Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

of brickwork, and is supposed to be the remnant of the sacred edifice, and identical with the Tower of Babel. Mr. Layard, when describing the site of ancient Babylon, observes that, "on all sides, fragments of glass, marble, pottery, and inscribed bricks are to be found, mingled with that peculiar nitrous and blanched soil which, bred from the remains of ancient habitations, checks or destroys vegetation, and thus gives to the region the appearance of a naked and hideous waste. Owls start from the scanty thickets, and the foul jackal skulks through the furrows." Thus the prediction has received a terrible accomplishment-"The glory of kingdoms and the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency is as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. Wild beasts of the desert lie there; their houses are full of doleful creatures."

Some of the bricks and other fragments picked up from the ruins of Babylon are deeply interesting; they contain inscriptions in what is usually called the cuneiform character-a very ancient mode of writing, no doubt common among the Babylonians, the deciphering of which has been invaluable, not only because of the information thus obtained respecting the habits and manners of the people, but as authenticating the historical accuracy of sacred Scripture. We may give one fact as an example:-On a clay cylinder found among these ruins some few years ago, and now in the possession of a gentleman in Worcestershire, there is an inscription relating to Nebuchadnezzar, a partial translation of which was published among the Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature. The following brief extracts from that translation will convey some idea of the nature of this inscription "Nebuchadnezzar, the victorious king, the restorer of public works, the director of the workmen of Bel. I am he." "Unto Marduk the God, my Creator, I humbled myself in worship." "The temple of the planets, which is the town of Babylon, with joy and delight, I built." "The circuit walls of Babylon as a mound of earth on a very wide base, I piled them up," &c. Such is the information thus so unexpectedly supplied to us from the ruins of Babylon some 2,400 years after the death of this boastful monarch. To the Biblical student the information is invaluable, because of the evidence thus supplied to the historical accuracy of Scripture relating to the character and doings of Nebuchadnezzar. For a moment or two let us compare the two histories, and we shall have no difficulty in discovering their substantial agreement. The inscription in question was picked up from amongst the ruins of Babylon, of which city Nebuchadnezzar is represented as monarch. Scripture also speaks of him as such. Nebuchadnezzar is described as a victorious monarch: he is also so represented by the sacred historian. The inscription sets forth Nebuchadnezzar as the builder of temples, &c. We have a general record of the same facts in Scripture history, and in much the same boastful language. The inscription speaks of Bel as one of the idol deities of Babylon; so do the prophets speak of Bel as the idol god of the Chaldeans. (See Isa. xlvi. 1; Jer. 1. 2; li. 44.) But the inscription, while only slightly mentioning Bel, speaks of another god with great solemnity and reverence, namely, Marduk, whom Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges as his Lord, his Creator, the Supreme, the Being to whom he offers his dedicatory prayer. This is

D

certainly remarkable; and in the book of Daniel we read that this very Nebuchadnezzar, who was once a worshipper of Bel, was brought to an acknowledgment of Jehovah as the only true and supreme God. (See Dan. iv. 34, 35.) The inscription furthermore speaks of Nebuchadnezzar as humbling himself as bowing his head in worship before the glorious Being, Marduk, whom he praises as the Supreme, the Creator, and his God. Now, the question presents itself, Have we any evidence from Scripture that this mighty potentate ever did humble himself before the true God? We have both the evidence and the narrative of the circumstances under which this humbling took place. Thus does this relict of the mighty city, discovered amid the ruins of the palace or temple built by Nebuchadnezzar, stand forth as a witness, after the lapse of more than 2,000 years, to confront the scepticism of our times, and to give its corroborative testimony to the historical accuracy of the sacred volume. Silence, silence, ye sceptics; the very stones cry out against you! God will vindicate his truth; and woe to the potsherd that striveth with his Maker.

No certain remains of the walls of Babylon have hitherto been identified so as to indicate their precise limits, though assiduously sought for by modern travellers, thus giving the fullest signification to the terms in which the prediction respecting them was uttered"The walls of Babylon shall fall." "The broad walls . . . shall be utterly broken." The remains of the city in general are not very extensive, and this fact has excited the surprise of many, especially when the few remains extant have been compared with the extensive and well-preserved ruins of Nineveh and other cities of antiquity. But when the perishable nature of the materials of which its structures were composed is taken into consideration, there will be no difficulty in accounting for this deficiency. In the immediate vicinity of Babylon there were no quarries of alabaster or of limestone, such as existed near Nineveh. The Babylonians, therefore, were content to avail themselves of the building materials which they found on the spot. With the tenacious mud of their alluvial plains, mixed with chopped straw, they made brick, whilst bitumen and other substances collected from the immediate neighbourhood furnished them with an excellent cement. To this circumstance, together with a combination of destructive agencies, such as the ordinary operations of the weather for so many centuries, the periodical overflow of the Euphrates, left to inundate its site, and the fact that since the days of Alexander four capitals at least have been built out of her remains, with towns and villages a great number, the present scanty remains of this once great and opulent city are to be attributed. All things considered, the wonder is not that we find so little, but that we see so much. The prophet, then, it will be seen, hurled no empty menace against Babylon, when he took up this proverb concerning it, while as yet no signs of its accomplishment were apparent-" How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! Thy pomp is brought down to the grave; every one that goeth by Babylon shall be astonished and hiss at all her plagues. I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the Lord of hosts." Connecting the past with the present, the desolation is most complete. "Babylon is fallen, is fallen;" and the

story of her descent to desolation silently but most emphatically calls upon nations to learn wisdom to know the time of their merciful visitation; tyrants to tremble, seeing how speedily the rod of the oppressor may be broken; sceptics to think; and sinners of all classes to stand in awe of Divine judgments, and to "flee from the wrath to come."

3. But the manner in which the city should be taken, with the period of its overthrow, and the remarkable circumstances of the siege, are all set forth in prophetic Scripture with marvellous minuteness and historical accuracy. No sooner had Cyrus reached Babylon, with the nations he had prepared and gathered against her, than, in the hope of discovering some point not utterly impregnable, accompanied by his chief officers and friends, he rode around the walls, and examined them on every side. Failing to discover throughout the whole circumference a single assailable point, and finding it impossible by any attack to make himself master of walls so strong and so high, he proceeded, historians tell us, so to dispose of his army as, in the judgment of Xenophon, himself a skilful general, was best adapted both for fighting and preventing flight. The army was divided into twelve parts, each monthly by turn keeping watch throughout the year. In all these arrangements we see an exact fulfilmeut of that sure word of prophecy, "They camped against it round about; they put themselves in array against Babylon round about; every man was put in array."

It was predicted that the river should be dried up before the city should be taken. “And I will dry up thy rivers." "A drought is upon her waters, and they shall be dried up." A very unlikely circumstance this, the Euphrates being full a quarter of a mile broad, and about twelve feet deep. But the drying up of the river, or what amounted to the same-the turning the course of the Euphrateswe find from history was an accomplished fact. "After much time had been lost and no progress made, the thought suggested itself to turn the course of the river which ran through the midst of Babylon. For this purpose Cyrus caused deep trenches to be dug around the walls on every side, ostensibly for the purpose of blockade, but really with a view to drain the waters of the river, so as to make it fordable. When all things were in readiness for the execution of his design, Cyrus formed his army into two great divisions, and stationed them respectively where the river entered and where it emerged from the city. He then suddenly diverted the course of the Euphrates, and, having ascertained the practicability of an entrance, the order was given to the besieging army to pass by the bed of the river as a road into the city. Thus, contrary to all human forethought, was brought about the fulfilment of the predictions relating to the drying up of the river, in the taking of the city. We say contrary to all human forethought, for there were many possibilities of defect in the scheme of Cyrus, and any one of them would have proved fatal. A flood-gate might have broken, or a dyke burst and swamped a large portion of his army; or the gradual sinking of the water might have been observed by the inhabitants within the city, and thus the watergates of the city would have been closed, and his design frustrated. But in all the movements of Cyrus, and in each act of his army,

as related by Herodotus and Xenophon, the thoughtful observer will not fail to discover how "the purpose of the Lord against Babylon was performed."

The unexpectedness of the event to both king and people is deserving a moment's notice. "I have laid a snare for thee, and thou art also taken, O Babylon, and thou wast not aware: thou art found, and also caught." "In their heat I will make their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they may sleep a perpetual sleep and not wake, saith the Lord." "And I will make drunk her princes, and her wise men, her captains, and her rulers, and her mighty men; and they shall sleep a perpetual sleep, saith the King, whose name is the Lord of hosts." In fulfilment of these predictions, Herodotus informs us in his history, that the Persians came upon the city by surprise. "It is related," he says, "by the people who inhabited the city that, by reason of its great extent, when they who were at the extremities were taken, those who inhabited the interior knew nothing of the capture (for it happened to be a festival); but they were dancing at the time, and enjoying themselves till they received certain information of the truth." The fact thus recorded explains also another remarkable prediction. "One post," it is said, "shall run to meet another, and one messenger to meet another, to show the king of Babylon that his city is taken at one end; and that the passages are stopped, and that the men of war are affrighted." It is not difficult to understand how, under such circumstances, the king was in the city, and yet had to be told that it was taken-how that messengers should run in different and opposite directions to convey to the same place tidings of the same event. The entrance of the Persian army at both ends of the city was nearly simultaneous, betwixt which the space of at least eight miles would intervene. In attempting, therefore, to convey with all expedition the disastrous tidings to the palace, messengers from each end would necessarily so run as to meet each other, unconscious that the same message was alike borne by both. And thus literally would "one post run to meet another, and one messenger to meet another, to show unto the king that his city was taken at one end."

"In that night was Belshazzar the King of the Chaldeans slain, and Darius the Median took the kingdom." Such is the sacred record relating to the capture of the city and the fall of the Chaldean empire. How few are the words made use of to describe these events, and yet the facts communicated are of overwhelming importance! The death of a powerful monarch, and the conquest of a kingdom almost unequalled for its greatness and magnificence, are here disposed of with a brevity which is truly astonishing. How different would have been the record, had the events referred to been described by the mere historian. He would have dwelt on the character of Belshazzar-his magnificence and unrivalled power-he would have described the high walls of Babylon and her hundred brazen gates— the temple of Belus towering towards heaven-the palace whose walls were eight miles in circumference-the hanging gardens, and the embankments that kept out the waters of the Euphrates. He would have recorded the number of the inhabitants-the approach of the Median conqueror-the sacking of the city and the number of the

slain. This he would have done and more; but he would never have been content to sum up all the mighty events connected with the fall of Babylon in the simple though sublime record, "In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain, and Darius the Median took the kingdom."

The fulness and simplicity of Holy Scripture in thus recording the facts of history, is calculated to impress a thinking mind more deeply than the littleness visible in the inflated records of mere mortal men. The unadorned truth is less doubted, more unreservedly depended upon, than it is when dressed up in the needless ornaments of human eloquence. The record is felt to be true, and we receive it as an unquestioned reality.

Having said thus much, it may be necessary, before we bring our paper to a close, to reply to an objection which has been started as to the historical accuracy of this simple yet sublime record. Berosus,

a Chaldean priest, has said that Belshazzar was not the last king of Babylon; also, that he was not in the city on the night referred to, when the Persian army took possession; that Belshazzar was subsequently taken by Cyrus, having been defeated in battle, and that he was treated by him with great clemency. Loud and exultant had been the yell of infidel triumph over these counter-statements; for now it was evident, they said, that the Bible was little better than a myth-that it was not historically true; and for years the two statements, so manifestly contradictory, have proved a source of considerable embarrassment with Biblical critics. But recent discoveries in Assyria have supplied us with the information necessary to reconcile these apparently counter-statements; for Sir Henry Rawlinson has obtained from the ruins of Babylon certain inscriptions which, now that they have been deciphered, supply the information which beautifully harmonizes the two statements. The last king of Babylon was undoubtedly the one referred to by Berosus; but the inscriptions obtained from the ruins of Babylon disclose to us the fact that this king had a son called Belshazzar, who was made joint king with his father, and that this son was the king who perished in the city when the siege took place. Thus again is infidelity put to the blush, and the two testimonies, which, twelve years ago, were regarded as irreconcilable, when read in the light of modern archæological discovery, are found perfectly to harmonize.

There is another passage in the book of Daniel which, until now, we could never tell the meaning of. When Daniel read the mystic handwriting on the wall, Belshazzar said he would make him the third ruler of the kingdom. But why the third? Why not the second, the same as Joseph was made in Egypt? The fact just referred to at once clears up the difficulty, and beautifully illustrates the historical accuracy of the Bible record. Belshazzar could not make him second ruler in the kingdom-he was only second himself.

Such, then, is the story of ancient Babylon-the "lady of kingdoms"-the "golden city"-the "beauty of the Chaldees' excellency." How wonderful are the predictions relating to it, uttered more than a century before, as compared with the actual facts of its history as recorded by credible historians! What more convincing evidence can be afforded to the truth and divinity of Sacred Scripture than

« AnteriorContinuar »