[43] See above, p. 20, n. 37.
[45] A stele of Nabonidus discovered at Hilleh and now in the museum at Constantinople relates that in his third year, 553, the king restored at Harran the temple of Sin, the moon-god, which the Medes had destroyed fifty-four years before, _i.e._ 607. Whether the Medes did this before, during or after the siege of Niniveh is uncertain, but the approximate date of the siege, 608—606, is thus marvellously confirmed. The stele affirms that the Medes alone took Niniveh, but that they were called in by Marduk, the Babylonian god, to assist Nabopolassar and avenge the deportation of his image by Sennacherib to Niniveh. Messerschmidt (_Mittheilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, I. 1896) argues that the Medes were summoned by the Babylonians while the latter were being sore pressed by the Assyrians. Winckler had already (_Untersuch._, pp. 124 ff., 1889) urged that the Babylonians would refrain from taking an active part in the overthrow of Niniveh, in fear of incurring the guilt of sacrilege. Neither Messerschmidt’s paper, nor Scheil’s (who describes the stele in the _Recueil des Travaux_, XVIII. 1896), being accessible to me, I have written this note on the information supplied by Rev. C. H. W. Johns, of Cambridge, in the _Expository Times_, 1896, and by Prof. A. B. Davidson in App. I. to _Nah., Hab. and Zeph._
[46] Berosus and Abydenus in Eusebius.
[47] This spelling (Jer. xlix. 28) is nearer the original than the alternative Hebrew Nebuchad_n_ezzar. But the LXX. Ναβουχοδονόσορ, and the Ναβουκοδρόσορος of Abydenus and Megasthenes and Ναβοκοδρόσορος of Strabo, have preserved the more correct vocalisation; for the original is Nabu-kudurri-uṣur = Nebo, defend the crown!
[48] But see below, pp. 123 f.
[49] Below, pp. 121 ff.
[50] 2 Kings xxii. 11-20. The genuineness of this passage is proved (as against Stade, _Gesch. des Volkes Israel_, I.) by the promise which it gives to Josiah of a peaceful death. Had it been written after the battle of Megiddo, in which Josiah was slain, it could not have contained such a promise.
[51] Jer. vii. 4, viii. 8.
[52] vi. 1.
[53] All these reforms in 2 Kings xxiii.
[54] Jer. xxii. 15 f.
[55] _Ibid._, ver. 16.
[56] We have no record of this, but a prince who so rashly flung himself in the way of Egypt would not hesitate to claim authority over Moab and Ammon.
[57] 2 Kings xxiii. 24. The question whether Necho came by land from Egypt or brought his troops in his fleet to Acre is hardly answered by the fact that Josiah went to Megiddo to meet him. But Megiddo on the whole tells more for the land than the sea. It is not on the path from Acre to the Euphrates; it is the key of the land-road from Egypt to the Euphrates. Josiah could have no hope of stopping Pharaoh on the broad levels of Philistia; but at Megiddo there was a narrow pass, and the only chance of arresting so large an army as it moved in detachments. Josiah’s tactics were therefore analogous to those of Saul, who also left his own territory and marched north to Esdraelon, to meet his foe—and death.
[58] A. B. Davidson, _The Exile and the Restoration_, p. 8 (Bible Class Primers, ed. by Salmond; Edin., T. & T. Clark, 1897).
[59] 2 Kings xxiii. 33-35.
[60] Jer. xxii. 13-15.
[61] Jer. xi.
[62] xxv. 1 ff.
[63] xxxvi.
[64] 2 Kings xxiv. 1. In the chronological table appended to Kautzsch’s _Bibel_ this verse and Jehoiakim’s submission are assigned to 602. But this allows too little time for Nebuchadrezzar to confirm his throne in Babylon and march to Palestine, and it is not corroborated by the record in the Book of Jeremiah of events in Judah in 604—602.
[65] Nebuchadrezzar did not die till 562.
[66] See _Isaiah i.—xxxix._ (Expositor’s Bible), pp. 223 f.