The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and BabyloniaPinches, Theophilus G. (Theophilus Goldridge)
Religion
The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia
Pinches, Theophilus G. (Theophilus Goldridge)
Bible. Old Testament -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.
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.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account