Nebuchadnezzar & Solomon

049

This article is an abbreviated version of my paper “What Has Nebuchadnezzar to Do with David? On the Neo-Babylonian Period and Early Israel,” in Chavalas and Younger, eds., Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explorations, JSOTSup 341 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), pp. 330–355.

The current debate over the historical value of the Biblical narrative has called into question the very existence of an “ancient Israel.” Indeed, key features of the Bible’s familiar storyline—Israel’s arrival from outside Canaan, wars with the indigenous Canaanite inhabitants, eventual emergence into nationhood and the United Kingdom—are considered by so-called minimalists to be largely legendary and without historical value.

This raises an interesting question: Were there other Semitic groups in antiquity who had historical trajectories similar to the Israelites? During the past century, scholars have sought to illuminate Israelite history by reference to parallels with groups as distant as Arab Bedouin traditions, the Nabateans, Greek amphictyonies^a and Hellenistic historiographers. Perhaps it is time to look for parallels among Israel’s neighbors in the Fertile Crescent who shared similar linguistic, cultural and social features. If other groups have recorded a similar understanding of their own history, then a historical storyline like that portrayed in the Bible may be plausible after all.

Two periods of neo-Babylonian history together provide an instructive parallel to the history of early Israel.¹ The first is the century prior to Nabopolassar, when Babylonia emerged from lethargy and political insignificance to become one of the great empires of the ancient world (747–626 B.C.E.), and the second is the period of the neo-Babylonian empire proper (626–539 B.C.E.). This survey of Babylonian history provides a number of fascinating and instructive analogues to Israel’s premonarchic and early monarchic periods.

This may be particularly relevant because the neo-Babylonian empire was the only native Semitic state of Iron Age Babylonia. The rule of all other monarchs of southern Babylon was imposed from outside Babylon.

Moreover, the tribal groups of Babylonia were distant relatives of the early Israelites; their language and culture reflect the same West Semitic origins as Israel’s.

My question is a simple one: Is the Bible’s historical storyline for early Israel plausible? Could a group of Semitic tribes loosely organized in a political confederation have entered Syria-Palestine 050as outsiders, gradually settled in the central hills and eventually emerged as a powerful nation-state? These social and political parallels with the neo-Babylonian period suggest that the Biblical scenario is not only plausible but attested elsewhere in ancient Near Eastern history.

Southern Babylonia in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C.E., prior to the rise of the neo-Babylonian empire, was ethnically heterogeneous, as we have learned only in recent decades.² The country was divided ethnically into three distinct groups: what we may call native Babylonians, Arameans and Chaldeans. The native Babylonians were native only in that they had not recently migrated to southern Mesopotamia. They were, in fact, an ethnic amalgam of several older groups who had arrived in the third and second millennia B.C.E. but who were, by the eighth century B.C.E., indistinguishable from one another. This “native Babylonian” group may also be referred to as “Akkadian,” since Assyrian sources refer to them as such when they want to distinguish them from other tribal groups (and that is the term modern scholars apply to their East Semitic language). The heritage of these “native Babylonians” consisted predominantly of Akkadians and Sumerians of the third millennium, and Amorites and Kassites of the second.

In the eighth century B.C.E., the native Babylonians were settled urban dwellers of southern Babylonia. They made up the largest component of the population in the old cult centers along the Euphrates corridor in the northwest (Babylon, Borsippa, Cutha, Dilbat and Sippar) and in the prestigious cities of the southwest (Ur and Uruk) (all in modern Iraq). Because of their long-standing presence in the country and their ethnic and cultural continuity with Babylonia’s past, they were the bearers of traditional Babylonian culture, as witnessed by their personal names and their continued use of Akkadian as the language of choice against encroaching West Semitic Aramaic influences.³

The fundamental social unit of the native Babylonians was the family. The standard formula for a personal name was “x son of y,” reflecting the importance of the nuclear family. Personal names occasionally also indicate the importance of broader kin-based groups; the name may be derived, for example, from an occupation (like Potter, Smith or Fisher). Or a name might incorporate the name of a common eponymous ancestor, for example, “x son of y descendant of z,” in which the last name is regarded as the founder of the family (e.g., Mušezib-Marduk maršu ša Kiribtu mar Sîn-nasir).⁴

The cities controlled by this Babylonian population formed the civil, religious, economic and judicial strength of Babylonia. These Babylonian cities were also the intellectual and cultural centers of the country.

The second ethnic group was the West Semitic Arameans. Arameans begin to appear in Assyrian literary sources in the late 12th and 11th centuries B.C.E. in central and northern Mesopotamia. Aramean groups existed in southern Babylonia from the beginning of the first millennium B.C.E. The origin and early development of the Arameans is shrouded in obscurity. Traditional scholarly interpretation has the Aramean hordes from the desert steppe sweeping across Syria and Upper Mesopotamia, conquering native populations. But recent anthropological studies have questioned this massive-invasion reconstruction for the appearance not only of the Arameans but also other pastoral nomads in the ancient Near East. It now seems likely that these West Semitic-speaking peoples had lived in Syria and Upper Mesopotamia throughout the second millennium B.C.E. Although the traditional “invasion interpretation” has clearly been overstated, there is nonetheless evidence of some Aramean invasion eastward into Assyria and Babylonia in the early 11th century B.C.E. due to a famine in their homeland. The Arameans seized cities by force, and for much of the tenth century B.C.E., the western corridor of Babylonia was in a constant state of disruption because of the Aramean 051tribal groups that now controlled the important trade route along the Euphrates River.

The Arameans settled principally along the Tigris and its tributaries. We have evidence of more than 40 such tribes,⁵ for example, the Gambulu, the Puqudu (the “Pekod” of Jeremiah 50:21 and Ezekiel 23:23), the Ru’ua and the Gurasimmu. The first two of these were the largest tribes and the only ones for which we have much information.

The third ethnic constituent were the Chaldean tribes in southern Babylonia. They first appear in Assyrian sources of the early ninth century B.C.E. Like the Arameans, they were West Semitic, and many scholars have assumed they were in fact identical with the Arameans. However, the native Assyrian and Babylonian sources consistently distinguish between them with a different tribal organization, different dates of their respective appearances in history and contrasting levels of Babylonization. All this leads to the conclusion that the Arameans and Chaldeans were two distinct groups, though perhaps ethnically related.⁶

In general, these Aramean tribes were less likely than the Chaldeans to assimilate Babylonian culture. The Aramean economy seems to have been based on animal husbandry, and the Arameans occupied fewer cities and villages than the Chaldeans. The Aramean tribesmen were not generally inclined to become involved in the Babylonian political system, and no known Aramean ever held the throne of Babylon.⁷

The Chaldeans controlled the trade routes of the Persian Gulf area and thereby accumulated considerable wealth. In addition to trade, they also engaged in agriculture and animal husbandry. They became deeply involved in Babylonian political life and, by the middle of the eighth century, became contenders for the Babylonian throne. Sometime during the second and third decades of the eighth century B.C.E., a certain Eriba-Marduk of the Bit-Yakin tribe became the first ethnic Chaldean monarch of Babylonia, out-maneuvering a temporarily weakened Assyria in the north. His reign lasted only nine years, but it set the stage for Chaldean resistance to the Assyrians for the next century and a half. Other Chaldeans attempted to rule from a Babylonian base (including Merodach-baladan II, who is mentioned in 2 Kings 20:12–19 and Isaiah 39). The Chaldeans thus played a significant role in Babylonian resistance to Assyrian rule. In the end, the unity and spirit of independence among the Chaldean tribes culminated in the rise of the so-called “Chaldean Dynasty,” more appropriately known as the neo-Babylonian empire.

These, then, were the three primary ethnic groups of southern Babylonia during the last half of the eighth and the seventh centuries B.C.E. Socially, the older Babylonian inhabitants of the larger cities were often aligned against the more ethnic tribal groups of Arameans and Chaldeans, who were relative newcomers. The older Babylonians on the one hand, and the Arameans and Chaldeans on the 052other, seldom acted in concert in matters of self-governance and in fact were frequently in conflict with each other during this turbulent period. In an internecine war between two brothers, each of whom hoped to rule over both Assyria and Babylonia, for example, the Babylonian cities of the southland were typically pro-Assyrian, while the tribal groups supported Babylonian independence.⁸

How does this situation in southern Babylonia provide a comparison with early Israel? First, the sociological constituents of Babylonia during the seventh century B.C.E. may be compared with premonarchic Israel. Second, the progression from tribalism to statehood may be compared.

Like southern Mesopotamia during the century prior to the rise of the neo-Babylonian empire, ancient Palestine was composed of two distinct sociological groups. There were the settled urban-dwellers, who were the bearers of the older, traditional culture: the Canaanites. Then there were also the pastoralist tribal groups: the tribes of Israel. As in Babylonia, conflict between these groups persisted over several centuries.

Whether these two groups in Palestine were ethnically distinct and whether the tribal pastoralists were newcomers or long-standing inhabitants of the land are subjects of current controversies among Biblical scholars. But a simple comparison with Babylonia demonstrates that it was quite possible for tribal pastoralists to overtake an established culture, whether by sudden invasion (as some of the Arameans undoubtedly did) or by gradual infiltration (as some of the Chaldeans apparently did). On the basis of this comparison with southern Babylonia, it seems quite reasonable that the Israelites could have included tribes who originated outside of Palestine and were ethnically distinct from the Canaanites.

A second comparison involves the transition from a loosely organized tribal confederation into statehood. Babylonia was under-populated, impoverished and politically fragmented at the beginning of this period. The eminent Assyriologist John A. Brinkman has demonstrated that the foundations of future neo-Babylonian strength were in fact established during this period of weakness, and surprisingly it was the Assyrian threat in the north that provided the impetus. The constant threat of Assyrian domination transformed heterogeneous anti-Assyrian elements within Babylonia into a political coalition that would eventually provide a power base for a Babylonian empire.⁹ Because of the pax Assyriaca, the Babylonian economy improved dramatically through agriculture, animal husbandry 053and international trade. Population levels rapidly increased, though the sources of the new residents are not entirely clear. Social organizations changed as family-centered structures gradually gave way to broader kin-based groups. Ultimately, the role of the ever-present Assyrian threat from the north played a significant role in the rise of Babylonian statehood. Paradoxically, anti-Assyrianism provided the rallying cry for the populations of Babylonia and stimulated their political unity.

This portrait of a rapid population increase, improved economic conditions and a movement toward unified socio-political organization is exactly paralleled in early Israel. Surface surveys in the hill country of Ephraim, for example, located only five occupied sites in the Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 B.C.E.), but in Iron Age I (1200–1000 B.C.E.) there were 115.¹⁰

Some archaeologists interpret these data as shifts in the living patterns of inhabitants already in Canaan.^b Regardless of how we explain the changes, however, it is clear that the central hill region of Palestine witnessed a rapid population growth in Iron Age I, just as Babylonia did prior to the rise of the neo-Babylonian empire.

The other main features that gave rise to statehood in Babylonia were also present in Israel, that is, improved economic condition and external military threat. Due to the rise of iron technology and improved agricultural techniques, the early Israelites eventually enjoyed economic improvement, though nothing quite as dramatic as the Chaldean advances in Babylonia.¹¹ And just as the tribal groups of southern Mesopotamia were united politically by the long history of Assyrian aggression, so the Philistine threat attested in the Bible provided motivation for centralization of Israelite authority. Recent sociological and archaeological studies demonstrate that the Philistine problem intensified as the Israelite population grew and expanded westward. These circumstances provided an impetus for the rise of the Israelite monarchy.¹²

The neo-Babylonian empire was characterized by military conquests, expansive building activities, as well as literary accomplishments. This, too, may be compared with the situation in Israel.

Two of the largest Chaldean tribes, the Bit-Amukani and Bit-Yakin, had suffered most at the hands of the Assyrians. Despite repeated Assyrian attacks on these tribes, it was they who provided the most important impetus and resources for Babylonian independence from the Assyrians. Ultimately, it was Bit-Yakin from which the royal dynasty of the nascent neo-Babylonian, or Chaldean, empire emerged.¹³

As the state emerged, the need for unification grew greater, as did the need for a strong central authority. These needs were met partially by the massive rebuilding of Babylon undertaken by Nabopolassar (625–605 B.C.E.), Nebuchadnezzar (604–562 B.C.E.) and, later and to a lesser extent, Nabonidus (556–539 B.C.E.). The rebuilding efforts concentrated on public works: palaces, fortifications, streets and temples. Without doubt, the early motivation for such rebuilding was the need to unify all Babylonia administratively and religiously.

During Nebuchadnezzar’s reign Babylon saw extensive replanning and new construction unparalleled in its history. He rebuilt the walls of Babylon and joined the halves of the city on either side of the Euphrates with a bridge. In addition to a new royal palace on the Euphrates in the northern district, he focused on cult centers. He continued the work of his father and completely restored the temple tower (ziggurat) named Etemenanki (“The building that is the Foundation of Heaven and Earth”) and the temple of Esagil (Marduk’s shrine) adjacent to it, along with its subsidiary chapels. Nebuchadnezzar’s pride in his accomplishment became legendary, as recorded in the Bible: “Is this not magnificent Babylon, which I have built as a royal capital by my mighty power and for my glorious majesty?” (Daniel 4:30 [4:27 in Hebrew]).

054

The reconstruction of the city of Babylon was motivated by the need to unify the confederation of Chaldean tribes, together with Arameans and native Babylonians.

The literary contributions of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar were only slightly less impressive than their architectural accomplishments. Here we need to distinguish between “literature” in the strict sense and non-literary inscriptions such as lexical, economic and administrative texts. Documents of the latter kind were produced in quantity by Babylonian society throughout most of the first millennium, so these texts are not really a fair indication of royal strength later on. We may assume this kind of text was more common in ancient Israel than epigraphic finds would attest due to the perishable types of writing materials used in ancient Canaan (as opposed to clay tablets in Babylonia) given the apparent widespread availability of writing in Israelite society.^c

Many cuneiform neo-Babylonian archives have Aramaic dockets scratched on the clay or are otherwise marked with black ink summarizing the cuneiform texts for the benefit of those who could not read cuneiform. Judging from the cuneiform records,¹⁴ the neo-Babylonian period was one of the most productive in all of Mesopotamian history. Over 4,600 economic, business and legal documents (including letters) dated to the neo-Babylonian kings have been published.¹⁵ The majority of these come from temple and private archives, not state archives, apparently because state chanceries used Aramaic-speaking scribes who wrote on perishable leather and papyrus.¹⁶

This period also produced, however, a valuable historiographic source, the so-called Neo-Babylonian Chronicle Series.¹⁷ These chronicles record outstanding events of each year beginning with the reign of Nabonassar (747–734 B.C.E.) and continuing into the third century. These chronicles are objective and as close as the Babylonians came to genuine historiography.¹⁸

We also know of significant libraries at Babylon and Borsippa from both the Old and neo-Babylonian periods. In 1986, archaeologists from the University of Baghdad discovered the library chamber in the neo-Babylonian temple of Shamash at Sippar. Only a few of the texts have been published, but it appears that this find will shed light on the contents of neo-Babylonian collections and on the physical arrangement of a Babylonian library. The tablets were shelved in deep cubicles with markings on the tablet edges for easy access by librarians (“call numbers”).¹⁹

In sum, the age of Nebuchadnezzar saw significant architectural achievement as well as increased literary activity and a renewed interest in the past. The ruins of Nebuchadnezzar’s magnificent palace even contained a museum in which he housed a large collection of “antiquities,” revealing his interest in archaeology and history.^d

What occurred in the neo-Babylonian empire may actually reflect a wider cultural phenomenon. Among ancient Semitic cultures that rose to nationalistic empires, a period of literary florescence and architectural accomplishments occurred under the aegis of their most successful and dominant monarchs. Curiously, among some scholars working on the Hebrew Bible, such a possibility has been denied for ancient Israel. These scholars deny that Israel ever had dominant and successful monarchs like David and Solomon. For those minimalist scholars who admit the bare existence of David and Solomon, the age of literary greatness is nonetheless assumed to be not their reigns, but the Babylonian Exile, though this would be an unparalleled situation among ancient Semitic peoples.

A close comparison of these two ancient Semitic cultures—Israel and neo-Babylonia—suggests that the literary traditions of Israel preserved in the Hebrew Bible genuinely reflect the architectural and literary activities of Israel’s United Monarchy. 076The building of Jerusalem as a unifying factor for previously disparate tribes is socially and politically paralleled in the Chaldean architectural achievements at Babylon. And just as the neo-Babylonian monarchy preserved its great literary heritage and emphasized a previously little-used form of historiography (the chronicle series), Israel appears to have preserved its own literary heritage (perhaps the sources of the Pentateuch) and created new forms of historiography (the earliest layers of the Deuteronomistic History: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings).

This scenario appears to have been quite typical among ancient Semites whenever tribal groups rose to statehood. Wherever nationalistic empires developed among Semites (Akkad, Ashur, Mari, etc.), the period of greatest military and political strength also became an age of flourishing literary and architectural accomplishment.²⁰ Such periods of enforced peace were the only times in the turbulent ancient Near East when monarchs and their state guilds had the time, inclination and resources to turn their attention to the architectural and literary achievements. In Babylonia they used durable writing materials (clay). Moreover, the royal city of Babylon was later unoccupied (yielding magnificent archaeological testimony to the empire’s building activities). Alas, we have no such luxury in the case of ancient Israel. Scribes would write almost exclusively on perishable papyrus and leather, and Jerusalem was built and rebuilt many times after the reign of Solomon.^e As a result, extrabiblical testimony for the United Monarchy remains elusive. Nonetheless, these parallels with the neo-Babylonian period suggest that David and Solomon may have more in common with Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar than might at first be supposed. These institutional and socio-political analogies should provide limits to our skepticism²¹ about early Israel and the Biblical picture of the United Monarchy.

This article is an abbreviated version of my paper “What Has Nebuchadnezzar to Do with David? On the Neo-Babylonian Period and Early Israel,” in Chavalas and Younger, eds., Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explorations, JSOTSup 341 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), pp. 330–355. The current debate over the historical value of the Biblical narrative has called into question the very existence of an “ancient Israel.” Indeed, key features of the Bible’s familiar storyline—Israel’s arrival from outside Canaan, wars with the indigenous Canaanite inhabitants, eventual emergence into nationhood and the United Kingdom—are considered by so-called minimalists to be largely legendary […]