No period in Biblical history is more interesting than the neo-Babylonian era. And in recent times much work has been done by scholars to clarify statements in the book of Daniel. We are confident our readers will appreciate this fine article by Dr. Alger J. Johns of Andrews University which appeared in the journal Vetus Testamentum. It throws some further light on events particularly important to Adventist students--the Editors.
It is a well-known fact that the leaders of the Seleucid armies at the beginning of the Maccabean period employed the military strategy of attacking the unresisting Jews on their Sabbath day.' This strategy proved eminently successful until Mattathias determined that it was necessary for his followers to resist the onslaughts of the enemy even on the Sabbath if necessary.' This latter policy of Mattathias was subsequently continued by the Jews, and contributed in no small measure to the success of the Maccabean movement of liberation.
However, it is not so generally recognized that this incident was not the first occasion upon which the enemies of the Jews employed the military strategy of attacking them on the Sabbath, for Josephus records a previous Sabbath attack at the time of Ptolemy Soter which enabled Ptolemy to capture Jerusalem. In addition to the strategy of attacking the Jews on their day of rest and worship, Ptolemy made doubly sure of success by employing the subterfuge that he had come to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices.'
Another most striking illustration of this strategy of attacking the Jews on the Sabbath has been recently brought to light (though, to the knowledge of the present writer, it has been hitherto unrecognized). The publication by wisemen of the Babylonian Chronicles has given Biblical scholarship one of the most well-attested dates (if not the most well-attested date) in Old Testament history. These Babylonian records have pinpointed the capture of Jerusalem and its king, Jehoiachin, as having taken place on the 2d of Adar of Nebuchadrezzar's seventh regnal year.' Thus it has been determined that the day of the final assault and capture of Jerusalem took place on March 16, 597 B.c.5
Thanks to the painstaking care with which Parker and Dubbersteen have assembled the available Babylonian chronological data from 626 B.C. and onward, there is an extremely high degree of probability that this date is precise, and that the 2d of Adar was indeed March 16, 597 B.C.6 Once the Julian date has been determined it is quite easy to utilize astronomical tables and ascertain the Julian day number. The Julian day number for March 16, 597 B.C. is 1503444.7 Furthermore, once the Julian day number has been determined, mere arithmetical computation reveals that Julian day number 1503444, March 16, 597 B.C., was a Saturday. Possibly it is significant that Nebuchadrezzar, able military leader that he was, apparently chose to make his final assault on the city of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day, for he must have known something of the strengths and weaknesses of the forces opposing him.
But this is not the final word on the subject. After Nebuchadrezzar took King Jehoiachin into exile, he left Judah under the rule of Zedekiah. Instead of proving a faithful vassal, Zedekiah rebelled and Nebuchadrezzar was once again compelled to put down the rebellion by leading his armies against Jerusalem. More than one line of Biblical tradition states that this final siege of Jerusalem began on the 10th day of the 10th month of Zedekiah's 9th year.' Regardless of whether the Jews at this time were using an autumn to autumn or a spring to spring reckoning, this particular date fortunately falls in that six months' period in which conversion to Julian dates is unaffected. By synchronizing the Biblical date with the Babylonian records, it can be determined that Nebuchadrezzar began this siege of Jerusalem on January 15, 588 B.c.9 The Julian day number for January 15, 588 B.C. is 1506671," and again the day was a Saturday. It is too far afield to assume that Nebuchadrezzar, having succeeded in capturing Jerusalem so brilliantly on a Sabbath day a decade previously, now chose to commence the final siege of the city on a Sabbath? However, this siege, unlike the previous one, was not destined to be short, but lasted many months.
Although as yet no portion of the Babylonian Chronicle has been discovered that includes this period of Biblical history, the beginning of the siege in January, 588 B.C. is generally acknowledged by the scholarly world. The same cannot be said regarding the events for the final capture of Jerusalem, for some scholars hold to date the 586 B.C. for the fall of the city, while other equally learned scholars consider 587 B.C. to be the date.' Assuming that Josephus was correct, and that Jerusalem fell after a prolonged and arduous siege of 18 months,' it is possible to translate the data given in the Biblical records into Julian dates. The Biblical record states that the defences of the city of Jerusalem crumbled in Zedekiah's 11th year, on the 9th day of the 4th month," which was July 29, 587 B.C. The Julian day number for this event is 1507231, again a Saturday. Apparently Nebuchadrezzar chose another Sabbath for the final assault on Jerusalem, successfully breaching the walls and capturing the city on that day."
Admittedly, the last two dates considered here might subsequently be proved erroneous by a discovery of more fragments of the Babylonian Chronicle. However, it seems that there is more than mere coincidence in all these occurrences. It seems rather that there existed an overall pattern of military strategy employed by Nebuchadrezzar. The paucity of details left us in both Biblical and secular records precludes the answering of many questions which might be raised. Did the Jews fight on the Sabbath day at this period of their history? Or was there no difference made in the defense of the city on the Sabbath day compared with the other days of the week? Were the Jews under King Jehoiachin (597 B.C.) more scrupulous in observing the Sabbath by resting and refraining from fighting than they were later during the time of Zedekiah? Certainly the observance of the Sabbath as part of the cult was common to the Jews of both the northern and southern kingdoms," but the manner of this observance during this period has not been described in detail.
With the knowledge of a definite date for the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar from secular records, it is of some interest to the Biblical historian to note that this monarch's apparent military strategy of attacking the Jews on their Sabbath day antedated by centuries the well-known incidents of a similar nature in Maccabean times. Although not decisive, this evidence tends to support Josephus (and 1 Maccabees) in pointing to the time of Mattathias as the time when the Jews dropped their previous military policy of not fighting on Saturdays.
NOTES
1 1 Macc ii 31ff. Josephus, Antiquities, xii. 272-275 (Loeb Classical Library, Vol. VII, pp. 140-143).
2 1 Macc ii 3ff. Antiquities, xii. 276-277 (Vol. VII, pp. 142, 143).
3 Antiquities, xii. 3-6 (Vol. VII, pp. 2-5) ; Apion, i. 209211 (Vol. I, pp. 246-249). Regarding this incident Josephus apparently relies upon the account of Agatharchides of Cnidus, although strenuously disagreeing with the implications of the latter's statement.
4 D. J. WISEMAN, Chronicles of Choidaean Kings, pp. 72. 73.
5 Op. cit P. 33.
6 For a discussion of the accuracy of the Babylonian dates see R. A. PARKER and W. H. DUBBERSTEIN, Babylonian Chronology: 626 B.C., A.D. 75, p. 25.
7 The above computation and those found subsequently are based on the tables found in the American Ephemeras and Nautical Almanac, for 1962, published by the United States Government Printing Office, 'Washington, p.c., 1960, especially Table 1, p. 437. Any previous edition of the Almanac may also be used for such computations, as well as other works dealing with this subject, such as F. K. GINZEL, Handbuch der Chronologie; etc.
8 2 Kings xxv 1; Jen lit 4; Eze. xxiv 1, 2. Cl. JOSEPHUS, Antiquities, x. 116 (Vol. VI, pp. 220, 221).
9 PARKER and DUBBERSTEIN, OP. Cit., p. 28.
10 See note 2 above.
11 This disagreement is partially based in the question as to whether the Biblical records were based on an autumn to autumn reckoning or on a spring to spring reckoning. The whole history. of this period has been dealt with by the present writer in an unpublished dissertation. The Chaldaean Kings of Babylonia, Johns Hopkins University, 1958.
12 Antiquities, x. 116 (Vol. VI, pp. 220, 221).
13 Jer lii 5 ff.
14 Antiquities, x. 135 (Vol. VI, pp. 230, 231).
15 Some recognition must be given to the possibility raised by the work of A. JAusEter, La date de la cene, p. 38, that the passage in Eze. xxiv 1 refers to a Friday, not a Saturday. But this discussion is based on historical synchronisms of Jewish i and Babylonian history, whereas hers s based on the possible projection backwards of an idealized sacerdotal calendar.
16 Hosea ii 11 (13); 2 Kings iv 23.