Esarhaddon a tolerable fit
for
King Nebuchednezzar
Part Four: Siege of the City of Tyre
by
Damien
F. Mackey
“But as Steinmann points
out ... the method of attack (vv. 8-9) is not that
employed by Alexander but
is similar to that of attackers previous to
Nebuchednezzar (e.g.,
Esarhaddon in 673)”.
Arnold J. Tkacik
Fr. Arnold J. Tkacik (OSB) has written what I would consider to be a
most helpful and enlightening commentary on the extremely complex biblical Book
of Ezekiel in his article, “Ezekiel”, for The
Jerome Biblical Commentary (1968). I refer more especially to the
exegetical (or religious-spiritual) aspect of his commentary than to the
historical side of it. Though, even in this latter regard - or at least as
regards the chronology of the book - Fr. Tkacik has arrived at what I think are
some telling conclusions.
However, if this present series is correct, according to which
Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ is to be enlarged and greatly filled out with the
potent king, Esarhaddon, then any conventional commentary for this particular
period of biblico-history must needs be somewhat one-dimensional rather than being
able to present a full picture of the times.
Regarding the siege of the Phoenician Tyre in the Book of Ezekiel,
or what Fr. Tkacik heads, The Tidal wave
Against Tyre (26:1-21), the author will suggest that “the method of attack”
in this case is more along the lines of Esarhaddon’s modus operandi against Tyre than, as according to some, that of
Alexander the Great. Thus he writes (21:60):
Some authors
(e.g. Holscher and Torrey) maintain that the poem describes the capture of Tyre
by Alexander in 332, because it speaks of a complete destruction of the city
(vv. 3-6, 14). But as Steinmann points out ... the method of attack (vv. 8-9)
is not that employed by Alexander but is similar to that of attackers previous
to Nebuchednezzar (e.g., Esarhaddon in 673).
[End
of quote]
The “method of attack” is described in Ezekiel 26:8-9 like this:
He will ravage
your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works
against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you.
He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish
your towers with his weapons.
Instead of his writing “similar to that of attackers previous to
Nebuchednezzar (e.g., Esarhaddon ...)”, though, Fr. Tkacik could well have
written “similar to that of attackers Nebuchednezzar, Esarhaddon”. For, unlike
Alexander, the neo-Assyrian/Babylonian besiegers failed to complete their work
even after years of effort.
Compare the following two items (Esarhaddon, Nebuchednezzar):
The capture of Tyre
was also attempted, but, the city being differently situated, a siege from the
land was insufficient to bring about submission, as it was impossible to cut
off the commerce by sea. The siege, after several years, seems to have been
lifted. Although on a great monolith Esarhaddon depicts Ba`al, the king of
Tyre, kneeling before him with a ring through his lips, there is nothing in the
inscriptions to bear this out.
Several
aspects of this prophecy deserve attention and close scrutiny. The prophet
predicted: (1) many nations would come against Tyre; (2) the inhabitants of the
villages and fields of Tyre would be slain; (3) Nebuchadnezzar would build a
siege mound against the city; (4) the city would be broken down and the stones,
timber, and soil would be thrown in “the midst of the water;” (5) the city
would become a “place for spreading nets;” and (6) the city would never be
rebuilt.
In
chronological order, the siege of Nebuchadnezzar took place within a few months
of Ezekiel’s prophecy. Josephus, quoting “the records of the Phoenicians,” says
that Nebuchadnezzar “besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal,
their king” (Against Apion, 1.21). The length of the siege was
due, in part, to the unusual arrangement of the mainland city and the island
city. While the mainland city would have been susceptible to ordinary siege
tactics, the island city would have been easily defended against orthodox siege
methods (Fleming, p. 45). The historical record suggests that Nebuchadnezzar
destroyed the mainland city, but the siege of the island “probably ended with
the nominal submission of the city” in which Tyre surrendered “without
receiving the hostile army within her walls” (p. 45). The city of Tyre was
besieged by Nebuchadnezzar, who did major damage to the mainland as Ezekiel
predicted, but the island city remained primarily unaffected.
It is at this
point in the discussion that certain skeptics view Ezekiel’s prophecy as a
failed prediction. Farrell Till stated: “Nebuchadnezzar did capture the
mainland suburb of Tyre, but he never succeeded in taking the island part,
which was the seat of Tyrian grandeur. That being so, it could hardly be said
that Nebuchadnezzar wreaked the total havoc on Tyre that Ezekiel vituperatively
predicted in the passages cited” (n.d.). Till and others suggest that the
prophecies about Tyre’s utter destruction refer to the work of Nebuchadnezzar.
After a
closer look at the text, however, such an interpretation is misguided. Ezekiel
began his prophecy by stating that “many nations” would come against Tyre
(26:3). Then he proceeded to name Nebuchadnezzar, and stated that “he” would
build a siege mound, “he” would slay with the sword, and “he” would do numerous
other things (26:7-11). However, in 26:12, the pronoun shifts from the singular
“he” to the plural “they.” It is in verse 12 and following that Ezekiel
predicts that “they” will lay the stones and building material of Tyre in the
“midst of the waters.” The shift in pronouns is of vast significance, since it
shifts the subject of the action from Nebuchadnezzar (he) back to the many
nations (they). Till and others fail to see this shift and mistakenly apply the
utter destruction of Tyre to the efforts of Nebuchadnezzar.
Furthermore,
Ezekiel was well aware of Nebuchadnezzar’s failure to destroy the city. Sixteen
years after his initial prediction, in the 27th year of Johoiachin’s captivity
(circa 570 B.C.), he wrote: “Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon
caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre; every head was made bald,
and every shoulder rubbed raw; yet neither he nor his army received wages from
Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it” (29:18). Therefore, in regard to
the prophecy of Tyre as it relates to Nebuchadnezzar’s activity, at least two
of the elements were fulfilled (i.e., the siege mound and the slaying of the
inhabitants in the field).
Neither account above allows for the total destruction of Tyre that
Alexander the Great would later manage to achieve.
In the previous article, Part
Three:
https://www.academia.edu/39725289/Esarhaddon_a_tolerable_fit_for_King_Nebuchednezzar._Part_Three_The_Marduk_Prophecy_
I also included the mighty Ashurbanipal amongst my alter egos for Nebuchednezzar. Thus I wrote:
The simple
answer, I think, as to why a document written in praise of a Babylonian king
was later considered to apply to an Assyrian ruler reigning about four centuries
after the Babylonian king, is that Nebuchednezzar I and Ashurbanipal were one
and the same king.
See e.g. my
article:
Nebuchednezzar
- mad, bad, then great
Our necessary
‘folding’ of conventional C12th BC Assyro-Babylonian history into the
C8th-C7th’s BC serves to bring great kings into their proper alignment.
Nebuchednezzar
I’s conquest of Elam now sits in place, where it should, as Ashurbanipal’s
famous devastation of Elam in 639 BC (conventional dating), when
“the Assyrians sacked the Elamite city of Susa, and Ashurbanipal boasted that
“the whole world” was his”.
[End of quote]
So what of Ashurbanipal and Tyre?
If I am correct, then he should have experienced the same outcome
there as had his alter egos, Esarhaddon,
Nebuchednezzar.
Well, it seems
that my view is solidly supported by the following statement according to which
“scholars attribute ... to Esarhaddon” what Ashurbanipal himself would claim regarding
Tyre:
Esarhaddon refers to an
earlier period when
gods, angered by insolent insolent mortals,
create a destructive flood.
According to inscriptions recorded
during his reign, Esarhaddon besieges Tyre, cutting off food and water.
Assurbanipal's
inscriptions also refer to a siege against Tyre, although scholars attribute it
to Esarhaddon.
And so they should if I am correct: Ashurbanipal was Esarhaddon – was Nebuchednezzar!
Esarhaddon's son [sic]
Aššurbanipal (r.669-631?) inherited this situation. In his third year, he tried
to capture Tyre, occupied the
mainland, but - like his predecessors - failed to capture the island city
itself. Note the absence of tribute: it seems that a marital alliance was
concluded.
...
In my third campaign I marched
against Ba'al, king of Tyre ....
Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal, Nebuchednezzar, tried to take Tyre but
failed to take it completely even after a long siege.
The king of Tyre at the time was Ba’al,
or Ithobal (Ithoba’al).
No comments:
Post a Comment