(Ναβονάσαρος). Among the most
perplexing questions of Eastern history, is the comparative state of the Assyrian and the
Babylonian or Chaldean empire, and the succession of their kings. There seems to be little
doubt, however, that the Babylonian kingdom did not extend its conquests till the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar B. C. 604. Till this time the kings of Babylon were
often dependent on the kings of Assyria, and acted as their viceroys, in the same manner as
Cyrus the younger was dependent on his brother. From this general fact, as well as from an
inference to be stated immediately, Rosenmiiller is of opinion that Nabonassar, the king of
Babylon B. C. 747, was. without doubt, a vassal of Assyria. We find
in sacred history (2 Kings, 17.24) that the kingof Assyria, while colonising Samaria, "
brought men from Babylon." Rosenmüller assumes that this king was Shalmaneser, or
Salmanasar, and argues that we must hence conclude that Babylon was at that time -- a period
subsequent to Nabonassar's reign -- and consequently before, tributary to Assyria. Paulus, in
his
Key to Isaiah (quoted by Rosenmüller), is of a different
opinion, and is corroborated by Clinton. This latter writer infers from Ezra (4.2), that the
colonisation of Samaria took place under Esarhaddon, the Assyrian monarch, who undoubtedly
effected a change in the Babylonian monarchy, and placed his son there as viceroy. In the
absence of all positive authority, therefore, we can draw no inference from the event referred
to by Rosenmiüller. Clinton concludes, on the authority of Polyhistor and the
astronomical canon, that Babylon had always kings of her own from the earliest times, and
conjectures that Nabonassar and his successors were independent till the reign of Esarhaddon.
This conclusion is strengthened by the existence of the celebrated Era of
Nabonassar. We may fairly infer, from this monarch's reign having been fixed upon by the
Babylonian astronomers as the era from which they began their calculations, that there was
some distinguished event -- probably the temporary establishment of Babylon as an independent
kingdom -- which led to their choice. In the absence of any thing like certainty to guide us,
we may, notwithstanding, pronounce the opinion which Scaliger once held, but afterwards
retracted, that Nabonassar and Baladon are identical, to be untenable.
The Era of Nabonassar. This era serves, in astronomical, the same
purpose as the Olympiads in civil history. It was the starting point of the Babylonian
chronology, and was adopted by the Greeks of Alexandria, by Hipparchus, Berosus, and Ptolemy.
Its date is ascertained from the eclipses recorded by Ptolemy, and the celestial phenomena
with which he marks the day of Nabonassar's accession to the throne. It is fixed as the 26th
of February, B. C. 747. Scaliger De Emend.
Temp. (p. 392) notices the coincidence between the years of this era and the sabbatical
year of the Samaritans. Thus, to take the year of Christ, 1584: 1584 + 747 =2331 of the era of
Nabonassar, which is both divisible by 7 and a sabbatical year. (Rosenmüller, Biblic. Geogr. of Central Asia, vol. ii. p. 41, &c., Edinburgh; Clinton,
F. H. vol. i. p. 278; Scaliger. De Emend. Temp. p.
352, &c.)