NABUCHODONOSOR II — N. seated on a throne among dignitaries of his court. Below: a child is abandoned in a wood. Fourteenth-century miniature from a Spanish codex containing Part 4 of the Universal History of Alfonso X of Castile: “A qui se comincia la storia de Nabuchodonosor rey de Babilonia...” — Vatican Library, cod. Urb. lat. 539, f. 2.
---
From the Bible we have more information, but in some cases we must be careful about the literary genre of the biblical passages that one might wish to use as historical testimony. Thus, according to Dan. 1:1, it is highly probable that N., pursuing the Egyptians in 605, entered Jerusalem and plundered the Temple, taking some hostages. King Jehoiakim, placed on the throne by the Pharaoh, according to 2 Kings 2:1–7, submitted and became a vassal of N. for three years. Then he rebelled, trusting rather in his diviners and false prophets than in Jeremiah. N. first harassed him with raids carried out by neighboring peoples, but finally marched with his army and besieged Jerusalem. During the siege Jehoiakim died, and punishment fell upon his son Jehoiachin: the city was taken, the nobles, soldiers, craftsmen, the treasure, and part of the sacred vessels of the Temple were deported to Babylon. Jehoiachin too went into exile in Babylon, where N. provided for his upkeep (there remain “ration tablets” of oil, etc., supplied to Jehoiachin, written in cuneiform). N. appointed a new king, Mattaniah, changing his name to Zedekiah (q.v.), and for the first few years he remained loyal to N. Then Egypt, under Pharaoh Hophra (q.v.), stirred up the surrounding peoples and succeeded in forming a coalition against N. Moab, Ammon, and the naval power of Tyre adhered to it, all desirous of freedom and confident in Egypt’s promises. Against all the warnings of the prophet Jeremiah, the pro-Egyptian party prevailed in Jerusalem, and Zedekiah took part in the conspiracy. N. hastened with his army and set up headquarters at Riblah. His troops retook Lebanon, except for insular Tyre, which resisted for a full thirteen years, invaded Judea taking fortress after fortress (as is well illustrated also by the Lachish ostraca), and besieged Jerusalem for more than a year. Hophra too moved and came to Gaza, but when N.’s army went to meet him, he realized it was not advisable to risk battle and withdrew behind the Delta. The Babylonians returned to rebellious Jerusalem and took the city; a month later the “chief of the eunuchs” (Jer. 39:3, 13)—in reality the captain of the guard, Nebuzaradan (q.v.)—destroyed II. Only Tyre still resisted, but finally Ethbaal submitted, acknowledging N.’s sovereignty, and with this maritime trade resumed. A badly mutilated cuneiform tablet, as mentioned above, reports for the year 567 another expedition against Egypt, but whether and to what extent N. entered Egypt cannot be determined.
Allied and related by marriage to Media (q.v.), N. had no fighting to do on the eastern and northern frontiers of his empire. His relations with Media, which even in his time possessed the most formidable army, seem always to have been good-neighborly. N., however, perceived the danger and therefore completed the inner and outer walls of Babylon, built Ingur-Bel and Nimitti-Bel, and further fortified the latter with an artificial marsh. A more monumental defensive system (the “Median wall” admired by the Greeks) was constructed farther north, where between Opis and Sippar the Tigris and Euphrates approached to within 30 km., incorporating canals, marshes, dikes, and walls. During the Median war with Lydia, between 590 and 585, N.’s envoy, Neriglissar (q.v.), his son-in-law, negotiated a peace that fixed the frontier on the Halys.
N.’s foreign policy greatly developed trade; the city of Babylon, inhabited by about 200,000 souls, became the commercial center of the world. It may be supposed that N. imposed his authority even over Arabia, at least for control of some caravan routes. Thus he enriched his country, and this advantageous position allowed him to embellish it in an incredible way, so that one cannot dig anywhere of importance in southern Mesopotamia without unearthing bricks bearing his inscription—true fire-baked bricks, never exposed to the air.
Most splendid of all was N.’s palace, excavated by R. Koldewey, an area in the “quarter” of the “Gate of God,” together with fortifications of 500 by 400 meters, between the Processional Way of Aïburšabum, the Ingur-Bel wall, the Euphrates, and the Libil-legalia canal. It was divided into two parts: the “South Castle,” already inhabited by Nabopolassar but rebuilt on stronger foundations, and the “Main Castle,” built around a courtyard of 60 by 55 meters (there were four others besides it), whose walls, on a blue background, were adorned with palm trees in enamel. To the south of this courtyard was the throne room; this palace bore the names markas nîsî or markas mâti, i.e., “bond of men” or “bond of the land.” The northeast part of the Main Castle, facing the E-mah temple and toward the wonderful Ishtar Gate, served as a storeroom, and on its terrace were the Hanging Gardens, built according to Berossus for Queen Amytis to remind her of the beautiful mountains of her native land. Immediately beyond the Ingur-Bel walls, in the angle between the Ishtar Way (also processional, part of Aïburšabum) and the Euphrates, he built the so-called “North Castle,” which included among other things a veritable museum of monuments taken in war (the bit tabrât nîsîm, “house of the marvels of the people,” may refer to it). At the entrance stood colossal basalt lions. The walls were covered with blue paste and paintings.
The Processional Way of the god Marduk was another wonder, and even more so the Ishtar Gate, 23 meters wide, paved with large limestone stones, flanked on both sides by walls 7 meters thick, adorned with lions, towers, and the sacred muthûsû of Marduk. Farther north, where the outer walls of Nimitti-Bel reached the Euphrates, N. built another castle (apparently for summer residence). He also renewed or reopened many canals, especially lining their banks with brick walls.
More important still to N., a man of sincere devotion to the gods of Babylon, were the sacred buildings. By reconstructing and embellishing the temples, N. won the favor of the priests and resolved an urgent internal political problem of the Neo-Babylonian period. First of all there was Esagila, the temple of his si-
Ignore, of the national god, of the king of the gods Marduk, “the house of the raising of the head,” a rectangle of 79.50 by 85.50 metres, with four magnificent doors (doors were of great importance in architecture). Around a courtyard of 31.30 by 37.50 metres there were the wonderful “chapels,” built of marble and adorned with lapis lazuli, gleaming with gold: the È-kua with the great seated statue of Marduk, table, chair and footstool all of gold; the Kà-jili-ud, dwelling of Šarpanitu, divine consort of Marduk; the È-zida, abode of Nabû; and finally the du-kù, where at the New Year, on the 8th and 11th days, Marduk received in audience all the gods, who stood reverently bowed before him, and where this sacred assembly fixed the destinies of heaven and earth. Although “zealous” for the Esagila, the principal temple of the Empire, N. did not neglect the Etemenanki, the “house of the foundations of the heavens and the earth” in its vast enclosure: a colossal square building of 91.50 metres, consisting of seven superimposed and progressively narrowing stages, reaching a height of 90 metres. He rebuilt it; it belongs to a type of construction known in Babylonia from time immemorial, so as to form the historical basis of the pericope of Gen. 11:1–11 (v. ABELE, Torre di). Almost all the temples, not only in Babylon but also in Borsippa, Kuta, Sippar, Akkad, Kiš, Dilbad, Larsa, Ur, Uruk and other cities, were the object of his careful attention. He rebuilt and embellished them and endowed them with magnificent revenues, specifying in his inscriptions in detail the garments, sheep, grain and all that was necessary for their cults.
N. renewed the splendour of Babylon, surpassing all previous ages; but he could not remedy two causes of ruin: within, the excessive political influence of the priests, especially those of Marduk; without, the fact that the Medes remained militarily more powerful. The Babylonians, a people of rich and luxurious merchants, lacked the physical strength of the Medes, the mountain shepherds. The army of Babylon in his time was composed largely of mercenaries, even Greeks. Thus, only six years after the death of N., Nabonide (v.) was faced not only with the loss of splendour but with the grave problem of such an empire, to end disastrously before the Iranian power directed by the genius of Cyrus.
ARCHAEOLOGY. — In two funerary paintings the three youths Anania, Azaria and Misael are shown before King N., gesturing their adoration of the golden statue with royal effigy. The first example is in the cubicle of the martyr Crescenzione in Priscilla (Wilpert, Pitture, p. 333 tav. 123, 1); the second, seen by Bosio (Roma sotterranea, 1923, 1), has recently come to light in the so-called cemetery of SS. Marco and Marcelliano on the Via Appia (L. De Bruyne, Arcosolio con pitture recentemente ritrovato nel cimitero dei SS. Marco e Marcelliano, in Riv. di arch. crist., 26 [1950], pp. 211–14, fig. 7). Far more numerous are the examples on sarcophagi in which N. in imperial garb sits with sceptre and diadem and makes the gesture of commanding adoration; sometimes he is accompanied by a soldier (Wilpert, Sarcofagi, pp. 261–62), tav. 129, 2; 176, 189, 195, 4; 199, 3; 200, 2 and 3). The scene is crudely depicted even on a rough Christian lamp found at Carthage, now in the Lavigérie Museum (A. Toulotte, Le roi Nabuchodonosor sur les monuments africains, in Nuovo Bull. di arch. crist., 7 [1900], pp. 113–19).
For the interpretation given by Origen of N., V. ENOCH. Catt., V, col. 1020, where the scene painted in the cubicle of the martyr Crescenzione in Priscilla is also reproduced. St Augustine, however, emphasised that, unlike other persecutors, N. “divino correctus miraculo, piam et laudabile legem pro veritate constituit” (ep. 185; PL 33, 796). Enrico Josi
N. BULUS: V. NAPLUSA.