It has been argued by H. A. Whittaker that the terms “Assyria” and “Babylon” are confused in prophetic oracles.[1] The purpose of this article is to review the evidence presented by Whittaker for such confusion. We have noted elsewhere[2] in a discussion of the “Burden of Babylon” (Isaiah 13-14) that the king of Assyria was at times the king of Babylon; however, this does not make “Assyria” and “Babylon” interchangeable terms. In the days of the British Empire, Queen Victoria was “Empress of India”, but “India” and “Great Britain” were not interchangeable terms of reference.
The various oracles in the Hebrew Scriptures do not confuse “Assyria” and “Babylon” as the “same region”, “Nineveh” is not confused with “Babylon”, and the oracles that deal with the Assyrian Empire do not use the term “Babylon” for that empire. The uses of “Babylon” and “Assyria” highlighted by Whittaker have clear unconfused readings:
1) Ezra 6:22 refers to Persian kings (Ezra 6:14) as the “king of Assyria”, a usage indicative of the extent of their empire; Ezra is not confusing Persia with Assyria.
2) Lam 5:6 refers to the Egyptians and Assyrians as past overlords of the people; Jeremiah is not confusing Assyria with Babylon or Egypt, even though the Babylonian Empire was the current superpower of the region. Jeremiah is referring to historical archetypal oppressors.
3) In the later oracles of Zechariah, the lands of Egypt and Assyria are associated again as regions from which Yahweh will bring his people (Zech 10:10-11). This again reflects a motif in which “Assyria” is the archetypical place of captivity along with Egypt; Babylon is not mentioned. On the other hand, Pss 87:4 couples Egypt and Babylon, and offers an alternative archetypal pairing.
4) The motifs in prophetic oracles were re-applied by later prophets, but this does not necessarily result in any confusion in geography. The language of an oracle about Babylon could be used in an oracle about Nineveh, but this does not imply any confusion between the two cities, nor does it mean that oracles that use “Babylon” refer to Nineveh.
For example, the following two texts are clearly related, but they do not show that “Babylon” was a term for Nineveh.
And he will stretch out his hand against the north, and destroy Assyria; and will make Nineveh a desolation, and dry like a wilderness. And flocks shall lie down in the midst of her, all the beasts of the nations: both the cormorant and the bittern shall lodge in the upper lintels of it; their voice shall sing in the windows; desolation shall be in the thresholds: for he shall uncover the cedar work. Zeph 2:13-14 (KJV)
And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there. But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. Isa 13:19-22 (KJV)
Another example is Nahum 3 which is about Nineveh (v. 7) and yet has the same motifs as Isaiah 47 which is about Babylon (Nah 3:4, 5, 16, Isa 47:2, 3, 9, 15).[3]
5) Prophetic oracles appear to be precise in their use of geographical terminology. For example, Micah describes Assyria as an invader (Mic 5:5) but also prognosticates that Jerusalem will go to Babylon (Mic 4:10). While this may be taken as a long range prophecy of the Babylonian captivity, it is more likely that it was intended as a prediction that Assyria would relocate Judeans in the region of Babylon, which was known Assyrian practice (cf. 2 Chron 33:11). Micah is not confusing Assyria and Babylon as terms for the same region.
Conclusion
The above illustrations do not mean that geographical terms cannot be used indistinctly and in error. A later writer or editor may use a modern term for an historical region, or he may make a mistake. On the other hand, the writer may intentionally alter source materials for theological reasons. An example of this latter possibility is Luke’s quotation of Amos 5:7, “Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus”, which he cites as, “I will carry you away beyond Babylon” (Acts 7:43). Luke is not confusing Assyria (the region beyond Damascus) with Babylon in this alteration. Rather, he is deliberately changing the scope of the Amos text to refer to the archetypical region of captivity, while taking over from Amos the point about divine providence.
Whittaker’s motivation for equating “Babylon” and “Assyria” in prophetic oracles is to facilitate the contextualization of oracles in Isaiah 40-66 to the reign of Hezekiah. Standard scholarship locates these oracles to a “Second Isaiah” and even further unnamed individuals after the exile. Whittaker’s thesis is nearly unique among scholarship; however, its defense does not require the explanation of a confusion of terms to re-orientate Babylonian prophecies to an Assyrian superpower, it is entirely plausible to apply these Isaianic prophecies to the Babylon of Hezekiah’s day. What has not been appreciated in such contextualization is the significance of the visit of the Babylonian envoys.
[1] H. A. Whittaker, Isaiah, (Cannock: Biblia, 1988), 415-417.
[2] “Babylon in Isaiah 13-14” CeJBI (1) 2007: 7-10.
[3] If Nahum and Zephaniah use Isaiah 47 this is evidence that Isaiah 47 and Isaiah 40-55 do not originate with a “Second-Isaiah” at the end of the Babylonian captivity.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One