Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

When Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem he appointed Zedekiah as his puppet-king and took King Jeconiah and his sons home with him.

For what reasons would the king of a large empire of antiquity, such as Nebuchadnezzar, keep the captive king and his sons alive? Was this common practice in that era?

Would it not make more sense strategically to execute them to prevent any legitimate successors from claiming the throne and seeking vengeance?

share|improve this question
    
The chances of a captive prince to make it back from Babylon to Judea to foment trouble were practically nil. So he was not really running a risk in keeping them alive. As to positive reasons to do so - probably just vanity. –  Felix Goldberg Jul 30 at 8:54
2  
I'm not sure how executing him would have prevented "legitimate successors" from stirring up trouble. Actually, one might argue keeping the rightful king alive prevents someone else from claiming kingship for himself legitimately. –  Semaphore Jul 30 at 10:33
1  
I believe this was common for the period. The Empire had already demonstrated the ability to conquer and had little interest in governance. The local King had demonstrated ability to govern and demonstrated inability to resist the empire. Hostages ensure the puppet's cooperation. –  Mark C. Wallace Jul 30 at 12:01
1  
@Semaphore Good point actually! –  Juicy Jul 30 at 20:07

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

The direct motivation of Nebuchadnezzar in sparing King Jeconiah is not known. However, we can discern his motivation from subsequent events that suggest that keeping an heir of David alive, but under the thumb of the Babylonian king would make it easier to manage the large number of Jews in exile in Babylon.

In or about the year 597 BCE, Jeconiah, the young king of the defeated kingdom of Judah, joins the first wave of Jewish deportees to Babylonia. II Kings 25:12. There, he and his family were cared for by King Nebuchadnezzar. James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969) 308. In Babylon, Jeconiah became the first exilarch (aka the Raish Galusa) (my transliterations follow ashkenaz practice; you will also find this term spelled Raish Galuta) -- a position of power over the Jewish people in exile that was held only by direct descendants of King David. Among the exilarchs were Judah the Prince, who was the editor of the Mishna and one of the greatest Torah scholars in Jewish history. The position of exilarch with Davidic geneology continued into the 11th century. One of the last exilarchs was Rav Sherira Gaon (ca 900-1000 CE), the author of the history of the Oral Law in Judaism, the Igerres Rav Sherira Gaon, and one of the last leaders of the ancient yeshiva in Pumpedisa, Babylon (believed to have been a neighborhood in what is now Baghdad).

Through the position of exilarch, and by granting wealth and privilege to the exilarch, the Babylonians maintained effective control of their Jewish population in exile. Igerres Rav Sherira Gaon, Ch. 9 (Rav Sherira, at p. 113, states that the underwriting of the office continued until the 8th or 9th Century CE). An argument could be made that the existence of the institution also inhibited the efforts of Ezra, Nehemiah and Zechariah to repopulate Israel when Babylon agreed to make that possible 70 years after the 1st Temple's destruction.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.