedon; and secondly, 483
years, from Philip Aridæus to Antoninus Pius. The striking and important
agreement between the historical and chronological outline given in the
canon of Ptolemy and that set forth in the fourfold image of Nebuchadnezzar
s vision, described and interpreted by Daniel, is referred to by Faber
in the following words: "As the good Spirit of God employs the four
successive empires of Babylon, and Persia, and Greece, and Rome, in the
capacity of THE GRAND CALENDAR OF PROPHECY, so Ptolemy has employed the
very same four empires in the construction of his invaluable Canon; because
the several lines of their sovereigns so begin and end, when the one line
is engrafted upon the other line, as to form a single unbroken series
from Nabonassar to Augustus Caesar. In each case the principle of continuous.
arrangement is identical. Where Ptolemy makes the Persian Cyrus the immediate
successor of the Babylonian Nabonadius, or Belshazzar, without taking
into account the preceding kings of Persia or of Media, there, in the
image, the silver joins itself to the gold; where Ptolemy makes the Grecian
Alexander the immediate successor of the Persian Darius, without taking
into account the preceding kings of Macedon, there, in the image, the
brass joins itself to the silver; and where Ptolemy makes the Roman Augustus
the immediate successor of the Grecian Cleopatra, without taking into
account the long preceding roll of the consular Fasti and the primitive
Roman monarchy, there, in the image, the iron joins itself to the brass.
In short, the Canon of Ptolemy may well be deemed a running comment upon
the altitudinal line of the great metallic image. As the parts of the
image melt into each other, forming jointly one grand succession of supreme
imperial domination, so the Canon of Ptolemy exhibits what may be called
a picture of unbroken imperial rule, though administered by four successive
dynasties, from Nabonassar to Augustus and his successors. ["Sacred
Calendar of Prophecy," vol. ii., p. 7.]
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ADJUSTMENT OF THE CHRONOLOGY OF SCRIPTURE TO THAT OF
THE ALMAGEST AND CANON OF PTOLEMY.
PTOLEMY, records in his "Almagest" seven eclipses belonging
to the Babylonian and Persian periods. Of these, four occurred in the
reigns of the Babylonian monarchs Mardocempadus and Nabopolassar, and
three in the reigns of the Persians kings Cambyses and Darius. The dates
of these eclipses are accurately given, and verified by astronomical calculation
are as follows:
BC.
1. 721, March 19. 1st of Mardocempadns.
2. 720, ,, 8. 2nd of ,,
3. 720, Sept. 1. 2nd of ,,
4. 621, April 21. 5th of Nabopolassar.
5. 523, July 16. 7th of Cambyses.
6. 502, Nov. 19. 20th of Darius.
7. 491, April 25. 31st of ,,
The relative position of these dates in Ptolemy’s "Almagest"
is in perfect correspondence with the dates of the Babylonian and Persian
kings in his Canon. By the fourth of these eclipses the fifth year of
Nabopolassar is fixed as B.C.
621. Nabopolassar reigned, according to the Canon, twenty-one years; and
was followed by Nabopolassar, the Nebuchadnezzar of Scripture, who reigned
forty- three years.
The reigns of the Babylonian and Persian monarchs connected with the Captivity
and restoration of Judah are given in the Canon as follows:
BABYLONIAN KINGS. Nabokolassar . . . . 43 years. Ilvarodamus . . . . .
2 Nerikassolasar . . . 4 Nabonadius . . . . . 17
PERSIAN KINGS. Cyrus . . . . . . . . 9 years. Cambyses . . . . . . 8 Darius
I. . . . . . 36 Xerxes . . . . . . . 21 Artaxerxes . . . . . 41
1. The destruction of the temple took place according to Scripture in
the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. As the three successors of Nabokolassar
reigned respectively but two years, four years, and seventeen years, none
of these can represent the Nebuchadnezzar of Scripture.
2. The captivity of Jehoiachin began, according to Scripture, in the eighth
year of Nebuchadnezzar, lasted for thirty-seven years, and terminated
in the first year of his successor, Evil-merodach. "It came to pass
in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of
Judah, in the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month,
that Evil-merodach king of Babylon in the year that he began to reign
did lift up the head of Jehoiachin out of prison" (#2Ki 25:27). The
Evil-merodach of Scripture corresponds with the Ilvarodamus of the Canon
of Ptolemy, and the interval from the eighth year of Nabokolassar to the
first year of his successor, Ilvarodamus, includes in the Canon a period
of thirty-seven years.
3. The seventy years’ interval, which extended, according to Scripture,
from the beginning of the captivity of Judah, under Nebuchadnezzar, to
the first year of Cyrus, further determines the position of Nebuchadnezzar’s
reign. The Canon assigns sixty-six years from the first of Nabokolassar
to the first of Cyrus. The captivity of Judah commenced B.C. 605, in the
year which preceded the first of the sole monarchy of Nebuchadnezzar,
and terminated B.C. 536, two years after the capture of Babylon by Darius.
Ptolemy reckons the years of Cyrus from the date of the capture of Babylon,
B.C. 538; but while this is admissible, the first year of his sole monarchy
was B.C. 536. [CLINTON : "Epitome of Chron. of Greece," pp.
235-7.]
4. Darius the Mede is not mentioned by Ptolemy, because his reign was
cotemporaneous with that of Cyrus. The notion entertained by some few
that Darius the Mede was Darius Hystaspes is disproved by the opening
verses of #Dan 11., where we read that "In the first year of Darius
the Mede" the angel revealed to Daniel that there were yet three
kings to arise in Persia, and that the fourth should be richer than them
all, and by his strength through his riches should "stir up all against
the realm of Grecia." This last was clearly Xerxes, and as Darius
Hystaspes was his immediate predecessor, he could not have been Darius
the Mede. Xerxes was the fourth king after Darius the Mede, and Darius
Hystaspes was not Darius the Made, but the third after him.
5. Of the three Persian kings who intervened between Cyrus and Xerxes,
Ptolemy omits Smerdis, because his reign was only seven months in duration,
and reckons his period in the reign of Cambyses. The Canon consistently
omits all reigns less than a year in duration, and includes their periods
in the longer reigns. This fact is conspicuous in its chronology of the
Roman emperors.
6. The position and period of the Artaxerxes I. of the Canon of Ptolemy
correspond with those of the Artaxerxes of #Ezra 7. and of the book of
Nehemiah. The forty-one years assigned by the Canon to the reign of Artaxerxes
I. give room for the events and dates in Ezra and Nehemiah. The missions
of these reformers took place in the seventh, twentieth, and thirty-second
years of Artaxerxes, and fell within these forty-one years. The reigns
of Artaxerxes’ predecessor and of his successor were respectively
twenty-one and nineteen years, and therefore shorter than that of the
Artaxerxes of Nehemiah.
7. Josephus, who lived before Ptolemy, and was therefore no copyist of
his astronomical Canon, confirms and illustrates the foregoing chronology.
It is noteworthy that he assigns forty-three years to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar,
which is the period assigned in the Canon to the reign of Nabokolassar.
"Now when king Nebuchadnezzar had reigned forty-three years he ended
his life" (Ant., x., c. xi.). The authorities quoted by Josephus
in his account of Nebuchadnezzar are Berosus, Megasthenes, Diodes, and
Philostratus, of whose works he says, "These are all the histories
that I have met with concerning this king."
The liberation of Jehoiachin is thus described by Josephus: "After
the death of Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-merodach his son succeeded in the kingdom,
who immediately set Jechoniah at liberty, and esteemed him amongst his
most intimate friends; he also gave him many presents, and made him honourable
above the rest of the kings that were in Babylon: for his father had not
kept his faith with Jechoniah when he voluntarily delivered up himself
to him, with his wives and children, and his whole kindred, for the sake
of his country, that it might not be taken by siege, and utterly destroyed."
The successors of Evil-merodach were, according to Josephus, Neglissar
(the Nerikassolasar of Ptolemy’s Canon), Labosordachus, who reigned
but nine months, and is consequently omitted in the Canon, and "Baltasar,
who by the Babylonians was called Naboandelus; against him did Cyrus the
king of Persia and Darius the king of Media make war, and when he was
besieged in Babylon there happened a wonderful and prodigious vision"-the
handwriting on the wall interpreted by Daniel. The Naboandelus of Josephus
is evidently the Nabonadius of the Canon; but modern researches in the
Assyrian records distinguish him from Belshazzar, who was slain in the
capture of Babylon.
Josephus assigns seventeen years to the reign of Naboandelus (or Nabonadius),
as does the Canon, and seventy years to the interval from the beginning
of the Babylonish captivity to the first of Cyrus.
"Now after a little while both himself and the city were taken by
Cyrus, the king of Persia, who fought against him; for it was Baltasar
under whom Babylon was taken, when he had reigned seventeen years. And
this is the end of the posterity of King Nebuchadnezzar, as history informs
us; but when Babylon was taken by Darius, and when he with his kinsman
Cyrus had put an end to the dominion of the Babylonians, he was sixty-two
years old. He was the son of Astyages, and had another name among the
Greeks.
["The book of Daniel states, that after the conquest of Babylon,
a monarch named Darius the Mede took the kingdom previous to the reign
of Cyrus. This Darius has not been identified with any prince known to
history, and his reign has been supposed to have been short, not exceeding
two years; this would reduce the accession of Cyrus as king of Babylon
to B.C. 537, his first year, in which the Jews were released from captivity,
falling in B.C. 536. Ptolemy’s Canon omits the reign of Darius, and
gives the whole period from the capture of Babylon to the accession of
Cambyses to Cyrus."-George Smith: "Assyrian Canon," p.
167.]
Moreover he took Daniel the prophet, and carried him with him into Media,
and honoured him very greatly, and kept him with him; for he was one of
the three presidents whom he set over his three hundred and sixty provinces,
for into so many did Darius part them..
"In the first year of the reign of Cyrus, which was the seventieth
from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon,
God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according
as He had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction
of the city."
8. The Greek historian Herodotus, who wrote in the fifth century B.C.,
confirms in many and various ways the Scripture account of the capture
of Babylon by the Persians. The great work of Herodotus may be described
as the story of the westward pushing of the Persian ram told by a contemporary.
While the graphic and interesting pages of Herodotus shed a large amount
of light on the period with which they deal, they are sadly disfigured
by many erroneous statements. In his work on "The Ancient Empires
of the East," published in 1884, Prof. Sayce, of Oxford, thus refers
to the untrustworthiness in question:
"The discoveries which have been pouring in upon us of late years
from all parts of the oriental world have made it possible to test the
value of our chief classical authority for the history of the ancient
East, and at the same time to give some idea of what that history actually
was. So rapid indeed has been the progress of research, that not only
have the essays attached to Rawlinson’s translation of Herodotus
already become antiquated, but even Francois Lenormant’s well known
‘Manual of Ancient History’ has long since needed to be re-written.
Before the ground can be cleared for reconstructing the fabric of oriental
antiquity from the remains it has itself left behind, it is absolutely
necessary that the works of Herodotus and his followers should be set
in their true light, and estimated at their true value. Herodotus cannot
be accepted as a guide, unless we are first assured that his historical
information is trustworthy, and his literary honesty unimpeachable. Whatever
the cause or causes may have been, from the first he met with hostile
criticism. Hardly had the generation for whom he wrote passed away before
Thukydides tacitly accused him of errors, which the Attic historian corrected
without even naming the author to whom they were due.
Modern research obliges us to endorse the judgment passed upon Herodotus
almost as soon as his history was published.We are compelled to turn from
the great writers of Greece and Rome as from unsafe guides. The literary
value of their works can never be depreciated, and for western history
their authority is supreme But the orientalist can never again go to them
for instruction and argument with the faith of former generations: living
witnesses, as it were, have started out of the grave of centuries to convict
them of error and deceit."
9. While discrediting the value of Herodotus, these eastern witnesses
confirm in a very remarkable manner the Canon of Ptolemy, and the historical
and chronological statements contained in Scripture.
The following extracts are from "The Assyrian Eponym Canon: containing
Translations of the Documents, and an Account of the Evidence, on the
Comparative Chronology of the Assyrian and Jewish Kingdoms, from the Death
of Solomon to Nebuchadnezzar," by George Smith, of the Department
of Oriental Antiquities, British Museum; author of "History of Assurhanipal
"; "Assyrian Discoveries," etc., etc.:
"One of the most important historical documents ever discovered was
found by Sir Henry Rawlinson among the inscribed terra-cotta tablets,
which Mr. Layard and other explorers brought over from Nineveh.
Sir Henry Rawlinson distinguished four copies of the Assyrian Canon, all
imperfect, which he numbered I., II., III., IV.; but since his discovery
of these, several new fragments have been found, belonging to Canon I.,
and to three further copies, Canons V., VI., VII. All these documents,
so far as they are preserved, closely agree. They consist of lists of
the annual eponymes in their chronological order, and to those names in
Canons V., VI., VII. there are added the titles of the eponymes, and short
notices of the principal events during their terms of office " (pp.27,
28).
"In Assyria the practice of dating documents according to the regnal
years of the reigning monarchs was seldom used, by far the greater number
of inscriptions being dated by the names of certain officers called by
the Assyrian limu; a word which, by general consent, is translated ‘eponym.’
The Assyrian limu or eponymes were appointed according to a general rotation;
and each one in succession held office for a year, and gave name to that
year; the usage of the Assyrians in this respect being similar to that
of the archons at Athens, and the consuls at Rome. The lord mayors of
London are also appointed for a year, and a parallel case would be presented
if He dated our documents according to the year when successive lord mayors
held office: calling the years after their names" (p.22).
THE ASSYRIAN EPONYM CANON AND CANON OF PTOLEMY COMPARED.
"The important bearing of the Assyrian Canon on general chronology
is shown most clearly in its relations to the Canon of Ptolemy and the
chronology of the books of Kings.
"So far as it has been tested, the Canon has proved an accurate and
reliable document; and it is therefore of the first importance to compare
its dates with those of the Assyrian Canon wherever it is possible to
do so. "The list of Ptolemy in the Assyrian period is as follows:
LIST. Length of reign Date B.C. Nabonassar 14 747 Nabius 2 733 Chinzirus
and Porus 5 731 Jugæus or Ilulæus 5 726 Mardocempadus 12 721 Arkianus
5 709 Interregnum 2 704 Belibus 3 702 Apronadisus 6 699 Iregibelus 1 693
Mesesimordakus 4 692 Interregnum 8 688 Asaridinus 13 680 Saosduchinus
20 667 Isiniladanus 22 647 Nabopolassar 21 625
"We have here sixteen dates to compare with the Assyrian annals,
and our evidence confirms ten of them; the two first, three in the middle,
and the last being
the only ones on which no information has been discovered. The third date
of Ptolemy, the first year of Chinzirus and Porus, B.C. 731, is the point
where his list and the Assyrian Canon first come into contact. In the
eponymy corresponding to B.C. 731, Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, invaded
Babylonia, killed Nabe-asabsi, who may correspond to the Nabius of Ptolemy,
and besieged Kin-ziru (the Chinzirus of Ptolemy) in his capital, Sapiya.
Some time after this, Tiglath-pileser claimed the Babylonian crown; and
the Canon of Ptolemy inserts with the name of Chinzirus that of Porus
or Pul, who has been supposed by Rawlinson, Schrader, and others to be
the same as Tiglath-pileser.
"The next date in Ptolemy, B.C. 726, is also the first year of Shalmaneser,
king of Assyria, who ascended the throne B.C. 727.
"The Mardocempadus of Ptolemy is well known as the Merodach-baladan
of the Second Book of Kings, and the Marudukbalidina of the inscriptions,
who ascended the throne of Babylon B.C. 722, contemporary with the accession
of Sargon, in Assyria, the first year of the reign of both monarchs being
B.C. 721, perfectly agreeing with Ptolemy. Thus Arkianus, who according
to Ptolemy succeeded him, and had his first year in B.C. 709, must be
Sargon, who conquered Merodach- baladan in B.C. 710, and who counts his
own first year as king of Babylon equivalent to his thirteenth in Assyria,
B.C. 709.
"The reign of Sargon ended B.C. 705, and Ptolemy reckons B.C. 704
and 703 as years of interregnum. According to the Assyrian inscriptions,
in B.C. 704 Sennacherib drove out Merodach-baladan, and in B.C. 703 set
up at Babylon Bel- ibni, whom Ptolemy calls Belibus, giving his first
year 702 B.C. In the year B.C. 700 Sennacherib again invaded the country,
and sot up his son Assur-nadin-sum as king of Babylon; he corresponds
to the Apronadisus of Ptolemy; his first year was B.C. 699. The following
dates of Ptolemy, B.C. 693, 692, and 688, are not confirmed by any known
inscription; but the next data, B.C. 680, for the first year of Esarhaddon,
agrees with the Assyrian inscriptions, which make his accession B.C. 681.
The first year of Saosduchinus, according to Ptolemy, B.C. 667, also agrees
with his accession, according to the Assyrian history, on the death of
Esarhaddon, B.C. 668. _________________________________________________________________
[Compare Morton Edgar on Ptolemy; ’Chronology’ in ’Pyramid
Passages’, now on Bible Students Library CD-ROM. Ed.]
__________________________________________________________________
ACCOUNT OF THE CAPTURE OF BABYLON BY CYRUS.
FROM THE ASSYRIAN ANNALS.
"‘At the and of the month Elul (August) the gods of Akkad, who
were above the atmosphere, came down to Babylon, The gods of Borsippa,
Cutha, and Sippara came not down. In the month Tammuz (June) Cyrus made
battle in Rutum against .
. . of the river Nizallat. The men of Akkad made a revolt. The soldiers
took Sippara on the fourteenth day without fighting, and Nabonidus fled
away. On the sixteenth day Gobryas, the governor of Gutium, and the army
of Cyrus came to Babylon without any opposition. Afterwards, having bound
Nabonidus, he took him to Babylon. At the and of the month Tammuz the
rebels of Gutium closed the gates of E-sagili; but neither in that temple
nor any other temple of the country was there found a weapon for its defence.
In the month Marchesvan (October), the third day, Cyrus came to Babylon;
the roads were dark before him.. He made peace to the city and promised
peace to all Babylon. Cyrus appointed Gobryas to be governor in Babylon
together with others. From the month Kislev (November) to the month Adar
(February) they brought back to their shrines the gods of Akkad, whom
Nabonidus had sent down to Babylon, In the month of Marchesvan (October)
the dark, the eleventh day, Gobryas . . . and the king (Nabonidus) died.
From the 27th of the month Adar (February) to the third day of the month
Nisan (March) there was weeping in Akkad. All the people were free from
their chief. On the fourth day Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, in the Temple
of the Sceptre of the World, established a festival.
"This is the brief history of the conquest of Babylon as recorded
in the annals ; and it will be easy to see that it was brought about by
other things than force of arms. There was a revolt among the troops of
Nabonidus, and he fled, hence Sippara was easily taken, and the rebels
who shut themselves up in E-sagili were without arms, therefore they were
subdued without difficulty. There is a fragment of a cylinder in the British
Museum which was drawn up by the command of Cyrus, and which gives his
account of the taking of Babylon. As this famous record is so important,
a paraphrase is here given.
"The first few lines of the fragment are much broken, and only a
few words are readable, but the general import of them seems to be that
under the care of Nabonidus the rites of the temples were discontinued,
and that the ordinary offerings and sacrifices were left unperformed.
At this Merodach, the lord of the gods, grieved, and the gods left their
respective shrines. At the sacred feasts which were celebrated within
Kal-anna Merodach did not appear, he had taken himself away to other peoples.
Merodach was kind to the people of Sumir and Akkad, and he returned, and
rejoiced all the countries. He sought out a king for himself who would
perform according to the heart’s desire of the god whatever was entrusted
to his hand. He proclaimed the renown of Cyrus the king of Anzan (Persia),
throughout the length and breadth of the land, and he proclaimed his glory
to all. He made all the people of Gutium, whom he had gathered to his
feet, and all the dark races whom he had caused his hand to take, to dwell
under law and righteousness. Merodach, the great lord, directed his (Cyrus)
hand and heart; he lived happily. The god commanded him to make the march
to his city Babylon; he made him take the road to Tintir (Babylon); the
forces of Cyrus marched like a cloud and an earth wall. His army was wide-spreading
and far-reaching like the waters of a river, his forces were without number.
He made them enter Kal-anna without fighting and without contest; he made
breaches all round the city, and he (the god) delivered Nabonidus, who
did not reverence him, into the hands of Cyrus. All the people of Tintir
and all the people of Akkad and Sumir, nobles, and priests, who had opposed
the king, he crushed beneath him, and they came and kissed his feet. And
than the god Merodach, who by his service makes the dead to live, and
who in difficulty and trouble aids every one, drew near to him favourably
and made known his proclamation, saying, ‘I am Cyrus the king, .
. . the great king, the mighty king, king of Tintir, king of Sumir and
Akkad, king of the four regions of the earth, the son of Cambyses, the
great king, king of the city Anzan, grandson of Cyrus, the great king,
king of the city of Anzan, great-grandson of Teispes, the great king of
the city of Anzan, of the ancient seed of royalty, whose dominion (reign)
Bel and Nebo had exalted according to the beneficence of their hearts.’
"After Cyrus entered Babylon with joy and gladness, he enlarged the
royal palace, the seat of royalty, and Merodach, whom the Babylonians
had grieved, daily rejoiced the heart of his followers. His wide-spreading
forces were spread over the land peacefully, and he repaired the cities
and made joyful the children of Babylon. Cyrus was careful to repair immediately
the temple of the god Merodach, and the god was pleased to approach him
favourably. All the kings of Phenicia and round about brought their tribute
and kissed the feat of Cyrus. He restored the shrines and dwelling-places
of the gods of the towns of Agade Isnumnak, Zamban, and elsewhere. The
gods of Akkad and Sumir, which Nabonidus had brought from their shrines
for the final festival, Cyrus restored to their places. The last line
or two of the inscription tells us that he prayed daily to Nebo and Bel,
that they would be pleased to prolong his days, to bless the decree for
his prosperity, and that Merodach would regard him as his faithful follower
and son..
"Such is the account given of this remarkable fragment of the fall
of Babylon. It will be remembered that the old historian Herodotus tells
us that Cyrus drained the river Euphrates nearly dry by means of a canal
running into a lake, and that the Persians marched up through the river
gates, which were carelessly left open by the Babylonians. No mention
of this is made in the inscriptions; but there is no reason why Cyrus
should not have had recourse to this means as well as to fighting. We
have mentioned that Nabonidus had entrusted the charge of the Babylonian
army to his son Belshazzar, and the Bible tells us that he was slain on
the awful night of the capture of Babylon. It makes no mention of Nabonidus.
Josephus says, ‘And when Neriglissar was dead the kingdom came to
Baltasar, who by the Babylonians was called Naboandelus’; and in
another part of his book he calls Nabonidus ‘Nabonnedon.’ Now
it is evident that the father Nabonidus and the son Belshazzar became
confused in the minds of the writers of the histories, but one and the
same king is meant. It was natural that foreigners should consider Belshazzar
to be the king, because he was master of the army.
"The Bible and Josephus record an event in this king’s life
which the inscriptions and Herodotus mention not. It is said ‘Belshazzar
the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine
before the thousand. Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded
to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father (i.e. his ancestor)
Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that
the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink
therein. . . . In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand,
and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of
the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.’
Belshazzar, exceedingly terrified at this, called for all the astrologers,
soothsayers, and augurs, and demanded an interpretation; but none could
read it. At last came Daniel, the servant of the Lord, and read the awful
dictum to the king-’ Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin ‘; i e., ‘God
bath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it; thou art weighed in the balances,
and art found wanting; thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes
and Persians.’ A verse or two later we read: ‘In that night
was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.’
"The Babylonians had heard for years of the conquests of Cyrus, but
they felt secure when they remembered the walls of their city, and the
huge gates which broke their line at short distances. They thought of
their past conquests, of their glories, of their old lines of kings, and
were insolently secure in their hearts. The prophets of Israel denounced
Babylon in their prophecies; all nations took up the cry of joy at her
downfall, and the cry, ‘Babylon is fallen !’ resounded from
city to city, and from one and of the earth to the other."
Index Preface 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Appendix A Appendix B
