Judith Verses 1:2-4: Fortifying (Building) a City
Commentators on the book of Judith, I [Damien F. Mackey] find, do not tend to linger much over this little passage, which reads:
"He built walls around Ecbatana with hewn stones three cubits thick and six cubits long; he made the walls seventy cubits high and fifty cubits wide. At its gates he raised towers one hundred cubits high and sixty cubits wide at the foundations. He made its gates seventy cubits high and forty cubits wide to allow his armies to march out in force and his infantry to form their ranks".
It might not be surprising that any commentator who considers the Book of Judith to be other than a genuine history would show little interest in so dry an account. Charles, for instance, does not even comment on it. Whilst Dumm takes it entirely as allegorical:[1] “The “wall” and its gateway are of such fantastic proportions that one may assume the author merely wishes to suggest an image of massive power and permanence”. Moore has written along somewhat similar lines as has Dumm here, looking for a metaphorical meaning in these verses, though in the process comparing the Book of Judith account to the actual Median city of Ecbatana. He thus, unlike Dumm, does supply also some interesting factual detail:[2]
"… surrounded … with walls … seventy-five feet wide. Although scholars have often compared the walls of Ecbatana with those of other great cities, such as Babylon (seventy-five feet wide [Herodotus Hist. 1.178]) or Nineveh (wide enough for three chariots to drive abreast on it [Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library 2.3]), to make such comparisons is really to miss the author’s point: while Ecbatana’s grandeur and massiveness attested to the almost superhuman power of Nebuchadnezzar, who was able to conquer such a city, his army was still unable to take insignificant Bethulia, a town protected only by the God of Israel (so Steinmann, p. 48).
All the prodigious dimensions in vv 2-4 are totally fictitious, the invention of the author to evoke an atmosphere of grandeur. To date, no such protective walls have been found at Ecbatana, although, in fairness, it must be noted that because the modern city of Hamadan now covers it, Ecbatana has not been scientifically excavated by archaeologists. On the other hand, other great Persian cities, such as Persepolis, have been excavated thoroughly; and no such protective walls have been found there, either".
The whole thing though takes on a far deeper significance if one regards the Book of Judith, as I do, as being a true history, set in the era of king Hezekiah of Judah, with the city of “Ecbatana” therefore to be looked for in Mesopotamia, not in ‘Persia’.
When scanning these three verses (Judith 1:2-4) in translation above, one finds a heavy use of the pronoun “he”, but not one reference to a personal name. However, it is generally presumed that the king doing the building (fortifying) of this “Ecbatana” is Arphaxad, considering that the latter had just, in the previous verse (1:1), been named as ruler “over the Medes in Ecbatana”.
Such a connection, though, I think is quite unlikely to have been the case in reality. We saw in Chapter 7 (p. 179) that Merodach-baladan may have been, even in his composite form of [I] and [II], a very modest builder indeed. Whereas the building work described in verses 2-4 is on a massive scale,[3] prompting Moore to label it all as “totally fictitious”.
The king who was doing all the magnificent building work in Mesopotamia at this time was in fact Sargon II (Nebuchadnezzar), and the city then being worked on was his pride and joy, Dur-Sharrukin, and not Babylon. Dur-Sharrukin’s foundations had been laid half a dozen years ago (Year 6), and, four years later (Year 10), the king had stayed at home to work on the decoration of its palaces when his Turtan had marched to the west. The work must have been well advanced by now (Year 12) and the whole project would be completed and dedicated in a further half dozen years.
The Book of Judith chapter 1 is all about Nebuchadnezzar, not Arphaxad, and this is no doubt an intentional aspect of the story’s drama, to show what a mighty foe Israel was up against. Moore had referred above to “the almost superhuman power of Nebuchadnezzar”. Arphaxad is just a necessary ‘parenthesis’. Confusion may have arisen over the fact that the historical ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ could boast two mighty cities: namely, Nineveh (as Sennacherib) - called “the great city of Nineveh” in Judith 1:1 - and Dur-Sharrukin (as Sargon II) - called “Ecbatana” in 1:2-4. Roux, unaware that Sargon II was Sennacherib (who had initially favoured Nineveh) contrasts Dur-Sharrukin instead with Calah (Kalhu):[4]
"As a war-chief Sargon liked to live in Kalhu (Nimrud), the military capital of the empire, where he occupied, restored and modified Ashurnasirpal’s palace. But moved by incommensurable pride, he soon decided to have his own palace in his own city. In 717 B.C. were laid the foundations of ‘Sargon’s fortress’, Dûr-Sharrukîn, a hitherto virgin site twenty-four kilometres to the north-east of Nineveh, near the modern village of Khorsabad …".
It would not surprise if Dur-Sharrukin were quickly forgotten, and later easily confused with some better known city such as Babylon. For, as Lloyd has explained:[5] “If … we turn to Khorsabad, we find a city built, occupied and abandoned in the space of a single generation”. I think that such a case of forgetfulness might have applied to the city described as being ‘built’ in the Book of Judith 1:2-4, and thus I suggest that the multiple usages of the pronoun “he” in the translation of these verses all refer to Nebuchadnezzar, rather than to (the usual view) Arphaxad; that the only reference to the city ruled by the latter is in the case of the first mention of “Ecbatana”. The second reference to “Ecbatana”, immediately following it, is actually therefore a reference to the king of Assyria’s jewel city, Dur Sharrukin. The amended text (1:1-4) I propose, should read something like this:
It was the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh. (In those days Arphaxad ruled over the [Chaldeans] in [Babylon]). He [Nebuchadnezzar] built walls around [Dur-Sharrukin] … he made the walls seventy cubits high … he raised towers …. He made its gates seventy cubits high and forty cubits wide to allow his armies to march out in force and his infantry to form their ranks. Then King Nebuchadnezzar made war against Arphaxad in the great plain ….
Admittedly, the text as it reads here abruptly juxtaposes “Ecbatana” in the first and second mention – which I am arguing actually intend two different cities. So much so in fact that I am inclined to think, borrowing that phrase from Moore (refer back to p. 27), that “something is now missing …”. On the positive side, there does now seem to be a consistency in the fact that this belligerent king of Assyria, having purposely had the gates of his new city made tall enough and wide enough to accommodate the exit of his massed army, should then (in the next sentence, so to speak) make war against his foe.
Later though, in 1:14, “Ecbatana” resorts back to its first meaning of Arphaxad’s city, which Nebuchadnezzar successfully assaults.
That the walls and gates of Dur-Sharrukin were indeed formidable, we might glean from these accounts of their measurements by Lloyd, with which I shall juxtapose relevant portions of the Book of Judith:[6]
"The city which [Sargon II] laid out took the form of a square, with sides measuring rather more than a mile each, and was surrounded by towered walls with seven gateways. …".
[Nebuchadnezzar] built walls around Ecbatana … At its gates he raised towers.
"The city walls, which were over 20 m thick, were revetted at their base with dressed stonework up to a height of 1.10 m. Behind this facing, undressed stone was roughly laid to form a base for the brick upper structure, which terminated in a crenellated parapet with stone merlons. … the palace platform had a facing of stone in blocks up to 2.7 m long, weighing as much as 23 tons apiece. …".
… walls … with hewn stones three cubits thick and six cubits long; he made the walls seventy cubits high and fifty cubits wide ….
The possibly meaningful measurements that can be compared here are (a) the length of the stone blocks, 2.7 metres long, according to Lloyd, and 6 cubits long according to Judith 1:2, and (b) the thickness (width?) of the city’s walls, over 20 metres thick, or 50 cubits wide. What however immediately complicates any attempted comparison are (i) the variations in measurements and (ii) the fact that the Book of Judith is obviously using round figures, not precise mathematical numbers. “Then, as now”, explains Moore,[7] “the standards of weights and measurements varied not only among the nations but also within the same nation, depending upon time, place, and circumstance”. The cubit, for instance, can vary in length from approximately 440 mm - 640 mm, with what Petrie has called the ‘eastern foot’ being, as he has written, “one-sixth longer than 21.6 [inches] i.e. 25.2” (640).[8] “At Khorsabad” he wrote earlier, which is the place of interest here, “there was a standard of 10.8 (276.8)”.[9] Berriman gives what he has called the “Assyrian Foot” as 329 mm.[10]
And Berriman gives the “Assyrian cubit” as 494 mm.[11]
Commentators on the book of Judith, I [Damien F. Mackey] find, do not tend to linger much over this little passage, which reads:
"He built walls around Ecbatana with hewn stones three cubits thick and six cubits long; he made the walls seventy cubits high and fifty cubits wide. At its gates he raised towers one hundred cubits high and sixty cubits wide at the foundations. He made its gates seventy cubits high and forty cubits wide to allow his armies to march out in force and his infantry to form their ranks".
It might not be surprising that any commentator who considers the Book of Judith to be other than a genuine history would show little interest in so dry an account. Charles, for instance, does not even comment on it. Whilst Dumm takes it entirely as allegorical:[1] “The “wall” and its gateway are of such fantastic proportions that one may assume the author merely wishes to suggest an image of massive power and permanence”. Moore has written along somewhat similar lines as has Dumm here, looking for a metaphorical meaning in these verses, though in the process comparing the Book of Judith account to the actual Median city of Ecbatana. He thus, unlike Dumm, does supply also some interesting factual detail:[2]
"… surrounded … with walls … seventy-five feet wide. Although scholars have often compared the walls of Ecbatana with those of other great cities, such as Babylon (seventy-five feet wide [Herodotus Hist. 1.178]) or Nineveh (wide enough for three chariots to drive abreast on it [Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library 2.3]), to make such comparisons is really to miss the author’s point: while Ecbatana’s grandeur and massiveness attested to the almost superhuman power of Nebuchadnezzar, who was able to conquer such a city, his army was still unable to take insignificant Bethulia, a town protected only by the God of Israel (so Steinmann, p. 48).
All the prodigious dimensions in vv 2-4 are totally fictitious, the invention of the author to evoke an atmosphere of grandeur. To date, no such protective walls have been found at Ecbatana, although, in fairness, it must be noted that because the modern city of Hamadan now covers it, Ecbatana has not been scientifically excavated by archaeologists. On the other hand, other great Persian cities, such as Persepolis, have been excavated thoroughly; and no such protective walls have been found there, either".
The whole thing though takes on a far deeper significance if one regards the Book of Judith, as I do, as being a true history, set in the era of king Hezekiah of Judah, with the city of “Ecbatana” therefore to be looked for in Mesopotamia, not in ‘Persia’.
When scanning these three verses (Judith 1:2-4) in translation above, one finds a heavy use of the pronoun “he”, but not one reference to a personal name. However, it is generally presumed that the king doing the building (fortifying) of this “Ecbatana” is Arphaxad, considering that the latter had just, in the previous verse (1:1), been named as ruler “over the Medes in Ecbatana”.
Such a connection, though, I think is quite unlikely to have been the case in reality. We saw in Chapter 7 (p. 179) that Merodach-baladan may have been, even in his composite form of [I] and [II], a very modest builder indeed. Whereas the building work described in verses 2-4 is on a massive scale,[3] prompting Moore to label it all as “totally fictitious”.
The king who was doing all the magnificent building work in Mesopotamia at this time was in fact Sargon II (Nebuchadnezzar), and the city then being worked on was his pride and joy, Dur-Sharrukin, and not Babylon. Dur-Sharrukin’s foundations had been laid half a dozen years ago (Year 6), and, four years later (Year 10), the king had stayed at home to work on the decoration of its palaces when his Turtan had marched to the west. The work must have been well advanced by now (Year 12) and the whole project would be completed and dedicated in a further half dozen years.
The Book of Judith chapter 1 is all about Nebuchadnezzar, not Arphaxad, and this is no doubt an intentional aspect of the story’s drama, to show what a mighty foe Israel was up against. Moore had referred above to “the almost superhuman power of Nebuchadnezzar”. Arphaxad is just a necessary ‘parenthesis’. Confusion may have arisen over the fact that the historical ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ could boast two mighty cities: namely, Nineveh (as Sennacherib) - called “the great city of Nineveh” in Judith 1:1 - and Dur-Sharrukin (as Sargon II) - called “Ecbatana” in 1:2-4. Roux, unaware that Sargon II was Sennacherib (who had initially favoured Nineveh) contrasts Dur-Sharrukin instead with Calah (Kalhu):[4]
"As a war-chief Sargon liked to live in Kalhu (Nimrud), the military capital of the empire, where he occupied, restored and modified Ashurnasirpal’s palace. But moved by incommensurable pride, he soon decided to have his own palace in his own city. In 717 B.C. were laid the foundations of ‘Sargon’s fortress’, Dûr-Sharrukîn, a hitherto virgin site twenty-four kilometres to the north-east of Nineveh, near the modern village of Khorsabad …".
It would not surprise if Dur-Sharrukin were quickly forgotten, and later easily confused with some better known city such as Babylon. For, as Lloyd has explained:[5] “If … we turn to Khorsabad, we find a city built, occupied and abandoned in the space of a single generation”. I think that such a case of forgetfulness might have applied to the city described as being ‘built’ in the Book of Judith 1:2-4, and thus I suggest that the multiple usages of the pronoun “he” in the translation of these verses all refer to Nebuchadnezzar, rather than to (the usual view) Arphaxad; that the only reference to the city ruled by the latter is in the case of the first mention of “Ecbatana”. The second reference to “Ecbatana”, immediately following it, is actually therefore a reference to the king of Assyria’s jewel city, Dur Sharrukin. The amended text (1:1-4) I propose, should read something like this:
It was the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh. (In those days Arphaxad ruled over the [Chaldeans] in [Babylon]). He [Nebuchadnezzar] built walls around [Dur-Sharrukin] … he made the walls seventy cubits high … he raised towers …. He made its gates seventy cubits high and forty cubits wide to allow his armies to march out in force and his infantry to form their ranks. Then King Nebuchadnezzar made war against Arphaxad in the great plain ….
Admittedly, the text as it reads here abruptly juxtaposes “Ecbatana” in the first and second mention – which I am arguing actually intend two different cities. So much so in fact that I am inclined to think, borrowing that phrase from Moore (refer back to p. 27), that “something is now missing …”. On the positive side, there does now seem to be a consistency in the fact that this belligerent king of Assyria, having purposely had the gates of his new city made tall enough and wide enough to accommodate the exit of his massed army, should then (in the next sentence, so to speak) make war against his foe.
Later though, in 1:14, “Ecbatana” resorts back to its first meaning of Arphaxad’s city, which Nebuchadnezzar successfully assaults.
That the walls and gates of Dur-Sharrukin were indeed formidable, we might glean from these accounts of their measurements by Lloyd, with which I shall juxtapose relevant portions of the Book of Judith:[6]
"The city which [Sargon II] laid out took the form of a square, with sides measuring rather more than a mile each, and was surrounded by towered walls with seven gateways. …".
[Nebuchadnezzar] built walls around Ecbatana … At its gates he raised towers.
"The city walls, which were over 20 m thick, were revetted at their base with dressed stonework up to a height of 1.10 m. Behind this facing, undressed stone was roughly laid to form a base for the brick upper structure, which terminated in a crenellated parapet with stone merlons. … the palace platform had a facing of stone in blocks up to 2.7 m long, weighing as much as 23 tons apiece. …".
… walls … with hewn stones three cubits thick and six cubits long; he made the walls seventy cubits high and fifty cubits wide ….
The possibly meaningful measurements that can be compared here are (a) the length of the stone blocks, 2.7 metres long, according to Lloyd, and 6 cubits long according to Judith 1:2, and (b) the thickness (width?) of the city’s walls, over 20 metres thick, or 50 cubits wide. What however immediately complicates any attempted comparison are (i) the variations in measurements and (ii) the fact that the Book of Judith is obviously using round figures, not precise mathematical numbers. “Then, as now”, explains Moore,[7] “the standards of weights and measurements varied not only among the nations but also within the same nation, depending upon time, place, and circumstance”. The cubit, for instance, can vary in length from approximately 440 mm - 640 mm, with what Petrie has called the ‘eastern foot’ being, as he has written, “one-sixth longer than 21.6 [inches] i.e. 25.2” (640).[8] “At Khorsabad” he wrote earlier, which is the place of interest here, “there was a standard of 10.8 (276.8)”.[9] Berriman gives what he has called the “Assyrian Foot” as 329 mm.[10]
And Berriman gives the “Assyrian cubit” as 494 mm.[11]
Of course a third complicating factor is that we do not know (iii) to which actual cubit the author of Judith is referring.
Anyway, taking the ‘Assyrian cubit’ of 494 mm as an approximation, and multiplying it by the Book of Judith’s “six cubits”, we get (494 x 6 =) 2964 mm, or 2.9 metres, comparing favourably with Lloyd’s 2.7 metres for the length of the blocks. And, for the thickness of the walls, we then get (494 x 50 =) 24700 mm, or 24.7 metres, as compared with Lloyd’s “over 20 m thick”. What this does indicate at least is that the Book of Judith has provided us with reasonable figures of measurement, that can indeed be applied to significant Mesopotamian cities, and are not merely fictitious or fantastic.
[1] Ibid.
[2] Op. cit, pp. 124-125.
[3] “The word ‘built’ corresponds to the Heb. banah, which may also have the meaning of repairing with the added notion of enlarging, cf. Jos 19:50; Jg 21:23 … ) …”. Leahy, op. cit, ibid.
[4] Op. cit, p. 315.
[5] The Archaeology of Mesopotamia, pp. 210-202. Emphasis added.
[6] Ibid, pp. 197, 203.
[7] Op. cit, p. 125, n. 2, with reference to O. Sellers’ ‘Weights and Measures’, IDB, IV, pp. 828-839.
[8] Measures and Weights, p. 7.
[9] Ibid, p. 6.
[10] Historical Metrology, p. 55.
[11] Ibid, p. 29.
Anyway, taking the ‘Assyrian cubit’ of 494 mm as an approximation, and multiplying it by the Book of Judith’s “six cubits”, we get (494 x 6 =) 2964 mm, or 2.9 metres, comparing favourably with Lloyd’s 2.7 metres for the length of the blocks. And, for the thickness of the walls, we then get (494 x 50 =) 24700 mm, or 24.7 metres, as compared with Lloyd’s “over 20 m thick”. What this does indicate at least is that the Book of Judith has provided us with reasonable figures of measurement, that can indeed be applied to significant Mesopotamian cities, and are not merely fictitious or fantastic.
[1] Ibid.
[2] Op. cit, pp. 124-125.
[3] “The word ‘built’ corresponds to the Heb. banah, which may also have the meaning of repairing with the added notion of enlarging, cf. Jos 19:50; Jg 21:23 … ) …”. Leahy, op. cit, ibid.
[4] Op. cit, p. 315.
[5] The Archaeology of Mesopotamia, pp. 210-202. Emphasis added.
[6] Ibid, pp. 197, 203.
[7] Op. cit, p. 125, n. 2, with reference to O. Sellers’ ‘Weights and Measures’, IDB, IV, pp. 828-839.
[8] Measures and Weights, p. 7.
[9] Ibid, p. 6.
[10] Historical Metrology, p. 55.
[11] Ibid, p. 29.
No comments:
Post a Comment