NEBUCHADNEZZAR AND JERUSALEM

The events which led to the Babylonian Captivity are well known. Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon in 605, recovered Syria and Palestine which had been seized by the Egyptians in 609. His army returned to the territory west of the Euphrates in 604 ( when he captured the city of Ashkelon), and again in 603. During one of these campaigns he received the submission of Jehoiakim, king of Judah. But three years later, after the failure of Nebuchadnezzar's advance to the Egyptian frontier, in 601, the king of Judah "turned and rebelled" against Babylon (II Kings 24: I), and for a few years Jerusalem remained in the Egyptian sphere of influence. Jehoiakim died on or about December 7, 598. Jehoiachin, his son and succes• sor, continued his father's pro-Egyptian course. But toward the end of the year 598, a Babylonian army invaded Judah. Jerusalem was captured on March I, 597, and Jehoiachin deported to Babylonia. Nebuchadnezzar installed Zedekiah, an uncle of Jehoiachin, in the royal office. Some years later, however, trusting in the promises of the Pharaohs Psammetichus II and Aprias (Hophra), Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar's army laid siege to Jerusalem, and on the 9th day of the fourth month in the eleventh year of Zedekiah (II Kings 25: 2), that is, on August 25, 587 or on July 18, 586, the Babylonians captured Jerusalem. The city was burned; Judah became a Babylonian province, and the Baby• lonian governor made his residence at Mizpah (Tell al Nasbeh), a little town about 13 km. north of Jerusalem. The holy city became "like a widow," and Judah "went into exile." (Lam. 1) 1

NOTE: See abbreviations at the end of article. 1 Cf. A. Malamat, /El, 18 (1968), 137-156. The absolute (Julian) chro• nology of the events preceding the fall of Jerusalem, remains uncertain, but the date of capture of the city in 597 is given in a Babylonian chronicle. Cf. E. Kutsch, Biblica, 55 (1974), 520--543. NEBUCHADNEZZAR AND JERUSALEM 283

II It is natural that in the Jewish tradition Nebuchadnezzar appeared as a wicked adversary of God and of God's people. But the historian must appreciate Nebuchadnezzar's reprisals against Jerusalem in the context of the legal and moral ideas of his age. We have to real• ize that for the Babylonians, as for their Assyrian predecessors, the wars conducted by their kings were, by definition, just and holy. 2 This idea followed from the universal concept of the providential government of the world. Each people or city had a tutelary deity who, even for the Greeks, was the owner of the city. 3 As the people could not abandon their celestial patrons (cf. J er. 2: 11), the deity could not forsake his (or her) worshippers - unless they offended their gods. Thus, when, in the days of Jeremiah, Jerusalem was endangered by a foreign conqueror, the Jews, pointing to the sanctuary repeated: "The Temple of the Lord is this" (Jer. 7:4) and trusted that "we shall not see famine or sword" (Jer. 5: 12). Solon, their contem• porary, similarly assured the Athenians that the outstretched hands of the goddess Athena from above shielded their city. The patron saint intervened to save the worshippers when they were at bay and fought for hearth and altar. The god Chemosh rescued his people

2 This dogma of political theology explained defeats as divine punish• ments. See, e.g., A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (1975), p. 149. The idea was already Sumerian. See, e.g., ANET, pp. 611-619. As the vassals swore fealty to the overlord invoking their own gods (and also the deities of the suzerain), a rebellion was sacrilegious. An Arab goddess delivered the Arab king who had revolted against Esarhaddon to the Assyr• ian king. Morton Cogan, Imperialism and Religion (1974), p. 20. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, vol. XIX. The Jews accepted this doctrine and Nebuchadnezzar could be seen as the instrument of divine wrath. See Kings 9:8-9; Jer. 25 and 27. On Ezek. 17:11-16, see M. Tsevat, JBL (1959), 199. On Nebuchadnezzar in Jewish tradition, see S. G. Bernstein, Konig Nebucadnezar van Babel in der judischen Tradition, Diss. (Bern, 1907). 3 See e.g. Thuc. II, 72, 2. Fustel de Coulanges, La cite antique, L. II, ch. VI: La cite etait la reunion de ceux qui avaient !es memes dieux pro• tecteurs.