Among other things, the Chronicle highlights the events surrounding 605 BCE,
and clarifies just how and why Egyptian power waned after the defeat by the armies
of Babylonia at the battle of Carchemish, a major event in Ancient Near Eastern his-
tory. We now see the importance of the caption in Jeremiah 46 : 2 :
Against Egypt, against the forces of Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt, which
happened at the river Euphrates, whom Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylonia
defeated (Hebrew: hikka ̄h “struck, destroyed”) in the fourth year of Jehoiakim,
son of Josiah, king of Judah.
(cf. Jer 47 : 7 )A penetrating interpretation of the view from Judah and Jerusalem, looking outward,
has been contributed by A. Malamat in a series of studies now reappearing in his
History of Biblical Israel ( 2001 : 277 – 337 ; 381 – 386 ). Here is what Malamat has to say
about the political situation affecting Judah towards the end of the seventh century
BCEwhen there was a power vacuum after the Assyrian demise in Hatti, a term used
in Babylonian sources to designate the Levant:
In Political Science terms, Judah was now poignantly caught up in a bi-polar
system, meaning that the exclusive control of international politics was
concentrated in two powers, solely responsible for preserving peace or making
war... Once the equilibrium is disturbed or upset by one of the partners seeking
hegemony, the secondary power, lacking sufficient economic and military potential,
turns to inexpensive diplomatic means to alleviate its plight... Such was the
fate of Judah.
(Malamat 2001 : 325 – 326 , with deletions)Malamat goes on to review in detail no less than six shifts in policy, between
reliance on Egypt and vassalage to Babylonia, all in the twenty-three-year period
from 609 to 586 BCE. In the mode of a “maximalist,” he elicits from every nuance
of the biblical record information that fills in what is missing from it based on our
present knowledge. One of the insights deriving from the studies of Malamat, and
others, is a better understanding of the persisting tendency on the part of the last
kings of Judah to turn to Egypt in the expectation of support against Babylonia.
Such support kept coming, although it never held off the Babylonians for very long.
Reading Anthony Spalinger’s review of Egyptian history from 620 – 550 BCE( 1977 ),
together with the detailed study by K.S. Freedy and David B. Redford ( 1970 ), one
comes to realize that, although Egyptian power was limited during this period, Egypt
remained a major player in Eastern Mediterranean affairs. Freedy and Redford set out
to corroborate the dates provided in the Book of Ezekiel, which often refers to events
of the reign of Zedekiah but, in the course of doing so, shed light from Egyptian
sources on the choices faced by the last Judean king. Babylonia, for all of its power,
was far away, as we are constantly reminded, whereas Egypt was very close by. Like
other vast empires, the Babylonians were being chronically beset by trouble in other
regions, so that “secondary” powers might reasonably hope to break free of domination
when a window of opportunity appeared. Emissaries visiting Egypt were bound to
be awed by its gold and riches, which far exceeded anything they had seen. After all,
— Baruch A. Levine —