| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends - of Assyria and Babylonia
Author: Pinches, Theophilus Goldridge, 1856-1934
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends - of Assyria and Babylonia" ***
The Old Testament
In the Light of
The Historical Records and Legends
of Assyria and Babylonia
By
Theophilus G. Pinches
LL.D., M.R.A.S.
Published under the direction of the Tract Committee
Third Edition—Revised, With Appendices and Notes
London:
Society For Promoting Christian Knowledge
1908
CONTENTS
Foreword
Chapter I. The Early Traditions Of The Creation.
Chapter II. The History, As Given In The Bible, From The Creation To The
Flood.
Chapter III. The Flood.
Appendix. The Second Version Of The Flood-Story.
Chapter IV. Assyria, Babylonia, And The Hebrews, With Reference To The
So-Called Genealogical Table.
The Tower Of Babel.
The Patriarchs To Abraham.
Chapter V. Babylonia At The Time Of Abraham.
The Religious Element.
The King.
The People.
“Year of Šamaš and Rimmon.”
Chapter VI. Abraham.
Salem.
Chapter VII. Isaac, Jacob, And Joseph.
Chapter VIII. The Tel-El-Amarna Tablets And The Exodus.
Chapter IX. The Nations With Whom The Israelites Came Into Contact.
Amorites.
Hittites.
Jebusites.
Girgashites.
Moabites.
Chapter X. Contact Of The Hebrews With The Assyrians.
Sennacherib.
Esarhaddon.
Aššur-Banî-Âpli.
Chapter XI. Contact Of The Hebrews With The Later Babylonians.
Chapter XII. Life At Babylon During The Captivity, With Some Reference To
The Jews.
Chapter XIII. The Decline Of Babylon.
Appendix. The Stele Inscribed With The Laws Of Ḫammurabi.
Appendix To The Third Edition.
Notes And Additions.
Index.
Footnotes
[Plate I.]
Bas-relief and inscription of Hammurabi, generally regarded as the
Biblical Amraphel (Gen. xiv. 1), apparently dedicated for the saving of
his life. In this he bears the title (incomplete) of “King of Amoria” (the
Amorites), _lugal Mar[tu]_, Semitic Babylonian _sar mât Amurrî_ (see page
315).
“There is a charm in finding ourselves, our common humanity, our puzzles,
our cares, our joys, in the writings of men severed from us by race,
religion, speech, and half the gulf of historical time, which no other
literary pleasure can equal.”—ANDREW LANG.
FOREWORD
The present work, being merely a record of things for the most part well
known to students and others, cannot, on that account, contain much that
is new. All that has been aimed at is, to bring together as many of the
old discoveries as possible in a new dress.
It has been thought well to let the records tell their story as far as
possible in their own way, by the introduction of translations, thus
breaking the monotony of the narrative, and also infusing into it an
element of local colour calculated to bring the reader into touch, as it
were, with the thoughts and feelings of the nations with whom the records
originated. Bearing, as it does, upon the life, history, and legends of
the ancient nations of which it treats, controversial matter has been
avoided, and the higher criticism left altogether aside.
Assyriology (as the study of the literature and antiquities of the
Babylonians and Assyrians is called) being a study still in the course of
development, improvements in the renderings of the inscriptions will
doubtless from time to time be made, and before many months have passed,
things now obscure may have new light thrown upon them, necessitating the
revision of such portions as may be affected thereby. It is intended to
utilize in future editions any new discoveries which may come to light,
and every effort will be made to keep the book up to date.
For shortcomings, whether in the text or in the translations, the author
craves the indulgence of the reader, merely pleading the difficult and
exacting nature of the study, and the lengthy chronological period to
which the book refers.
A little explanation is probably needful upon the question of
pronunciation. The vowels in Assyro-Babylonian should be uttered as in
Italian or German. _Ḫ_ is a strong guttural like the Scotch _ch_ in
“loch”; _m_ had sometimes the pronunciation of _w_, as in Tiamtu (=
Tiawthu), so that the spelling of some of the words containing that letter
may later have to be modified. The pronunciation of _s_ and _š_ is
doubtful, but Assyriologists generally (and probably wrongly) give the
sound of _s_ to the former and _sh_ to the latter. _T_ was often
pronounced as _th_, and probably always had that sound in the feminine
endings _-tu_, _-ti_, _-ta_, or _at_, so that Tiamtu, for instance, may be
pronounced Tiawthu, Tukulti-âpil-Êšarra (Tiglath-pileser),
Tukulthi-âpil-Êšarra, etc., etc., and in such words as _qâtâ_, “the
hands,” _šumāti_, “names,” and many others, this was probably always the
case. In the names Âbil-Addu-nathanu and Nathanu-yâwa this transcription
has been adopted, and may be regarded as correct. _P_ was likewise often
aspirated, assuming the sound of _ph_ or _f_, and _k_ assumed, at least in
later times, a sound similar to _ḫ (kh)_, whilst _b_ seems sometimes to
have been pronounced as _v_. _G_ was, to all appearance, never soft, as in
_gem_, but may sometimes have been aspirated. Each member of the group
_ph_ is pronounced separately. _Ṭ_ is an emphatic _t_, stronger than in
the word “time.” A terminal _m_ represents the _mimmation_, which, in
later times, though written, was not pronounced.
The second edition, issued in 1903, was revised and brought up to
date, and a translation of the Laws of Ḫammurabi, with notes, and
a summary of Delitzsch’s _Babel und Bibel_, were appended. For the
third edition the work has again been revised, with the help of
the recently-issued works of King, Sayce, Scheil, Winckler, and
others. At the time of going to press, the author was unable to
consult Knudtzon’s new edition of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets beyond
his No. 228, but wherever it was available, improvements in the
translations were made. In addition to revision, the Appendix has
been supplemented by paragraphs upon the discoveries at
Boghaz-Keui, a mutilated letter from a personage named Belshazzar,
and translations of the papyri referring to the Jewish temple at
Elephantine.
New material may still be expected from the excavations in
progress at Babylon, Susa, Ḫattu, and various other sites in the
nearer East.
THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES.
CHAPTER I. THE EARLY TRADITIONS OF THE CREATION.
The Hebrew account—Its principal points—The Babylonian account—The
story of the Creation properly so called—The version given by the
Greek authors—Comparison of the Hebrew and the Greek accounts—The
likenesses—The differences—Bêl and the Dragon—The
epilogue—Sidelights (notes upon the religion of the Babylonians).
To find out how the world was made, or rather, to give forth a theory
accounting for its origin and continued existence, is one of the subjects
that has attracted the attention of thinking minds among all nations
having any pretension to civilization. It was, therefore, to be expected
that the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians, far advanced in civilization
as they were at an exceedingly early date, should have formed opinions
thereupon, and placed them on record as soon as those opinions were
matured, and the art of writing had been perfected sufficiently to enable
a serviceable account to be composed.
This, naturally, did not take place all at once. We may take it for
granted that the history of the Creation grew piece by piece, as different
minds thought over and elaborated it. The first theories we should expect
to find more or less improbable—wild stories of serpents and gods,
emblematic of the conflicting powers of good and evil, which, with them,
had their origin before the advent of mankind upon the earth.
But all men would not have the same opinion of the way in which the
universe came into existence, and this would give rise, as really happened
in Babylonia, to conflicting accounts or theories, the later ones less
improbable than, and therefore superior to, the earlier. The earlier
Creation-legend, being a sort of heroic poem, would remain popular with
the common people, who always love stories of heroes and mighty conflicts,
such as those in which the Babylonians and Assyrians to the latest times
delighted, and of which the Semitic Babylonian Creation-story consists.
As the ages passed by, and the newer theories grew up, the older popular
ones would be elaborated, and new ideas from the later theories of the
Creation would be incorporated, whilst, at the same time, mystical
meanings would be given to the events recorded in the earlier legends to
make them fit in with the newer ones. This having been done, the scribes
could appeal at the same time to both ignorant and learned, explaining how
the crude legends of the past were but a type of the doctrines put forward
by the philosophers of later and more enlightened days, bringing within
the range of the intellect of the unlearned all those things in which the
more thoughtful spirits also believed. By this means an enlightened
monotheism and the grossest polytheism could, and did, exist side by side,
as well as clever and reasonable cosmologies along with the strangest and
wildest legends.
Thus it is that we have from the literature of two closely allied peoples,
the Babylonians and the Hebrews, accounts of the Creation of the world so
widely differing, and, at the same time, possessing, here and there,
certain ideas in common—ideas darkly veiled in the old Babylonian story,
but clearly expressed in the comparatively late Hebrew account.
It must not be thought, however, that the above theory as to the origin of
the Hebrew Creation-story interferes in any way with the doctrine of its
inspiration. We are not bound to accept the opinion so generally held by
theologians, that the days of creation referred to in Genesis i. probably
indicate that each act of creation—each day—was revealed in seven
successive dreams, in order, to the inspired writer of the book. The
opinion held by other theologians, that “inspiration” simply means that
the writer was moved by the Spirit of God to choose from documents already
existing such portions as would serve for our enlightenment and
instruction, adding, at the same time, such additions of his own as he was
led to think to be needful, may be held to be a satisfactory definition of
the term in question.
Without, therefore, binding ourselves down to any hard and fast line as to
date, we may regard, for the purposes of this inquiry, the Hebrew account
of the Creation as one of the traditions handed down in the thought of
many minds extending over many centuries, and as having been chosen and
elaborated by the inspired writer of Genesis for the purpose of his
narrative, the object of which was to set forth the origin of man and the
Hebrew nation, to which he belonged, and whose history he was about to
narrate in detail.
The Hebrew story of the Creation, as detailed in Genesis i., may be
regarded as one of the most remarkable documents ever produced. It must
not be forgotten, however, that it is a document that is essentially
Hebrew. For the author of this book the language of God and of the first
man was Hebrew—a literary language, showing much phonetic decay. The
retention of this matter (its omission not being essential at the period
of the composition of the book) is probably due, in part, to the natural
patriotism of the writer, overruling what ought to have been his inspired
common-sense. How this is to be explained it is not the intention of the
writer of this book to inquire, the account of the Creation and its
parallels being the subject in hand at present.
The question of language apart, the account of the Creation in Genesis is
in the highest degree a common-sense one. The creation of (1) the heaven,
and (2) the earth; the darkness—not upon the face of the earth, but upon
the face of the deep. Then the expansion dividing the waters above from
the waters below on the earth. In the midst of this waste of waters dry
land afterwards appears, followed by the growth of vegetation. But the sun
and the moon had not yet been appointed, nor the stars, all of which come
into being at this point. Last of all are introduced the living things of
the earth—fish, and bird, and creeping thing, followed by the animals,
and, finally, by man.
It is noteworthy and interesting that, in this account, the acts of
creation are divided into seven periods, each of which is called a “day,”
and begins, like the natural day in the time-reckoning of the Semitic
nations, with the evening—“and it was evening, and it was morning, day
one.” It describes what the heavenly bodies were for—they were not only to
give light upon the earth—they were also for signs, for seasons, for days,
and for years.
And then, concerning man, a very circumstantial account is given. He was
to have dominion over everything upon the earth—the fish of the sea, the
fowl of the air, the cattle, and every creeping thing. All was given to
him, and he, like the creatures made before him, was told to “be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth.” It is with this crowning work of
creation that the first chapter of the Book of Genesis ends.
The second chapter refers to the seventh day—the day of rest, and is
followed by further details of the creation, the central figure of which
is the last thing created, namely, man. This chapter reads, in part, like
a recapitulation of the first, but contains many additional details. “No
plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb ... had sprung up:
for the Lord God had not caused it to rain ..., and there was not a man to
till the ground.” A mist, therefore, went up from the earth, and watered
all the face of the ground. Then, to till the earth, man was formed from
the dust of the ground, and the Lord God “breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life, and man became a living soul.”
The newly-created man was, at this time, innocent, and was therefore to be
placed by his Creator in a garden of delight, named Eden, and this garden
he was to dress and keep. A hidden danger, however, lay in this pleasant
retreat—the tree of knowledge of good and evil, of which he was forbidden
to eat, but which was to form for him a constant temptation, for ever
testing his obedience. All might have been well, to all appearance, but
for the creation of woman, who, giving way to the blandishments of the
tempter, in her turn tempted the man, and he fell. Death in the course of
nature was the penalty, the earthly paradise was lost, and all chance of
eating of the tree of life, and living for ever, disappeared on man’s
expulsion from his first abode of delight.
In the course of this narrative interesting details are given—the four
rivers, the country through which they flowed, and their precious mineral
products; the naming of the various animals by the man; the forming of
woman from one of his ribs; the institution of marriage, etc.
Such is, in short, the story of the Creation as told in the Bible, and it
is this that we have to compare with the now well-known parallel accounts
current among the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians. And here may be noted
at the outset that, though we shall find some parallels, we shall, in the
course of our comparison, find a far greater number of differences, for
not only were they produced in a different land, by a different people,
but they were also produced under different conditions. Thus, Babylonian
polytheism takes the place of the severe and uncompromising monotheism of
the Hebrew account in Genesis; Eden was, to the Babylonians, their own
native land, not a country situated at a remote distance; and, lastly, but
not least, their language, thoughts, and feelings differed widely from
those of the dwellers in the Holy Land.
The Babylonian story of the Creation is a narrative of great interest to
all who occupy themselves with the study of ancient legends and folklore.
It introduces us not only to exceedingly ancient beliefs concerning the
origin of the world on which we live, but it tells us also of the
religion, or, rather, the religious beliefs, of the Babylonians, and
enables us to see something of the changes which those beliefs underwent
before adopting the form in which we find them at the time this record was
composed.
A great deal has been written about the Babylonian story of the Creation.
As is well known, the first translation of these documents was by him who
first discovered their nature, the late George Smith, who gave them to the
world in his well-known book, _The Chaldean Account of Genesis_, in 1875.
Since that time numerous other translations have appeared, not only in
England, but also on the Continent. Among those who have taken part in the
work of studying and translating these texts may be named Profs. Sayce,
Oppert, Hommel, and Delitzsch, the last-named having both edited the first
edition of Smith’s book (the first issued on this subject on the
Continent), and published one of the last and most complete editions of
the whole legend yet placed before the public. To Prof. Sayce, as well as
to Prof. Hommel, belongs the honour of many brilliant suggestions as to
the tendency of the texts of the creation as a whole: Prof. Oppert was the
first to point out that the last tablet of the series was not, as Smith
thought, an “Address to primitive man,” but an address to the god Merodach
as the restorer of order out of chaos; whilst Delitzsch has perhaps (being
almost the last to write upon it) improved the translation more than many
of his predecessors in the work.
Before proceeding to deal with the legend itself, a few remarks upon the
tablets and the text that they bear will probably not be considered out of
place. There are, in all likelihood, but few who have not seen in the
British Museum or elsewhere those yellow baked terra-cotta tablets of
various sizes and shapes, upon which the Babylonians and Assyrians were
accustomed to write their records. And well it is for the science of
Assyriology that they used this exceedingly durable material. I have said
that the tablets are yellow in colour, and this is generally the case, but
the tint varies greatly, and may approach dark grey or black, and even
appear as a very good sage-green. The smaller tablets are often
cushion-shaped, but, with some few exceptions, they are rectangular, like
those of larger size. The writing varies so considerably that the hand of
the various scribes can sometimes be distinguished. In the best class of
tablets every tenth line is often numbered—a proof that the Assyrians and
Babylonians were very careful with the documents with which they had to
deal. The Babylonian tablets closely resemble the Assyrian, but the style
of the writing differs somewhat, and it is, in general, more difficult to
read than the Assyrian. None of the tablets of the Creation-series are,
unfortunately, perfect, and many of the fragments are mere scraps, but as
more than one copy of each anciently existed, and has survived, the
wanting parts of one text can often be supplied from another copy. That
copies come from Babylon as well as from Nineveh is a very fortunate
circumstance, as our records are rendered more complete thereby.
Of the obverse of the first tablet very little, unfortunately, remains,
but what there is extant is of the highest interest. Luckily, we have the
beginning of this remarkable legend, which runs, according to the latest
and best commentaries, as follows—
“When on high the heavens were unnamed,
Beneath the earth bore not a name:
The primæval ocean was their producer;
Mummu Tiamtu was she who begot the whole of them.
Their waters in one united themselves, and
The plains were not outlined, marshes were not to be seen.
When none of the gods had come forth,
They bore no name, the fates [had not been determined].
There were produced the gods [all of them?]:
Laḫmu and Laḫamu went forth [as the first?]:
The ages were great, [the times were long?].
Anšar and Kišar were produced and over th[em]....
Long grew the days; there came forth (?)...
The god Anu, their son.....
Anšar, the god Anu......”
Such is the tenor of the opening lines of the Babylonian story of the
Creation, and the differences between the two accounts are striking
enough. Before proceeding, however, to examine and compare them, a few
words upon the Babylonian version may not be without value.
First we must note that the above introduction to the legend has been
excellently explained and commented upon by the Syrian writer Damascius.
The following is his explanation of the Babylonian teaching concerning the
creation of the world—
“But the Babylonians, like the rest of the Barbarians, pass over in
silence the one principle of the Universe, and they constitute two, Tauthé
and Apason, making Apason the husband of Tauthé, and denominating her the
mother of the gods. And from these proceeds an only-begotten son, Moumis,
which, I conceive, is no other than the intelligible world proceeding from
the two principles. From them, also, another progeny is derived, Daché and
Dachos; and again a third, Kissaré and Assoros, from which last three
others proceed, Anos, and Illinos, and Aos. And of Aos and Dauké is born a
son called Belos, who, they say, is the fabricator of the world, the
Creator.”
The likeness of the names given in this extract from Damascius will be
noticed, and will probably also be recognized as a valuable verification
of the certainty now attained by Assyriologists in the reading of the
proper names. In Tiamtu, or, rather, Tiawthu, will be easily recognized
the Tauthé of Damascius, whose son, as appears from a later fragment, was
called Mummu (= Moumis). Apason he gives as the husband of Tauthé, but of
this we know nothing from the Babylonian tablet, which, however, speaks of
this Apason (_apsû_, “the abyss”), which corresponds with the “primæval
ocean” of the Babylonian tablet.
In Daché and Dachos it is easy to see that there has been a confusion
between Greek Λ and Δ, which so closely resemble each other. Daché and
Dachos should, therefore, be corrected into Laché and Lachos, the Laḫmu
and Laḫamu (better Laḫwu and Laḫawu) of the Babylonian text. They were the
male and female personifications of the heavens. Anšar and Kišar are the
Greek author’s Assoros and Kisaré, the “Host of Heaven” and the “Host of
Earth” respectively. The three proceeding from them, Anos, Illinos, and
Aos, are the well-known Anu, the god of the heavens; Illil, for En-lila,
the Sumerian god of the earth and the Underworld; and Aa or Ea, the god of
the waters, who seems to have been identified by some with Yau or Jah. Aa
or Ea was the husband of Damkina, or Dawkina, the Dauké of Damascius, from
whom, as he says, Belos, _i.e._ Bel-Merodach, was born, and if he did not
“fabricate the world,” at least he ordered it anew, after his great fight
with the Dragon of Chaos, as we shall see when we come to the third tablet
of the series.
After the lines printed above the text is rather defective, but it would
seem that the god Nudimmud (Ae or Ea), “the wise and open of ear,” next
came into existence. A comparison is then apparently made between these
deities on the one hand, and Tiamtu, Apsû, and Mummu on the other—to the
disadvantage of the latter. On Apsû complaining that he had no peace by
day nor rest by night on account of the ways of the gods, their sons, it
was at last determined to make war upon them.
“They have become hostile, and at the side of Tiamtu they advance,
Storming, planning, not resting night and day,
They make ready for battle, wrathful (and) raging.
They assemble themselves together, and make ready (for) the
strife.
Ummu Ḫubur, she who created everything,
Added irresistible weapons, produced giant serpents,
Sharp of tooth, unsparing (their) stings (?)
She caused poison to fill their bodies like blood.
Raging dragons clothed she with terrors,
She endowed (them) with brilliance, she made (them) like the high
ones (?)
‘Whoever sees them may fright overwhelm,
May their bodies rear on high, and may (none) turn aside their
breast.’
She set up the viper, the pithon, and the Laḫamu,
Great monsters, raging dogs, scorpion-men,
Driving demons, fish-men, and mountain-rams,
Bearing unsparing weapons, not fearing battle;
Powerful are (her) commands, and irresistible,
She made altogether eleven like that,
Among the gods her firstborn, he who had made for her a host,
Kingu, she raised among them, him she made chief.
Those going in front before the army, those leading the host,
Raising weapons, attacking, who rise up (for) the fray,
The leadership of the conflict
She delivered into his hand, and caused him to sit in state (?).
‘I have set firm thy word, in the assembly of the gods I have made
thee great,
The rule of the gods, all of them, have I delivered into thy hand,
Only be thou great—thou, my only husband—
Let them exalt thy name over all the heavenly ones (?)’
She gave him then the tablets of fate, she placed them in his
bosom:
‘As for thee, thy command shall not be changed, may thy utterances
stand firm!’
Now Kingu is exalted, he has taken to him the godhood of Anu,
Among the gods her sons he determines the fates.
‘Open your mouths, let the Firegod be at rest.
Be ye fearful in the fight, let resistance be laid low (?).’ ”
Such are the last verses of the first tablet of the so-called story of the
Creation as known to the Babylonians, and though it would be better named
if called the Story of Bêl and the Dragon, the references to the creation
of the world that are made therein prevent the name from being absolutely
incorrect, and it may, therefore, serve, along with the more correct one,
to designate it still. As will be gathered from the above, the whole story
centres in the wish of the goddess of the powers of evil to get
creation—the production of all that is in the world—into her own hands. In
this she is aided by certain gods, over whom she sets one, Kingu, her
husband, as chief. In the preparations that she makes she exercises her
creative powers to produce all kinds of dreadful monsters to help her
against the gods whom she wishes to overthrow, and the full and vigorous
description of her defenders, created by her own hands, adds much to the
charm of the narrative, and shows well what the Babylonian scribes were
capable of in this class of record.
The first tablet breaks off after the speech of Tiamtu to her husband
Kingu. The second one begins by stating how Aa or Ea heard of the plot of
Tiamtu and her followers against the gods of heaven. When his first wrath
on account of this had somewhat abated, he went and related the whole, in
practically the same words as the story is given on the two foregoing
pages, to Anšar, his father, who in his turn became filled with rage,
biting his lips, and uttering cries of deepest grief. In the mutilated
lines which follow Apsû’s subjugation seems to be referred to. After this
is another considerable gap, and then comes the statement that Anšar
applied to his son Anu, “the mighty and brave, whose power is great, whose
attack irresistible,” saying that if he will only speak to her, the great
Dragon’s anger will be calmed and her rage disappear.
“(Anu heard) the words of his father Anšar,
(Took the ro)ad towards her, and descended by her path,
Anu (went),—he examined Tiamtu’s lair, and
(Not having power to resist her?), turned back.”
How the god excused himself to his father Anšar on account of his
ignominious flight we do not know, the record being again defective at
this point. With the same want of success the god Anšar then, as we learn
from another part of the narrative, applied to the god Nudimmud, a deity
who is explained in the inscriptions as being the same as the god Aa or
Ea, but whom Professor Delitzsch is rather inclined to regard as one of
the forms of Bêl.
In the end the god Merodach, the son of Aa, was asked to be the champion
of the gods against the great emblem of the powers of evil, the Dragon of
Chaos. To become, by this means, the saviour of the universe, was
apparently just what the patron-god of the city of Babylon desired, for he
seems immediately to have accepted the task of destroying the hated
Dragon—
“The lord rejoiced at his father’s word,
His heart was glad, and he saith to his father:
‘O lord of the gods, fate of the great gods!
If then I be your avenger,
(If) I bind Tiamtu and save you,
Assemble together, cause to be great, (and) proclaim ye, my lot.
In Upšukenaku assembled, come ye joyfully together,
Having opened my mouth, like you also, let me the fates decide,
That naught be changed that I do, (even) I.
May the word of my lips neither fail nor altered be!’ ”
Anšar, without delay, calls his messenger Gaga, and directs him to summon
all the gods to a festival, where with appetite they may sit down to a
feast, to eat the divine bread and drink the divine wine, and there let
Merodach “decide the fates,” as the one chosen to be their avenger. Then
comes the message that Gaga was to deliver to Laḫmu and Laḫamu, in which
the rebellion of Tiamtu is related in practically the same words as the
writer used at the beginning of the narrative to describe Tiamtu’s revolt.
Merodach’s proposal and request are then stated, and the message ends with
the following words—
“Hasten, and quickly decide for him your fate—
Let him go, let him meet your mighty foe!”
Laḫmu and Laḫamu having heard all the words of Anšar’s message, which his
messenger Gaga faithfully repeated to them, they, with the Igigi, or gods
of the heavens, broke out in bitter lamentation, saying that they could
not understand Tiamtu’s acts.
Then all the great gods, who “decided the fates,” hastened to go to the
feast, where they ate and drank, and, apparently with loud acclaim,
“decided the fate” for Merodach their avenger.
Here follow the honours conferred on Merodach on account of the mighty
deed that he had undertaken to do. They erected for him princely chambers,
wherein he sat as the great judge “in the presence of his fathers,” and
they praised him as the highest honoured among the great gods,
incomparable as to his ordinances, changeless as to the word of his mouth,
uncontravenable as to his utterances. None of them would go against the
authority that was to be henceforth his domain.
“Merodach, thou art he who is our avenger,
(Over) the whole universe have we given thee the kingdom.”
His weapons were never to be defeated, his foes were to be smitten down,
but as for those who trusted in him, the gods prayed him that he would
grant them life, “pouring out,” on the other hand, the life of the god who
had begun the evil against which Merodach was about to fight.
Then, so that he should see that they had indeed given him the power to
which they referred, they laid in their midst a garment, and in accordance
with their directions, Merodach spoke, and the garment vanished,—he spoke,
and it reappeared—
“ ‘Open thy mouth, may the garment be destroyed,
Speak to it once more, and let it be restored again!’
He spoke with his mouth, and the garment was destroyed,
He spoke to it again, and the garment was reproduced.”
Then all the gods called out, “Merodach is king!” and they gave him
sceptre, throne, and insignia of royalty, and also an irresistible weapon,
which should shatter his enemies.
“ ‘Now, go, and cut off the life of Tiamtu,
Let the winds bear away her blood to hidden places!’
(Thus) did the gods, his fathers, fix the fate of Bel.
A path of peace and goodwill they set for him as his road.”
Then the god armed himself for the fight, taking spear (or dart), bow, and
quiver. To these he added lightning flashing before him, flaming fire
filling his body; the net which his father Anu had given him wherewith to
capture “_kirbiš Tiamtu_” or “Tiamtu who is in the midst,” he set north
and south, east and west, in order that nothing of her might escape. In
addition to all this, he created various winds—the evil wind, the storm,
the hurricane, “wind four and seven,” the harmful, the uncontrollable (?),
and these seven winds he sent forth, to confuse _kirbiš Tiamtu_, and they
followed after him.
Next he took his great weapon called _âbubu_, and mounted his dreadful,
irresistible chariot, to which four steeds were yoked—steeds unsparing,
rushing forward, flying along, their teeth full of venom, foam-covered,
experienced (?) in galloping, schooled for overthrowing. Merodach being
now ready for the fray, he fared forth to meet the Dragon.
“Then, they clustered around him, the gods clustered around him,
The gods his fathers clustered around him, the gods clustered
around him.
And the lord advanced, Tiamtu’s retreat regarding
Examining the lair of Kingu her consort.”
The sight of the enemy was so menacing, that even the great Merodach began
to falter and lose courage, whereat the gods, his helpers, who accompanied
him, were greatly disturbed in their minds, fearing approaching disaster.
The king of the gods soon recovered himself, however, and uttered to the
demon a longish challenge, on hearing which she became as one possessed,
and cried aloud. Muttering then incantations and charms, she called the
gods of battle to arms, and the great fight for the rule of the universe
began.
“The lord spread wide his net, made it enclose her.
The evil wind following behind, he sent on before.
Tiamtu opened her mouth as much as she could.
He caused the evil wind to enter so that she could not close her
lips,
The angry winds filled out her body,
Her heart was overpowered, wide opened she her mouth.”
Being now at the mercy of the conqueror, the divine victor soon made an
end of the enemy of the gods, upon whose mutilated body, when dead, he
stood triumphantly. Great fear now overwhelmed the gods who had gone over
to her side, and fought against the heavenly powers, and they fled to save
their lives. Powerless to escape, however, they were captured, and their
weapons broken to pieces. Notwithstanding their cries, which filled the
vast region, they had to bear the punishment which was their due, and were
shut up in prison. The creatures whom Tiamtu had created to help her and
strike terror into the hearts of the gods, were also brought into
subjection, along with Kingu, her husband, from whom the tablets of fate
were taken by the conqueror as things unmeet for Tiamtu’s spouse to own.
It is probable that we have here the true explanation of the origin of
this remarkable legend, for the tablets of fate were evidently things
which the king of heaven alone might possess, and Merodach, as soon as he
had overcome his foe, pressed his own seal upon them, and placed them in
his breast.
He had now conquered the enemy, the proud opposer of the gods of heaven,
and having placed her defeated followers in safe custody, he was able to
return to the dead and defeated Dragon of Chaos. He split open her skull
with his unsparing weapon, hewed asunder the channels of her blood, and
caused the north wind to carry it away to hidden places. His fathers saw
this, and rejoiced with shouting, and brought him gifts and offerings.
And there, as he rested from the strife, Merodach looked upon her who had
wrought such evil in the fair world as created by the gods, and as he
looked, he thought out clever plans. Hewing asunder the corpse of the
great Dragon that lay lifeless before him, he made with one half a
covering for the heavens, keeping it in its place by means of a bolt, and
setting there a watchman to keep guard. He also arranged this portion of
the Dragon of Chaos in such a way, that “her waters could not come forth,”
and this circumstance suggests a comparison with “the waters above the
firmament” of the Biblical story in Genesis.
Passing then through the heavens, he beheld that wide domain, and opposite
the abyss, he built an abode for the god Nudimmud, that is, for his father
Aa as the creator.
“Then measured the lord the abyss’s extent,
A palace in its likeness he founded:—Êšarra;
The palace Êšarra, which he made, (is) the heavens,
(For) Anu, Bêl, and Aa he founded their strongholds.”
With these words, which are practically a description of the creation or
building, by Merodach, of the heavens, the fourth tablet of the Babylonian
legend of the Creation comes to an end. It is difficult to find a parallel
to this part of the story in the Hebrew account in Genesis.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
[Plate II.]
Plate II. Fragments of tablets (duplicates), giving the words for the
different fasts, festivals, etc., of the Babylonians and Assyrians. Line 4
of the small piece, and 16 of the large one, have the words _ûm nûh
libbi_, "day of rest of the heart," explained by _sapattum_ (from the
Sumerian _sa-bat_, "heart-rest"), generally regarded as the original of
the Hebrew _Sabbath_. _Sapattum_, however, was the 15th day of the month.
The nearest approaches to Sabbaths were the 7th, 14th, 21st, 28th, and
19th, which were called _u-hul-gallu_ or _ûmu limnu_, "the evil day" (the
19th being a _week of weeks_, from the 1st day of the preceding month),
because it was unlawful to do certain things on those days.
The fifth tablet of the Babylonian story of the Creation is a mere
fragment, but is of considerable interest and importance. It describes, in
poetical language, in the style with which the reader has now become
fairly familiar, the creation and ordering, by Merodach, of the heavenly
bodies, as the ancient Babylonians conceived them to have taken place. The
text of the first few stanzas is as follows—
“He built firmly the stations of the great gods—
Stars their likeness—he set up the Lumaši,
He designated the year, he outlined the (heavenly) forms.
He set for the twelve months three stars each.
From the day when the year begins, ... for signs.
He founded the station of Nîbiru, to make known their limits,
That none might err, nor go astray.
The station of Bêl and Aa he placed with himself,
Then he opened the great gates on both sides,
Bolts he fixed on the left and on the right,
In its centre (?) then he set the zenith (?).
Nannaru (the moon) he caused to shine, ruling the night,
So he set him as a creature of the night, to make known the days,
Monthly, without failing, he provided him with a crown,
At the beginning of the month then, dawning in the land,
The horns shine forth to make known the seasons (?),
On the 7th day crown (perfect)ing (?).
The [Sa]bbath shalt thou then fall in with, half-monthly,
When the sun (is) in the base of the heavens, at thy [approach?].
...... hath caused to be cut off and
... nearing the path of the sun.
[The ...]th [day] shalt thou then fall in with, the sun shall
change (?)...
...... the sign seeking its path.
... cause to approach and give the judgment.
........................ to injure (?)
........................... one.”
The final lines of this portion seem to refer to the moon on the 7th and
other days of the month, and would in that case indicate the quarters.
“Sabbath” is doubtful on account of the mutilation of the first character,
but in view of the forms given on pl. II. and p. 527 (_šapattu__m_,
_šapatti_) the restoration as _šapattu_ seems possible. It is described on
p. 527 as the 15th of the month, but must have indicated also the 14th,
according to the length of the month.
An exceedingly imperfect fragment of what is supposed to be part of the
fifth tablet exists. It speaks of the bow with which Merodach overcame the
Dragon of Chaos, which the god Anu, to all appearance, set in the heavens
as one of the constellations. After this comes, apparently, a fragment
that may be regarded as recording the creation of the earth, and the
cities and renowned shrines upon it, the houses of the great gods, and the
cities Nippuru (Niffer) and Asshur being mentioned. Everything, however,
is very disconnected and doubtful.
The sixth tablet, judging from the fragment recognized by Mr. L. W. King,
must have been one of special interest, as it to all appearance contained
a description of the creation of man. Unfortunately, only the beginning of
the text is preserved, and is as follows:—
“Merodach, on hearing the word of the gods,
His heart urged him, and he made [cunning plans].
He opened his mouth and [said] to the god Aê—
[What] he thought out in his heart he communicates ...:
‘Let me gather my blood and let me ... bone,
Let me set up a man, and let the man ....
Let me make then men dwelling ....
May the service of the gods be established, and as for them, let
....
Let me alter the ways of the gods, let me chan[ge their paths]—
As one let them be honoured, as two let them be ....’
Aê answered him, and the word he spake.”
Here come the remains of ten very imperfect lines, which probably related
the consent of the other gods to the proposal, and must have been followed
by a description of the way in which it was carried out. All this,
however, is unfortunately not preserved. That the whole of Merodach’s work
received the approval of “the gods his fathers” is shown by the remains of
lines with which the sixth tablet closes:—
“They rejoiced ....................
In Upšukenaku they caused .............
Of the son, the hero, who brought back [benefit for them]
‘As for us, whom, succouring, he ...........’
They sat down, and in their assembly they proclaimed
... they all announced ...............”
What they proclaimed and announced was apparently his glorious names, as
detailed in the seventh and last tablet of the series, which was regarded
by George Smith as containing an address to primitive man, but which
proves to be really an address to the god Merodach praising him on account
of the great work that he had done in overcoming the Dragon, and in
thereafter ordering the world anew. As this portion forms a good specimen
of Babylonian poetry at its best, the full text of the tablet, with the
exception of some short remains of lines, is here presented in as careful
a translation as is at present possible.
The Seventh Tablet Of The Creation-Series, Also Known As The
Tablet Of The Fifty-One Names.
1 Asari, bestower of planting, establisher of irrigation.
2 Creator of grain and herbs, he who causes verdure to grow.
3 Asari-alim, he who is honoured in the house of counsel, [who
increases counsel?].
4 The gods bow down to him, fear [possesses them?].
5 Asari-alim-nunna, the mighty one, light of the father his
begetter.
6 He who directs the oracles of Anu, Bel, [and Aa].
7 He is their nourisher, who has ordained....
8 He whose provision is fertility, sendeth forth....
9 Tutu, the creator of their renewal, [is he?].
10 Let him purify their desires, (as for) them, let them [be
appeased].
11 Let him then make his incantation, let the gods [be at rest].
12 Angrily did he arise, may he lay low [their breast].
13 Exalted was he then in the assembly of the gods....
14 None among the gods shall [forsake him].
15 _Tutu._(1) “Zi-ukenna,” “life of the people”
16 “He who fixed for the gods the glorious heavens;”
17 Their paths they took, they set
18 May the deeds (that he performed) not be forgotten among men.
19 _Tutu._ “Zi-azaga,” thirdly, he called (him),—“he who effects
purification,”
20 “God of the good wind,” “Lord of hearing and obedience,”
21 “Creator of fulness and plenty,” “Institutor of abundance,”
22 “He who changes what is small to great,”
23 In our dire need we scented his sweet breath.
24 Let them speak, let them glorify, let them render him
obedience.
25 _Tutu._ “Aga-azaga,” fourthly, May he make the crowns glorious,
26 “The lord of the glorious incantation bringing the dead to
life,”
27 “He who had mercy on the gods who had been overpowered,”
28 “He who made heavy the yoke that he had laid on the gods who
were his enemies,
29 (And) for their despite (?), created mankind.”
30 “The merciful one,” “He with whom is lifegiving,”
31 May his word be established, and not forgotten,
32 In the mouth of the black-headed ones (mankind) whom his hands
have made.
33 _Tutu._ “Mu-azaga,” fifthly, May their mouth make known his
glorious incantation,
34 “He who with his glorious charm rooteth out all the evil ones,”
35 “Sa-zu,” “He who knoweth the heart of the gods,” “He who
looketh at the inward parts,”
36 “He who alloweth not evil-doers to go forth against him,”
37 “He who assembleth the gods,” appeasing their hearts,
38 “He who subdueth the disobedient,”...
39 “He who ruleth in truth (and justice”), ...
40 “He who setteth aside injustice,” ...
41 _Tutu._ “Zi-si” (“He who bringeth about silence”), ...
42 “He who sendeth forth stillness.” ...
43 _Tutu._ “Suḫ-kur,” “Annihilator of the enemy,” ...
44 “Dissolver of their agreements,” ...
45 “Annihilator of everything evil.” ...
About 40 lines, mostly very imperfect, occur here, and some 20 others are
totally lost. The text after this continues:—
107 “Then he seized the back part (?) of the head, which he
pierced (?),
108 And as Kirbiš-Tiamtu he circumvented restlessly,
109 His name shall be Nibiru, he who seized Kirbišu (Tiamtu).
110 Let him direct the paths of the stars of heaven,
111 Like sheep let him pasture the gods, the whole of them.
112 May he confine Tiamtu, may he bring her life into pain and
anguish,
113 In man’s remote ages, in lateness of days,
114 Let him arise, and he shall not cease, may he continue into
the remote future
115 As he made the (heavenly) place, and formed the firm (ground),
116 Father Bêl called him (by) his own name, “Lord of the World,”
117 The appellation (by) which the Igigi have themselves (always)
called him.
118 Aa heard, and he rejoiced in his heart:
119 Thus (he spake): “He, whose renowned name his fathers have so
glorified,
120 He shall be like me, and Aa shall be his name!
121 The total of my commands, all of them, let him possess, and
122 The whole of my pronouncements he, (even) he, shall make
known.”
123 By the appellation “fifty” the great gods
124 His fifty names proclaimed, and they caused his career to be
great (beyond all).
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
125 May they be accepted, and may the primæval one make (them)
known,
126 May the wise and understanding altogether well consider
(them),
127 May the father repeat and teach to the son,
128 May they open the ears of the shepherd and leader.
129 May they rejoice for the lord of the gods, Merodach,
130 May his land bear in plenty; as for him, may he have peace.
131 His word standeth firm; his command changeth not—
132 No god hath yet made to fail that which cometh forth from his
mouth.
133 If he frown down in displeasure, he turneth not his neck,
134 In his anger, there is no god who can withstand his wrath.
135 Broad is his heart, vast is the kindness (?) of (his) ...
136 The sinner and evildoer before him are (ashamed?).”
The remains of some further lines exist, but they are very uncertain, the
beginnings and ends being broken away. All that can be said is, that the
poem concluded in the same strain as the last twelve lines preserved.
In the foregoing pages the reader has had placed before him all the
principal details of the Babylonian story of the Creation, and we may now
proceed to examine the whole in greater detail.
If we may take the explanation of Damascius as representing fairly the
opinion of the Babylonians concerning the creation of the world, it seems
clear that they regarded the matter of which it was formed as existing in
the beginning under the two forms of Tiamtu (the sea) and _Apsû_ (the
deep), and from these, being wedded, proceeded “an only begotten son,”
_Mummu_ (Moumis), conceived by Damascius to be “no other that the
intelligible world proceeding from the two principles,” _i.e._ from Tiamtu
and _Apsû_. From these come forth, in successive generations, the other
gods, ending with Marduk or Merodach, also named Bêl (Bêl-Merodach), the
son of Aa (Ea) and his consort Damkina (the Aos and Dauké of Damascius).
Judging from the material that we have, the Babylonians seemed to have
believed in a kind of evolution, for they evidently regarded the first
creative powers (the watery waste and the abyss) as the rude and barbaric
beginnings of things, the divine powers produced from these first
principles (Laḫmu and Laḫamu, Anšar and Kišar, Anu, Ellila, and Aa, and
finally Marduk), being successive stages in the upward path towards
perfection, with which the first rude elements of creation were ultimately
bound to come into conflict; for Tiamtu, the chief of the two rude and
primitive principles of creation, was, notwithstanding this, ambitious,
and desired still to be the creatress of the gods and other inferior
beings that were yet to be produced. All the divinities descending from
Tiamtu were, to judge from the inscriptions, creators, and as they
advanced towards perfection, so also did the things that they created
advance, until, by contrast, the works of Tiamtu became as those of the
Evil Principle, and when she rebelled against the gods who personified all
that was good, it became a battle between them of life and death, which
only the latest-born of the gods, elected in consequence of the perfection
of his power, to be king and ruler over “the gods his fathers,” was found
worthy to wage. The glorious victory gained, and the Dragon of Evil
subdued and relegated to those places where her exuberant producing power,
which, to all appearance, she still possessed, would be of use, Merodach,
in the fulness of his power as king of the gods, perfected and ordered the
universe anew, and created his crowning work, Mankind. Many details are,
to all appearance, wanting on account of the incompleteness of the series,
but those which remain seem to indicate that the motive of the whole story
was as outlined here.
In Genesis, however, we have an entirely different account, based,
apparently, upon a widely different conception of the origin of the
Universe, for one principle only appears throughout the whole narrative,
be it Elohistic, Jehovistic, or priestly. “In the beginning God created
the heavens and the earth,” and from the first verse to the last it is He,
and He alone, who is Creator and Maker and Ruler of the Universe. The only
passage containing any indication that more than one person took part in
the creation of the world and all that therein is, is in verse 26, where
God is referred to as saying, “Let US make man,” but that this is simply
the plural of majesty, and nothing more, seems to be proved by the very
next verse, where the wording is, “and God made man in HIS own image,”
etc. There is, therefore, no trace of polytheistic influence in the whole
narrative.
Let us glance awhile at the other differences.
To begin with, the whole Babylonian narrative is not only based upon an
entirely different theory of the beginning of all things, but upon an
entirely different conception of what took place ere man appeared upon the
earth. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” implies
the conception of a time when the heavens and the earth existed not. Not
so, seemingly, with the Babylonian account. There the heavens and the
earth are represented as existing, though in a chaotic form, from the
first. Moreover, it is not the external will and influence of the Almighty
that originates and produces the forms of the first creatures inhabiting
the world, but the productive power residing in the watery waste and the
deep:
“The primæval ocean (_apsû rêstū_) was their producer (lit.
seeder);
Mummu Tiamtu was _she who brought forth_ the whole of them.”
It is question here of “seeding” (_zaru_) and “bearing” (_âlādu_), not of
creating.
The legend is too defective to enable us to find out anything as to the
Babylonian idea concerning the formation of the dry land. Testimony as to
its non-existence at the earliest period is all that is vouchsafed to us.
At that time none of the gods had come forth, seemingly because (if the
restoration be correct) “the fates had not been determined.” There is no
clue, however, as to who was then the determiner of the fates.
Then, gradually, and in the course of long-extended ages, the gods Laḫmu
and Laḫamu, Anšar and Kišar, with the others, came into existence, as
already related, after which the record, which is mutilated, goes on to
speak of Tiamtu, Apsū, and Mummu.
These deities of the Abyss were evidently greatly disquieted on account of
the existence and the work of the gods of heaven. They therefore took
counsel together, and Apsū complained that he could not rest either night
or day on account of them. Naturally the mutilated state of the text makes
the true reason of the conflict somewhat uncertain. Fried. Delitzsch
regarded it as due to the desire, on the part of Merodach, to have
possession of the “Tablets of Fate,” which the powers of good and the
powers of evil both wished to obtain. These documents, when they are first
spoken of, are in the hands of Tiamtu (see p. 19), and she, on giving the
power of changeless command to Kingu, her husband, handed them to him. In
the great fight, when Merodach overcame his foes, he seized these precious
records, and placed them in his breast—
“And Kingu, who had become great over (?) them—
He bound him, and with Ugga (the god of death) ... he counted him;
From him then he took the Fate-tablets, which were not his,
With his ring he pressed them, and took them to his breast.”
To all appearance, Tiamtu and Kingu were in unlawful possession of these
documents, and the king of the gods, Merodach, when he seized them, only
took possession of what, in reality, was his own. What power the “Tablets
of Fate” conferred on their possessor, we do not know, but in all
probability the god in whose hands they were, became, by the very fact,
creator and ruler of the universe for ever and ever.
This creative power the king of the gods at once proceeded to exercise.
Passing through the heavens, he surveyed them, and built a palace called
Ê-šarra, “The house of the host,” for the gods who, with himself, might be
regarded as the chief in his heavenly kingdom. Next in order he arranged
the heavenly bodies, forming the constellations, marking off the year; the
moon, and probably the sun also, being, as stated in Genesis, “for signs,
and for seasons, and for days and years,” though all this is detailed, in
the Babylonian account, at much greater length. Indeed, had we the whole
legend complete, we should probably find ourselves in possession of a
detailed description of the Babylonian idea of the heavens which they
studied so constantly, and of the world on which they lived, in relation
to the celestial phenomena which they saw around them.
Fragments of tablets have been spoken of that seem to belong to the fifth
and sixth of the series, and one of them speaks of the building of certain
ancient cities, including that now represented by the mounds known by the
name of Niffer, which must, therefore, apart from any considerations of
paleographic progression in the case of inscriptions found there, or
evidence based on the depth of rubbish-accumulations, be one of the oldest
known. It is probably on account of this that the Talmudic writers
identified the site with the Calneh of Gen. x. 10, which, notwithstanding
the absence of native confirmation, may very easily be correct, for the
Jews of those days were undoubtedly in a better position to know than we
are, after a lapse of two thousand years. The same text, strangely enough,
also refers to the city of Aššur, though this city (which did not,
apparently, belong to Nimrod’s kingdom) can hardly have been a primæval
city in the same sense as “Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh.”
The text of the Semitic Creation-story is here so mutilated as to be
useless for comparative purposes, and in these circumstances the bilingual
story of the Creation, published by me in 1891, practically covering, as
it does, the same ground, may be held, in a measure, to supply its place.
Instead, therefore, of devoting to this version a separate section, I
insert a translation of it here, together with a description of the tablet
upon which it is written.
This second version of the Creation-story is inscribed on a large fragment
(about four and a half inches high) of a tablet found by Mr. Rassam at
Sippar (Abu Habbah) in 1882. The text is very neatly written in the
Babylonian character, and is given twice over, that is, in the original
(dialectic) Akkadian, with a Semitic (Babylonian) translation. As it was
the custom of the Babylonian and Assyrian scribes, for the sake of giving
a nice appearance to what they wrote, to spread out the characters in such
a way that the page (as it were) was “justified,” and the ends of the
lines ranged, like a page of print, it often happens that, when a line is
not a full one, there is a wide space, in the middle, without writing. In
the Akkadian text of the bilingual Creation-story, however, a gap is left
in _every_ line, sufficiently large to accommodate, in slightly smaller
characters, the whole Semitic Babylonian translation. The tablet therefore
seems to be written in three columns, the first being the first half of
the Akkadian version, the second (a broad one) the Semitic translation,
and the third the last half of the Akkadian original text, separated from
the first part to allow of the Semitic version being inserted between.
The reason of the writing of the version already translated and in part
commented upon is not difficult to find—it was to give an account of the
origin of the world and the gods whom they worshipped. The reason of the
writing of the bilingual story of the Creation, however, is not so easy to
decide, the account there given being the introduction to one of those
bilingual incantations for purification, in which, however, by the
mutilation of the tablet, the connecting-link is unfortunately lost. But
whatever the reason of its being prefixed to this incantation, the value
and importance of the version presented by this new document is
incontestable, not only for the legend itself, but also for the linguistic
material which a bilingual text nearly always offers.
The following is a translation of this document—
“Incantation: The glorious house, the house of the gods, in a
glorious place had not been made,
A plant had not grown up, a tree had not been created,
A brick had not been laid, a beam had not been shaped,
A house had not been built, a city had not been constructed,
A city had not been made, no community had been established,
Niffer had not been built, Ê-kura had not been constructed,
Erech had not been built, Ê-ana had not been constructed,
The Abyss had not been made, Êridu had not been constructed,
(As for) the glorious house, the house of the gods, its seat had
not been made—
The whole of the lands were sea.
When within the sea there was a stream,
In that day Eridu was made, Ê-sagila was constructed—
Ê-sagila, which the god Lugal-du-azaga founded within the Abyss.
Babylon he built, Ê-sagila was completed.
He made the gods (and) the Anunnaki together,
The glorious city, the seat of the joy of their hearts, supremely
he proclaimed.
Merodach bound together a foundation before the waters,
He made dust, and poured (it) out beside the foundation,
That the gods might sit in a pleasant place.
He made mankind—
Aruru made the seed of mankind with him.
He made the beasts of the field and the living creatures of the
desert,
He made the Tigris and the Euphrates, and set (them) in (their)
place—
Well proclaimed he their name.
Grass, the marsh-plant, the reed and the forest, he made,
He made the verdure of the plain,
The lands, the marsh, the thicket also,
The wild cow (and) her young the steer; the ewe (and) her
young—the sheep of the fold,
Plantations and forests also.
The goat and the wild goat multiplied for him (?).
Lord Merodach on the sea-shore made a bank,
... (which) at first he made not,
... he caused to be.
(He caused the plant to be brought forth), he made the tree,
(Everything?) he made in (its) place.
(He laid the brick), he made the beams,
(He constructed the house), he built the city,
(He built the city), the community exercised power,
(He built the city Niffer), he built Ê-kura, the temple,
(He built the city Erech, he built Ê-a)na, the temple,”
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Here the obverse breaks off, and the end of the bilingual story of the
Creation-story is lost. How many more lines were devoted to it we do not
know, nor do we know how the incantation proper, which followed it, and to
which it formed the introduction, began. Where the text (about half-way
down on the reverse) again becomes legible, it reads as follows—
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
“Thy supreme messenger, Pap-sukal, the wise one, counsellor of the
gods.
Nin-aḫa-kudu, daughter of Aa,
May she make thee glorious with a glorious lustration (?),
May she make thee pure with pure fire,
With the glorious pure fountain of the abyss purify thou thy
pathway,
By the incantation of Merodach, king of the universe of heaven and
earth,
May the abundance of the land enter into thy midst,
May thy command be fulfilled for ever.
O Ê-zida, seat supreme, the beloved of Anu and Ištar art thou,
Mayest thou shine like heaven; mayest thou be glorious like the
earth; mayest thou shine like the midst of heaven;
May the malevolent curse dwell outside of thee.
Incantation making (the purification of the temple).
Incantation: The star ... the long chariot of the heavens.”
The last line but one is apparently the title, and is followed by the
first line of the next tablet. From this we see that this text belonged to
a series of at least two tablets, and that the tablet following the above
had an introduction of an astronomical or astrological nature.
It will be noticed that this text not only contains an account of the
creation of gods and men, and flora and fauna, but also of the great and
renowned sites and shrines of the country where it originated. It is in
this respect that it bears a likeness to the fragmentary portions of the
intermediate tablets of the Semitic Babylonian story of the Creation, or
Bêl and the Dragon, and this slight agreement may be held to justify, in
some measure, its introduction here. The bilingual version, however,
differs very much in style from that in Semitic only, and seems to lack
the poetical form which characterizes the latter. This, indeed, was to be
expected, for poetical form in a translation which follows the original
closely is an impossibility, though the poetry of words and ideas which it
contains naturally remains. It is not unlikely that the original Sumerian
text is in poetical form, as is suggested by the cesura, and the recurring
words.
In the bilingual account of the Creation one seems to get a glimpse of the
pride that the ancient Babylonians felt in the ancient and renowned cities
of their country. The writer’s conception of the wasteness and voidness of
the earth in the beginning seems to have been that the ancient cities
Babel, Niffer, Erech and Eridu had not yet come into existence. For him,
those sites were as much creations as the vegetation and animal life of
the earth. Being, for him, sacred sites, they must have had a sacred, a
divine foundation, and he therefore attributes their origin to the
greatest of the gods, Merodach, who built them, brick, and beam, and
house, himself. Their renowned temples, too, had their origin at the hands
of the Divine Architect of the Universe.
A few words are necessary in elucidation of what follows the line, “When
within the sea there was a stream.” “In that day,” it says, “Êridu was
made, Ê-sagila was constructed—Ê-sagila which the god Lugal-du-azaga
founded within the Abyss. Babylon he built, Ê-sagila was completed.” The
connection of Ê-sagila, “the temple of the lofty head,” which was within
the Abyss, with Êridu, shows, with little or no doubt, that the Êridu
there referred to was not the earthly city of that name, but a city
conceived as lying also “within the Abyss.” This Êridu, as we shall see
farther on, was the “blessed city,” or Paradise, wherein was the tree of
life, and which was watered by the twin stream of the Tigris and the
Euphrates.
But there was another Ê-sagila than that founded by the god Lugal-du-azaga
within the Abyss, namely the Ê-sagila at Babylon, and it is this fane that
is spoken of in the phrase following that mentioning the temple so called
within the Abyss. To the Babylonian, therefore, the capital of the country
was, in that respect, a counterpart of the divine city that he regarded as
the abode of bliss, where dwelt Nammu, the river-god, and the sun-god
Dumuzi-Abzu, or “Tammuz of the Abyss.” Like Sippar too, Babylon was
situated in what was called the plain, the _edina_, of which Babylonia
mainly consisted, and which is apparently the original of the Garden of
Eden.
The present text differs from that of the longer (Semitic) story of the
Creation, in that it makes Merodach to be the creator of the gods, as well
as of mankind, and all living things. This, of course, implies that it was
composed at a comparatively late date, when the god Merodach had become
fully recognized as the chief divinity, and the fact that Aa was his
father had been lost sight of, and practically forgotten. The goddess
Aruru is apparently introduced into the narrative out of consideration for
the city Sippar-Aruru, of which she was patron. In another text she is
called “Lady of the gods of Sippar and Aruru.” There is also a goddess
(perhaps identical with her) called Gala-aruru, “Great Aruru,” or “the
great one (of) Aruru,” who is explained as “Ištar the star,” on the tablet
K. 2109.
After the account of the creation of the beasts of the field, the Tigris
and the Euphrates, vegetation, lands, marshes, thickets, plantations and
forests, which are named, to all appearance, without any attempt at any
kind of order, “The lord Merodach” is represented as creating those things
which, at first, he had not made, namely, the great and ancient shrines in
whose antiquity and glorious memories the Babylonian—and the Assyrian
too—took such delight. The list, however, is a short one, and it is to be
supposed that, in the lines that are broken away, further cities of the
kingdom of Babylon were mentioned. That this was the case is implied by
the reverse, which deals mainly—perhaps exclusively—with the great shrine
of Borsippa called Ê-zida, and identified by many with the Tower of Babel.
How it was brought in, however, we have no means of finding out, and must
wait patiently for the completion of the text that will, in all
probability, ultimately be discovered.
The reverse has only the end of the text, which, as far as it is
preserved, is in the form of an “incantation of Êridu,” and mentions “the
glorious fountain of the Abyss,” which to was to “purify” or “make
glorious” the pathway of the personified fane referred to. As it was the
god Merodach, “the merciful one,” “he who raises the dead to life,” “the
lord of the glorious incantation,” who was regarded by the Babylonians as
revealing to mankind the “incantation of Êridu,” which he, in his turn,
obtained from his father Aa, we may see in this final part of the legend
not only a glorification of the chief deity of the Babylonians, but also a
further testimony of the fact that the composition must belong to the
comparatively late period in the history of Babylonian religion, when the
worship of Merodach had taken the place of that of his father Aa.
Of course, it must not be supposed that the longer account of the Creation
was told so shortly as the bilingual narrative that we have introduced
here to supply the missing parts of the longer version. Everything was
probably recounted at much greater length, and in confirmation of this
there is the testimony of the small fragment of the longer account,
translated on p. 28. This simply contains the announcement that Merodach
had made cunning plans, and decided to create man from his own blood, and
[to form?] his bones, but there must have been, in the long gap which then
ensues, a detailed account of the actual creation of the human race,
probably with some reference to the formation of animals. One cannot base
much upon this mutilated fragment, but, as the first translator has
pointed out, the object in creating man was seemingly to ensure the
performance of the service (or worship) of the gods, and the building of
their shrines, prayer and sacrifice, with the fear of God, being duties
from which there was no escape.
In the last tablet of the series—that recording the praises of Merodach
and his fifty new names,—there are a few points that are worthy of
examination. In the first place, the arrangement of the first part is
noteworthy. The principal name that was given to him seems not to have
been Merodach, as one would expect from the popularity of the name in
later days, but Tutu, which occurs in the margin, at the head of six of
the sections, and was probably prefixed to at least three more. This name
Tutu is evidently an Akkadian reduplicate word, from the root _tu_, “to
beget,” and corresponds with the explanation of the word given by the list
of Babylonian gods, K. 2107; _muâllid îlāni, mûddiš îlāni_, “begetter of
the gods, renewer of the gods”—a name probably given to him on account of
his identification with his father, Aa, for, according to the legend,
Merodach was rather the youngest than the oldest of the gods, who are even
called, as will be remembered, “his fathers.” In the lost portion at the
beginning of the final tablet he was also called, according to the tablet
here quoted, Gugu = _muttakkil îlāni_, “nourisher of the gods”; Mumu =
_mušpiš îlāni_, “increaser (?) of the gods”; Dugan = _banî kala îlāni_,
“maker of all the gods”; Dudu = _muttarrû îlāni_, “saviour (?) of the
gods”; Šar-azaga = _ša šipat-su êllit_, “he whose incantation is
glorious”; and Mu-azaga = _ša tû-šu êllit_, “he whose charm is glorious”
(cf. p. 31, l. 33). After this we have Ša-zu or Ša-sud = _mûdê libbi
īlāni_ or _libbi rûḳu_, “he who knoweth the heart of the gods,” or “the
remote of heart” (p. 31, l. 35); Zi-uḳenna = _napšat napḫar îlāni_, “the
life of the whole of the gods” (p. 30, l. 15); Zi-si = _nasiḫ šabuti_, “he
who bringeth about silence” (p. 31, l. 41); Suḫ-kur = _muballû aabi_,
“annihilator of the enemy” (p. 31, l. 43); and other names meaning
_muballû napḫar aabi, nasiḫ raggi_, “annihilator of the whole of the
enemy, rooter out of evil,” _nasiḫ napḫar raggi_, “rooter out of the whole
of the evil,” _êšû raggi_, “troubler of the evil (ones),” and _êšû napḫar
raggi_, “troubler of the whole of the evil (ones).” All these last names
were probably enumerated on the lost part of the tablet between where the
obverse breaks off and the reverse resumes the narrative, and the whole of
the fifty names conferred upon him, which were enumerated in their old
Akkadian forms and translated into Semitic Babylonian in this final tablet
of the Creation, were evidently repeated in the form of a list of gods, on
the tablet in tabular form from which the above renderings are taken.
Hailed then as the vanquisher of Kirbiš-Tiamtu, the great Dragon of Chaos,
he is called by the name of Nibiru, “the ferry,” a name of the planet
Jupiter as the traverser of the heavens (one of the points of contact
between Babylonian and Greek mythology), the stars of which he was
regarded as directing, and keeping (lit. pasturing) like sheep. (Gods and
stars may here be regarded as convertible terms.) His future is then
spoken of, and “father Bêl” gives him his own name, “lord of the world.”
Rejoicing in the honours showered on his son, and not to be outdone in
generosity, Aa decrees that henceforth Merodach shall be like him, and
that he shall be called Aa, possessing all his commands, and all his
pronouncements—_i.e._ all the wisdom which he, as god of deep wisdom,
possessed. Thus was Merodach endowed with all the names, and all the
attributes, of the gods of the Babylonians—“the fifty renowned names of
the great gods.”
This was, to all intents and purposes, symbolic of a great struggle, in
early days, between polytheism and monotheism—for the masses the former,
for the more learned and thoughtful the latter. Of this we shall have
further proof farther on, when discussing the name of Merodach. For the
present be it simply noted, that this is not the only text identifying
Merodach with the other gods.
The reference to the creation of mankind in line 29 of the obverse (p. 31)
is noteworthy, notwithstanding that the translation of one of the
words—and that a very important one—is very doubtful. Apparently man was
created to the despite of the rebellious gods, but there is also just the
possibility that there exists here an idiomatic phrase meaning “in their
room.” If the latter be the true rendering, this part of the legend would
be in striking accord with Bishop Avitus of Vienne, with the old English
poet Caedmon, and with Milton in his _Paradise Lost_. In connection with
this, too, the statement in the reverse, lines 113 and 114, where “man’s
remote ages” is referred to, naturally leads one to ask, Have we here
traces of a belief that, in ages to come (“in lateness of days”), Merodach
was to return and live among men into the remote future? The return of a
divinity or a hero of much-cherished memory is such a usual thing among
popular beliefs, that this may well have been the case likewise among the
Babylonians.
The comparison of the two accounts of the Creation—that of the Hebrews and
that of the Babylonians, that have been presented to the reader—will
probably have brought prominently before him the fact, that the Babylonian
account, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, differs
so much from the Biblical account, that they are, to all intents and
purposes, two distinct narratives. That there are certain ideas in common,
cannot be denied, but most of them are ideas that are inseparable from two
accounts of the same event, notwithstanding that they have been composed
from two totally different standpoints. In writing an account of the
Creation, statements as to what are the things created must of necessity
be inserted. There is, therefore, no proof of a connection between two
accounts of the Creation in the fact that they both speak of the formation
of dry land, or because they both state that plants, animals, and man were
created. Connection may be inferred from such statements that the waters
were the first abode of life, or that an expansion was created dividing
the waters above from those below. With reference to such points of
contact as these just mentioned, however, the question naturally arises,
Are these points of similarity sufficient to justify the belief that two
so widely divergent accounts as those of the Bible and of the Babylonian
tablets have one and the same origin? In the mind of the present writer
there seems to be but one answer, and that is, that the two accounts are
practically distinct, and are the production of people having entirely
different ideas upon the subject, though they may have influenced each
other in regard to certain points, such as the two mentioned above. For
the rest, the fact that there is—
No direct statement of the creation of the heavens and the earth;
No systematic division of the things created into groups and
classes, such as is found in Genesis;
NO REFERENCE TO THE DAYS OF CREATION;
No appearance of the Deity as the first and only cause of the
existence of things—
must be held as a sufficient series of prime reasons why the Babylonian
and the Hebrew versions of the Creation-story must have had different
origins.
As additional arguments may also be quoted the polytheism of the
Babylonian account; the fact that it appears to be merely the setting to
the legend of Bêl and the Dragon, and that, as such, it is simply the
glorification of Merodach, the patron divinity of the Babylonians, over
the other gods of the Assyro-Babylonian Pantheon.
Sidelights:—Merodach.
To judge from the inscriptions of the Babylonians and Assyrians, one would
say that there were not upon the earth more pious nations than they. They
went constantly in fear of their gods, and rendered to them the glory for
everything that they succeeded in bringing to a successful conclusion.
Prayer, supplication, and self-debasement before their gods seem to have
been their delight.
“The time for the worship of the gods was my heart’s delight,
The time of the offering to Ištar was profit and riches,”
sings Ludlul the sage, and one of a list of sayings is to the following
effect—
“When thou seest the profit of the fear of God,
Thou wilt praise God, thou wilt bless the king.”
Many a penitential psalm and hymn of praise exists to testify to the piety
of the ancient nations of Assyria and Babylonia. Moreover, this piety was,
to all appearance, practical, calling forth not only self-denying
offerings and sacrifices, but also, as we shall see farther on, lofty
ideas and expressions of the highest religious feeling.
And the Babylonians were evidently proud of their religion. Whatever its
defects, the more enlightened—the scribes and those who could read—seem to
have felt that there was something in it that gave it the very highest
place. And they were right—there was in this gross polytheism of theirs a
thing of high merit, and that was, the character of the chief of their
gods, Merodach.
We see something of the reverence of the Babylonians and Assyrians for
their gods in almost all of their historical inscriptions, and there is
hardly a single communication of the nature of a letter that does not call
down blessings from them upon the person to whom it is addressed. In many
a hymn and pious expression they show in what honour they held them, and
their desire not to offend them, even involuntarily, is visible in
numerous inscriptions that have been found.
“My god, who art displeased, receive (?) my (prayer?),
My goddess, who art wroth, accept (my supplication)—
Accept my supplication, and let thy mind be at rest.
My lord, gracious and merciful, (let thy mind be at rest).
Make easy (O my goddess) the day that is directed for death,
My god, (grant that I be?) free (?).
My goddess, have regard for me, and receive my supplication.
Let my sins be separated, and let my misdeeds be forgotten—
Let the ban be loosened, let the fetter fall.
Let the seven winds carry away my sighing.
Let me tear asunder my evil, and let a bird carry it aloft to the
sky.
Let a fish carry off my trouble, and let the stream bear it away.
Let the beasts of the field take (it) away from me.
Let the flowing waters of the stream cleanse me.
Make me bright as a chain of gold—
Let me be precious in thy eyes as a diamond ring!
Blot out my evil, preserve my life.
Let me guard thy court, and stand in thy sanctuary (?).
Make me to pass away from my evil state, let me be preserved with
thee!
Send to me, and let me see a propitious dream—
Let the dream that I shall see be propitious—let the dream that I
shall see be true,
Turn the dream that I shall see to a favour,
Let Mašara (?), the god of dreams, rest by my head,
Make me to enter into Ê-sagila, the temple of the gods, the house
of life.
Deliver me, for his favour, into the gracious hands of the
merciful Merodach,
Let me be subject to thy greatness, let me glorify thy divinity;
Let the people of my city praise thy might!”
Here the text breaks off, but sufficient of it remains to show of what the
devotion of the Babylonians and Assyrians to their gods consisted, and
what their beliefs really were. For some reason or other, the writer
recognizes that the divinity whom he worships is displeased with him, and
apparently comes to the conclusion that the consort of the god is
displeased also. He therefore prays and humbles himself before them,
asking that his misdeeds may be forgotten, and that he may be separated
from his sins, by which he feels himself to be bound and fettered. He
imagines to himself that the seven winds, or a little bird, or a fish, or
a beast of the field, or the waters of a stream, may carry his sin away,
and that the flowing waters of the river may cleanse him from his sin,
making him pure in the eyes of his god as a chain of gold, and precious to
him as the most precious thing that he can think of, namely, a diamond
ring (upon such material and worldly similes did the thoughts of the
Babylonians run). He wishes his life (or his soul—the word in the original
is _napišti_, which Zimmern translates _Seele_) to be saved, to pass away
from his evil state, and to dwell with his god, from whom he begs for a
sign in the form of a propitious dream, a dream that shall come true,
showing that he is in reality once more in the favour of his god, who, he
hopes, will deliver him into the gracious hands of the merciful Merodach,
that he and all his city may praise his great divinity.
Fragment though it be, in its beginning, development, and climax, it is,
to all intents and purposes, perfect, and a worthy specimen of
compositions of this class.
It is noteworthy that the suppliant almost re-echoes the words of the
Psalmist in those passages where he speaks of his guarding the court of
the temple of his god and dwelling in his temple (Ê-sagila, the renowned
temple at Babylon), wherein, along with other deities, the god Merodach
was worshipped—the merciful one, into whose gracious hands he wished to be
delivered. The prayer that his sin might be carried away by a bird, or a
fish, etc., brings up before the mind’s eye the picture of the scapegoat,
fleeing, laden with the sins of the pious Israelite, into the desert to
Azazel.
To all appearance, the worshipper, in the above extract, desires to be
delivered by the god whom he worships into the hands of the god Merodach.
This is a point that is worthy of notice, for it seems to show that the
Babylonians, at least in later times, regarded the other deities in the
light of mediators with the chief of the Babylonian Pantheon. As
manifestations of him, they all formed part of his being, and through them
the suppliant found a channel to reconciliation and forgiveness of his
sins.
In this there seems to be somewhat of a parallel to the Egyptian belief in
the soul, at death, being united with Osiris. The annihilation of self,
however, did not, in all probability, recommend itself to the Babylonian
mind any more than it must have done to the mind of the Assyrian. To all
appearance, the preservation of one’s individuality, in the abodes of
bliss after death, was with them an essential to the reality of that life
beyond the grave. If we adopt here Zimmern’s translation of _napišti_ by
“soul,” the necessity of interpreting the above passage in the way here
indicated seems to be rendered all the greater.
The Creation legend shows us how the god Merodach was regarded by the
Babylonians as having attained his high position among the “gods his
fathers,” and the reverence that they had for this deity is not only
testified to by that legend, but also by the many documents of a religious
nature that exist. This being the case, it is only natural to suppose,
that he would be worshipped both under the name of Merodach, his usual
appellation, and also under any or all of the other names that were
attributed to him by the Babylonians as having been conferred upon him by
the gods at the time of his elevation to the position of their chief.
Not only, therefore, was he called Marduk (Amaruduk, “the brightness of
day”), the Hebrew Merodach, but he bore also the names of Asaru or Asari,
identified by the Rev. C. J. Ball and Prof. Hommel with the Egyptian
Osiris—a name that would tend to confirm what is stated above concerning
the possible connection between the Egyptian and Babylonian beliefs in the
immortality of the soul. This name Asaru was compounded with various other
(explanatory) epithets, making the fuller names Asari-lu-duga (probably
“Asari, he who is good”), Asari-lu-duga-namsuba (“Asari, he who is good,
the charm”), Asari-lu-duga-namtî (“Asari, he who is good, the life”),
Asari-alima (“Asari, the prince”), Asari-alima-nuna (“Asari, the prince,
the mighty one”), etc., all showing the estimation in which he was held,
and testifying to the sacredness of the first component, which, as already
remarked, has been identified with the name of Osiris, the chief divinity
of the Egyptians. Among his other names are (besides those quoted from the
last tablet of the story of the Creation and the explanatory list that
bears upon it) some of apparently foreign origin, among them being Amaru
(? short for Amar-uduk) and Sal-ila, the latter having a decidedly western
Semitic look.(2) As “the warrior,” he seems to have borne the name of
Gušur (? “the strong”); another of his Akkadian appellations was Gudibir,
and as “lord” of all the world he was called Bêl, the equivalent of the
Baal of the Phœnicians and the Beel of the Aramæans. In astronomy his name
was given to several stars, and he was identified with the planet Jupiter,
thus making him the counterpart of the Greek and Latin Zeus or Jove.
As has been said above, Merodach was the god that was regarded by the
Babylonians and Assyrians as he who went about doing good on behalf of
mankind. If he saw a man in affliction—suffering, for instance, from any
malady—he would go and ask his father Aa, he who knew all things, and who
had promised to impart all his knowledge to his royal son, what the man
must do to be cured of the disease or relieved of the demon which troubled
him. The following will give some idea of what the inscriptions detailing
these charms and incantations, which the god was supposed to obtain from
his father, were like—
“Incantation: The sickness of the head hath darted forth from the
desert, and rushed like the wind.
Like lightning it flasheth, above and below it smiteth,
The impious man(3) like a reed it cutteth down, and
His nerves like a tendril it severeth.
(Upon him) for whom the goddess Ištar hath no care, and whose
flesh is in anguish,
Like a star of heaven it (the sickness) flasheth down, like a
night-flood it cometh.
Adversity is set against the trembling man, and threateneth him
like a lion—
It hath stricken that man, and
The man rusheth about like one who is mad—
Like one whose heart is smitten he goeth to and fro,
Like one thrown into the fire he burneth,
Like the wild ass that runneth (?), his eyes are filled with
cloud,
Being alive, he eateth, yet is he bound up with death.
The disease,(4) which is like a violent wind, nobody knoweth its
path—
Its completed time, and its connection nobody knoweth.”
(Here come abbreviations of the set phrases stating that the god Merodach
perceived the man who was suffering, and went to ask his father Aa,
dwelling in the Abyss, how the man was to be healed of the sickness that
afflicted him. In the texts that give the wanting parts, Aa is represented
as asking his son Merodach what it was that he did not know, and in what
he could still instruct him. What he (Aa) knows, that Merodach shall also
know. He then tells Merodach to go and work the charm.)
“The ḫaltigilla plant groweth alone in the desert
Like the sun-god entering his house, cover its head with a
garment, and
Cover the ḫaltigilla plant, and enclose some meal, and
In the desert, before the rising sun
Root it out from its place, and
Take its root, and
Take the skin of a young goat, and
Bind up the head of the sick man, and
May a gust (?) of wind carry it (the disease) away, and may it not
return to its place.
O spirit of heaven, exorcise; spirit of earth, exorcise.”
The numerous incantations of this class, in which the god Merodach is
represented as playing the part of benefactor to the sick and afflicted
among mankind, and interesting himself in their welfare, are exceedingly
numerous, and cover a great variety of maladies and misfortunes. No
wonder, therefore, that the Babylonians looked upon the god, their own
god, with eyes of affection, and worship, and reverence. Indeed, it is
doubtful whether the Hebrews themselves, the most God-fearing nation of
their time, looked upon the God of their fathers with as much affection,
or reverence, as did the Babylonians regard the god Merodach. They show it
not only in the inscriptions of the class quoted above, but also in
numerous other texts. All the kings of Babylonia, and not a few of those
of Assyria, with one consent pay him homage, and testify to their
devotion. The names of princes and common people, too, often bear witness
to the veneration that they felt for this, the chief of their gods.
“Merodach is lord of the gods,” “Merodach is master of the word,” “With
Merodach is life,” “The dear one of the gods is Merodach,” “Merodach is
our king,” “(My, his, our) trust is Merodach,” “Be gracious to me, O
Merodach,” “Direct me, O Merodach,” “Merodach protects,” “Merodach has
given a brother” (Marduk-nadin-aḫi, the name of one of Nebuchadrezzar’s
sons), “A judge is Merodach,” etc., etc., are some of the names compounded
with that of this popular divinity. Merodach was not so much in use, as
the component part of a name, as the god of wisdom, Nebo, but it is not by
any means improbable that this is due to the reverence in which he was
held, which must, at times, have led the more devout to avoid the
pronunciation of his name any more than was necessary, though, if that was
the case, it never reached the point of an utter prohibition against its
utterance, such as caused the pronunciation of the Hebrew Yahwah to become
entirely lost even to the most learned for many hundred years. Those,
therefore, who wished to avoid the profanation, by too frequent utterance,
of this holy name, could easily do so by substituting the name of some
other deity, for, as we have seen above, the names of all the gods could
be applied to him, and the doctrine of their identification with him only
grew in strength—we know not under what influence—as time went on, until
Marduk or Merodach became synonymous with the word _îlu_, “God,” and is
even used as such in a list where the various gods are enumerated as his
manifestations. The portion of the tablet in question containing these
advanced ideas is as follows—
81-11-3, 111.
“... is Merodach of planting.
Lugal-a-ki- ... is Merodach of the water-spring.
Ninip is Merodach of the garden (?).
Nergal is Merodach of war.
Zagaga is Merodach of battle.
Bêl is Merodach of lordship and dominion.
Nebo is Merodach of wealth (or trading).
Sin is Merodach the illuminator of the night.
Šamaš is Merodach of truth (or righteousness).
Rimmon is Merodach of rain.
Tišḫu is Merodach of handicraft.
Sig is Merodach of....
Suqamuna is Merodach of the (irrigation-) reservoir.”
As this tablet is not complete, there is every probability that the god
Merodach was identified, on the lost portion, with at least as many
deities as appear on the part that time has preserved to us.
This identification of deities with each other would seem to have been a
far from uncommon thing in the ancient East during those heathen times. A
large number of deities of the Babylonian Pantheon are identified, in the
Assyrian proper names, with a very interesting divinity whose name appears
as Aa, and which may possibly turn out to be only one of the many forms
that are met with of the god Ya’u or Jah, who was not only worshipped by
the Hebrews, but also by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, and other
nations of the East in ancient times. Prof. Hommel, the well-known
Assyriologist and Professor of Semitic languages at Munich, suggests that
this god Yâ is another form of the name of Ea, which is possible, but any
assimilation of the two divinities is probably best explained upon the
supposition that the people of the East in ancient times identified them
with each other in consequence of the likeness between the two names.
In any case, the identification of a large number of the gods—perhaps all
of them—with a deity whose name is represented by the group Aa, is quite
certain. Thus we have Aššur-Aa, Ninip-Aa, Bel-Aa, Nergal-Aa, Šamaš-Aa,
Nusku-Aa, Sin-Aa, etc., and it is probable that the list might be greatly
extended. Not only, however, have we a large number of deities identified
with Aa, but a certain number of them are also identified with the deity
known as Ya, Ya’u, or Au, the Jah of the Hebrews. Among these may be cited
Bêl-Yau, “Bel is Jah,” Nabû-Yâ’, “Nebo is Jah,” Aḫi-Yau, “Aḫi is Jah,” a
name that would seem to confirm the opinion which Fuerst held, that _aḫi_
was, in this connection, a word for “god,” or a god. In Ya-Dagunu, “Jah is
Dagon,” we have the elements reversed, showing a wish to identify Jah with
Dagon, rather than Dagon with Jah, whilst another interesting name, Au-Aa,
shows an identification of Jah with Aa, two names which have every
appearance of being etymologically connected.
There is then but little doubt that we have in these names an indication
of an attempt at what may be regarded as concentration—a desire and
tendency towards monotheism. When this began, and what the real opinions
of the more thoughtful upon the subject of the unity or the plurality of
the deity may have been, we have at present no means of finding out. There
can be no doubt, however, that it sprang from more than one cause—the
desire not to offend either heavenly or earthly powers by seeming to
favour one divinity more than another, the difficulty of dividing and
apportioning the domain in nature of every divinity, the wish to identify
the divine patrons of the various nationalities with a view to
understanding what they really were, and describing their nature for
either religious or political purposes—all these things, and probably
others, would tend to counteract not only polytheistic bigotry, but also
the exclusive appropriation by one tribe or people of any particular
divinity, who was their own special helper against their enemies, and to
whose particular protection they defiantly laid claim. When in conflict or
in dispute with another, there is no doubt that the man bearing the name
of Šamaš-nûri, for instance, would be met with the fierce taunt, “The
Sun-god is not more thy light than he is mine,” and, as an answer to
Yâ-abî-ni, “Jah is our father too, and more so than he is yours,” would at
once spring to the lips of any Jew with whom the bearer of the name may
have had a dispute.
For the thoughtful, God was one, and all the various gods of the heathen
were but His manifestations, misconceived and misunderstood by the
ignorant and thoughtless, but, rightly regarded, full of deep
significance. The Jews in later times had, in all probability, no tendency
to polytheism, yet it is certain that they had but little objection to
bearing heathen names, and of all the examples that might be adduced,
there is probably not one that is more noteworthy than Mordecai, or
Mardecai, the worshipper of Merodach as typical of the God beside whom
there was none other, of whom, as we have seen,—and that from a Babylonian
tablet,—all the other deities of the Babylonian Pantheon were but
manifestations.
The God Aa, Ae, Or Ea.
As the primitive deity of the Babylonian Pantheon, and as apparently
closely identified with the well-known deity Jah, who was worshipped by a
large section of the Semitic nations, and whose name is one of the words
for “god” in the Assyro-Babylonian language, the god Ea, Ae, or Aa,
deserves notice here not only on account of his being the creator of all
the gods, but also on account of his fatherhood to Merodach, who, in
Babylonian mythology, was conceived as supplanting him—not by any unfair
means, but by the right of being the fittest to exercise power and
dominion over the world, the universe, and even over “the gods his
fathers.”
Assyriologists early recognized the attributes of the god whose name they
then read Hea. They saw that he was regarded by the ancient Babylonians
and Assyrians as the god of streams, rivers, seas, and the watery abyss of
the under-world—the waters under the earth. Of the god Ae or Ea all sorts
of wonderful stories were told by the Babylonians, who attributed to him,
as the god of wisdom and knowledge, the origin of the civilization which
they enjoyed. His name, as god of deep wisdom, was Nin-igi-azaga, “the
lord of the bright eye,” a name which would seem to show that the
Akkadians (the names of most of the deities of the Assyro-Babylonian
Pantheon are written in Akkadian) associated, as we also do at the present
day, intelligence with brightness of the eyes, or, more correctly, with
alertness of appearance.
But this god had many other names than those mentioned above. He was
En-ki, “lord of the world”; Amma-ana-ki, “lord of heaven and earth”;
Engur, “god of the Abyss”; Nudimmud, “god of creation”; Nadimmud, “god of
everything”; Nun-ura, “god of the potter”; Nin-agal, “god of the smith”;
Dunga, “god of the singer” (?); Nin-bubu, “god of the sailor”;
Kuski-banda, “god of goldsmiths”;—in fact, he seems to have been the god
of arts and crafts in general. He was also called Ellila-banda, “the
powerful lord”; En-uru and Nin-uru, “the protecting lord”; Lugal-ida,
“king of the river”; Lugal, En, Nuna, and Dara-abzu, “king,” “lord,”
“prince,” and “ruler of the abyss”; Dara-dim, Dara-nuna, and Dara-banda,
honorific titles as “creator,” “princely ruler,” and “powerful ruler”;
Alima-nuna, Alima-banda, and Alima-šum-ki, “princely lord,” “powerful
lord,” and “lord disposer of the earth.” He bore also besides these a
large number of names, among which may be cited, as an example of his
many-sidedness, the following—
Šaršara, apparently “the overwhelmer,” probably as lord of the sea
and its teeming myriads.
En-tî, “lord of life.”
Gana-si, probably “the enclosure full (of life).”
Nam-zida, “righteousness.”
Idima (Akk.) or Naqbu (Bab.), “the deep.”
Sa-kalama, “ruler of the land.”
Šanabaku and Šanabi, the god “40.”
That the sea was the abode of the god of knowledge seems to have been the
belief of the Babylonians from the earliest times. According to Berosus,
whose record has been preserved by Apollodoros, Abydenus, and Alexander
Polyhistor, there appeared more than once, from the Erythræan Sea (the
Persian Gulf), “the Musaros Oannes, the Annedotos,” a creature half man
and half fish, probably conceived in shape of the deity answering to this
description found on certain Babylonian cylinder-seals, in a sculpture
with representations of marine monsters, now preserved in the Louvre, and
in the divine figures in the shape of a man clothed with a fish’s skin,
preserved in the form of clay statuettes and large sculptures
(bas-reliefs) in the British Museum. Abydenus apparently understands
Berosus differently, for he makes Annedotos and Oannes to be different
personages. All those who have quoted Berosus, however, agree in the main
point, that these beings, half man and half fish, came out of the sea to
teach mankind. There is hardly any doubt that in some of these cases the
deity that is intended is the god whose name is now read Ae or Ea, who was
called Aos by Damascius. After the appearance of the fourth Annedotos,
there came another person, also from the Erythræan Sea, named Odakon,
having, like the former, the same complicated form, between a man and a
fish. To these names Abydenus, still quoting Berosus, adds those of four
more “double-shaped personages” named Euedocos, Eneugamos, Eneuboulos, and
Anementos. These last came forth in the reign of Daos (probably Dumuzi
(Duwuzi) or Tammuz) the shepherd, of Pantibiblon (Sippar or Sippara), who
reigned for the space of ten sari (360,000 years)! “After these things was
Anodaphos, in the time of Euedoreschos.”
Besides his son Merodach, who, in Babylonian mythology, became “king of
the gods,”—like Jupiter, in the place of his father—Ae or Ea was regarded
as having six other sons, Dumu-zi-abzu, “Tammuz of the abyss”; Ki-gulla,
“the destroyer of the world”; Nira (meaning doubtful); Bara, “the
revealer” (?); Bara-gula, “the great revealer (?)”; and Burnunta-sā, “the
broad of ear.” One daughter is attributed to him, her name being
Ḫi-dimme-azaga, “the glorious spirit’s offspring,” called, in one of the
incantations (W.A.I. iv., 2nd ed., col. ii., line 54), “the daughter of
the abyss.” He had also two bull-like guardians (probably those composite
creatures, winged bulls with human heads, representations of which guarded
the approaches to the Assyrian palaces), one seemingly named Duga, “the
good,” and the other Dub-ga, apparently meaning “he who causes (the bolt)
to be raised,” giving the suppliant access to the palace of his lord. To
all appearance, the gates giving access to his domain were guarded by
eight porters, the names of most of whom are unfortunately broken away on
the tablet that gives these details, but one of them seems to have borne
the name of Eniw-ḫengala, “the bespeaker of fertility,” whilst another was
named Igi-ḫen(?)gala, “the eye of fertility,” and the third had a name
beginning, like that of the first, with the element Eniw, a circumstance
which would lead one to ask whether this may not be the element Eneu found
in the names of the two creatures Eneugamos and Eneuboulos, mentioned by
Berosus.
His consort was called Damkina, “the lady of the earth,” the Dauké of
Damascius, or Dam-gala-nuna, “the great princely lady.” She likewise had
two bull-like attendants, A-eru and E-a-eru, of whom but little or nothing
is known.
The tablet already quoted (W.A.I. iv., pl. 1, col. ii., ll. 36-39) names
Engur (the deep) as being the mother of Ae or Ea, and attributes to him
another daughter, Nina, with whom the name of Nineveh is apparently
connected.
Down in the Abyss, in the city called Eridu, “the good city,” there dwelt
Ae, with all his court. Sitting on his throne, he waited for the time when
his son Merodach, the good of heart, came to ask him for those
health-bringing incantations for the benefit of mankind. Sometimes,
seemingly, instead of Merodach, his sixth son Burnunsia (Burnunta-sā),
“the broad of ear,” would perform this office. Ae was always ready to help
with his counsels, and no one whose case Merodach forwarded was spurned by
the King of the Abyss.
Here, too, dwelt “Tammuz of the Abyss,” one of Ae’s sons, but whether this
was the well-known Tammuz who was the husband of the goddess Ishtar, is
uncertain. Judging from the legends of the Babylonians, Ishtar’s husband
descended, not to the abode of the lord of the deep, but to the realms of
the Babylonian Persephone, the consort of Nergal, in Hades, “the land of
no return,” whither Ishtar once descended in search of him. Concerning the
Babylonian paradise, where Ae dwelt, see the following chapter.
The second month of the Babylonian year, Iyyar, corresponding to
April—May, was dedicated to Ae as lord of mankind, though in this the
records contradict each other, for the Creation-stories of the Babylonians
attribute the creation of mankind to Merodach, who has, therefore, the
best right to be regarded as their lord.
Anšar And Kišar (pp. 16, 17, 20, etc.).
Anšar, “host of heaven,” and Kišar, “host of earth,” are, it will be
remembered, given in the Semitic Babylonian account of the Creation as the
names of the powers that succeeded Laḫmu and Laḫamu, according to
Damascius, the second progeny of the sea and the deep (Tiamtu and Apsū).
The Greek forms, Assoros and Kisaré, imply that Damascius understood the
former to be masculine and the latter feminine, though there is no hint of
gender in the wedge-written records. That the Babylonians regarded them as
being of different genders, however, is conceivable enough. The Greek form
of the first, Assoros, moreover, implies that, in course of time, the _n_
of Anšar became assimilated with the _š_ (as was usual in Semitic
Babylonian), and on account of this, the etymology that connects Anšar
with the name of the Assyrian national god Aššur, is not without
justification, though whether it be preferable to that of Delitzsch which
makes Aššur to be really Ašur, and connects it with _ašaru_, meaning
“holy,” is doubtful. In favour of Delitzsch, however, is the fact that the
Assyrians would more probably have given their chief divinity the name of
“the Holy one” than that of one of the links in the chain of divinities
which culminated in the rise of the god Merodach to the highest place in
the kingdom of heaven.
The question naturally arises: Who were these deities, “the host of
heaven” and “the host of earth”? and this is a question to which we do not
get a very complete answer from the inscriptions. According to the
explanatory lists of gods (as distinct from the mythological texts proper)
Kišar is explained as the “host of heaven and earth” and also as Anu and
Antum, in other words, as the male and female personifications of the
heavens. Strange to say, this is just the explanation given in the
inscriptions of the names Laḫmu and Laḫamu, for though they are not “the
host of heaven and earth,” they are the same, according to the lists of
gods, as the deities Anu and his consort Antum. This probably arises from
the worship of Anu, the god of the heavens, and his consort, at some
period preceding that of the worship of Merodach, or even that of his
father Aa or Ea, whose cult, as we have seen, was in early times abandoned
for that of the patron god of the city of Babylon. Concerning this portion
of the legend of the Creation, however, much more light is required.
Besides the simple form Kišar, there occurs in the lists of gods also
Kišaragala, which is likewise explained as a manifestation of Anu and
Antum, and described moreover as “Anu, who is the host (_kiššat_) of
heaven and earth.” In addition to Anšar and Kišar, the deities Enšara and
Ninšara are mentioned. These names are apparently to be translated “lord
of the host” and “lady of the host” respectively, and are doubtless both
closely connected with, or the same as, the Anšar and Kišar of the
Babylonian story of the Creation, in close connection with which they are,
in fact, mentioned. En-kišara is given, in W.A.I., III., pl. 68, as one of
the three _mu-gala_ (apparently “great names”) of Anu, the god of the
heavens. Another Nin-šara (the second element written with a different
character) is given as the equivalent of both Antum and Ištar, the latter
being the well-known goddess of love and war, Venus.
Tiamat.
Tiamat is the common transcription of a name generally and more correctly
read as Tiamtu. The meaning of this word is “the sea,” and its later and
more decayed pronunciation is _tâmtu_ or _tâmdu_, the feminine _t_ having
changed into _d_ after the nasal _m_, a phenomenon that also meets us in
other words having a nasal before the dental. As this word is the Tauthé
of the Greek writer Damascius, it is clear that in his time the _m_ was
pronounced as _w_ (this peculiarity is common to the Semitic Babylonian
and Akkadian languages, and finds its converse illustration in the
provincialism of _mir_ for _wir_, “we,” in German), though the decayed
word _tâmtu_ evidently kept its labial unchanged, for it is difficult to
imagine _w_ changing _t_ into _d_, unless it were pronounced in a way to
which wee are not accustomed. We have here, then, an example of a
differentiation by which one and the same word, by a change of
pronunciation, forms two “vocables,” the one used as a proper noun and the
other—a more decayed form—as a common one.
Tiamtu (from the above it may be supposed that the real pronunciation was
as indicated by the Greek form, namely, Tiauthu), meaning originally “the
sea,” became then the personification of the watery deep as the producer
of teeming animal life such as we find in the waters everywhere.
Dominating and covering at first the whole earth, it was she who was the
first producer of living things, but when the land appeared, and creatures
of higher organization and intelligence began, under the fostering care of
the higher divinities, to make their appearance, she saw, so the
Babylonians seem to have thought, that with the advent of man, whom the
gods purposed forming, her power and importance would, in a short time,
disappear, and rebellion on her part was the result. How, in the
Babylonian legends, this conflict ended, the reader of the foregoing pages
knows, and after her downfall and destruction or subjugation, she retained
her productive power under the immediate control and direction of the gods
under whose dominion she had fallen.
Tiamtu is represented in the Old Testament by _tehôm_, which occurs in
Gen. i. 2, where both the Authorised and Revised Versions translate “the
deep.” The Hebrew form of the word, however, is not quite the same, the
Assyrian feminine ending being absent.
To all appearance the legend of Tiamtu was well known all over Western
Asia. As Gunkel and Zimmern have shown, there is a reference thereto in
Ps. lxxxix. 10, where Rahab, who was broken in pieces, is referred to, and
under the same name she appears also in Isaiah li. 9, with the additional
statement that she is the dragon who was pierced; likewise in Job xxvi. 12
and ix. 13, where her followers are said to be referred to; in Ps. lxxiv.
14 the dragon whose heads (a plural probably typifying the diverse forms
under which Nature’s creative power appears) are spoken of. Tiamtu, as
Rahab and the dragon, therefore played a part in Hebrew legends of old as
great, perhaps, as in the mythology of Babylonia, where she seems to have
originated.
CHAPTER II. THE HISTORY, AS GIVEN IN THE BIBLE, FROM THE CREATION TO THE
FLOOD.
Eden—The so-called second story of the Creation and the bilingual
Babylonian account—The four rivers—The tree of life—The
Temptation—The Cherubim—Cain and Abel—The names of the Patriarchs
from Enoch to Noah.
“And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the
man whom He had formed.” There also He made every pleasant and good tree
to grow, including the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge of good and
evil. A river came out of Eden to water the garden, and this river was
afterwards divided into four smaller streams, the Pishon, flowing round
“the Hawilah,” a land of gold (which was good) and bdellium and onyx
stone; the Gihon, flowing round the whole land of Cush; the Hiddekel or
Tigris, and the Euphrates.
It is to be noted that it was not the garden itself that was called Eden,
but the district in which it lay. The river too seems to have risen in the
same tract, and was divided at some indeterminate point, either in the
land of Eden or on its borders.
The whereabouts of the Garden of Eden and its rivers has been so many
times discussed, and so many diverse opinions prevail concerning them,
that there is no need at present to add to these theories yet another,
more or less probable. Indeed, in the present work, theories will be kept
in the background as much as possible, and prominence given to such facts
as recent discoveries have revealed to us.
It had long been known that one of the Akkadian names for “plain” was
_edina_, and that that word had been borrowed by the Babylonians under the
form of _êdinnu_, but it was Prof. Delitzsch, the well-known
Assyriologist, who first pointed out to a disbelieving world that this
must be the Eden of Genesis. The present writer thought this
identification worthless until he had the privilege of examining the
tablets acquired by Dr. Hayes Ward in Babylonia on the occasion of his
conducting the Wolfe expedition. Among the fragments of tablets that he
then brought back was a list of cities in the Akkadian language (the
Semitic Babylonian column was unfortunately broken away) which gave the
following—
Transcription. Translation.
Sipar, D.S. Sippara.
Sipar Edina, D.S. Sippara of Eden.
Sipar uldua, D.S. Sippara the everlasting.
Sipar Šamaš, D.S. Sippara of the Sun-god.
Here at last was the word Eden used as a geographical name, showing that
the explanation of Delitzsch was not only plausible, but also, in all
probability, true in substance and in fact. Less satisfactory, however,
were the learned Professor’s identifications of the rivers of Eden, for he
regards the Pishon and the Gihon as canals—the former being the Pallacopas
(the Pallukatu of the Babylonian inscriptions), and the latter the Guḫandê
(also called the Araḫtu, now identified with a large canal running through
Babylon). He conjectured that it might be the waterway known as the Shatt
en-Nîl. Whatever doubt, however, attaches to his identifications of the
rivers, he seems certainly to be right with regard to the Biblical Eden,
and this is a decided gain, for it locates the position of that district
beyond a doubt.
To Prof. Sayce belongs the honour of identifying the Babylonian story of
the nature and position of Paradise as they conceived it, and here we have
another example of the important details that the incantation-tablets may
contain concerning beliefs not otherwise preserved to us, for the text in
question, like the bilingual story of the Creation, is simply an
introduction to a text of that nature. This interesting record, to which I
have been able to add a few additional words since Prof. Sayce first gave
his translation of it to the world, is as follows—
“Incantation: ‘(In) Êridu a dark vine grew, it was made in a
glorious place,
Its appearance (as) lapis-lazuli, planted beside the Abyss,
Which is Ae’s path, filling Êridu with fertility.
Its seat is the (central) point of the earth,
Its dwelling is the couch of Nammu.
In the glorious house, which is like a forest, its shadow extends,
No man enters its midst.
In its interior is the Sun-god Tammuz.
Between the mouths of the rivers (which are) on both sides.’ ”
The lines which follow show how this plant, which was a miraculous remedy,
was to be used in the cure of a sick man. It was to be placed upon his
head, and beneficent spirits would then come and stay with him, whilst the
evil ones would stand aside.
From the introductory lines above translated, we see that Êridu, “the good
city,” which Sir Henry Rawlinson recognized many years ago as a type of
paradise, was, to the Babylonians, as a garden of Eden, wherein grew a
glorious tree, to all appearance a vine, for the adjective “dark” may very
reasonably be regarded as referring to its fruit. Strange must have been
its appearance, for it is described as resembling “white lapis-lazuli,”
that is, the beautiful stone of that kind mottled blue and white. The
probability that it was conceived by the Babylonians as a garden is
strengthened by the fact that the god Aê, and his path, _i.e._ the rivers,
filled the place with fertility, and it was, moreover, the abode of the
river-god Nammu, whose streams, the Tigris and Euphrates, flowed on both
sides. There, too, dwelt the Sun, making the garden fruitful with his
ever-vivifying beams, whilst “the peerless mother of heaven,” as Tammuz
seems to be called, added, by fructifying showers, to the fertility that
the two great rivers brought down from the mountains from which they
flowed. To complete still further the parallel with the Biblical Eden, it
was represented as a place to which access was forbidden, for “no man
entered its midst,” as in the case of the Garden of Eden after the fall.
Though one cannot be dogmatic in the presence of the imperfect records
that we possess, it is worthy of note that Eden does not occur as the name
of the earthly paradise in any of the texts referring to the Creation that
have come down to us; and though it is to be found in the bilingual story
of the Creation, it there occurs simply as the equivalent of the Semitic
word _ṣêrim_ in the phrase “he (Merodach) made the verdure of the
_plain_.” That we shall ultimately find other instances of Eden as a
geographical name, occurring by itself, and not in composition with
another word (as in the expression _Sipar Edina_), and even a reference to
_gannat Edinni_, “the Garden of Eden,” is to be expected.
Schrader(5) has pointed out that whilst in Eden the river bears no name,
it is only after it has left the sacred region that it is divided, and
then each separate branch received a name. So, also, in the Babylonian
description of the Eridu, the rivers were unnamed, though one guesses that
the Tigris and the Euphrates are meant. The expression, “the mouth of the
rivers [that are on] both sides” (_pî nârãti ... kilallan_), recalls to
the mind the fact, that it was to “a remote place at the mouth of the
rivers” that the Babylonian Noah (Pir-napištim) was translated after the
Flood, when the gods conferred upon him the gift of immortality. To all
appearance, therefore, Gilgameš, the ancient Babylonian hero who visited
the immortal sage, entered into the tract regarded by the Babylonians of
old times as being set apart for the abode of the blessed after their
journeyings on this world should cease.
The connection of the stream which was “the path of Ae” with Eridu, seems
to have been very close, for in the bilingual story of the Creation the
flowing of the stream is made to be the immediate precursor of the
building of Êridu and Êsagila, “the lofty-headed temple” within it—
“When within the sea there was a stream,
In that day Êridu was made, Êsagila was built—
Êsagila which the god Lugal-du-azaga had founded within the
Abyss.”
In this Babylonian Creation-story it is a question of a stream and two
rivers. In Genesis it is a question of a river and four branches. The
parallelism is sufficiently close to be noteworthy and to show, beyond a
doubt, that the Babylonians had the same accounts of the Creation and
descriptions of the circumstances concerning it, as the Hebrews, though
told in a different way, and in a different connection.
Two trees are mentioned in the Biblical account of the Creation, “the tree
of life” and “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” By the eating
of the former, a man would live for ever, and the latter would confer upon
him that knowledge which God alone was supposed to possess, namely, of
good and evil, carrying with it, however, the disadvantage of the loss of
that innocence which he formerly possessed. Like the Hebrews, the
Babylonians and Assyrians also had their sacred trees, but whether they
attached to them the same deep significance as the Hebrews did to theirs
we do not know. Certain, however, it is, that they had beliefs concerning
them that were analogous.
The most familiar form of the sacred tree is that employed by the
Assyrians, to a certain extent as a decorative ornament, on the sculptured
slabs that adorned the walls of the royal palaces. This was the curious
conglomeration of knots and leaves which various figures—winged genii with
horned hats emblematic of divinity, eagle-headed figures, etc.—worship,
and to which they make offerings, and touch with a conical object
resembling the fruit of the fir or pine. An ingenious suggestion has been
made to the effect that the genius with the pine-cone is represented in
the act of fructifying the tree with the pollen (in an idealized form)
from the flowers of another tree, just as it is necessary to fructify the
date-palm from the pollen of the flowers growing on the “male” tree. This,
however, can hardly be the true explanation of the mystic act represented,
as similar genii are shown on other slabs not only holding out the conical
object as if to touch therewith the figure of the king, but also doing the
same thing to the effigies of the great winged bulls. Of course, the
fructification of the king would be not only a possible representation to
carve in alabaster, but one that we might even expect to find among the
royal sculptures. The fructification of a winged bull, however, is quite a
different thing, and in the highest degree improbable, unless the divine
bull were a kind of representation of the king, which, though possible, is
at present unprovable.
This symbolic scene, therefore, remains still a mystery for scholars to
explain when they obtain the material to do so. It seems to be a
peculiarly Assyrian design, for the offering of a pine-cone or
similarly-shaped object to the sacred tree has not yet been found in
Babylonian art. The Babylonian sacred tree is, moreover, a much more
natural-looking object than the curious combination of knots and
honeysuckle-shaped flowers found in the sculptures of Assyria. As in the
case of the tree shown in the picture of the Temptation, described below,
the sacred tree of the Babylonians often takes the form of a palm-tree, or
something very like one. (See pl. III.)
As has been already remarked, the tree of Paradise of the Babylonians was,
to all appearance, a vine, described as being in colour like blue and
white mottled lapis-lazuli, and apparently bearing fruit (grapes) of a
dark colour. That the Babylonian tree of life was a vine is supported by
the fact that the ideograms composing the word for “wine” are _geš-tin_
(for _kaš-tin_), “drink of life,” and “the vine,” _giš geš-tin_, “tree of
the drink of life.” In the text describing the Babylonian Paradise and its
divine tree, the name of the latter is given as _kiškanû_ in Semitic, and
_giš-kin_ or _giš-kan_ in Akkadian, a word mentioned in the bilingual
lists among plants of the vine species. Whether the Hebrews regarded the
tree of life as having been a vine or not, cannot at present be decided,
but it is very probable that they had the same ideas as the Babylonians in
the matter.
It is noteworthy, in this connection, that the Babylonians also believed
that there still existed in the world a plant (they do not seem to have
regarded it as a tree) which “would make an old man young again.” Judging
from the statements concerning it, one would imagine that it was a kind of
thorn-bush. As we shall see later, when treating of the story of the
Flood, it was this plant which the Chaldean Noah gave the hero Gilgameš
instructions how to find—for the desire to become young again had seized
him—and he seems to have succeeded in possessing himself of it, only to
lose it again almost immediately, for a lion, coming that way at a time
when Gilgameš was otherwise occupied, carried it off—to his own benefit,
as the hero remarks, for he naturally supposed that the lion who had
seized the plant would have his life renewed, and prey all the longer upon
the people.
The title of a lost legend, “When the _kiškanû_ (? vine, see above) grew
in the land” (referring, perhaps, to the tree of life which grew in
Êridu), leads one to ask whether “The legend of Nisaba (the corn-deity)
and the date-palm,” and “The legend of the _luluppu_-tree” may not also
refer to sacred trees, bearing upon the question of the tree of knowledge
referred to in Gen. ii. As, however, the titles (generally a portion of
the first line only) are all that are at present preserved, there is
nothing to be done but wait patiently until it pleases Providence to make
them further known to us.
The _kiškanû_ was of three kinds, white (_piṣu_), black (_ṣalmi_), as in
the description of the tree of Paradise, and grey or blue (_sâmi_). In
view of there being these three colours, it would seem that they refer
rather to the fruit of the tree than to the tree itself. Now the only
plant growing in the country and having these three colours of fruit, is
the vine. Of course, this raises the question whether (1) the _kiškanû_ is
a synonym of _gištin_ or _karanu_, or (2) the word _gištin_, which is
generally rendered “vine,” is, in reality, correctly translated. Whatever
be the true explanation, one thing is certain, namely, that in the
description of Paradise, the word black or dark (_ṣalmu_), applied to the
tree there mentioned, cannot refer to the tree itself, for that is
described as being like “white lapis” (_uknū êbbu_), a beautiful stone
mottled blue and white.
[Plate III A.]
Babylonian Mythological Composition. Impression of a cylinder-seal showing
a male figure on the right and a bull-man on the left, holding erect bulls
by the horns and tails. In the centre is a form of the sacred tree on a
hill. Date about 2500 B.C. British Museum.
[Plate III B.]
Babylonian Mythological Composition. Impression of a cylinder-seal showing
Istar, goddess of love and of war as archeress, standing on the back of a
lion, which turns its head to caress her feet. Before her is a worshipper
(priest) and two goats (reversed to form a symmetrical design), leaping.
Behind her is a date-palm. Date about 650 B.C. British Museum.
Among other trees of a sacred nature is “the cedar beloved of the great
gods,” mentioned in an inscription of a religious or ceremonial nature,
though exactly in what connection the imperfectness of the document does
not enable us to see. It would seem, however, that there were certain
priests or seers to whom was confided the “tablet of the gods,” containing
the secret of the heavens and earth (probably the “tablet of fate,” which
Merodach took from the husband of Tiamat after his fight with her for the
dominion of the universe). These persons, who seem to have been the
descendants of En-we-dur-an-ki (the Euedoranchos of Berosus), king of
Sippar, were those to whom was confided “the cedar beloved of the great
gods”—perhaps a kind of sceptre. They had, however, not only to be of
noble race, but also perfect physically and free from every defect and
disease. Moreover, one who did not keep the command of Šamaš and Addu
(Hadad) could not approach the place of Ae, Šamaš, Marduk, and Nin-edina,
nor the number of the brothers who were to enter the seership; they were
not to reveal to him the word of the oracle, and “the cedar beloved of the
great gods” was not to be delivered into his hands.
There is hardly any doubt, then, that we have here the long-sought
parallel to the Biblical “tree of knowledge,” for that, too, was in the
domain of “the lord of knowledge,” the god Ae, and also in the land which
might be described as that of “the lord of Eden,” the “hidden place of
heaven and earth” for all the sons of Adam, who are no longer allowed to
enter into that earthly Paradise wherein their first parents gained, at
such a cost, the knowledge, imperfect as it must have been, and evidently
undesirable, which they handed down to their successors.
Adam.
The name of the first man, Adam, is one that has tried the learning of the
most noted Hebraists to explain satisfactorily. It was formerly regarded
as being derived from the root _ādam_, “to be red,” but this explanation
has been given up in favour of the root _ādam_, “to make, produce,” man
being conceived as “the created one.” This etymology is that put forward
by the Assyriologist Fried. Delitzsch, who quotes the Assyrian _âdmu_,
“young bird,” and _âdmi summāti_, “young doves,” literally, “the young of
doves,” though he does not seem to refer the Assyrian _udumu_, “monkey,”
to the same root. He also quotes, apparently from memory, the evidence of
a fragment of a bilingual list found by Mr. Rassam, in which Adam is
explained by the usual Babylonian word for “man,” _amēlu_.
The writer of Genesis has given to the first man the name of Adam, thus
personifying in him the human race, which was to descend from him. In all
probability, the Babylonians had the same legends, but, if so, no fragment
of them has as yet come to light. That the Hebrew stories of the Creation
had their origin in Babylonia, will probably be conceded by most people as
probable, if not actually proven, and the fact that the word _a-dam_
occurs, as Delitzsch has pointed out, in a bilingual list would, supposing
the text to which he refers to be actually bilingual, be a matter of
peculiar significance, for it would show that this word, which does not
occur in Semitic Babylonian as the word for “man,” occurred in the old
Akkadian language with that meaning.
And the proof that Delitzsch was right in his recollection of the tablet
of which he speaks, is shown by the bilingual Babylonian story of the
Creation. There, in lines 9, 10, we read as follows—
Akkadian (dialectic): Uru nu-dim, a-dam nu-mun-ia.
Babylonian: Âlu ûl êpuš, nammaššu ûl šakin.
“A city had not been made, the community had not been established.”
Here we have the non-Semitic _adam_ translated by the Babylonian
_nammaššu_, which seems to mean a number of men, in this passage something
like community, for that is the idea which best fits the context. But
besides this Semitic rendering, the word also has the meanings of
_tenišētu_, “mankind,” _amelūtu_, “human beings.”
The word _adam_, meaning “man,” is found also in Phœnician, Sabean, and
apparently in Arabic, under the form of _atam_, a collective meaning
“creatures.”
The possibility that the Babylonians had an account of the Fall similar to
that of the Hebrews, is not only suggested by the legends treated of
above, but also by the cylinder-seal in the British Museum with what seems
to be the representation of the Temptation engraved upon it. We have there
presented to us the picture of a tree—a palm—bearing fruit, and on each
side of it a seated figure, that on the right being to all appearance the
man, and that on the left the woman, though there is not much difference
between them, and, as far as the form of either goes, the sexes might
easily be reversed. That, however, which seems to be intended for the man
has the horned hat emblematic of divinity, or, probably, of divine origin,
whilst from the figure which seems to be that of the woman this head-dress
is absent. Behind her, moreover, with wavy body standing erect on his
tail, is shown the serpent, towering just above her head, as if ready to
speak with her. Both figures are stretching out a hand (the man the right,
the woman the left) as if to pluck the fruit growing on the tree.
Notwithstanding the doubts that have been thrown on the explanation here
given of this celebrated and exceedingly interesting cylinder, the subject
and its arrangement are so suggestive, that one can hardly regard it as
being other than what it seems to be, namely, a Babylonian representation
of the Temptation, according to records that the Babylonians possessed.
The date of this object may be set down as being from about 2750 to 2000
B.C.
Future excavations in Babylonia and Assyria will, no doubt, furnish us
with the legends current in those countries concerning the Temptation, the
Fall, and the sequel thereto. Great interest would naturally attach to the
Babylonian rendering of the details and development of the story, more
particularly to the terms of the penalty, the expulsion, and the nature of
the beings—the cherubim—placed at the east of the garden, and “the flaming
sword turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”
Though the Babylonian version of this Biblical story has not yet come to
light, the inscriptions in the wedge-writing give us a few details bearing
upon the word “cherub.”
The Hebrews understood these celestial beings as having the form which we
attribute to angels—a glorified human appearance, but with the addition of
wings. They are spoken of as bearing the throne of the Almighty through
the clouds (“He rode upon a cherub, and did fly”), and in Psalm xviii. 11
he is also represented as sitting upon them. In Ezekiel i. and x. they are
said to be of a very composite form, combining with the human shape the
face of a cherub (whatever that may have been), a man, an ox, a lion, and
an eagle. It has been supposed that Ezekiel was indebted to
Assyro-Babylonian imagery for the details of the cherubic creatures that
he describes, but it may safely be said that, though the sculptures
furnish us with images of divine creatures in the form of a man with the
face of an eagle, or having a modification of a lion’s head, and bulls and
lions with the faces of men, there has never yet been found a figure
provided with a wheel for the purpose of locomotion, and having four
heads, like those of which the prophet speaks. We may, therefore, safely
conclude, that Ezekiel applied the word _kerûb_ (cherub) to the creatures
that he saw in his vision, because that was the most suitable word he
could find, not because it was the term usually applied to things of that
kind. It is hardly likely that the guardians of the entrance into the
earthly Paradise and the creatures that bore up the throne of the Almighty
were conceived as being of so complicated a form as the cherubim of
Ezekiel.
Whatever doubt may exist as to the original form of this celestial being,
the discussion of the origin of the Hebrew word _kerûb_ may now be
regarded as finally settled by the discovery of the Assyro-Babylonian
records. It is undoubtedly borrowed from the Babylonian _kirubu_, a word
meaning simply “spirit,” and conceived as one who was always in the
presence (_ina kirib_) of God, and formed from the root _qarābu_, “to be
near.” The change from _q_ (qoph) to _k_ (kaph) is very common in
Babylonian, and occurs more frequently before _e_ and _i_, hence the form
in Hebrew, _kerûb_ (cherub—the translators intended that _ch_ should be
pronounced as _k_) for _qerûb_ (which the translators would have
transcribed as _kerub_).
Originally the Assyro-Babylonian word _kirubu_ seems to have meant
something like “intimate friend,” or “familiar,” as in the expression
_kirub šarri_, “familiar of the king,” mentioned between “daughter of the
king,” and “the beloved woman of the king.” An illustration of its
extended meaning of “spirit,” however, occurs in the following lines from
“the tablet of Good Wishes”—
“In thy mouth may there be perfection of speech
(_lû asim dababu_);
In thine eye may there be brightness of sight
(_lû namir niṭlu_);
In thine ear may there be a spirit of hearing”
(_lû_ KIRUB _nišmû_, lit. ‘a cherub of hearing’).”
The cherubim were therefore the good spirits who performed the will of
God, and, in the minds of the Assyrians and Babylonians, watched over and
guarded the man who was the “son of his God,” _i.e._ the pious man.
The cherub upon which the Almighty rode, and upon whom he sat, corresponds
more to the _guzalū_ or “throne-bearer” of Assyro-Babylonian mythology.
They were apparently beings who bore up the thrones of the gods, and are
frequently to be seen in Babylonian sculptures thus employed, at rest, and
waiting patiently, to all appearance, until their divine master, seated on
the throne which rests on their shoulders, should again give them word, or
make known that it was now his will to start and journey forth once more.
The story of Cain and Abel, and the first tragedy that occurred in the
world after the creation of man, has always attracted the attention of the
pious on that account, and because the first recorded murder was that of a
brother. This is a story to which the discovery of a Babylonian parallel
was least likely to be found, and, as a matter of fact, none has as yet
come to light. Notwithstanding this, a few remarks upon such remote
parallels which exist, and such few illustrations of the event that can be
found, may be cited in this place.
These are contained in the story of Tammuz or Adonis, who, though not
supposed to have been slain by his brother, was nevertheless killed by the
cold of Winter, who might easily have been regarded as his brother, for
Tammuz typified the season of Summer, the Brother-season, so to say, of
Winter. As is well known, the name Tammuz is Akkadian, and occurs in that
language under the form of Dumu-zi, or, more fully, Dumu-zida, meaning
“the everlasting son,” in Semitic Babylonian _âblu kênu_. It is very
noteworthy that Prof. J. Oppert has suggested that the name of Abel, in
Hebrew Habel, is, in reality, none other than the Babylonian _ablu_,
“son,” and the question naturally arises, May not the story of Cain and
Abel have given rise to the legend of Tammuz, or _Ablu kênu_, as his name
would be if translated into Semitic Babylonian?
Unless by a folk-etymology, however, the Semitic Babylonian translation of
the name of Tammuz can hardly be a composition of Abel and Cain, because
the first letter is _q_ (qoph) and not _k_ (kaph), the transcription Cain
for Kain or Kayin being faulty in the A.V. Still, we feel bound to
recognize that there is a possibility, though naturally a remote one, that
the legend of Tammuz is connected with that of Cain and Abel, just as the
division of the Dragon (in the Babylonian story of the Creation) by the
god Merodach into two halves, with one of which he covered the heavens,
leaving the other below upon the earth, typifies the division of the
waters above the earth from those below in the Biblical story of the same
event.
There is a legend, named by me (for want of a more precise title) “The
Lament of the Daughter of the god Sin,” in which the carrying off (by
death?) of “her fair son” is referred to. Here we have another possible
Babylonian parallel to the story of the death of Abel, in which the
driving forth of her who makes the lament from her city and from her
palace might well typify the expulsion of Eve from Paradise, and her
delivery into the power of her enemy, who is, to all appearance, the king
of terrors, into whose hands she and her husband were, for their
disobedience, consigned. In this really beautiful Babylonian poem her
“enemy” seems to reproach her, telling her how it was she, and she alone,
who had ruined herself.
Though there may be something in the comparisons with the story of Cain
and Abel which are quoted here, more probably (as has been already
remarked) there is nothing, and the real parallels have yet to be found.
In any case, they are instances of the popularity among the Babylonians
and Assyrians of those stories of one, greatly beloved and in the bloom of
youth, coming, like Abel, to an untimely end through the perversity of
fate, and by no fault of his own. Though neither may be the original of
the Biblical story nor yet derived from it, they are of interest and value
as beautiful legends of old time, possibly throwing light on the Biblical
story.
As yet the Babylonian and Assyrian records shed but little light on the
question of the patriarchs of the early ages succeeding Adam, the details
that are given concerning them, and their long lives. Upon this last point
there is only one remark to be made, and that is, that the prehistoric
kings of Babylonia likewise lived and reigned for abnormally long ages,
according to the records that have come down to us. Unfortunately, there
is nothing complete in the important original of the Canon of Berosus
first published by the late G. Smith, and the beginning is especially
mutilated.
The likeness between Enoch and the Akkadian name of the city of Erech,
Unug, has already been pointed out, and it has been suggested that the two
words are identical. This, however, can hardly be the case, for the Hebrew
form of Enoch is Ḫanôḳ, the initial letter being the guttural _ḫeth_,
which, notwithstanding the parallel ease of Hiddekel, the Akkadian Idigna
(the Tigris), weakens the comparison. The principal argument against the
identification, however, is the fact that, in the bilingual story of the
Creation, the god Merodach is said to have built the city, and such was
evidently the Babylonian belief.(6)
The name of Enoch’s great-grandson, Methusael, finds, as has many times
been pointed out, its counterpart in the Babylonian Mut-îli, with the same
meaning (“man of God”).
[Plate IV.]
Lower part of the obverse of a terra-cotta tablet from Nineveh, inscribed
with the names of Babylonian kings in Sumerian and Semitic Babylonian. The
13th line (that running across two columns) has the statement, "These are
the kings who were after the Flood. They are not written in their proper
order." The names of Sargina (Sargon of Agadé) and Hammurabi (Amraphel)
also occur. Found by Sir A. H. Layard and Hormuzd Rassam.
CHAPTER III. THE FLOOD.
The Biblical account—Its circumstantial nature and its great
length—The Babylonian account—The reason of the Flood and why
Pir-napištim built the Ark—His devotion to the God Ea—Ea and
Jah—Ea’s antagonism to Bêl—The bloodless sacrifice—Ea’s gift of
immortality—Further observations—Appendix: The second version of
the Flood-story.
Noah, son of Lamech, had reached the age of five hundred years, and had
three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japhet; and at this time men had begun to
multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them; then
“the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they
took them wives of all that they chose.”
The question naturally arises, “Who were these sons of God?” According to
Job xxxviii. 7, where we have the statement that “The morning stars sang
together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy,” it would seem to be
the angels that are intended by these words, and this is apparently the
opinion generally held by scholars and divines on the subject. This view
seems to be favoured by the Second Epistle of Peter (ii. 1), though, as
the words do not actually agree with those of the text of Genesis quoted
above, nothing very positive can be maintained concerning the apostle’s
dictum—in fact, his words in the passage referred to, “for if God spared
not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them
into chains and darkness, to be reserved unto judgment,” can much more
reasonably be regarded as referring, and therefore giving authority to,
the story of the fall of the angels, as indicated in Avitus, Caedmon, and
Milton, a legend of which the germs are found in the Babylonian account of
the Creation, referred to in Chapter I. The other passages of Job where
this expression occurs (i. 6, and ii. 2) are not conclusive as to the
meaning “angels,” for the expressions “sons of God,” in those passages,
who are said to have come before the Almighty, may very well have been
merely men.
However the matter may stand, for the passages in Job, there is every
probability that it is not the angels that are intended in the description
we are examining as to the reasons of the coming of the Flood. As the late
George Bertin was the first to point out, the Babylonians often used the
phrase “a son of his god,” apparently to designate “a just man,” or
something similar. The connection in which this expression occurs is as
follows—
“May Damu, the great enchanter, make his thoughts happy,
May the lady who giveth life to the dead, the goddess Gula, heal
him by the pressure of her pure hand,
And thou, O gracious Merodach, who lovest the revivification of
the dead,
With thy pure incantation of life, free him from his sin, and
May the man, the son of his god, be pure, clean, and bright.”
In this passage the phrase in question is (in Akkadian) _gišgallu dumu
dingirana_, and (in Assyrian) _amēlu mâr îli-šu_. It is a frequent
expression in documents of this class, and always occurs in a similar
connection. In some cases, instead of “the man, the son of his god,” the
variation “the king, the son of his god” occurs, and is apparently to be
paraphrased in the same way, and understood as “the pious king.”
May it not be, then, that “the sons of God,” who saw that the daughters of
men were fair (lit. good), and took of them as many wives as they wanted,
were those who were regarded as the pious men of the time? For who among
the angels would at any time have thought of allying himself with an
earthly and mortal spouse, and begetting children—offspring who should
turn out to be “mighty men which were of old, men of renown,” as verse 4
has it? In this case, the “daughters of men” would be children of common
people, not possessing any special piety or other virtue to recommend
them, the only thing being that their daughters were fair, and good
enough, in the opinion of those “sons of God,” to have as their wives.
It is apparently given as the result of these unions between the pious men
and the daughters of the people that wickedness became rife in the earth,
and man’s imagination continually evil; and this was so to such an extent
that the Almighty repented of having created man, and decided to destroy
the wicked generation—both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of
the air—dwelling upon the earth—all except Noah, who found favour in the
eyes of Yahwah.
Having decided to destroy the life of the world by means of a flood, God
communicated His intention and the reason thereof to the patriarch, and
instructed him to build an ark in which he was to save both himself and
his family from the impending destruction. The vessel is to be built of
gopher-wood, to have rooms in it, and to be pitched within and without
with pitch. The dimensions also are specified. Its length was to be three
hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. He
was to make the ark “with light” (צהר or רהצ), that is, with windows, and
their length or height, apparently, was to be a cubit. The vessel was to
have a door, and to be built with three stories, lower, second, and third.
In accordance with God’s covenant with the patriarch, he, his sons, and
his sons’ wives were to be saved, along with every living thing, male and
female of each kind. For all this great multitude a sufficiency of food
was directed to be provided.
Then comes the command (the ark having been duly built, and all the
directions followed) to enter into the vessel, and further instructions
are given with regard to the creatures that are to be saved, with a slight
modification in the numbers, for the clean beasts are to be taken in “by
sevens,” and all the rest, “the unclean,” by pairs. God then announces
that in seven days’ time He will cause rain to come upon the earth for
forty days and forty nights. “All the fountains of the great deep” were
broken up, and the Lord shut up those upon whom He had favour in the ark.
Then, as the rain continued, the waters “prevailed exceedingly” upon the
earth, and the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered,
the depth of the waters being “fifteen cubits and upwards.” Everything was
destroyed, “Noah alone remained alive, and those who were with him in the
ark.”
“And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.”
The “fountains of the deep” and “the windows of heaven” having been
stopped, and the “rain from heaven” restrained, the waters abated, leaving
the ark high and dry upon the mountains of Ararat; and after the tops of
the mountains were seen, Noah looked out of the window that he had made.
He then sent forth a raven and a dove, and the latter, not finding a
resting-place, returned to him, to be sent forth again at the end of
another week. The dove again returned bearing in her beak an olive-leaf.
Seven days more passed, and the dove, having been sent out a third time,
returned to him no more. Recognizing that the waters were now all returned
into their old channels, and that the land was dry enough for him and his,
Noah removed the covering of the vessel, and saw that his supposition was
correct, and having received the command to come forth from the ark, which
had been his abiding-place for so long, and to send forth the living
creatures that were with him, the patriarch obeyed, and, when on dry land,
built an altar to Yahwah, and offered burnt offerings thereon of every
clean beast and every clean fowl.
“And the Lord smelled a sweet savour (lit. a savour of rest); and the Lord
said in His heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s
sake, for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.... While
the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer
and winter, and day and night shall not cease.”
Then comes, in the ninth chapter, the blessing of God, with a charge
concerning the shedding of blood. He makes also a covenant with Noah, by
the sign of the rainbow, declaring that a like calamity shall never again
come upon the earth to destroy all life that is upon it.
Such is, in short, the Bible story of the great flood that destroyed, at a
remote age of the world, all life upon the earth. It is a narrative
circumstantially told, with day, month, and year all indicated, and it
forms a good subject for comparison with the Babylonian account, with
which it agrees so closely in all the main points, and from which it
differs so much in many essential details.
As in the case of the Babylonian story of the Creation, it has been
thought well not only to give a fairly full translation of the Babylonian
story of the Flood, but also to indicate under what circumstances that
story appears in the series of tablets in which it is found.
The first to detect the nature of the series of tablets giving the story
of the Flood was the late George Smith, who had unrivalled opportunities
of making himself thoroughly acquainted with the treasures of the British
Museum in the matter of Assyrian records. As the story runs, it was whilst
searching for the fragments of the Creation-series that he came across a
fragment of a tablet mentioning that “the ship rested on the mountain of
Niṣir,” and this at once suggested to him that this was a reference to the
Flood, as, in fact, it turned out to be. Continued and unremitting
research among the treasures of the Department in which he was employed
enabled him to bring together a large number of other fragments of the
series, leaving, in fact, very little indeed for any future student to do
in the way of collecting together texts from the fragments that he had an
opportunity of examining. The _Daily Telegraph_ expedition to Assyria,
which was conducted by Mr. Smith himself, enabled him to add many other
fragments to those which he had already recognized in the Oriental
Department of the British Museum, and Mr. Rassam’s very successful
excavations in the same place have since very considerably increased the
list of additions.
The story of the Flood, as known to the Babylonians and Assyrians, is one
chapter or book of a legend consisting of twelve similar divisions, the
first line of the series beginning with the words _Ša naqba imûru_, “He
who saw everything,” and to this is added in the colophons, “the legend of
Gilgameš.” The number of fragments extant is large, but the individual
tablets are very imperfect, that giving the account of the Flood being by
far the most complete, though even that has very regrettable lacunæ.
Incomplete as the legend is as a whole, an attempt will nevertheless be
made here to give some sort of a connected story, which may be regarded as
accurate in all its main details.
The first tablet begins with the words that have been quoted above, “He
who saw everything, [who] ... the land.” This is followed, it would seem,
by a description of the hero, who, apparently, knew “the wisdom of the
whole (of the lands?),” and “saw secret and hidden things.... He brought
news of before the flood, went a distant road, and (suffered) dire fatigue
(?).” All his journeyings and toils were, apparently, inscribed on tablets
of stone, and records thus left for future ages.
Gilgameš, as we learn in the course of the narrative, was lord or king of
_Uruk supuri_, or “Erech the walled,” and at the time when the story
begins, the fortifications were in a ruinous state, and the treasury (?)
of the sanctuary Ê-anna, the temple of the goddess Ištar, which is
mentioned in the legend immediately after, was, we may suppose, empty.
Other details of the desolation of the temple are given, and the ruinous
state of the walls of the city are spoken of, together with the decay of
their foundations.
No other fragment of Col. I. of the first tablet of the Legend of Gilgameš
seems to have been recognized, so that the further references to the city
are lost. An interesting piece that Mr. G. Smith thought to be part of the
third column of this text refers to some misfortune that came upon the
city when the people moaned like calves, and the maidens grieved like
doves.
“The gods of Erech the walled
Turned to flies, and hummed in the streets;
The winged bulls of Erech the walled
Turned to mice, and went out through the holes.”
The city was, on this occasion, besieged for three years, until at last
the god Bêl and the goddess Ištar interested themselves in the state of
things. As to who the enemy was who brought the people into such distress,
there is no means at present of finding out, but Mr. G. Smith suggested,
with at least some show of probability, that they were the Elamites under
Ḫumbaba, who appears later as the opponent of our hero. The indifference
of the gods and the divine bulls that were supposed to protect the city is
well expressed in the statement that they respectively turned into flies
and mice, buzzing about and active, but doing no good whatever.
After the reference to the state of Erech, the text is exceedingly
mutilated, and the sense difficult to gather, but it would seem to have
contained a further description of the hero, who, according to Jensen’s
translation, is described as “two parts god and the third part man.” To
all appearance there was none in all his realm like him, and also no
consort suitable for him, though he collected to him all the young men and
maidens in the land. This was a matter for grief, which the (divine powers
?) heard, and they called upon the goddess Aruru to make another in his
likeness. This being was Êa-banî,(7) the mighty one, to all appearance
made to be the rival of Gilgameš, but if this be the case, he did not
fulfil his destiny, for his delight was to remain with the beasts of the
field. All his body was covered with hair, and he had long tresses on his
head, like those of a woman (recalling Samson’s luxuriant locks). Far,
too, from being the rival of Gilgameš, he became his most devoted friend
and companion.
“ ‘Thou, Aruru, hast created (mankind),
Now make thou (one in) his likeness.
The first day let his heart be (formed?),
Let him rival (?) and let him overcome (??) Erech.’
Aruru hearing this,
Made the likeness of Anu in the midst of her heart.
Aruru washed her hands,
She pinched off some clay, she threw it on the ground—
(Thus?) Êa-banî she made, the warrior,
The offspring, the seed, the possession of Ninip.
Covered with hair was all his body,
He had tresses like a woman,
The amount (?) of his hair grew thick like corn.
He knew not (?) people and land.
Clothed with a garment like the god Gira.
With the gazelles he eateth the grass,
With the wild beasts he drinketh drink,
With the dwellers in the water his heart delighteth.
The hunter, the destroyer, a man,
Beside the drinking-place he came across him,
The first day, the second day, the third day, beside the
drinking-place he came across him.
The hunter saw him, and his (Êa-banî’s) countenance became stern,
(He) and his wild beasts entered his house,
(He became an)gry, stern, and he called out.”
Apparently he did not like being watched so long by the hunter, and
becoming suspicious of his intentions, showed resentment, and tried to
drive him away. It may be noted by the way, that this description of
Êa-banî would answer excellently to the state attributed for a time to
Nebuchadnezzar in the Book of Daniel.
The hunter has a conversation with his father, who was with him, and the
upshot of it is that they decide to communicate to Gilgameš an account of
the terrible man whom they had seen. It was therefore decided to try to
catch or, rather, entice him to Erech by means of a female named Samḫat.
In accordance with the instructions received, therefore, the hunter took
with him the woman who was intrusted to him, and they awaited Êa-banî in
the same place, by the side of the water. After watching for him for two
days, they got into communication with him, and the woman asked him why he
dwelt with the wild animals, depicting at the same time all the glory of
Erech the walled and the nobility of Gilgameš, so that he soon allowed
himself to be persuaded, and, in the end, went and took up his abode
there.
Various things are then narrated, the most important of them being the
episode of the Elamite Ḫumbaba, the same name, though not the same person,
as the Kombabos of the Greeks.
Gilgameš seems to have gone to a place where there was a forest of
cedar-trees, accompanied by Êa-banî. Near this place, apparently, there
was a splendid palace, the abode (?) of a great queen. Judging from what
remains of the text, they ask their way of her, and she it is who seems to
tell them how to reach the dominions of the potentate whom they seek.
“A distant road is the place of Ḫumbaba.
A conflict that he (Gilgameš) knoweth not he will meet,
A road that he knoweth not he will ride,
As long as he goeth and returneth,
Until he reach the forest of cedars,
Until the mighty Ḫumbaba he subdueth,
And whatever is evil, what ye hate, he shall destroy in the
l(and).”
Evidently, from the extent of the record in this place, many adventures
befell them, but the fragmentary lines and the numerous lacunæ make a
connected narrative absolutely impossible, and it is not until we reach
the first column of what Mr. G. Smith regarded as the fifth tablet that we
get something more satisfactory than this. The hero has apparently come
within measurable distance of his goal—
“They stood and looked on the forest,
They regarded the height of the cedar,
They regarded the depth of the forest,
Where Ḫumbaba walked, striding high (?),
The roads prepared, the way made good.
They saw the mountain of the cedar, the dwelling of the gods, the
shrine of the god Irnini,
Before the mountain the cedar raised its luxuriance—
Good was its shade, full of delight.”
They had still a long way to go, however, and many things, seemingly, to
overcome, before they should reach the abode of the dreaded Elamite ruler,
but unfortunately, the details of their adventures are so very fragmentary
that no connected sense whatever is to be made out. The last line of the
tablet referring to this section, mentioning, as it does, the head of
Ḫumbaba, leads the reader to guess the conclusion of the story, whatever
the details may have been.
It is with the sixth tablet that we meet, for the first time, almost, with
something really satisfactory in the matter of completeness, though even
here one is sometimes pulled up sharp by a defective or doubtful passage.
Apparently, Gilgameš had become, at the time to which this tablet refers,
very prosperous, and that, combined with his other attractions, evidently
drew upon him the attention of the goddess Ištar—
“Come, Gilgameš, be thou the bridegroom,
Give thy substance to me as a gift,
Be thou my husband, and let me be thy wife.
I will cause to be yoked for thee a chariot of lapis-lazuli and
gold,
Whose wheels are gold and adamant its poles.
Thou shalt harness thereto the white ones, the great steeds.
Enter into our house mid the scent of the cedar.”
At his entering, the people were to kiss his feet, and kings, lords, and
princes do him homage, and lastly, he was to have no rival upon the earth.
In the mutilated passage that follows, Gilgameš answers the goddess,
reproaching her with her treatment of her former lovers or husbands, which
seems to have been far from satisfactory. Reference to a “wall of stone,”
and to “the land of the enemy,” seem to point to imprisonment and
expulsion, and the words “Who is the bridegroom (whom thou hast kept?) for
ever?” indicate clearly the opinion in which the hero held the goddess.
From generalities, however, he proceeds to more specific charges—
“To Tammuz, the husband of thy youth,
From year to year thou causest bitter weeping.
Thou lovedst the bright-coloured Allala bird,
Thou smotest him and brokest his wings,
He stayed in the forests crying, ‘My wings!’
Thou lovedst also a lion, perfect in strength,
By sevens didst thou cut wounds in him.
Thou lovedst also a horse, glorious in war,
Harness, spur, and bit (?) thou laidest upon him,
Seven _kaspu_ (49 miles) thou madest him gallop,
Distress and sweat thou causedst him,
To his mother Silili thou causedst bitter weeping.
Thou lovedst also a shepherd of the flock,
Who constantly laid out before thee rich foods (?),
Daily slaughtering for thee suckling kids,
Thou smotest him and changedst him to a jackal,
His own shepherd-boy drove him away,
And his dogs bit his limbs.
Thou lovedst also Išullanu, thy father’s gardener,
Who constantly transmitted (?) thy provisions (?),
Daily making thy dishes bright.
Thou raisedst thine eyes to him, and preparedst food.
‘My Išullanu, divide the food, let us eat,
And stretch forth thine hand, and taste of our dish.’
Išullanu said to thee:
‘Me, what (is this that) thou askest me?
My mother, do not cook (this), I have never eaten (of it)—
For should I eat foods of enchantments and witcheries?
[Food bringing?] cold, exhaustion, madness (?)?’
Thou heardest this [the speech of Išullanu],
Thou smotest him, and changedst him into a statue (?),
Thou settest him in the midst of (thy) dom(ain?),
He raiseth not the libation-vase, he descendeth (?) not....
And as for me, thou wouldst love me and (make me) even as these!”
Ištar being angry at these reproaches and accusations of the Babylonian
hero, immediately ascended to heaven and complained to her father Anu and
her mother Anatum that Gilgameš had reproached her with her enchantments
and witcheries, and after a long conversation, a divine bull is sent
against the hero and his friend. The heavenly animal is overcome,
principally by the activity of Êa-banî, who after its death, when the
goddess Ištar was lamenting its overthrow, cut off a portion of the body,
and threw it at her. Great were the rejoicings at Erech the walled at the
triumph of the hero and his counsellor, and after the feast that was held,
they all lay down to sleep. Êa-banî also lay down with the rest, and
during the night he saw a dream, of the details of which nothing is known,
though, from the words with which it seems to be introduced, “My friend,
on account of what do the gods take counsel,” it may be supposed that the
defiance and opposition which these mortals had offered to the goddess
Ištar was engaging the attention of the heavenly powers with a view to
some action being taken. As it is with these words that Êa-banî begins to
tell his dream to Gilgameš, there is no doubt that the Babylonians
regarded the former as having been admitted, whilst asleep (as in the case
of the Babylonian Noah), into the councils of the gods. The solitary line
that is quoted above is the first of the seventh tablet.
The details of the legend now again become obscure, but thus much can be
gathered, namely, that Gilgameš in his turn had a dream, and that, all
appearance, Êa-banî interpreted it. Later on, Êa-banî falls ill, and lies
without moving for twelve days. Though unwilling to regard his friend as
dead, Gilgameš mourns for him bitterly, and decides to make a journey,
apparently with the object of finding out about his friend Êa-banî, and
ascertaining whether there were any means of bringing him back to earth
again.
He sets out, and comes to the place where the “scorpion-men,” with their
heads reaching to heaven, and their breasts on a level with Hades, guarded
the place of the rising and the setting sun. The horror of their
appearance, which was death to behold, is forcibly described on the
tablet. The hero was struck with terror on seeing them, but as he was of
divine origin (“his body is of the flesh of the gods,” as the scorpion-man
says to his female), death has no power over him on account of them. He
seems to describe to them his journey, and the object he had in view.
Pir-napištim, the Babylonian Noah, is mentioned in the course of the
conversation, and it may be supposed that it is on account of his desire
to visit him that he asks these monsters for advice. He afterwards comes
into contact with the goddess Siduri, “who sits upon the throne of the
sea,” and she, on seeing him, shuts her gate. He speaks to her of this,
and threatens to break it open. Having gained admission, he apparently
tells the goddess the reason of his journey, and she, in return, describes
to him the way that he would have to take, the sea that he would have to
cross, and of the deep waters of death that bar the way to the abode of
the Babylonian Noah, who had attained unto everlasting life, and whose
pilot or boatman, Ur-Šanabi, was to take the Erechite hero to his
presence.
After a long conversation with Ur-Šanabi, concerning the road that they
will take, they start together, and after passing through a forest, they
embark in a ship, and reach, at the end of a month and ten days, the
“waters of death.” There Gilgameš does something a number of times, and
afterwards sees afar off Pir-napištim, the Babylonian Noah, who apparently
communes with himself concerning the visitor who has come to his shores.
The conversation which follows is very mutilated, but in the course of his
explanation of the reason of his visit, Gilgameš relates all his
adventures—how he had traversed all the countries, and crossed difficult
mountains, his visit to Siduri, and her refusal to open the door to him,
with many other things. The conversation apparently, after a time, becomes
of a philosophical nature, for, in the course of it, Pir-napištim says—
“Always have we built a house,
Always do we seal (?) (the contract).
Always have brothers share together,
Always is the seed in (the earth?),
Always the river rises bringing a flood.”
He then discourses, apparently among other things, of death, and says—
“The Anunnaki, the great gods, are assembled (?).
Mammitum, maker of fate, sets with them the destinies.
They have made life and death,
(But) the death-days are not made known.”
With these words the tenth tablet of the Gilgameš series comes to an end.
The Eleventh Tablet Of The Gilgameš Series, Containing The Story Of The
Flood.
As this tablet is the most complete of the series, it may not be
considered out of place to give here a description of the outward
appearance of the document—or, rather, of the documents, for there are
many copies. This description will serve, to a certain extent, for all the
other tablets of the series, when in their complete state.
The size of the document which best shows the form is about 8-½ inches
wide, by 5-7/8 inches high. It is rectangular in form, and is inscribed on
both sides with three columns of writing (six in all). The total number of
lines, as given in the text published in the second edition of the fourth
vol. of the _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, is 293, including
the catch-line and colophon, but as many of these lines are, in reality,
double ones (the scribes frequently squeezed two lines into the space of
one, so as to economize space), the original number of the lines was
probably nearer 326, or, with the catch-line and colophon, 330. It is
probable that the other tablets of the series were not so closely written
as this, and in these cases the number of lines is fewer.
The tablet opens with the continuation of the conversation between
Gilgameš and “Pir-napištim the remote”—
“Gilgameš said also to him, to Pir-napištim the remote:
‘I perceive thee, O Pir-napištim,
Thy features are not changed—like me art thou,
And thou (thyself) art not changed, like me art thou.
Put an end in thine heart to the making of resistance,
(Here?) art thou placed, does that rise against thee,
(Now?) that thou remainest, and hast attained life in the assembly
of the gods?’
Pir-napištim said also to him, to Gilgameš:
‘Let me tell thee, Gilgameš, the account of my preservation,
And let me tell thee, even thee, the decision of the gods.
Šurippak, the city which thou knowest,
Lies (upon the bank) of the Euphrates.
That city was old, and the gods within it.
The great gods decided in their hearts to make a flood.
There (?) was (?) their father Anu,
Their counsellor, the warrior Ellila,
Their throne-bearer, Ninip,
Their leader, En-nu-gi.
Nin-igi-azaga, the god Ae, communed with them, and
Repeated their command to the earth:
“Earth, earth! Town, town!
O earth, hear: and town, understand!
Surippakite, son of Umbara-Tutu,
Destroy the house, build a ship,
Leave what thou hast (?), see to thy life.
Destroy the hostile and save life,
Take up the seed of life, all of it, into the midst of the ship.
The ship which thou shalt make, even thou,
Let its size be measured,
Let it agree (as to) its height and its length;
(Behold) the deep, launch her (thither).”
I understood and said to Ae, my lord:
“[Behol]d, my lord, what thou, even thou, hast said, verily (?)
It is excellent (?), (and) I will do (it).
(How?) may I answer the city—the young men and the elders?”
Ae opened his mouth and spake,
He said to his servant, to me:
“Thus, then, shalt thou say unto them;
‘It has been told me (that) Ellila hates me,
I will not dwell in ... and
In the territory of Ellila I will not set my face—
I will descend to the deep, with (Ae) my lord I shall (constantly)
dwell.
(As for) you, he will cause abundance to rain down upon you, and
(Beasts and?) birds (shall be) the prey (?) of the fishes, and
... he will enclose, (?), and
... of a storm (?),
(In the night) the heavens will rain down upon (y)ou
destruction.” ’ ”
With these words the second paragraph comes to an end, the total number of
lost or greatly mutilated lines being about nine. Very little of the
contents of these lines can be made out, as not much more than traces of
words remain. Where the lines begin to become fairly complete, the text
seems to refer to the building of the ship, upon which four days had
already been spent, its form being laid down on the fifth day. The
description of the building, which is somewhat minute, is exceedingly
difficult to translate, and any rendering of it must therefore, at the
present time, be regarded as tentative. Its bulwarks seem to have risen
four measures, and a deck (apparently) is mentioned. Its interior was
pitched with six _šar_ of bitumen, and its outside with three _šar_ of
pitch, or bitumen of a different kind. The provisionment of the vessel is
next described, but this part is mutilated. A quantity of oil for the crew
and pilot is referred to, and oxen were also slaughtered, apparently as a
propitiatory sacrifice on the completion of the vessel. Various kinds of
drink were then brought on board, both intoxicating and otherwise,
plentiful (this may be regarded as the word to be supplied here) “like the
waters of a river.” After this we have references to the completion of
certain details—holes for the cables above and below, etc., and with this
the third paragraph comes to an end.
In the next paragraph Pir-napištim collects his goods and his family, and
enters into the ark:—
“All I possessed I transferred thereto,
All I possessed I transferred thereto, silver,
All I possessed I transferred thereto, gold;
All I possessed I transferred thereto, the seed of life, the whole
I caused to go up into the midst of the ship. All my family and
relatives,
The beasts of the field, the animals of the field, the sons of the
artificers—all of them I sent up.
The god Šamaš appointed the time—
_Muir kukki_—In the night I will cause the heavens to rain
destruction,
Enter into the midst of the ship and shut thy door.”
“That time approached—
_Muir kukki_—In the night the heavens rained destruction.
I saw the appearance of the day:
I was afraid to look upon the day—
I entered into the midst of the ship, and shut my door.
For the guiding of the ship, to Buzur-Kurgala, the pilot,
I gave the great house with its goods.
At the appearance of dawn in the morning,
There arose from the foundation of heaven a dark cloud:
Rimmon thundered in the midst of it, and
Nebo and Šarru went in front
Then went the throne-bearers (over) mountain and plain.
Ura-gala dragged out the cables,
Then came Ninip, casting down destruction,
The Anunnaki raised (their) torches,
With their brilliance they illuminated the land.
Rimmon’s destruction reached to heaven,
Everything bright to darkness turned,
... the land like ... it ...
The first day, the storm (?) ...
Swiftly it swept, and ... the land (?)....
Like a battle against the people it sought....
Brother saw not brother.
The people were not to be recognized. In heaven
The gods feared the flood, and
They fled, they ascended to the heaven of Anu.
The gods kenneled like dogs, crouched down in the enclosures.
Ištar spake like a mother.(8)
The lady of the gods(9) called out, making her voice resound:
‘All that generation has turned to corruption.
Because I spoke evil in the assembly of the gods,
When I spoke evil in the assembly of the gods,
I spoke of battle for the destruction of my people.
Verily I have begotten (man), but where is he?
Like the sons of the fishes he fills the sea.’
The gods of the Anunnaki were weeping with her.
The gods had crouched down, seated in lamentation,
Covered were their lips in (all) the assemblies,
Six days and nights
The wind blew, the deluge and flood overwhelmed the land.
The seventh day, when it came, the storm ceased, the raging flood,
Which had contended like a whirlwind,
Quieted, the sea shrank back, and the evil wind and deluge ended.
I noticed the sea making a noise,
And all mankind had turned to corruption.
Like palings the marsh-reeds appeared.
I opened my window, and the light fell upon my face,
I fell back dazzled, I sat down, I wept,
Over my face flowed my tears.
I noted the regions, the shore of the sea,
For twelve measures the region arose.
The ship had stopped at the land of Niṣṣir.
The mountain of Niṣir seized the ship, and would not let it pass.
The first day and the second day the mountain of Niṣir seized the
ship, and would not let it pass,
The third day and the fourth day the mountain of Niṣir, etc.,
The fifth and sixth the mountain of Niṣir, etc.,
The seventh day, when it came
I sent forth a dove, and it left,
The dove went, it turned about,
But there was no resting-place, and it returned.
I sent forth a swallow, and it left,
The swallow went, it turned about,
But there was no resting-place, and it returned.
I sent forth a raven, and it left,
The raven went, the rushing of the waters it saw,
It ate, it waded, it croaked, it did not return.
I sent forth (the animals) to the four winds, I poured out a
libation,
I made an offering on the peak of the mountain,
Seven and seven I set incense-vases there,
In their depths I poured cane, cedar, and rosewood (?).
The gods smelled a savour,
The gods smelled a sweet savour,
The gods gathered like flies over the sacrificer.
Then the goddess Maḫ, when she came,
Raised the great signets that Anu had made at her wish:
‘These gods—by the lapis-stone of my neck—let me not forget,
These days let me remember, nor forget them forever!
Let the gods come to the sacrifice,
But let not Ellila come to the sacrifice,
For he did not take counsel, and made a flood,
And consigned my people to destruction.’
Then Ellila, when he came,
Saw the ship. And Ellila was wroth,
Filled with anger on account of the gods and the spirits of
heaven.
‘What, has a soul escaped?
Let not a man be saved from the destruction.’
Ninip opened his mouth and spake,
He said to the warrior Ellila:
‘Who but Ae has done the thing
And Ae knows every event.’
Ae opened his mouth and spake,
He said to the warrior Ellila:
‘Thou sage of the gods, warrior,
Verily thou hast not taken counsel, and hast made a flood.
The sinner has committed his sin,
The evildoer has committed his misdeed,
Be merciful—let him not be cut off—yield, let (him) not perish.
Why hast thou made a flood?
Let the lion come, and let men diminish.
Why hast thou made a flood?
Let the hyæna come, and let men diminish.
Why hast thou made a flood?
Let a famine happen, and let the land be destroyed (?).
Why hast thou made a flood?
Let Ura (pestilence) come, and let the land be devastated (?).
I did not reveal the decision of the great gods—
I caused Atra-ḫasis to see a dream, and he heard the decision of
the gods.’
When he had taken counsel (with himself),
Ae went up into the midst of the ship,
He took my hand and he led me up, even me
He brought up and caused my woman to kneel (?) at my side;
He touched us, and standing between us, he blessed us (saying):
‘Formerly Pir-napištim was a man:
Now (as for) Pir-napištim and his woman, let them be like unto the
gods, (even) us,
And let Pir-napištim dwell afar at the mouths of the rivers.’
He took me, and afar at the mouths of the rivers he caused me to
dwell.
Now as for thee, who of the gods shall restore thee to health?
That thou see the life that thou seekest, even thou?
Well, lie not down to sleep six days and seven nights,
Like one who is sitting down in the midst of his sorrow (?),
Sleep like a dark cloud hovereth over him.
Pir-napištim then said to his wife:
‘See, the hero who desireth life,
Sleep like a dark cloud hovereth over him.’
His wife then said to Pir-napištim the remote:
‘Touch him, and let him awake a man—
Let him return in health by the road that he came,
Let him return to his country by the great gate by which he came
forth.’
Pir-napištim said to his wife:
‘The suffering of men hurteth thee.
Come, cook his food, set it by his head.’
And the day that he lay down in the enclosure of his ship,
She cooked his food, she set it by his head:
And the day when he lay down in the enclosure of his cabin
First his food was ground,
Secondly it was sifted,
Thirdly it was moistened,
Fourthly she rolled out his dough,
Fifthly she threw down a part,
Sixthly it was cooked,
Seventhly he (or she) touched him suddenly, and he awoke a man!
Gilgameš said to him (even) to Pir-napištim the remote:
‘That sleep quite overcame me
Swiftly didst thou touch me, and didst awaken me, even thou.’ ”
Pir-napištim, in answer to this, tells Gilgameš what had been done to him,
repeating the description of the preparation of his food in the same words
as had been used to describe the ceremony (for such it apparently is), and
ending by saying, “Suddenly I touched thee, (even) I, and thou awokest,
(even) thou.” Thus putting beyond question the personality of the one who
effected the transformation which was brought about, though he leaves out
the word “man,” which hid from the hero the fact that a transformation had
in consequence taken place in him. The ceremonies were not by any means
finished, however, for the boatman or pilot had to take him to the place
of lustration to be cleansed, and for the skin, with which he seems to
have been covered, to fall off. The Babylonian patriarch then tells him of
a wonderful plant which would make an old man young again, and Gilgameš
gets possession of one of these. On his way to his own country in the
company of the boatman or pilot, he stops to perform what seems to be a
religious ceremony, at a well, when a serpent smells the plant,(10) and,
apparently in consequence of that, a lion comes and takes it away.
Gilgameš greatly laments his loss, saying that he had not benefited by the
possession of this wonderful plant, but the lion of the desert had gained
the advantage. After a journey only varied by the religious festivals that
they kept, they at length reached Erech, the walled. Here, after a
reference to the dilapidation of the place, and a statement seemingly
referring to the offerings to be made if repairs had not, during his
absence, been effected, the eleventh and most important tablet of the
Gilgameš series comes to an end.
Of the twelfth tablet but a small portion exists, though fragments of more
than one copy have been found. In this we learn that Gilgameš still
lamented for his friend Êa-banî, whom he had lost so long before. Wishing
to know of his present state and how he fared, he called to the spirit of
his friend thus—
“Thou restest not the bow upon the ground,
What has been smitten by the bow surround thee.
The staff thou raisest not in thine hand,
The spirits (of the slain) enclose thee.
Shoes upon thy feet thou dost not set,
A cry upon earth thou dost not make:
Thy wife whom thou lovest thou kissest not,
Thy wife whom thou hatest thou smitest not;
Thy child whom thou lovest thou kissest not,
Thy child whom thou hatest thou smitest not.
The sorrowing earth hath taken thee.”
Gilgameš then seems to invoke the goddess “Mother of Nin-a-zu,” seemingly
asking her to restore his friend to him, but to all appearance without
result. He then turned to the other deities—Bêl, Sin, and Ea, and the
last-named seems to have interceded for Êa-banî with Nerigal, the god of
the under-world, who, at last, opened the earth, “and the spirit of
Êa-banî like mist arose (?).” His friend being thus restored to him,
though probably only for a time, and not in bodily form, Gilgameš asks him
to describe the appearance of the world from which he had just come. “If I
tell thee the appearance of the land I have seen,” he answers, “... sit
down, weep.” Gilgameš, however, still persists—“... let me sit down, let
me weep,” he answers. Seeing that he would not be denied, Êa-banî complies
with his request. It was a place where dwelt people who had sinned in
their heart, where (the young) were old, and the worm devoured, a place
filled with dust. This was the place of those who had not found favour
with their god, who had met with a shameful death (as had apparently
Êa-banî himself). The blessed, on the other hand—
“Whom thou sawest [die] the death (?) [of] . .[I see]—
In the resting-place of .... reposing, pure water he drinketh.
Whom in the battle thou sawest killed, I see—
His father and his mother support his head
And his wife sitteth [? beside him].
Whose corpse thou hast seen thrown down on the plain, I see—
His spirit on earth reposeth not.
Whose spirit thou sawest without a caretaker, I see—
The leavings of the dish, the rejected of the food,
Which in the street is thrown, he eateth.”
And with this graphic description of the world of the dead the twelfth and
concluding tablet of the Gilgameš series comes to an end.
With the Gilgameš series of tablets as a whole we have not here to concern
ourselves, except to remark, that the story of the Flood is apparently
inserted in it in order to bring greater glory to the hero, whom the
writer desired to bring into connection with one who was regarded as the
greatest and most renowned of old times, and who, on account of the favour
that the gods had to him, had attained to immortality and to divinity.
Except the great Merodach himself, no divine hero of past ages appealed to
the Babylonian mind so strongly as Pir-napištim, who was called
Atra-ḫasis, the hero of the Flood.
The reason of the coming of the Flood seems to have been regarded by the
Babylonians as two-fold. In the first place, as Pir-napištim is made to
say (see p. 100), “Always the river rises and brings a flood”—in other
words, it was a natural phenomenon. But in the course of the narrative
which he relates to Gilgameš, the true reason is implied, though it does
not seem to be stated in words. And this reason is the same as that of the
Old Testament, namely, the wickedness of the world. If it should again
become needful to punish mankind with annihilation on account of their
wickedness, the instrument was to be the lion, or the hyæna, or
pestilence—not a flood. And we have not to go far to seek the reason for
this. By a flood, the whole of mankind might—in fact, certainly would—be
destroyed, whilst by the other means named some, in all probability, would
escape. There was at least one of the gods who did not feel inclined to
witness the complete destruction of the human race without a protest, and
an attempt on his part to frustrate such a merciless design.
Little doubt exists that there is some motive in this statement on the
part of the Babylonian author of the legend. It has been already noted
that Merodach (the god who generally bears the title of _Bêl_, or “lord”)
was, in Babylonian mythology, not one of the older gods, he having
displaced his father Ea or Ae, in consequence of the predominance of
Babylon, whose patron god Merodach was. Could it be that the Babylonians
believed that the visitation of the flood was due to the vengeful anger of
Merodach, aroused by the people’s non-acceptance of his kingship? It seems
unlikely. Pir-napištim was himself a worshipper of Ae, and on account of
that circumstance, he is represented in the story as being under the
special protection of that god. To all appearance, therefore, the reason
which Pir-napištim is represented as having given, for the building of the
ship, to his fellow-townsmen, was not intended to be altogether false. The
god Ellila hated him, and therefore he was going to dwell with Ae, his
lord—on the bosom of the deep which he ruled. An announcement of the
impending doom is represented as having been made to the people by the
patriarch, and it is therefore doubly unfortunate that the next paragraph
is so mutilated, for it doubtless gave, when complete, some account of the
way in which they received the notice of the destruction that was about to
be rained down upon them.
It has been more than once suggested, and Prof. Hommel has stated the
matter as his opinion, that the name of the god Aê or Ea, another possible
reading of which is Aa, may be in some way connected with, and perhaps
originated the Assyro-Babylonian divine name Ya’u, “God,” which is cognate
with the Hebrew Yah or, as it is generally written, Jah. If this be the
case, it would seem to imply that a large section of the people remained
faithful to his worship, and the flood of the Babylonians may symbolize
some persecution of them by the worshippers of the god Ellila, angry at
the slight put upon him by their neglect or unwillingness to acknowledge
him as the chief of the Pantheon. Some of the people may, indeed, have
worshipped Ae or Aa alone, thus constituting a kind of monotheism. This,
nevertheless, is very uncertain, and at present unprovable. It is worthy
of note, however, that at a later date there was a tendency to identify
all the deities of the Babylonian Pantheon with Merodach, and what in the
“middle ages” of the Babylonians existed with regard to Merodach may very
well have existed for the worship of Ae or Ea at an earlier date. The
transfer, in the Semitic Babylonian Creation-story, of the name of Aê to
his son Merodach may perhaps be a re-echo of the tendency to identify all
the gods with Ae, when the latter was the supreme object of worship in the
land. There is one thing that is certain, and that is, that the Chaldean
Noah, Pir-napištim, was faithful in the worship of the older god, who
therefore warned him, thus saving his life. Ae, the god who knew all
things, knew also the design of his fellows to destroy mankind, and being
“all and always eye,” to adopt a phrase used by John Bunyan, he bore, as a
surname, that name Nin-igi-azaga, “Lord of the bright eye,” so well
befitting one who, even among his divine peers, was the lord of
unsearchable wisdom.
It is unfortunately a difficult thing to make a comparison of the ark as
described in Genesis with a ship of the Babylonian story. It was thought,
by the earlier translators of the Babylonian story of the Flood, that its
size was indicated in the second paragraph of the story (p. 102, ll. 11,
12), but Dr. Haupt justly doubts that rendering. If the size of the vessel
were indicated at all, it was probably in the next paragraph, where the
building of the ship is described. This part, however, is so very
mutilated, that very little clear sense can be made out of it. The
Babylonian home-land of the story seems certainly to be indicated by the
mention of two kinds of bitumen or pitch for caulking the vessel,
Babylonia being the land of bitumen _par excellence_. Those who were to
live on board were to sustain themselves with the flesh of oxen, and to
all appearance they cheered the weary hours with the various kinds of
drink of which they laid in store. They were not neglectful, either, of
the oil that they used in preparing the various dishes, and with which
they anointed their persons. All these points, though but little things in
themselves, go to show that the story, in its Babylonian dress, was really
written in the country of that luxury-loving people. The mention of holes
for the cables, too, shows that the story is the production of maritime
people, such as the Babylonians were.
Apparently the Babylonians found there was something inconsistent in the
patriarch being saved without any of his relatives (except his sons), and
the artificers who had helped him to build the ship which was to save him
from the destruction that overwhelmed his countrymen and theirs. For this
reason, and also because of the relationship that might be supposed to
exist between master and servant, his relatives and the sons of the
artificers(11) are saved along with his own family, which, of course,
would not only include his sons, but their wives also. On this point,
therefore, the two accounts may be regarded as in agreement.
When all was ready, the Sun-god, called by the usual Semitic name of
Šamaš, appointed the time for the coming of the catastrophe. This would
seem to be another confirmation of the statement already made, that the
Babylonians, like the Hebrews (see Gen. i. 14-18), regarded one of the
uses of the sun as being to indicate seasons and times. It was a great and
terrible time, such as caused terror to the beholder, and the patriarch
was smitten with fear. Here, as in other parts of the Babylonian version,
there is a human interest that is to a large extent wanting in the precise
and detailed Hebrew account. Again the maritime nation is in evidence,
where the consigning of the ship into the care of a pilot is referred to.
Of course such an official could do but little more than prevent
disastrous misfortune from the vessel being the plaything of the waves. In
the description of the storm, the terror of the gods, Ištar’s grief, and
Maḫ’s anger at the destruction of mankind, we see the production of a
nation steeped in idolatry, but there are but few Assyro-Babylonian
documents in which this fact is not made evident.
We have a return to the Biblical story in the sending forth of the birds,
and the sacrifice of odoriferous herbs, when the gods smelled a sweet
savour, and gathered like flies over the sacrificer. In the signets of
Maḫ, “the lady of the gods,” by which she swears, we may, perhaps, see a
reflection of the covenant by means of the rainbow, which the Babylonians
possibly explained as being the necklace of the goddess. Instead of the
promise that a similar visitation to destroy the whole of mankind should
not occur again, there is simply a kind of exhortation on the part of the
god Ae, addressed to Ellila, not to destroy the world by means of a flood
again. To punish mankind for sins and misdeeds committed, other means were
to be employed that did not involve the destruction of the whole human
race.
Noah died at the age of 950 years (Gen. ix. 29), but his Babylonian
representative was translated to the abode of the blessed “at the mouths
of the rivers,” with his wife, to all appearance immediately after the
Flood. In this the Babylonian account differs, and the ultimate fate of
the patriarch resembles that of the Biblical Enoch, he who “was not, for
God took him” (Gen. v. 24).
Appendix. The Second Version Of The Flood-Story.
This was found by the late George Smith at Nineveh when excavating for the
proprietors of the _Daily Telegraph_, and was at first supposed to belong
to the text translated on pp. 101-109. This, however, is impossible, as
the narrative is in the third person instead of the first, and in the form
of a conversation between Atra-ḫasis (= Pir-napištim) and the god Aê—
Tablet D. T. 42.
......................
....... may it be
....... like the vault of
....... may it be strong above and below.
Enclose the ... and ...............
[At] the time that I shall send to thee
Enter [the ship] and close the door of the ship,
Into the midst of it [take] thy grain, thy furniture, and [thy]
goods,
Thy . . ., thy family, thy relatives, and the artisans;
[The beasts] of the field, the animals of the field, as many as I
shall collect (?),
[I will] send to thee, and thy door shall protect them.
[Atra]-ḫasis opened his mouth and spake,
Sa]ying to Aê, his lord:
“...... a ship I have not made .......
Form [its shape (?) upon the gr]ound.
Let me see the [plan], and [I will build] the ship.
[Form] ...... on the ground ........
........ what thou hast said .......
.........................
It is not improbable that the fragment published by the Rev. V. Scheil, O.
P., belongs to this legend (see _The King’s Own_,(12) April 1898, pp.
397-400).
CHAPTER IV. ASSYRIA, BABYLONIA, AND THE HEBREWS, WITH REFERENCE TO THE
SO-CALLED GENEALOGICAL TABLE.
The Akkadians—The Semitic Babylonians—The Hebrews—Nimrod—Assur—The
Tower of Babel and the confusion of tongues—Babylonian
temple-towers—How the legend probably arose—The Patriarchs to the
time of Abraham.
“And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
“He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as
Nimrod, the mighty hunter before the Lord.
“And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and
Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
“Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city
Rehoboth (or, the streets of the city), and Calah.
“And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city.”
Such is the Biblical account of the origin of the two most powerful states
of the ancient East, Babylonia and Assyria. It has been many times quoted
and discussed, but there seems always to be something new to say about it,
or to add to it, or what has already been said may be put in another and
clearer way. It is for one or more of these reasons, as well as for the
completeness of this work, that the author ventures again to approach the
well-worn problems that these verses present.
Every reader, on taking up a book dealing with this period of ancient
Eastern history, will probably have noticed, that the word which most
frequently meets his eye (if the book be an English one) is Akkad, the
Semitic equivalent of the Biblical Accad. If, however, it be a continental
work, the equivalent expression will be Šumer—which word, indeed, he will
meet with also in English works, if the writer be at all under German or
other foreign influence.
The reason for this divergence of opinion is very simple, the fact being
that there were two tribes or nationalities, Šumer being before Akkad when
the two countries are mentioned together, and as it is regarded as
identical with the Shinar of Gen. x. 10, Šumer and Šumerian may possibly
be preferable, but in all probability Akkad and Akkadian are not wrong.
As we see from the chapter of Genesis referred to, there were many
nationalities in the Euphrates valley in ancient times, and the expression
“Cush begat Nimrod,” would imply that the inhabitants of Babylonia were
all Cushites. Yet the great majority of the inscriptions found in that
country of a later date than about 2000 B.C. are Semitic.
Large additions have of late years been made to the number of ancient
remains from Babylonia, and most of these are of a very early period. We
are thus in a position to compare not only the different types of that
early period with each other, but also with the sculptures of later date.
The cylinder-seals show us a comparatively slim race, long-bearded, erect
and dignified, and these characteristics are also recognizable among the
various types revealed to us by the still earlier sculptures. The
representations of kings and deities are often heavily bearded, but, on
the other hand, high officials and others are generally clean shaven.
These peculiarities, with the difference of costume, especially the
thick-brimmed hats, would seem to imply distinct foreign influence, or,
rather, in combination with the differences of racial type exhibited,
considerable foreign admixture. Perhaps, however, the true explanation is,
that the plain of Shinar represents the meeting-point of two different
races—one Cushite and the other Semitic.
And this fact, as is well known, is confirmed by the existence of what is
regarded as the language of the Akkadians, and also of a dialect of the
same. This is not the place to discuss the question whether these
non-Semitic idioms be really languages or only cryptographs—the author
holds, in common with Sayce, Oppert, Hommel, and all the principal
Assyriologists, that they are real languages—but a reference to the few
passages where these idioms are spoken of may not be without interest.
One of these is the fragment known as S. 1190 in the British Museum, where
the contents of the tablet of which it formed a part are referred to as
“Two Šumerian incantations used” (seemingly) “for the stilling of a
weeping child.” Another tablet refers to the languages, and states that
the tongue of Šumer was like (the tongue of) Akkad, or assumed a likeness
to it at some time or other. This document also refers to another form of
speech that was the tongue of the prince, chief, or leader. Yet another
fragment refers to Akkad as below (? to the south) and Šumer above (? to
the north),(13) but it is doubtful whether this refers to the position of
the country. A fourth large fragment written partly in the “dialect” is
referred to as a “Šumerian” text.
Both from the ethnographical and the linguistic side, therefore, ample
testimony to the existence of a non-Semitic race (or non-Semitic races) in
the plain of Shinar in ancient times is at hand. As to the language
intended in the expression “Two Šumerian incantations” (spoken of above)
there can be no doubt, the original idiom in question being the
non-Semitic tongue already referred to—that tongue which was like the
tongue of Akkad, of which it was apparently a more decayed form. The title
given cannot refer to the translation into Assyro-Babylonian which
accompanies it, as this is undoubtedly of later date than the composition
itself.
There is then no doubt that the Akkadians and the Šumerians were two
tribes of the same race, probably intermixed to a certain extent with
foreign elements (people with oblique eyes being depicted on at least two
of the sculptures of the early period from Tel-Loh), and speaking a
language differing entirely from that of their Semitic
fellow-countrymen,—a language which was of an agglutinative nature,
introducing into its verbal forms whole rows of analytical particles,
which sometimes gave to the phrase a precision of meaning to which the
Semitic Babylonian has but little pretension, though Šumero-Akkadian is
generally difficult enough in other respects, in consequence of the
excessive number of the homophones that it contains. Indeed, it is
sometimes difficult to see how the speakers of the latter language could
have understood each other without resorting to some such distinctive aids
similar to the tones used in modern—as probably also in ancient—Chinese,
of which Šumero-Akkadian is regarded by the Rev. C. J. Ball as an
exceedingly ancient form.
The question of the origin of the Akkadians is one concerning which there
has been and is still much uncertainty, and which presents many problems
for the future. It has been remarked that the fact that there is no
special ideograph for “river,” and the fact that “mountain” and “country”
are represented by the same character, imply that the people with whom the
cuneiform script originated came from a mountainous country—probably the
tract to the east or the north-east. This assumption, however, is not
wholly dependent on what is here stated, for it is a well-known and
admitted fact that the ideograph generally used for “Akkad” stands also
for other tracts that are largely mountainous, namely, Phœnicia and
Ararat.
It may be of interest here to quote the passage referring to this.
The text in question is the exceedingly important syllabary designated by
Prof. Fried. Delitzsch “Syllabary _B_.” The text is unfortunately
defective in the British Museum copy, but a duplicate found at Babylon by
the German explorers completes it as follows:—
Uri [Cuneiform] Akkadū
Ari [Cuneiform] Amurrū
Tilla [Cuneiform] Urṭū.
From this we see that the ideograph for Akkad not only stood for that
country, but also for the land of the Amorites (Amurrū), and for Ararat
(Urṭū), both of them being more or less mountainous districts. That the
ancient home of the Akkadians was of the same nature is, therefore, more
than probable.
That the Akkadians were a conquering race is indicated by the legend of
the god Ura, generally called “the Dibbara Legend,” where the hero, “the
warrior Ura,” is represented as speaking prophetically as follows—
“Tâmtu with Tâmtu,
Subartu with Subartu,
Assyrian with Assyrian,
Elamite with Elamite,
Kassite with Kassite,
Sutite with Sutite,
Qutite with Qutite,
Lullubite with Lullubite,
Country with country, house with house, man with man,
Brother with brother, shall not agree: let them annihilate each
other,
And afterwards let the Akkadian come, and
Let him overthrow them all, and let him cast down the whole of
them.”
The Akkadians had dominion, at one time or another, over all the above
nationalities, some of whom were permanently subjected. Tâmtu, the region
of the Persian Gulf, was under their domination constantly, though the
inhabitants were apparently rather turbulent, and unwilling subjects. The
Assyrians were apparently for a time under Akkadian (Babylonian) rule, but
threw it off at a very early period, and later on conquered Akkad itself.
The Elamites, too, were for a while conquered by the inhabitants of
Babylonia, and the Sutites (people of Sutî) are said to have been all
transported by Kadašman-Muruš (he reigned about 1209 B.C., according to
Hilprecht). It will thus be seen that they played an important part in the
history of the plain of Shinar where they settled, and to all appearance
introduced their civilization.
In the earliest ages known to us, the land of Akkad was a collection of
small states resembling the Heptarchy. These states differed considerably
in power, influence, and prosperity, and the passing centuries brought
many changes with them. From time to time one of the kings or viceroys of
these small states would find himself more powerful than his
contemporaries, and would gradually overcome all the others. One of the
earliest instances of this is the ruler Lugal-zag-gi-si, whose reign is
placed by Hilprecht at about 4500 B.C. He was son of Ukuš (the reading is
doubtful), viceroy (_patesi_) of a district which seems to be that of
which Kis was capital. “He had conquered all Babylonia and established an
empire extending from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea”
(Hilprecht).
Whether he and his successors were able to maintain real dominion over all
this extensive tract or not, we do not know, but a few hundred years later
we find Sargon of Agadé (known as “Šargani king of the city”) subduing the
land of the west in the 11th year of his reign, and placing the districts
under one control, whilst his son, Naram-Sin, apparently added Elam to his
dominions, and Uruwuš (whom Prof. Sayce suggests as the original of the
Horus of Pliny), at a later date, led a warlike expedition thither, and
brought away much spoil, some of which is still extant as a lasting
testimony to the reality of this historical fact.
Among the states which existed in Akkad before the whole country was
united under one king may be mentioned Isin or Karrak, Ur (the supposed Ur
of the Chaldees), Kêš, Nippur (or Niffur), the modern Niffer, Lagaš,
Êridu, Êrech, and Larsa (identified with Ellasar), with some others. Akkad
and Babylon were always important centres, the former being supreme before
the date of the dynasty of Babylon (about 2200 B.C.), and the latter
afterwards.
Until about the time of the dynasty of Babylon, the language principally
used was to all appearance the non-Semitic Babylonian or Akkadian—in any
case, the numerous texts (mainly temple-accounts) of the period of Dungi,
Bûr-Sin, Gimil-Sin, and Ibi-Sin are written in that tongue. Nevertheless,
Akkadian seems to have been the official language of the country for a
considerable time after, if we may judge from the contracts, and
especially the historical dates of these documents, which are always
written in Akkadian. The names, too, which were before this period wholly
Akkadian, gradually become more and more Semitic (Assyro-Babylonian), and
finally the Akkadian element only exists as a remnant of the non-Semitic
tongue which prevailed before the Semitic Dynasty of Babylon—that to which
Ḫammurabi or Amraphel belonged—made the Semitic tongue, spoken by Sargon
of Agadé more than 1500 years before, the official language of the
country.
Such, then, is the history of the ancient Akkadians, from whose
intermingled stock the later Semitic Babylonians sprang, and who
inherited, at the same time, their method of writing, their literature,
their arts and sciences, and also, to a great extent, their manners,
customs, and religion. It was to all appearance with the Semitic dynasty
of Ḫammurabi that the change from non-Semitic to Semitic predominance took
place. This change must have been slow enough, and in all probability it
occurred without any national upheaval, and without any interruption of
the national life. Semitic names gradually replaced the Akkadian ones,
most of the religious works, incantations, national histories, bilingual
lists, and syllabaries were supplied with Semitic translations, and legal
precedents in Semitic Babylonian for the information of the judges of
later times were drawn up, whilst the old Akkadian laws, though retained,
were translated for the use of students who no longer learned Akkadian as
their mother-tongue, and who committed them to memory at the same time as
they learned the set phrases they would have to use when, their education
completed, they should attain to the dignity of full-fledged ministers to
the legal needs of the community. By this time, or somewhat later, the
racial type must have become fixed, for the sculptures from the thirteenth
century B.C. downwards no longer show the slim, elegant form of the
Akkadians, but the thick-set, well-developed figure of the Semites, such
as at least some of the native Christians of Baghdad and the neighbourhood
show at the present day.
As has been already noticed, the Assyrians spoke the same language, and
had practically the same religion and literature (including the ancient
Akkadian classics) as the Babylonians, whom they resembled in manners,
customs, and outward appearance. The old translation of the verse
referring to Assyria, “Out of that land (Babylonia) went forth Assur,” is,
in all probability, perfectly correct, whatever may be the arguments in
favour of the rendering, “He (Nimrod) went out into Assyria,” for it is
exceedingly likely that the Babylonian civilization of Assyria is wholly
due to emigration of settlers from Babylonia. Moreover, as will be seen
later on, the enigmatical Nimrod is none other than the well-known head of
the Babylonian Pantheon, Merodach, who is actually stated to have built
Babel (= the city Babylon), Erech, and Niffer (identified in Rabbinical
tradition, which in this case is probably correct, with Calneh). The
Babylonian tradition as to the foundation of the city of Akkad is still
wanting, but that its origin was attributed to Merodach is more than
probable. If, however, there had been any grounds for honouring Calah,
Nineveh, and Resen with the same divine origin, the Assyrians would
certainly not have allowed the tradition to go unrecorded. Properly
speaking the “land of Nimrod” (Micah v. 6) is Babylon, notwithstanding all
arguments to the contrary, for that was the land which he loved, the land
whose great cities he was regarded as having founded and as still
favouring, and the land where, if we may trust the language of his name
(in Akkadian it means “the brightness of day”), he ruled when he was king
upon earth—the land, in fact, which gave him birth.
At first governed by _patesis_, or viceroys (many Assyriologists call them
priest-kings or pontiffs), this title was abandoned for that of _šarru_,
“king,” between 1600 and 1800 B.C. The use of the title _patesi_ (in
Assyrian _iššaku_, “chief”) implies that the earlier rulers of Assur
acknowledged some overlord, and in all probability this overlord was the
paramount king of Babylonia at the time. If we regard Nimrod (Merodach) as
the first king of Babylonia (or the first really great ruler of the
country), then it is certain that it was not he who founded the great
cities of Assyria, for they can have no pretensions to the same antiquity
as the great cities of Babylonia, any more than Assyrian civilization can
be of the same period. Of course it is probable that the cities of Assyria
were founded at an exceedingly early date, perhaps many of them are as old
as any Babylonian foundation, but their importance was nothing like so
great as those of Babylonia until the latter had already been renowned
many hundreds—perhaps many thousands—of years, and to attribute the origin
of these unimportant places to Nimrod would bring him no honour, even if
it were probable that he had founded them.
The founder of Nineveh, Calah, Rehoboth Ir, and Resen was either a
Babylonian emigrant named Asshur, the first viceroy of the district, or
else Asshur, in the tenth chapter of Genesis, stands for the Assyrian
nation. It is noteworthy that, in the verse in question, there is no
mention of the foundation of the old capital, the city of Aššur. This is
probably to be explained by the fact that the book of Genesis was compiled
at a time when the primæval capital had already fallen into the
background, and Nineveh, the city first mentioned in the enumeration, had
assumed the first place—indeed, the fact that it is mentioned first seems
to prove this contention.
Being far away from the centre of civilization, and apparently mingling
with barbarous races to the north—the people of Urarṭu (Ararat), Van,
Ukka, Muṣaṣir, etc.—in all probability the ancient Assyrians lost what
polish they had brought with them from Babylonia, and, like all pioneers,
developed into hardy, fearless, and cruel warriors, constantly striving
for the mastery over all the other tribes and nationalities around. Thus
it came to pass that, having ascertained her strength, Assyria refused to
acknowledge the overlordship of the kings of Babylonia, and the rulers of
the country abandoned the title of _patesi_ or _iššaku_ for that of
_šarru_ or “king.” The country from which the Assyrians had sprung did not
long remain secure from the attacks of her offspring, and the conquest of
Babylonia by the Assyrians took place more than once. Brave, warlike, and
cruel, the Assyrians at last possessed for a time not only Babylonia, with
the overlordship of Elam, but also the whole of Western Asia as far as the
Mediterranean and Cyprus, and a large part of Egypt. Notwithstanding the
polish that they had attained during the last years of the empire, the
nations around remembered against them all the cruelties that they had
committed during the foregoing centuries, and when the time of weakness
came, when the ruling mind that should have held the empire together, and
turned the tide of disaster into the channel of success, was wanting, then
came the chance of the nations that had known the Assyrian empire in
former ages, and the end of the seventh century before Christ saw the last
of the power that had dominated Western Asia so long and so successfully.
Yet Assyria was a most remarkable power, and produced a number of really
great rulers and generals. The Assyrian kings retained for a long time
their dominion over fairly distant tracts, and made themselves greatly
feared by all the nations around. As is well known, they had made great
advances in the art of sculpture, so much so that visitors to the British
Museum, on seeing the wonderful hunting-scenes in the Assyrian
side-gallery, have been heard to express the opinion that Greek artists
must either have originated them, or influenced their production. Their
literature was naturally influenced by that of Babylonia, but one has only
to read the historical records of Tiglath-pileser I., who declaims his
successes in forceful and elegant paragraphs; Sennacherib, with his wealth
of words; or Assur-banî-âpli, who in moderate and elegant phrases tells of
the successes of his soldiers and generals, to see that, when occasion
arose, they could produce literary works as good as the best of ancient
times.
It will probably be a matter of regret to many people, but the name of
Nimrod, which we have been accustomed to associate with the pleasures and
perils of the chase for so many hundred years, must now be relegated to
the domain of words misunderstood or purposely changed for reasons that
can without much difficulty be divined.
It is not Nimrod alone that comes under this category—Nibhaz (2 Kings
xvii. 31), judging from the Greek, is in the same case, Nisroch (2 Kings
xix. 37) is certainly so, and Abed-nego for Abed-nebo is a well-known
instance.
But why, it will be asked, should these names have been intentionally
changed? The answer is simple. All these names were, or contained, the
names of heathen deities, and this offended the strongly monotheistic
Hebrew scribe who, at a certain period, was copying the portions of the
Hebrew Bible in which they occur, so he defaced them, adding or changing a
letter, and thus making them unrecognizable, and in all probability
ridiculous as well. A different punctuation (vowelling) completed the
work, and the names were then in such a form that pious and orthodox lips
could pronounce them without fear of defilement.
Nibhaz is probably for some such name as Aba-hazar, Nisroch is for Assur
or Assuraku, and Nimrod is, by similar changes, for Amaruduk or Amarudu
(original Akkadian), Maruduk or Marduk (Assyro-Babylonian). The change was
brought about by making the root triliteral, and the ending _uk_ (_ak_ in
Merodach-baladan) disappearing first, Marduk appeared as Marad. This was
connected with the root Marad, “to be rebellious,” and the word was still
further mutilated, or, rather, deformed by having a (_ni_) attached,
assimilating it to a certain extent to the “niphal forms” of the Hebrew
verbs, and making a change altogether in conformity with the genius of the
Hebrew language. This alteration is also clearly visible in Nibhaz and
Nisroch, which fully confirm the explanation here given.
From a linguistic point of view, therefore, the identification of Nimrod
as a changed form of Merodach is fully justified.
But there is another and a potent reason for eliminating Nimrod from the
list of Babylonian heroes, and that is, the fact that his name is nowhere
found in the extensive literature which has come down to us. His
identification with Gišdubar was destroyed when it was discovered that the
true reading of that doubtful name was not, as it was expected that it
would be, a Babylonian form of Nimrod, but something entirely different,
namely, Gilgameš. Moreover, there is some doubt whether the personage
represented on the cylinder-seals struggling with lions and bulls be
really Gilgameš (Gišdubar)—his prowess in hunting does not seem to be
emphasized in the legend recounting his exploits (see pp. 92-111)—he is in
all probability the wild man of the woods who became his great friend and
counsellor, the satyr-like figure who is represented as accompanying and
imitating the hunter being simply one of those beings who, the Babylonians
imagined, existed in wild and waste places, for that this creature is not,
as was at first supposed, Êa-banî, the friend of Gilgameš, is not only
proved by the fact that in the legend he is described as a man with hairy
body and hair long like that of a woman, but also by the incontestable
circumstance that this satyr-like creature is, on certain cylinders,
represented more than once, and in such a way that the repetition cannot
be attributed to the exigencies of the design. Moreover, he is sometimes
represented in positions that seem to have no connection with the
Gilgameš-legend at all.
It would seem therefore to be certain that Gilgameš is not Nimrod; that as
he had little or no fame as a “great hunter before the Lord,” it cannot be
he who is represented on the cylinder-seals; and that, in all probability,
the hunter there represented is Êa-banî, who overcame the divine bull
before Erech, and a lion after the defeat of Ḫumbaba, in both cases,
however, assisted by his royal patron.
But, it may be asked, how is it that Nimrod, otherwise Merodach, is
described as “the mighty hunter before the Lord”?
The explanation is very simple, and remarkably conclusive in its way.
Merodach, in the legend of the Creation, there appears as the greatest
hunter (using the word in the Hebrew sense of “entrapper”) that ever
lived. For did he not, when Tiamtu, the great dragon of chaos and
disorder, tried to usurp the dominion of the gods, and bring ruin on their
fair work, chase and entrap her, thereby winning the throne of the kingdom
of heaven, and laying the universe under an everlasting debt to him? With
his net he caught and held her fast, and, standing on her body, slew her.
This was the feat of a real _gibbor ṣayid_, a “hero in hunting,” or
entrapping with a net, for _ṣayid_, “hunting,” is from the same root as
Sidon, the name of the ancient “fishing town,” renowned of old, and still
existing at the present day.
The Tower Of Babel.
There is no doubt that one of the most striking and attractive episodes of
the sacred narrative of Genesis is the Tower of Babel. It has attracted
the attention of all from its circumstantial details, and has, as an
authoritative narrative, had the full belief of all the faithful for many
thousand years. This being the case, it is needful to go rather carefully
into the matter, not only to try to account for its origin, but also to
satisfy the believer of to-day with regard to the story being a real
historical fact.
“Of these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands,”—“These
are the sons of Ham, after their families,”—“These are the sons of Shem,
after their families,” says the author of Genesis in ch. x. 5, 20, and 31,
and then he adds, in slightly varying words, “after their tongues, in
their lands, in their nations.”
Yet, after this (ch. xi. 1) we have the statement, “And the whole earth
was of _one_ language, and of _one_ speech.” Moreover, how was it possible
that the whole of the nations of the earth there enumerated in the tenth
chapter should have had their origin at Babel, the beginning of Nimrod’s
(Merodach’s) kingdom, coeval with Erech, Akkad, and Calneh, in the land of
Shinar? The effect of such a statement as this would surely be to make the
language of Nimrod the primitive language of the world, unless, indeed,
all the languages of the earth resulting from the confusion of tongues
were regarded as new, the primitive speech of man having been destroyed on
that occasion. Then, again, as we know, the building of the city was not
stopped, for it continued until it became the greatest and most important
centre in the known world when it was at the height of its glory.
With the best will in the world, therefore, there seems to be no escape
from regarding both the story of the Tower of Babel, and the reference to
Nimrod and Asshur in the foregoing chapter as interpolations, giving
statements from ancient and possibly fairly well-known records, recording
what was commonly believed in the ancient East in those early ages. It is
also noteworthy, that both extracts, referring as they do, to Babylonia,
are probably on that account from a Babylonian source. May it not be
possible, that they have been inserted in the sacred narrative as
statements of what was the common opinion among the more well-informed
inhabitants of Western Asia at the time, without any claim to an inspired
authority being either stated or implied? This would seem to be the most
reasonable way of looking at the matter, and would take away what might
well be regarded as a great difficulty to the believer in good faith.
If this be conceded, we can with the greater ease analyze this portion of
the eleventh chapter of Genesis, and estimate it at its true value.
In any case, there is great improbability that the statement that the
whole earth was of one language and of one speech, was ever believed, by
thinking men at the time as an actual historical fact. A better
translation would be “the whole land,” that is, the whole tract of country
from the mountains of Elam to the Mediterranean Sea, rather than “the
whole earth.” The same word is used when the “land” of Israel is spoken
of, and also when “the land of Egypt” is referred to. It will thus be seen
that no violence whatever is done to the text if the restricted use of the
word be accepted.
That this is, in a sense, provable as an historical fact, we shall see in
the sequel.
Having thus in a measure cleared the way, the various points of the first
nine verses of the eleventh chapter of Genesis may be taken in order.
“As they journeyed in the east” apparently refers to the remembrance of
the migrations that many a nation, handing down its traditions from mouth
to mouth, must have preserved in ancient times. Whilst thus engaged, “they
found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there”—a statement
which would seem to point to the migrants having been wandering about in
various districts, some of them mountainous—like Armenia on the north of
Assyria, and Elam and other mountainous tracts on the east. This would
seem to agree with the migration which, from the evidence of the monuments
of Babylonia, the Akkadians apparently made before they settled in that
country. And here it may be noted, in support of that fact, that the
ideograph(14) for Akkad, Uri or Ura in Akkadian, and Akkadū in Semitic
Babylonian, not only stood for Akkad, but also (often used in the Assyrian
letters) for Ararat (Urṭū), and likewise (this in a syllabary only) for
Amurrū, the land of the Amorites, or Phœnicia. Both these being districts
more or less mountainous, it is only reasonable to suppose that the
original home of the Akkadians was likewise of the same nature, and that
they were not aborigines of the Babylonian plain. The Akkadians at least,
therefore, “journeyed in the east.”
In the expression “they found a plain in the land of Shinar,” we have a
reference to the old name of a district of Babylonia, generally regarded
as the Šumer of the Babylonian inscriptions, called Kingi or Kengi “the
country” _par excellence_ in the native tongue of the inhabitants. The
land of Shinar here spoken of, if this explanation be correct, not merely
contained a plain—it was, in fact, itself a large plain, through which the
rivers Tigris and Euphrates ran, and it was covered, when the land had
been brought into a really good state of cultivation, by a network of
canals connected with them. It must, when the ancient Akkadians first
settled there, have been a land of remarkable fertility, and would be so
still were it brought into the same efficient state of cultivation, with
irrigation and drainage, such as the old inhabitants effected.
Here, having settled down, they built a city and a tower, using brick for
stone, and bitumen for mortar—just as they are proved to have done from
the remains of cities found in the country at the present day. That
Babylon was the site of the first settlement of the nature of a city is
conceivable, and it is very possible that the first tower in Babylonia,
which in later times had many towers, as had also Assyria, was situated in
that ancient city. Everything points, therefore, to the correctness of the
statements made in this portion of the sacred narrative. According to
native tradition, however (and this seems to be supported by the
statements in ch. x. 10), there were other important cities on the
Babylonian plain of almost equal antiquity, namely, Erech, Akkad, and
Calneh, which last is identified with Niffer (see p. 126). Notwithstanding
the extensive ruins, proof of the same remote date for Babylon will
doubtless be difficult to obtain, on account of the country around and a
large portion of the site of the city being so marshy. The result of this
condition of things will in all probability be, that very few remains of a
really ancient date will be discovered in a condition to render services
to archæology. To this must also be added the fact, that the city, being
the capital for some thousands of years, underwent many changes at the
hands of its various kings, partly from the necessity of keeping in good
repair the many comparatively perishable brick monuments that the city
contained, and partly from a desire to add more to the glories of the city
than any of their predecessors had done.
“And they said, Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, and its top
(lit. head) shall be in the heavens.” To all appearance, this means simply
that they would build a very high structure,—to many a student of the
sacred text it has seemed that the writer only intended to say, that the
tower (_migdol_) that they were about to build was to be very high. The
mountains of Elam were not so very far off, and travellers from that part
would have been able to assure them that the heavens would not be
appreciably nearer on account of their being a few hundred cubits above
the surface of the earth, even if traditions of their fathers’ wanderings
had not assured them of the same thing. They wished simply to make them a
name and a rallying-point, “lest,” as the sacred text has it, “we be
scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”
And here a few remarks upon the temple-towers of the Babylonians might not
be out of place.
As has already been stated, most of the principal towns of Babylonia each
possessed one. That of Babylon (called Šu-ana in the list published in the
_Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. ii., pl. 50) was named
Ê-temen-ana, “the temple of the foundation-stone of Heaven”; that of
Borsippa, near to Babylon, was called Ê-ur-imina-ana, generally translated
“the temple of the seven spheres of heaven,” on account of its being
dedicated to the sun, moon, and planets. This was a high and massive tower
in seven stages, each coloured with an emblematic tint indicating the
heavenly body with which each stage was associated. At Niffer the tower
seems to have had three names, or else there were three towers (which is
unlikely), the principal one being Im-ur-sag. Agade, the Akkad of Gen. x.
10, had two of these temple-towers, Ê-Dadia, apparently meaning “the
temple of the (divine) Presence,” and Ê-šu-gala or Ê-igi-ê-di, the latter
apparently meaning “the temple of the wonder (of mankind),” which was
dedicated to the god Tammuz. At Cuthah there was the temple of Nannara
(Nan-naros); at Ur the temple Ê-šu-gan-du-du; at Erech Ê-gipara-imina,
“the temple of the seven enclosures”; at Larsa Ê-dur-an-ki, “the Temple of
the bond of heaven and earth.”
The only temple-tower that contains in its name a distinct reference to
the seven stages of which it was composed, is that at Borsippa, though
that at Erech may possibly have in its name “seven enclosures” a
suggestion of something of the kind. As, however, the ruins of the towers
at Dûr-Sargina (Khorsabad) in Assyria, Erech, Niffer, and elsewhere, show
distinctly this form of architecture, there is every probability that they
were all, or almost all, built on the same plan. In his description of the
glories of Babylon, Herodotus gives details, in his usual minute way, of
the temple of Belos (Ê-sagila) there. He describes it as having eight
stages (the platform upon which the tower proper was built being counted
as one), and judging from his description, this building must have
differed somewhat from the others, the various platforms being connected
by a gradually rising ascent, arranged spirally as it were, so that by
constantly walking upwards, and turning at the corners of the edifice, one
at last reached the top. About the middle of this long ascending pathway
there was a stopping-place, with seats to rest upon. Having reached the
top of the structure, the visitor came upon a cell, within which there was
a couch and a golden table. Here it was supposed that the god descended
from time to time to dwell. Below, he relates, there was another cell,
wherein was a large statue of Zeus (Belos) sitting. This image was of
gold, as were also the table in front of it, the god’s footstool, and his
seat. It is probable that at the time to which the narrative in Genesis
refers, the tower was neither so high, nor the workmanship so splendid and
valuable, as in later times.
But was this the Tower of Babel? We do not know. The general opinion is
that the great and celebrated temple-tower at Borsippa, extensive remains
of which still exist, was that world-renowned erection. Its name, however,
was Ê-zida, and it was not situated within Babylon. Notwithstanding the
fact, therefore, that Borsippa, the town on the outskirts of the great
city, was called “the second Babylon,” and that tradition associates the
site of the Tower of Babel with that spot, it must still be held to be
very doubtful whether that was really the place. Neither the renown of
Ê-zida nor that of Ê-sagila prove that either of them must have been the
place, for the populace is fickle-minded in this as in other matters, and
holy fanes have the periods when they are in fashion, just like anything
else.
This being the case, the question is, what was that Ê-temen-ana-kia which
is apparently mentioned in the list of temple-towers quoted above? In many
an inscription of Nebuchadnezzar, this temple-tower is referred to, though
very shortly, as having been restored by him. Thus, in the great cylinder
of Nebuchadnezzar, 85-4-30, I, the following occurs—
“I caused the fanes of Babylon and Borsippa to be rebuilt and
endowed.
Ê-temen-ana-kia, the temple-tower of Babylon;
Ê-ur-imina-ana-kia, the temple-tower of Borsippa, all their
structure with bitumen and brick
I made, I completed.”
In the above Ê-temen-ana-kia takes the place of Ê-sagila, and
Ê-ur-imina-ana-kia that of Ê-zida, implying that they respectively
belonged to each other. The passage corresponding to the above in the
India House Inscription is greatly expanded, and recounted with much
detail. The portion referring to Ê-temen-ana-kia is as follows—
“The vessels of the temple Ê-sagila with massive gold—
the bark Ma-kua (Merodach’s shrine) with electrum and stones—
I made glorious
like the stars of heaven.
The fanes of Babylon
I caused to be rebuilt and endowed.
Of Ê-temen-ana-kia
with brick and bright lapis stone
I reared its head.
To rebuild Ê-sagila
my heart urged me—
constantly did I set myself,” etc., etc.
According to the plan of Babylon drawn up by Weissbach, one of the German
explorers, Ê-temen-ana-kia was situated to the north of Ê-sagila, which
latter was evidently the temple connected with it. As both were dedicated
to Merodach (Bel), they practically formed one centre of worship, and it
is possibly on this account that the Tower is called “the Temple of Belus”
in Herodotus. The description, from a Babylonian tablet probably in
private hands, published by the late George Smith, agrees well with that
given by Herodotus, but has some noteworthy differences—the great height
of the lowest stage, the sloping (?) sides of the second stage, and the
buildings grouped near it. Unfortunately, the baked brickwork of
Ê-temen-ana-kia has been cleared away, practically destroying the remains.
Concerning the miracle of the confusion of tongues, there is, of course,
no historical reference. The Babylonian inscriptions know nothing of it.
Yet the stranger visiting Babylon could not have been otherwise than
struck by the number of languages spoken there. There was the religious
tongue, which is called by modern scholars Akkadian or Šumerian, and its
dialect, together with the language known as Assyrian, or, more correctly,
Semitic Babylonian. Besides this, there were various Aramaic
dialects—Chaldee, Aramean (Syriac), and the language of the dockets on the
trade-documents, which is also found in Assyria. In addition to these, the
Elamite and Kassite conquerors of Babylonia brought with them large
numbers of people, and each of these nations naturally introduced, in
larger measure than before, the use of their respective languages.
Speakers of other tongues long since dead must also have visited the city
for the purposes of trade, and of this the so-called Hittite is in all
probability an example (in the researches of Profs. Sayce and Jensen we
shall, perhaps, see the beginnings of the recovery of this tongue), and a
docket in an unknown script implies that yet another language heard there
in later times has to be discovered, though this may simply be some other
way of writing one of the tongues spoken there that is already known to
scholars. With regard to the oneness of the language of the rest of the
earth, in all probability this expression referred, as has been already
remarked, to the tract enclosed between the mountains of Persia on the
east, the Mediterranean on the west, Asia Minor and Armenia on the north,
and Arabia on the south—a tract in which the _lingua franca_ of diplomacy
was, as is proved by the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, the tongue now called
Assyrian, which could easily have been regarded as the proofs and the
remains of the thing that had been.
To recapitulate: The story of the Tower of Babel is a break in the
narrative of the genealogies, so striking that any thinking man must have
been able to recognize it easily. It is a narrative that practically
glorifies Babylonia, making it the centre of the human race, and the spot
from which they all migrated after the dispersion caused by the confusion
of tongues. It was probably given for, and recognized as, the legend
current in Babylonia at the time, and must, therefore, have been
recognized and valued by the people of the time at its true worth.
The Patriarchs To Abraham.
Little information is unfortunately to be obtained from Assyro-Babylonian
sources concerning the patriarchs from Shem to Abraham. It is true that
certain comparisons can be made in the matter of the names, but these,
when more precise information comes to light, may be found to be more or
less erroneous. As a matter of fact, with one or two exceptions, it is
probable that we have nothing from Babylonian sources bearing on the
patriarchs who preceded Abraham at all.
Nevertheless, there are one or two things that may be put forward in a
more or less tentative way, and these may well be discussed with this
reservation in this place.
As we have seen, it was the custom of the early Babylonians to deify the
early rulers of their race, and as a well-known example of this, the case
of the god Merodach will at once occur to the mind. As has been shown,
this deity is none other than the long-known and enigmatical hero Nimrod,
and it is probable that, if we had more and more complete sources of
information, other instances would be found. This being the case, it may
be permitted to the student to try to find similar instances of
deification by the Babylonians of the men of old who were their ancestors
in common with the Jews and other nations of the ancient East.
To begin with Shem, the name of the ancestor of the Semitic race. As a
word, this means, in Hebrew, “name.” Now, the Assyro-Babylonian equivalent
and cognate word is _šumu_, “name,” and this naturally leads one to ask
whether Shem may not have been designated “He of the Name” _par
excellence_, and deified under that appellation. If this be the case, we
may perhaps see the word Shem in certain names of kings and others of the
second dynasty of Babylon (that to which Ḫammurabi or Amraphel belonged,
and which held the power from about 2230 to 1967 B.C.). Sumu-abi, the name
of the first ruler of the dynasty, would then mean “Shem is my father,”
Sumu-la-ili would mean “a name to his god,” with a punning allusion to the
deified ancestor of the Semitic nations.
Other names, not royal, are Sumu-Upê, apparently, “Shem of Opis”;
Sumu-Dagan, “Shem is Dagon,” or “Name of Dagon”; Sumu-ḫatnu, “Shem is a
protection”; Sumu-atar, “Shem is great,” and the form Samu-la-ili for
Sumu-la-ili leads one to ask whether Samia may not be for Sumia, “my
Shem,” a pet name abbreviated from a longer one similar to those already
quoted; Sumu-ya (= Sumia) also occurs. All these forms, being written with
s, instead of š, like Samsu-iluna for Šamšu-iluna, betray foreign
(so-called Arabic) influence, and are not native Babylonian. That the
Babylonians had at this time names compounded with the native
representative of Sumu is shown by the contracts of that time, where the
name Šumum-libši, “let there be a name,” occurs. Many later instances of
this are to be found.(15)
From other than Bible sources there is but little that can be gathered
concerning the descendants of Shem, though in this, as in many other
things, one lives in hopes of something coming to light later on. And such
a record, as may readily be imagined, would be of the greatest interest
and value. Shem, as one of those born before the Flood, must certainly on
that account have been renowned (as we have just seen he was, if it be
true that he was deified) among other nations of Semitic stock than the
Hebrews. To all appearance, the lives of the patriarchs decreased greatly
after the Flood, and are represented, in the Bible narrative, as gradually
assuming the average duration of those who attain a hoary old age at the
present day. It is noteworthy that his eldest son was born two years after
the Flood, and if this have any ethnic meaning, it ought to point to the
foundation of the settlement known as Arpachshad at about that period,
though it could not have attained to the renown of a well-known and
recognized community until some time after that date.
The theory that Arpachshad represents a community is rather supported by
the fact that it is mentioned in Gen. x. 22, where it is accompanied by
the names of Elam, Asshur, Lud, and Aram, which were later, as we know,
names of nationalities. Indeed, the long lives of the patriarchs of this
exceedingly early period are best explained if we suppose that they
represent a people or community.
There is a considerable amount of difference of opinion as to the correct
identification of the Arpachshad of Gen. ix. 10, though nearly every
critic places the country it represents in the same tract. It has been
identified with Arrapkha, or Arrapachitis, in Assyria. Schrader makes it
to be for Arpa-cheshed, “the coast of the Chaldeans.” Prof. Hommel, who is
always ready with a seductive and probable etymology, suggests that
Arpachshad is an Egyptianized way of writing Ur of the
Chaldees—Ar-pa-Cheshed, for Ur-pa-Cheshed.
This, it must be admitted, is a possible etymology, for Egyptianized words
were really used in that district in ancient times. This is shown in the
name of Merodach, Asari, which is apparently connected with the Egyptian
Osiris, just as one of the names of the Sun-god Šamaš, Amna, is probably
an Akkadianized form of the Egyptian Ammon, and even the Egyptian word for
“year,” _ronpet_, made, probably by early Babylonian scribes, into a kind
of pun, became, by the change of a vowel, _ran pet_, “name of heaven,”
transcribed, by those same scribes, into _mu-anna_, which, in its ordinary
signification, means likewise “name of heaven,” in Akkadian; the whole
being used with the meaning of _ronpet_, _i.e._ “year.” It will thus be
seen that there is but little that is unlikely in Prof. Hommel’s etymology
of Arpachshad, and that the explanation which he gives may turn out to be
correct.(16)
In any case, we may take it that the consensus of opinion favours the
supposition that the name in question refers to Babylonia, and if this be
the case, Abraham, the father of the Hebrew nation, as well as of other
peoples, was really, as has been supposed, of Babylonian or Chaldean
origin. This is also implied by the statement in Gen. xi. 28, that Ur of
the Chaldees was the land of the nativity of Haran, Abraham’s brother, who
died in the country of his birth before the family of Terah went to settle
at Haran, on the way to Canaan. The theory of the identity of Arpachshad
is moreover important, because it is contended that Ur of the Chaldees was
not in Babylonia, but is to be identified with the site known as Urfa, in
Mesopotamia.
Concerning the names of Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, and Nahor, there
is not much that can be said. To all appearance they are not Babylonian
names, or, rather, they receive little or no illustration from Babylonian
sources. Nothing is recorded concerning these patriarchs except their ages
at the time their eldest sons were born, and at what age they died. The
question whether the Hebrews derived their name from their ancestor Eber
is not set at rest by any passage in the Bible, nor is there any statement
in secular literature which would enable this to be decided. To all
appearance, it is needful to keep the name of Eber distinct from that of
the Hebrews, notwithstanding that they are from the same root. If,
however, the Hebrews were “the men from beyond,” then Eber may well have
been “the man from beyond,” indicating for his time a migration similar to
that of Abraham. In this way, if in no other, the names may be connected.
We have seen that in many cases the names of these “genealogical tables”
are regarded as nationalities, and, indeed, there is sufficient
justification for such a theory on account of many of the names appearing
as those of well-known nations. This being conceded, it would probably not
be too much to regard the names of the patriarchs from Shelah to Serug as
indicating ethnical historical events. Thus Shelah might mean “extension,”
indicating the time when the Semitic race began to go beyond its ancient
borders. Treating the other names in the same way, Eber would mean the
period when that race crossed some river into another district; Peleg
would mean that, at the time referred to, that race, or a portion of it,
was divided into small states, as Babylonia was at the period preceding
that of the dynasty of Amraphel; whilst Reu would mean “friendliness,”
denoting the time when those states were united under one head, and the
old dissensions ceased. Serug would then mean something like
“interweaving,” perhaps referring to the time when the various races (? of
Babylonia) intermingled. These explanations of the names receive a certain
amount of confirmation from the parallel list in Gen. x. 25, where to the
name Peleg the note is added, “for in his days was the earth divided.”
With regard to Nahor and his son Terah the Jews had other traditions, and
they speak thus concerning them—
“Terah, son of Nahor, was the chief officer of king Nimrod, and a great
favourite with his royal master. And when his wife Amtheta, the daughter
of Kar-Nebo, bare him a son, she called his name Abram, meaning ‘great
father.’ And Terah was seventy years old when his son Abram was born.”
Here we have, in Amtheta, a doubtful Babylonian name, in Kar-Nebo a
possible Babylonian name, and in the meaning of Abram a signification that
does not militate against the indications given by the tablets of
Babylonia and Assyria. This being the case, it would seem that there were
trustworthy data to go upon for certain facts connected with Abraham’s
ancestors, and that these facts were known to the Jews of earlier ages.
The Talmudic account of the wonders seen at the birth of Abram, however,
are not sufficiently worthy of credence to allow of repetition here,
notwithstanding their reference to Terah and Abraham’s youth.
Eusebius quotes the following from Eupolemus concerning Abraham—
“He saith, moreover, that in the tenth generation in a city of Babylonia,
called Camarina (which, by some, is called the city of Urie, and which
signifyeth a city of the Chaldeans), there lived, the thirteenth in
descent, (a man named) Abraham, a man of a noble race, and superior to all
others in wisdom.
“Of him they relate that he was the inventor of astrology and the Chaldean
magic, and that on account of his eminent piety he was esteemed by God. It
is further said that under the directions of God he removed and lived in
Phœnicia, and there taught the Phœnicians the motions of the sun and moon,
and all other things; for which reason he was held in great reverence by
their king” (_Praep. Evan._ 9).
Nicolas of Damascus, apparently wishing to glorify his own city, states
that Abram was king of Damascus, and went there, with an army, from that
part of the country which is situated above Babylon of the Chaldeans,
afterwards transferring his dwelling to the land which was at that time
called Canaan, but is now called Judea. Justin also states that Abraham
lived at Damascus, from which city he traces the origin of the Jews.
According to the most trustworthy traditions, therefore, as well as from
the Bible itself, Abraham was of Chaldean or Babylonian origin. If the
city of Urie or Ur be, as he says, that which was also called Camarina,
this would in all probability be the Aramean form of the Arabic _qamar_,
“the moon,” and the name Camarina would be due to the fact that the
Moon-god, Sin or Nannara, was worshipped there. It is also noteworthy that
the city whither the family of Terah emigrated, Haran (in
Assyro-Babylonian, Ḫarran), was likewise a centre of lunar worship, and
some have sought to see in that a reason for choosing that settlement. In
connection with this it may be remarked, that in the Talmud Terah, the
father of Abraham, is represented as an idolater, reproved by his son
Abraham for foolish and wicked superstition.
We see, therefore, from the eleventh chapter of Genesis, that Abraham was
a Babylonian from Ur, now known as Mugheir (Muqayyar), or (better still)
from that part of the country which lay north of Babylon, known by the
non-Semitic inhabitants as Uri, and by the Semitic population as Akkad. As
the family of Terah was a pastoral one, they must have pastured their
flocks in this district until they heard of those more fruitful tracts in
the west, and decided to emigrate thither. And here it may be noted that
they did not, by thus quitting their fatherland, go to swear allegiance to
another ruler, for the sway of the king of Babylon extended to the
farthest limits of the patriarch’s wanderings, and wherever he went,
Babylonian and Aramean or Chaldean would enable him to make himself
understood. He was, therefore, always as it were in his own land, under
the governors of the same king who ruled in the place of his birth.
The name of the patriarch, moreover, seems to betray the place of his
origin. The first name that he bore was Abram, which has already been
compared with the Abu-ramu, “honoured father,” of the Assyrian
eponym-lists (in this place an official by whose name the year 677, the
5th year of Esarhaddon, was distinguished). At an earlier date than this
the name has not been found, and the element _ram_, _ramu_, _rame_, etc.,
seems to be rare. Ranke’s list gives only _Sumu-ramê_, “the name is
established,” or “Sumu (? Shem) is established,” or something similar, but
_ramê_ here is probably not connected with the second syllable of Abram’s
name. The name of Sarah has been compared with the Assyro-Babylonian
_šarratu_, “queen,” but seems not to occur in the inscriptions. Isaak is
also absent, but Ishmael, under the form of _Išme-îlu_ (meaning “(the) god
has heard”) occurs, as well as others in which _îlu_ is replaced by Êa,
Sin, and Addu or Adad (Hadad).
When, however, it was revealed to Abram that he was to stay in the
Promised Land, a change was made in his name—he was no longer known by the
Assyro-Babylonian name Abram, “honoured father,” but, in view of the
destiny appointed for him, he was to be called Abraham, “father of a
multitude of nations.”
The first stratum of the Hebrew nation was, therefore to all appearance,
Babylonian, the second stratum Aramean, probably a kindred stock, whilst
the third was to all appearance Canaanitish. All these must have left
their trace on the Hebrew character, and, like most mixed races, they
showed at all times superior intelligence in many ways. They were good
diplomates, brave warriors, divine lawgivers, and they excelled in
literary skill. One great defect they had—among their many defects—they
were stiffnecked to a fatal degree. Had their kings been less obstinate
and better rulers, conciliating their subjects instead of exasperating
them, the nation might have outlasted the power of Rome, and built upon
its ruins in their land a kingdom dominating the Semitic world in the
nearer East to the present day.
Of all the characters of early Bible history, there is hardly one which
stands out with greater prominence than the patriarch Abraham. And not
only is it his history and personality that is important—the historical
facts touched upon in the course of his biography are equally so. Facts
concerning the ancient East, from Babylonia on the east to Egypt on the
west, face the reader as he goes through that attractive narrative, and
make him wonder at the state of society, the political situation, and the
beliefs of the people which should have made his migrations possible,
brought about the monotheistic belief which characterizes his life and
that of his descendants, and enabled him and his sons after him to attain
such a goodly store of the riches of this world.
To begin with Babylonia, his native place. As is well known, that country
had already been in existence as a collection of communities far advanced
in arts, sciences, and literature, at an exceedingly early date, and many
of the small kingdoms of which it consisted had become united under
Ḫammurabi (Amraphel) into one single state, making it one of the greatest
powers at the time. Of course, it is not by any means improbable that
something similar to this had existed before, but if so, we have no record
of the fact, though it is certain that different states had from time to
time become predominant and powerful to an extent hardly conceivable. The
influence, if not the sway, of Sargon of Agadé, who reigned about 3800
years before Christ, for example, extended from Elam on the east to the
Mediterranean on the west—a vast tract of territory to acknowledge the
suzerainty of so small a state.
Babylonia, therefore, with a long history behind it, was beginning to
feel, to all appearance, a new national life. It had passed the days when
the larger states boasted strength begotten of mere size, and when the
smaller states sought mutual protection against the larger, finding in
that alone, or in the acknowledgment of an overlord, the security upon
which their existence as separate states depended. There is every
probability that it was at this time that the legends which formed the
basis of Babylonian national literature were collected and copied, thus
assuring their preservation. It is also probable that the translations
from Akkadian of the numerous inscriptions written in that language, and
the bilingual lists, syllabaries, and other texts of a similar nature,
belong to this period.
The social condition of Babylonia itself at this time is now fairly well
known. The ancient Akkadian laws were still in force, but as they did not
provide for all the possibilities that might arise, a large series of
legal enactments was compiled, in which points were decided in a very
common-sense and just manner. It is noteworthy that the number of tablets
of a legal nature is very numerous, and arouses the suspicion that the
Babylonians were exceedingly fond of litigation, due, no doubt, to the
tendency they had to overreach each other. It is therefore very probable
that this is the reason why we meet with that remarkable contract of the
purchase of the field of Machpelah from the children of Heth. One would
have imagined that the frequent protestations, made by the head of the
tribe there located, to the effect that he gave the field and the cave to
Abraham, would have been sufficient, especially at that solemn moment of
the burial of Sarah, and that the matter could have been put upon a legal
footing later on. But no, the patriarch was determined to have the matter
placed beyond dispute there and then, and knowing how prone the
Babylonians (with whom he had passed his youth) were to deny a contract,
and try to get back again, by perjury, what they had already parted with
for value, the matter was at once placed beyond the possibility of being
disputed in any court of law.(17)
CHAPTER V. BABYLONIA AT THE TIME OF ABRAHAM.
The first dynasty of Babylon—The extent of its dominion—The
Amorites—Life in Babylonia at this time—The religious element—The
king—The royal family—The people—Their manners and customs as
revealed by the contract-tablets—Their laws.
Much has been learnt, but there is still much to learn, concerning the
early history of Babylonia.
During the period immediately preceding that of the dynasty of Babylon—the
dynasty to which Amraphel (Ḫammurabi) belonged—there is a gap in the list
of the kings, which fresh excavations alone can fill up. Before this gap
the records, as far as we know them, are in the Akkadian language. After
this gap they are in the Semitic-Babylonian tongue. To all appearance,
troublous times had come upon Babylonia. The native rulers had been swept
away by the Elamites, who, in their turn, had been driven out by the
Semitic kings of Babylonia, but those Semitic kings were not Babylonians
by origin, notwithstanding that the native scribes, who drew up the lists
of kings, describe them as being a Babylonian dynasty.
[Plate V.]
Envelope (Printed upside down on account of seal-impressions 2 to 4) of a
contract-tablet recording a sale of land by Sin-êribam, Pî-sa-nunu, and
Idis-Sin, three brothers, to Sin-ikîsam. Reign of Immerum, contemporary
with Sumula-îlu, about 2100 B.C. Seal Impressions. 1. (Here reversed.) Two
deities, one (in a flounced robe) holding a sceptre. On the left, a
worshipper; on the right, a man overcoming a lion. This scene is repeated,
less distinctly, on the left. 2. Left: Two deities, one holding a sceptre
and a weapon; right: deity, divine attendant adoring, and worshipper (?).
3. Men overcoming lions; winged creature devouring a gazelle. 4. Figure on
plinth, holding basket and cup; worshipper; deity, holding sword; lion (or
dog); deity, holding weapon. Inscription: Aa (the moon-goddess), Samas
(the sun-god). (Tablet 92,649 in the British Museum (Babylonian and
Assyrian Room, Table-case A, No. 62). The edges have also some very fine
impressions.)
The change may have been gradual, but it was great. Many of the small
states which had existed at the time of Dungi, Bûr-Sin, Gimil-Sin,
Ibi-Sin, and their predecessors had to all appearance passed away, and
become part of the Babylonian Empire long before the dynasty of Babylon
came to an end, though some at least were in existence in the time of the
great conqueror Ḫammurabi. But the change was, as it would seem, not one
of overlordship only—another change which had been gradually taking place
was, by this, carried one step farther, namely, the Semiticizing of the
country. Before the period of the dynasty of Babylon, the two races of
Akkadians and Semitic Babylonians had been living side by side, the former
(except in the kingdom of which Sippar was the capital) having the
predominance, the records being written in the Akkadian language, and the
kings bearing mainly Akkadian names, though there were, for the Semitic
inhabitants, translations of those names. Translations of the inscriptions
and legends, as well as the old Akkadian laws, probably did not (except in
the Semitic kingdom of Agadé) exist.
How it came about is not known, but it is certain that, about 2200 years
B.C., a purely Semitic dynasty occupied the throne of the chief ruler in
Babylonia. The first king was Sumu-abi, who reigned 14 years. This monarch
was followed by Sumu-la-ili and Zabû, 36 and 14 years respectively. Then
come two rulers with Babylonian names—Abil-Sin and Sin-mubaliṭ, 18 years
and 20 years. These are followed, in their turn, by Ḫammurabi (43),
Samsu-iluna (38), Ebišum (25), Ammi-ṭitana (25), Ammi-zaduga (21), and
Samsu-ṭitana (31 years). This dynasty, therefore, lasted about 285(18)
years, and with two exceptions, Abil-Sin and Sin-mubaliṭ, the names,
though Semitic, are not Babylonian.
Yet it was called by Babylonians “the dynasty of Babylon!”
And this, in all probability, is correct. The dynasty must, on account of
the name given to it, have come from that city, but was, at the same time,
of foreign origin, its kings being descended from another dynasty which
came from some other part of the Semitic world of that time. This is
indicated by the following facts.
Three of the tablets of which we shall learn something more farther on,
and which are preserved in the British Museum, have invocations of a
personage, apparently a king, named Anmanila. The name of this ruler
naturally recalls the Anman of the dynasty following that of
Babylon—namely, the dynasty of Uru-ku; but the style of the writing of
these three documents is not that of the later period, but of the
beginning of the dynasty of Babylon, and there is, on that account, every
probability that Anmanila was one of the predecessors of Sumu-abi, the
first king of the dynasty of Babylon. It is, of course, possible that this
ruler was simply a co-regent with one of the kings already known, like
Immerum, who lived at the time of Sumu-la-îla, or Buntaḫun-îla,(19)
another associate with Sumu-la-îla on the throne, but there is a certain
amount of improbability in this, as Anmanila is named alone, and not in
connection with any other. Moreover, it is probable that, in the case of
the two co-regents here mentioned, we have examples of sons associated
with their father, and one replacing the other on account of the early
death of his brother. Another ruler, probably of the period preceding that
of the dynasty of Babylon, is Manamaltel, whose name is found on a tablet
belonging to the Rev. Dr. J. P. Way, head-master of Rossall School, and it
is noteworthy that one of the tablets bearing the name of Anmanila gives,
among the witnesses, a certain Sumuentel,(20) a name having the same
termination as Manamaltel, a component which seems to have been common at
this early period, and rare or non-existent later. Most, if not all, the
above are foreign names.
The next question that arises is, what was the nationality of these
rulers, who, though belonging to what was called “the dynasty of Babylon,”
were not really of Babylonian origin?
The key to the matter is probably furnished by the following inscription
of Ammi-ṭitana, the ninth king of the dynasty—
“Ammi-ṭi(tana), his(?) ...
the powerful king, (in) a seat of gladness
king of Babylon, he has made him sit.
king of Kiš,
king of Šumer and (Akkad),
king of the vast land of
Amoria,
am I; its wall.
descendant Asari-lu-duga (Merodach)
of Sumu-la-îli, has revealed him as his
worshipper—
eldest son(21) may his name be established
of Abēšu’,(22) am I, in heaven and earth.
Obedient(?) (to) Bel “(Inscription) of Bêl-ušallim,
the seat(?)” son of ... -bi, the
enchanter.”
In this inscription, Ammi-ṭitana calls himself not only “king of Babylon,”
and other important places in Babylonia, but “king of Amoria” (if the
coining of a word for the district be allowed) also. Now, as we know from
the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, Amurrū is the name that the Babylonians used
for “the west,” which Assyriologists formerly read (on account of the
polyphony of the Babylonian system of writing) Aḫarrū. In reality,
however, this word, Amurrū, stands for the land of the Amorites, and the
probability is, that the land of the Amorites belonged to the Babylonian
Empire because it formed part of the original domain of the rulers of
Babylonia at this time, who, if not of Amorite descent, may at least have
had Amorite connections.
In any case, there is but little doubt that the population of Babylonia
was very mixed 2000 years before Christ. As we know from the tablets,
Amorites were, during this period, numerous in Babylonia, and the god
whose name is written with the characters MARTU (a common group for
Amurrū)—the fact is revealed by one of the tablets of late date published
by Reisner—are to be read Amurrū, and the best translation is “the Amorite
god,” whose name and worship seem to have been introduced into the
Babylonian Pantheon at a much earlier date, and was known to the Akkadians
under the name of Martu. It is noteworthy that, in the text in question
(_Mitteilungen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen_, Heft. x. pl. 139,
147-81), the Akkadian Martu and Babylonian Amurrū is called “lord of the
mountain,” probably because the country of the Amorites, especially when
compared with Babylonia, is mountainous.
In addition to the god Amurrū, other deities of western origin appear in
the inscriptions (generally in the names) from time to time. Thus we have
Abdu-Ištara, interesting as giving an early form of the name Astarte
(Ashtoreth), before it received the feminine termination; Ụsur-Malik,
probably “protect, O Malik” (Moloch), Nabu-Malik, probably “Nebo is Malik”
(Moloch), or “Nebo is king”; Ibi-Šân, probably “speak, O Shân,” which
reminds the reader of Beth-Shean, the modern Beisan; and there are also,
in all probability, other Amorite deities whom we cannot identify, on
account of their names not occurring in other ancient literatures than the
Babylonian. Ibaru, found in the name Arad-Ibari, “servant of Ibari,” Abâ,
in the name Arad (Abdi)-Abâ, Alla, in the name Ur-Alla, “man of Alla”
(though this is possibly a Babylonian [Akkadian] name), etc., are probably
non-Babylonian, but not Amorite.
Besides the names of west Semitic deities, however, the names of west
Semites themselves occur, and show that there was a considerable
immigration in those ancient days into the country. Thus the word Amurrū,
“the Amorite,” is exceedingly common, and one is not surprised to learn
that, in consequence of the Amorites being so numerous, there was an
Amorite district in the neighbourhood of Sippar. Other names of men which
are apparently from the country spoken of are, Sar-îli, probably “prince
of God,” and the same as Israel; Karanatum (probably for Qaranatum), which
would seem to mean “she of the horned deity” (compare Uttatum, “he of the
sun,” Sinnatum, “he of the moon”), and reminds us of Ashteroth Karnaim,
“Ashteroth of the two horns,” the well-known site in Palestine. Besides
these, we meet more than once with such names as Ya’kub, Jacob, with its
longer form, Ya’kub-îlu, Jacob-el; and in like manner the name of Joseph
and its longer form Joseph-el occur—Yasup and Yasup-îlu. Êsâ, the father
of a man named Siteyatum, reminds us of Esau; Abdi-îli, “servant of God,”
is the same as Abdeel; and Ya’zar-îlu, “God has helped” (compare Azrael),
Yantin-îlu, “God has given” (compare Nethanel), with many others similar,
receive illustration. In all probability, too, many of the bearers of
names compounded with Addu (Hadad), Amurrū, and other names of deities
naturalized in Babylonia, as well as some of the bearers of true
Babylonian names, were, in reality, pure west Semites. Further examples
will be found in the texts translated farther on, and the more noteworthy
will be pointed out when they occur.
It will thus be seen that the population of Babylonia 2000 years before
Christ had a considerable admixture of west Semites, many of whom would
come under the designation of Amorites; besides other nationalities, such
as Armenians or people of Aram-Naharaim (Mesopotamia)—at least two tablets
refer exclusively to transactions between members of this northern
race—Sutites, and Gutites, who were low-class people seemingly
light-haired, “fair Gutian slaves” being in one place spoken of.
Life in Babylonia at this early period must have been exceedingly
primitive, and differed considerably, as the East does even now, from what
we in Europe are accustomed to. The city of which we can get the best
idea, Sippar, the Sippara of the Greeks, generally regarded (though
probably wrongly) as the Sepharvaim of the Bible, now represented by the
mounds known as Abu-habbah, whence most of the early contract-tablets
revealing to us the daily life of these ancient Babylonians came, was
situated on the Euphrates, “the life of the land.” The name of this river
is written, when phonetically rendered, by the characters Purattu
(probably really pronounced Phuraththu), in Akkadian Pura-nunu, “the great
water-channel,” often expressed (and then, of course, not phonetically)
with characters meaning “the river of Sippar,” showing in what estimation
the ancient Babylonians held both river and city. The mound of Abu-habbah
is four miles from the river Euphrates, and situated, in reality, on the
canal called Nahr-Malka, “the royal river,” which runs through it; but the
tablets of the period of which we are now speaking refer not only to the
city itself, but to the district all round from the Tigris on the east to
the Euphrates on the west.
The following paragraph from Mr. Rassam’s _Asshur and the Land of Nimrod_
will give a fair idea of what this district is like:—
“It is most interesting to examine this canal (the Nahr-Malka) all the way
between the Euphrates and the Tigris, as it shows the magnitude of the
Babylonian agricultural industry in days gone by, when it irrigated
hundreds of miles of rich alluvial soil. The remains of countless large
and small watercourses, which intersect the country watered by those two
branches(23) of Nahr-Malka, are plainly seen even now. Vestiges of
prodigious basins are also visible, wherein a surplus supply must have
been kept for any emergency, especially when the water of the Euphrates
falls low in summer.”
The digging of canals, which was an exceedingly important work in those
days, as indeed it is now, was evidently very systematically done, and the
king often, to all appearance, made a bid for increased popularity by
digging an important new canal for irrigation purposes, to which his name
was attached. Thus we find the work of Sumu-la-ilu, Sin-mubaliṭ,
Ḫammurabi, Samsu-iluna, and other kings recorded and chosen as the event
of the year to date by. This, with the rebuilding or new decoration of the
temples and shrines, endeared the king to the people and the priesthood,
ensuring for him the faithful service of both, and willing submission to
his rule. Indeed, there is but little doubt that the presence of foreign
rulers in the country was often due to their having made friends of the
priestly classes, and afterwards of the people, in this way.
The Religious Element.
As may be judged from the specimens of Babylonian names already given, the
inhabitants of this part of the world were exceedingly religious. In every
city of the land there were great temples, each of which made its claim on
the people who formed the congregation—in other words, the whole
population. In the district of which we are at present treating—the tract
where the majority of early contract-tablets were found, namely,
Sippar—the chief objects of worship were the Sun-god Šamaš; his consort,
the Moon-goddess, Aa; Bunene, a deity of whom but little is known;
Anunitum, a goddess identified with Ištar or Venus; Addu or Rammanu (Hadad
or Rimmon), and, in later times at least, among others, “the divine
Daughters of Ê-babbarra.(24)” All these deities were worshipped in the
temple of the place, called Ê-babbarra, “the (divinely) brilliant house,”
the earthly abode of the god Šamaš and his companions. In addition to this
great and celebrated temple, of such renown in later times that even
Egyptians, sun-devotees in their own country, attended the services and
made gifts, temples were erected to the other gods of Babylon, notably
Sin, the Moon-god; to Merodach, the chief deity of Babylon; and likewise
in all probability to Merodach’s consort, Zer-panitum, who was worshipped
along with him. There was probably hardly a town in ancient Babylonia and
Assyria where one or more of these gods were not honoured—indeed, the sun
had also another centre of worship, namely, Larsa, the Ellasar of Gen.
xiv. 1, as well as less renowned shrines. Ištar was venerated at Erech
along with Anu; Sin, the moon, under the name of Nannar, had a great and
celebrated temple at Ur (generally regarded as Ur of the Chaldees), and
also at Haran, the city of Abraham’s sojourning; Nebo was worshipped at
Borsippa; Nergal at Cuthah; Gula, goddess of healing, at Babylon; Ê-girsu
(“the lord of Girsu”) at the city of Girsu, apparently a part of Lagaš; Êa
and Tammuz at Eridu, etc.
In the province of which Sippar was capital, however, the people were more
than usually religious, or else more records of their piety have come down
to us. Numerous persons, more especially women, are described as devotees,
or perhaps priestesses, of the Sun-god there, and sometimes similar
devotees of Merodach are mentioned. Though we have no certain information,
it is very probable that there were all over the country people dedicated
to the various deities, “the gods of the land,” for what was customary in
the district of Sippar (Sippar-Amnanu and Sippar-Ya’ruru) was in all
probability equally so in the other provinces of the empire. From the
earliest times the temples acquired and held large tracts of land, which
the priests let to various people, agriculturists and others, to
cultivate, a certain proportion of the produce being paid to them, added
to the revenues of the temples, and passed into the treasury of the god.
To this lucrative business of land-letting was added that of
money-lending, and interest in the weaving-industry of the place, both of
which increased enormously in later times. That the temples received from
time to time rich gifts from the king, goes without saying, for the
colophon-dates record many instances of this. Sumu-abu, for instance,
rebuilt or restored the temples of the Lady of Isin, and the temple Ê-maḫ
of Nannar (the Moon-god); Sumu-la-îla made a throne of gold and silver for
the great shrine of Merodach; Abil-Sin seems to have given a similar
object to the temple of the Sun at Babylon; Ḫammurabi restored or gave
thrones to the temples of Zer-panitum, Ištar of Babylon, Nannar (the
moon), and built a great shrine for Bel. Samsu-iluna, likewise, was not
negligent of the gods, for it is related of him that he dedicated a bright
shining mace (?) of gold and silver, the glory of the temple, to Merodach,
and made Ê-sagila (the great temple of Belus at Babylon) to shine like the
stars of heaven. It is needless to say, that the long lists of the pious
works of the rulers of Babylon would be much too long to enumerate here.
All this the kings did from motives of policy, to conciliate the priests,
and, through them, the people. Sometimes, though, they had need of the
priests, who were able to render them service, and then, naturally, they
bought their good-will cheerfully. The service which the priests rendered
in return was to pray to the gods for the king’s health and his success
against his enemies, or in any undertaking in which he might be engaged,
and to inquire of the gods for him whether he would be successful. Many,
too, were the ceremonies and festivals in which king, priests, and people
took part, and the king (who was himself a priest) and the priesthood
thrived exceedingly.
Sometimes, too, it happened that a devotee or servant of another god than
that which was the divinity of the place, struck with the neglect of the
deities whom he worshipped, would decide to remedy that defect, and to
this end he would found a small temple himself, and endow it. The
following will show in what way this took place—
“Nûr-îli-šu has built for his god the temple of Šarru and Šullat. One
_šar_ (is the measure of) the temple of his god—he has dedicated it for
his life. Pî-ša-Šamaš is the priest of the temple. Nûr-îli-šu shall not
make a claim against the priesthood (_i.e._ demand the restitution of the
property he has given). He is an enemy of Šamaš and Suma-îlu who brings an
action.
“Before Bur-nunu, son of Ibubu (?);
before Ibik-ištar, son of Ibubu;
before Sin-rabu, son of Aba-Ellila-kime;
before Idin-Sin, son of Ilu-malik;
before Sin-idinnaššu, son of Lu-Ninsaḫ;
before Aḫum-ḫibum, son of Aḫu-šina;
before Sin-idinnaššu, son of Pi-ša-Nin-Karak,”
“The light of his god,” Nûr-îli-šu apparently wished to justify his name,
and to show what a faithful servant he was, and he therefore dedicated the
temple to the deity mentioned. This, according to the inscriptions, should
be Merodach, one of whose titles was _šarru_, “the king.” It is to be
noted, however, that in the district of Sippar the Sun-god was “king,” and
if this be the case, the pious giver of the temple, instead of wishing to
honour the patron god of another district, merely intended to honour the
patron god of his own in another aspect, namely, as king in the heavens,
along with his consort, here called Šullat, a name which, to all
appearance, simply means “the bride.” That the Sun-god was intended seems
to be indicated by the name of the priest, Pî-ša-Šamaš, “Word of the
Sun-god,” though it was not by any means impossible for a man bearing the
name of another god as part of his own to officiate in this capacity,
especially in the case of Merodach, for the latter was, in many respects,
a sun-god, and therefore identified with Šamaš. In any case, the new
temple was under the protection of the Sun-god, as the statement (“he is
an enemy of Šamaš and Šuma-ilu”) shows. It is noteworthy that, in the
names of the witnesses, Šamaš does not occur as a component part in any
case.
But a small foundation like this must have had but little influence beside
the great temple of the Sun-god at Sippara, with its revenues from lands,
dues on grain, tithes, free-will offerings, and gifts on special
occasions. In addition to all that has been mentioned above, the temple of
the Sun-god was the great court of justice, and the people resorted
thither to settle their disputes, and in all probability gifts were made
to the Sun-god on those occasions. The gates of the city, too, were
favourite places for this, especially that of Šamaš, and there is every
probability that gifts to the god had to be made there also. The power and
influence of the places of worship on account of all these temporal and
sacerdotal duties invested in them can be easily imagined.
The King.
Around the Babylonian king is hedged a certain amount of mystery, for we
see him but dimly. What he did year by year we know, but what his general
way of life was the tablets do not reveal to us. He lived in a “great
house,” _ê-gala_ in Akkadian, _êkallu_ in Semitic Babylonian, and there is
hardly any doubt that the people looked upon him as a great high-priest,
and often as being himself divine. Indeed, some, if not many, of the
Babylonian kings were regarded as gods, and had their worshippers,
apparently whilst they were still inhabitants of this earth. The
deification of the early Babylonian kings is made known to us by the
scribes placing the usual divine prefix before their names, and with
certain rulers this is seldom or never wanting. Thus we know that Dungi
(about 2650 B.C.) was deified, as were also Bûr-Sin, Gimil-Sin, and
Ibi-Sin. This custom seems to have been continued until later times, for
Rim-Sin of Larsa, the opponent of Ḫammurabi or Amraphel, was thus
honoured, and even Ḫammurabi himself, who never has this divine prefix
before his name, was sometimes paid this exceptional tribute, as such
names as Ḫammurabi-Šamši, “Hammurabi is my Sun,” or “my Sun-god,” show.
The East was ever the home of flattery, which could hardly reach a higher
point than that of deification.
[Plate VI A.]
The Adoration of a Deified King. Impression of a cylinder inscribed
"Danatum, son of Sin-tâar, servant ( = worshipper) of Rîm-Sin" (see p.
164). Published by permission of the owner, Mr. J. Offord, and the Society
of Biblical Archæology.
[Plate VI B.]
The Adoration of a God. Impression of a cylinder-seal inscribed with the
name of Appâni-îl (see p. 555). (The figure on the left has been added by
a later hand to obliterate part of the inscription.) Published by
permission of the owner, Mr. J. Offord, and the Society of Biblical
Archæology.
Yet the king does sometimes come forth from his shell, and then we see him
in his two aspects—as king, giving his orders to the officials of his
court and army, and as the chief citizen of the country over which he
ruled. The former is illustrated by the despatches and letters in which
his name occurs, and the latter by such references to him as we find in
the contracts—and these are very few, as the colophon-dates and
invocations of his name in the legal oaths do not count.
Many letters of Ḫammurabi have been found, and indicate how active he was
as a ruler. These texts, which, as far as they are published, are
generally in a very incomplete state, nevertheless show that this most
successful king paid every attention to the welfare of his subjects, even
those in distant parts of the country. Thus in one of these communications
he gives instructions to Sin-idinnam (who was apparently military governor
of Larsa or Ellasar) to pronounce judgment against a certain person who
laid claim to a field. Another letter to the same person refers to grain
taken by Awel-îli, concerning which the king says, “I have seen these
reports. The grain of the recorder (?), which Awel-îli has taken, let him
return to the recorder.” In another place he writes to his officer rather
angrily because Inuḫ-samar, apparently Sin-idinnam’s lieutenant, had taken
away from Sin-magir certain documents signed by the king. He asks
Sin-idinnam why he had done this (placing the blame directly upon him),
and concludes, “The documents, the property of Sin-magir ... with the
impress of my seal, which thou hast taken, restore to him.” If Sin-idinnam
had not been a very high-placed official, he would in all probability have
been dismissed.
The following is a letter from king Ammi-ṭitana to his agent—
“To the agent of Sippar-Ya’rurum say thus: ‘It is Ammi-ṭitana. The
wool-merchant has thus informed me: “I keep sending to the purveyor of
Sippar-Ya’rurum concerning the wool ordered from him, to cause (it) to be
sent to Babylon, but he has not caused the wool ordered from him to be
sent.” Thus he informs me. Why hast thou not caused the wool ordered from
thee to be sent to Babylon? As thou hast not feared to do this, when thou
seest this tablet, cause the wool ordered from thee to be brought to
Babylon.’ ”
It will thus be seen that the early kings of Babylonia identified
themselves with the people of the country over which they ruled much more
than the sovereigns of Europe have for many hundreds of years been
accustomed to do. More than this—their families were accustomed to
intermarry with the people, as did Elmešu—“Diamond” or “Crystal,” daughter
of Ammi-ṭitana—
(“Tablet of) Elmešum, daughter of Ammi-ṭit[ana the king], whom Kizirtum,
daughter of Ammi-ṭitana the king, by the consent of Šumum-libšî, her
brother, Šamaš-lipir, son of Riš-Šamaš, and Taram-šullim (?), his wife,
have married to Ibku-Annunitum, their son, as (his) consort. Four shekels
of silver, the wedding-gift of Elmešu, daughter of Ammi-ṭitana, the king,
Šumum-libšî, son of Ammi-ṭitana, the king, and Kizirtum, his sister, have
received. If Ibku-Annunitum, son of Šamaš-lipir, say to Elmešum, his wife,
‘Thou art not my wife,’ he shall pay (1)[½] (?) mana of silver. If Elmešum
say to Ibku-Annunitum, her husband, ‘Thou art not my husband,’ to....
Before Utul- ...; before ... -šemi, son of ... -um; before Ibni-Addu, son
of ... -um; before Šumma-lum- ..., (son of) Ili-bani; before Addu-šarrum,
son of Riš-Šamaš; before Baši-îlu (?), son of ... -mar; before Nabi-îlu
(?), (son of) ... -be (?); before ... -pi- ....
“Month Sebat, day 2nd, year Ammi-ṭitana the king built (?) Kar- ... (and)
the wall of....”
This is not only a curious document—it is also an interesting one, and
shows under what conditions a woman of royal blood and race could in
ancient Babylonia be wedded to a commoner. To all appearance the king
himself, Elmešu’s father, had nothing to do with the transaction—perhaps
he purposely held aloof—and this being the case, it is the bride’s brother
and sister who have charge of the ceremony and contract; and, with the
bridegroom’s father and mother, marry her as consort to Ibku-Annunitum.
The wording differs from that used in ordinary cases, and is more elegant
and select. A wedding-gift of four shekels of silver is hardly, perhaps,
what one would expect to be made to a royal bride, but perhaps it was the
customary amount in such cases. The penalty if the husband afterwards
divorced his wife was, as usual, a money-payment, but the amount is
doubtful, though it seems to be above the average. The penalty if Elmešu
forsook her husband is unfortunately wanting by the mutilation of the
document, but in ordinary cases it was generally death.
Naturally, the members of the king’s family were rich, and had a tendency
to “add field to field,” for their own advantage. Or they would, like
other people of means, hire land adjoining their own, in order to
cultivate them both together, as did Iltani, daughter of king Abēšu’—
“1/3 _gan_, a field in the good tract, beside the field of the king’s
daughter, its first end (_i.e._ front) the river (or canal) Pariktum, from
Melulatum, sun-devotee, daughter of Ibku-ša, owner of the field, Iltani,
the king’s daughter, has hired the field for cultivation, and for profit.
At harvest-time, (upon) every _gan_, she will pay six _gur_ of grain, the
due of the Sun-god, in Kar-Sippar.
“Before Edi- ..., (son of) ...-te (?); before Abil (?)- ... (son of) ...
-aqar; before Šumu-libšî, son of Pî-ša-Sin; before Addu-napišti-iddina,
the scribe.
“Month Nisan, day 2nd, year Abēšu’, the king (made ?) an image (?) of
(gold) and silver.”
Thirty years, or thereabouts later, Iltani (or a younger namesake,
daughter of Ammi-zaduga) is found providing the wherewithal for
agricultural operations—
“One _gur_ of grain, the property of the Sun-god, for the reaper, which
was from Iltani, sun-devotee, daughter of the king, Šeritum, son of
Ibni-Amurrū, has received. At harvest-time, (in) the month Adar, he will
come—(if) he come not, he shall be like a king’s thrall.
“Before Idin-Marduk, the officer, son of Idin-îli-šu; before Ina-lali-šu,
son of Ibni-Marduk.
“Month Adar, day 25th, year Ammi-zaduga the king (made ?) a weapon (?) of
gold.”
This contract is not quite clear without a little explanation. The grain
advanced was, to all appearance, from the storehouse of the temple of the
Sun-god at Sippara, and Iltani, as a sun-devotee, seems to have had it at
her disposal for the benefit of the temple. In any case, the amount came
from her, and was received by Šeritum, who seems to have been the reaper
referred to. He promises to come to do the work in Adar, that very month,
when the grain would have to be reaped, and the penalty for failing to
fulfil his contract was apparently slavery. Evidently the work was urgent.
It is needless to say, that interesting as these texts are, they are very
incomplete, and leave a great deal to the imagination, and still more
altogether unrecorded. Nevertheless, they are very valuable as far as they
go, and show us the royal family of Babylonia at the time working among
the people as members of the community. Each one, however, evidently
worked for his or her own interest, or for the interest of the religious
community to which he or she belonged, and not for the people at large. It
was only the king who worked for his people, and he did it, it is hardly
going too far to say, because it was his interest to do so. Most people,
however, acted for their own interest in those days, as now.
The People.
In all probability the Babylonians consisted of what may be called the
original Semites of that tract, with the Akkadians, also aboriginal, with
whom they lived and had already, at the time of the dynasty of Babylon,
mingled to such an extent that they must have become a homogeneous people,
notwithstanding the racial differences which were probably noticeable at
certain points—for example, a more strongly-marked Semitic type at Sippar
and in that neighbourhood, and a more strongly-marked Akkadian type in the
State to which Lagaš belonged. Other invasions, however, seem to have
taken place, the principal being that of the Amorites, to which allusion
has already been made—an invasion which the tablets of this period
indicate to have been sufficiently numerous, and which must have left its
mark on the population, to all appearance increasing the Semitic
preponderance, and emphasizing the type. The existence of an “Amorite
tract” in the district of Sippar, and the fact that Sin-idinnam,
Ḫammurabi’s general, is designated by the characters GAL-MAR-TU, in
Semitic Babylonian _Rab-Amurrî_, “chief of the Amorite(s),” are in
themselves sufficient testimony to this invasion. It is noteworthy, too,
that the dynasty to which Ḫammurabi belonged is apparently that described
by Berosus as “Arabic,” in which case we should have to recognize yet
another invasion of Semites; but there is just the probability, that
“Arabic” and “Amorite” were interchangeable terms, the Amorites being
regarded as a collection of wandering hordes of whom a portion entered the
country, and took possession of the government. In any case, they shared
the fate of all invaders of the kind referred to, for they were speedily
conquered by the superior civilization of the conquered, and became so
naturalized that notwithstanding their western names, they were called by
the Babylonians “the dynasty of Babylon.” This Amorite element was to all
appearance a sufficiently large one, as the more easily recognizable names
show. Thus we have _Amurrū-bani_, _Karasumia_, _Asalia_, _Kuyatum_,
_Bizizana_, _Izi-idrê_, _Sumu-raḳ_, _Betani_, _Sar-ili (Israel)_,
_Awel-Addî_ (“man of Hadad,” described an Amorite,) with many others,
though the different nationalities cannot always be distinguished, as many
Amorites bore Babylonian names, and _vice versâ_.
Naturally other nationalities than the Babylonians, Akkadians, Šumerians,
and Amorites were represented in the country—Elamites from the invasions
of earlier centuries, Kassites and Sutites who came, in all probability,
to trade, Qutites or Gutians brought into the country as slaves, or
possibly living there as freemen—all these and others helped to increase
the confusion of tongues which existed in the land from remote ages, and
reminded people of the legend of the Tower of Babel, when “the Lord did
there confound the language of all the earth.”(25)
Documents of an earlier date than those now under our notice indicate that
Babylonian civilization goes back no less than three thousand years before
the period of the dynasty of Babylon, and this, in consideration of the
date calculated for the foundation of Niffer (another three thousand years
earlier), must be regarded as a moderate estimate. Babylonian civilization
was already, at the time now treated of, exceedingly ancient. The early
village settlement of primitive houses, clustered around an equally
primitively-constructed temple, had grown into a large city, with many
fanes therein. The scattered outlying smaller villages around this
primitive settlement had gradually been incorporated with it, and formed
its suburbs, each retaining its ancient name. Villages of more recent
foundation were scattered all over the land, and the whole country was
instinct with national life, due to the increase of importance which the
comparatively recent union of several small states in a single large and
therefore powerful kingdom had brought into existence.
Thus we find Babylonia at the period of the dynasty of Babylon. It could
even then look back into a past stretching back into a remote and dim
antiquity. Its laws, manners, customs, and religion were already old, and
were our knowledge of this interesting period complete, we should probably
find that there was much that was excellent in their laws, and interesting
and instructive in the administration of those laws, as well as in their
manners and customs with regard to legal matters in general.
Something of what the tablets of the period are able to inform us
concerning the sacred person of the king and the position of his family
has already been treated of, and we have now to turn to the next in the
social scale—the people of the middle class. To this class belonged the
priests, the leaders of the troops, the landowners, the employers of
labour, the scribes, the physicians, the land-hirers, and the small
farmers. In all probability artists and artisans also formed part of it,
though their position may have been sometimes as bad as that of many who
toiled in servitude, for the slaves seem, on the whole, to have been
exceedingly well treated.
With regard to the scribes at least, the head and beard were shaven, they
wore a simple garment like a toga thrown over the left shoulder, leaving
the right arm free, and in all probability had on their feet no shoes, but
sandals, though this point is doubtful.
A member of this upper class was polite in his address. When he wrote to a
friend, whether on business or otherwise, he said, “to so and so, whom
Merodach preserve,” and after saying who it was who was writing, added,
“may the Sun-god and Merodach grant thee to live for length of days—mayest
thou have peace, mayest thou have life, may the god thy protector preserve
thy head (_rêš-ka_) for happiness. I have sent to ask after thy
health,—may thy health before the Sun-god and Merodach be lasting.” Other
forms of address are found, generally shorter, but this may be taken as a
fair specimen of the general style, which, however, seems to have been
regulated by established usage, the form quoted here being that used in
addressing a personage named Epišu, and it is always the same, though the
letters, four or five in number, all come from different persons.
The following letter from a son to his father will show the general style
of these missives—
“Say to my father thus: ‘It is Elmešum.’(26)
“May Šamaš and Merodach cause my father to live enduring days. My father,
mayest thou have health and life. The god protecting my father preserve my
father’s happy head. I have sent (to ask) after my father’s health—may my
father’s health before Šamaš and Merodach be lasting.
“From (the time) Sin and Amurrū recorded thy name, my father, and I humbly
(?) answered, thou, my father, hast said thus: ‘As I am going to
Dûr-Ammi-zaduga on the river Sarqu, one sheep with five mana of silver (?)
I will cause to be brought for the young man (?).’ This, my father, thou
saidst—my ear, my father, I made to attend—and thou hast not caused (these
things) to be brought. And when thou, my father, sentest to the presence
of Taribu, the queen, I caused a tablet to be brought to the presence of
my father. My father, thou didst not (even) ask (concerning) the
information of my tablet, when I caused the tablet of my father to be
brought to the city, and he took it to my father for a shekel of silver.
Like thy brother, thou hast not caused (the things) to be brought. Like
Merodach (?) and Sin Amurrū who are gracious to my father, my ears are
attentive. My father, cause (the things) to be brought, and my heart will
not be downcast—Before Šamaš and Merodach for my father let me plead.”
Such is the way in which a son writes to his father, or to one who, from
his age, might have stood in that relationship. It is one of the less
difficult of a number of exceedingly difficult texts, and the translation
is therefore given with all reserve. As, however, the words and phrases
are for the most part fairly familiar, it is believed that the general
drift of the whole is correctly indicated. Although it is a letter in
which the writer seems to believe that he has just reason to find fault,
the respectful and apparently reverent tone of the whole is very
noteworthy.
In all probability the Babylonian household consisted of the man and his
wife, children if he had any, and as many servants or slaves as he could
afford. A second wife was taken if the man was rich enough to afford such
an addition, though he seems to have sometimes married again for economic
reasons, namely, the acquisition of a suitable attendant for his first
wife without having to pay her wages.
The following is an example of the ordinary wedding contract—
“Ana-Aa-uzni is daughter of Salimatum. As Salimatum has set her free, she
has given her in marriage to Bêl-šunu, son of Nemelum. Ana-Aa-uzni is a
virgin—no one has anything against Ana-Aa-uzni. They have invoked the
spirit of Šamaš, Merodach, and Šumu-la-îlu (the king). Whoever changes the
words of this tablet (shall pay the penalty).
“Before Libit-Ištar; before Bûr-nunu; before Amurrū-bani; before
Rammānu-rêmeni; before Nida-dum; before Šamaš-êmuki; before Imgurrum;
before Sin-ikišam; before Belizunu; before Aa-šiti; before Lamazi; before
Ḫunabia; before Betani; before Amat-Šamaš; before Nabritum; before
Šad-Aa.”
Sometimes, however, the wedding contract contains severe penalties in case
the newly-wedded wife should prove to be unfaithful, as in the following
text—
“Aḫḫu-ayabi is daughter of Innabatum. Innabatum, her mother, has given her
in marriage to Zukania. Should Zukania forsake her, he shall pay one mana
of silver. Should Aḫḫu-ayabi deny him, he may throw her down from the
tower. As long as Innabatum lives, Aḫḫu-ayabi shall support her, and
Innabatum afterwards (shall have nothing?) against Aḫḫu-ayabi, ... (They
have invoked the spirit of the Sun-god and Zabi)um (the king). Whoever
changes the words of (th)is (tablet) (shall pay the penalty”).
Here follow the names of sixteen witnesses—seven males and nine females,
one of the former being the priest of the devotees of the Sun-god.
When there were two wives, a marriage contract was given to each, and by a
fortunate chance, the British Museum possesses two documents connected in
this way, which have come together, though acquired at different
times.(27) The following is the document drawn up for the principal wife—
“Arad-Šamaš has taken in marriage Taram-Sagila and Iltani, daughter of
Sin-abu-šu. (If) Taram-Sagila and Iltani say to Arad-Šamaš, their husband,
‘Thou art not (our) husband,’ he may throw them down from the tower; and
(if) Arad-Šamaš say to Taram-Sagila or Iltani, his wives, ‘Thou art not my
wife,’ she shall depart from house and goods. And Iltani shall wash the
feet of Taram-Sagila, shall carry her seat to the house of her god; Iltani
shall put on Taram-Sagila’s ornaments, shall be well inclined towards her,
shall not destroy her (marriage) contract, shall grind (?) her meal (?),
and shall obey (?) her.”
Here follow the names of nine witnesses.
The marriage contract drawn up for Iltani, the second wife, is as follows—
“Iltani is sister of Taram-Sagila. Arad-Šamaš, son of Ili-ennam, has taken
them in marriage from Uttatum, their father. Iltani, her sister, shall
prepare her food, shall be well inclined towards her, (and) shall carry
her seat to the temple of Merodach. The children, as many as have been
born, and they shall bear, are their children. (If) Taram-Sagila say to
Iltani, her sister, ‘Thou art not my sister,’ (then) ... (If Iltani say to
Arad-Šamaš, her husband), ‘Thou (art not my husband),’ he may shave (her
head), and sell her for silver. And (if) Arad-Šamaš say to his wives,
‘(Ye) are not my wives,’ he shall pay one mana of silver. And they, (if)
they say to Arad-Šamaš, their husband, ‘Thou art not our husband,’ he may
strangle (?) them, and throw them into the river.”
This document is attested by eleven witnesses.
To all appearance there was a kind of adoption of Iltani as daughter of
Uttatum (she is called daughter of Sin-abu-šu in the first text), and
having thus been raised in position so as to be somewhat the equal of
Taram-Sagila in rank, she could become the second wife of Arad-Šamaš, to
live with and wait upon her adopted sister.
The household itself, however, seldom or never meets our gaze in these
texts, though we get glimpses of it from time to time. One of the best is
in all probability the following for the insight it gives—
“... He has made him his adopted son. The field, plantation, goods, and
furniture of his house, which Êtel-pî-Sin and Sin-nada, his wife,
possess—Êtel-pî-Sin and Sin-nada have five sons—to Bêl-êzzu, their son,
like a son, they will give. If Bêl-êzzu say to Êtel-pî-Sin, his father,
and Sin-nada, his mother, ‘Thou art not my father—thou art not my mother,’
they may sell him for silver. And if Êtel-pî-Sin, and Sin-nada, his wife,
say to Bêl-êzzu, their son, ‘Thou art not my son,’ field, plantation, and
goods, his share, he may take, and may carry away. He (apparently
Êtel-pî-Sin) has invoked the spirit of the king.”
“Before Lugal-gištug, the lord of the oracle; Lu-Dingira, the inspector(?)
of the deep(?); Îlu-dakullu, do.; Nidnat-Sin, do.; Ṣili-Ê-kišnugal, do.;
Mu-batuga, son of Azagga-Innanna; Zarriqu, son of Nannara-manšum; Aappâ,
son of Sin-êribam; Nûr-îli-šu, the ...; Êrib-Sin, the scribe; ... -Ningal,
the sword-bearer; ... -Sin, son of Zazia;”
“(The seal of) the contracting parties (has been impressed).”
(The remainder of the text, containing the date, is lost.)
The above tablet from Tel-Sifr gives a most complete statement of the
circumstances attending the adoption of a son (a very common thing during
this period in Babylonia), omitting only the reason for this step. It is
to be noted, however, that five of the witnesses belong, apparently, to
the priestly class, and this may, perhaps, have been the reason, their
influence being, at this time, to all appearance, very great, and the
necessity for appeasing them proportionately so.
The following is an example under different conditions, and presents other
points of interest—
“Arad-Išḫara is son of Ibni-Šamaš. Ibni-Šamaš has taken him as his son.
The day that Arad-Išḫara says to Ibni-Šamaš his father, ‘Thou art not my
father,’ he may put him into fetters and sell him for silver. And (if)
Ibni-Šamaš say to Arad-Išḫara, his son, ‘Thou art not my son,’ he shall
depart from the house and the goods. And he may have sons, and with his
sons he shall share.” (This last phrase is expressed clearer on the
envelope of the tablet as follows: “And Ibni-Šamaš may beget sons, and
Arad-Išḫara shall share like one.”)
The names of ten witnesses are attached to this document.
In this case the reason for the adoption of Arad-Išḫara probably was, that
Ibni-Šamaš had no sons, though there was a possibility that he would have
some later on.
The following refers to the adoption of a daughter, which was also a
common custom—
“Karanatum is daughter of Nûr-Sin, with his sons and his daughters. No one
has anything against Karanatum, daughter of Nûr-Sin. Damiqtum is sister of
Karanatum. He (Nûr-Sin) will give her to a husband.”
Here follow the names of five witnesses.
Though the inscription is short, it is sufficient to suggest that Nûr-Sin
adopted Karanatum for some special reason, though what that reason may
have been is uncertain. Probably it was in order that she should accompany
Damiqtum as second wife of a man who wished to marry two women, as in the
case of Iltani and Taram-Sagila.
Tablets referring to adoption are, however, very numerous, and do not
furnish much variety. Considerations of space also forbid any great
multiplication of examples, so that it is needful to pass to the next
stage, namely, the inscriptions referring to inheritance, which, though
containing less information, are not without interest.
On the death of the father of the family, his children to all appearance
met and divided his property as agreed upon, or in accordance with the
will of their father. Thus we have the record of the three brothers
Sin-ikišam, Ibni-Šamaš, and Urra-naṣir, who divided their inheritance
after the death of their father—
1.
“1 ŠAR, a dwelling-house (and) domain, beside the house of Ibni-Šamaš, and
beside the house of the street, its exit (being) to the street, is the
share of Sin-ikišam, which he has shared with Ibni-Šamaš and Urra-naṣir.
From the word to the gold the division of the property is completed. They
shall not make claim against each other. They have invoked the spirit of
Šamaš, Aa, and Sin-mubaliṭ (the king).
“Before Liširammu; before Sin-puṭram, son of Êa-balaṭi (?); before
Sin-idinnam, son of Mannîa; before Arad-ili-šu, son of Nûr-Sin; before
Ša-Išḫara, son of Ilâ; before Sin-magir, son of Etelum; before
Arad-Amurri, before Sin-îlu, sons of Upîa; before Libur-nadi-šu, son of
Uštašni-ili; before ... ; before ... ; before ... . Year of the river
(canal) Tutu-ḫengal.”
2.
“1 ŠAR, a dwelling-place (and) domain, beside the house of Sin-ikišam, and
beside the house of Ištar-umma-ša, the second exit to the street, is the
share of Ibni-Šamaš, which he has shared with Sin-ikišam and Urra-naṣir.
From the word to the gold they have shared the (property). They shall not
make claim against each other. They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Aa,
Marduk, and Sin-mubaliṭ.
“Before Sin-puṭram; before Sin-idinnam; before Liširram; before
Arad-ili-šu; before Ša-Išḫara; before Sin-magir; before Arad-Amurri;
before Sin-îlu; before Libur-nadi-šu. Year of the river Tutu-ḫengal.”
3.
“1 ŠAR, a dwelling-house and domain, beside the house of Ubarria, and
beside the house of Puṭur-Sin, the second exit to the street, is the share
of Urra-naṣir, which he has shared with Sin-ikišam and Ibni-Šamaš. From
the word to the gold the division is completed. They shall not make claim
against each other. They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Aa, Marduk, and
Sin-mubaliṭ.
“Before Sin-puṭram; before Liširram; before Sin-magir; before Sin-idinnam;
before Arad-ili-šu; before Ša-Išḫara; before Arad-Amurri; before Sin-îlu;
before Libur-nadi-šu. Year of the river Tutu-ḫengal.”
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
That the first tablet translated above was that first written is proved by
the fact that the fathers’ names of several of the witnesses are given,
and by the blank spaces with the word “before,” showing that the scribe
did not know exactly how many witnesses there would be. In the other two
documents he had the right number, and did not therefore write the word in
question too many times. In all probability the three brothers are
mentioned in the first document in the order of their age, and it is
naturally the title-deed of the eldest which is written first. All three
documents are attested by the same witnesses.
The following tablet in the possession of Sir Cuthbert Peek, Bart., shows
a division of property consisting of goods and chattels, as well as land—
“3 GAN, a field by the territory of Kudma-bani, with 1 GAN, a field which
(was) the share of Aḫḫati-šunu, (situated) beside the field of Amat-Samaš,
daughter of Libit-Ištar, and beside the field of Bêl-šunu, its first end
(being) the river Euphrates, (and) its second end the common. 2/3 of a ŠAR
(and) 5 ZU (of ground by) the temple of Sippara, 1-½ ŠAR (by) the temple
of Kudma-bani, 1 ox, 1 young bull, 1 _’ikuše_ stone—all this is the share
of Kubbutu, which, along with Ibku-Annunitum, Bêl-šunu, Bêl-bani,
Il-šu-bani, Rêmum, and Marduk-naṣir, they have divided. The division is
complete. They are satisfied. From the word to the gold they shall not at
any future time bring claims against each other. They have invoked the
spirit of Šamaš, Aa, Marduk, and Samsu-iluna the king.
“Before Dadu-ša, son of Aḫum; before Ṭaridum, the scribe; before
Sin-idinnam, son of Ibku-Šala; before Anatum, son of Sin-âbu-šu; before
Šamaš-naṣir-âbli.
“Month Iyyar, day 18th, second year after the completion (?) of the temple
of Bêl.”
Where the division of the property and the drawing up of the tablets took
place is uncertain, there being in the documents translated above no
indication. In the case of the three brothers Urra-kaminiši, Riš-Urra, and
Buria, the declaration of the division of the property which they
inherited, and possibly the drawing up of their respective tablets as
well, took place in the Beth-el (_bêt îli_) of the city, where legal
matters were often transacted. Whether this Beth-el was the temple of the
Sun and the Moon, where solemn contracts were also made, is uncertain, but
not improbable.
It is noteworthy that there is sometimes a statement indicating that the
inheritors chose their lots—
“1 ŠAR, a dwelling-house beside the house of Belaqu, and beside
Awel-Nannara, is the share of Erištum, the sodomite, daughter of
Ribam-îli, which she has shared with Amat-Šamaš, the priestess of the sun,
her sister. The division is complete. From the word to the gold they shall
not bring claim against each other. Choice of Amat-Šamaš, her sister. (The
envelope has: Her choice—the place (which seems) good unto her she will
give.) (They have invoked) the spirit of Šamaš, Merodach, Sin-mubaliṭ (the
king), and the city of Sippar.”
Here follow the names of eighteen witnesses, all of them, apparently, men.
Another tablet, referring to the sharing of property, shows how brothers
sometimes cared for their sister, all the property (at least in this case)
being in their hands—
“Tablet (referring to) 1 GAN, a field in the _karê_, beside (the field of)
Aḫi-daani (?) and Enkim-îlu, Kiš-nunu, Imgurrum, and Ilu-abi, her
brothers, have given to Ḫudultum, daughter of Inib-nunu, as her share.
“Before Mašpirum (var. Mašparum), son of Ušlu-rum; before Bûr-ya, son of
Munawirum; before Ḫayâbum, (before) Kiranum (?), sons of Sin-ennam; before
Sin-naṣir.
“Year Sumulel the king built the wall of Sippar.”
Thus, in varying ways, did the ancient Babylonians live and wed, adopt
children and inherit. Other incidents were there in their lives also, as
when a man divorced his wife—an unpleasant experience for them both, in
all probability—though often enough this must have taken place to the
great joy of one or the other, or possibly of both, for it must have been
a much less solemn thing with them than with us—the marriage tie. It is
gratifying to know that documents referring to divorce are comparatively
rare, though they are to be met with sometimes, as the following text
shows—
“Šamaš-rabi has divorced Naramtum his wife. She has taken away her
property (?) and received her portion (as a woman divorced). (If) Naramtum
wed another, Šamaš-rabi shall not bring action against her. They have
invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Aa, Marduk, and Sin-mubaliṭ.”
(Here follow the names of ten witnesses.)
“Year of Šamaš and Rimmon.”
Sometimes the even tenor of early Babylonian life was interrupted by a
lawsuit on the part of a relative (often one who ought to have known
better), and, though less of a family convulsion than a divorce, it must
have been sufficiently annoying, especially when the plaintiff was one’s
own father. The following gives details of such a case—
“(Tablet concerning) one slave, her maid, whom Ayatia, her mother, left to
Ḫulaltum, her daughter, and Ḫulaltum (on that account) supported Ayatia,
her mother. And Sin-naṣir (was) husband of Ayatia. Ayatia left to her
(Ḫulaltum), in the 20th year, that which was in the city Buzu, but there
was no tablet (?) (documentary evidence) concerning Ayatia’s property.
After Ayatia died, Sin-naṣir brought an action against Ḫulaltum on account
of the maidservant, and Išarlim, scribe of the city of Sippar and the
court (?) of Sippar, caused them to receive judgment. He declared him
(Sin-naṣir) to be in the wrong. He is not again to bring action in the
matter. (They have invoked) the spirit of Šamaš, Merodach, and Ḫammurabi.
Judgment of Išarlim; Awat-Šamaš, the merchant; Itti-Bêl-kinni; Bûr-Sin;
Gimil-bani. Month Adar, year of the canal Tišida-Ellilla.”
Many documents of this kind exist, though people did not generally bring
actions against their own (step-) daughters, as Sin-naṣir is recorded as
having done. The ancient Babylonians were at all times, however, very keen
in standing up for their own rights, and went to law on the slightest
provocation. The following records a claim upon some property, and its
issue, which was as unsuccessful as that translated above—
“Sin-êribam, son of Upê-rabi, laid claim to the house of Šumu-râḫ, which
is beside the house of Nidnu-ša and beside the house (temple) of Allat;
and they went before the judges, and the judges pronounced judgment. And
as for Sin-êribam, they declared him to be in the wrong, and made him
deliver a document which could not be proceeded against. He shall not
bring action, and Sin-êribam shall not again lay claim to the house of
Šumu-râḫ.
“They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Zabium (the king), and the city of
Sippar.”
It is noteworthy that the name of the first of the twelve witnesses
attached to the document is Ya’kub-ilu, or Jacob-el, which is supposed to
be connected with the name of the patriarch Jacob.
As in these days, many a man in those ancient times, for the better
conducting of his business, would enter into partnership. As usual, all
would go well for a time, but at last, in consequence of disagreements or
disputes or some unpleasantness, they would decide to part. Several texts
of this class exist, of which the following is a typical example—
“Ṣili-Ištar and Iribam-Sin made partnership, and, to dissolve it, they had
a judge, and they went down to the temple of Šamaš, and in the temple of
Šamaš the judge caused them to receive judgment. They give back their
capital, and receive back their shares, 1 male-slave Luštamar-Šamaš, with
a chain (?), and 1 female-slave Lišlimam, the share of Iribam-Sin; 1
male-slave Ibšina-ilu, and 1 female-slave Am-anna-lamazi, the share of
Ṣili-Ištar, they have received as their shares. In the temple of the
Sun-god and the Moon-god they declared that they would treat each other
well. One shall not bring action against the other, nor act hostilely
towards him. There is no cause for action on the part of the one against
the other. They have invoked the spirit of Nannara, Šamaš, Merodach,
Lugal-ki-ušuna, and Ḫammurabi the king.
“Before Utuki-šemi, son of Awiatum; before Abil-Sin, son of
Nannara-manšum; before Sin-êreš, the provost; before Ipuš-Êa, the
_du-gab_; before Šamašmubaliṭ, the priest of Gula; before Nabi-Sin, son of
Idin-Sin; before Sin-uzeli, son of Ṣili-Ištar; before Ubar-Sin, son of
Sin-šemi; before Sin-gimlanni, the attendant of the judges.
“He has impressed the seal of the contracting parties.
“Month Adar, year Ḫammurabi the king made (images of) Ištar and
Nanaa.”(28)
Iribam-Sin, however, seems not to have been satisfied that he had been
fairly dealt with, for notwithstanding that they were not to act hostilely
towards each other, he immediately brought an action to get possession of
property belonging to Ṣili-Ištar and his brothers, the result of which was
the following declaration on the part of the latter—
“Concerning 1 ŠAR, a dwelling-house, and 2 ŠAR, a large enclosure, which
Ṣili-Išstar and Awel-ili, his brother, sons of Ili-sukkalu, bought from
Sin-mubaliṭ and his brothers, sons of Pirḫum. In the temple of the Sun-god
Ṣili-Ištar said thus: ‘I verily bought (it) with the money of my mother—it
was not bought with the money that was ours in common. Iribam-Sin, son of
Ubar-Sin, has no share in the house and large enclosure.’(29) He has
invoked the spirit of the king.
“Before Utuki-šemi, son of Awiatum; before Abil-Sin, son of
Nannara-manšum; before Sin-êreš, the provost; before Sin-uzelli, son of
Nûr-îli; before Ipuš-Êa, the _du-gab_; before Nabi-Sin, son of Idin-Sin;
before Ubar-Sin, son of Sin-šemi, his father; before Šamaš-mubaliṭ, the
priest of Gula; before Singimlanni, the attendant of the judges. They have
impressed the seal of the parties.
“Month Adar, year of the (images of) Ištar and Nanaa.”
The day of the month is not given, so that we are in doubt as to whether
the second tablet preceded the first or followed it. In all probability
the latter was the case, or else the two actions were simultaneous, and
the fact that the witnesses and officials of the court are the same in
both documents speaks in favour of this.
In Babylonia, as in all the ancient East, there was the great blot upon
their civilization which has not even at the present time, the dawn of the
twentieth century, disappeared from the earth, namely, that of slavery.
Throughout the long ages over which Babylonian domestic literature
extends, the student finds this to be always present, and one of the most
striking examples is contained in the following document, which exhibits
the blot with all its possible horrors—
“(Tablet of) Šamaš-nûri, daughter of Ibi-Šân. Bunini-âbi and Bêlisunu have
bought her from Ibi-Šân, her father—for Bunini-âbi a wife—for Bêlisunu a
servant. The day Šamaš-nûri says to Bêlisunu, her mistress, ‘Thou art not
my mistress,’ they shall shave off her hair, and sell her for silver. As
the complete price he has paid five shekels of silver. He has taken the
key.(30) The affair is concluded. He is content. (At no future time) shall
one bring a claim against the other. They have invoked the spirit of
Šamaš, Aa, Marduk, and Ḫammurabi.”
(Here follow the names of seven witnesses.)
“Month Iyyar, day 3rd, year of the throne of Zērpanitum” (the 12th year of
Ḫammurabi or Amraphel).
That a father should part with his daughter for money in order that that
daughter should become the wife of a man already married, agreeing at the
same time that the young woman should become the slave of the first wife,
would seem to the ordinary Western mind at the present day most barbarous.
That it was not the lowest depth, however, is implied by the condition
attached to the contract, and containing a kind of penalty, namely, that
if the new wife denied that the first wife was her mistress, she might be
sold as a slave. In what her position differed from that of a thrall,
however, does not appear.
Naturally the case of Hagar, the slave of Sarah, Abraham’s wife, will at
once occur to the reader, though the two differ somewhat. Nevertheless, it
is not improbable that the well-known Bible-story explains that of the
tablet, in giving a reason for the purchase of Šamaš-nûri—namely, in order
to give the purchaser, Bunini-âbi, a chance of having offspring, which, in
all probability, his first wife Bêlisunu had not brought him. It is
difficult to imagine that she would consent to the introduction of a rival
for any other reason. Of course, the new wife may have been well treated,
but a transaction of the kind here recorded naturally gave an opening to
all possible abuses. Another case of the taking of a second wife, with the
proviso that she is to be the servant of the first, is that of Iltani (see
pp. 174-175), who, however, was not a slave, and had a regular
marriage-deed. Moreover, she is described as the sister (_âḫat_), not the
slave (_âmat_) of the first wife.
On the same plate of the British Museum publication from which the
foregoing is taken, there is a more ordinary document referring to
slavery, and in this case it is to all appearance the sale of a real
slave-woman and her child—
“1 slave-woman, Bêlti-magirat by name, and her child, handmaid of
Šarrum-Addu and Ḫammurabi-Šamši, Nabium-malik, son of Addu-naṣir, has
bought from Šarrum-Addu, son of Addu-naṣir, and Ḫammurabi-Šamši, his wife.
As the complete price he has paid 18-½ shekels of silver. At no future
time shall they make claim against each other. They have invoked the
spirit of Marduk and Ḫammurabi.”
(Here follow the names of eight witnesses, including two brothers of the
contracting parties.)
“Month Tebet, day 21st, year Ḫammurabi the king destroyed, by command of
Anu and Bêl, the fortification of Mair, and Malgia.”
Tablets referring to the sale and purchase of slaves are numerous, and do
not present much variety, being nearly all written in accordance with the
usual legal forms. In the _hiring_ of slaves, however, there is a little
more dissimilarity—
“Awel-Addi, son of Sililum, has hired Arad-îli-remeanni from Erišti-Šamaš,
sun-devotee, daughter of Sin-bêl-âbli, for a year. The hire for a year, 5
shekels of silver, he will pay. A first instalment of the sum, 2 shekels
of silver, she has received. He will be clothed by his hirer.
“He entered (upon his duties) on the 16th of Elul.
“Before Šamaš, Aa; before Taribatum; before Nûr-Marduk; before Laḫutum.
“Year Samsu-iluna (made) a throne of gold (shining like the stars, for
Nin-gala”).
The following is a similar text with additional clauses—
“Asir-Addu, son of Libit-Urra, has hired Šamaš-bêl-ili from Aḫatani,
sun-devotee, daughter of Šamaš-ḫazir, for his first year. As hire for his
first year, he shall pay 3-½ shekels of silver. He shall clothe himself.
He entered (on his duties) on the 4th of the month Dûr-Addi, in the month
Mamitu he will complete (his term), and may leave.
“Before Asirum, son of Ea-rabi; before Nin-gira-âbi, son of Eribam; before
Arad-Sin, son of Sin-idinnam.
“The year of Samsu-iluna, the king.”
(The accession-year of Amraphel’s successor.)
In the following the slave is hired for produce—
“Riš-Šamaš, son of Marduk-naṣir, has hired Nawir-nûr-šu from Šubtum for a
year. He will pay 20 _qa_ of oil as his hire for the year. He will clothe
him. He entered in the month Elul, in the month Tirinu he may go forth.
“Before Rišutum; before Êrišti-Aa.
“Year the great fortification....”
When a man had no master—was his own master, in fact—he was hired “from
himself”—
“Idin-Ittum has hired for wages Naram-ili-šu from himself, for six months.
He will receive 2 shekels of silver as wages for the six months.
“Before Êtel-pî-Uraš, before Sin-îlu, before Aḫum, the scribe.
“Month Nisan, day 20th, year the throne ... was....”
Servants were not only hired from their masters and themselves, but also
from their fathers, mothers, brothers, and whoever else might have charge
of them. There are also lists of workmen hired for various purposes in
batches. Those who went about doing reaping seem to have been of various
nationalities, and interesting names are on that account found in the
lists from time to time.
In all probability the towns at that early period resembled closely those
of the Semitic East at the present day, the streets being as a rule narrow
(from the necessity of obtaining protection from the excessive heat of the
sun during the hot season) and exceedingly dirty. This is shown by the
excavations at Niffer, where, at the earliest period, when the street in
question was constructed, the houses were entered by going up a few steps.
Later on, in consequence of the accumulations, the footpath became level
with the floor of the house, and, at a later period still, a little
staircase had to be built leading down into the building. As may easily be
imagined, the conditions in which the ancient Babylonians lived were in
the highest degree insanitary, and such as would probably not be tolerated
for a day in Europe at the present time.
Judging from the remains of private houses which have been found, these
buildings were not by any means large. In fact, they must have contained
only a few small rooms. Where, however, there was space—as, for example,
when the house was built in the middle of a field—the rooms were probably
moderately large, and more numerous. They were of either unburnt or burnt
brick, and the roofs were supported by beams. The floors seem to have been
generally the bare earth.
Many lists of the furniture of these dwelling-places are extant, and allow
us to estimate to a certain extent the amount of comfort which their
inhabitants enjoyed. They reclined upon couches, and sometimes—perhaps
often—it happened that the owner of the house possessed several of these
articles of furniture. Apparently, too, it was their custom to sit upon
chairs, and not upon the ground, as they do in the East at the present
day, and have done for many centuries. Various vessels, of wood,
earthenware, and copper, were also to be found there, together with
measures of different kinds,(31) implements needed in the trade of the
owner, and certain objects of stone. In some cases things of precious
stone are referred to, a circumstance which points to a considerable
amount of prosperity on the part of the owner of the house and its
contents.
As will be seen farther on, when Babylonian life of a later period comes
to be treated of, the leasehold system, with all its disadvantages, was in
full force, and there is just the possibility that it was already in use
during the time of the dynasty of Babylon. Even at this early date the
question of party walls was an important one, as the tablet of
Šamaš-în-mâtim and Êrišti-Aa, daughter of Zililum, shows. They were to set
up the dividing wall (_gušuru_, apparently palings) _aḫum mala aḫim_, lit.
“brother as much as brother,” _i.e._ one as much as the other. They
managed things differently in ancient Babylonia, and if this was the usual
arrangement, it must have given rise to endless disputes.
It is probable that, before the time of Ḫammurabi, the ancient Babylonians
had no code of laws in the true sense of the term. All the legal decisions
known seem to have been decided on their merits by the judges who tried
the cases, and in such actions in which the judges could not come to a
decision, the matter seems to have been referred to the king, whose word
was, to all appearance, final. Naturally an enormous responsibility rested
on the judges on account of this, but they were not entirely without help
in the matter of deciding difficult and unusual questions. Lists of
precedents were kept, and to these, in all probability, they constantly
referred—indeed, the tablets of legal precedents were held in such high
esteem, that copies of them were kept in the libraries of Assyria, and in
Babylonia also, in all probability, until long after the destruction of
the Assyrian power, notwithstanding that legal use and wont had by that
time somewhat changed. One or two examples of these legal precedents may
here be quoted to show their nature:—
“If a son say to his father, ‘Thou art not my father,’ they may shave him,
put him in fetters, and sell him for silver.
“If a son say to his mother, ‘Thou art not my mother,’ they may shave off
his hair, lead him round the city, and drive him forth from the house.
“If a wife hate her husband, and say to him, ‘Thou art not my husband,’
they may throw her into the river.
“If a husband say to his wife, ‘Thou art not my wife,’ he shall pay her
half a mana of silver.
“If a man hire a slave, and he dies, is lost, runs away, gets locked up,
or falls ill, he shall pay as his hire every day half a measure of grain.”
Thus did the ancient Babylonians punish those who offended against their
laws, and protect property (for the slave-hirer was undoubtedly saddled
with a heavy responsibility). Was it that the death of a hired slave was
regarded as testifying to the severity of his temporary hirer? In all
probability it was so, and in that case, one cannot help regarding the law
as a wise one. To all appearance, also, illness was attributed to his
employer’s cruelty. As to his running away, or falling into the hands of
the police, these things would prove that his employer was not watchful
enough with regard to him. A modern European lawyer would most likely not
regard this particular law as being very exactly worded (there is no limit
of time during which the slave’s wages were payable, and one can only
_guess_ that the term of his service with his hirer was understood), but
there seems to be no doubt as to its intention—to safeguard the slave, and
his owner at the same time, by making his hirer responsible for every
mishap and accident which might happen to him whilst he was with his
temporary master.
CHAPTER VI. ABRAHAM.
A short account of this period, with the story of Chedorlaomer,
Amraphel, Arioch, and Tidal.
Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his
nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees, and afterwards Terah took Abram his son,
Lot, his grandson, and Sarai, his son Abram’s wife, and they went forth
from Ur of the Chaldees to go to Canaan. Arriving at Haran, they dwelt
there until Terah died at an exceedingly advanced age.
There have been many discussions as to the position of Ur of the Chaldees.
Some, on account of the distance from Canaan, apparently, have contended
that Ur of the Chaldees is the same as the site known for many hundreds of
years as Urfa, in Mesopotamia—the district in which the proto-martyr, St.
Stephen (Acts vii. 2, 41), places it. Mesopotamia, however, is an
appellation of wide extent, and altogether insufficiently precise to
enable the exact locality to be determined. To all appearance, though,
Urfa or Orfa, called by the Greeks Edessa, was known as Orrha at the time
of Isidore of Charax (date about 150 B.C.). Pocock, in his Description of
the East, states that it is the universal opinion of the Jews that Orfa or
Edessa was the ancient Ur of the Chaldees, and this is supported by local
tradition, the chief place of worship there being called “the Mosque of
Abraham,” and the pond in which the sacred fish are kept being called
_Bahr Ibrahím el-Halíl_, “the Lake of Abraham the Beloved.” The tradition
in the Talmud and in certain early Arabian writers, that Ur of the
Chaldees is Warka, the Ὀρχόη of the Greeks, and Ὀρέχ of the Septuagint,
need not detain us, as this site is certainly the Erech of Gen. x. 10, and
is excluded by that circumstance.
Two other possibilities remain, the one generally accepted by
Assyriologists, the other tentatively put forward by myself some years
ago. The former has a series of most interesting traditions to support it,
the latter simply a slightly greater probability. The reader may adopt
that which seems to him best to suit the circumstances of the case.
The identification generally accepted is, that Ur of the Chaldees is the
series of mounds now called Mugheir, or, more in accordance with correct
pronunciation, Muqayyar, “the pitchy,” from the noun _qír_, “pitch,” that
material having been largely used in the construction of the buildings
whose ruins occupy the site. The identification of these ruins with those
of Ur-kasdim or Ur of the Chaldees was first proposed by Sir Henry
Rawlinson in 1855, on the ground that the name of the city on the bricks
found there, which he read Hur, resembled that of the name as given in
Gen. xi. 28 and 31. As a matter of fact, the Semitic Babylonian form of
the name approaches even nearer than the celebrated Assyriologist then
thought, for it is given in the bilingual texts as _Uru_. The Akkadian
form (which is most probably the more ancient of the two), on the other
hand, is not so satisfactory, as it contains an additional syllable, the
full form being _Uriwa_ (the vowel before the _w_ only is a little
doubtful). This, with the absence of any addition corresponding to the
Hebrew _Kasdim_, is the principal flaw in what would otherwise be a
perfect philological comparison.
Ur or Uriwa, the modern Mugheir, is situated about 140 miles S.E. of
Babylon, and about 560 miles S.E. of Ḫaran. In ancient days it was a place
of considerable importance, and the site of a celebrated temple-tower
called Ê-šu-gan-dudu, probably the Ê-giš-nu-gala(32) of other texts, the
shrine of the god Nannara, also called Sin, the Moon-god, whose worship
had gained considerable renown.
“Father Nannar, lord of Ur, prince of the gods, in heaven and
earth he alone is supreme;
Father Nannar, lord of Ê-giš-nu-gala, prince of the gods, in
heaven and earth he alone is supreme:
Father Nannar, lord, bright-shining diadem, prince of the gods, in
heaven and earth he alone is supreme;
Father Nannar, whose dominion is greatly perfect, prince of the
gods, in heaven and earth he alone is supreme;
Father Nannar, who in a princely garment is resplendent, prince of
the gods, in heaven and earth he alone is supreme,” etc.
The above is the beginning of a long hymn written in the Sumerian dialect,
in which an ancient Babylonian poet praises him, and in many another
composition is his glory sung, and in adversity his name invoked—
“The temple of the Life of Heaven is destroyed—who, in the day of
its glory, has cut off its glory?
The everlasting temple, the building of Uriwa,
The everlasting temple, the building of Ê-kiš-nu-gala.
The city Uriwa is a house of darkness in the land—
Ê-kiš-nu-gala (and) Nannara.”
“Let heaven rest with earth, heaven enclosed with earth.
Father Nannar, lord of Uriwa,
To the great lady, the lady of Ê-kiš-nu-gala, give thou rest.
To heaven with earth, heaven and earth, (give thou rest).
To the heaven of Uraš, at _še-gu-nu_,
The god Enki, the goddess Ninki, the god Endu, the goddess Nindu,
The god En-da-u-ma, the goddess Nin-da-u-ma,
The god En-du-azaga, the goddess Nin-du-azaga,
The god En-u-tila, the god En-me-šarra,
The princess of the Life of Heaven, the lady of the mountain.”
“... he will restore the site of Ê-kiš-nu-gala.”(33)
Thus does the poet of ancient days, in a composition in the non-Semitic
idiom of his time, lament the misfortunes which had come over the temple
and city—how, whether by was by famine, or by some other mischance, we
know not. It serves to show, however, not only the poetical spirit which
animated the Akkadians at the time, but also the high esteem in which the
temple and the deities venerated therein were held, and the power
attributed to the Moon-god in the centre of his worship. The fact that Ur
(Mugheir) was an important place for the worship of the Moon-god has been
not seldom quoted in support of the identity of this city with Ur of the
Chaldees, because Haran, the city to which Abram migrated with his father
Terah, was also a centre of the worship of Sin. This, in itself, is not at
all improbable, the Jewish tradition being, that Terah was an
idolater.(34) That Terah should go 560 miles simply for this reason, when
he might have found a suitable settlement nearer, seems to be in the
highest degree unlikely, minor shrines of the Moon-god being, in all
probability, far from rare in Babylonia.(35) He simply sojourned there
because, in his journeyings, it suited him to stay there. If he were a
devotee of the Moon-god, he was in all probability the more pleased to
take up his abode there. But he may not have worshipped that divinity at
all, or if he did do so, may not have honoured him more than the Sun-god,
Anu, the god of the heavens, or the goddess Ištar.
Many legends concerning Abram—legends of sufficiently high
antiquity—exist, but how far they are trustworthy must always be a matter
of opinion. In any case, the writers had the advantage—if advantage it
was—of living 2000 years nearer to Abraham’s time than we have. Thus
Eupolemus (as has already been pointed out on p. 146) states, that in the
tenth generation, in the city of Babylonia called Camarina (which by some
is called Urie, and which signifies a city of the Chaldeans), there lived,
the thirteenth in descent, Abraham, a man of a noble race, and superior to
all others in wisdom. They relate of him that he was the inventor of
astrology and Chaldean magic, and that on account of his eminent piety he
was esteemed by God. It is said, moreover, that under the direction of God
he departed and lived in Phœnicia, and there taught the Phœnicians the
motions of the sun and moon, and all other things, and was on that account
held in great reverence by their king.
All this, naturally, points to Babylonia and the city of Uru or Uriwa as
the original dwelling-place of Abram, Camarina being connected with the
Arabic _qamar_, “the moon,” which, as we have seen, was the deity
worshipped there. It is noteworthy that the transcription of the
Babylonian name of the city, Urie, contains traces of the Akkadian
termination _-iwa_ (_Uriwa_) which is absent in the Hebrew form Ur. This
is important, as it shows that at a comparatively late date (Eupolemus
lived just before the Christian era), the ending in question made itself
felt in the transcription of the word, and that the form in Genesis, Ur,
does not quite agree, as traces of that termination (two syllables in the
Akkadian form) are altogether wanting in it. There can be no doubt,
therefore, that the theory that Abram lived and passed his earlier years
at the Ur which is now represented by the ruins of Mugheir, originated
with the Jews during their captivity at Babylon and in the cities of
Babylonia. Eupolemus, as a student of Jewish history, would naturally get
his information from a Jewish source, and the Jews had, in common with
most of the nations of the earth, a tendency to attribute to their own
forefathers, whom they venerated so highly, the glory of being connected
with any renowned city or great discovery of earlier ages. Thus it arises
that Eupolemus, following his Jewish informant, makes Abraham to be the
inventor of astrology and Chaldean magic; and to have dwelt at Ur. It must
have been the Jewish captives exiled in Babylonia who first identified Ur
with the renowned city Uru or Uriwa, quite forgetting that the form of the
name could not have been Ur in Hebrew, and that there was another Ur, much
more suitable as the dwelling-place of a nomad family like that of Terah
and his sons, namely, the country of Akkad itself, called, in the
non-Semitic idiom, Uri or Ura, a tract which included the whole of
northern Babylonia.
In whatever part of Babylonia, however, the patriarch may have sojourned,
of one thing there is no doubt, and that is, that if he dwelt there, the
life which he saw around him, and in which he must have taken part, was
that depicted by the tablets translated in the foregoing chapter. He saw
the idolatry of the people, and the ceremonies and infamies which
accompanied it; he saw the Babylonians as they were in his day, with all
their faults, and all their virtues—their industry, their love of trade,
their readiness to engage in litigation, and all the other interesting
characteristics which distinguished them. He must have been acquainted
with their legends of the Creation, the Flood, and all their gods and
heroes, and the poetry for which the Hebrew race has always been renowned
must have had its origin in the land of Nimrod, whence Abraham of old went
forth free, and his descendants, a millennium and a half later, returned
as captives.
How it came about (if it be really true) that Terah was an idolater,
whilst his son Abram was a monotheist, will probably never be known. It is
only reasonable to suppose, however, that among a people so intelligent as
the Babylonians, there were at least some who, thinking over the nature of
the world in which they lived and the destiny of mankind, saw that the
different gods whom the people worshipped could not all be governors of
the universe, but, if they existed at all, must be only manifestations of
the Deity who held the supreme power. Indeed, it was, to all appearance,
this doctrine which really prevailed, as is shown by the text translated
on p. 58. Whether taught generally to the learned class (the scribes) or
not, is not known, but it must have been very commonly known to those who
could read, otherwise it is hardly likely that such a tablet would have
been drawn up and written out again at a later date (the text we possess
being but a copy of a lost original). As the divinity with whom the others
are identified is Merodach, it is most likely that this special doctrine
of the unity of the Deity became general some time after the commencement
of the Dynasty of Babylon (that to which Ḫammurabi or Amraphel belonged),
when the city of Babylon became the capital of the country. Abram’s
monotheism would, therefore, naturally fit in with the new doctrine which
apparently became the general belief of the learned class at this
time.(36)
Concerning the journey of Abraham, there is naturally nothing to be said,
the Bible narrative merely stating that Terah and his family migrated to
Haran. The only thing worth noting is, that the distance they had to
travel was sufficiently great—about 560 miles from Uriwa (Mugheir), and
about 420 miles from Babylon, from the neighbourhood of which the family
must have started if the Ur mentioned in Genesis be the Uri or Ura of the
inscriptions, which was equivalent to the land of Akkad. The whole of this
district was, in all probability, at this time, as later, under Babylonian
rule, a state of things which must have contributed in some measure to the
safe transit of the household to Haran, and also that of Abraham later on
to Canaan, which, as we know from the inscriptions(37) and from Gen. xiv.,
acknowledged Babylonian overlordship.
With regard to Haran, it is very probable that this ancient city was, by
turns, under the rule either of Babylonia or Assyria until the absorption
of the former power into the great Persian Empire, when Haran likewise, in
all probability, shared the same fate. Concerning the early history of the
city very little is known, but it is not improbable that it was an ancient
Babylonian foundation, the name being apparently the Babylonian word
_ḫarranu_, meaning “road.” The name given to this “road-city” is explained
as originating in the fact, that it lay at the junction of several
trade-routes—an explanation which is very probable.
The city itself was, at the time of its greatest prosperity, a
considerable place, as the remains now existing show. There are the ruins
of a castle, with square columns 8 feet thick, supporting a roof of 30
feet high, together with some comparatively modern ruins. The ancient
walls, though in a very dilapidated state, are said to be continuous
throughout. No houses remain, but there are several ruins, one of great
interest, and considerable extent, which Ainsworth considered to be a
temple. A rudely sculptured lion, found outside the walls, is regarded as
giving evidence of Assyrian occupation, which, however, is otherwise known
to have been an historical fact.
In Abraham’s time the place had, in all probability, not attained its
fullest development, and must have been a small city. The plain in which
it is situated is described as very fertile, but not cultivated to its
fullest extent, on account of half the land remaining fallow because not
manured. This, at least, was the state of the tract 72 years ago, but it
is very probable that, in the “changeless East,” the same description
applies at the present day. That it was of old, as now, a fertile spot,
may be gathered from the fact that the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser I.
speaks of having taken or killed elephants in that district—
_Ešrit pirê buḫali dannūti_ Ten powerful bull-elephants
_ina mât Ḫarrāni u šidi nâr_ in the land of Haran and on
_Ḫabur_ the banks of the Ḫabour
_lu-adûk; irbit pirê balṭūti_ I killed; four elephants alive
_lu-uṣabita. Maškani-šunu_ I took. Their skins,
_šinni-šunu itti pirê_ their teeth, with the living
_balṭūti, ana âli-ia Aššur elephants, I brought to my
ubla._ city Asshur.
If there were elephants in “the land of Haran” 1100 years before Christ,
it is very probable that they were to be found in the neighbourhood a
thousand years earlier, but notwithstanding any disadvantage which may
have been felt from the presence of these enormous beasts, it was in all
probability a sufficiently safe district for one possessing flocks and
herds. There is no reason to suppose that the presence of elephants around
Haran in any way influenced the patriarch to leave the place, for these
animals were to be found (according to an inscription supposed to have
been written for the same Assyrian king, Tiglath-pileser I.) in Lebanon,
and therefore in the country where Abraham settled after quitting Haran.
As has already been noted, this was the centre of the worship of the
Moon-god Sin or Nannaru,(38) and Terah and his family, in settling in this
place, doubtless saw the same ceremonies in connection with the worship of
this deity as they had been accustomed to see in Babylonia, slightly
modified; and this would be the case whether Terah’s family came from
Uriwa or not, the Moon-god being worshipped in more cities than one in
Babylonia. Something of the importance of the shrine of Nannaru at Haran
may be gathered from the fact, that the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (to all
appearance) was crowned there. As the text recording this is very
interesting, and reveals something of the beliefs of the Assyrians and the
natives of Haran, I quote here the passage referring to the ceremony,
restoring the wording where defective. The writer is apparently addressing
Aššur-banî-âpli, “the great and noble Asnapper”—
“When the father of the king my lord went to Egypt, he was crowned (?) in
the _qanni_ of Haran, the temple (lit. ‘Bethel’) of cedar. The god Sin
remained over the (sacred) standard, two crowns upon his head, (and) the
god Nusku stood before him. The father of the king my lord entered, (and)
he(39) placed (the crown?) upon his head, (saying) thus: ‘Thou shalt go
and capture the lands in the midst.’ (He we)nt, he captured the land of
Egypt. The rest of the lands not submitting (?) to Aššur and Sin, the
king, the lord of kings, shall capture (them”).
[Here follow an invocation of the gods, and wishes for a long life for the
king, the stability (?) of his throne, etc.]
In addition to the god Sin, the above extract refers to the deity known as
Nusku, as being venerated there. That this was the case, is confirmed by
several inscriptions of the time of Aššur-banî-âpli, who seems to have
restored his temple. This fane, which the Assyrian king is said to have
made to shine like the day, was called Ê-melam-anna, “the temple of the
glory of heaven,” and the presence of its name in a list of the temples of
Babylonia and Assyria testifies to its importance.
The temple of Sin or Nannaru, as we learn from the inscriptions of
Nabonidus, was called Ê-ḫulḫul, “the temple of (great) joy.” The fane
having been destroyed by the Medes, Nabonidus received, in a dream,
command to rebuild it, and it is interesting to learn that, when the work
was in progress, the records which Aššur-banî-âpli had placed there,
according to custom, when restoring it, came to light. The letter of which
an extract is given above was probably written to the Assyrian king upon
this occasion.
So renowned was the place as a centre of heathen worship, that at a
comparatively late date—running far into the Christian era, namely, the
fifth century A.D.—the worship of heathen deities was still in full
progress there, though the god Sin had fallen, to all appearance, somewhat
into the background, and Bel-shamin, “the lord of the heavens,” _i.e._ the
Sun-god, generally known as Shamash or Samas, and called later on by the
Greek name of Helios, had taken his place. They also worshipped a goddess
called Gadlat, generally identified with the Babylonian goddess Gula, and
Atargatis, the feminine counterpart of Hadad, whose name is often found in
Aramean inscriptions under the form of ’Atar-’ata.(40) This goddess is
called Derketo(41) by Ktesias, and appears as Tar-’ata in Syriac and in
the Talmud. According to Baethgen, Atargatis, or, better, Attargatis, was
a double divinity, composed of Ištar and ’Ata or ’Atta (Attes). In
consequence of the worship of the sun, the moon, and the planet Venus
(’Atar = Ištar), a second centre of the worship denominated Sabean (which
originated in south-west Arabia, the country of the Sabeans) was founded
in Haran, where its devotees are said to have had a chapel dedicated to
Abraham, whose renown had, to all appearance, brought to his memory the
great honour of deification.
It was after a long sojourn at Haran that Abraham set out for his journey
westwards, the patriarch being no less than seventy-five years old when he
left that city. The next episode in his life was his journey, in obedience
to the call which he had received, to Canaan, going first to Shechem,
“unto the oak (terebinth) of Moreh,” afterwards to the mountain on the
east of Bethel, and thence, later, towards the south. A famine caused him
to continue his travels as far as Egypt, where the incident of Sarai being
taken from him, in consequence of the deceit practised by him in
describing her as his sister, took place.
This portion of the patriarch’s history is not one which can be very
easily dealt with, the incident being told very shortly, and no Egyptian
names being given—in fact, it is altogether destitute of “local colouring”
necessarily so, from the brevity of the narrative.
At Haran, the patriarch and the members of his family probably saw people
to a great extent of the type to which they had been accustomed in
Babylonia, but in the land of Canaan they would notice some difference,
though they all spoke a Semitic language, like themselves. Indeed, it is
not at all improbable that wherever the ancestor of the Hebrews went, he
found the Semitic Babylonian language at least understood, for as the
Babylonian king claimed dominion over all this tract as far as the
Mediterranean, the language of his country was fast becoming what it
certainly was a few hundred years later, namely, the _lingua franca_ of
the whole tract as far as Egypt, where also, to all appearance, Abraham
and his wife had no difficulty in making themselves understood.
According to Gen. x. 6, Canaan, into whose country Abraham journeyed with
the object of settling, was the descendant of Cush, and the inhabitants
ought therefore to have spoken a Hamitic language. Historically, however,
this cannot be proved, but it is certain that if the Canaanites spoke a
Hamitic language, they soon changed it for the speech which they seem to
have used as far back as history can go, this speech being closely akin to
Hebrew. In fact, there is very little doubt that Abraham and his
descendants, forsaking their mother-tongue, the language of Babylonia,
adopted the dialect of the Canaanitish language, which they afterwards
spoke, and which is so well known at the present day as Hebrew. To all
appearance Abraham’s relatives, who remained in Mesopotamia, in “the city
of Nahor,” spoke a dialect of Aramaic, a language with which Abraham
himself must have been acquainted, and which may have been spoken in
Babylonia at that early date, as it certainly was, together with Chaldean,
later on.
It is noteworthy, that the country to which Abraham migrated, and which is
called by the Hebrew writers Canaan, is called by the same name in the
Tel-el-Amarna letters, and the fact that the Babylonian king Burra-buriaš
uses the same term shows that it was the usual name in that part of the
world. Among the Babylonians, however, it was called _mât Amurrî_, “the
land of Amoria,” the common expression, among the Babylonians and the
Assyrians, for “the West.” In later times the Assyrians designated this
district _mât Ḫatti_, “the land of Heth,” the home of the Hittites. The
inference from this naturally is, that at the time when the Babylonians
became acquainted with the country, the Amorites were the most powerful
nationality there, whilst the Hittites had the dominion, and were in
greater force later on, when the Assyrians first traded or warred there.
These two linguistic usages show, that the two great races in the country,
both of them Hamitic, according to Gen. x. 15, 16, were the Amorites (who
spread as far as Babylonia, and even had settlements there), and the
Hittites, whose capital was Ḫattu (_Pterium_, now _Boghaz-keui_) in Asia
Minor, and whose rule extended south as far as Carchemish and Hamath.
In addition to the above indications from the historical inscriptions of
Assyria, and the contract-tablets of Babylonia belonging to the first
dynasty of Babylon (a number of which are translated in Chap. V.), we have
also the indications furnished by the bilingual geographical lists.
As these lists are of great importance for the geography of the ancient
Semitic East, with special reference to Western Asia, it may be of
interest, and perhaps also serve a useful purpose, to give, in the form in
which they occur on the tablets, such portions as may bear on the question
of the knowledge of the Babylonians of the countries which lay around
them.
The most important of these geographical documents is that published in
the _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. ii. p. 50. This text
begins, as would be expected from the hand of a patriotic scribe, with the
towns and cities of his own land, in two columns, Akkadian, and the
Semitic equivalent. This was followed, in the same way, by the provinces
of his country, ending with the two principal, Kengi-Ura, translated by
Šumer and Akkad. This is followed by the four Akkadian groups for the land
of Subartum and Gutium, probably a part of Media.
To all appearance a new section begins here, the scribe introducing in
this place the four Akkadian words or groups for “mountain.” The text then
proceeds as follows—
KUR MAR-TU šad A-mur-ri-e Mountain of Amoria
KI (the Amorite
land).
KUR TI-ID-NU-UM šad A-mur-ri-e Mountain of
KI Amoria.
KUR GIR-GIR šad A-mur-ri-e Mountain of
KI Amoria.
KUR SU-RU šad Su-bar-ti Mountain of
KI Subarti.
KUR NUM-MA šad Elamti Mountain of Elam.
KI
KUR Gu-ti-um šad Gu-ti-i Mountain of Gutû
KI or Gutium.
KURZAG Gu-ti-um šad pa-at Gu-ti-i Mountain of the
KI border of Gutium.
KUR ši-rum šad Si-ri-i [?] Mountain of Širû.
KI
KUR [GIŠ] ERI-NA šad E-ri-ni Mountain of Cedar.
KI
KUR MAR-ḪA-ŠI KI šad Pa-ra-ši-i Mountain of
Parašû.
KUR Šir-rum šad Bi-ta-lal Mountain of
KI Bitala. (Kaštala
is possible.)
KUR Ê-AN-NA šad Bi-ta-lal Mountain of
KI Bitala.
KUR ḪE-A-NA šad Ḫa-ni-e Mountain of Ḫanû.
KI
KUR Lu-lu-bi šad Lu-lu-bi-e Mountain of
KI Lulubû.
Here follows a list of adjectives combined with the word for country,
forming descriptions such as “safe country,” “low-lying country,” etc.
In the above list of countries, the land of the Amorites holds the first
place, and is repeated three times, there having, to all appearance, been
three ways of writing its name in Akkadian. Why this was the case—whether
in the older Akkadian literature the scribes distinguished three different
districts or not, is not known, but is not at all improbable. The first of
the three ways of designating the country is the usual one, and apparently
means the land of the Amorites in general, the other two being less used,
and possibly indicating the more mountainous parts. What the mountains of
Suru or Subartu were is uncertain, but it may be supposed that, as this
group is used in the late Babylonian inscriptions (as shown by the text
containing the account of the downfall of Assyria) for the domain over
which the kings of Assyria ruled, there is hardly any doubt that it stands
for the Mesopotamian tract, extending from the boundaries of the Amorites
to the frontiers of Babylonia. This would include not only Assyria, but
also Aram-naharaim, or Syria, and is in all probability the original of
this last word, which has given considerable trouble to students to
explain.
In all probability, Siru, like Gutium and the border of Gutium, was a
tract in the neighbourhood of Elam, which precedes. A comparison has been
made between this Sirum and the Sirrum of the eleventh line of the
extract, but as the spelling, and also, seemingly, the pronunciation, is
different, it is in all likelihood a different place. The mountain of
Cedar, however, is probably Lebanon, celebrated of old, and sufficiently
wooded, in the time of Aššur-naṣir-âpli, to give cover to droves of
elephants, which the Assyrian king hunted there. _Marḫaši_ (Akk.) or
_Parašî_ (Assyr.) seems to have been a country celebrated for its dogs.
Concerning Bitala or Kaštala nothing is known, but Ḫanê is supposed to
have lain near Birejik on the Orontes.(42) Lulumu, which is apparently the
same as Lulubū, was an adjoining state, which the Babylonians claim to
have devastated about the twenty-eighth century before Christ, a fact
which contributes to the confirmation of the antiquity of Babylonian
geographical lore, and its trustworthiness, for the nation which invades
another must be well aware of the position and physical features of
territory invaded.
It is interesting to note, that one of the ordinary bilingual lists
(W.A.I. II. pl. 48) gives what are apparently three mountainous districts,
the first being Amurru, translating the Akkadian GIRGIR, which we are told
to pronounce Tidnu (see above, pp. 122, 206, and below, p. 312), the
second Urṭū (Ararat), which we are told to pronounce in Akkadian Tilla,
and the third Qutû, in Akkadian Gišgala šu anna, “the district with the
high barriers,” likewise a part of the Aramean mountains.
After returning from Egypt, Abraham went and dwelt in the south of Canaan,
between Bethel and Ai, Lot quitting him in consequence of the quarrel
which took place between their respective herdsmen. Concerning the
Canaanite and the Perizzite, who were then in the land, the Babylonian
inscriptions of this period, as far as they are known, say nothing, but
there is hardly any doubt that these nationalities were known to them,
this tract being within the boundaries of the Babylonian dominions. That
these names do not yet occur, is not to be wondered at, for the
Babylonians had been accustomed to call the tract Amurrū, and names which
have been long attached to a country do not change at all easily. The next
resting-place of the patriarch was by the oaks or terebinths of Mamre in
Hebron, where he built an altar to the Lord.
At this point occurs Gen. ch. xiv., which contains the description of the
conflict of the four kings against five—evidently one of the struggles of
the Amorites and their allies to throw off the yoke of the Babylonians,
who were in this case assisted by several confederate states.
Much has been written concerning this interesting chapter of the Bible.
The earlier critics were of opinion that it was impossible that the power
of the Elamites should have extended so far at such an early epoch. Later
on, when it was shown that the Elamites really had power—and that even
earlier than the time of Abraham—the objection of the critics was, that
none of the names mentioned in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis really
existed in the inscriptions. The history of Abraham was a romance, and the
names of the Eastern kings with whom he came into contact equally so. It
was true that there were Elamite names commencing with the element Kudur,
the Chedor of the sacred text, but Chedorlaomer did not occur, Amraphel
and Tidal were equally wanting, and that Arioch was the same as Eri-Aku or
Rim-Aku could not be proved.
The first step in solving the riddle was that made by Prof. Eberhard
Schrader, who suggested that Amraphel was none other than the well-known
Babylonian king Ḫammurabi. This, naturally, was a theory which did not
soon find acceptance—at least by all the Assyriologists. There were,
however, two things in its favour—this king ruled sufficiently near to the
time of Abraham, and he overcame a ruler named Rim-Sin or Rim-Aku,
identified by the late George Smith with the Arioch of the chapter we are
now considering. Concerning the latter ruler, Rim-Aku, there is still some
doubt, but the difficulties which attended the identification of Ḫammurabi
with Amraphel have now practically disappeared. The first step was the
discovery of the form Ammurabi in one of the numerous contracts drawn up
during his reign at Sippara, the city of the Sun-god. This form shows that
the guttural was not the hard guttural _kh_, but the softer _h_. Yet
another step nearer the Biblical form is that given by Ašaridu, who, in a
letter to “the great and noble Asnapper,” writes as follows—
Ana šarri bêli-ia To the king, my
lord,
ârad-ka, (A)šaridu. thy servant Ašaridu.
Nabû û Marduk ana Nebo and Merodach to
šar mâtāti the king of the
countries,
bêli-ia likrubu. my lord, be
favourable.
Duppi ša šarru The tablet which the
ippušu king makes
...-ṭu û ul-šalim. is bad(?) and
incomplete.
(A)dū duppi. Now a tablet,
(la)biru ša Ammurapi an old one, of
sarru. Ammurapi the king
(e)pušu-ma alṭaru— I have made and
written out—
(la?) pani Ammurapi it is of the time
šarru. (?) of Ammurapi the
king.
Kî ašpuru As I have sent (to
inform the king),
ultu Bâbîli from Babylon
attašâ I will bring (it).
Šarru nipisu The king (will be
able to do) the work
[ina] pitti at once.
[Here several lines are broken away.]
........................... .............................
ša A-................... which
A-.......................
qat ....................... the hand
of....................
ulla ...................... then (?)
......................
anaku ..................... I
.............................
likîpanni. may he trust me.
As this is a late reference to Ḫammurabi, it is noteworthy not only on
account of the form the name (which agrees excellently with the Biblical
Amraphel) had assumed at the time (the hard breathing or aspirate having
to all appearance completely disappeared), but also as a testimony to the
esteem in which he was held a millennium and a half after his death. How
it is that the Hebrew form has _l_ at the end is not known, but the
presence of this letter has given rise to numerous theories. One of these
is, that Amraphel is for _Ḫammurabi îlu_, “Ḫammurabi the god,” many of the
old Babylonian kings having been deified after their death. Another (and
perhaps more likely) explanation is, that this additional letter is due to
the faulty reading of a variant writing of the name, with a polyphonous
character having the value of _pil_ as well as _bi_,—which form may, in
fact, still be found. However the presence of the final (and apparently
unauthorized) addition to the name be explained, the identification of
Amraphel and Ḫammurabi is held to be beyond dispute.
Thanks to important chronological lists of colophon-dates and to a number
of trade-documents from Tel-Sifr, Sippara, and elsewhere, which are
inscribed with the same dates in a fuller form, the outline of the history
of the reign of Ḫammurabi is fairly well known, though it can hardly be
said that we have what would be at the present time regarded as an
important event for each year, notwithstanding that they may have been to
the ancient Babylonians of all-absorbing interest. The following is a list
of the principal dates of his reign, as far as they can at present be made
out—
1 Year of Ḫammurabi the king.
2 Year he performed justice in the land.
3 Year he constructed the throne of the exalted shrine of Nannar
of Babylon.
4 Year he built the fortification of Malgia.
5 Year he constructed the ... of the god.
6 Year of the fortification of (the goddess) Laz.
7 Year of the fortification of Isinna.
8 Year of the ... of Emutbālum.
9 Year of the canal Ḫammurabi-ḫêgalla.
10 Year of the soldiers and people of Malgia.
11 Year of the cities Rabiqa and Šalibi.
12 Year of the throne of Zēr-panîtum.
13 Year (the city) Umu (?) set up a king in great rejoicing.(43)
14 Year of the throne of Ištar of Babylon.
15 Year of his 7 images.(44)
16 Year of the throne of Nebo.
17 Year of the images of Ištar and Addu (Hadad)....
18 Year of the exalted shrine for Ellila.
19 Year of the fortification Igi-ḫur-sagga.
20 Year of the throne of Merri (Rimmon or Hadad).
21 Year of the fortification of Baṣu.
22 Year of the image of Ḫammurabi king of righteousness.
23 Year of the ... of Sippar.
24 Year of the ... for Ellila.
25 Year of the fortification of Sippar.
26 Year a great flood (?)....
27 Year the supreme (?)....
28 Year of the temple of abundance.(45)
29 Year of the image of Šala (spouse of Rimmon or Hadad).
30 Year the army of Elam....
31 Year of the land Emutbālu.
32 Year the army of....
33 Year of the canal _Ḫammurabi-nuḫuš-niši_.
34 Year of Ištar and Nanaa.
35 Year of the fortification of....
36 Lost.
37 Practically lost.
38 Year the great....
39 Practically lost.
40 Lost.
41 Lost.
42 Practically lost.
43 Year dust (? ruin) overwhelmed Sippar and the city Ul-Šamaš.
In the gaps indicated by the words “lost,” and “practically lost,” the
following entries ought, perhaps, to be inserted, though it is to be noted
that some of them may be merely additions to, or other forms of, dates
preserved by the list—
“Year he (_i.e._ the king) built the supreme shrine of Bêl.” [?
the eighteenth year.]
“Year of the ... of the fortification of Sippar.” [? the 25th
year.]
“Year he made supplication to the goddess Taš-mêtu.”
“Year of the river (canal) Tišida-Ellilla” (p. 182).
“Year the soldiers of Ešnunna were smitten by the sword.”
“Year Ḫammurabi the king, by command of Anu and Bêl, destroyed the
wall of Mair and Malgia” (p. 187).
“Year Ḫammurabi the king renewed the temple Ê-me-temena-ursag, and
raised the head of the temple-tower, the supreme seat of Zagaga,
high like heaven.”
“Year Ḫammurabi the king raised the top of the great wall on the
bank of the Tigris high like a mountain, and caused its name to be
called the embankment of the Sun.”
Besides these, there are additions in the entries in the chronological
list, some of which are of sufficiently great importance—
“Year 31: Year Ḫammurabi the king, by the command of Anu and Bêl,
established his advantage (and) captured the land Yamutbālum and
the king Rîm-Sin.”
“Year 34: Year Ḫammurabi the king made [images of] Ištar and
Nanaa.”
Whether the following be another form of this date, or a different one
altogether is uncertain:
“Year Ḫammurabi the king renewed E-tur-kalama for Anu, Ištar, and
Nanaa.”
Year 38, which, in the chronological list, is called the year of the great
... is possibly to be completed, in accordance with the indications from
the colophon-dates: “Year of Ḫammurabi the king (when) a great flood
destroyed Ešnunna.”
With regard to the other undecided dates, it is practically certain that
the three long ones—those which record the destruction of the wall of Mair
and Malgia, the restoration of the temple Ê-me-temena-ursag and the temple
tower dedicated to Zagaga, and the construction of the great dam of the
Tigris—come into the gaps after the entry for the thirty-first year. The
reason for this assumption is, that the thirty-first year of Ḫammurabi was
the date of his conquest of Rîm-Sin, in whose dominions the town
represented by the ruins of Tel-Sifr (the place whence the tablets came
which bear these dates) lay. All the tablets from this place, bearing
dates of the reign of Ḫammurabi, therefore belong to the thirty-first year
of his reign and later.
In all probability there is one thing that will be considered as
noteworthy, and that is, that as far as our records go, there is no
reference whatever to any expedition to the West-land, and if that be due
simply to the imperfection of the records which have come down to us, all
that can be said is, that it is a noteworthy coincidence.(46) It must not
be supposed, however, that it in any wise invalidates the trustworthiness
of the narrative in the 14th chapter of Genesis—there is plenty of room in
the mutilated list (of which I have given such a translation as is
possible) for a date referring to this to have been recorded, though we
must keep in mind the possibility, that if the Babylonian king considered
that disaster had in any way overtaken his arms, he may not have recorded
it at all. Then there is the fact, that the expedition was undertaken in
conjunction with allies—Chedorlaomer, Tidal, and Arioch—for none of whom,
in all probability, Ḫammurabi had any sympathy. The Elamite was a
conqueror from a land over which the Babylonians of earlier ages had held
sway, and Arioch had dominion over a neighbouring tract, to which
Ḫammurabi himself laid claim, and over which, as the texts above
translated show, he afterwards ruled. Ḫammurabi, moreover, claimed also
the West-land—_mât Amurrī_, the land of Amurrū—as his hereditary
possession, and he found himself obliged to aid Chedorlaomer, Tidal, and
Arioch to subjugate it—indeed, it was Chedorlaomer whom the five kings had
acknowledged for twelve years as their overlord, and against whom, in the
thirteenth, they rebelled. It is, therefore, likely that Ḫammurabi
regarded himself as having been forced by circumstances to aid
Chedorlaomer to reconquer what really belonged to Babylonia, and the
probability that he would cause it to be used as one of the events to date
by, is on that account still less, even if the news of any success which
he might have considered himself entitled to reached his own domain in
time to be utilized for such a purpose.
It has been shown on p. 155 that Ammi-ṭitana, the third in succession from
Ḫammurabi, claimed the sovereignty of the land of Amurrū, and from an
inscription accompanying a portrait of Ḫammurabi discovered by Mr. Rassam,
we learn that he, too, claimed sovereignty over it. Sargon of Agadé held
sway over the tract centuries before, so that he probably reckoned that,
by right of inheritance, it was his. It would therefore be natural that he
should omit to mention as an event to be remembered, an expedition to a
country which ought never to have thrown off his dominion.
Of course, one of the principal things confirming the identification of
Ḫammurabi with Amraphel would naturally be the occurrence of one or more
of the names recorded in Gen. xiv., in conjunction with his, or in such a
way that a connection could be established. This, naturally, is difficult,
principally on account of our having no continuous history of the period
to which these rulers belong. Nevertheless, a close examination of the
inscriptions suggests in what way confirmation of the events narrated with
reference to Amraphel and his allies might be sought.
Reference has already been made to Rîm-Sin, king of Yamutbālu (or
Emutbālu), who appears to have been defeated by Ḫammurabi in the
thirty-first regnal year. From this time the dominions of Rîm-Sin
evidently formed part of the Babylonian Empire, and were never again
separated from it as long as it existed.
Notwithstanding the early identification of Rîm-Sin with Eri-Sin or
Eri-Aku by the late George Smith, considerable doubt has been thrown on
the identity of these two names by the fact, that in inscriptions
containing the name of Kudur-mabuk, the father, the name of his son is
written with _Eri_ as the first element—not _Rîm_. This, it must be
admitted, is a considerable difficulty. Winckler, however, in the
_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, Band III., 1 Hälfte, pp. 88-89, publishes
a text given by Lenormant, _Textes Inédits_, No. 70, in which the name of
the son of Kudur-mabuk is written Ri-im-Sin, and if this be correctly
copied, it would seem to settle the matter of their identity. It is to be
noted that they are both called king of Uriwa, king of Larsa, and king of
Šumer and Akkad. In the inscriptions Eri-Aku or Eri-Sin also calls himself
_adda Emutbala_, “father of Yamutbālu,” and, as the colophon-date of the
31st year of Ḫammurabi shows, Rîm-Sin or Rîm-Aku was also king of that
region.
In these circumstances, there is hardly any doubt that they were at least
closely connected, if not (as has been supposed since the time of the
Assyriologist George Smith) actually identical. It is therefore worthy of
mention, that M. F. Thureau-Dangin, the well-known French Assyriologist,
suggests that Eri-Aku and Rîm-Sin were brothers, sons of Kudur-mabuk, and
successively kings of Larsa (_Les Inscriptions de Šumer et d’Akkad_, p.
300, n. 3). This would not only account for their having the same
parentage, but also for their claiming the same titles. It can therefore
not be said, that Ḫammurabi became the enemy of his old ally—it was
against his brother that he fought.
The date quoted on p. 214 (year 31) seems to include Rîm-Sin in the
capture of the land of Yamutbālum, but this is not confirmed by the new
Chronicle, which states that Ḫammurabi, king of Babylon, gathered his
soldiers and went against Rîm-Sin, king of Larsa. His hand captured Ur and
Larsa, he carried off their goods to Babylon, and overthrew and carried
away other things—what they were the mutilation of the record does not
allow us even to guess. It is noteworthy also that the mention of Ur as
one of the cities of Rîm-Sin shuts out that state from the tract which,
from the 14th chapter of Genesis, would otherwise be included in Shinar,
and seems also to explain why Ur is designated as being “of the Chaldees.”
If, however, the colophon-date be right, and Rîm-Sin was really made
prisoner, he must either have escaped, or been set at liberty again, for
Samsu-iluna, son of Ḫammurabi, when he became king, had apparently to
resist another attack on the part of that ruler, who seems to have been
captured, and “(? burnt) alive in his palace.”
With regard to the names Eri-Aku and Rîm-Sin, one Sumero-Akkadian, and the
other Semitic, the former means, as was thought from the first, “Servant
of the Moon-god,” whilst the sense of the latter, as is made clear by the
variant spelling in the new Babylonian chronicle, is “Sin’s (the
Moon-god’s) wild bull.” A similar name is that of Rîm-Anu, another king of
Larsa—“Anu’s (the Heaven-god’s) wild bull.” These are paralleled by such
names as Bûr-Sin, “Sin’s young steer,” in which the bearer is compared
with a strong and willing animal of service. Possibly the substitution of
the word for “wild bull” in Rîm-Sin and Rîm-Anu is symbolical of reckless
courage.
Very little is known of the state of which Larsa (in Sumero-Akkadian
Ararma) was the capital. It is interesting to note, however, that this
city was a centre of the worship of the Sun-god Šamaš, as was also Sippar
(now Abu-habbah). The temple in both cities bore the same name, Ê-bara
(-para) or Ê-babbara (-barbara), “the house of brilliant light.” With the
exception of Eri-Aku or Arioch, whose name is Sumero-Akkadian, all the
rulers have Semitic names—Rîm-Anu, Nûr-Rammāni or Nûr-Addi, “light of
Rimmon” or “of Hadad,” Sin-idinnam, “Sin has given,” and Rîm-Sin. If
Eri-Aku was called, in the Semitic tongue, Arad-Sin, “Servant of Sin,” as
is possible, this name must be added too, but in that case his
identification with Arioch would be less probable. As he was of Elamite
origin, his bearing a Sumero-Akkadian or a Semitic name was probably due
to motives of policy, and one which, when written, could be read either
way would give pleasure to both sections of the people, Sumero-Akkadian
and Semitic.
The following inscriptions record architectural works of Kudur-mabuk, and
his sons Eri-Aku and Rîm-Sin:—
Tablet Of Kudur-Mabuk Mentioning Eri-Aku.
(Dingir) Nannara To Nannara
lugala-ni-r his king,
Kudur-mabuk Kudur-mabuk,
adda kura Martu father of Amoria,
dumu Simti-šilḫak son of Simti-šilḫak.
Ud (dingir) Nannara When Nannara
arazu-ni his prayer
mu-igi-ginnā received,
ne-zila-maḫa ne-zila-maḫa
(dingir) Nannara-kam for Nannara
nam-tila-ni-šu for his life,
u nam-ti and the life
Eri-Aku dumu-ni of Eri-Aku, his son,
lugal Ararma-šu king of Larsa,
munanindu. he made.
“To Nannara, his king, Kudur-mabuk, father of the land of the
Amorites, son of Simti-šilḫak. When Nannara received his prayer he
made for Nannara _ne-zila-maḫa_ for his life and the life of his
son Arioch, king of Larsa.”
Tablet Of Eri-Aku Mentioning Kudur-Mabuk, His Father.
Eri-(dingir) Aku Eri-Aku
uš kalagga powerful hero
siba nig-zi everlasting shepherd
ua Uri-(D. S.)-wa installed by Bêl
(dingir) Ellilli nourisher of Uriwa
garra
lugal Arar-(D. king of Larsa
S.)-ma
lugal Kiengi-(D. king of Šumer (and)
S.)-Uragi Akkad
dumu Kudur-mabuk son of Kudur-mabuk
Adda Emutbala-men father of Yamutbālu
am I.
Uriwa (D. S.) In Uriwa broad,
dagal-e-ne
mu maha dudune possessing an
exalted name,
Col. II.
ušu-na-bi to the peerless (?)
ugul-immangaga supplication I have
made.
(dingir) Nannara Nannara my king
lugala-mu
mušinše I have obeyed (?):
bad gala ḫursag A great wall, high
illa-dim šu-nu-tutu like a mountain,
impregnable,
im-bi dul ea inspiring (?) its
fear,
munadu have I made,
uru-ni ḫimmira its city may it
protect.
bada-ba That wall
(dingir) Nannara “Nannara the
suḫuš mada gengen consolidator of the
foundation of the
land” is
mu-bi-im its name.
“Arioch, the powerful hero, the everlasting shepherd installed by
Bêl, the nourisher of Uriwa, the king of Larsa, the king of Šumer
and Akkad, the son of Kudur-mabug, the father of Yamutbālu, am I.
In broad Uriwa, possessing an exalted name, to the peerless one
(?) have I made supplication, Nannara, my king, have I obeyed (?).
The great wall, high like a mountain, impregnable, inspiring (?)
its fear, have I built—may it protect its city. The name of that
wall is ‘Nannara the consolidator of the foundation of the
land.’ ”
[The above inscription is not without its difficulties, some of
them formidable enough, but the general sense of the whole may be
regarded as correctly made out.]
Tablet Of Rim-Sin.
(Dingir) Nin-saḫ To Ninsaḫ
en galla abba age great lord, beloved
father
šaga-gu-sag-gi knowing the
gala-zu supplication of the
heart
sukkala maḫa exalted messenger,
ša-kušša dingira (giving) heart-rest,
galla great god
dugga-ni ši tul-du he who sends forth
his hidden word
lugal-a-ni-ir his king
(dingir) Rim-Sin.
Rim-(dingir) Sin
siba gu kalama Nipri shepherd of all the
(D. S.) people of Nippur
me giškin he who fulfils the
Gurudug-(D. S.)-ga word of the vine of
su-dudu Eridu
ua Uri-(D. S.)-wa nourisher of Uriwa
ê-ud-da-im-te-ga (and) Ê-udda-imtega
lugal Arar-(D. king of Larsa
S.)-ma
Col. II.
lugal Kengi-(D. king of Šumer and
S.)-Ura-gi Akkad.
Ud Ana (dingir) When Anu, Bêl,
Ellila
(dingir) En-ki (and) Ea,
dingir-galgalene the great gods,
Unuga (D. S.) uru du Erech, the ruined
(?) city,
šu-mu-šu into my hands
manin-si-eša delivered
(dingir) Ninsaḫ to Ninsaḫ, my king,
lugala-mu-r
gu-sagsaggi-da-mu-ta after my making
supplication;
ê-da-agga-šummu Ê-dagga-šummu,
ki-dura ki-agga-ni his beloved
resting-place,
nam-ti-mu-šu for my life
munadu. I built.
“To Ninsaḫ, the great lord, the beloved father, he who is aware of
the supplication of the heart; the exalted messenger, (giving)
rest to the heart, the great god who sendeth forth his hidden
word—his king, Rim-Sin, shepherd of all the people of Niffer, who
fulfilleth the word of the vine of Êridu, nourisher of Uriwa (and)
Ê-udda-imtega, king of Larsa, king of Šumer and Akkad. When Anu,
Bêl, and Ea, the great gods, delivered Erech, the ruined (?) city,
into my hands, I built to Ninsaḫ, my king, after making
supplication, Ê-dagga-šummu, his beloved seat, for (the saving of)
my life.”
This last text was found in the mound of Mugheir (Uriwa), and is of great
interest, as it is dedicated to Ninsaḫ, the great messenger of the gods,
and not to the god Sin or Nannara, the chief patron-deity of the city. It
has also an interesting reference to the vine of Êridu (see pp. 71 ff.),
and apparently to his capture of the city of Erech, delivered into his
hands by the gods Anu, Bêl, and Ea. That he should represent himself as
taking possession of the city by the will of Anu, the chief god of the
city, whose name he mentions before the other two divinities, sheds a
certain light upon the character of the man, whilst his military exploits,
both at home and in the west, must have made him, like Chedorlaomer his
fellow-countryman, and Ḫammurabi his rival, one of the heroes of his time.
There now remain to be treated of Chedorlaomer and Tidal, the remaining
two of the four allies who fought in that memorable conflict by the Dead
Sea to bring into subjection their revolted vassals.
From the time of their first discovery it has been felt that the
occurrence of names containing the element Kudur—Kudur-mabuk,
Kudur-Nanḫundi, Kudur-Naḫḫunte, etc.—was, in itself, excellent testimony
to the correctness of the narrative in the 14th chapter of Genesis, where
an Elamite king having _Chedor_ as the first element of his name, attacks
and conquers, in alliance with certain kings of Babylonia, five petty
rulers of a district on the shores of the Dead Sea. It was, however,
naturally a matter of disappointment that the name of Chedorlaomer himself
did not occur, for it was soon recognized that the identification, made by
Sir Henry Rawlinson, of Kudur-mabuk (read Kudur-mapula) with Chedorlaomer
could not be sustained. What was wanted, was some such name as
Kudur-Lagamar or Kudur-Lagamal, the second element having been recognized
in other texts as the name of the Elamite deity Lagamaru. It was to all
appearance thought to be probable that the name of Tidal would be found.
Accordingly, when two tablets were referred to at the Congress of
Orientalists held at Geneva in 1894 as containing the names Tudḫula,
Êri-Eaku (Êri-Ekua), and another name read doubtfully as Kudur-laḫ(gu)mal,
no publicly-expressed objection to their possible identification with
Tidal, Arioch, and Chedorlaomer was made. The names were placed before the
Semitic section of the Congress of Orientalists referred to, as recent
discoveries, which were certain as far as they went, their identification
being a matter of opinion.
None of these documents are in a state of completeness, though one of
them, a kind of poem, contains no less than 76 lines, more or less well
preserved. The other two are of the nature, apparently, of historical
legends, though they may be true historical documents, and, though
imperfect, are of great importance. Concerning the names which are
contained in these texts there is but little or no doubt, though there may
be doubt as to the way in which they ought to be read in consequence of
the fanciful way in which they are written.
The first document is Sp. III. 2, and contains all three names—or, rather,
the names Tudḫula (Tidal), Êri-Eaku’s son Durmaḫ-îlāni, and Kudur-laḫmal.
The first portion of this text refers to the gods: “Šamaš, illuminator (of
the earth),” “the lord of lords, Merodach, in the faithfulness of his
heart,” aided (probably) his servant to subdue (?) some region, “all of
it.” Then there is a reference to (soldiers) whom some ruler “caused to be
slain,” and as the name of Durmaḫ-îlāni son of Êri-(E)aku follows, there
is every probability that it was he who is referred to in the preceding
lines. The carrying off of goods (?) is next spoken of, and waters which
to all appearance came over Babylon and the great temple-tower called
Ê-saggil (more usually written in earlier times Ê-sagila). The next line
has an interesting reference to “the son (?)” of some one, who
“slaughtered him like (?) a lamb with the weapon of his hands.” After
this, we are told that “the elder and the child (were killed) with the
sword.” To all appearance, another division of the subject begins with the
next line, though the text goes on recording things of the same
nature—“the child he cut off.” This is immediately followed by the words
“Tudḫula the son of Gazza- ..,” or “Tidal son of Gazzā(ni?),” who, like
Durmaḫ-îlāni (if we may form any opinion from the fact that the wording of
the line following the mention of Tidal is the same as that following the
name of the son of Êri-Eaku), carried off goods (?), and waters (he caused
to flow?) over Babylon and Ê-saggil, the great temple of the city. The
parallel between these two passages is still further emphasized by the
words in the line immediately following, which says that “his son fell
upon him with the weapon of his hand.” The next line is the last of the
obverse, and speaks of (“the proclamation,” perhaps) of “his dominion
before the temple of Annunit,” where we have the interesting archaism,
_An-nu-nit_ for D.P. (_i.e._ the determinative prefix indicating that the
name of a deity follows) _A-nu-nit_.
The reverse begins with a reference to Elam, and some one (perhaps the
king of that country) who “spoiled from the city Aḫḫê (?) to the land of
Rabbātum.” Something was made, apparently by the same personage, into
heaps of ruins, and the fortress of the land of Akkad, and “the whole of
Borsippa(?)” are referred to. At this point comes the line mentioning
Kudur-laḫmal, supposed to be Chedorlaomer. It reads as follows—
“Kudur-laḫmal, his son, pierced his heart with the steel sword of his
girdle.”
After this there is a passage where the various kings mentioned seem to be
referred to, and it is stated that Merodach, the king of the gods, was
angry against them, and they were, to all appearance, made to suffer for
what they had done. The scribe who had composed this record now speaks, in
favourable words, of the king then reigning, and seems to refer to the
restoration of the inscription to its place by the person (prince) who, in
later days, should find it (as was the custom among the Babylonians and
Assyrians). He ends with a pious wish that a sinful man might not exist,
or something to that effect.
The second tablet, though in a more satisfactory state of preservation, is
still sufficiently incomplete, none of the lines being altogether perfect.
After referring to Babylon, and to the property of that city, “small and
great,” it is said that the gods (apparently)
“in their faithful counsel to Kudur-laḫgumal, king of the land of
Elam ... said ‘Descend.’ The thing which unto them was good (he
performed, and) he exercised sovereignty in Babylon, the city of
Kar-Duniaš.”
It would therefore appear that this Elamite ruler, by the will of the gods
(such was the way with conquerors in those days—they annexed other
countries to their dominions by the will of the gods of the lands
annexed), took possession of Babylon, capital (such seems to be the
meaning of the phrase) of Kar-Duniaš. This is followed by a long passage
in which animals and birds, apparently the favourites of the Elamite king,
are referred to, and the idea which one gains by reading it is, that he
attended to these rather than to the welfare of his realm. This being the
case, it is natural that something about the remissness of the king should
follow, and this seems to be, in fact, intended in the next line, where
some one whose name is lost seems to ask: “What king of Elam is there who
has (erected?) the chapel (?) (it was something made of wood, as the
determinative prefix shows) of E-saggil?” It was the Babylonians, the text
seems to say, who had done things of this kind. The speaker then seems to
begin to talk of “their work,” when another gap destroys the remainder of
the phrase. He then speaks about “(a let)ter (?) which thou hast written
thus: ‘I am a king, the son of a king,’ ” but whether it is the same
personage who says that he is “the son of the daughter of a king, who has
sat on the throne of dominion,” is doubtful—it may be a similarly boasting
reply to the statement put into the mouth of the first speaker. The line
which follows has the name of Durmaḫ-îlāni, son of Êri-Ekua (Êri-Eaku of
the other historical text), who seems to have carried away spoil, but
whether it is he who is referred to in the next line as having sat on the
throne of dominion is doubtful. This is followed by the expression of the
wish that the king might come who from eternal days ... was proclaimed
lord of Babylon. The closing lines of the obverse, which is here
described, do not give any clear sense, but there is a reference to the
months Kislev and Tammuz, probably in connection with festivals, also
(apparently) to certain priests, and to the taking of spoil. The remains
of the reverse are too scanty to gather what the text inscribed upon it
really refers to.
It is naturally difficult to judge which of these two inscriptions came
first. Both of them seem to have a kind of peroration at the end
containing similar phrases referring to the city of Babylon and its
well-being, and either might therefore be the last tablet of a series. To
all appearance, the order of the two records turns upon the question
whether Durmaḫ-îlāni is the one who is referred to as having written a
certain communication, or whether it is about him that some one has
written. As he seems to be referred to in the third person, the
probability is that “Durmaḫ-îlāni, son of Êri-Eaku, who (carried away?)
the spoil of ... ,” is not the person speaking, but the person spoken of.
In this case he was not necessarily alive at the time, and the order of
the two tablets as here printed may be the correct one.
How far the record which they contain may be true is with our present
knowledge impossible to find out. The style of the writing with which they
are inscribed is certainly very late—later, in all probability, than the
Persian period, and the possibility that it is a compilation of that
period has been already suggested. That it is altogether a fiction,
however, is in the highest degree improbable. If we have in the three
names which these two tablets contain the Babylonian prototypes of Tidal,
Arioch, and Chedorlaomer, they must refer to the events which passed
between the first and thirty-first years of the reign of Amraphel or
Ḫammurabi, in which it would seem that both Durmaḫ-îlāni and Tudḫula
attacked and spoiled Babylon, cutting the canals so that the town and the
temple were both flooded. Both of these royal personages, who, be it
noted, are not called kings, were apparently killed by their sons, and
Kudur-laḫmal seems to have been a criminal of the same kind, if we may
judge from the words “Kudur-laḫmal, his son, pier(ced?) his heart with the
steel sword of his girdle.” That three royal personages, contemporaries,
should all dispose of their fathers in the same way seems, however, in the
highest degree improbable. It also seems to be in an equal degree
impossible that (as has been suggested) the tablets in question should
refer to Tidal, Arioch, and Chedorlaomer, but not the _same_ Tidal,
Arioch, and Chedorlaomer as is spoken of in Genesis, unless it be meant
thereby that the Biblical personages of that name are the historical ones,
whilst those of the two tablets belong to the realm of fiction. The
greater probability is, that they are the same personages, but that the
accounts handed down to us on these two tablets are largely legendary.
And that this is the case is made more probable by the third document,
couched in poetical form, which I have entitled _The Legend of
Chedorlaomer_. The following are extracts from this remarkable piece—
“... and they pressed on to the supreme gate.
He threw down, removed, and cast down the door of Ištar in the
holy places,
He descended also, like Ura the unsparing, to Dû-maḫa;
He stayed also in Dû-maḫa, looking at the temple;
He opened his mouth, and spake with the children (of the place).
To all his warriors (then) he hastened the message:—
‘Carry off the spoil of the temple, take also its goods,
Destroy its barrier, cause its enclosures to be cut through.’
To the channel ... they pressed on....”
(Here comes a mutilated passage apparently referring to the destruction
which he wrought.)
“He drove away the director’s overseer, he took away the vail.
The enemy pressed on evilly to Ennun-dagalla.
The god was clothed with light before him,
He flashed like lightning, and shook the (holy) places.
The enemy feared, he hid himself.
There descended (?) also its chief man, and he spake to him a
command.
... the god was clothed with light,
(He flashed like lightning), and shook the (holy) places.
‘(Draw near unto?) Ennun-dagalla, remove his crowns!
(Enter into?) his temple, seize his hand!’
..., he did not fear, and he regarded not his life.
‘(He shall not approach?) Ennun-dagalla, he shall not remove his
crowns.’ ”
(Here follows another mutilated passage, describing how “the Elamite, the
wicked man,” proclaimed something to the lands, and how he dwelt and
stayed in Dû-maḫa.)
(At this point is the end of the obverse, and there is a considerable gap
before there are any further fairly complete passages.)
“When the guardian spoke peace (to the city)
The guardian-bulls of Ê-šarra, [the temple of the host of the
gods], departed.
The enemy, the Elamite, multiplied evils,
And Bêl allowed evil to be planned against Babylon.”
“When righteousness was absent (?), then was decided (?) also the
destruction
Of Ê-šarra, the temple of the host of the gods, the guardian-bulls
departed.
The enemy, the Elamite, took its goods—
Bêl, dwelling upon it, had displeasure.”
“When the magicians repeated their evil words (?),
Gullum(47) and the evil wind performed their evil (?).
Then their gods departed—they departed like a torrent.
Storm and evil wind went round in the heavens.
Anu, their creator, had displeasure.
He made pale their face, he made desolate his place,
He destroyed the barrier in the shrine of Ê-anna,
(He overthrew?) the temple, and the platform shook.”
“ .... he decreed destruction,
..... he had disfavour.
The people (?) of Bêl of Ê-zida barred (?) the road to Šumer.
Who is Kudurlaḫgu(mal), the doer of the evils?
He has gathered also the Umman-man(da against?) the people (?) of
Bêl—
He has laid in ruin . . . by their side.”
“When (the enclosure) of Ê-zida (was broken down?),
And Nebo was ruler of the host, there (came) down his (winged
bulls).
Down to Tiamtu he se(t his face).
Ibi-Tutu, whom the Sun-god (?) hastened within Tiamtu,
Entered Tiamtu, and founded a pseudo-capital.
The enclosure of Ê-zida, the everlasting temple, was caused to be
broken through.”
“(The enemy), the Elamite, caused his yoke of horses to be
directed, (and)
Set his face (to go) down to Borsippa.
He traversed also the road of darkness, the road to Mesech.
The tyrant (?) Elamite destroyed the palace (?),
He subdued the princes of ... with the sword,
He carried off the spoil of all the temples.
He took their goods, and carried them away to Elam.
.... ruler, he destroyed the ruler (?),
.......... filled also the land.”
(The remainder is wanting.)
Apparently this is a poetical reproduction of the tablets of which
translations have already been given. The enemy entered Babylon, according
to the nine lines of the earlier portion of the inscription which are
preserved, and spoiled and ravaged the place. The mention of the channel
(îku, irrigation-channel) suggests a comparison with the first of the two
historical fragments, where waters over Babylon and Ê-sagila are referred
to, and cause one to ask whether Durmaḫ-îlāni and Tudḫula were not the
lieutenants of Kudur-laḫgumal.
The description of the conditions under which the entry into Babylon was
effected, when the god (possibly Ennundagalla) was clothed with light,
flashed like lightning and shook the holy places, suggests that a severe
thunderstorm acted on the superstitious hopes of the Babylonians, and the
equally superstitious fears of their foes, so much so, that the Elamite
did not carry out his intention of carrying away the crowns of the statue
of the god. He seems, however, to have taken and retained possession of
the place, and to have continued to extend his operations.
The reverse apparently states why all these misfortunes came, and what
further happened. It was because they accepted a foreign ruler (he spoke
peace to the city, and thereby became its master); because there was
denial of righteousness or justice (righteousness was absent?); because
the magicians repeated evil words. Even in the temple of Anu at Erech (the
shrine called Ê-anna, “the temple of heaven,” or “of Anu”) the god of
heaven was displeased, and caused something very like an earthquake. Some,
however, were found who were willing to try to bar the passage of the
conqueror, who had gathered the Umman-manda (barbarian hordes), possibly
his followers and those of Tudḫula or Tidal, against the people (?) of Bêl
(the Babylonians), and laid everything in ruins.
When the enclosure of Ê-zida (the great temple-tower of Borsippa,
identified with the tower of Babel by modern scholars) was broken down,
Ibi-Tutu, apparently a Babylonian prince, fled to Tiamtu, the region of
the Persian Gulf, and there founded a temporary capital. The invader
thereupon seems to have proceeded to Borsippa, and to have taken the road
to Mesech—that is to say, to the north—where he continued his ravages.
That he intended to go so far as Mesech, however, is very unlikely, his
object being to subdue the princes of the immediate neighbourhood of
Babylon, and after collecting the spoil and goods of all the temples, he
carried them away with him to Elam.
Cyrus, when he entered Babylon, spoke peace to the city, and promised
peace to all the land. In later documents even than the time of Cyrus,
“the enemy, the Elamite,” is spoken of, and there is every probability
that the legend here recounted was popular with the Babylonians as long as
any national feeling was left, hence these incomplete remains which have
come down to us—due, perhaps, to some period when the old hostility was
aroused by some inroad from the mountains on the east, where the Elamites
held sway apparently to a comparatively late date.
Whether Êri-Eaku (or Eri-Aaku), Tudḫula, and Kudur-laḫgumal be Arioch,
Tidal and Chedorlaomer respectively, I leave to the reader to decide for
himself. The first of these will probably be regarded as sufficiently near
to be exceedingly probable. With regard to the two others, it may be noted
that Tidal was pronounced, in Hebrew, Tidghal, as the Greek Thargal (for
Thadgal, _d_ and _r_ being so much alike in Hebrew as to be easily
interchanged) shows, and Chedorlaomer was Chedorlaghomer, as the Greek
Chodollogomar likewise indicates. Doubt concerning the reading can only be
entertained with regard to this last name.(48)
Whatever may be thought about the interesting and remarkable inscriptions
of which an account has just been given, of one thing there can be no
doubt, and that is, that the Elamites and Babylonians were quite powerful
enough, at the time of Abraham, to make an expedition of the magnitude
described in Genesis xiv. Sargon of Agadé held sway over this district,
and he reigned, according to Nabonidus’s indications, more than 1500 years
earlier. His son, when he came to the throne, added Elam to his dominions
as well. That the position should, at a considerably later period, be
reversed, is easily conceivable, and it was to all appearance the Elamites
who held sway in a part of Babylonia, of which country many of the states
undoubtedly acknowledged Elamite overlordship, though with exceeding
unwillingness. One point of the undoubted history is noteworthy.
Kudur-mabuk, son of Simti-šilḫak, who ruled at Larsa, bears, like his
father, an Elamite name. His son, Êri-Aku, has an Akkadian name—perhaps,
as already suggested, from motives of policy, and likely enough from the
same motive, he may have Semitizised it later on, making it Arad-Sin.
Êri-Ekua (-Eaku) is likewise an Akkadian name, and must be a fanciful
variant of that of Êri-Aku or Arioch. His son, however, bears the Semitic
name of Durmaḫ-îlāni, “the bond with the gods.” This is apparently a case
of carrying the policy of conciliation a step farther, for by doing this
he not only bears a native name, but also claims to be the intermediary
with the gods of his country.
After the retreat of the conquering army of Elamites and Babylonians with
their booty, with Lot, Abraham’s nephew, as prisoner, and his goods as
part of the spoil, comes the interesting account of the way in which
Abraham rescued his relative and recovered his property, with a portion of
that belonging to the king of Sodom. On his return with the spoil,
Melchizedek king of Salem meets him, offering him bread and wine, and
blessing him as Abraham of El-Elyon, “the most high god.” Certain supposed
confirmatory statements in the correspondence of Abdi-ṭâba, ruler of
Jerusalem, which was found among the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, has been the
subject of much discussion, and it is apparently regarded as being of much
importance, though there are various opinions concerning it. The prince in
question, when writing to his suzerain, the reigning king of Egypt, makes
the remarkable statement that it was not his father nor his mother who had
set him in that place (_i.e._ Uru-salim or Jerusalem) as king, but “the
mighty king”—
“Behold, this land of Jerusalem, neither my father nor my mother gave (it)
to me—the hand (arm(49)) of the mighty king gave it to me.”—(Tablet,
_Berlin_, 103.)
“Behold, I am not a prefect, I am an employé of the king my lord,—behold,
I am an officer of the king, and one who brings the tribute of the king.
Neither my father nor my mother, (but) the arm of the mighty king has set
me in the house of my father.”—(Tablet _B._ 104.)
“Behold, I, neither my father nor my mother set me in this place. The arm
of the mighty king caused me to enter into the house of my
father.”—(Tablet _B._ 102.)
As Abdi-ṭâba then goes on to emphasize his faithfulness to the king of
Egypt, apparently on account of his having been made ruler of Jerusalem by
him, these passages merely resolve themselves, to all appearance, into a
statement of the writer’s indebtedness to his royal master. It may be
disappointing, but to all appearance the “mighty king” is the king of
Egypt, and not the god of Uru-salim.
Nevertheless, the description of Melchizedek in Heb. vii. 3, “without
father, without mother,” makes it a quite legitimate question to ask: may
not Abdi-ṭâba, in what he said to his suzerain, have made some mental
reservation when writing what he did? Or is it not possible that, when
speaking about his independence of his father and his mother for the
position that he occupied, he was unconsciously making use of words
familiar to him, and recorded in some document of the archives of the
city? We have yet to learn the history of the preceding period—we know not
whether Abdi-ṭâba had really a right to the position which he occupied (he
seems to have been placed as ruler of Jerusalem by the foreign power to
which he refers), and until we get more information, there is no escape
from the necessity of regarding him, from his own letters, as being in a
different position from that which, in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis,
Melchizedek occupies.
In connection with the question as to what divinity was worshipped at
Jerusalem, the tablet known as _B._ 105 is of importance. Line 14 of the
letter in question reads: “The city of the land of Jerusalem, its name is
Bît-Ninip, the city of the king, is lost—(it is) a place of the men of
Kelti.” What was this “city of the king,” or “royal city”? The general
opinion at first was, that the place meant was Jerusalem itself, for that
must have been from the earliest times “a royal city” _par excellence_.
Winckler, however, translates “_A_ city of the land of Jerusalem,” which
certainly seems a reasonable rendering. Properly speaking, however, the
idiomatic Semitic Babylonian expression for “_a_ city” would be _išten
âlu_, “_one_ city.” Though Winckler’s rendering is a perfectly reasonable
one, therefore, the first translation is not excluded, and in any case
there remains the clear statement that a city of the territory of
Jerusalem—that is to say a city which owned the sway of her
kings—possessed, as its patron-deity, the god whom the Babylonians and
Assyrians called Ninip, and worshipped under many names. Among these may
be mentioned Madanunu, explained as “the proclaimed (?), the renowned, the
high”; En-banda, probably meaning “the distinguished lord,” a name which
he bore as “Ninip, he who takes the decision of the gods.” Another of his
names was Ḫalḫalla, “Ninip, protector of the decision, father of Bêl”;
and, more interesting still, he was called Me-maḫa (“supreme word”), as
“Ninip, guardian of the supreme commands.” The Assyrians worshipped him
both under the name of Ninip and Apil-Êšarra, “son of the house (temple)
of the host.” It is this deity whose name occurs in the Assyrian royal
names Tukulti-Ninip and Tukulti-âpil-Ê-šarra, or Tiglath-pileser.
On these points, as on many others, we must wait for more light from the
East.
In the matter of Sarai, Abraham’s wife, giving her handmaid Hagar to
Abraham as a second or inferior wife, because she had no children herself,
it is not improbable that we have a record of what was a common custom at
the time. On p. 174 ff. translations of Babylonian tablets are given,
which seem to have some analogies with what is stated in the Biblical
narrative. In these inscriptions, however, the woman of inferior position,
though she is expected to be the servant of the other, is raised, to all
appearance, into a higher position, and described as the sister of the
first wife, apparently by adoption, this supposition being based on the
statement that Iltani was daughter of Sin-âbu-šu, though both Iltani and
Taram-sagila were taken in marriage from Uttatum, their father. Apparently
there was to be no difference in the status of the children of either of
them, and it was apparently on account of the hope that Hagar’s son would
be as her own, that the patriarch’s wife acted as she did.
With regard to the contract at Machpelah, that is, as has already been
noticed more than once, evidently a legal document, or at least an
abstract of such a document, and bears some likeness to the ancient
contracts of Assyria and Babylonia, though the latter are generally
composed in much shorter form, and with different phraseology. The
descriptions of landed property given on pp. 167, 178 ff., and also such
sales of land as the following give material for comparing the document in
question—
“¼ of a gan, a field by the crossing, in the upper district of Tenu,
beside (the property of) Qaranu the son of the palace, and beside (the
property of) Ili-midi, its first end the road Aštaba(tum ?), its second
end the property of the enclosure Tenunam, Il-šu-banî has bought from
Nannara-manšum and Sin-banî, his brother, sons of Sin-âbû-šu, for its
complete price. He has paid the money, he has passed the barrier, his
transaction is complete—the silver, the price of their field, is complete,
they are content. They shall not say ‘We have not received the money’—they
have received it before the witnesses. At no future time shall
Nannara-manšum and Sin-banî make claim upon the field. They have invoked
the spirit of Šamaš, Merodach, and Zabium (the king).
“Claim of his brothers and his sisters [this would be better ‘their
brothers and their sisters’], children of Sin-âbû-šu, Nannara-manšum and
Sin-banî shall answer for.
“Before Ili-’adiwa, son of Amurru-banî; before Nannara-itti, son of
Sin-naṣir; before Sin-rêmeni, son of Išmê-Sin; before Nannara-ki-aga (?),
son of Sin-idinnam; before Munawirum; before Sin-bêl-ili; before
Sin-ûblam; before Nannara-manšum; before Ubar-Ninip, the scribe, before
Sin-êribam.”
In the following text the nature of the trees on the ground sold is
specified—
“12 measures, a date-palm plantation, beside the plantation of Rîš-Šamaš,
priest of the Sun-god, son of the woman Sâla, its first end (the property
of) Girum, Aḫatāni, sun-devotee, daughter of Marum, has bought for its
price in silver from Rîš-Šamaš, son of Sâla. She has paid the money, (and)
is content—she has passed the barrier. The transaction is ended. At no
future time shall they make claim against each other. (They have invoked)
the spirit of Šamaš, Merodach, and Ḫammurabi (Amraphel).
“Before Amri-ili-šu, son of Naram-Êa; before Yati-îlu, son of Abil-Sin;
before Ibi-Šamaš, before Êtil-šêp-Šamaš (?), sons of Buzia; before
Izi-zarê; before Êrib-Sin, son of Sârabi; before Manum, son of
Sin-idinnam; before Iṭur-âšdum, son of Ilu-ma-rabi (?); before Ili-âbû-Sin
(?); before Êrib-Sin, son of Su-...; before Šamaš-binî-pî-ia; before
Dimaḫum; before Rîš-Šamaš; before Ikunia, (son of?) ...-ninibu.”
A comparison of these inscriptions, which are types of hundreds of others
known to Assyriologists, with the transaction between Abraham and the
Hittite Ephron, shows noteworthy differences. The boundaries are usually
stated in the Babylonian documents with sufficiently great precision; but,
on the other hand, the nature of the land is generally not stated except
if it be actually under cultivation, and any trees growing on it are
apparently mentioned only on account of their commercial value—when, for
instance, they are fruit-bearing trees, as in the reference to the
date-palms in the second document here translated. In Babylonia, as in
Palestine, contracts and transactions of a legal nature often took place
in the open space by the gate of the city in or near which the contracting
parties lived, and where witnesses to the transaction could easily be
found among those who passed in and out, or who had business in the
neighbourhood. In the record contained in the 23rd chapter of Genesis, the
names of the witnesses are naturally not given, but it is expressly stated
that the contract was made “in the presence of the children of Heth,
before all that went in at the gate of his city.”
Salem.
One of the most interesting points revealed by the Tel-el-Amarna tablets,
is the fact that the name of Jerusalem occurs, and is not called simply
Salem (as in Gen. xiv. 18), but Uru-salim, the Aramaic (Syriac)
_Uri-shalem_, a form which confirms the translation given to it, namely,
“city of peace,” though the writing of the word in the Tel-el-Amarna
tablets suggests the suppression of the particle “of,” making “the city
Peace” simply, which would, perhaps, be to a certain extent a counterpart
to or an explanation of the form Salem, “Peace,” in Genesis.
There is no doubt that the name is an exceedingly interesting one. Prof.
Sayce has suggested that there was a god named Salem, or “Peace,” and that
the city was so called as being the abode of that deity. This, of course,
is by no means improbable, but in no place where the name occurs—neither
in the Tel-el-Amarna tablets nor in the historical inscriptions of
Sennacherib—has the element _salim_ (in Sennacherib’s texts _salimmu_) the
divine prefix before it. That the divine prefix should be omitted in the
inscriptions of Sennacherib is easily understood, as the name in question
would be a foreign one to the Assyrian scribes of his time. To the writers
of the letters from Jerusalem, however, it was a native name, and one
would certainly expect the name of the city, in such documents, to be
given fully at least once.
Nevertheless, that there was a god of peace among the Semites, is proved
by the name of the Assyrian god Šulmanu or Shalman, a component part of
the name Shalmaneser, the Assyrian Šulmanu-ašarid. It is noteworthy that
there were no less than four Assyrian kings of this name, and that it
means “the god Shalman is chief.” _Šulmanu_ or _Šalmanu nunu_, “Shalman
the fish,” also occurs, as the name of one of the gods of the city Tedi,
or, as Prof. Sayce reads it, Dimmen-Silim (better Temmena-silima), but
this latter reading would only be the correct one if the characters Tedi
are to be read as an Akkadian group.
It is therefore very doubtful whether the element _salim_ in the name of
Jerusalem be the name of a god, notwithstanding the love that the peoples
of the Semitic East naturally had for the blessings which the word
implies. It formed part, as in Arabic at the present day, of many a
greeting, and is one of the most noteworthy points of the Semitic
languages. A poetic composition, apparently of the time of the dynasty of
Babylon—probably contemporaneous with Abraham—seems to read as follows—
Mazzazam išu, It has the
resting-place,
Padanam išu— It has the roadway,
Bab êkalli šalim; The gate of the
palace is sound—
Šulmu parku šakin. Perfect (?)
soundness exists;
Martum šalmât The gall is sound,
Ubanum šalmât The peak is sound,
Ḫašû (?) u libbu (?) Entrails and heart
šalmu are sound—
Sinšerit tiranu. 12 (are) the
coverings (?).
Tertum immer izzim (If) the viscera (?)
of a healthy sheep
(?)
Šalmât Be sound,
Mimma la tanakkud. Naught shalt thou
fear.
The above probably represents the signs which the _extispices_ or
“entrails-inspectors” looked for when working out their forecasts. A
better translation than “peace” for _salim_ would therefore probably be
“safe and sound,” “intact,” or something similar (see the 13th edition of
Gesenius’s Lexicon, edited by Prof. F. Buhl, with the collaboration of
Socin and Zimmern, also Fried. Delitzsch, _Assyrisches Handwörterbuch_),
but the old and more poetic expression “peace,” “to be at peace,” may be
held to sufficiently express the meaning.
With regard to the first element of the name Jerusalem, Uru-salim in
Assyrian, that is to all appearance the Sumero-Akkadian _uru_ (from an
older _guru_), “city,” in the dialect _eri_, from which the Hebrew _’ir_,
“city,” has to all appearance come. The vowel-change from _u_ to _e_ or
_i_ is shown in _tu_, dialectic _te_, “dove”; _uru_, dial. _eri_,
“servant”; _duga_, dial. _ṣiba_, “good,” etc. As is usual with two
nationalities dwelling at no great distance from each other, borrowings of
words took place between the Semites on the one hand and the
Sumero-Akkadians on the other, which have left traces on the vocabularies
of both.
CHAPTER VII. ISAAC, JACOB, AND JOSEPH.
Jacob, Yakub, and Yakub-ilu—Joseph, Yasup, and Yasup-ilu—Other
similar names—The Egyptian monuments and the Semites.
With the disappearance of Abraham from the scene of his earthly
wanderings, a prominent figure connecting Babylonia with Palestine
vanishes from history. His son Isaac and his grandson Jacob retain,
however, their connection with those of the family who resided at Haran,
taking their wives from among their relatives there—Isaac because his
father wished it, Jacob because the souls of his father and mother were
vexed on account of the daughters of Heth whom Esau, Jacob’s brother, had
married. In this primitive story of three generations of a primitive
family there is much to interest the student of ancient west Semitic
manners and customs—the love of Isaac for Esau, because Isaac loved the
savoury venison which the former provided for him; how Jacob, “the
supplanter,” obtained his brother’s birthright and the blessing which he
ought to have had; Laban’s covetousness and duplicity—all these things
furnish material for the student of manners and customs and of human
nature, but very little for the comparative archæologist who wishes to
find connections between Abraham’s descendants and the country which gave
their father (or their grandfather) birth. Nevertheless there are points
which deserve illustration.
To all appearance the manners and customs of the families of the
patriarchs had not changed since they came out of Babylonia. There is the
same pastoral life, the same dislike (and probably mistrust) of strangers
and foreigners, the same freedom on the part of the men, even the most
honoured among them, with regard to the marriage-tie, the same tendency to
add to this world’s goods, and to become great and mighty chiefs in the
land (would that Jacob had done this otherwise), as at first. The
Babylonian spirit of commerce and the desire for “supplanting” was well
developed in the father of the twelve tribes, and may be regarded as
adding, as far as it goes, to the confirmation of the theory (but the
question is more one of fact than of theory) that Abraham was of
Babylonian race.
Exceedingly interesting are all the names borne by the patriarchs, and the
reasons why they were given to them. Indeed, the punning references to
circumstances concerning their birth are similar in their character to
those of the patriarchs before the Flood. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy
that many of the names found in this part of the sacred narrative are not
by any means unique. Thus the name of Jacob occurs many times in the
tablets of the period of the first dynasty of Babylon under the forms of
_Yakubu_, _Yakubi_, etc., and there are also forms with the word _îlu_
attached—_Ya’kubi-îlu_, _Yakub-îlu_, etc. In like wise we find what is
apparently the same name as that of Joseph, namely, _Yašupum_ with its
longer form _Yašup-îlu_, types of many others, such as _Yakudum_,
_Yakunam_, etc., _Yabnik-îlu_, _Yagab-îlu_ son of _Yakub-îlu_, etc. As far
as I have at present been able to find out, however, none of the names of
this class, except _Yakub-îlu_ and _Yašup-îlu_, have as yet been
discovered in both forms (_i.e._ with and without the element _îlu_),
which may turn out to be of importance, or may be simply a remarkable
coincidence.
This, naturally, leads to the question: What are the meanings of these
names? According to Genesis, Jacob means supplanter, or, rather, “he has
supplanted,” and the further query then arises: What does the name mean
when _îlu_ is added to it? The meaning in this case ought to be “God has
supplanted,” which clearly will not fit.
The best explanation probably is, that the name of Jacob was never
Ya´kub-ilu, but Ya´kub simply, meaning, “he has supplanted,” and
referring, naturally, to the person who bore the name. As the name
“Supplanter” is not one which a man would be proud to bear, in all
probability it was seen that it would be taken for the usual abbreviation
for Ya´kub-îlu, with the probable meaning of “God hath restrained”
(another signification of the root ´aqab), and thus it may be that there
is no record of any one having reproached him on account of it, except the
members of his own family, who knew why it was given to him, and
recognized in his character as a man something which corresponded with the
name given to him because of what was said to have happened at his birth.
Notwithstanding the two etymologies of the name of Joseph which are given
(Gen. xxx. 23, 24), “He (God) hath taken away,” and “He (God) hath added,”
there is but little doubt that the latter rendering is the correct one,
agreeing, as it does, better with the root _yāsaph_, from which it is
derived, the other rendering, from the root _āsaph_, “to take away,” being
due to a kind of pun. (The former rendering is explained as being from the
Elohist narrative, the other from that of the Jehovist, but it seems not
at all improbable that a woman, even a Canaanitess of those primitive
ages, should have made a joke sometimes—they seem always to have been
given to making strange comparisons with regard to words, and even the
ancient Babylonians were not free from that failing, as at least one of
the bilingual tablets shows.) The meaning of the name Joseph is therefore
“He (God) hath added,” corresponding with that of the Yašup-îlu, “God hath
added,” of the tablets of the time of the dynasty of Babylon. The use of
_š_ for _s_ must be due to the fact that _Yašup-îlu_ was, for the
Babylonians, a foreign name, and that, in Assyro-Babylonian, _šin_ was
pronounced like _samech_ and _samech_ like _šin_, as a general rule.
Besides the names of the patriarchs Jacob and Joseph, the name Sar-îli,
“prince of God,” suggests a comparison with Israel, which is written
Sir´ilâa, “Israelites,” in the time of Shalmaneser II. The meaning
attributed to this name would seem to be somewhat strained, as it would
signify rather “God hath striven,” than “he hath striven with God.” That
word-play exists also here, and that the name was a changed form of
Sar-îli, “prince of God,” is possible, and is at least justified as a
suggestion by the form recorded by Shalmaneser II. already referred to.
The name of his brother Esau may possibly exist in the Babylonian Esê,
found on a tablet dated in the reign of Samsu-iluna. Laban does not occur,
except as the name of a god in a list of deities worshipped in the city of
Aššur. With regard to Bethuel, one cannot help thinking that it must be
the same as the place-name Bethel, the terminal _u_ of the nominative
being retained in the name of Abraham’s nephew. If this be the case, he
may have been so named after the “Bethel of cedar” (see p. 201), though
there is just the possibility that, as Gesenius suggests, Bethuel may be
for Methuel, the Babylonian _Mut-îli_, “man of god.” That the Bethel of
Haran was a heathen place of worship, however, can hardly be regarded as
any objection to one of the family to which Abraham and his descendants
belonged bearing such a name. If the Hebrew text be correct, therefore, it
is probably an abbreviation, forming part of a name similar to
Ê-sagila-zērâ-êpuš, “Ê-sagila (the temple of Belus at Babylon) has created
a name,” and others like it. It is also to be noted, that the name given
by Leah to the son which Zilpah her handmaid bore to Jacob after she
herself left off bearing was Gad, rendered in the Hebrew itself by
“Fortunate,” and probably the name of a west Semitic deity, Gad, the god
of good fortune.
But the heathenism of the portion of the family living at or near Haran is
clearly proved by the matter of the teraphim, which Rachel stole from her
father Laban. It is true that they are generally regarded as figures used
for the purpose of magic, but as Laban himself calls them his “gods,”
there is every probability that they were worshipped as such. It is to be
regarded as simply an indication of the difficulty which most dwellers in
the midst of polytheism in those days must have found in dissociating
themselves from the practices of those with whom they came daily into
contact. They may have had all the tendencies possible towards monotheism,
but how were they to embrace it in all its perfection in the midst of a
population recounting from time to time the many wonderful things which
their gods and protecting genii did for them, and which the hearer had no
opportunity of probing to the bottom and estimating at their true value?
As these people were, to all appearance, but simple shepherds (though
sufficiently wealthy), it is hardly to be expected of them that they would
go deeply into philosophical considerations concerning the Deity,
especially when we remember that the family of Laban was in close contact
with the idolatry of Haran.
With regard to the teraphim which Rachel took with her when Jacob fled
from her father, there is not much that can be said. Figures so called
were in common use among the Jews and other nations for purposes of magic,
and to all appearance they were statues of deities (as indicated in the
passage now under consideration) which were consulted by some means when
anything of importance was about to be undertaken. To all appearance they
were the household gods, like the Lares and Penates of the Romans, though
they were also used when on expeditions, as when Nebuchadnezzar is
represented (Ezekiel xxi. 21-26 in the Heb.) standing at the parting of
the ways to use divination, shaking arrows to and fro, consulting the
teraphim, and looking at a liver to decide what his success in the
operations which he was about to undertake against Jerusalem would be. In
Zechariah x. 2 also, there is a reference to the teraphim, which, as
oracles, had “spoken vanity,” and the diviners had “seen a lie.” Little
doubt exists, therefore, as to what these things were used for. With
regard to their form, it is supposed that they were similar to the small
figures found in the ruins of the ancient palaces of Assyria, generally
under the pavement, in all probability images of the gods of Assyria who,
by their effigies, were supposed to protect the palace and its
inhabitants. Some of these are four-winged figures similar to those found
on the bas-reliefs, whilst others are representations of a deity, probably
the god Êa or Aê, the god of the sea, who is represented clothed with a
fish’s skin, etc. The size of these teraphim must have differed greatly;
that which was placed in David’s bed by Michal, his wife, to deceive
Saul’s messengers, must necessarily have been of considerable
height—probably not much under that of a man. Those hidden by Rachel when
her father came to look for them, however, must have been comparatively
small, and the figures found in the foundations of the Assyrian palaces
rarely measure more than six inches in height.
In the light of what this incident of the teraphim reveals, it is not to
be wondered at that Jacob, when about to go up to Bethel from Shechem,
after the treacherous spoiling of the city by his sons, should have said,
“Put away the strange gods that are among you,” and it shows also a
considerable amount of tolerance on the part of the patriarch. Did he,
too, believe that the gods which his relatives and dependents worshipped
were in any sense divine beings? In any case, it is to be noted that,
after they were given to him, he did not destroy them, but hid them, with
the trinkets which they possessed—in all probability in many cases heathen
emblems—under the terebinth-tree which was by Shechem.
To all appearance they were allowed to keep these strange gods and heathen
emblems until they set out on the journey to make the commanded sacrifices
to the God who had revealed Himself to Jacob at Bethel.
It was after this sacrifice at Bethel that God again revealed Himself as
El-shaddai, His name in the text of “the priestly narrator” (Gen. xvii.
1), and in many other passages. The word Shaddai here is generally
connected with the root _shadād_, “to act powerfully,” and the translation
“God Almighty” is based on this. As the word is a very difficult one,
however, there have been many attempts to find a more satisfactory
etymology. It is to be noted, therefore, that there is in Semitic
Babylonian a word _šadû_, often applied to deities, and expressed, in the
old language of Akkad, by means of the same ideograph (KURA) as is used
for mountain (_šadû_ or _šaddû_ in Semitic Babylonian). This word _šadû_,
applied to divinities, Prof. Fried. Delitzsch regards as being distinct
from the word for mountain, notwithstanding that they are both expressed
by the same word in Akkadian, and renders it by the words “lord,”
“commander.”
Have we, in this word, an Assyro-Babylonian form of the Hebrew Shaddai? We
do not know, but the likeness between the two is worth referring to. The
god Bêl, for example, is called _šadû rabû_, “the great mighty one,” and
Sin, with other deities, bears a similar title, found in such names as
Sin-šadûnu, “the Moon-god is our lord.” That the idea of almightiness
should be expressed by means of the borrowed Akkadian idiomatic use of the
word KURA, “mountain,” as that which towers up commandingly, a mighty
mass, would seem to offer an acceptable explanation of what has long been
felt as a difficulty. “But God knows best.”
After a long and noteworthy account of Esau and his descendants, the
interest of the narrative shifts, and is transferred to Joseph, the
youngest but one of Jacob’s twelve sons, though the narrative is for a
time interrupted by the story of Judah.
With the transfer of the interest of the narrative to Joseph, Egypt, the
country into which he was sold as a slave, becomes the scene of the
action. Here a vast and interesting store of material meets the student,
which, unfortunately, we can only very imperfectly touch upon, partly from
considerations of space, and partly because the present work is intended
to be more the story of the Hebrews in connection with Babylonia and
Assyria. It is necessary, however, to speak of Egypt not only on account
of the continuity of the narrative, but also as an introduction to the
chapter in which the Tel-el-Amarna tablets are examined—documents found in
Egypt, and addressed to an Egyptian king.
There is no doubt, that in the story of Joseph there exists a considerable
amount of what is known as “local colour.” This is shown by the freedom
which the women of Egypt evidently enjoyed (as exhibited in the story of
Potiphar’s wife), the matter of Joseph shaving himself before going to see
Pharaoh, the many undoubtedly Egyptian names, etc. These, of course, are
undeniable points in favour of the authenticity of the narrative, which,
perfect as it is, omits one important thing, namely, the name of the
Pharaoh who ruled at the time. That there should be such an omission in
the comparatively unimportant references to the visits of Abraham and
Isaac to Egypt is, perhaps, not so very strange, but that there should be
no clue to the identity of the Egyptian ruler under whom Joseph entered
Egypt, nor to the persecutor of the Israelites under whose reign they went
forth from what had become to them practically a hostile land, is
noteworthy, and a matter for great regret. It is, therefore, not to be
wondered at that scholars have arisen who doubt the whole story, for the
least flaw in a narrative in the present day, when unbelief and the desire
for scientific proof meet one on every hand, will cause a thinking man to
doubt anything and everything.
The degree of civilization to which Egypt had attained at this period, and
probably thousands of years earlier, is so remarkable that it is difficult
for us at this distance of time to realize it. Whether the country was in
reality more civilized than Babylonia is a matter of doubt—possibly we
regard their civilization as superior on account of the monuments being so
much better preserved, and because, in consequence of the nature of the
climate (which is such as to preserve even perishable things), an untold
wealth of material exists. This was not the case with Babylonia, in which
country the annual rains have caused almost all woodwork to decay, and
only objects of stone and clay, and much more rarely metal, remain, even
these being in many instances more or less damaged and therefore defective
as really useful historical documents.
Egyptian antiquities testify to the civilization of the Egyptians, as has
already been remarked, from remote ages, and the inscriptions show that
the kingdom was well organized, and governed by rulers whose sway was
popular and in accordance with the wishes of the priesthood. This state of
things lasted, according to Prof. Flinders Petrie, until about 2098 B.C.,
when suddenly this exceedingly conservative nation, possessing as great a
dislike for foreigners as do the Chinese at the present time, found itself
attacked and invaded by barbarian hordes from Western Asia. From what
district these people came is not known. According to Josephus, they were
regarded by some as Arabians, but Josephus himself regarded them as being
of his own race, _i.e._ Jewish. Quoting from Manetho, he shows that, under
a ruler called Timaios, these people from the east, “men of an ignoble
race,” invaded the land, and easily made themselves master of it without a
battle. When the rulers of Egypt fell into their hands, they burned the
cities, destroyed the temples of the gods, and inflicted every kind of
indignity upon the inhabitants. At last they raised one of themselves
named Salatis (a name evidently derived from the Semitic root _šālaṭ_, “to
rule”) to the throne. This king made Memphis his capital, both Upper and
Lower Egypt become tributary to him, and he stationed garrisons in those
places which were most suitable for the purpose. One interesting point is,
that he directed his attention especially to the security of the eastern
frontier, because he feared the Assyrians, who, he foresaw, would one day
undertake an invasion of his kingdom. This, to all appearance, refers to
the Babylonian dominion, which, as we have seen (see pp. 124 and 155)
extended to the Mediterranean. As far as our historical knowledge extends,
his fears were groundless, as no serious attempt (and certainly no
successful attempt) to conquer Egypt was made until long after the time of
Salatis, when Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, succeeded in subjugating the
country, which remained under Assyrian overlordship until the reign of his
son Aššur-banî-âpli.
Salatis ruled 19 years, and was succeeded by a king named Beon or Bnōn,
who reigned 44 years. The next ruler of this race bears the
Egyptian-sounding name of Apakhnas, and ruled for 37 years and 7 months.
Next came Apophis, the Apepi of modern scholars, who occupied the throne
no less than 61 years, Ianias, who ruled for 50 years and 1 month, having
also a very long reign. After all these ruled Assis, 49 years and 2
months. These six, says Manetho, were the first of their rulers, and
constantly strove to exterminate the Egyptians by making war upon them.
Hyksos, or Shepherd kings, and their successors, he goes on to say,
retained possession of Egypt 511 years.
In the end the kings of Thebais, and of other provinces of Egypt, arose
against the Shepherds, and a long and mighty war was carried on between
them, until the Shepherds were overcome by a king whose name was
Misphragmouthosis, who, having expelled them from other parts of Egypt,
shut them up in Avaris, a tract consisting of about 10,000 acres. All this
tract the Shepherds fortified with great strength, whilst Thummosis, son
of Misphragmouthosis, tried to force them to surrender by a siege, and
surrounded them with an army of 480,000 men. He was beginning to despair
of being able to reduce them, when they agreed to capitulate, stipulating
that they should be permitted to leave Egypt, and go with all their
families whithersoever they pleased. This was agreed to, and they bent
their way through the desert towards Syria. Fearing the Assyrians
(Babylonians), however, who then had dominion over Asia, they built a city
in the country called Judea, of sufficient size to contain them all (they
numbered not less than 240,000), and named it Jerusalem.
From this it would appear that, taking advantage of the disorganized state
of Egypt about 2100 years before Christ, these Shepherd kings invaded the
country, and gradually consolidated their power there. In process of time
they had the whole of the country in their possession, and such rulers as
remained were allowed to retain their provinces only as vassals, being
really princes only in name. It is also very probable that if, as really
appears, they were barbarians on entering Egypt, they became civilized by
intercourse with the nation which they had conquered. This having been
done, the monarchy which they established conformed more and more with
that of the native Egyptian kings, so that their court and manner of
administration were, to all intents and purposes, Egyptian; native
administrators being appointed to many important posts in order to obtain
the willing obedience of the people.
As the rule of these Shepherd kings began about 2100 B.C., and finished
about 1587 B.C. (Petrie), it is clear that the visits of Abraham, Isaac,
and Joseph, including Jacob and his family, all fall within this period.
As will easily be understood, such a synchronism is not without its value,
especially when considering the historical authority of the Pentateuch.
That it was during the dominion of the above-named rulers that Joseph
entered Egypt is or has been the opinion of all the best students of
Egyptian history—Birch, Brugsch, Maspero, Naville, Wiedemann, and many
others—and there can be but little doubt of its correctness. It is
remarkable that there is no native record of Joseph’s administration, but
this is, after all, hardly to be wondered at, especially when we consider
the disturbed state of the country at a later date, when many records,
especially those of the hated conquerors, must have been destroyed, and in
any case there is the ever-present chance of some untoward fate overtaking
them, by which such documents, if they really existed, may have become
lost to the world for ever.
The strange thing about the foreign rulers who held possession of Egypt so
long is, as has already been pointed out by Prof. Petrie, that they
remained throughout to all intents and purposes a distinct nationality.
Intermarriage between the two races, even when they were on the most
friendly terms, must have been comparatively rare, and it is on this
account that the native princes succeeded at last in ridding the land of
the “impure,” as the native recorder has it. From this same record we get
the information that one of the Shepherd kings was ’Apop’i (Apepy), the
Apophis of the Greeks, and that he ruled at Hawar, a town which is
identified with Avaris. The only god which this ruler served was Sutekh,
identified with Râ or Rê (in earlier times also, to all appearance,
pronounced Ria), the Egyptian Sun-god. According to the Sallier papyrus,
from which the above details are taken, it would seem that Râ-’Apop’i, as
he is there called, sent to Seqnen-Rê, “king of the South,” proposing that
the latter should clear away all the hippopotamuses on the canals of the
country, in order that Râ-’Apop’i might sleep. If the king of the South
did not succeed in doing this, then he was to embrace the worship of
Sutekh, but if he did succeed, then Râ-’Apop’i promised not to bow down
before any other god of Egypt except Amon-Râ, the king of the gods.
This, of course, was a distinction without a difference, and is evidently
put forward by the writer as such, for the worship of Sutekh in all
probability meant the renouncing of the worship of all the other gods of
Egypt, a thing which no Egyptian was likely to consent to. On the other
hand, the worship of Amon-Râ by the Hyksos king would have been no great
hardship, as it would in all probability not have involved any change in
his faith, seeing that it was generally recognized that this deity and
Sutekh were identical.
The end of this story is lost, so that there is no means of finding out
how matters were brought to a head, and the flame of revolt kindled which
ended in the expulsion of Egypt’s Semitic invaders. What the historical
value of the fragment may be is uncertain, as it reads more like a romance
than a true history. In all probability, however, its greatest importance
will be found to lie in its local colour.(50)
Joseph, on arriving in Egypt, therefore, found himself, to all intents and
purposes, among friends. The man to whom the Ishmaelites sold him was, as
stated in the sacred narrative, Potiphar, “an officer of Pharaoh’s,
captain of the guard, an Egyptian.” The writer of the narrative evidently
wished to convey the idea that a man in the service of the king of Egypt,
and bearing an Egyptian name, was not necessarily a native of the country.
One in the favour of the Semitic ruler of the country, and enjoying his
confidence, would naturally be favourably disposed towards a person of
Semitic race falling into his hands, and this was actually the case with
the Hebrew youth, who “found grace in his sight,” and became overseer of
all his house. Indeed, it is possibly on account of this kindly
disposition towards him (though also, and perhaps chiefly, on account of
his being of the same race as the then ruler of Egypt), that Joseph was
not at once put to death by his enraged master on hearing his wife’s lying
accusation against him, for no man, in those days, would have looked
leniently upon such a crime as that with which Joseph was charged. In
connection with this, it is noteworthy that he is said to have been
consigned to “the prison, the place where the king’s prisoners were
bound.” Here, being of Semitic race, and helped by his God, he obtained
the favour of the keeper of the prison, whose trusted deputy he became.
Later on, after interpreting to the king’s imprisoned chief butler his
dream, he asks this official, when he should again be restored to his
place, to make mention of him to Pharaoh, stating that he had been stolen
away out of the land of the Hebrews, and had also done nothing to merit
being detained a prisoner in that place. To all appearance he firmly
believed that his nationality would favour him.
In accordance with his wish, so it turned out, for after two years mention
was made of him by the chief butler to Pharaoh, and he is careful to state
that Joseph was “an Hebrew.” When called, by the ruler of Egypt, in
accordance with the custom of the country, Joseph shaved himself, and put
on other clothes, before entering the royal presence. The sympathy of the
king towards him was manifested immediately after his interpretation of
his dreams, and he was at once, with Oriental promptitude, made governor
of all the land of Egypt, receiving from the king his ring in token of the
authority conferred upon him. The hero’s complete Egyptianizing is to all
appearance terminated by his receiving an Egyptian name, Zaphnath-paaneah,
and marrying an Egyptian wife, Asenath, daughter of Poti-phera, priest of
On.
There are a great many points for consideration in these few statements.
As has been remarked, it was doubtless due to the custom of Egyptian
etiquette that Joseph shaved himself, setting aside his Semitic prejudices
to the fashion, for it is supposed that Semites abhorred such a ceremony.
Surely, it might be objected, the Semitic ruler of Egypt would have liked
Joseph none the worse if he had retained his hair, and thus proclaimed his
nationality, as it were, on this occasion. And such an objection would
possess a certain amount of force. There is hardly any doubt, however,
that Semitic abhorrence to the practice has been greatly exaggerated, for
it was the custom for high-placed personages in Babylonia, in Joseph’s
time, to do this, and it remained the custom in that country until a very
late date. This was, in all probability, a sacred duty with certain
classes of people, such as priests and those dedicated to a divinity. A
Hebrew at that time would probably have had no objection, therefore, to
adopting the practice, especially in such a climate as that of Egypt,
where the necessity of keeping as cool as possible would probably be
recognized.
That it should be desired that the new viceroy should try to assimilate
himself as much as possible with the natives of the country was probably
the reason of Joseph’s assuming an Egyptian name and taking an Egyptian
wife. A great deal of uncertainty exists, however, as to the true Egyptian
form and meaning of the name Zaphnath-paaneah (better
Zaphenath-pa’eneakh). Many conjectures have been made as to its true
Egyptian form and meaning, but that of Steindorff, “(God), the living one,
has spoken,” is undoubtedly the best of all.(51) The meaning generally
given to the name of Asenath, his wife, is “Belonging to (the goddess)
Neith,” but a certain amount of doubt is attached to this rendering. As
for the name of Poti-phera, her father, of that there is but little doubt:
it is the Egyptian Pa-ti-pe-Ra’, “the gift of Ra,” or “of the Sun,” and
was naturally a very appropriate name for the priest of On, or Heliopolis,
the centre of the worship of the Sun-god. Potiphar, the name of the
Egyptian who bought Joseph from the Ishmaelites, is regarded as being a
shortened form of this same name.
Another point, and that a very interesting one, is the question of the
derivation of the word _abrech_, which the criers were ordered to call out
before the newly-chosen viceroy. Professor Sayce compares this expression,
with a great amount of probability, with the Babylonian _abriqqu_, from
the Akkadian _abrig_, the meaning which he attributes to it being “seer.”
He also refers to another word, namely, _abarakku_ (fem. _abarakkatu_). Of
these two, the latter etymology, on account of the consonants, is the more
preferable, though the former one would probably suit better in the matter
of vowels. But which is the right word?—they cannot both have been the
original of _abrech_. The meaning of _abriqqu_ is “wise one,” and that of
_abarakku_ “seer,” a high official of the Assyrian (and probably also the
Babylonian) court. The Tel-el-Amarna tablets show that Assyro-Babylonian
literature was known and studied in Egypt, and this would account for the
word being introduced into Egyptian. It must be confessed, however, that
seductive though these comparisons may be, the forms hardly fit, otherwise
nothing would seem to be more appropriate than that a crier should be sent
to precede Joseph during his triumphal progress through the streets of On
or Avaris, announcing that this was the new grand vizier, or the great
seer, who had successfully interpreted the king’s dream. One would like to
have, moreover, at least one instance of the occurrence of the word in
Egyptian literature.
Naturally the Jews of later days were very much exercised in their minds
that one of the favourites and primitive heroes of their race should have
married a heathen woman, daughter of the priest of the Sun at On, and
legends seem to have been invented to account for this undesirable
circumstance and explain it away. It is regarded as being due to this that
there exists a Christian legend, preserved in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and
Latin, purporting to give the history of Asenath. She is represented as
the proud and beautiful daughter of Pentephres (Poti-phera), of
Heliopolis, who lived in magnificent exclusion, and despised all men. Her
parents wished her to marry Joseph, the great prime minister, but this she
would not do. In the course of his visits to collect corn, Asenath sees
him, and at once falls in love with him. Joseph, however, will have
nothing to do with her because she worships idols. Shutting herself up for
seven days in sackcloth and ashes, she threw her idols out of the window,
and performed a strict penance. An angel in the form of Joseph then visits
her, and blesses her, giving her to eat a mystic honeycomb, signed with
the sign of the cross. Asenath, thus accepted, arrays herself in beautiful
garments, and goes forth to meet Joseph. He had returned to the house in
her parents’ absence, but notwithstanding this, the betrothal at once
takes place, and afterwards their marriage in the Pharaoh’s presence. Her
subsequent adventures include an attempt to carry her off on the part of
Pharaoh’s first-born, aided by Dan and Gad, and in this attempt the heir
to the throne loses his life. The original legend made Asenath a Jewess by
birth. (See Smith’s _Dictionary __ of Christian Biography_, and Hastings’s
_Dictionary of the Bible_, sub voc.)
To what has already been said about the points tending to show that Joseph
was viceroy in Egypt under one or more of the Hyksos or Shepherd kings,
may be added the fact that, when his father and brethren came to settle in
the land, they were instructed to say that they were shepherds, though it
is at once added that “shepherds were an abomination to the Egyptians.”
The only thing, to all appearance, that can be argued from this is, that
however the native Egyptians might be inclined to look upon the
new-comers, the ruler of the land (who is also represented as being
pleased that Joseph’s brethren had come) had no objection to them on that
account. In support of the contention that the period of Joseph was the
Hyksos period, it must also be pointed out that this new viceroy
introduced at least one measure which might be regarded as somewhat harsh.
He appropriated the surplus produce of the seven years of plenty, and when
the years of famine came, he compelled the Egyptians to buy back, “even to
their own impoverishment,”(52) what they had themselves previously parted
with for nothing. The reason for this, however, seems to be clear. The
Pharaoh upon the throne was of the same race as himself, and he and all
Semitic foreigners in the land, including his father and brethren, were
dependent on the same state of things continuing. What he then did would
have the effect of placing the native Egyptians still more in the power of
their ruler, consolidating the dynasty of Semites to which he belonged,
and going far, therefore, to ensure the permanency of its rule. In acting
as he did, Joseph was only doing what any other man in his position and of
his race would have done.
As has been frequently pointed out, famines occurred from time to time in
Egypt, and records of them are in existence. Even before the time of the
Hyksos kings, a failure of the waters of the Nile to rise to their
ordinary height would bring great want and distress. At such times the
governors of the various provinces of the kingdom gloried, as Ebers says,
in helping their subjects, and saving them from distress. Thus Ameni or
Amen-em-ha, whose tomb is at Benihasan, praises himself in the following
words—
“I cultivated the entire nome of Maḫ with many workpeople, I troubled no
child and oppressed no widow, neither did I keep a fisherman from his
fishing, or a herdsman from his herd. There was no head of the village
whose people I had taken away for compulsory labour, and there was no one
unhappy in my days or hungry in my time. When, however, a famine arose, I
tilled all the fields in the nome of Maḫ, from its southern to its
northern boundary, and gave nourishment and life to its inhabitants. So
there was no one in the nome who died of hunger. To the widow I allowed as
much as to the wife of a man, and in all that I did I never preferred the
great man to the small one. When the Nile rose again, and everything
flourished—fields, trees, and all else—I cut off nothing from the
fields.”—Ebers in Bædeker’s _Upper Egypt_, 1892, p. 15.
Amen-em-ha departed this life in the 43rd year of Usertesen I., or about
2714 B.C.
More interesting still, however, is the famine which occurred in the time
of Baba, or Beby, as his name is also written. This functionary actually
lived during the period of the dominion of the later Hyksos kings, and
therefore very close to the time of Joseph. According to Brugsch, Baba
lived and worked under the native king Ra-seqenen or Seqenen-Rê III., at
the city now represented by the ruins of El-Kâb. Though the famine of
which he speaks lasted “many years,” and notwithstanding that the ruler
whom he served was a contemporary of ’Apop’i, the Apophis of Josephus, in
whose reign, according to this Jewish historian, Joseph lived, it is
thought that there is no reason to regard the calamity here referred to as
being the famine of which so full an account is given in Genesis—such a
supposition is “entirely gratuitous,” according to the writer in Bædeker’s
_Upper Egypt_. However this may be, there is no doubt that it is a very
important parallel, and would imply that two disastrous famines took place
in Egypt in close succession.
The following is Brugsch’s translation of this text—
“The chief of the table of princes, Baba, the risen again, speaks thus: ‘I
loved my father, I honoured my mother; my brother and my sisters loved me.
I stepped out of the door of my house with a benevolent heart; I stood
there with refreshing hand, and splendid were the preparations of what I
collected for the feast-day. Mild was my heart, free from noisy angers.
The god bestowed upon me a rich fortune on earth. The city wished me
health and a life full of freshness. I punished the evildoers. The
children who stood opposite me in the town during the days which I have
fulfilled were, small as well as great, 60; there were prepared for them
as many beds, chairs (?) as many, tables (?) as many. They all consumed
120 ephas of durra, the milk of three cows, 52 goats, and nine she-asses,
of balsam a hin, and of oil two jars.
“ ‘My speech may appear a joke to some opponent. But I call as witness the
god Month that my speech is true. I had all this prepared in my house; in
addition I gave cream in the pantry and beer in the cellar in a more than
sufficient number of hin measures.
“ ‘I collected the harvest, a friend of the harvest-god. I was watchful at
the time of sowing. And now, when a famine arose, lasting many years, I
issued corn to the city at each famine.’ ”(53)
As, in Hebrew, “seven” is often a round number, equivalent to the English
“several,” the parallel is noteworthy. An additional remark upon the
subject of the Pharaoh of Joseph by Ebers (Smith’s _Dict. of the Bible_,
vol. i. pt. ii. p. 1729) is sufficiently striking. He says that the
Byzantine chronographer who is known under the name of Syncelles (he held
the office of Syncellus or suffragan in his monastery), like Josephus and
others, calls the Pharaoh of Joseph Apophis. Now Arab tradition, “in which
little or no reliance can be placed,” says that he was an Amalekite of the
name of Raian ibn el-Walid, and Naville, when excavating for the Egypt
Exploration Fund, at Bubastis, found a block with the name of Apophis, and
near it the lower part of a statue of black granite with the name of
Ian-Ra or Ra-ian, in hieroglyphics. In consequence of this, Dr. Rieu and
Mr. Cope Whithouse maintain that this Arab tradition was founded on fact.
“We must therefore leave it uncertain,” adds Prof. Ebers, “whether Joseph
came down into Egypt in the reign of Apophis, or in the reign of the
hitherto unknown Raian.” Perhaps both are right, and Joseph was in Egypt
during the reigns of two or more Egyptian kings. Traditions are sometimes
strangely correct, in certain points, though grossly untrustworthy in
others.
In Ebers’s article to which reference has already been made, the writer is
of opinion that Joseph met the king of Egypt on the occasion of the
interpretation of the latter’s dream, either at Tanis, the Zoan of the
English translation (better Ṣo’an), the Arab. Ṣân, borrowed to all
appearance from the Coptic Dzhane (Dzhani, Dzhaane, Dzhaani), from the
Egyptian Dzha’an, or at Bubastis, the Egyptian Pi-Bast, the Pi-Beseth of
Ezekiel xxx. 17, or at Memphis, the Egyptian Men-nofr, the Biblical Moph
or Noph. Of these three sites the first (Tanis) is considered the most
probable. It is situated at the north-east of the Delta, and was founded,
according to Numbers xiii. 22, seven years after Hebron. From this
statement, one would think that there must be some connection between
these two places, or else some historical fact is to be associated with
it. One thing is certain, and that is, that Tanis was the residence of the
Hyksos kings, who held court there for a considerable period, as did also
many who preceded and followed them. The ruins are extensive, and the
place is noted for its Hyksos sphinxes, in whose faces “the coarse Hyksos
type” is strongly marked. The officers under the Pharaoh of the Exodus
speak, in their letters, of the life there as being sweet, and praise the
neighbourhood for its fertility and the abundance of the food it produced
(Ebers).
Nevertheless, Bubastis (the modern Tel-Basta) may have been the place
where Joseph saw Pharaoh for the first time, as it was a place of great
importance, and had a celebrated temple dedicated to the goddess Bast.
Memphis, too, may be regarded as having claims, on account of its being
situated so near to On, the abode of Joseph’s father-in-law.
On, where Potiphera (“dedicated to the Sun”) was priest, was the
celebrated city of the Sun-god in Egypt, whose foundation went back to an
exceedingly remote antiquity. Besides Râ, Tum or Tmu (the evening sun),
Râ-Harmachis (the morning sun), his companion Thoth, Sehu and Tefnut,
children of Tum, and Osiris, who was venerated there as the soul of Râ,
were among the deities of the place. To these must be added Horus, son of
Osiris and Isis, god of the upper world or region of light. His mother
Isis was worshipped at On under the name of Isis-Hathor, corresponding
with Venus Urania. Besides these deities, various animals were held in
honour, among them being two lions, perhaps representing Sehu and Tefnut,
who were worshipped under the form of these animals; the bull Mnevis,
sacred to Râ or Rê; and the Phœnix, called by the Egyptians _Bennu_, the
bird of Râ, which was supposed to bring the ashes of its father to On once
every 500 years, after the latter had been consumed by fire. Other sacred
animals in this city were cats and a white sow. No wonder the Israelites
of old winced at the thought that their hero Joseph, so perfect in
character, wedded the daughter of a priest of this idolatrous city.
The shrine here was immensely wealthy. The staff of priests, officials,
and subordinates connected with the temple is said to have numbered no
less than 12,913. As the embodiment of the god Râ on earth, the king of
the land naturally gave this shrine predominance, and increased its wealth
by his gifts. This, added to the fact that the place had the honour of
giving him a title (“Lord of On”) of which he, in his turn, was naturally
proud, added greatly to the renown of the city. Besides the great temples,
it is said to have been also “full of obelisks,” which were dedicated to
the Sun-god in consequence of their being emblematic of his rays.
“Cleopatra’s Needle” on the Embankment, the obelisk bearing the same name
at Cairo, the Flaminian obelisk at Rome, and probably many others, all
came from this city. According to Herodotus, the priests of Heliopolis or
On were renowned above all others in Egypt for learning.
The Hyksos who held rule in Egypt for so many centuries are regarded as
having been wandering hordes of Bedouin Asiatics, called by the Egyptians
“the impure,” though they also spoke of them under their name of Amu,
regarded as being a word derived from the Semitic ’Am, from the root
_’amam_, meaning “people.” How early they entered the country is not
exactly known, but Petrie’s estimate, 2097 B.C., may be taken as the
nearest at present possible. In connection with this it may be noted that,
at the modern fishing-village of Sân, the present representative of the
ancient Tanis, which was the city of the Hyksos kings described above, the
faces and figures of the inhabitants are strange and unlike those of the
remainder of Egypt. They call themselves Melakiyin, _i.e._ Melekites or
“Royalists,” a name applied in the Christian period to a sect of the
orthodox Church. They were anciently known as Pi-shemer, corrupted to
Bashmurites, and also as Pi-Amu, corrupted to Biamites. There is,
therefore, hardly any doubt that these people, the descendants of the wild
and turbulent Bashmurites and Biamites who gave so much trouble to the
khalifs Merwân II. (744-750) and Mamun (813-822), may claim for their
ancestors either such of the followers of the Hyksos kings who, on the
expulsion of the latter, decided to remain in the country, or else of
those Semites whom the Hyksos found in Egypt when they conquered the
country, and who helped them to consolidate their dominion, partly from
sympathy and partly from interest.
Notwithstanding Joseph’s long residence in Egypt, it is noteworthy that,
like the Hyksos rulers of the land, he did not, to all appearance, become
in any sense Egyptianized, but retained his Semitic nationality to the
last, as is shown by his command to his Hebrew fellow-subjects to carry
his remains away with them when they, in the fulness of time, should leave
the country. This being the case, Kalisch has asked, very naturally, “Why
did not Joseph, like Jacob, order his body to be conveyed at once to
Canaan?” In all probability the explanation is, that the Apophis referred
to by the Greek writers was, as has been suggested, a contemporary of
Seqnen-Rê III., and therefore quite close to the end of the Hyksos period.
Joseph must, then, have passed at least part of his life under native
Egyptian rule, and at this time national feeling must have been more
violently anti-Semitic than ever. It may therefore be supposed that it
would not have been by any means politic for him to proclaim his
nationality in this way, for this might have the effect of endangering the
lives and prospects of his surviving countrymen, who were all related to
him, by attracting to them the attention of the hostile populace and
court—a thing which would, and did, happen soon enough.
A still more difficult question to answer would be, “Why did not the
Hebrews go out of Egypt with the Hyksos?” The answer probably is, that
Joseph was, to all appearance, still known and honoured by the native
Pharaoh, when he came to the throne, for what he had done for the country.
It was seemingly not until after Joseph’s death that a Pharaoh arose who
knew him not. It may therefore be supposed that, until that time, the
Hebrews lived unmolested in the land which they had so long made their
home.
CHAPTER VIII. THE TEL-EL-AMARNA TABLETS AND THE EXODUS.
Egypt and Syria before the Exodus—The testimony of the
Tel-el-Amarna tablets—The relations between the two countries
during the reigns of Amenophis III. and IV.—Burra-burias of
Babylonia, Ašur-ubalit of Assyria—Yabitiri, and others in
Palestine—The Ḫabati and the Ḫabiri—The Letters of Abdi-ṭâba
(Ebed-tob, Abd-ḫiba)—The Pharaoh and the prince of the
Amorites—Mahler and the date of the Exodus.
“Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than
we. Come, let us deal with them wisely, lest they multiply, and it come to
pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they also join themselves unto
our enemies, and fight against us: and get them out of the land.”
Such are the words which the new king who knew not Joseph, when he came to
the throne, spoke to his people with regard to the alien population which
had been allowed during a former reign to settle in the land of Goshen, a
fruitful district on the north-east of Egypt, east of Bubastis (Zakāzik).
It is the speech of one who feared that, if nothing were done to prevent
them from becoming too powerful, they would be a source of danger to the
state, as they might join, with every chance of success, in any attack
which might be made on the kingdom over which he ruled. It was, in all
probability, the presence of a similar foreign (Semitic) population in or
near this district, about 2100 years B.C., which had contributed—or
perhaps even made—the success of the Hyksos invaders, through which Egypt
had been ruled by an alien dynasty for five hundred years. The repetition
of such a catastrophe was at all hazards to be prevented. It would seem,
therefore, that the persecution of the Hebrews was not undertaken
altogether wantonly, but with the object of turning aside a possible
misfortune.
As the historical nature of the Exodus has not as yet been absolutely
disproved, it is here taken to be a matter of history, and this being the
case, it is necessary to try to identify, or, rather, to state what are
the most probable opinions, as to the rulers of Egypt at the time of the
Oppression and the Exodus. Ramses II. of the nineteenth dynasty is
generally held to be the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and Meneptah, his son
and successor, the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Lieblein, however, would regard
this latter event as having occurred during the reign either of Amenophis
III., or his son, Amenophis IV., of the eighteenth dynasty. This latter
theory is based on the Tel-el-Amarna letters, which speak of the Ḫabiri,
roving bodies of men which went about Palestine stirring up the people,
and even compelling them by force to renounce Egyptian rule (which
extended in those days over the whole of this district). It will be part
of the scope of the present work to examine into this question.
After the death of Seqnen-Rê in battle (see p. 255), he was buried in the
usual way at Thebes, implying, as Petrie points out, that the Egyptians
had pushed their frontier some way to the north, “so that ceremonials at
Thebes were uninterrupted.” Further advance, he thinks, was made in the
reign of Kames, “the valiant prince,” as he calls himself, because Aah-mes
was able to besiege the stronghold of the Hyksos down in the Delta at the
beginning of his reign, about 1585 B.C. It is to be noted that two names
come, to all appearance, between those of Kames and Aah-mes, but these are
probably not those of important kings, though a part of the honour of the
progress made ought to be accredited to them. To all appearance it was the
efforts of the Thebans, who had been pushing their way northwards during
these last three years, which prepared the way for the successes of
Aah-mes—successes which placed him on the throne of Egypt, thus making him
the founder of the eighteenth dynasty.
Before he became Pharaoh, he succeeded, within four or five years, not
only in getting rid of the overlordship of the Hyksos kings, but also in
driving them out of the Nile valley, taking possession of Avaris, and
pursuing them into Palestine. Here, in the fifth year, he was able to
capture Sharhana or Sharuhen, some miles south of Lachish. He then went on
to Zahi (Phœnicia), and later defeated the Mentiu of Setet (the Bedouin of
the hill-country), attacking afterwards the Anu Khenti. On his return to
Egypt, he found that he had to deal with two outbreaks on the part of
those of the Hyksos (probably half-breeds) who remained, and these having
been reduced to subjection, there was apparently no further trouble from
the Asiatics remaining in the country. So popular was this founder of a
new dynasty in Egypt, that both he and his queen had divine honours paid
to them beyond those rendered to any other Egyptian ruler. His son
Amen-hotep I. shared largely in these testimonies of popular esteem.
After this the power of Egypt increased. The venerable captain of marines,
Aah-mes, relates that ’Aa-kheper-ka-Rê (Thothmes I.) went against the
Rutennu (Syrians) for the purpose of taking satisfaction, and marched as
far as Naharaina (Upper Mesopotamia), where he found that an enemy had
plotted conspiracy. On this occasion Thothmes gained many victories and
took many captives. Another official mentioning the Syrian campaigns of
this ruler is Pen-nekheb, who accompanied him to Naharaina. Thothmes III.
also refers to his grandfather’s conquest in Syria, stating that he placed
another inscription where the tablet of his father ’Aa-kheper-ka-Rê was,
and adds that “his majesty came to the city of Niy on his return. Then his
majesty set up his tablet in Naharaina to enlarge the frontiers of Kemi,”
_i.e._ Egypt. Niy was in the region of Aleppo, on the Euphrates.
Thothmes II. (1516-1503, Petrie) retained those portions of Syria which
his father had conquered. An expedition thither is also mentioned by
Pen-nekheb, who says: “I followed the king ’A-kheper-en-Rê (Thothmes II.),
the blessed one. I brought away from the land of the Shasu (Bedouin,
apparently the same tribes as those to which the Hyksos or _hak shasu_
belonged) very many prisoners—I cannot reckon them.... The king
’A-kheper-en-Rê gave me two gold bracelets, six collars, three bracelets
of lapis-lazuli, and a silver war-ax.”
Thothmes III. (1505-1449), son of Thothmes II., had one of the longest and
most glorious reigns in all Egyptian history. He was born at Thebes, and
crowned when about nine years old. On the death of Hatshepsut, the queen
regent, his father’s first wife, who, however, was not his own mother, his
warlike expeditions began, and he assembled an army on the frontier of
Zalu, preparatory to an expedition against the chiefs of Southern Syria,
who had rebelled. This was his twenty-second year. Next year, on his
coronation-day, he found himself, after a long march, at Gaza, on the way
to Carmel and Megiddo, where he defeated the assembled Syrian chiefs, and
utterly routed them on the plain of Esdraelon. The allies then took refuge
in the town, which was besieged, and they were obliged to capitulate.
Enormous spoils from this place, as well as from the other cities of
Syria, was the result. This expedition was repeated in the two following
years.
In his twenty-ninth year he made his fifth expedition to the Syrian
hill-country, Tunep, Arvad, and Phœnicia, from which latter district much
spoil was obtained. The two following years found him in the same region.
In his thirty-third year he set up a tablet on the boundaries of
Naharaina. The next year he made a campaign to, and received tribute from
Syria, Phœnicia, and Cyprus. In his thirty-fifth year he went to Phœnicia,
and received tribute from Naharaina. The year following this he received
tribute from Cyprus. After this he again went to Phœnicia, and he is
supposed to have received tribute from Cyprus, Syria, and the Hittites in
the fortieth and forty-first years of his reign. In his forty-second year
there was an expedition to Tunep, Kadesh, etc. Besides the above, he
either made himself, or dispatched, under his generals, during his long
reign (fifty-four years) many expeditions into other lands than those
mentioned above, and also took part in numerous works and public functions
in his own country.
The expeditions in Syria made by this king are told very graphically and
at great length. The march to Megiddo, the council of war, and the
dispositions for the attack, are given in full, and the king claims to
have himself protected his army when going through a narrow defile in
which all might have been lost had the enemy against whom they were
marching made an onslaught. Representations of the spoil taken accompany
the lists enumerating the amount, and show that the ancient Syrians had
attained to a skill, in the arts as then known, equal, if not superior, to
that of the Egyptians. Among the places mentioned are Arvad, Kadesh, Gaza,
Yemma, etc. Besides Thothmes III.’s own annals, there is an inscription of
one of his officers, Amen-em-heb, who gives his version, which, however,
is not divided into different years. This text mentions the Negeb, where
he took some captives; Carchemish, from which place he obtained spoil, and
other places. He speaks also of Thothmes III. having hunted elephants in
the land of Niy, one hundred and twenty in number, for their tusks. This
agrees with what has been stated from the Assyrian inscriptions (pp. 200,
201) concerning the existence of these animals in the Lebanon and around
Haran.
Thothmes III. was succeeded by Amenophis II., a warlike and vigorous
ruler, who followed in his father’s footsteps, and by so doing maintained
the power and influence of his country. Petrie (_History_, ii. p. 154)
argues with great probability that he was not of age when he came to the
throne, and that he was apparently not the eldest of his father’s sons.
His first expedition, which was a raid in Asia “to establish his renown,”
was probably, as Prof. Petrie says, in the first or second year of his
reign. “His majesty had success (in Shemesh-atuma of South Galilee), his
majesty himself made captives there.... Account of what his majesty
himself took in this day: living prisoners Satiu 18, oxen 19.” Later on he
had some further success, and took spoil from the Satiu with whom he
fought.
In his second year, six months after the above expedition, he seems to
have made a promenade in force as far as the frontiers of the Egyptian
domains in Asia, in order to assert his power, and as a check to any
disaffection which might exist. After this there was a triumphal return to
Egypt, where he held a festival on the occasion of the laying of the
foundation-stone of the temple of Amadeh. Among the captives sent to Egypt
were seven chiefs of the territory of Takhsi, near Aleppo, who were hung
up by the feet on the fore-part of the king’s barque. Of these six were
afterwards hung up on the wall of Thebes in the same manner, a
circumstance which suggests that the Egyptians were upon about the same
level as the Assyrians with regard to their barbarous customs in war,
notwithstanding their civilization and polish in other things.
He claims as his own nearly all the lands which his father had
conquered—the South land, the Oases, the Lybians, Nubians, Semites, Kefto
(according to W. Max Müller, Cilicia), and the Upper Rutennu, or district
of Megiddo.
Amenophis II. died in 1423 B.C., and was succeeded by his son, Thothmes
IV. His earlier years seem to have been occupied in asserting his power in
Syria, and his later years were devoted to Nubia. Naharaina and the Kheta
or Hittites occur in inscriptions referring to the former period.
According to Manetho, he reigned nine years and eight months. He was
succeeded by his son, Amenophis III. (1414-1379, according to Petrie).
At this time Syria was completely in the hands of the Egyptians. Constant
intercourse went on between the princes of the two countries, who in Syria
seem to have been contented with their subordinate position. It is during
this reign that the now celebrated Tel-el-Amarna tablets come to our aid,
and show how this was brought about. Alliance between the two countries by
marriage had taken place, and the royal and various princely families were
therefore related. Besides this, there was naturally reluctance on the
part of a prince of Syria to take up a hostile attitude with regard to the
king who had taken his daughter in marriage, as he would always be in fear
of endangering his daughter’s safety, and for the same cause he would
naturally try to restrain the petty rulers of his own district, including
those of his neighbours who were more of the nature of equals. In addition
to this, the sons of the Syrian chiefs were sent to be educated in Egypt,
and as the Egyptian ruler at the time had married Syrian princesses, it is
probable, as Petrie says, that the sons of Syrian chiefs, educated in
Egypt, were married to Egyptians at the close of their education. As it
was only stipulated that they should be restored to their native country
to succeed their fathers, they may, it is thought, have lived in Egypt
until middle life. This being so, the rulers of Syria would naturally
become imbued with the thoughts and ways of the Egyptians, and undesirous,
therefore, of throwing off the yoke. If, however, things were all really
as thus depicted, there is one thing which is strange, namely, that the
correspondence which was carried on between the two districts was not in
Egyptian (which the princes of Syria ought to have known sufficiently well
to write), but in Assyro-Babylonian, which was a foreign tongue to them
all, especially the king of Mitanni, whose native language was not even
Semitic. That the kings of Babylonia should correspond with the king of
Egypt in Babylonian was to be expected, but if the kings of Syria, or
their sons, were educated in Egypt, it is remarkable that we find so many
letters in the Babylonian language.
Apparently, therefore, everything pointed to a continuance of the state of
things which existed at the time of the king’s accession to the throne. It
was evidently his desire that nothing should occur to change the cordial
relations which existed between himself and the Egyptian dependencies,
hence the mild suzerainty exercised. There was an Ethiopian campaign in
his fifth year, after which, to all appearance, no warlike expeditions
were undertaken—in fact, it was considered that there was no need for
them.
The first wife of Amenophis III. was Teie, as the Tel-el-Amarna tablets
call her, the Teyi of the Egyptian monuments. She was daughter of Yewea
and Tewa, and was to all appearance of Asiatic nationality. Prof. Petrie
thinks that she may have been of Syrian race, and as a matter of fact, her
portrait shows her with a pleasant face of Semitic type and a pointed
chin. To all appearance, she was a personage of great importance in the
land, and when negotiations with the princes of the north were being
carried on, she was one of those who were taken into consideration by the
outlanders.
[Plate VII.]
Colossal statue of Hadad, dedicated by Bar-Rekub, King of Sam’allu, to
Hadad. El, Rekub-el, Shamash, and the gods of Yadî, in memory of his
father, Panammû, about 730 B.C. The horned cap which the god wears
probably shows Assyro-Babylonian influence. Gerchin N.E. of Zenjirli. From
_Mittheilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen_, Part XI., by permission
of the publishing-house of Georg Reimer, Berlin.
In one of the tablets from Tel-el-Amarna, it would appear that, besides
Teie, Amenophis III. had married a sister of Dušratta, king of Mitanni,
named Gilu-ḫêpa, for news of whom Dušratta wrote to the Pharaoh, sending
presents to him, as well as to his sister. Later on, the Egyptian king
asks Dušratta for one of his daughters, sending a messenger named Manê
with a tablet to that effect. As Dušratta in his letter to the Pharaoh
Nimmuaria (Neb-mut-Ra,(54) Amenophis III.) refers to her as the (future)
mistress of Egypt, it is clear that she was intended as the consort of his
son, Amenophis IV. From other letters which passed between them, it would
seem that the princess in question was named Tâdu-ḫêpa, called, in
Egyptian, Nefer-titi (perhaps a translation of her Mitannian name). It was
to all appearance the custom in those days, as at the present time, for
the kings of the various states to ally themselves by marriage with other
royal houses; and at a time when kings, at least, were allowed more wives
than one, it was possible for them to take pledges for the preservation of
peace by making use of the privilege. Quite in accordance with this are
the statements contained in other texts concerning intermarriages of this
kind, both Amenophis III. and IV. having likewise espoused Babylonian
princesses, daughters of Kallima-Sin and Burra-buriaš, the son of the
latter being at the same time betrothed to Amenophis IV.’s daughter. They
were also constantly making presents to each other, each trying to get as
much as he possibly could of the things which were not common in his own
land—gold, much gold, being the commodity that the king of Egypt was
expected to supply. The other kings sent him, in return, various stones
(lapis-lazuli being often mentioned), chariots, horses, and other things,
both natural and manufactured products. The women by whose means these
friendly relations had been established, made use of the messengers sent
to their fatherland to transmit messages to their relatives and ask after
their health.
From these tablets we obtain certain details as to the state of the Holy
Land and the surrounding country before the entry of the Israelites.
Besides the kingdom of Mitanni mentioned above, there were the states of
Alašia (supposed to be Cyprus), Ziri-bašani (plain of Bashan), Hazor,
Askelon, Lachish, Gaza, Qatna (west of Damascus), Accho, Simyra, Tyre,
Sidon, the Amorites, the Hittites, Dunip (Tenneb), Jerusalem, etc., etc.
Many of them were small states with the cities after which they are named
as capital, and naturally were obliged to enter into a league for their
common protection, or else accept the suzerainty of some more powerful
state, falling, if its protector went under, into the power of the common
invader. It must have been in consequence of this state of things in the
east Mediterranean littoral that Egypt was able to extend her power so
far, and subdue this large district.
From these tablets we learn something of their religion. To all appearance
one of the gods most worshipped in the extreme west of Asia was Rimmon,
the Rammānu (“thunderer”) of the Assyrians and Babylonians, the Addu or
Hadad of the Semitic nations of this district (the name Addu afterwards
became general as the appellation of the god in Babylonia and Assyria),
and the Tešupa or Tešub of Mitanni (Aram-Naharaim) and district to the
north (Armenia). At Tyre they seem to have worshipped a personage or deity
called Šalmayātu, whilst the Phœnician Astarte is commemorated in âl
Aštarti, “the city of Aštartu,” perhaps Ashtaroth, 29 miles east of
Tiberias (Petrie). As the word Ashtoreth is evidently a lengthening of the
name of the Assyro-Babylonian goddess Ištar, it is not to be wondered at
that this goddess should be mentioned by the king of Mitanni, Dušratta,
who refers to a statue of Ištar of Nineveh, which had been sent to Egypt,
and requests that it may be returned to him soon. The name of Nergal,
also, was evidently familiar to the king of Alašia, for he speaks of the
hand of that god as having killed all his people, when wishing to refer to
the prevalence of a pestilence there, Nergal being the Assyro-Babylonian
god of disease and death. In the same way Dušratta speaks of Šamaš, the
Assyro-Babylonian Sun-god, but he refers to him more as the luminary which
men love than as a god, though there is every probability that he was
worshipped in Mitanni.(55) Another Assyro-Babylonian deity whose name
occurs is Ninip, once in the name of Abdi-Ninip, “servant of Ninip,”
apparently a Gebalite, and again in _âl Bêth-Ninip_, “(city of) the temple
of Ninip,” in a district which Abdi-Aširta called upon to unite against
Gebal—perhaps the Beth-Ninip in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. In the
name of Abdi-Aširta it is to be noted that we have here, to all
appearance, the name of the _asherah_ or “grove” of the Authorised
Version, the “token” of the goddess Ištar,(56) with the ideogram for which
the word once interchanges. The Egyptian god Amāna (Amon) is mentioned
several times, invoked apparently as a god in whom the writer believed,
though he was the special god of the Egyptians and the Egyptian king. In
addition to the above deities, the names of men reveal Uraš, the god of
Dailem near Babylon, Bidina, another Babylonian deity, and Merodach, the
principal god of the Babylonians. Among west Semitic deities may be
mentioned Dagan (Dagon), Milku (Melech, Moloch), and others.
Notwithstanding a considerable period of Egyptian rule, therefore,
Babylonian influence, which had been predominant in the tract for many
centuries, still held the upper hand. Merodach was to all appearance
venerated, Nergal was worshipped as the god of death and disease, Ištar
was held in high esteem. It must have been during those centuries of
Babylonian rule that the worship of Tammuz or Adonis got into the country,
becoming one of the stumbling-blocks of the Israelites in later days, when
Hebrew women lamented for him, hidden in the realm of darkness where dwelt
Persephone (Ereš-ki-gala, “the lady of the great domain” of the
Babylonians), into whose realm, at great risk, Ištar, his spouse,
descended to seek him, but only escaped from the rival’s clutches by the
intervention of the gods.
Exceedingly interesting are the various forms of government in Western
Asia at this period. Among hereditary chiefs may be mentioned Etakama of
Gidši (Kadesh), Šum-addu, who is probably the same as Šamu-Addu, prince of
Šamḫuna, Mut-zu’u (see p. 286), and Azru, though this last is doubtful, as
in one of the letters he calls himself a governor installed by the king of
Egypt. The best example of an elected chief, however, is in all
probability Yabitiri, governor of Gaza and Jaffa, who, when young, went
down to Egypt and served in the Egyptian army, being afterwards appointed
to the posts which he held later. The power of the Egyptian kings of a
period somewhat preceding this is well exemplified by the fact, that
Addu-nirari of Assyria attributes to an Egyptian ruler the appointment of
his grandfather and father as kings of Nuḫašše, on account of which all
three rulers seem to have acknowledged Egyptian overlordship. An
interesting instance of female rule is that of Nin-Urmuru (?),(57) who, in
her letters, mentions Ajalon and Sarḫa (identified with Zorah), probably
lying in her district.
Most interesting of all, however, is the case of Jerusalem, whose ruler,
as will be seen from the letters quoted later on, was apparently elected
by some of the magnates of the district which acknowledged his sway, and
who were probably the members of a religious community. Nothing, however,
is known of the electorate or the system of election employed—all that can
be said is, that the ruler was not placed there by virtue of his father or
his mother, but by the “mighty king.”
The matter of the government of Dunip, one of the most important towns of
ancient Palestine, is also of importance, as it does not seem to have
possessed an autocratic head of any kind, and may have been a kind of
republic. Its government was probably similar to that of Irqata, which was
ruled over by its elders, acknowledging the overlordship of the Egyptian
king. A similar state of things seems to have prevailed in Babylonia,
where, however, the king of Babylon was naturally recognized as lord of
the country. In all probability the towns governed by their elders were
regarded as royal cities of Egypt, whilst the others were semi-independent
states.
The relations of the Egyptian king with foreign states is well illustrated
by the following—
Letter From The Babylonian King Burra-Buriaš (Burna-Buriaš) To Amenophis
IV. King Of Egypt.
“(To) Napḫu’ruria the king of Egypt, my brother, say also thus: ‘It is
Burra-buriaš, king of the land of Karu-duniaš, thy brother. My health is
good. To thee, thy country, thine house, thy wives, thy sons, thy great
men, thine horses, thy chariots, may there be very good health.
“I and my brother have spoken friendship with each other, and we said as
follows: ‘As our fathers were with each other, let us be friendly.’ Now my
merchants, who went with Aḫi-ṭâbu, remained in the land of Kinaḫḫi
(Canaan) for trade. After Aḫi-ṭâbu proceeded to my brother,(58) in the
city Ḫinnatunu of the land of Kinaḫḫi (Canaan), when Šum-adda, son of
Malummê, (and) Šutadna, son of Šarâtum, of the city of Akka (Accho), sent
their people, they killed my merchants, and took their money away. When I
have sent (Azzu (?)) to thy presence, ask him, and let him tell thee.”
(Reverse)
“(Ki)naḫḫi is thy land, and (its) king(s are thy servants). In thy land
have I been ill-treated—res(train them): make (up) the money which they
have taken away; and kill the people who have killed my subjects, and
avenge them. And if thou kill not these people, they will return, and both
kill my caravans and thy messengers, and the messenger will be broken off
between us, and if (this happen), they will fall away from thee. One man
(of) mine, when Šum-adda had cut off his feet,(59) he held him prisoner;
and another man, when Šutadna, the Akkaite (Acchoite), had caused him to
be placed with the servants, became a servant before him.(60) Let (them
take) those men to thee, and see thou to (it). And mayest thou know how I
fare. I have caused to be brought to thee 1 mana of lapis-stone (as a
gi)ft. (Let) my (messe)nger (come back) quickly. Let me know how my
brother fares. Do not de(tain) my (mess)enger—let him come (back)
quickly.”
It is clear from this, and from other inscriptions of the series, that a
kind of international law existed among the nations of the ancient East,
by which they were expected to protect the caravans passing through each
other’s territory, and, in fact, see that no harm came to any of each
other’s subjects. They were expected to punish all persons who may have
attacked and ill-treated or murdered them, and make restitution of
property stolen. The law (probably an unwritten one) was evidently much
the same as prevails among civilized nations at the present day. That
these ancient rulers always obtained from their “brothers” the redress
which they demanded, is more than doubtful. Burra-buriaš’s entreaty that
his messenger might be returned to him quickly points to vexatious delays
on former occasions, and probable failure to obtain any justice or redress
whatever.
The relations of Egypt with Assyria were similar to those with Babylonia,
except that the Assyrian king, as has been shown, was, in some respects, a
vassal.
Letter From The Assyrian King Ašur-Uballiṭ To Amenophis IV. King Of Egypt.
(Divided into paragraphs in accordance with the indications of the
original text.)
“To Napḫurî, (the great king?), the king of Egypt, my brother, (say) thus:
‘It is Ašur-uballiṭ, king of Aššur, the great king, thy brother.’
“To thee, to thy house and thy country, may there be peace.
“When I saw thy messengers, I rejoiced greatly. Thy messengers are staying
with me for a time.
“I have caused to be brought to thee as thy gift a fine royal chariot of
my y(ok)e, and 2 white horses of m(y y)oke, and one chariot without yoke,
and 1 seal of fine lapis-lazuli.
“The great king’s return-gift may be thus: Gold in thy land is (as)
dust—they gather it up. Why should it go round into thine eyes? I have
undertaken to build a new palace. Cause gold, as much as its over-laying
and its need (requires), to be sent.
“When Ašur-nadin-âḫi, my father, sent to the land of Egypt, they caused to
be sent to him 20 talents of gold.
“When the Ḫanigalbatian king sent to Egypt to thy father, he caused 20
talents of go(ld) to be brought to him.
“(Behold), thou hast caused to be brought ... gold to the
Ḫani(gal)ba(tian) king ... and to me, (but f)or the going and returning it
suffices (?) not for wages for my messengers.
“If friendship be desirable unto thee, cause much gold to be brought; and
as it will be thy house, send, and let them take what thou desirest.
“We are distant countries—in this wise let our messengers go about.
“Those who delayed thy messengers were the Sutites, their persecutors;
dead (was I) until I had sent, and they had taken the persecuting Sutites.
Their bands (?) shall verily not delay my messengers.
“As for messengers abroad, why should they be detained and die there? If
they stay abroad, the king will have the advantage, so let him stay and
let him die abroad—let the king then have the advantage. And if not, why
should the messengers whom we send die abroad? ... attack the messengers
and cause them to die abroad.”
The last paragraph is difficult to understand on account of its being so
mutilated, but the sense of the whole seems now to be fairly clear.
Ašur-uballiṭ desires to be on friendly terms with Egypt, but he is anxious
to get, above all, the precious metal which was said to be so plentiful
there, and for which all the rulers of Western Asia seem to have hungered.
And this leads to the interesting statement in the fifth paragraph, in
which gold in Egypt is said to have been as dust; and there is the
question, “Why should it go round into thine eyes?” (_Amminî ina ênē-ka
isaḫḫur?_) implying that, being dust, it behaved as dust, and was in that
respect undesirable, and therefore to be got rid of. He would like to have
some for the decoration of his palace—his father, and the king of
Ḫanigalbat had been favoured in this way. Let it not be as little
(apparently), as that sent to the Ḫanigalbatian king, for that would not
suffice to pay his messengers. The interchange of things needed as
presents made good friends. It was a lawless band of Sutites who had
detained the Egyptian king’s messengers, and he was as one dead until his
people had stopped their depredations. It was useful to a king that his
ambassadors lived and died abroad, but not that they should be attacked
and killed there.
The relations of Egypt with another class of ruler is well illustrated by
the following letter from a prince or governor brought up in Egypt—
Yabitiri Asserts His Faithfulness, And Touches Upon His Early Life.
“To the king my lord, my gods, my Sun-gods, say also thus: ‘(it is)
Yabitiri thy servant, the dust of thy feet. At the feet of the king my
lord, my gods, my Sun-gods, seven times, and twice seven times I fall.
Furthermore, behold, I am a faithful servant(61) of the king my lord. I
look here, and I look there,(62) and it is not clear; then I look upon the
king my lord, and it is clear. And the brick-foundation may give way from
beneath its wall, but I will not give way from beneath the feet of the
king my lord. And the king my lord may ask Yanḫama, his official,
(concerning) when I was young, and they sent me down to Egypt, where I
served the king my lord, and stood in the city-gate of the king my lord.
And the king my lord may ask his official when I guard the city-gate of
Azzati (Gaza) and the city-gate of Yapu (Jaffa). And I am with the hired
troops of the king my lord, where they go, I am with them, and I am also,
therefore, with them now. The yoke of the king my lord is on my neck, and
I bear it.’ ”
Apparently there had been spread abroad some statement reflecting on the
faithfulness of the writer, who seeks to justify himself by appealing to
his former services to the Egyptian king. His letter has a ring of
sincerity in it which is wanting in many of the communications of this
nature.
Reference has already been made to the caravans which passed through the
territory of the various rulers, and the protection which those rulers
were supposed to extend to them. Burra-buriaš, in his letter translated
above, complains that Babylonian caravans had been attacked in the land of
Canaan, and asks for the punishment of the persons involved. To all
appearance the protection of the caravans was entrusted to certain chiefs,
owing allegiance to the Egyptian king, who always held themselves ready to
perform this duty. The following translation shows how one of the chiefs
or governors of a Canaanitish district looked after the caravans, as his
father did before him—
Letter From Mut-Zu’u To The King Of Egypt.
“To the king, my lord and my sun, say thus: ‘It is Mut-zu’u(63) thy
servant, the dust of thy feet, the earth for thee to tread upon. Seven
times, twice seven times, I fall down at the feet of the king my lord.’
“The king my lord has sent by Ḫâya to speak of the Ḫana-galbat(64)
caravan. This I have dispatched and have directed it. Who am I, that I
should not dispatch the caravans of the king my lord? Behold, (Lab)’aya,
my father, (who was faithful) to the king his lord, used to send (a
caravan, and give directions concerning it. The cara)vans (which) the king
(di)rected to the land of Ḫana-galbat (and) to the land of Kara-duniaš let
the king my lord send. (As to) the caravan, I will bring it so that it is
safe.”
As will be seen from this, Mut-zu’u was one of the humble vassals of “the
king his lord,” who at that time—evidently the peaceful days of Amenophis
III.—was the happy possessor of many such. As examples of the relations
between the smaller rulers and their suzerain, may be quoted two of the
numerous letters of Yidia of Askelon, who provided the necessaries for the
Egyptian army in Palestine.
Yidia, The Askelonite, Concerning The King’s Representative.
“To the king, my lord, my Sun, the Sun who (cometh) from the heavens, (say
also) thus: ‘(It is) Yidia, the Askelonite, thy servant, the dust of thy
feet, thy charioteer.(65) I fall down before the feet of the king my lord
seven times and twice seven times, back and breast.’
“Now (for) my (lord), (for) the gods of the king my lord, my god, my Sun,
I guard this city, and again ... let me protect all his land.
“I have heard the words of the king my lord to his representative, when he
is not able to protect the country of the king my lord. So now the king my
lord has appointed Rianappa, the representative of the king my lord, to
whom(66) I will bring (?) good fortune for the king.
“Whatever cometh out of the mouth of the king my lord, lo, that will I
keep day and night.”
Yidia Concerning The Commissariat.
“To the king my lord, my Sun, my god, the Sun who (cometh) from the
heavens, (say also) thus: ‘(it is) Yidia thy servant, the dust of thy
feet, thy charioteer. I fall down at the feet of the king my lord seven
times and twice seven times, back and breast. Behold, I am keeping the
commands of the king my lord, the son of the Sun, and behold, I have
provided the food, drink, oil, grain, oxen, (and) sheep, for the soldiers
of the king my lord—provisions, every kind, for the soldiers of the king
my lord. Who would be a vassal, and not obey the words of the king my
lord, the son of the Sun?’ ”
Letters similar to the above are numerous, and show that Egyptian rule was
not regarded as burthensome—indeed, it may have been even welcome, tending
in all probability to the preservation of peace. It must have been
difficult, however, for the Egyptian king to hold the scales of justice
always even, for among the governors were always men who professed
faithfulness, but who aimed at throwing off the Egyptian yoke, light as it
was.
In all probability the trouble began in the north, that district being
farthest from the Egyptian marches, and what was going on there was on
that account longer in reaching the knowledge of the king. Judging from a
letter from Ili-rabiḫ, written from Gebal, Etakama, of Kinza and Kadesh,
smote the whole of the lands of Amki, “the territory of the king.” “And
now,” the inscription continues, “he has sent his people to seize the
lands of Amki and the places. Further, the king of the land of Ḫatta
(Heth), and the king of the land of Narima (Naharaim), have been
unsuccessful (?), and” (here the writer breaks off the narrative).
Another account of this affair is as follows—
Bêri (Or Bieri) To The King About The Attack On Amki.
“To the king, my lord, (my god, my sungod), say then thus: ‘It is Bêri,
(thy servant), the Ḫašabite.’ Down to the dust of the feet of the king my
lord 7 (times) and 7 (times) I fall. Behold, we occupy, in Amki, the
cities of the king, my lord, and Edagama, the Kinzite, has gone to meet
the soldiers of Ḫatta (Heth), and set (the cities) of the king my lord on
fire. And may the king my lord know, and may the king (my) lord give
field-soldiers. And we will occupy the cities of the king my lord, and we
will dwell in the cities of the king my lord, my god, my sungod.”
This and two other accounts, one of which is from “Ilu-dâya, the Ḫazite,”
all agree, and show that three officials were occupying cities in the
territory known as Amki (identified with _’Amq_, a plain by Antioch, or
_’Amqa_, N.E. of Akka), when Edagama (whose name also appears as Etagama,
Etakkama, Itatkama, Itakama, Aiṭugama, and Aidaggama) joined the Hittite
troops who were hostile to Egypt. It was in consequence of this, in all
probability, that the three officials decided to write to the king of
Egypt to let him know how things were going, and this they did in
identical terms, with the same expressions, and the same peculiarities of
spelling, pointing to the probability that the same scribe wrote all three
communications. In the letter of Ili-rabiḫ, from which a quotation is
given on p. 288, Amki is called “the king’s territory,” implying that it
was a tract acknowledging Egyptian supremacy, which Etagama was trying to
wrest from the Pharaoh’s grasp. It was the king’s friends who were
occupying the king’s cities (as Bêri, Ilu-dâya, and the unknown writer
call them), because they desired to hold them against this active enemy.
With help from the Egyptian king, they thought that they would be able to
do this without difficulty. There seems to be (as far as can at present be
judged) no reason to suppose that the beginning of the expulsion of the
Egyptians from Palestine was due to the over-zeal of the supporters of
Egyptian rule in that country, who, striving to extend the influence and
the dominions of their suzerain, drew down upon him, and upon themselves,
the hostility of all the independent states of Western Asia, as well as of
those which wished to throw off the Egyptian yoke. The Egyptian kings
would surely have warned their vassals in Palestine against the danger of
such action on their part.
As an additional light upon the events here referred to, the following
extract from a letter from Akizzi of Qaṭna to Amenophis III. may be of
interest:—
“O lord, Teu(w)atti of the city L(apa)n(a) and Arzauia of the city Ruḫizzu
are setting themselves with Aiṭugama (Etagama) and the land of (U)be. He
is burning the territory of my lord with fire.
“O lord, as I love the king my lord, and likewise the king of the land
Nuḫašše, the king of the land of Nî, the king of the land of Zinzar, and
the king of the land of Tunanat; and all these kings are for the king my
lord serviceable.
“If the king my lord will, then he will go forth. (But they say) thus:
‘The king my lord will not go forth.’ Then let my lord send out
field-troops, and let them come, since this land, as also, my lord, these
kings, is well disposed towards him. (They are) my lord’s great ones, and
whatever their gifts (contributions), let him speak, and they will give
(them).
“O lord, if this land is to be off the mind of my lord, then let my lord
send forth field-troops, and let them come. The messengers of my lord have
arrived.
“O lord, if Arzauia of the city of Ruḫizzu and Teuwatti of the city Lapana
remain in the land of Ube, and Daša remain in the land of Amki, then may
my lord know concerning them, that the land of Ube is not my lord’s. They
send to Aiṭugama every day saying thus: ‘Come and take the land of Ube
completely.’
“O lord, as the city Timašgi in the land of Ube is at thy feet, so also is
the city Qaṭna at thy feet. And, my lord, with regard to my messenger, I
ask for life, (and a)s I do not fear with regard to the field-troops of my
lord, that the field-troops of my lord will come, as he will send (them)
forth to me, I shall re(tire) into the city Qaṭna.”
Thus the trouble spread, and the Hittites and their allies took possession
of the territories south of the tracts referred to, trying, at the same
time, to win over to their side the governors who were faithful. All this
time posing as a friend of the Pharaoh, Etagama complained of the others,
particularly Namya-waza, one of Egypt’s most trustworthy allies, who, in a
letter couched in the usual humble style of the period, announces his
readiness to serve “with his horses and chariots, and with his brothers,
and with his SA-GAS, and with his Sutites, along with the hired soldiers,
whithersoever the king his lord should command him.”
Now in this letter there is one noteworthy fact, and that is, that the
SA-GAS and the Sutites are mentioned together as the allies of an
important vassal of the Egyptian king, the latter being apparently
wandering hordes of plunderers (see above, p. 283), whom Kadašman-Muruš,
king of Babylonia, sent from east to west “until there were no more.” This
took place at a somewhat later date, so that they still roamed about the
eastern portion of the country, between Palestine and Babylonia,
apparently giving their services to any power which might desire to make
use of them.
The question of the identification of the troops or bands of warriors
designated by the Akkadian compound SA-GAS is, however, of still greater
importance. Most Assyriologists regard them as being identical with the
Ḫabiri, mentioned in the letters of Abdi-tâbu or Ebed-tob. This, of
course, is possible, but it is unfortunate that no direct confirmation of
this identification exists. In the bilingual lists of Babylonia and
Assyria, the expression SA-GAS, duly provided with the determinative
prefix indicating a man or a class of men, occurs, and is always
translated by the word _ḳabbatu_, the probable meaning of which is
“robber,” from the root _ḫabātu_, “to plunder”. It is also noteworthy that
there is a star called SA-GAS, and this is likewise rendered by the same
word, namely, _ḫabbatu_. The fact that it is once provided with the
determinative _ki_ (“place”) does not help us, for this may be simply an
oversight or a mannerism of the scribe. Moreover, the difficulty of
identifying the SA-GAS with the _Ḫabiri_ of the inscriptions of Abdi-ṭâba
is increased by the word occurring in these texts (Winckler’s No. 216, l.
11), followed by the explanation (_amēlūti ḫabati_), an arrangement which
we find in others of these letters, when an ideograph has to be explained;
and when they are, as here, Akkadian ideographs and Babylonian words, the
second is always the pronunciation of the first—never the alternative
reading. Indeed, in the present case, such an explanation would be
misleading instead of helpful (were the word SA-GAS to be read _Ḫabiri_),
for the scribe tells you to read it _ḫabati_—the same word as is given in
the bilingual lists, but spelled with one _b_ instead of two.
In all probability, therefore, the _ḫabati_ were wandering hordes
differing from the Sutites in not having any special nationality, and
being composed of the offscourings of many peoples of the ancient East.
They were probably included in the _ḫabiri_, together with the nations
with which they were afterwards associated. The _ḫabiri_ were not the
Hebrews, neither the word nor the date being what we should expect for
that nationality, who were still in Egypt. The best identification as yet
published is that of Jastrow, who connects it with the Hebrew Heber, the
patronymic of various persons. Better still, however, would be the Heb.
_ḥaber_, pl. _haberim_, “companions,” also used of tribes joined together
to form a nation. Whether an advance guard of the Hebrews is to be
included in this term or not, must be left to the judgment of the student.
The gradual loss of the districts south of Damascus in all probability
followed. A letter from Mut-Addu (the only one from him) to Yanḫamu speaks
of the cities of the land of Garu (identified—though the identification is
not quite satisfactory—with the Heb. Gur), namely Udumu (identified by
Petrie with Adamah, though the form does not agree so well as might be
wished, and Udumu is the usual way of rendering the word Edom, which is
referred to in the cuneiform inscriptions both as a land and a city),
Aduri (Petrie: et-Tireh), Araru (Petrie: Arareh), Meštu (Petrie: Mushtah),
Magdali (Magdala), Ḫini-anabi (Ain-anab, if rightly identified—there is a
certain difficulty in the word possessing a guttural at the beginning and
not likewise as the first letter of the second component—probably ’Anab,
south-west of Hebron, the Anab of Josh. xi. 21), and Sarki. At this time,
according to the tablet, Hawani and Yabiši (Jabesh) had been captured. It
is probably on account of the occupation of the country by so many hostile
tribes that the protest of Burra-buriaš of Babylonia (see p. 281) was
sent, but it was in all probability exceedingly difficult for the Egyptian
king to afford any protection whatever to the caravans which passed
through the disaffected area.
One of the things which the Tel-el-Amarna letters show very clearly is,
that it must have been very difficult for the Pharaoh to know who were his
friends and who were his enemies among the rulers of the Philistines. The
Amorite Abdi-Aširta and his allies were from the first desirous to throw
off the Egyptian yoke, but this prince at the same time constantly sent
letters to Amenophis IV. protesting his fidelity. Other chiefs who were
hostile to Egypt are Etakama, the sons of Lab’aya, Milkîli, Yapa-Addu,
Zimrêda of Sidon, Aziru, and others. On the king’s side were Namyawaza,
who held Kumidi (Petrie: Kamid-el-Lauz), Rib-Addi, whose chief cities were
Gebal, Beyrout, and Simyra, Zimrêda of Lachish, and Abdi-ṭâba of
Jerusalem. Numbers of chiefs, at first faithful, went over to the enemy
when they saw the success of the league against the foreign power.
It is impossible to suppose that the letters now known (about three
hundred in number) represent all the correspondence which passed between
Palestine and Egypt concerning the state of the country during the reigns
of Amenophis III. and IV., and from the time the troubles there commenced,
complaints and applications for help must have claimed the attention of
the Egyptian translator literally in shoals. One of the most remarkable of
these is the letter from the people of Dunip, who say that, in consequence
of the state of things in Palestine, they belong no longer to the king of
Egypt, to whom they had been sending for twenty years, but their
messengers had been retained. Their prince (to all appearance) had been
taken back to Egypt by the king’s orders, after he had allowed him to
return to his country, so that they had not seen him again. “And now
Dunip, thy city, weeps, and its tears flow, and there is no one to take
our hands (_i.e._ help us). We have sent to the king, the lord, the king
of Egypt, and not a single word from our lord hath reached us.”
Were they really sorry to be no longer under Egyptian rule? or were they
merely desirous that their prince should be restored to them?
During this period, naturally enough, recriminations were going on on
every side. Those who were faithful very properly made complaints and
uttered warnings concerning those who were unfaithful. The waverers, the
unfaithful, and the hostile, on the other hand, were continually asserting
their fidelity, and accusing those who were really well-disposed towards
Egypt of all kinds of hostile acts against the supreme power. This is
evident from the correspondence of Abdi-ṭâba of Jerusalem, who, in one of
his letters, writes as follows—
“(T)o the king my lord say also thus: ‘It is Abdi-ṭâba, thy servant. At
the feet of my lord the king twice seven times and twice seven times I
fall. What have I done against the king my lord? They back-bite—they
slander(67) me before the king my lord, (saying): “Abdi-ṭâba has fallen
away from the king his lord.” Behold, (as for) me, neither my father nor
my mother set me in this place—the arm of the mighty king caused me to
enter into the house of my father. Why should I commit a sin against the
king my lord? As the king my lord lives, I said to the commissioner of the
king (my) lord: “Why love ye the Ḫabiri and hate the gover(nors)? it is on
account of this that they utter slander before the king my lord.” Then he
said: “The countries of the king my lord have rebelled, therefore they
utter slander to the king my lord.” ’ ”
The ruler of Jerusalem then seems to say, that the king had placed a
garrison in some city or other, but it had been taken, apparently by
Yanḫamu—there was no longer a garrison (in that place). The king’s cities
under Ili-milku had revolted, the whole of the land of the king was lost,
so let the king have care for his land. He would like to go to the king,
to urge him to take action, but the people in his district were too mighty
for him, and he could not leave it. As long as the king lived, and as long
as he sent a commissioner, he would continue to give warning. If troops
were sent that year, things would be saved, otherwise the king’s lands
would be lost. Abdi-ṭâba ends with an appeal to the scribe to place the
matter clearly before the king.
Another very important letter from Abdi-ṭâba is as follows—
“(T)o the king my lord, (my) Sun, (say also) thus: ‘It is Abdi-ṭâba, thy
servant. Twice seven times and twice seven times I fall down before the
feet of the king my lord. Behold, the king my lord has set his name to the
rising of the sun and the setting of the sun. The slandering which they
slander against me! Behold, I am not a governor, the king my lord’s
magnate. Behold, I am an officer of the king, and have brought the tribute
of the king. (As for) me, it was not my father nor my mother—it was the
arm of the mighty king who set me in the house of my father. (When so and
so),(68) the commissioner of the king, returned to me, 13 prisoners (?)
(and a certain number(69)) of slaves I gave. Šûta, the commissioner of the
king, came (back t)o me; 21 girls (and) 20(70) (?) prisoners I gave (in)to
the hand of Šûta (as) a gift for the king my lord. Let the king take
counsel with regard to his land—the land of the king, all of it, has
revolted, it has set itself against me.(71) Behold, (as for) the lands of
Šêri (Seir) as far as Guti-kirmil (Gath-Carmel), the governors have allied
themselves(72) and there is hostility against me. Even though one be a
seer, one wishes not to see the tears of the king my lord, when enmity
exists against me. As long as ships were in the midst of the sea, the
power of the mighty king took Naḫrima (Naharaim) and the land of
Kašsi,(73) but now the Ḫabiru have taken the cities of the king. There is
not one governor for the king my lord—all have rebelled. Behold, Turbazu
has been killed at the gate of the city Zilû, (and) the king (?) remained
inactive. Behold, (as for) Zimrêda of the city of Lakisu (Lachish), (his)
servants lay in wait for him (?), they took (him) to kill (?) (him).
Yapti’-Addu has been killed (at) the gate of the city of Zilû, (and) the
king remained inactive ... ask (?) him ... (let) the kin(g have care for
his land, and let) the king give attention ... (let him send) troops to
the land of (the city of Jerusalem, (?), and) if there are not troops this
year, the whole of the lands of the king my lord are lost. They do not
tell the king my lord (this). When the country of the king my lord is
lost, then are lost (also) all the governors. If there be not troops this
year, let the king direct his commissioner and let him take me—(send him)
to me with my brothers, and we will die with the king my lord.’ (To the)
scribe of the king my lord (say also thus): ‘It is Abdi-ṭâba, (thy)
servant. (I fall down) at (thy) feet. Cause (my) words to enter (pl)ainly
to the king (my lord). I am thy (faith)ful servant.’ ”
The final phrase resembles that of an English letter.
According to Petrie, Sêri is Shaaraim (Josh. xv. 36), now _Khurbet
es-Sairah_. If the character read as _gu_ in Guti-Kirmil (Winckler,
Gin(?)ti-Kirmil) be correctly drawn in the official published copy, there
is considerable doubt as to the reading of the first syllable of this
interesting name. Zilû, where Turbazu and Yapti’-Addu were killed, is
identified by Petrie with Zelah, north of Jerusalem. This letter gives an
excellent illustration of the state of the country at the time.
In another letter Abdi-ṭâba explains how all the lands had concluded a
bond of hostility against him, and the districts of Gezer, Askelon, and
Lachish had supplied these people with food. After this comes the usual
request for troops, and the indication that, if troops be sent “this
year,” the situation would be saved—next year there would be neither
countries nor governors for the king (in Palestine). “Behold, this land of
the city of Jerusalem, neither my father nor my mother gave it to me—the
power of the mighty king gave it to me, (even) to me.” “See,” he
continues, “this deed is the deed of Milki-îli, and the deed of the sons
of Lab’aya, who have given the land of the king to the Ḫabiri.” He then
goes on to speak of the Kaši, who seem to have supported the confederates
with food, oil, and clothes. Next follows what Paura, the king’s
commissioner, had told him about the disaffection of Adaya. Caravans had
been robbed in the field of the city of Yaluna (Ajalon), but Abdi-ṭâba
could not prevent this: “(I mention this) in order to inform thee.”
“Behold, the king has placed his name in the land of Jerusalem for ever,
and the forsaking of the lands of Jerusalem is not possible.” After this
comes the usual note to the scribe in Egypt, followed by a postscript
referring to the people of Kâsi, disclaiming some evil deed which had been
done to them. “Do not kill a worthy servant (on that account”).
Yet another letter refers to Milki-îli and Lab’aya: “Behold, has not
Milki-îli fallen away from the sons of Lab’aya and from the sons of Arzawa
to ask the land of the king for them?(74) A governor, who has done this
deed, why has the king not called him to account for this?” The narrative
breaks off where Abdi-ṭâba begins to relate something further concerning
Milki-îli and another named Tagi. When the text again becomes legible,
Abdi-ṭâba is again referring to the fact that there is no garrison of the
king in some place whose name is lost. “Therefore—as the king lives—Puuru
(= Pauru) has entered it—he has departed from my presence, (and) is in the
city of Gaza. So let the king indicate to him (the necessity) of a
garrison to protect the country. All the land of the king has rebelled.
Send Ya’enḫamu (Yanḫamu), and let him become acquainted with (lit. let him
know) the country of the king (_i.e._ the true state of affairs”). Here
follows a note to the scribe in Egypt similar to that translated above.
One of the most interesting and instructive of the letters of Abdi-ṭâba is
that which Petrie regards as the latest of the series; and on account of
its importance, it is given in full here—
“(To) the king, my lord, (s)ay also thus: ‘It is (Abdi)-ṭâba thy servant.
At the feet of the (ki)ng my lord twice seven times and twice seven times
I fall down. (Behold, the deed) which Milki-îli and Šu-ardatum have done
to the land of the king my lord has been successful (?). The men of the
city of Gazri (Gezer), the men of the city of Gimti (Gath), and the men of
the city of Kîlti (Keilah) have been captured. The land of the city of
Rubute has revolted. The land of the king (belongs to) the Ḫabiri. And
now, moreover, a city of the land of Jerusalem, the city Beth-Ninip
(“House” or “Temple of Ninip”)—(this is) its name—has revolted to the
people of Kîlti. Let the king hearken to Abdi-ṭâba thy servant, and let
him send hired soldiers, and let me bring back the land of the king to the
king. And if there be no hired soldiers, the land of the king will go over
to the men, the Ḫabiri. This deed (is the deed of) Šu-ardatum (and)
Milki-îli ... city ... and let the king care for his land.’ ”
Whether the fall of Jerusalem followed or not is doubtful; nor is it
certain that the Egyptians were ultimately driven out. Other letters seem
to show how the influence of those whom Abdi-ṭâba calls the Ḫabiri, and
others the Ḫabati—the “confederates” and the “plunderers”—spread still
farther southward. Naturally more information is required to enable it to
be known in what manner the Egyptians tried to retrieve their position,
and how it was that Amenophis IV. delayed so long the sending of troops.
All the governors who were in the least degree faithful to Egypt united in
repeatedly warning him as to what was taking place, and urging him to send
troops. Had the rebellion or invasion—whichever it was—been nipped in the
bud, Palestine would have remained a faithful Egyptian province. All the
king did, however, was to send his commissioner, and, occasionally,
exhorting and even threatening letters, which had in all probability
little or no effect, except to excite a little mild amusement on account
of their erratic spelling. A very noteworthy communication of this class
is the following—
The King Of Egypt Rebukes The Prince Of The Amorites.
“(To) the Amorite say then thus, (‘It is the king’). The king thy lord
(hath hear)d thus: ‘The Gebalite whose brother drove him from the gate
(hath spoke)n to thee thus: “Take me and cause me to enter into my city,
(and a reward) then let me give thee—yea, however much, (though) it be not
with me.” Thus did he speak to thee.’
“Writest thou (no)t to the king thy lord (th)us: ‘I am thy servant like
all the former governors who (were each) in the midst of his city’? But
thou doest wrong to receive a governor whose brother hath driven him from
his gate out of his city.
“And (whilst) dwelling in Sidon, thou deliveredst him to the governors as
was thy will. Knewest thou not the hatred of the people?
“If thou be in truth a servant of the king, why hast thou not made
possible his transmission to the presence of the king thy lord, (saying)
thus: ‘This governor sent to me thus: “Take me to thee, and cause me to
enter into my city” ’?
“And if thou hast done according to right, then all the matters are not
true concerning which thou wrotest: ‘They are trustworthy,’ for the king
thought thus: ‘All that thou hast said is not correct.’
“And behold, the king hath heard thus: Thou art in agreement with the man
of Kidša (Kadesh), food and drink together have ye supplied. And be it
true, why doest thou thus? why art thou in agreement with a man with whom
the king is on bad terms? And if thou hast done according to right, and
hast regard to thy opinion, then his opinion existeth not. Thou hast no
care for the things which thou hast done from the first. What hath been
done to thee among them (the disaffected ones), that thou art not with the
king thy lord?
“Behold, those who attract(?) thee to themselves seek to throw thee into
the fire; and it is kindled, and thou findest everything very
satisfactory.
“And if thou do homage to the king thy lord, what is there which the king
would not do for thee? If on account of anything thou wish to work evil,
and if thou set evil, and words of hate, in thine heart, then by the
king’s ax shalt thou die, together with all thy family.
“So do homage to the king thy lord, and thou shalt live. And thou knowest,
even thou, that the king desireth not to attack the land of Kinaḫḫi
(Canaan), the whole of it.
“And as thou hast sent thus: ‘Let the king leave me this year, and let me
come in the second year before the king, my lord—my son is not here to
...;’ behold, then, the king thy lord will grant thee this year, according
as thou hast said. Come thou (or if thy son, send), and thou shalt see the
king at the sight of whom all the lands live. And say not thus: ‘Let him
leave me this year in addition.’ If it be not possible to go into the
presence of the king thy lord, direct thy son to the king thy lord
instead. He (need) not (stay with thee), let him come.
“And, behold, the king thy lord hath heard that thou hast written to the
king thus: ‘Let the king my lord allow Ḫanni, the king’s messenger, to
come a second time and let me cause the enemies of the king to be taken
back by his hand.’ Behold, he hath come to thee, as thou hast said, and
leave not one of them behind. Behold, the king thy lord causeth to be
brought to thee the names of the enemies of the king in this letter at the
hands of Ḫanni, the king’s messenger, so cause them to be brought to the
king thy lord, and do not leave one of them (behind). And brazen bonds
shall be placed on their feet. Behold, the men whom thou shalt cause to be
sent to the king thy lord (are):
“Šarru with all his sons;
Tûya;
Lêya with all his sons;
Wišyari with all his sons;
The son-in-law of Mania (or Ma-ili-ia) with his sons, (and) with
his wives;
The _pa-maḳâ_ of Ḫanni the _pa-itêiu_ (? messenger) who reads
(this) message;
Dâ-šartî; Pâlûma;
Nimmaḫê, the _ḳapadu_ in the land of Amurru.
“ ‘And mayest thou know: well is the king, like the Sun in Heaven; his
soldiers and chariots are many. From the upper country as far as the lower
country, (from) sunrise as far as sunset (_i.e._ from the extreme east to
the extreme west), great is the prosperity.’ ”
To all appearance Amenophis IV. trusted too much to his own prestige, and
that of the country over which he ruled. He was “the son of the Sun,”
“like unto the Sun in Heaven,” “the king at the sight of whom all the
lands live,” and naturally took it for granted that he was everywhere
looked upon with the same veneration as in his own country.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
As may easily be imagined, the expulsion of the Egyptians from Palestine
left the country in a very disturbed state, and marauding bands, having no
longer anything to do in the way of wresting territory from the Egyptians,
must have given considerable trouble to the native princes and governors,
now once more independent in their own territories.
The loss of Palestine, on the other hand, probably brought with it a
certain amount of loss of prestige to Egypt, which must have endured for
some time. In any case, the Egyptian kings who succeeded Amenophis IV.
seem to have made no attempt to regain the lost provinces.
Ankh-kheperu-Ra, the king who succeeded the ruler just named, lived for a
while at Tel-el-Amarna, during which time, in all probability, the tomb of
his predecessor’s six daughters was finished. Several rings of this king
exist, on two of which he calls himself “beloved of Nefer-kheperu-Ra” (or,
in accordance with the indications of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets:
Nafar-khoperu-Ria) and “beloved of Ua-en-Ra,” names of Amenophis IV.
During his reign the worship of the sun’s disc (Aten, or, if the
derivation from the Semitic Adon, “lord,” be correct, Aton) began to give
way to that of the national gods of Egypt. He reigned thirteen years
(1365-1353 B.C.), and was succeeded by Ra-kheperu-neb (1353-1344). The
paintings in the tomb of Hui at Thebes show that tribute was still
received from the Syrians (Rutennu), as well as from the people of Kush in
the Soudan. Evidently the road was being paved for the conquest of the
lost provinces of Syria.
After this came a ruler who seems to have held the throne only on account
of his wife being of royal blood. According to Petrie, he was “divine
father Ay,” and his wife’s name was Ty. He reigned thirteen years
(1344-1332 B.C.). During his reign a complete reversion to the old worship
took place.
Ay’s successor, Ra-ser-kheperu (Hor-em-heb), 1332-1328 B.C., was
apparently also a commoner, and is identified (Petrie) with the Hor-em-heb
who was general in an earlier reign. He is represented being adored by
negroes and Asiatics.
One or two other obscure names occur, and then begins the reign of king
Rameses I., who came to the throne about 1300 B.C. This reign was short
enough, but there is hardly any doubt that in it the prosperity of Egypt
was renewed. From the treaty of the Khita with Rameses II., the grandson
of Rameses I., we learn that the latter had a war with the Khita, and from
the fact that he founded a storehouse for the temple of his divine father
Hor-khem, and filled it with captive men-servants and maid-servants, we
may conclude that he was fairly successful in his warlike expeditions.
With his son, Seti (Sethos) I., or Meneptah (“beloved of Ptah”), we attain
firmer ground. In the very first year of his reign he warred in the east,
among the Shasu Bedouin, “from the fortress of Khetam (Heb. Etham) in the
land of Zalu, as far as Kan’ana (Canaan).” Kadesh, at that time a city of
the Kheta (it had apparently fallen into the hands of the Hittites during
the reign of Amenophis IV.), was conquered by him. Not only the Hittites,
however, but also Naharain (Naharaim), the country of which Dušratta of
old had been king, upper and lower Rutennu (Canaan and North Syria),
Sinjar, the island of Cyprus, and Cappadocia, felt the force of his arms.
His son, Rameses II., was associated with him on the throne, and
afterwards succeeded him. This took place about 1300 B.C. It is to this
ruler that the glory of the name of Rameses is principally due, and his
grandfather, the first who bore it, shines mainly with a reflected light.
It is impossible here to do more than touch upon such of the details of
his career as are essential in the present work. In all probability he is
best known on account of his expedition into Syria, and the conquest of
the Hittites, who, as recorded in the celebrated heroic poem of Pentaur,
were allied with a number of other tribes, including the people of
Naharaim, Aleppo, Gauzanitis, the Girgashites (?), Carchemish, etc. The
result was success for the Egyptian arms, and the Hittites, on the whole,
submitted, though some of the towns acknowledging Hittite rule, notably
Tunep, refused to accept Egyptian suzerainty, necessitating another
expedition, the result of which was, that the Egyptians found no more
opposition to their overlordship. In his eighth and succeeding years he
fought against the Canaanites, and in his descriptions of his operations
there, many familiar names are to be found—names of great interest to all
students of ancient Oriental history. It was in his eighth year, according
to the texts in the Ramesseum, that he conquered Shalam (Salamis W. of
Capernaum, according to Prof. Flinders Petrie), Marom (Merom), the spring
of Anamimi (identified with Anamim), Dapur (identified with Tabor by
Brugsch), and many other places.
Rameses II. is generally regarded as the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and
one of the tasks placed upon the oppressed Israelites was the building of
his store-cities, Pithom (Pi-tum, discovered by M. Naville when excavating
for the Egypt Exploration Fund) and Raamses, the Pi-Ramessu of the
inscriptions, concerning which there is a very interesting letter by an
Egyptian named Panbesa, who visited it. As Brugsch says: “We may suppose
that many a Hebrew, perhaps Moses himself, jostled the Egyptian scribe in
his wandering through the gaily-dressed streets of the temple-city.”
The successor of Rameses, Meneptah II., is hardly the son which one would
expect to follow such a father. According to Brugsch, he does not rank
with those Pharaohs who transmitted their remembrance to posterity by
grand buildings and the construction of new temples. And the monolith
found by Petrie in 1896 seems to imply that his lists of conquests were
not always so trustworthy as could be wished. Nevertheless, the reign of
Meneptah is one of the greatest importance, for it was he, to all
appearance, who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, as seems also to be proved
by the same document. As this is a text of the very first importance, a
translation of the concluding lines is given here—
“Kheta (the land of the Hittites) is in peace, captive is Canaan and full
of misery, Askelon is carried away, Gezer is taken, Yennuamma is
non-existent, Israel is lost, his seed is not,(75) Syria is like the
widows of Egypt. The totality of all the lands is at peace, for whoever
rebelled was chastised by king Meneptah.”
Now the statement concerning Israel has given rise to a considerable
amount of discussion. Naville regards the reference to the condition in
which the Israelites were as indicating that they had left Egypt, and were
wandering, “lost” in the desert. There is also some probability that the
expression, “his seed is not,” may be a reference to the decree of the
king, who commanded the destruction of the male children of the Hebrews,
which command, he may have imagined, had been finally carried out. The
question also naturally arises, whether the last phrase, “whoever rebelled
was chastised by king Meneptah,” may not have a reference to the
Israelites, who, from their own showing, were sufficiently peremptory in
their demands to be allowed to proceed into the wilderness to sacrifice to
their god, to bring down upon themselves any amount of resentment.
Exceedingly noteworthy, and in many respects startling, however, are the
researches and statements of Dr. Edouard Mahler. Following Spiegelberg as
to the meaning of the phrase containing the name of the Israelites,
“Jenoam has been brought to naught; Israel, the horde, destroyed his
crops”—a statement which hardly seems worthy of the honour of being
inscribed on the memorial stele of a king of Egypt—is the rendering he
suggests. The translation of the word _feket_ (which is rendered by other
Egyptologists as “annihilated, lost,” or in some similar way) by “horde,”
allows the learned chronologist to suggest, that the ideographs
accompanying the word Israelites indicate that they had already entered
the Holy Land, and were trying to obtain a foothold there.
Having made these statements, he proceeds to examine the whole question.
He asserts the correctness of the view, that Amosis, the founder of the
eighteenth dynasty, was the prince who knew not Joseph. The first king of
this new dynasty, he calculates, came to the throne two years after
Joseph’s death. With regard to the reign of Rameses II., he refers to the
festival of the Sothis period which was celebrated in the thirtieth year
of his reign. Starting from this period,(76) which, according to Oppolzer,
was renewed in the year 1318 B.C., he calculates that the first year of
Rameses II. was 1347 B.C., and that the Exodus took place in his
thirteenth year, _i.e._ 1335 B.C.
According to the _Pirke di Rabbi Elieser_, Dr. Mahler says, the departure
of the Israelites is said to have taken place on a Thursday. “This view is
also held in the Talmud (cf. Sabbath 87B), and the _Shulchan-Aroch_ also
maintains that _the 15th Nisan, the day of the Exodus, was a Thursday_.
This all agrees with the year B.C. 1335, for in that year the 15th Nisan
fell on a Thursday, and indeed on _Thursday the 27th of March (Julian
calendar)_.”
If we accept the theory that Rameses II. was the Pharaoh of the Exodus,
and that the Exodus took place in 1335 B.C., then Moses, who was eighty
years old at the time of the Exodus, must have been born in the year 1415
B.C., _i.e._ the fifteenth year of Amenophis III. Now the chief wife of
this ruler was queen Teie (see p. 275), a woman who was certainly of
foreign, probably Asiatic, race. In all probability, therefore, Teie,
being an alien and of a different religion from the Egyptians, was not by
any means in favour with the Egyptian priesthood, however much the Pharaoh
may have delighted in her. The daughter of such a woman, as will easily be
understood, would find little or no opposition to the adoption by her of a
child of one of the Hebrews, an Asiatic like her mother. This, of course,
would explain excellently how it was that Moses came to be adopted and
educated by an Egyptian princess at her father’s court, and that he had no
real sympathy with the people among whom he lived, though it raises
somewhat of a difficulty, for it is hard to understand how the Egyptian
king, sympathizing, as we may expect him to have done, with Asiatics,
should have ordered the destruction of their children. Nevertheless,
circumstances may easily have arisen to cause such a decree to be issued.
Another difficulty is, to explain who the people hostile to Moses were,
who in the thirteenth year of Rameses II. died (Exod. iv. 19). This has
generally been understood to be the king and one or more of his advisers,
though this objection, like the other, really presents no difficulty
worthy of the name, as there was no indication that the king was included.
Of course there is no statement to the effect that Pharaoh was killed with
his army by the returning flood after the Israelites crossed the Red Sea
(in Ps. cxxxvi. 15 he must be regarded as having been overwhelmed therein
in the persons of his warriors, who suffered the fate which ought to have
stricken also the king), so that little or no difficulty exists in this
portion of the narrative.(77) On the other hand, a difficulty is got rid
of if we suppose that the Exodus took place in the time of Rameses II. Dr.
Mahler points out, that Meneptah was succeeded by his son and heir,
User-kheperu-Ra’, who did not die, but reigned thirty-three years. The
eldest sons of Rameses II., on the other hand, all died during their
father’s lifetime, and it was the fourteenth of his numerous progeny who
ultimately came to the throne.
Dr. Mahler clinches the matter by making the plague of darkness to have
been a solar eclipse.
Whatever may be the defects of Dr. Mahler’s seductive theory, it must be
admitted that it presents fewer difficulties than any other that has yet
been put forward, and on that account deserves special attention.
CHAPTER IX. THE NATIONS WITH WHOM THE ISRAELITES CAME INTO CONTACT.
The Amorites—The Hittites—The Jebusites—The Girgashites—Moab.
Amorites.
The earliest mention of the Amorites in the Old Testament is the passage
in Gen. x. 16, where the name occurs along with that of the Jebusites and
the Girgashites, from which may be gathered that they were all three very
powerful tribes, though their power is in all probability not to be
measured by the order of their names, the most important of the three
being the Amorites, whose name comes second. They were regarded by the
ancient Jews as an iniquitous and wicked people (Gen. xv. 6; 2 Kings xxi.
11), though they may not, in reality, have been worse than other nations
which were their contemporaries. That they were a powerful nation is
implied by the statement in Gen. xlviii. 22, where Jacob speaks of the
tract which he had taken out of the hand of the Amorite with his sword and
his bow, as a feat of which a warrior might be proud.
The Amorites in Babylonia have already been referred to in Chap. V., and
from that part of the present work it will easily be understood that they
were an extensive and powerful nationality, capable, with organization, of
extending their power, as they evidently did from time to time, far and
wide. Indeed, as has been pointed out, there is great probability that the
Babylonian dynasty called by Berosus Arabic, was in reality Amorite. In
any case, the kings of this dynasty held sway over Amoria, as the
inscription of Ammi-ṭitana, translated on p. 155, clearly shows. The
importance of this nationality in the eyes of the Babylonians is proved by
the fact that their designation for “west” was “the land of Amurrū,” and
the west wind was, even with the Assyrians, “the wind of the land of
Amurrū” (though the Hittites, in Assyrian times, seem to have been the
more powerful nation), and this designation of the western point of the
compass probably long outlived the renown of the nationality from which
the expression was derived. Among other Biblical passages, testifying to
the power of the Amorites, may be quoted as typical Amos ii. 9, 10, and in
this the Babylonian and the Hebrew records are quite in agreement.
As has been pointed out by Prof. Sayce, in process of time a great many
tribes—Gibeonites, Hivites, Jebusites, and even Hittites—were classed as
Amorites by the ancient Jewish writers, a circumstance which likewise
testifies to the power of the nationality. These identifications must be
to a large extent due to the fact that all the tribes or nationalities
referred to were mountaineers, and, as we have seen (p. 122), the Akkadian
character for a mountainous region or nationality, stood not only for
Armenia, and the land of the Amorites, but also for the land of Akkad,
because the Akkadians came from a mountainous country, perhaps somewhere
in the neighbourhood of the mountains of Elam. This character was
pronounced Ari when it stood for Amoria, but ceased to be used for that on
account of its signifying also the mountainous region of Armenia, and
Akkad, for which it still continued to be employed, and it is only the
context, in many cases, which enables the reader to gather which is meant.
Other groups used for Amoria were the sign for foot, twice over (sometimes
with one of them reversed), [Cuneiform], and [Cuneiform], the ordinary
pronunciation of which is Saršar, though it is probable that the latter
was pronounced, in Akkadian, like the former, _i.e._ Tidnu. In the
inscriptions of Gudea, viceroy of Lagaš about 2700 B.C., there occurs the
name of a country called Tidalum, “a mountain of Martu,” from which a kind
of limestone was brought. This Hommel and Sayce regard as another form of
Tidnu, by the interchange of _l_ and _n_, which is not uncommon in
Akkadian. The fact that Martu is also used in the inscriptions for Amurrū,
(the land of) the Amorites, and also, with the prefix for divinity, for
the Amorite god (_îlu Amurrū_), which was introduced into Babylonia at an
exceedingly early date, confirms this explanation. In all probability
there is not at present sufficient data for ascertaining the dates when
these names first appear, but Tidnu or Tidalu was probably the earlier of
the two.
What the exact boundaries of the district were are doubtful. Prof. Sayce,
after examining the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, comes to the conclusion that it
denoted the inland region immediately to the north of the Palestine of
later days. In this Petrie concurs, the country being, according to him,
the district of middle and lower Orontes, and certainly covering a large
area. This, of course, would be the position of the tract over which they
held sway in the earlier ages, but later they must have extended their
power so as to embrace the Jebusites (Jerusalem), and even Mamre in Gen.
xiv. 13. From this wide extension of the dominions of the Amorites in the
book of the Bible dealing with the earliest period of Jewish history, and
from the fact that the Assyro-Babylonians used the word to indicate the
west in general, it is clear that the Amorites occupied a wide tract in
the earlier ages, and must have been pushed gradually back, probably by
the Babylonians under Sargon of Agadé, leaving, however, centres of
Amorite influence in the south, which, when the power of Egypt, which
followed that of Babylonia, waned and disappeared, left certain
independent states under Amorite rulers. It is thus that, at the time of
the Exodus, we find Og ruling at Bashan, who had threescore cities, all
the region of Argob, his chief seats being Edrei and Ashtaroth. This ruler
and his people were of the remnant of the Rephaim, regarded by Sayce as of
Amorite origin (Hastings’s _Dictionary of the Bible_, under “Amorites”).
Whatever doubt there may be, however, about the origin of the Bashanites,
there is none concerning Sihon king of the Amorites dwelling more to the
south. A man of great courage and daring, he had driven the Moabites out
of their territory, obliging them to retreat across the Arnon. On the
entry of the Israelites, he gathered his troops and attacked them, but was
defeated and killed. Josephus (_Ant._ iv. 5, sect. 2) has some curious
details of this battle, in which he states that the Amorites were unable
to fight successfully when away from the shelter of their cities, but in
view of their successes against the Moabites, we may be permitted to doubt
this.
In the Tel-el-Amarna tablets the ruler of the Amorites is apparently
Abdi-Aširti,(78) who, with his son Aziru, warred successfully against
Rib-Addi (Rib-Hadad), governor of Phœnicia, driving him from Ṣumuru and
Gublu (Gebal), which last city was occupied, according to Petrie’s
analysis, by the two hostile parties in turn. Naturally there are a great
many recriminations on the part of Rib-Addi against Abdi-Aširti on account
of the hostility between them, and the former is constantly complaining to
the Pharaoh of what the latter had done, frequently calling him a dog, and
once seemingly referring to the Amorites as “dogs.” (Elsewhere Abdi-Aširti
applies this word to himself as an expression of humility.) His letters to
the king of Egypt, however, are merely assurances of fidelity, and are all
short:—
“To the king my lord say then thus: ‘(It is) Abdi-Aštarti, the king’s
servant. At the feet of the king my lord I fall down—seven (times at) the
feet of the king my lord, and seven times again (?) both front part and
back. And may the king my lord know that strong is the hostility against
me, and let it be acceptable before the king my lord, and let him direct
one of the great men to protect me.’
“ ‘Secondly, the king my lord has sent word to me, and I have heard—I have
heard all the words of the king my lord. Behold, the ten women forgotten
(?) I have brought’ ” (?).
(It is here worthy of note, that he does not, in this letter, call himself
Abdi-Aširti, “servant of the Ashera,” but Abdi-Aštarti, “servant of
Astarte,” using the Assyro-Babylonian ideograph for Ištar, the original of
the goddess in question. On another document from him, the word is spelled
out, Ab-di-aš-ta-ti, in which the scribe intended to write
Ab-di-aš-ta-ar-ti, but omitted the last character but one. Yet another
letter gives his name as Abdi-Aš-ra-tum, in the second element of which we
must see another form of Abdi-Aširti, unless the scribe has also made a
mistake in this case, and written Ašratum for Aštaratum, which is just
possible. In any case, it shows a close connection between the goddess
Aštarte or Ištar, and the Ashera, which was in Palestine, at that date,
and for centuries before and after, her emblem. To be the servant of the
one was to be the servant of the other, though the bearer of the name
seems to have the desire rather to be considered the priest of the
goddess. Even unintentional variants in names furnish valuable
contributions at times to comparative mythology.)
If there are but few letters from the father, there is a sufficient
number, and of considerable extent, from the son. He, too, is the faithful
servant of the Pharaoh, and he writes also to Dûdu (a form of the name
David) and Ḫâi, telling of the difficulties which he had with regard to
the king of the Hittites. It is apparently this prince to whom the Pharaoh
writes in the letter translated on pp. 300-302, a circumstance which leads
to the belief that the complaints of Rib-Addi with regard to Abdi-Aširti
and his son Aziru were well-founded. That the king of Egypt asks therein
for the delivery to him of certain persons whom he names, implies that he
had trustworthy information as to who the intriguers were, and though
apparently willing to give Aziru the benefit of the doubt, he certainly
did not hold him blameless.
It will probably be long ere the true order of these letters is known, and
until this be found, much of the history of the period to which they refer
must necessarily remain uncertain.
Hittites.
Another nationality which took a predominant part in the politics of
ancient Palestine is the Hittites. To all appearance they were a later
power than the Amorites, as their name does not occur in the inscriptions
of Babylonia and Assyria until a comparatively late date, whilst the
Amorites are mentioned 2200 years before Christ, and their name had become
the common Assyro-Babylonian expression for “the west.” That the Hittites
were nevertheless of considerable antiquity, however, is implied by the
presence of the sons of Heth at Mamre in the time of Abraham, who
purchased from Ephron the Hittite the cave of Machpelah in that place. It
is difficult to assign to these people any definite limits, especially in
early times, but it seems certain that they began to act far in the north,
and gradually extended their power southwards. In the times of Joshua, the
tract between the Lebanon and Euphrates is described as theirs, and their
domain was, in fact, the country to the north of Palestine. It was no
doubt due to their predominating power that the Assyrians of later days
called the whole of Palestine “the land of Ḫatti,” a designation not
altogether correct, but sufficient for their purpose, namely, that of
indicating the position of the nationalities enumerated. Nevertheless, it
had some justification, several colonies of these people inhabiting that
district, as is indicated by Gen. xxiii. 3, xxv. 10; Numbers xiii. 29,
etc. The statement in Ezekiel xvi. 3, that the father of Jerusalem was an
Amorite and its mother a Hittite, shows what was the opinion of the more
learned Jews of the time in the matter.
The earliest mention of the Hittites outside the Bible is in the Egyptian
monuments, where, in the annals of Thothmes III., it is recorded for the
year 1470 B.C., that the king proceeded to the banks of the Euphrates, and
received tribute from “the greater” land of the Hittites. In the year 1463
B.C., the king of this district again paid tribute. During the reign of
Thothmes IV., grandson of Thothmes III., the relations between the two
countries must have changed, and the Egyptian king had to repel an attack
made by the Hittites upon Tunib (now Tennib) in Northern Syria. This
hostile policy was continued by them also at a later date, for the
successors of Thothmes IV., Amenophis III. and his son, Amenophis IV., had
often to oppose the Hittite king, who either attacked Northern Syria, or
stirred up strife among the Egyptian vassals in Canaan.
Here, again, the Tel-el-Amarna tablets come in, and supply a mass of
details. At times the Ḫatti still send tribute, both to Amenophis III. and
IV., but at the close of the reign of the former, hostilities again broke
out, the Hittites being, to all appearance, the aggressors. Dušratta, king
of Mitanni, writes that he sends to the king of Egypt tribute of the
spoils which he had taken from the Ḫatti; and the king of Nuḫašše, who
bears the Assyrian name of Addu-nirari, and whose grandfather had been
appointed by Thothmes III., complains that the king of the Ḫatti is
against him, and asks for help. From these and other statements it would
seem, that whoever was on the side of the king of Egypt was the enemy of
the Hittites, and therefore to be attacked by them. Akizzi, king of Qatna,
complains in one of the letters that the Ḫatti had burned down a city, and
reports in another that they had tried to win him over to their side.
Aziru, another prince in the neighbourhood, complains that the king of
Ḫatti has entered Nuḫašše, and for this reason he could not leave his own
territory to go to the king of Egypt. At the end of one of his
communications, Akizzi states that the Sun-god had taken away the king of
the Ḫatti, but as no name is given, any historical importance which this
fact might have is greatly minimized. In other letters they are spoken of
as despoiling the princes of Gebal, capturing a personage named Lupakku
and the cities of Amki “even from the cities of Aaddu” (or Bin-Addu =
Ben-Hadad). As we have seen (pp. 288-289), at least a portion of them was
led by Etakama of Kinza.
As is well known, a large number of hieroglyphic inscriptions of a people
regarded as the Hittites exist, and many attempts have been made to
translate them. In addition to these, there are many sculptures, mostly on
rocks, and still _in situ_. The most remarkable of these are at Bogaz
Keui, Eyouk, Iasili-Kaia, Ghiaour-kalesi, Doganlu-deresi, Ibriz,
Eflatun-bunar, Karabeli, and elsewhere in Asia Minor, as well as at
Jerabis (anciently called Carchemish), Hamah (Hamath), and monuments of
the Hittites have even been found at Babylon. How they came to this last
place is not at present known, but they may have formed part of the spoils
brought from the west by any of the later conquerors (such a supposition
would probably be better than attributing to them a very early date), or
sent thither as presents or as specimens of Hittite work. It is noteworthy
that the inscriptions, with the exception of the bowl brought from
Babylon, are all in relief and boustrophedon. A large number of seals,
both of the ordinary kind and cylindrical, are known, and though there are
bilingual inscriptions (Hittite and Babylonian), none of them are of
sufficient length to make them really serviceable in translating other
texts in the same character.
Notwithstanding the great difficulty attending such a task as the
translation of these inscriptions, a certain amount of success has been
attained. Those who have advanced the study most are Prof. Sayce in
England, and Profs. Jensen and Hommel in Germany. It will be many years,
however (unless some unexpected help come to light), before renderings in
any real sense of the word useful can be made.
In the opinion of Prof. Sayce, Cappadocia was the earliest home of this
nationality, which spread thence in every direction (except, perhaps,
northwards), and made itself master of a part of Palestine, from which
circumstance the district came to have, in Assyrian literature, the name
of “the land of Ḫatti.” Though later than the Amorite invasion, it
nevertheless took place at a very early date, as is shown by the fact that
Abraham had dealings with Ephron, a Hittite or “son of Heth.”
Coming down to a later date, it is interesting to see what is said about
them by the kings of Assyria. Tiglath-pileser I. (about 1120 B.C.) says as
follows—
“... 4000 Kaškaians (and) Urumaians, people of the land of Ḫattê,
disobedient, who in their strength had taken the cities of
Subarte, subject unto the god Ašur, my lord, heard of my march to
Subarte; the brilliance of my power overwhelmed them, they feared
the conflict, my feet they embraced. With their goods and II.
_sos_ (120) of chariots of their system of yoking(79) I took from
them, and delivered to the people of my land.”
Farther on in his record, Tiglath-pileser I. states that he collected his
chariots and warriors, and took to the desert, going to the border-people
of the Arameans, enemies of Ašur his lord. From before the land of Sūḫi
(the Shuhites) as far as the city Carchemish of the land of Ḫattê, he
boasts of having plundered in a single day, slaughtering their soldiers,
and taking back to his own country all their property. Some of them fled
across the Euphrates, followed by the Assyrians in boats of skins, and the
result of this flight to seek safety was, that six of their cities at the
foot of the mountain known as Bišru, were taken, plundered, and destroyed.
In other passages of his record also, this king refers to certain
districts which were undoubtedly Hittite, but without calling them by that
name. One of these—the interesting description of his operations in
Commagene—is especially worthy of notice. It reads as follows—
“In those days the people of Qurḫê, who had come with the people of
Kummuḫi to save and help the land of Kummuḫi, I caused to go down like
_šûbe._(80) The corpses of their warriors I heaped up in heaps on the tops
of the mountains, the carcases of their warriors the river Namê took forth
to the Tigris. Kili-Tešub son of Kali-Tešub, whom Irrupi put to flight
(?), their king, my hand took in the midst of the battle. His wives,
children, offspring of his heart, his force, III. _sos_ (180) plates of
copper, 5 censers of bronze, with their gods, (objects) of gold and
silver, and the best of their property, I carried off. Their spoil and
their goods I sent forth, that city and its palace I burned with fire,
destroyed (it), laid (it) waste.
“The city Urraḫinaš, their stronghold, situated in the land of Panari,
fear dreading(81) the glory of Ašur, my lord, overwhelmed them; to save
their lives they carried away their gods (and their goods), they fled to
the peaks of the lofty mountains like a bird. I collected my chariots and
troops, (and) crossed the Tigris, Ša-di-Tešub, son of Ḫattu-šar, king of
Urraḫinaš, not to be captured in his own country, took my feet. The
children, offspring of his heart, and his family, I took as hostages. I.
_sos_ (60) plates of copper, libation-vases of bronze, offering-dishes of
bronze, great ones, with II. _sos_ (120) men, oxen, sheep, tribute and
gifts, he brought, (and) I received it. I had mercy on him, spared his
life, (and) set the heavy yoke of my dominion over him for ever. I
captured the wide land of Kummuḫi to its (whole) extent (and) made it
submit to my feet. At that time I offered one bronze offering-dish and one
bronze libation-vase of the spoil and gifts of the land of Kummuḫi to Ašur
my lord, (and) I. _sos_ of copper plates, with their gods, I presented to
Hadad who loveth me.”
In the above extract the names containing that of the god Tešub show
clearly that we have here to do with nationalities in the neighbourhood of
Mitanni (see p. 277), and a close relation with the Hittites is suggested
by the other name Ḫattu-šar, father of Šadi-Tešub, which is an analogous
formation to Ḫattu-šil, the Kheta-sir of Egyptologists, with whom Rameses
II. made a treaty (cf. p. 304). Another reading of Ḫattu-šar is Ḫattuḫi, a
name which Prof. Sayce translates, “the Hittite,” in the second series of
the _Records of the Past_, vol. i. p. 97, note 2. In the same passage he
analyzes the name of the city Urraḫinaš as being derived from Urra, with
the termination _ḫi-naš_, denoting in Vannite, “the place of the people
of.”
Another interesting reference to the Hittites is that of the Assyrian king
Aššur-naṣir-âpli, renowned for his cruelty. The king ruling at the time
was Sangara, who had as his capital the city of Carchemish. The text reads
as follows—
“I drew near to the land of Carchemish. The tribute of Sangara, king of
the land of Ḫatte—20 talents of gold, bangles (?) of gold, rings of gold,
swords of gold, 100 talents of bronze, 250 talents of iron, dishes of
bronze, vases of bronze, libation-vases of bronze, a brazier of bronze,
and the numerous vessels of his palace, the weight of which was not taken;
couches of oak, chairs of oak, tables of oak and ivory inlaid, 200
slave-girls (or virgins), cotton stuffs, woollen cloth, white and black
and white and grey, white marble (?), tusks of elephants, a white chariot,
an umbrella of gold filled with overlaying (?), the ornament of his
royalty, I received. The chariots, horses, (and) grooms of the city
Carchemish, (of the Hittites(82)) I set (aside) for myself.”
The riches and importance of the city of Carchemish are here well
indicated, and to all appearance the place maintained its position to the
end, long after the power of the Hittites had completely disappeared.
Indeed, as will be recognized from the above, Sangara has every appearance
of having been a local ruler, implying that the district under Hittite
control was already broken up into small states practically independent of
each other. Another prince of the Hittites, in the neighbourhood of
Diarbekir, from whom this Assyrian king received tribute was “the son of
Baḫiani.” Apparently he was called thus on account of his ancestor,
Baḫiani, being chief of a tribe, the district over which he ruled bearing,
in Aššur-naṣir-âpli’s second reference to it, the name of Bît-Baḫiani,
“the house of Baḫiani.” The special products of this tract are well
indicated by the nature of the gifts sent to the Assyrian king: “chariots,
harness, horses, silver, gold, lead, bronze, and vessels of bronze.” That
these Hittite districts paid tribute so submissively would seem to
indicate that they had no coherence among themselves, and did not feel
called upon to aid each other in time of need.
Sargon of Assyria, who claims to have subjugated all the land of the
Hittites, speaks, as do other Assyrian kings, of the people of Hamath, and
what he did to Ilu-bi’idi or Yau-bi’idi, their king. This, too, was the
capital of a Hittite principality, and it is in the modern town of Hamah,
in which form the name still survives, that the so-called “Hamah-stones,”
now generally regarded as Hittite, were found.
The disappearance of the Hittite confederate states (if such they really
were), and the rise in their place from time to time of other powers,
caused the Assyrians, who regarded this territory as their own special
possession, won by conquest, to apply to the whole district the name of
mât _Ḫatti_, “the land of Heth,” which would seem to have included
(probably in its extended sense) Samaria, Sidon, Arvad, Gebal, Ashdod,
Beth-Ammon, Moab, Edom, Askelon, and Judah.(83) It thus, to all
appearance, took the place of the ancient “land of the Amorites” (not,
however, when indicating the points of the compass), and in this the
inscriptions of Esarhaddon and Aššur-banî-âpli agree.
What the influence of the Hittites over the nations contemporary with them
may have been is difficult to estimate. The Assyrians, to all appearance,
borrowed from them a certain style of architecture, used for the
entrance-hall of the royal palaces. Their style of art, of which numerous
examples are preserved, shows that they had made considerable progress,
and that they had individuality as artists. Neither in sculpture nor in
engraving of hard stone, however, did they ever attain to the exquisite
fineness and finish of the best work of the artists of Babylonia and
Assyria. The subjects, too, seem to be usually more grotesque, though this
suggestion, which their work gives, may be due merely to our ignorance of
their religious beliefs and the legends on which the designs were probably
based.
The inscribed vase in the British Museum, and the inscribed figure found
by the German explorers at the same place have already been referred to
(pp. 317-318), and it has been suggested as probable that they were sent
as presents to one or more of the Babylonian kings, though the possibility
that they were part of the spoils of an expedition to that part of the
world, or specimens of Hittite art carried off at a later date, when the
nations producing them had passed away, are also probable explanations. In
any case, they seem to show that there were, at some period or other,
political relations between the Hittites and the Babylonians.
Jebusites.
The importance of the Jebusites, who were, to all appearance, but a small
tribe, lies in the circumstance, that their capital and stronghold, at the
time the Israelites entered the Holy Land, was Jerusalem. In consequence
of this, Jerusalem is mentioned, in one or two places (Jud. xix. 10; 1
Chron. xi. 4, 5, etc.), apparently poetically, under the name of Jebus,
perhaps so called by the Jebusites because of its being the capital of
their tribe. The original name of the city, however, as we know from Gen.
xiv. and the Tel-el-Amarna tablets (see p. 239), was Uru-salim. When the
Jebusites took possession of the city, however, is unknown, but in all
probability neither Melchizedek nor Abdi-ṭâba belonged to the race.
Apart from the references to this tribe in connection with Jerusalem,
there is no indication as to its origin and race. The name of their ruler,
Adoni-zedek, however, seems to show clearly that they were Semites, and we
may suppose, with Driver, that they were Canaanites (Hastings, _Dict. of
the Bible_, s.v.). It is apparently one of the tribes of which the
Babylonian and Assyrian inscriptions know nothing as a body, but the name
of Yabušu, which would be the old form of Jebus, occurs in a contract
tablet of the time of the first dynasty of Babylon (about 2200 B.C.), and,
if really the name of the tribe, as it would seem to be, confirms its
antiquity, as indicated by the references to it in Genesis.
It is not improbable that future discoveries will give us more information
concerning this tribe, interesting principally on account of its having
come into contact with the Jews.
Girgashites.
This nation, descended from the fifth son of Canaan, seems to have
inhabited the tract on the western bank of the Jordan, and on that account
was not within easy reach of the Babylonians and Assyrians. The name, it
is thought, is closely connected with that of Gergesa, where Christ healed
the demoniac, and allowed the evil spirits to enter into the herd of swine
which then ran down the slope into the sea. This Gergesa has, in its turn,
been identified with Kersa, a ruined town near the mouth of the Wady
Samakh. If this be the case, there is some probability that the
Girgashites are the Kirkišāti of a tablet from Assyria which seemingly
contains an early historical record, or an historical legend. Whether the
Kirkišāti be identical with the Girgashites or not, the text is of
sufficient importance to make it a valuable record, and a translation of
the more perfect and interesting of the lines is given here—
“Gazzāni to the resting-place he has decided upon,(84)
to the fortress camp of Kirkišāti,
to Zakar-gimilli (king?) of the Siḫites,
to wide-spreading Kirkišāti,
to Ḫarri-si’iši, to Dûr-Dungi,
and the neighbourhood of Tengurgur (?) may he go forth, and
to the land of Ḫalman, the place to which his eyes are set, may he
go.
By the command of the enemy, the Lullubite, may he accomplish
(it)—
As for him, his horses, his soldiers, his chariots, in peace to
the land of Ḫalman have approached, and the enemy, the
Lullubite,
whether from before him, or from beside him, or from his right,
or from his left, did not cease (?) from him, and shall not
destroy him,
shall not make him fail, shall not cause him to diminish.”
That the majority of the countries mentioned are near to Babylonia, is
against the probability that Kirkišāti (if it be a country) is the land of
the Girgashites, unless Ḫalman be Aleppo, and not the Mesopotamian tract
of the same name; or unless, being a “numerous people,” they had sent out
colonies to the neighbourhood of Babylonia, as did the Amorites; or
emigrants, like the Jebusites. Whatever be the explanation, however, the
above fragment is exceedingly interesting, the more so, that in the first
line of the extract as given above, the person spoken of is to all
appearance Gazzāni, which is possibly the completion of the name of the
father of Tudḫula, and is written, as far as it is preserved, in the same
way.(85)
It is noteworthy that the prefix for country is absent in every case,
except that of Ḫalman.
Moabites.
Concerning the early history and state of the Moabites we get no
information from the inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria, though the
name Muab occurs on the base of one of the six colossal inscriptions at
Luxor (_Patriarchal Palestine_, p. 21). For a time, in all probability, it
was like an Egyptian province, or, at least, greatly under Egyptian
influence. It is not until comparatively late times that the Moabites come
before us in Assyrian history, and the same thing may be said with regard
to the Edomites, Ammonites, and other petty states. As these will be
referred to incidentally in the chapters which follow, it has been thought
well not to treat of them here, in order to avoid repetition as much as
possible.
CHAPTER X. CONTACT OF THE HEBREWS WITH THE ASSYRIANS.
Aššur-naṣir-âpli II.—Shalmaneser II.—Tiglath-pileser III.
(Pul)—Shalmaneser IV.
(Elulaeus)—Sargon—Sennacherib—Esarhaddon—Aššur-banî-âpli (the
great and noble Asnappar)—The downfall of Assyria.
The Hebrew commonwealth had come into being, and given place to a
monarchy, which, passing through many vicissitudes, reached its highest
pitch of glory in the time of David and Solomon, to suffer, after the
death of the latter, diminution by the falling away of the ten tribes.
Thus weakened, the two parts of what had been erstwhile a powerful whole
became tempting morsels to any power whose ruler was ambitious of
conquest. It was probably more from unwillingness to attack with but
little chance of success than inability from inherent weakness which
caused the Assyrians to refrain whilst the nation was united. Generally,
the kings of Assyria preferred making conquests nearer home, and
Tukulti-Ninip I., who reigned in the 13th century B.C., annexed Babylonia
and ruled there for seven years, Assyrian predominance in that land coming
to an end on his death, which was due to a revolt, in which his son,
Aššur-naṣir-âpli, took part. Though this was a check to Assyrian ambition
in that quarter, its kings returned from time to time to the attack, but
with very varying success, which probably caused them to turn their
attention to other districts as the field of their warlike zeal.
Tukulti-Ninip II. (891-885 B.C.) and his son, Aššur-naṣir-âpli II.,
therefore aimed at the conquest of the north and west, and though the
latter came into conflict with Babylonia, no permanent accession of
territory resulted therefrom.
It seems not to have been until somewhat late in his reign that he
reached, in his numerous expeditions, the Mediterranean Sea, “the great
western sea,” or “the great sea of the land of Amurrū,”(86) as he calls
it. Here, after performing ceremonies to the gods of Assyria, he received
the tribute of the kings of the sea-coast—“of the land of the Tyrians, the
land of the Sidonians, the land of the Gebalites, the land of the
Maḫallatites, the land of the Maizites, the land of the Kaizites, the land
of the Amorites, (and) the city of Arvad, which is amid the sea.” This is
followed by a list of the objects received, and the statement that they
(the rulers) paid him homage. Having thus spied out the nakedness of the
land, and ascertained the willingness of the rulers to give tribute, the
Assyrian king proceeded to the mountains of Ḫamanu (Amanus), and cut beams
of cedar, cypress, and other wood for the temple Ê-šarra, for his house or
temple (apparently that in which he worshipped), “a house of rejoicing,
(and) for the temple of the moon and the sun, the glorious gods.”
Shalmaneser II., son of Aššur-naṣir-âpli, during the first six years of
his reign, warred, like his father, on the north and west, his object
being to complete what his father had begun, namely, the subjugation of
the territory of Aḫuni, son of Adini, king of Til-barsip. This having been
successfully accomplished, he was free to turn his attention to the more
southern regions of the old land of the Amorites. In the year 854 B.C.,
therefore, he marched against Giammu, a ruler whose land lay on the river
Belichus. To all appearance this chief wished to resist, but his people
feared the power of the Assyrian king, and put Giammu to death. Taking
possession of the district, he then proceeded to further successes, and
after crossing the Euphrates again in boats of skins, he received the
tribute of the kings on the farther side—Sangara of Carchemish, Kundašpu
of Commagene, Aramu the son of Gusu, Lallu the Milidian, Ḫaianu the son of
Gabaru, Kalparuda of the Patinians, and Kalparuda of the Gurgumians, “(at)
the city Aššur-uttir-aṣbat, of the farther side of the Euphrates, which is
upon the river Sajur, which the men of the Hittites call the city Pitru”
(Pethor). Having reached Aleppo, he received also tribute there, and
offered sacrifices before Hadad of Aleppo.
Next came the turn of Irḫulêni of Hamath (Amatâa), whose cities Adennu,
Pargâ, and Arganâ were captured and spoiled, and his palaces set in
flames.
“From Arganâ I departed, to Qarqara I drew near: Qarqara, his royal city,
I ravaged, destroyed, (and) burnt with fire. One thousand two hundred
chariots, 1200 yoke of horses, 20,000 trained soldiers of Adad-’idri (=
Bin-Adad-idri = Ben-Hadad) of Ša-imērišu (= the province of Damascus); 700
chariots, 700 yoke of horses, (and) 10,000 soldiers of Irḫulêni of the
land of the Hamathites; 2000 chariots (and) 10,000 men of Aḫabbu (regarded
as Ahab) of the land of the Sir’ilites (regarded as the Israelites); 500
men of the Guites; 1000 men of the Musrites; 10 chariots (and) 10,000 men
of the Irqanatites; 200 men of Matinu-ba’ali of the city of the Arvadites;
200 men of the land of the Usanatites; 30 chariots (and) 10,000 men of
Adunu-ba’ali of the land of the Šianians;(87) 1000 camels of Gindibu’u of
the Arbâa (regarded as the Arabians); ... 00 men of Ba’asa son of Ruḫubu
of the land of the Amanians (Ammonites)—these 12(88) kings he took to aid
him, (and) to make war and battle they advanced against me. With the
supreme powers which Aššur, the lord, has given; with the mighty weapons
which _ura-gala_ (Nergal(89)) going before me, has presented (me), I
fought with them. From the city Qarqara as far as the city Gilzau(90) I
made an end of them. Fourteen thousand of their warriors I caused to be
slain with the sword. Like Hadad I caused a torrent to rain down upon
them....”
Such is the account of the first recorded contact of the Assyrians with
the Jews—that is, if Sir’ilâa be rightly rendered “Israelites”; as to
Ahab, there may have been more than one of the name, just as there were
two Kalparudas, he of the Patinians, and he of the Gurgumians.
Nevertheless, the probability that it really is Ahab of Israel is great,
and this theory is held by most Assyriologists.
In truth, however, the Hebrew and the Assyrian histories of this period
are not altogether easy to reconcile. Ben-Hadad II., the son and successor
of Ben-Hadad I., was in almost continual conflict with the Israelites. The
story is told in 1 Kings xx., according to which Ben-Hadad entered into an
alliance with thirty-two other kings, who, with their armies, horses, and
chariots, besieged Samaria. Too full of confidence, he sent to Ahab of
Israel, who was in the besieged city, demanding his surrender, the second
time with terms more than usually humiliating. In consequence of the words
of a prophet who is unnamed, the rejection of these terms was followed by
a sortie of the inhabitants, who seem to have taken the besiegers
unawares, whilst they were feasting and drinking in their over-confidence.
The result was the raising of the siege, and the complete defeat of the
allied forces.
The next attack of Ben-Hadad upon Ahab was at Aphek, he hoping to obtain a
victory over the Israelites because he considered their God to be a god of
the mountains, and that they would not be under his protection in the
plains. Here, too, the Israelites were victorious, and Ben-Hadad
submitted, and agreed to restore cities taken by his father (xx. 34), and
to allow the Israelites to build streets at Damascus (probably as a
quarter for Jewish merchants).
Admitting the correctness of the general opinions of Assyriologists
concerning _Aḫabbu mât Sir’ilâa_, it must have been between this period
and his death that he joined the Syrian league against Shalmaneser II. of
Assyria, with a force only half that of Ben-Hadad, though his chariots
were nearly twice as many. Notwithstanding this, however, the Israelitish
troops were sufficiently numerous, and the defeat of such a large army as
that of the allies of the Syrian league, and the slaughter of a total of
14,000 men among them (another account says 20,500), many of them in all
probability Israelites, finds no place, strange to say, in the sacred
record, notwithstanding that the Hebrew writers do not, as a rule, in the
least object to mentioning national defeat, and in this case it would have
been a most important thing to refer to, the danger which threatened them
and their allies being such as promised to overthrow their national
existence altogether. Perhaps the compiler of the sacred record, however,
did not realize to the full what the Assyrian invasion meant; or he may
not have desired to justify Ahab’s policy (which, in view of the danger
which threatened, was a sound one), and so discredit with the people the
fanatical behaviour and tragic warning of the prophet who reproached the
king so mercilessly because he had made friends with Ben-Hadad instead of
pressing on against him in hostility, even to the death.
The Rev. Joseph Horner (_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical
Archæology_, 1898, p. 244), besides bringing in the chronological
difficulty, which is very real, in spite of Prof. Oppert’s _Noli me
tangere_ (P.S.B.A., 1898, pp. 24-47), notes (pp. 237, 238) the difficulty
of the name. This is the only place where Israel is called in the Assyrian
inscriptions Sir´ilâa—in all other passages it is _bît Ḫumrî_, “the house
of Omri,” or _mât bît Ḫumrî_, “the land of the house of Omri,” and he
regards it as incredible that a name never used before, and never
afterwards found, should be employed. Elsewhere, when speaking of Jehu,
Shalmaneser calls him “son” or “descendant of Omri,” apparently intending
thereby to indicate his nationality, for, as is well known, the
relationship expressed is not correct.
Nevertheless, allowance must be made for the uncertainty attending the
introduction into the literature of a country of a name with which the
people, including the scribes, are unfamiliar. Ḫumrî or Omri may have
been, to the scribe who composed the account given by the Black Obelisk,
very much easier to remember than the comparatively unfamiliar Sir´ilâa,
and it may have been felt that the form used was not by any means
certain—Isra´ilâa would, in fact, have been much better. The scribe of the
monolith, however, may have inserted what he felt to be the
Assyro-Babylonian form of the name, for something very similar to Sir´ilâa
(or Ser´ilâa) exists in the Sar-îli of a contract tablet of the reign of
Ammi-zaduga, translated in the _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_,
1897, pp. 594-595 (cf. p. 157).
But, as before remarked, the chronological difficulty still remains, the
date, from Hebrew sources, being, according to Prof. Oppert, before 900
B.C. (the last year of Ahab), whilst, according to Assyrian chronology, it
should be 853 B.C. (cf. Sayce in Hastings’s _Dictionary of the Bible_,
vol. i. p. 272).
The importance of the city of Hamath is well indicated not only by the
above extract, but also by the numerous other passages where Irḫulēni (or
Urḫilēni) of Hamath is referred to. The Guites were regarded by the late
Geo. Smith as the Biblical Goim—a rather doubtful identification. As for
the Musrites, the same scholar thought them to be the Egyptians, Muṣrâa,
“Muṣrites,” coming apparently from Muṣur, the name of Egypt in the
Assyrian inscriptions. Others regard them as being a people of the north,
and this is more probable, though it would perhaps be better to regard the
name as unidentified. The mention of “camels” in connection with Gindibu’u
of the Arbâa is regarded as stamping the nationality referred to as being
Arabic, and this is very probable. In Ba’asa son of Ruḫubu of the
Ammonites we have the comparatively familiar Biblical names Baasha and
Rehob in their Assyrian forms. It will therefore be seen that the extract
translated above is of considerable interest quite independently of its
historical bearings, which are of great importance, whatever may be the
ultimate opinion concerning them.
During the next three years Shalmaneser was occupied on the west and
north-west and in Babylonia, so that it was not until 850 B.C. that he was
again able to turn his attention to the neighbourhood of Palestine.
The clemency of Ahab towards Ben-Hadad had apparently ended, as has been
seen, in an alliance between the two nationalities, but that alliance did
not, to all appearance, last very long. There is every probability that it
was an unwilling one on the part of Ben-Hadad, and in all probability he
took advantage of the death of Ahab to repudiate it. In any case,
Ben-Hadad is represented in 2 Kings vi. 24 ff., as again besieging
Samaria, but with disastrous results. What interval there was between his
raising the siege of Samaria and his death, the sacred narrative does not
say, but according to Assyrian chronology, there should be from four to
six years at least (850-846 B.C.).
In the tenth year of his reign Shalmaneser II. of Assyria crossed the
Euphrates for the eighth time, and advanced against Sangara of Carchemish,
whose cities he destroyed, made waste, and burned in the flames. After
this came the turn of Arame, whose capital city, with one hundred other
places around it, was laid in ruins. Adad-idri of Damascus (Imēri-šu),
however, set himself, with Irḫulēni of Hamath, and twelve of the kings of
Syria, to resist the Assyrian king. Shalmaneser claims to have defeated
them, put them to flight, and captured their chariots, horses, and
war-material.
There is hardly any doubt, however, that his success was not by any means
what he desired and expected, for he found himself obliged to march again
to the same region in his eleventh year, when he crossed the Euphrates for
the ninth time. On this occasion he says that he destroyed ninety-seven
cities of Sangara of Carchemish and one hundred cities of Arame. Having
reached the edge of the Ḫamanu (Amanus) range of mountains, he traversed
the portion named Yaraqu, and descended to the land of the Hamathites,
where he captured the city Aštamaku and ninety-nine other places,
defeating their armies with great slaughter. Again he met Adad-idri, with
Irḫulēni of Hamath and the twelve “kings of the sea-coast.” In the battle
which follows he claims to have defeated them and killed 10,000 of their
fighting-men with the sword. He also states that he took their chariots,
horses, and war-material. On his way back he again turned his attention to
Arame, capturing his capital Apparazu. At that time he likewise received
the tribute of Kalparundu of the Patinians, consisting of silver, lead,
gold, horses, oxen, sheep, and textile fabrics. Ascending again into the
Amanus mountains, he brought away a further supply of cedar-wood for his
palaces.
In the two following years (648 and 647 B.C., according to Assyrian
reckoning), Shalmaneser was not to all appearance engaged in any
expeditions of importance, or at least their importance is unknown. In his
fourteenth year, 846 B.C., however, he crossed the Euphrates again, and
met Ben-Hadad for the last time. As before, the latter was in alliance
with Irḫulēni of Hamath and the “twelve kings of the sea-coast above and
below.” Again the Assyrian king fought with them and defeated them,
destroying their chariots and teams, and capturing, as before, their
war-material, and “to save their lives, they fled.”
Naturally all these historical details are of great interest and value.
The question naturally arises whether, being so much alike in wording and
results, they may not all refer to the same expedition, which the Assyrian
king repeated to fill up his annals? As a rule, however, the annals of the
Assyrian rulers are exceedingly correct, and there is consequently but
little reason to doubt the accuracy of Shalmaneser’s statements. It is
noteworthy that, in all these descriptions of expeditions to the west,
twelve kings are mentioned, whilst in the first instance eleven only are
enumerated, and in the other two the twelve are spoken of as if in
addition to Adad-idri and Irḫulēni of Hamath. Ought we, therefore, to
translate “the twelve kings,” meaning the eleven which are referred to
along with and including Aḫabbu of the Sir’ilâa, or are the twelve kings
referred to in the account of the second and third encounters with
Ben-Hadad merely an indefinite number, meaning “a dozen,” _i.e._“twelve
more or less”? As it is impossible that Ahab of Israel should have been
one of the Syrian league all this time, the latter must be held to be the
more probable explanation—“In those days Adad-idri of the land of Imēri-šu
(and) Irḫulēni of the land of Hamath with a dozen kings of the sea-coast
trusted each other’s might, and came against me to make war and battle.”
Notwithstanding all his efforts, however, as detailed in his annals,
Shalmaneser II. was still very far from the subjugation of the
“sea-coast,” as he calls Palestine and Syria, and realizing that he had a
hard task before him, he returned to his own country and occupied himself
in the two following years in Mesopotamia, Ararat, and Namri, south-east
of Assyria. The following year, 843 B.C., for the first time during his
reign, he was at peace, superintending the felling of trees in the Amanus
mountains for use in the palaces of Assyria. This period of rest was in
all probability necessary to enable the army to be reorganized for further
campaigns in that part of the world which he seems to have set his heart
upon subjugating.
This being the case, he set out, in his eighteenth year (842 B.C.), and
crossed the Euphrates for the sixteenth time. This expedition, however,
was not against his old foe, Ben-Hadad or Adad-idri, but against
Ḫaza’-îlu, the Hazael of 2 Kings viii. 8, etc., who had treacherously
murdered his master, as related in this passage, and seized the throne.
Hearing of the advance of the Assyrian army, he prepared for resistance,
as is related in the following narrative.
[Plate VIII.]
Plates of Chased Bronze, which covered the Doors of an Enclosure at
Balawat. (Left-hand portions, from right-hand leaf.) (Found by Mr. H.
Rassam, in 1878, and now in British Museum, Assyrian Saloon.) I_a_.—The
expedition of Shalmaneser II. to the land of Nairi (Mesopotamia).
Sacrificing to the gods by throwing meat-offerings into the lake. March of
the army over the mountains. I_b_.—Siege and capture of the city Suguni,
in Ararat. II_a_.—Bringing to Shalmaneser "_the tribute of the ships of
Tyre and Sidon_." II_b_.—March against the city Hazizi. Procession of
prisoners. III_a_. and III_b_.—Crossing the tributaries of the Euphrates
by pontoon bridges. Receiving tribute from Adinu, son of Dakaru, of
Enzudu. (Page 337.)
“In my 18th year I crossed the Euphrates for the 16th time. Ḫaza-’îlu of
the land of Imēri-šu trusted to the might of his troops, and called his
troops together in great number. Saniru, the peak of a mountain which is
before Lebanon, he made his stronghold. I fought with him, I accomplished
his defeat: 16,000 of his fighting-men I slew with the sword: 1121 of his
chariots, 470 of his horses, with his camp, I captured. He fled to save
his life—I set out after him. I besieged him in Dimašqu (Damascus), his
royal city. I cut down his orchards; I went to the mountains of the land
of Ḫauranu (the Hauran), cities without number I destroyed, wasted, and
burned in the flames. Untold spoil I carried away. I went to the mountains
of Ba’ali-ra’asi” (Aramaic: “lord of the promontory”), “which is a
headland” (lit., “head of the sea”)—“I set up an image of my majesty
therein. In those days I received the tribute of the Tyrians, Sidonians,
(and) of Yaua, son of Ḫumrî.”
The description of this campaign given by the Black Obelisk is as follows—
“In my 18th year I crossed the Euphrates for the 16th time. Ḫaza’-îlu of
the land of Imēri-šu came forth to battle: 1121 of his chariots, 470 of
his horses, with his camp, I took away from him.”
These two documents, as will easily be seen, are in perfect accord, and
the story they have to tell agrees in its turn with that of the preceding
years of Shalmaneser’s reign. Indeed, this text may be regarded as
confirming the opinions hitherto held concerning the identity of Aḫabbu
mât Sir’ilâa with Ahab of Israel, and Adad-idri with Ben-Hadad of
Damascus. This, be it noted, is due to the fact that, like Ben-Hadad,
Adad-idri was succeeded by Hazael, who, in both the Bible narrative and
the annals of Shalmaneser, is a contemporary of Jehu (Yaua, son of Ḫumrî
or Omri). The Black Obelisk, probably for the sake of economizing space,
does not refer to the receipt of tribute from Jehu when speaking of the
battle with Hazael, on account of the bas-relief thereon referring to that
event. The following is the translation of the epigraph in question which
I gave in 1886(91)—
“The tribute of Yaua, son of Ḫumrî: silver, gold, a golden cup, golden
vases, golden vessels, golden buckets, lead, a staff for the hand of the
king (and) sceptres, I received.”
The account of the conflict with Hazael indicates that certain changes had
taken place in the Mediterranean coast-lands since Shalmaneser’s former
campaigns thither. It was no longer against the kings of Damascus and
Hamath with “a dozen kings” in alliance with them, but against Hazael
alone. Had they broken with Ben-Hadad? or did they hold aloof because they
had no sympathy with his murderer? In any case, it would seem to be
certain that they no longer feared the Assyrian king, who, they must have
felt, had his hands full. In Israel, too, there had been changes, Ahab
having been succeeded by Ahaziah, who, after a reign of one year, was
succeeded by Jehoram. The latter tried to reduce Mesha king of Moab again
to subjection, but without success. Ben-Hadad’s attempt to capture Samaria
was made during his reign, and the non-success of the Syrian king was
probably the cause of Jehoram’s attempt to recover Ramoth-gilead, where
Ahab had found his fate some years before. The king of Israel did not fall
on the field of battle, but received there a wound which obliged him to
return to Jezreel. His death at the hands of Jehu in Naboth’s vineyard is
one of the most dramatic incidents of Israelitish history.
Jehu’s payment of tribute to the Assyrian king in 842 B.C. was probably
due to a question of policy, and in the main it may be considered as a
cheap way of avoiding misfortune, for he might easily have been worsted in
an encounter with Shalmaneser. What Tyre and Sidon thought fit to do,
could hardly but be recognized as policy for Israel as well. It was
important for Jehu that he should consolidate his power, hence this
submission, though, to say the truth, he could not have been certain that
he would be attacked. Was it that he felt strong enough to resist the
Assyrian king which made him withhold the payment of tribute when, in 839
B.C., Shalmaneser again marched against Hazael? It would seem so. On this
occasion four towns of the king of Damascus were captured, and tribute
again received from Tyre and Sidon, Gebal likewise buying peace in the
same way.
That Jehu, who destroyed the house of Omri, should be called “son of Omri”
in the inscriptions of Shalmaneser II. of Assyria, is strange, and needs
explanation. Perhaps the successor of a king could loosely be spoken of as
his son, as occupying the place of such a relative; and, as is well known,
Belshazzar, in the book of Daniel, is called son of Nebuchadnezzar, which,
according to the Babylonian inscriptions, he certainly was not. That Jehu
may have been in some way related with Jehoram, and therefore a descendant
of Omri, is possible and even probable. That he was not descended from him
in a direct line is certain.
It is noteworthy that the Assyrian form of the name, Yaua, shows that the
unpronounced aleph at the end was at that time sounded, so that the
Hebrews must have called him Yahua (Jehua). Omri was likewise pronounced
in accordance with the older system, before the ghain became ayin. Ḫumrî
shows that they said at that time Ghomrî.
After the rebellion which embittered the closing years of Shalmaneser’s
life, the great Assyrian king died, and his crown went to his younger son
Šamši-Adad III. (825-812 B.C.). The first work of the new ruler was the
pacification of his country, and this having been successfully done, he
tried to restore Assyrian influence beyond the borders of his kingdom.
During his reign of about thirteen years, he warred on the N., N.E., N.W.
and S. (Babylonia), but never came nearer to Syria than Kar-Shalmaneser on
the Euphrates, near Carchemish.
His son, Adad-nirari, who reigned from 812 to 783 B.C., followed in his
footsteps, and began by making conquests on the east. The north and
north-west, however, also felt the force of his arms. The only campaign of
which details are given is one against Syria, the date of which, however,
is not known. G. Smith thought that this could not have taken place
earlier than 797 B.C., during the time of Amaziah king of Judah and Joash
king of Israel—a conjecture which is based, to all appearance, upon the
comparison of Mansuate with Manasseh. As the Assyrian form of this name is
Minsē or Minasē, such an identification is impossible, and this being the
case, it is more probable that the expeditions to the Holy Land and Syria
took place either in 806, when he went to Arpad, 805, when he was at Ḫaza,
or 804, when he marched against Ba’ali, the name, apparently, of a
Phœnician city. The next year he went to the sea-coast, but whether this
was the Mediterranean or not is not indicated, though it may be regarded
as very probable, and if so, 803 B.C. must be added to the dates already
named, or the operations to which he refers in his slab-inscription may
have extended over one or more of the years here referred to.
So, when he was young and enthusiastic, King Adad-nirari III. of Assyria
had the inscription carved of which the following is a translation, as far
as it is at present known—
“Palace of Adad-nirari, the great king, the powerful king, king of the
world, king of the land of Aššur; the king who, in his youth, Aššur, king
of the Igigi, called, and delivered into his hand a kingdom without equal;
his shepherding he (Aššur) made good as pasture for the people of the land
of Aššur, and caused his throne to be firm; the glorious priest, patron of
Ê-šarra, he who ceaseth not to uphold the command of Ê-kura, who
continually walketh in the service of Aššur, his lord, and hath caused the
princes of the four regions to submit to his feet. He who hath conquered
from the land of Siluna of the rising of the sun, the mountains (?) of the
land of Ellipu, the land of Ḫarḫar, the land of Araziaš, the land of Mesu,
the land of the Medes, the land of Gizil-bunda, to its whole extent, the
land of Munna, the land of Parsua (Persia), the land of Allapria, the land
of Abdadana, the land of Na’iru (Mesopotamia), to the border of the whole
of it, the land of Andiu, whose situation is remote, the range (?) of the
mountains, to its whole border, as far as the great sea of the rising of
the sun (the Persian Gulf); from the river Euphrates, the land of Ḫatti
(Heth, the Hittites), the land of Amurri (Amoria, the Amorites), to its
whole extent, the land of Tyre, the land of Sidon, the land of Ḫumrî
(Omri, Israel), the land of Edom, the land of Palastu (Philistia) as far
as the great sea of the setting of the sun (the Mediterranean), I caused
to submit to my feet. I fixed tax and tribute upon them. I went to the
land of Ša-imēri-šu (Syria of Damascus); Mari’u, king of Ša-imēri-šu, I
shut up in Dimašqu (Damascus), his royal city. The fear and terror of
Aššur, his lord, struck him, and he took my feet, performed homage. Two
thousand three hundred talents of silver, 20 talents of gold, 3000 talents
of bronze, 5000 talents of iron, cloth, variegated stuffs, linen, a couch
of ivory, an inlaid litter of ivory, (with) cushions (?), his goods, his
property, to a countless amount I received in Damascus, his royal city, in
the midst of his palace. All the kings of the land of Kaldu (the Chaldean
tribes in Babylonia) performed homage, tax and tribute for future days I
fixed upon them. Babylon, Borsippa, Cuthah, brought the overplus (of the
treasures) of Bêl, Nebo, (and) Nergal, (made) pure offerings....”
(The remainder of the inscription is said to be still at Calah, not yet
uncovered.)
Schrader, in his _Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament_, makes the
campaign against Syria to have taken place in 803 B.C., and sees in
Adad-nirari the deliverer sent by Yahwah in answer to the prayers of
Jehoahaz. According to 2 Kings xiii. 3, the Israelites were subject to
Hazael and Ben-Hadad, his son, all their days. There is every probability
that the successor of the latter was the Mari’u mentioned in the
translation given above, and the same inscription would seem to indicate
that the Israelites submitted to the Assyrian king, and paid him tribute
in order to secure his intervention, which, judging from the enormous
amount of spoil which he secured, he did not regret. The saviour having
come, and the tribute paid, “Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime”
(2 Kings xiii. 5). Verses 22-25 are to all appearance a recapitulation,
probably extracted from another source. They show that Joash, son of
Jehoahaz, rebelled, and took from Ben-Hadad the cities which the
last-named had captured from Israel, and defeated him three times (see
ver. 19). Apparently “all their days” in ver. 3 is not to be taken
literally, as the war of the Israelites against Syria took place before
the death of Ben-Hadad III. It may also be conjectured that the reason of
there being no more than three defeats of the Syrians was due to the death
of Ben-Hadad, and his sceptre passing into younger and more vigorous
hands, so that “a saviour” was still needed, and found in the person of
the Assyrian king, as suggested by Schrader. The Syrian forces not being
in a condition, after their defeats by the Israelites, to offer battle to
Adad-nirari, apparently submitted without fighting, and after such a visit
the country had too much need for peace to allow of reprisals being made
against the Israelites.
The fame of Adad-nirari was great, and his queen seems to have shared in
it. She was named Sammu-ramat, “(the goddess) Sammu loveth (her),” a name
which is generally regarded as the original of the somewhat mythical
Semiramis of Herodotus. That she was looked up to by the subjects of her
royal spouse, however, is proved by the two statues in the British Museum
(there were in all four of them, erected at Calah). According to the
inscription on them, they were made and dedicated for one of the chief
officers of the kingdom, Bêl-tarṣi-îli-ma (“a lord before God”), who
furnished them with the following dedication—
“To Nebo, mighty, exalted, son of Ê-saggil,(92) the wise one,
high-towering, the mighty prince, son of Nudimmud, whose word is supreme;
prince of intelligence, director of the universe of heaven and earth, he
who knoweth everything, the wide of ear, he who holdeth the tablet-reed
(and) hath the stilus; the merciful one, he who decideth, with whom is
(the power of) raising and abasing; the beloved of Ea, lord of lords,
whose power hath no equal, without whom there would be no counsel in
heaven; the gracious one, pitiful, whose sympathy is good; he who dwelleth
in E-zida, which is within Calah—the great lord, his lord—for the life of
Adad-nirari, king of the land of Aššur, his lord, and the life of
Sammu-ramat, she of the palace, his lady, Bêl-tarṣi-îli-ma, ruler of the
city of Calah, the land of Ḫamedu, the land of Sudgana, the land of
Temeni, the land of Yaluna, for the saving of his life, the lengthening of
his days, the adding of days to his years, the peace of his house and his
people (not the one evil to him), he has caused (this statue) to be made
as a gift. Whoever (cometh) after: Trust to Nebo—trust not another god.”
It is rare that an Assyrian queen is mentioned in the inscriptions,
especially on almost equal terms with the king, and additional interest is
added by the fact, that she bears a name commonly regarded as the same as
that of Semiramis. In Assyrian and Babylonian history, it is always the
king who is the ruler, whatever influence his spouse may have had in
determining his policy as such being always unmentioned, and therefore
unknown to the world at large. The present inscription, however, seems to
testify that Sammu-ramat was known outside the walls of the palace, and
that one of the greatest in the kingdom thought fit to do her honour by
associating her with the king in the dedication to Nebo which he made for
the preservation of the lives of the king, the queen, and himself. Whether
the history of Sammu-ramat, queen of Assyria, was laid under contribution
to furnish details for the legend of Semiramis, will probably never be
known; but it is nevertheless unfortunate that the slab recounting the
warlike exploits of Adad-nirari, king of Assyria, her husband, should
break off in the middle of his account of his successes in Babylonia.
Adad-nirari reigned 29 years, and was succeeded by Shalmaneser III. in 783
B.C. The expeditions of this king were principally against Armenia and
Itu’u, a region on the Euphrates. In the year 775 B.C. he went to the
cedar-country, but whether the mountain region of the Amanus, Lebanon, or
of a district called Ḫašur be intended, is unknown. The necessity of
expeditions against Syria, however, still continued, for in 773 B.C. we
find Shalmaneser at Damascus, probably to bring the king then ruling there
again into subjection.
Although doubt is now expressed as to whether Ḫatarika, whither
Shalmaneser III. marched in 772 B.C., the last year of his reign, be
really Hadrach (Zech. ix. 1) or not (the consonants do not agree so well
as they ought to do), in all probability it was a district not far from
Damascus to which he went.
Aššur-dan, his successor, ascended the throne in the following year, and
at once began warring in Babylonia and on the east. In 765 B.C. he marched
to Ḫatarika. Signs of revolt seem at this time to have broken out in
Assyria, probably on account of the pestilence with which the land was
afflicted, and it must have been for this reason that no expedition was
undertaken in the year 764 B.C. Next year the rising, which was evidently
expected, took place in the city of Aššur, and there was an eclipse of the
sun in the month Sivan, an important astronomical occurrence which has
been identified with an eclipse which passed over Assyria on the 15th of
June, 763 B.C., and was supposed by Mr. Bosanquet to be referred to in
Amos viii. 9, “I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and will darken
the earth in the clear day.”
To all appearance this eclipse, taken in conjunction with the presence of
pestilence and rebellion, was regarded as an evil omen. This revolt lasted
into the next year, and spread, in 761 B.C., into Arrapḫa, where it
continued three years. In 759 the revolt reached Gozan, and there was a
recrudescence of the plague. There is no reference to the stamping out of
the revolt in Assyria, but it seems very probable that the king and his
supporters were active to that end, as he was able to march in the year
758 B.C., to Gozan, after which there is the entry, “Peace in the land.”
Two years were to all appearance occupied in reorganizing the country and
providing against a repetition of such risings, unless it be that
Aššur-dan was too ill to take the field, for according to the received
chronology, he died in 755 B.C. when Aššur-nirari II. ascended the throne.
This new ruler is represented to have made two expeditions, one in the
year of his accession, to Ḫatarika, and the other, in 754 B.C., to Arpad.
What the additional statement, “Return from the city of Aššur,” really
refers to, is exceedingly doubtful—perhaps troops had been stationed there
during the whole period since the breaking out of the revolt there in 763
B.C.
For four years no expeditions were made, pointing to a continued ferment
of discontent in Assyria. In 749 and 748 B.C., however, Aššur-nirari made
expeditions to Namri, south-west of Media. It is significant, however,
that the Canon has, for the next year (747 B.C.), the usual words (“In the
land”) when no expedition took place, the reason probably being the
unsettled state of the country. The entry for the next year is “Revolt in
Calah,” which, as has already been seen, was one of the principal cities
of the kingdom. After this is the usual division-line, indicating the end
of a reign, followed by the words “(Eponymy of Nabû-bêl-uṣur, governor of)
Arrapḫa. In the month Aaru (Iyyar), day 13, Tiglath-pileser sat upon the
throne. In the month Tisritu (Tisri) he made an expedition to (the
district) between the rivers.” This corresponds with 745 B.C.
Thus is ushered in, in the Eponym Canon, one of the most important reigns
in Assyrian history. By what right Tiglath-pileser III. took the throne is
not known. To all appearance, he was not in any way related to his
predecessor, Aššur-nirari, and it is therefore supposed that he was one of
the generals of that king, who, taking advantage of the rising in Aššur
(of which he may, indeed, have been the instigator), made away with his
sovereign, and set himself in his place. Further light, however, is needed
upon this period, before anything can be said as to the circumstances
attending Tiglath-pileser’s accession to the throne.
[Plate IX.]
Tiglath-pileser III. in His Chariot. British Museum, Nimroud Central
Saloon.
Though all Tiglath-pileser’s inscriptions are imperfect, and most of them
very fragmentary, they nevertheless contain enough to show of what
enormous value they are. Their incompleteness and the absence of dates
consequent thereon is fortunately compensated somewhat by the fact that
the Eponym Canon is perfect in the part which refers to this king, and
that we are therefore able to locate with certainty all the events of his
reign.
As the entry translated above shows, his first campaign was “between the
rivers,” that is, to Babylonia, the land lying between the Tigris and the
Euphrates. His object in leading his forces thither was to break the power
of the Aramean tribes, with the Arabs and others who were in alliance with
them. Going first south-east, he subjugated the Chaldean tribes, including
the Pekodites; turning afterwards west, he went against the Arameans,
capturing Sippar, Dûr-Kuri-galzu, and other Babylonian cities, and it is
supposed that it was on this occasion that he assumed the title “king of
Šumer and Akkad.” To all appearance, however, he was not recognized by the
Babylonians themselves as king, Nabonassar being then on the throne. There
is hardly any doubt, however, that Babylonia acknowledged Assyrian
overlordship on this occasion, thus giving Tiglath-pileser some
justification for assuming the title.
Having arranged things to his satisfaction in Babylonia, Tiglath-pileser
turned his attention to the East (Namri, 744), Ararat (743), and Arpad
(same year), the last being his objective up to and including the year 740
B.C. Sardurri of Ararat, however, saw his influence threatened by this
move, for he, too, was a conqueror, and had had such success, that he felt
justified in calling himself “king of Suri,” or North Syria. How matters
fell out is not known, but it may be supposed that the Assyrian king went
and besieged Arpad, was attacked whilst doing so by Sardurri and his
allies, and compelled to raise the siege. A pursuit of the Armenian forces
by the Assyrians was the result of this attack, the end being, in all
probability, a decisive victory for Tiglath-pileser. This, according to
Rost, would seem to be the most reasonable supposition, for the Assyrian
king was able to besiege Arpad again next year without any hindrance. The
capture of the city in the third year brought the rulers of the district
in which it stood to the feet of the Assyrian king—all except one, Tutamû
king of Unqu, who was defeated and captured, and his territories annexed
to Assyria.
During the campaigns in the north at the end of 739 B.C., risings took
place in Syria and North Phœnicia, and this gave Tiglath-pileser the
wished-for opportunity to bring these districts again under his sway. The
Eponym Canon gives for this year the simple entry, “He captured the city
of Kullanû,” which Rost supposes to have been in the neighbourhood of
Hamath, and if so, must be the Calne of Isaiah x. 9, which is there
mentioned with Hamath, Carchemish, Arpad, Samaria, and Damascus as having
been subdued by Assyria. The mention of Kullanû as the object of the
expedition is probably due to its having been one of the chief factors in
the disturbances which took place. It would also seem that Azariah of
Judah took part in the attempt to get rid of Assyrian influence, and
though this was fully recognized by Tiglath-pileser, the Assyrian king to
all appearance did not come into direct contact with his country.
Azriau or Izriau (Azariah—Rost’s collation of the squeezes shows that both
spellings of the name were used) of Judah is mentioned at least four
times. The earlier references, however, are so very fragmentary that
nothing certain can be said concerning their connection—in one of the
passages containing his name the wording leads one to imagine that he was
captured by the Assyrian king, though, as Rost has shown, this may simply
mean that certain sympathizers of his had taken his part. But whatever may
have taken place in Judah, Azariah’s sympathizers did not get on so well
as their leader. No less than nineteen places were captured by the
Assyrian king, including “Usnû, Siannu, Ṣimirra (Simyra), Rašpûna, on the
sea-coast, together with the cities of the Sauê-mountains (mountains which
are in Lebanon), Ba’ali-ṣapuna (Baal-zephon) as far as Ammana (Amanus, or
according to Winckler, the anti-Lebanon), the mountain of _urkarinu_-wood,
the whole of the land of Sau, the province of Kar-Adad (fortress of
Hadad), the city of Ḫatarikka, the province of Nuqudina, Ḫasu with the
cities which are around it, the cities of Arâ, and the cities which are on
each side of it, with the cities (= villages) which are around them, the
mountain Sarbûa to its whole extent, the city Ašḫanu, the city Yadabu, the
mountain Yaraqu to its whole extent, the city ... -ri, the city
Elli-tarbi, the city Zitānu as far as the city Atinnu, the city ... (and)
the city Bumamu—XIX. districts of the city of Hamath, with the cities
which were around them, of the sea-coast of the setting of the sun, which
in sin and wickedness had taken to Azriau, I added to the boundary of
Assyria. I set my commander-in-chief as governor over them, 30,300 people
I removed from the midst of their cities and caused the province of the
city of Ku- ... to take them.”
Notwithstanding that there is no reference to the above in the Old
Testament, there is no reason to doubt that it is substantially correct.
Its omission is in all probability due to the fact, that neither Judah nor
Israel were menaced by the forces of the Assyrian king. Notwithstanding
this, the expedition and the success of Tiglath-pileser had its effect,
the result being that all the princes of middle and north Syria showed
their submission to the Assyrian king by paying tribute, thus ensuring the
safety of their territory, at least for a time. This took place after the
defeat of Kišî, the Aramean, and his forces, together with several other
districts, and the transportation of the inhabitants from their homes to
districts in other principalities, a proceeding calculated to destroy
national feeling and thus contribute to the safety of the empire by
rendering rebellion more unlikely. The following is the list of the
princes who secured immunity from attack by paying tribute:—
“Kuštašpu of the city of the Comagenians; Raṣunnu (Rezon) of the land of
the Sa-Imērišuites (Syria); Meniḫimme (Menahem) of the city of the
Samarians; Ḫirummu (Hirom) of the city of the Tyrians; Sibitti-bi’ili of
the city of the Gebalites; Urikku of the Kûites; Pisiris of the
Carchemishites; Êni-îlu of the city of the Ḫammatites; Panammû of the city
of the Sam’allites; Tarḫulara of the land of the Gurgumites; Sulumal of
the land of the Melidites; Dadi-îlu of the land of the Kaskites; Uassurme
of the land of the Tabalites; Ušḫitti of the land of the Tunites; Urballâ
of the land of the Tuḫanites; Tuḫamme of the city of the Ištundites;
Urimme of the city of the Ḫušimnites; Zabibê, queen of the land of Arabia.
Gold, silver, lead, iron, elephant-skins, ivory, variegated cloth, linen,
violet stuff, crimson stuff, terebinth-wood, oak (?), everything costly,
the treasure of a kingdom, fat lambs whose fleeces were coloured crimson,
winged birds of heaven, whose feathers were coloured violet, horses,
mules, oxen and sheep, male camels and female camels with their young, I
received.”
It was a rich booty, and was probably held to be a sufficient return for
all the expense, and trials, and hardships of the campaign. Though the
kingdom of Judah seems not to have suffered (we must not be too hasty to
assume that this was the case, as the Assyrian records are exceedingly
defective), Israel, as is mentioned above, paid tribute. It does not
appear from the Assyrian account that Tiglath-pileser went against
Samaria, but notwithstanding this, 2 Kings xv. 19 has the following—
“There came against the land Pul the king of Assyria; and Menahem gave Pul
1000 talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to confirm the
kingdom in his hand. And Menahem exacted the money of Israel, even of all
the mighty men of wealth, of each man fifty shekels of silver, to give to
the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria turned back, and stayed not
there in the land.”
It is to be noted that there is here nothing about buying the Assyrian
king off—the money was paid him to confirm the kingdom in Menahem’s hand.
The writer apparently assumed that the Assyrian king might not altogether
be hostilely inclined, notwithstanding that “he came against the land.”
Perhaps by “land” we are to understand “district.” In any case, the two
accounts can hardly be said to disagree. He did not war there, but he
received Menahem’s tribute—it was therefore needless to mention his visit,
if such it was. Many a ruler in this district must have done the same
thing on this occasion, and there could have been no reason to mention one
more than the other—hence, probably, the absence of references to any
threatening approach to the borders of Israel and other states on the part
of the Assyrian king.
But whilst absent in the west, rebellion was rife nearer home, and was put
down with vigour by the governors of the provinces of Lullumû and Na’iru
(Mesopotamia). This led to further transportations of the inhabitants, who
were sent west to Ṣimirra (Simyra), Arka, Usnu, Siannu, Tu’immu, and other
places in Syria. Next year Tiglath-pileser himself marched to Madâa (the
Medes), where he had a very successful campaign. As some of the places
mentioned have the element Kingi as part of the name, it has been
suggested that in all probability the Sumerians, whose Babylonian home was
called Kingi, had their original seat in Media.
Campaigns against the district of the mountains of Nal and Ararat, the
former as a preparation for the latter, follow, after which comes,
according to the Eponym Canon, an expedition to the land Pilišta. This is
set down as the event of 734 B.C. There is, it is needless to say, some
uncertainty in this expression, as the question naturally arises, What is
really included in the term? Assuming, with Rost, that the statements in
the Canon indicate the point intended to be reached, and not the farthest
point attained, it is very probable that Israel did not come into the
sphere of the Assyrian king’s operations, and this is all the more
probable in that Rost’s collation of one of the squeezes in the British
Museum shows that instead of the Assyrian form of Abel-Beth-Maachah, we
have to read Abil-akka, to which is added, however, the description “on
the boundary of Israel (Bît-Ḫumria).” It will be seen, therefore, that
though he may not have entered the country, or, at least, made any warlike
operations there, he approached well within striking distance of its
borders. On this occasion it would seem that he found it necessary to
install six new governors so as to ensure the due obedience of the
inhabitants. After this, Tiglath-pileser goes on to speak of Hanon of
Gaza, who on seeing the approach of the Assyrians fled to Egypt, leaving
his capital at the mercy of the invader. Having captured the city,
Tiglath-pileser entered Hanon’s royal palace, taking possession of all his
property, and setting therein his royal couch. He speaks of having
delivered something to the gods of the land, and of having laid upon its
inhabitants (the payment of tribute and gifts). Further mutilated lines
follow, referring to the spoil taken, and there is a reference to the land
of Israel (mât Bît-Ḫumria). After this comes the words, “the whole of his
people, (with their property) I sent to Assyria.” The gap between the
reference to Israel and this line, however, makes it doubtful to what it
really refers. The record immediately goes on, however, to speak of the
death of Pekah.
In the Eponym Canon the entries for the two years following the campaign
to Pilišta (_i.e._ 733-732 B.C.) are, “to the land of Dimašqa.” It would
therefore seem that, having assured himself of the submission of his
north-Phœnician vassals, Tiglath-pileser attacked the northern district of
Israel, taking Ijon, Abel-beth-maachah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead,
Galilee, and all the land of Naphtali (2 Kings xv. 29). No account of
this, however, occurs in the Assyrian inscriptions,(93) which, as already
pointed out, are very mutilated for this period. It is possible that the
reference to Israel, in the mutilated passage quoted above, relates to
this invasion, and possibly also to the payment of tribute by Pekah in
order to secure himself against further attacks.
Whether before or after the above is not known, but possibly on the
departure of the Assyrians, Rezin (Rezon), king of Syria, made alliance
with Pekah, and their combined forces invaded Judah. Ahaz, who was at this
time king of Judah, was apparently besieged in Jerusalem, and the king of
Syria took advantage of this opportunity to recover possession of Elath,
which never fell into the hands of the Jews again (2 Kings xvi. 6).
There is no doubt that Ahaz was hard pressed, and hearing, to all
appearance, that the Assyrians were again in the neighbourhood, he sent to
Tiglath-pileser a humble message: “I am thy servant, and thy son; come up,
and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of
the king of Israel, which rise up against me.” This would in all
probability have had but little effect, had it not been accompanied by a
goodly amount of gold and silver, taken not only from his own treasury,
but also from that of the Temple at Jerusalem. The result was, that
Tiglath-pileser went up against Damascus. The Syrian king, however,
decided to resist, and a battle was fought in which he was defeated, and
obliged to seek safety in flight. With a grim, not to say barbarous,
humour, Tiglath-pileser describes his flight and the treatment of his
supporters—
“... (like) a mouse he entered the great gate of his city. His chiefs (I
took) alive with my hands, (and) I caused them to be raised up and to view
his land (on) stakes: 45 camps of soldiers I collected (in the provin)ce
of his city, and shut him up like a bird in a cage. His plantations,
(fields, orchards (?), and) woods, which were without number, I cut down,
and did not leave one ... (the city) Ḫādara, the house (= dwelling-place)
of the father of Raṣunnu (Rezon) of the land of the Ša-imērišuites, (the
place where) he was born, I besieged, I captured: 800 people with their
possessions, ... their oxen, their sheep, I carried off: 750 prisoners of
the city Kurussa, ... (prisoners) of the city of the Irmaites, 550
prisoners of the city Metuna, I carried off: 591 cities ... of 16
districts of the land of Ša-imērišu I destroyed like flood-mounds.”(94)
This is immediately followed by an account of the operations against
Samsi, queen of Arabia, and the tribes connected with that over which she
held sway. After this he states that he set Idi-bi’ilu as governor over
the land of Musru. All these passages, however, are exceedingly
incomplete, as is also that referring to Samaria, which follows. The
shorter account of the expeditions of Tiglath-pileser gives in this place
lines of which the following is a translation—
“They overthrew Paqaḫa (Pekah), their king, and I set Ausi’a (Hosea) (upon
the throne) over them. Ten talents of gold, ... talents of silver, ...
their (tribute), I received, and (brought) them (to the land of Assyria).”
The longer account, from which most of the above extracts have been made,
may therefore be completed, with Rost, provisionally, as follows—
“(Pekah, all of whose) cities (I had captured) in my earlier campaigns,
and had given over (as a prey, and whose spoi)l I had carried off,
abandoned the city of Samerina (Samaria) alone. (Pekah), their king, (they
overthrew, and like) a hurricane (I ravaged the land).”
As will be seen, the above agrees closely with the statement in 2 Kings
xv. 30—
“And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of
Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the
20th year of Jotham the son of Uzziah.”
Mutilated details concerning other cities captured by Tiglath-pileser
follow the above extract from his annals, after which the narrative
continues—
“(Mitinti, of the land) of the Askelonites, (sinned) against (my)
agreement, (and revolted against me). He saw (the overthrow of Ra)ṣunnu
(Rezon), and failure (of understanding (?) fell upon him (?), and Rûkipti,
the son of Mitinti), sat upon the throne....”
In the account of the flight and death of Pekah, the Assyrian king
suggests that the abandonment of the king of Israel of his capital was due
to the fear of capture at his hands. One may also suppose that he wished
it to be understood that Pekah incurred the displeasure of his subjects by
his flight, and that they pursued after him, and having overtaken him, put
him to death. As a matter of fact, Pekah must really have fled on account
of the rebellion led by Hoshea, who, on learning of his flight, in all
probability pursued after him, and thus encompassed his death. Hoshea
then, by a payment of tribute to Tiglath-pileser, secured from the
Assyrian king his recognition as king of Israel, and at the same time
assured himself against attack at his hands.
Imitating Hoshea, Rûkipti, the new king of Askelon, also paid tribute, and
thus secured his recognition. As to Rezon, the Assyrian text does not
enable us to see what was his ultimate fate, but as it was such,
apparently, as to terrify Mitinti of Askelon into madness, it may be
supposed that it was death at the orders of the Assyrian king, as recorded
in 2 Kings xvi. 9.
Tiglath-pileser was now complete master of the land of Ša-imēri-šu or
Syria, and all the princes of the west acknowledged his overlordship. This
being the case, it is only natural that Ahaz of Judah should visit and pay
him homage at Damascus, the capital of the new province, as related in 2
Kings xvi. 10, and probably it was to that city that many of the other
subject princes went for that purpose, and to offer him their tribute. The
further result of the visit of Ahaz is detailed in the succeeding verses
of the passage in 2 Kings referred to.
Thus ended Tiglath-pileser’s successful expedition to Pilišta and
Damascus, and there is no record that he ever went westward again. The
Chaldeans, in combination with the Arameans, had made use of his absence
to engage in new advances against Babylon. Nabonassar, the king of that
country, had died, and been succeeded by his son, Nabû-nadin-zēri, who,
however, only reigned two years, and gave place to Nabû-šum-ukîn, who
murdered him. This last, however, only held the throne for somewhat more
than two months, and Ukîn-zēr, chief of the Chaldean tribe Bît-Amukkāni,
took possession of the throne, and ruled for three years—much against the
inclination of the Babylonians, who, to all appearance, had no love for
the Chaldean tribes inhabiting certain tracts of the country. The
interference of Tiglath-pileser was therefore looked on with favour by the
Babylonians, who welcomed him as a deliverer. Ukîn-zēr (the Chinzēros of
Ptolemy) was besieged in his capital, Sapîa, though that city was not
taken until the year 729 B.C. The result of this was, the submission of
all the Chaldean tribes, including that of which Merodach-baladan (then
only a young man) was the chief. Entering Babylon, Tiglath-pileser, in
accordance with the custom, “took the hand of Bêl,” an expression
apparently meaning that he performed the usual ceremonies, and was
accepted by the god—and the priesthood—as king. This also took place again
next year, from which it may be supposed that one acknowledged as king of
Babylon had to perform the ceremony yearly in order to fulfil the
conditions imposed upon all who held the reins of power. An entry in the
Canon for this year suggests that there was a rebellion (?) in a city of
which only the first character is preserved—possibly to be completed Dir,
and perhaps situated in Babylonia. Operations against this place, in all
probability, were taken in hand next year (727 B.C.), but whilst they were
in progress, Tiglath-pileser died, and Shalmaneser IV. mounted the throne.
How it is that Tiglath-pileser III. of Assyria was called Pûlu is not
known. The name only occurs, in native documents, in the Babylonian Canon
of kings—to all appearance that from which the Canon of Ptolemy was
copied. It is therefore practically certain that he only bore this name
officially in Babylonia. Probably the most likely explanation is, that it
was his original name, though it may have been given him by the compiler
of the canon (supposing that he was a man who had no great admiration for
the Assyrian conqueror) as a scornful expression, _bûlu_ (which may also
be read _pûlu_) meaning “the wild animal.” It occurs, however, as a
personal name in the inscriptions of Assyria at least twice, the bearer of
it being in one case a charioteer, one of nine officials of “the
Ḫuḫamite.”
The fact that the name Pûlu (in the Canon of Ptolemy Poros), applied to
Tiglath-pileser, occurs only in a Babylonian document, suggests that the
reference to the Assyrian conqueror in 2 Kings xv. 19 and 1 Chron. v. 26
are due to a Babylonian source, though, as it is the name by which he is
at first called by the writer of the 2nd Book of Kings, this is a
confirmation of the explanation that it was his original name. The glory
attached to the name Tiglath-pileser in Assyrian history probably accounts
for his having ultimately adopted the latter.
“On the 25th day of Tebet Šulmanu-ašarid (Shalmaneser) sat on the throne
in Assyria. He destroyed Šabara’in.” (Babylonian Chronicle.)
“In the eponymy of Bêl-ḫarran-bêl-uṣur, of the city of Gozan, To
the city ... Šalmanu-ašarid sat upon the throne.
In the eponymy of Marduk-bêl-uṣur, of the city of Amedi, In the
land.
In the eponymy of Maḫdê, of the city of Nineveh, To....
In the eponymy of Aššur-ḫalṣani (?), of the city of Kalzi, To....
In the eponymy of Šalmanu-ašarid, king of Assyria, To....”
(Eponym Canon with historical notices.)
These two extracts give practically all that is known of the important
reign of Shalmaneser IV. from native sources. The first is from the
Babylonian Chronicle, and its brevity in all likelihood indicates the
amount of sympathy that the Babylonians had for this king. Short as it is,
however, it is probably of as much value historically as the Assyrian
Eponym Canon in its present state, even including the restorations from
that without historical notices. The completion of this important document
from additional fragments and duplicates is greatly to be wished.
It is therefore from the Old Testament and Josephus that we get the
fullest history of the reign of this king. How it is that no records have
been found is not known. They may have been destroyed, or nothing very
extensive may have been written. That at least something of the kind
existed is indicated by the fact that the late George Smith refers to at
least one document, the whereabouts of which at present is not known.
What may have been the relationship of Shalmaneser IV. of Assyria to
Tiglath-pileser does not appear. There is every probability that, like his
great predecessor, he was an adventurer who, taking advantage of his
popularity with the army, and the failing powers of his royal master,
seized the throne. As will be seen from the Eponym Canon, an expedition
was in progress when he assumed the reins of power, so that he may have
taken advantage of the absence of Tiglath-pileser to carry out his design.
Tebet being the tenth month of the Assyro-Babylonian year, the time of his
accession corresponds with the winter of 727 B.C., a period at which
warlike operations were impossible. In the year 726 B.C. also he remained
at home, as was to be expected, consolidating his power.
His first campaign must therefore have taken place in 725 B.C., when, as
recorded in 2 Kings xvii. 3, he went against Hoshea, who paid him homage
and became tributary. Hearing that the king of Israel had sent privately
to So,(95) king of Egypt, asking for his help against the Assyrian king,
Shalmaneser threw Hoshea into prison, and advancing against Samaria,
called upon the city to surrender. Submission being refused, he laid siege
against it, and although Josephus relates that he ultimately took it, this
must be due simply to an inference, as there is no statement to that
effect in the Book of Kings, the words recording the event being simply
“the king of Assyria took Samaria,” and, as we know from the inscriptions,
it is Sargon, successor of Shalmaneser, who claims the honour of capturing
the city (see below, p. 363).(96)
During the siege, however, the Assyrian king busied himself with the
subjugation of all the surrounding district. It was probably in the same
year (725 B.C.) that he sent his army against Elulaeus, king of Tyre,
whose king had just been very successful in subjugating the Cittaeans
(people of Cyprus). According to Josephus (or, rather, Menander, whom he
quotes), Phœnicia submitted (Menander tells the story from the native
point of view, and states that “he soon made peace with them all”), but
Sidon, Accho, and Old Tyre (Palaetyrus) revolted (this probably means
“joined the Assyrians”), and several other cities yielded to the king of
Assyria. Finding that the Tyrians(97) would not submit, the Assyrian king
returned against them (this must have been in the year 724 B.C.), and
attacked them again, being aided on this occasion by the Phœnicians, who
furnished him with threescore ships, and 800 men to row them. The attack
of the Assyrian allies, however, must have been a very half-hearted one,
for the Tyrians advanced against them with only twelve ships, and
dispersed those of the enemy, taking 500 men prisoners.
The reputation—and also the confidence—of the citizens of Tyre being thus
greatly increased, they continued their resistance, and Shalmaneser found
himself obliged, in consequence of the inefficiency of his allies, to
content himself with a mere blockade of the city, and the placing of
guards over the water supply, so as to reduce the inhabitants of Tyre by
thirst. The latter, however, dug wells, and were thus enabled to continue
their resistance, which Meander states lasted all the time of the siege,
namely, five years—_i.e._ until two years after the death of Shalmaneser.
To all appearance the Sabara’in of the Babylonian Chronicle is the place
which should be supplied in the historical Eponym Canon, but, if so, the
form is a strange one. One would rather expect mât Bît-Ḫumrî, “the land of
Beth-Omri,” Pilišta, “Philistia,” or âl Ṣurri, “the city of Tyre.” There
is also the possibility that one of these names may have appeared in each
of the three lines which require completing, indicating three different
stages of his conquests. Samerina, “Samaria,” may also have been the word,
or one of the words, to be restored. In this last case, Delitzsch’s
suggestion that Sabara’in ought to be read Samara’in, and regarded as the
Babylonian form of the Heb. Shomeron, “Samaria,” is worthy of note. The
Babylonians do not state that he captured Sabara’in or Samara’in, but only
that he destroyed (perhaps the word means “ravaged”) it, and the city may
not have really fallen into the hands of the Assyrians until Sargon was
actually on the throne.
“In the 5th year Šulmanu-ašarid died in the month Tebet. Šulmanu-ašarid
had ruled the kingdom of Akkad and Aššur for five years. In the month
Tebet, the 12th day, Sargon sat on the throne in Aššur, and in the month
Nisan Marduk-âbla-iddina (Merodach-baladan) sat on the throne in Babylon.”
Thus does the Babylonian Chronicle record the change of rulers, which was
to have wide-reaching results for both countries.
What the verse in Hoshea, “All thy fortresses shall be spoiled, as Shalman
spoiled Beth-arbel in the day of battle,” refers to, is not known. There
is every probability that Shalman stands for Shalmaneser IV., but which is
the Beth-arbel which is spoken of? There were two places of the name in
Palestine, one west of the Sea of Galilee, and the other at the extreme
north of Gilead. Both are now called Irbid. If it be one of these, the
verse probably refers to some incident of Shalmaneser’s invasion. George
Smith, however, thought that the reference may have been due to some
domestic strife in Assyria at the close of the reign of Shalmaneser, in
which the Assyrian city of Arbela was involved. That it was one of the two
places in Palestine, however, is more probable.
The month which, five years earlier, had seen the death of
Tiglath-pileser, saw the departure of Shalmaneser IV. of Assyria to the
abode of his god, and in Sargon, who succeeded him, the kingdom to all
appearance accepted for the third time a ruler who might be described as
an adventurer. Whether he, too, changed his name, in order to shine in
borrowed plumes before the people, is unknown, but this is certain, that
“Sargon the Later,” as he called himself, by assuming that style and
title, challenged comparison with an old Babylonian king of great renown,
who made the little state which was his original principality the centre
of a wide-spreading domain.
Strange as it may seem, until the discovery of the Assyrian inscriptions
and their decipherment, nothing was known of this ruler outside of the Old
Testament, his name being regarded as another name of Shalmaneser in the
passage (Isa. xx. 1) where it occurs. Scholars did not realize that the
Arkeanos of Ptolemy was the king here mentioned, and that the change in
the form of his name was simply due to the change of the initial _s_ into
a breathing, according to a rule which is common in Greek etymology.
On assuming the government of the country, Sargon threw himself with
energy into the Syrian war, though in his slab-inscription found at
Nimroud, and in his annals, he makes his campaign against Ḫumbanigaš of
Elam to precede his operations in the west. The following is the text of
his “State-Inscription”—
“From the beginning of my reign to the 15th of my regnal-years, I
accomplished the overthrow of Ḫumbanigaš the Elamite in the suburbs of
Dêru. I besieged and captured Samerina (Samaria): 27,290 people dwelling
in the midst of it I carried off. Fifty chariots I collected among them,
and allowed them to have the rest of their goods. My commander-in-chief I
placed over them, and imposed upon them the tribute of the former king.
“Ḫanunu (Hanon), king of Ḫazitu (Gaza), advanced against me with Sib’e,
the Field-marshal of the land of Muṣuru (Egypt), to make war and battle in
Rapiḫu (Raphia). I defeated them.(98) Sib’e feared the sound of my weapons
and fled, and his place was not found. Ḫanunu of Ḫazitu I took with my
hands. I received the tribute of Pir’u, king of the land of Muṣuru, Samsê,
queen of the land of Aribu (Arabia), (and) It’amara, of the land of the
Saba’aa (Sabeans)—gold, the produce of the mountains, horses, (and)
camels.”
“Yau-bi’idi of the land of the Amatâa (Hamathites), a loose fellow, a
usurper, a frivolous, evil man, set his heart on the dominion of the land
of Amattu (Hamath), and caused Arpadda (Arpad), Ṣimirra (Simyra), Dimašqa
(Damascus), (and) Samerina (Samaria) to revolt against me, and caused them
to agree together, and they assembled for battle. I collected the powerful
troops of the god Aššur, and besieged (and) captured him in Qarqaru, his
own city, with his warriors. I burned Qarqaru with fire. As for him, I
flayed him. I slew the sinners in the midst of their (own) cities, and
brought about peace. I embodied 200 chariots (and) 600 cavalry among the
people of the land of Amattu, and added to the force of my kingdom.”
The general opinion of Assyriologists is, that Shalmaneser did not succeed
in making himself master of Samaria, the capture of the city falling to
the honour of Sargon, and this, as a matter of fact, is what the latter
claims. As will be seen from the above extract, he states that he carried
captive no less than 27,290 of the inhabitants of the city, but whither he
transported them he does not say. According to 2 Kings xvii. 6, he placed
them in Halah (probably the Ḫalaḫḫa of the inscriptions, near Haran), and
by the river Habor (the Chaboras) in Gozan, and in the cities of the
Medes. It is needless to say that these long journeys must in many cases
have entailed much suffering.
According to the Babylonian Chronicle, the conflict with Ḫumbanigaš took
place in the second year of Merodach-baladan of Babylonia, which was the
second year of Sargon as well. It is therefore difficult to understand why
Sargon, in his record, places this event first. The reason why he
dismisses the account of his conflict with the Elamite king in so few
words is supposed to be, that he was in reality, as the Babylonian
Chronicle says, defeated on that occasion. Though he might have wished to
keep it in the background, his successes were so many, that there was no
need for him to change the chronological order of his campaigns.
Sargon was naturally unable to be present at the siege and occupation of
Samaria, which occurred too close to the date of his assuming power to
allow him to reach the place. Besides that, his presence was needed nearer
home, lest conspiracies should deprive him of his newly-acquired regal
dignity. That he considered the successes of his troops in the west as a
most important circumstance, however, is proved by the fact, that he
devotes so much space in his annals to the account of it—and, indeed, the
capture of 27,290 people is a thing of which any ruler might boast. There
can be no doubt that the Assyrian kings, like the Babylonians before them,
always desired to possess the dominion of the Mediterranean provinces,
where were marts for the products both of their lands and their people,
and entry to the ports, for then, as now, all good rulers tried to further
the interests of their subjects in distant lands, and were probably firmly
of opinion, that “trade followed the standard.”(99)
In addition to this, there was the rivalry of Egypt, the country which had
held these provinces in the past, and would have liked to regain them.
Whether the rulers of the Mediterranean states realized this or not, is
uncertain, but in any case, like the Israelites, they had no objection to
making use of Egypt, “bruised reed” as she was by some considered. Seeing
that there was danger from the Assyrians, Hanon of Gaza followed the
example of Hoshea, in whom Shalmaneser had “found conspiracy,” and made
overtures with Sib’e, the So of 2 Kings xvii. 4 (the word ought really to
be pointed so as to read Seve, which was apparently the pronunciation of
the Assyrian form, the aspirate having the effect of changing _b_ into
_bh_ or _v_). This ruler is called “king of Egypt” in the passage cited,
but Sargon says that he was “Tartan,” or commander-in-chief of the
Egyptian army. This would imply that he was acting for another, a Pharaoh
unnamed, and at present unknown. The general opinion is, that So or Sib’e
is the same as Sabaco, and is called “king” by anticipation in 2 Kings
xvii.(100)
The result was one exceedingly gratifying to the Assyrian king, for in the
battle at Raphia, which followed, Sib’e fled in fear, whilst Hanon of Gaza
was made prisoner. The defeat and flight of the Egyptian army does not
seem to redound to the credit of its leader, who must have returned
bitterly disappointed to his native land.
Immediately after, however, there is a reference to the receipt of tribute
from “Pir’u, king of the land of Muṣuru.” This would be a natural result
of the success of the Assyrians (so it seemed to the earlier
Assyriologists), for surely Pir’u is Pharaoh, and Muṣuru is the Muṣur of
other inscriptions, and stands for Egypt (the Heb. Misraim(101)). This
however, is now denied, and Pir’u is said to be the name of a chief of an
Arab tribe called Muṣuru. It reminds one of the Eri-Eaku of Larsa who is
not Arioch of Elassar, contemporary of Kudur-laḫgumal of Elam who is not
Chedorlaomer of Elam, and Tudḫula who is admittedly the same in name as
Tidal, all of them ruling at or near the same period, but not those
referred to in Gen. xiv. as contemporaries. In Assyriology, more than in
any other study whatever, things are not what they seem, and must always
be identified with something else.
According to the annals, it would seem that Yau-bi’idi, who is there
called Ilu-bi’idi, acted in concert with Sib’e of Egypt and Hanon of Gaza,
the operations against him preceding those against the other two. The
order of the translation given above would seem to be preferable, as it
must have been in consequence of the flight of Sib’e “like a shepherd
whose sheep had been lost,” that Yau-bi’idi and Hanon of Gaza were so
easily defeated. The former appears to have made Qarqaru the centre from
which he intended to press his claim to the throne of Hamath, and he
managed so well, that he got Arpad, Simyra, Damascus, and Samaria to join
him. The Assyrian king, however, soon disposed of the pretensions of this
prince, whom he describes as “a loose (?) fellow, a usurper, a frivolous
(?), evil man” (_ṣab ḫubši, lâ-bêl-kussī, amēlu patû limnu_). After this
it is not surprising that he thought he was justified in flaying him
alive.
To all appearance the state of affairs in Syria was satisfactory. The
great victory of the Assyrians at Raphia had convinced the leaders of the
various states of the uselessness of continuing to struggle against the
power of the Assyrian king, who had nothing further to fear from Egypt,
and was therefore free to occupy himself with other conquests. In 719,
therefore, he turned his attention to the region of the north, the
kingdoms of Van and Urarṭu or Ararat, the result of the operations against
the latter being, that the people were transported to Syria, or, as the
original has it, “into Heth of the Amorites.” The operations in 718 B.C.
were against Kiakki of Sinuḫtu, a city in Tabal.
The next year, 717 B.C., came the turn of Pisîris of Carchemish, who had
tried to get Mitâ king of Musku to join him in a rebellion against
Assyria. Assyrians were after this settled there, and Carchemish became an
integral part of the Assyrian empire. The next entry in the Annals of
Sargon is a reference to the Pâpites and the Lalluknites, “dogs brought up
in his palace,” who planned treacherously against the land of Kakmê,
though the full extent of their crime is not stated. These people were
removed from their places, and sent down to the midst of Damascus of
Amoria (Syria). In this year Ḫumbanigaš of Elam died, and was succeeded by
Šutur-Nanḫundi, a man of a more peaceful character than his predecessor.
Extensive operations, chiefly in Ararat, are recorded for 716 B.C., in
which year also Bêl-šarra-uṣur, the city-chief of Kišešim, a Median
province, was deposed, and his territory added to the boundaries of
Assyria, together with several other west-Median districts. Among these
was Ḫarḫar, whose city-chief was driven away by the Assyrian king. This
city was re-peopled with prisoners of war, and its name having been
changed to Kar-Šarru-ukîn, made the capital of the province. The war
against Ararat continued during the next year, resulting in the submission
of Yanzû king of Na’iri or Mesopotamia. On the east, a rebellion in Ḫarḫar
was put down, and the city fortified as a defence against Media. In this
year people of Tumadu, Ibâdidu, Marsimanu, Ḫayapâ, and the remote Arbâa
(Arabs?), an unlettered tribe which had never paid tribute to an Assyrian
king, were overthrown, and the survivors transported to Samaria. The
receipt of tribute from Pir’u king of Muṣuru, Samsi queen of Aribbu
(Arabia), It’amra of the land of the Sabâa (Sabeans), kings of the
sea-coast and the desert, consisting of “gold, the produce of the
mountain, precious stones, ivory, seeds of the _ûšû_-tree, all kinds of
spices, horses and camels,”(102) is recorded.
To all appearance, Pir’u of Muṣuru is regarded as one of the kings of the
sea-coast and the desert, but whether this is evidence against his being
Pharaoh of Egypt or not, may be doubted. Egypt is as much a country of the
sea-coast as any part of Palestine, but it is naturally on the south shore
of the Mediterranean, and not on the east.
714 B.C. saw the continuance of the war with Ararat and its allies, and
seems to have resulted in its becoming an Assyrian province. In 713
expeditions were made, among other places, to west Media and Cilicia. In
712 B.C. he found himself obliged to proceed against Tarḫunazi of Meliddu,
who, driven from his capital by the Assyrians, shut himself up in
Tilgarimme, which had been identified with the Biblical Togarmah. This
city, having been conquered, was repeopled with the nomad Sutî(103) and
placed under Assyrian rule.
At this time, as Sargon says, he received the treasure (?) of the land of
Heth (the high-lands of Syria), among the things sent being copper, iron,
lead or tin, white marble from the Amanus mountains, royal garments of the
colour of _uknû_-stone (lapis-lazuli), something which came from the
mountain Ba’il-ṣapuna (Baal-zephon), “a great mountain,” and silver,
which, in consequence of the large consignments received at Dûr-Sargina
(Khorsabad), became in value like copper. The next year (711 B.C.) an
expedition against Muttallu, son of Tarḫulara, one of the kings of “the
land of Heth,” took place. The son had killed his father and mounted the
throne, hence the necessity for this campaign.
A similar expedition also took place to Ashdod. It happened that Azuri,
king of the district of which Ashdod was the capital, had withheld the
tribute agreed upon, and Sargon had therefore deposed him, and set his
brother Aḫi-miti in his place. The following is Sargon’s own account of
this, and the sequel—
“Azuri, king of Asdudu, planned in his heart not to send tribute, and sent
to the kings around hostile expressions (towards) the land of Aššur, and
on account of the evil he had done, I changed his dominion over the people
of his land. Aḫi-miti, his brother next in order, I appointed to the
kingdom over them. Men of Ḫattî,(104) speaking treachery, hated his
dominion, and raised up over them Yaana, a usurper, who like themselves
knew no reverence for the dominion. In the anger of my heart I went
hastily with the chariot of my feet and my cavalry, which for security
quit not my side, to the city Asdudu, the city of his dominion, and the
city Asdudu, the city Gimtu, (and) the city Asdudimma I besieged (and)
captured. The gods dwelling in the midst of them, himself, with the people
of his land, gold, silver, (and) the property of his palace, I counted as
spoil. Their cities I rebuilt,(105) and settled therein the people of the
lands captured by my hands. I placed my commander-in-chief as governor
over them, and counted them with the people of my land, and they bore my
yoke.”
Another inscription calls Yaana by the name of Yawani, and states that,
hearing from far of the advance of the Assyrian army, he fled to the
border of Muṣuru, which lies on the boundary of Meluḫḫa, and there hid
himself. The king of Meluḫḫa seems thereupon to have feared for his own
land, and placing Yatna in chains, sent him to Assyria. A third text
referring to this campaign adds the following details—
“(People) of the land of Pilište (Philistia), the land of Yaudu (Judah),
the land of Udumu (Edom), the land of Ma’abi (Moab), dwellers by the sea,
bringers of the tribute and the gift of Aššur my lord, (for)
sedition-mongering without measure, and evil, which was against me to
cause hostility, unto Pir’u, king of the land of Muṣri, a prince who could
not save them, they brought their homage-offering, and asked him for aid.
I, Sargina, the true prince, fearing the oath of Lag-gi (= Nebo) and
Merodach, keeper of the commands of the god Aššur, caused (my troops) to
cross the Tigris and the Euphrates at high water, the fulness of the
flood, as on dry land. And he, Yawani, their king, who trusted to his own
power, and had not submitted to my dominion, heard from afar of the march
of my expedition, and the glory of Aššur, my lord, overthrew him, and ...
of the region of the river ... depth of the waters ... possession (?) of
his land ... afar ... he fled ... Asdudu....”
In this, too, there is a reference to Pir’u, here called king of Muṣrí,
either Egypt, or that mysterious and otherwise unknown kingdom to whose
help so many trusted.
The years 710 and 709 B.C. were devoted to the operations against
Merodach-baladan, the Chaldean prince who had made himself master of
Babylonia. This is the Merodach-baladan who is referred to in 2 Kings xx.
12, but as his embassy really belongs to a somewhat later date, reference
will be made to it in its place. Suffice it here to say that he was a
usurper on the Babylonian throne, head of the Chaldean tribe called
Bît-Yakîn, and one of the most influential chieftains of the district. To
all appearance, the Babylonians themselves (as in earlier days when they
tried to seize the throne) preferred the Assyrians to the semi-barbarous
Chaldeans and Arameans, with whom they were, in fact, in too close
connection to have any great respect for. It is needless to say that this
entirely fell in with the ambition of the kings of Assyria, who, from the
time of Tukulti-Ninip, if not earlier, had desired, and sometimes
obtained, dominion over Babylonia. Sargon, the successor of two kings of
Assyria who were acknowledged to be at the same time kings of Babylonia,
naturally regarded himself as inheriting that crown in virtue of his being
king of Assyria, whilst the Babylonians themselves were probably not
displeased with the idea that they formed part of the world-renowned and
powerful Assyrian empire, whose kings spoke the same language as
themselves, and with whose religion they were in sympathy. Thus it
happened, therefore, that in the course of the operations against
Merodach-baladan, success frequently crowned the arms of the Assyrians,
and the inhabitants of Babylon, sending to Dûr-Ladinna, where Sargon was
staying, brought him in solemn possession to Babylon, where he made the
prescribed offerings to the gods, took up his abode in Merodach-baladan’s
palace, and received the tribute of the Babylonian tribes which he had
subjugated. He still continued, however, his operations against
Merodach-baladan, who was by no means willing to give up the struggle, to
which there could be one end only, namely, the overthrow of the Chaldean
king, which took place in 709 B.C.
Whilst Sargon was busy in Babylonia, the governor of Quê invaded Musku
(Mesech) and brought the country to subjection. The seven kings of Cyprus
also sent gifts, and a stele of Sargon was set up in the island, which,
though mutilated, is of considerable importance, and is now preserved in
the Berlin Museum. Kummuḫ (Comagene) was also added to the Assyrian empire
(708 B.C.), and probably in the same year, a new king (in consequence of a
dispute concerning the succession) set up in the land of Ellipu. In this
reign also, the Elamites were generally against the Assyrians in their
conflicts in Babylonia and on the eastern borders.
Concerning his death there is much uncertainty. The supposition is, that
he was assassinated by one of his soldiers, as is indicated by the entry
in an eponym-list with historical references—
_Lîmme Upaḫḫir-bêlu, D.P. šakin âl Amedi ..._
_îna êli purussî Kulummâa...._
_amēl tidûki madaktam ša šar mât Aššur D.S...._
_âraḫ Abi, ûmu šinšēru, Sin-âḫê-êriba (îna_
_kussī ittušib)._
“Eponymy of Upaḫḫir-bêlu, prefect of the city Amedu....
according to the oracle of the Kulummite(s)....
a soldier (entered) the camp of the king of Assyria (and killed
him?).
month Ab, day 12th, Sennacherib (sat on the throne”).
[Plate X.]
Reception by Sennachereb of Prisoners and Spoil. British Museum, Nineveh
Gallery, No. 57.
That he died a violent death seems to be nearly certain, and how many
others of the overbearing rulers of Assyria had come to an end in the same
way is not known. The fate of his son, to which reference will be made in
its place, is a historical fact.
Sennacherib.
Though in all probability young when he came to the throne in 705 B.C.,
Sennacherib had already some experience as a ruler, having been the
representative of his father Sargon in Armenia, where he had to receive
and transmit the reports of the Assyrian generals, and probably also to
administer the country. For the nations over which he was to rule,
however, he was practically a new and untried administrator, of whose
strength or weakness of character nothing was known. Merodach-baladan
therefore took advantage of the death of Sargon and the succession of his
son to come forth from his hiding-place, with such of his followers who
were available, and an army placed at his disposal by the king of Elam. To
all appearance the Chaldean ruler had taken advantage of the occupation of
the Assyrian army elsewhere to possess himself of Babylon, which city
Sennacherib entered, occupying Merodach-baladan’s palace, and seizing all
his treasures. Merodach-baladan fled and took refuge in Nagitu, on the
other side of the Persian Gulf, so as to be near his Elamite allies.
After this the Assyrian king records his expedition to the mountainous
countries of Kassû (the Cossæans) and the Yasubigalleans, north of Elam,
in the course of which he wasted the neighbouring district of Ellipu,
taking, on his way, tribute from some of the more inaccessible tribes of
the Medes. His third campaign was to the land of Ḫatti (Syria), and as
this is of considerable importance, a translation of the whole, from the
Taylor Cylinder, which gives a full account, is inserted here—
“In my third expedition I went to the land of Ḫatti. Lulî king of the city
of Ṣidunnu (Sidon), fear of the glory of my dominion struck him, and he
fled from the midst of Tyre to Yatnana(106) (Cyprus), which is in the
middle of the sea, and I subjugated his country. Great Ṣidunnu, little
Ṣidunnu, Bît-zitte, Ṣareptu (Zarephath), Maḫalliba, Ûšû (Osah), Akzibi
(Achzib), Akkû (Accho), his strong cities, fortresses, where were food and
drink, his strongholds, the terror of the weapons of Aššur my lord struck
them, and they submitted to my feet. Tu-ba’alu (Ethobaal) on the throne of
dominion over them I set, and the tax and tribute of my overlordship
yearly without fail I imposed upon him.
“As for Minḫimmu (Menahem) of the city of the Samsimurunâa;
Tu-ba’alu of the city of the Ṣidunnâa (Sidonians);
Abdi-li’iti of the city of the Arudâa (Arvadites);
Uru-milki of the city of the Gublâa (Gebalites);
Mitinti of the city of the Asdudâa (Ashdodites);
Budu-îlu of the land of the Bît-Ammanâa (Beth-Ammonites);
Kammusu-nadbi (Chemosh-nadab) of the land of the Ma’abâa
(Moabites);
Aa-rammu (Joram) of the land of the Udummâa (Edomites);
kings of the land of Amoria all of them, brought numerous treasures, their
valuable presents, as gifts to my presence and kissed my feet. And
Ṣidqâ(107) (Zedekiah), king of the city of Isqalluna (Askelon), who was
not submissive to my yoke, the gods of his father’s house, himself, his
wife, his sons, his daughters, his brothers, (and) the seed of his
father’s house, I removed and brought to the land of Aššur. Šarru-lûdâri,
son of Rûkibtu, their former king, I placed over the people of the city of
Isqalluna, and the payment of tribute as the price of my overlordship I
set for him, and he bore my yoke. In the course of my campaign the city
Bît-Daganna (Beth-Dagon), Yappû (Joppa), Banâa-barqa (Bene-berak), Azuru
(Azor), cities of Ṣidqâ which were not at once submissive to my yoke, I
besieged, captured, (and) carried off their spoil.
“The prefects, the princes, and the people of the city Amqarruna (Ekron),
who had thrown Padî, their king, who was faithful to the agreement and
oath of the land of Aššur, into fetters of iron, and given him to Ḫazaqiau
(Hezekiah), of the land of the Yaudâa (Jews)—hostilely in secret they had
acted—feared in their hearts. The kings of the land of Muṣuru (Egypt),
(and) the soldiers of the bow, the chariots, (and) the horses of the king
of the land of Meluḫḫa, gathered to themselves a numberless force, and
came to their help. Over against me in sight of Altaqû (Eltekah) their
line of battle was set in array, they called for their weapons. In the
service of Aššur my lord I fought with them and accomplished their defeat.
The charioteers and the sons of the king of the Muṣurâa (Egyptians), with
the charioteers of the king of the land of Meluḫḫa, my hands captured
alive in the midst of the battle. (As for) the city of Altaqû (Eltekah)
(and) the city of Tamnâ (Timnah), I besieged, captured, (and) carried off
their spoil.
“I approached to the city of Amqarruna, and the prefects and princes who
had caused the wrong to be, I killed, and on stakes around the city I hung
their corpses. The sons of the city doing the crime and misdeed I counted
as spoil. The rest of them, who did not commit sin and wickedness, whose
evil deed was not, I commanded their release. I caused Padî, their king,
to come forth from the midst of Ursalimmu (Jerusalem), and to sit on the
throne of dominion over them, and the tribute of my overlordship I imposed
upon him. And (as for) Hazaqiau (Hezekiah) of the land of the Yaudâa
(Jews), who had not submitted to my yoke, 46 of his strong cities,
fortresses, and small towns which were around them, which were
innumerable, with overthrowing by battering-rams, and advance of towers,
infantry-attack, breaching, cutting, and earthworks, I besieged (and)
captured. 200,150 people, small and great, male and female, horses, mules,
asses, camels, oxen, and sheep, which were without number, from their
midst I caused to come forth and reckoned as spoil. As for him, like a
cage-bird I shut him up within Ursalimmu, the city of his dominion.
Redoubts I threw up around him, and I cut off the exit from the great gate
of his city—it was (completely) covered. His cities, which I had spoiled,
I detached from the midst of his country, and gave (them) to Mitintu, king
of Asdudu (Ashdod), Padî, king of Amqarruna (Ekron), and Ṣilli-bêl, king
of the city Ḫazitu (Gaza), and (thus) reduced his land. Over the former
tribute, their yearly gift, I added a payment as to the due of my
overlordship, and imposed it upon them. As for him, Ḫazaqiau (Hezekiah),
fear of the magnificence of my lordship struck him, and the _urbi_ and his
chosen soldiers, which he had brought in for the defence of Ursalimmu, the
city of his kingdom, and (who) had pay, with 30 talents of gold, 800
talents of silver, precious (stones), _guḫli_, _daggassi_,(108) great
carbuncles (?), couches of ivory, state thrones of ivory, elephant-skin,
elephant-tooth (ivory), ebony (?), _urkarinnu_-wood, all sorts of
things,(109) a valuable treasure, and his daughters, the women of his
palace, male singers (and) female singers, he(110) caused to be brought
after me to the midst of Ninua (Nineveh), the city of my dominion, and he
sent his messenger to present the gift and pay homage.”
It is needless to say that the above long account differs considerably
from that given in the Bible (2 Kings xviii. 13; Isa. xxxvi. 1 ff.), and
it is very difficult to reconcile the two narratives. According to the
account in Kings, Sennacherib came and took all the fenced cities of
Judah, but there is no statement as to the reason why. The Assyrian king
justifies his invasion of the country by stating that Hezekiah had sided
with the inhabitants of Ekron in the deposition of their king, whom he had
received from them and kept in prison. He even states that he brought him
forth from Jerusalem and replaced him on the throne. That this
circumstance is not referred to in the Biblical account, cannot be held to
indicate that the Assyrian king’s story is wrong, and only shows that the
writer of the 2nd Book of the Kings did not think it of sufficient
importance to record. In all probability, Hezekiah did not know at the
time that Padî was an Assyrian vassal, otherwise he would not have
incurred the risk of an invasion of his country by the dreaded Assyrians.
The Biblical account then states that Hezekiah sent to the king at
Lachish, saying that he had offended, and asking for terms, a fact which
indicates that he was aware of having done something at which the king of
Assyria might justly take offence. The answer was, the fixing of the
amount of tribute which Hezekiah had to pay—300 talents of silver and 30
talents of gold, this latter item agreeing with the statement of
Sennacherib himself, though the amount of silver which he mentions—800
talents—is much greater. The sacrifice which Hezekiah made on this
occasion (he had to strip off the gold from the doors of the Temple, and
also from the pillars which he had overlaid, to make up the sum) was
considerable. Concerning a siege of Jerusalem at this point, however,
there is not a single word in the Biblical account, and the general
opinion is, that the Assyrian king has purposely combined two accounts to
give an appearance of success to what, in 2 Kings xix. 35-37, appears to
have been a serious disaster to the Assyrian arms.
It is worthy of note, however, that Josephus makes the siege of Jerusalem
to have taken place when Sennacherib was returning from Egypt, where he
had spent a long time besieging Pelusium (_Ant._ x. i. 4), which was
regarded as the key of Egypt. In support of this he quotes Herodotus, who,
according to him, made a great mistake “when he called this king not king
of the Assyrians, but of the Arabians.” This, however, is not quite
correct, as Herodotus really says (book ii. 141), “Sennacherib king of the
Arabians and of the Assyrians.” That it took place on his return from
Egypt, however, is also stated by Berosus, whom Josephus quotes in full,
as follows—
“Now when Sennacherib was returning from his Egyptian war to Jerusalem, he
found his army under Rabshakeh in great danger, for God had sent a
pestilential distemper upon his army; and on the very first night of the
siege, a hundred and eighty-five thousand, with their captains and
generals, were destroyed. So the king was in a great dread, and in a
terrible agony at this calamity; and being in great fear for his whole
army, he fled with the rest of his forces to his own kingdom, and to his
city Nineveh, and when he had abode there a little while, he was
treacherously assaulted, and died by the hands of his elder sons,
Adramelech and Sarasar, and was slain in his own temple which was called
Araske. Now these sons of his were driven away on account of the murder of
their father, by the citizens, and went into Armenia, whilst Assarachoddas
took the kingdom of Sennacherib.”
This would seem to be conclusive, especially as Sennacherib, according to
his own records, made no expedition to Egypt before or at the time of that
against the land of Ḫatti, which took place in the eponymy of Mitunu,
prefect of Isana, _i.e._ 700 B.C., or the year immediately preceding. Now
as Sennacherib died in 681 B.C., nearly twenty years elapsed between the
campaign of which the account is above translated and his death. Berosus,
however, states that, after the siege of Jerusalem, which ended so
disastrously for him, he abode at Nineveh only “a little while” before he
was murdered. There is then no doubt that there were two campaigns, and
the events referred to in 2 Kings xviii. 13-xix. 37, though they seem to
follow each other with little or no break, must have extended over a
considerable period, the widest gap being in all probability between the
sixteenth and seventeenth verses of ch. xviii. It is noteworthy that, at
this point, the Hebrew indicates the end of a paragraph, though not a
change of subject.
Affairs in Babylonia now occupied the attention of Sennacherib for many
years, in consequence of the many revolutions there, which were largely
fomented, aided and abetted by the Elamites. In 703 B.C., two pretenders,
Marduk-zakir-šumi and Marduk-âbla-iddina, held the throne in succession
for a few months, but Sennacherib put an end to this rule by setting on
the throne a Chaldean named Bêl-ibnî (Belibus).(111) This took place when
he defeated Merodach-baladan, before the campaign against the West.
Evidently, however, he was not satisfied with the rule of his nominee, who
had probably been plotting against him, and therefore entered the country
again in 699 B.C., carried away Bêl-ibnî prisoner, and set on the throne
his own eldest son, Aššur-nadin-šum. After this seems to have occurred his
fifth expedition, which was to the mountainous region where lay the cities
Tumurru, Šarum or Šarma, Ezema, Kibšu, Ḫalbuda, Qûa, and Qana, in the
neighbourhood of Cilicia, his objective being the city Ukku, which was
taken and spoiled.
Whilst absent on this expedition, however, the Elamites seem to have been
again plotting against the Assyrians in Babylonia. This being the case,
Sennacherib went in “ships of the land of Ḫatti” to the place where
Merodach-baladan(112) had taken refuge, namely, “Nagitu of Elam.”(113) On
this occasion, he claims to have captured Šûzubu (otherwise
Nergal-ušêzib), and carried him in chains to Assyria. This led to
reprisals on the part of the Elamites, who invaded Babylonia, carried
Aššur-nadin-šum, the king, Sennacherib’s son, prisoner, and set on the
throne Nergal-ušêzib, who, if he be the Šûzubu referred to by Sennacherib,
must have escaped from the custody of the Assyrians. This was in 693 B.C.
Nergal-ušêzib only ruled for a year or eighteen months, and was captured
(? again) by the Assyrians. The Assyrian king now ravaged Elam “from Râš
to Bît-Burnaki,” but his army would have been better employed in watching
over affairs in Babylonia, where another pretender, Mušêzib-Marduk, sat on
the throne, and ruled for four years. During this time he, too, found that
his seat was not altogether a bed of roses, for Menanu, king of Elam,
after a battle with the Assyrians,(114) captured Mušêzib-Marduk with an
army composed of Elamites and Babylonians, and delivered him to the
Assyrians. Sennacherib now again (688 B.C.) became king of Babylonia, and
it is thought that, on taking possession of the capital again, out of
revenge for the loss of his son, and on account of the trouble he had had
in consequence of the Babylonians running after the many pretenders, with
which the land seems to have teemed, he destroyed the city of Babylon,
committing such cruelties that they were remembered to the end, and sowed
the seeds of that hatred which were to bring forth for Assyria that
deadliest of all fruit—her own destruction.
In the eight years which passed between his assuming the reins of power in
Babylonia and his death, must be placed that expedition to Egypt spoken of
by Berosus and Herodotus. The version of the former, which refers
principally to the siege of Jerusalem, is quoted above (p. 378); the
following is the account of the latter—
“After this, Sanacharib, king of the Arabians and of the Assyrians,
marched a great host against Egypt. Then the warriors of the Egyptians
refused to come to the rescue, and the priest (Hephaistos, whose name was
Sethos),(115) being driven into a strait, entered into the sanctuary of
the temple and bewailed to the image of the god the danger which was
impending over him; and as he was thus lamenting, sleep came upon him, and
it seemed to him in his vision that the god came out and stood by him and
encouraged him, saying that he should suffer no evil if he went forth to
meet the army of the Arabians, for he would himself send him helpers.
Trusting in these things seen in sleep, he took with him, they say, those
of the Egyptians who were willing to follow him, and encamped in Pelusion,
for by this way the invasion came; and not one of the warrior class
followed him, but shopkeepers and artisans and men of the market. Then
after they came, there swarmed by night upon the enemies mice of the
fields, and ate up their quivers and their bows, and moreover the handles
of their shields, so that on the next day they fled, and being without
defence of arms great numbers fell. And at the present time this king
stands in the temple of Hephaistos in stone, holding upon his head a
mouse, and by letters inscribed he says these words, ‘Let him who looks
upon me learn to fear the gods.’ ”
Josephus’s quotation from Herodotus differs somewhat from the above, in
that he makes the Egyptian king to pray to God (and not before his image),
and omits all reference to the dream. This was doubtless to make the
parallel with the case of Hezekiah more striking.
[Plate XI.]
Sennacherib before Lachish. For the translation of the inscription, see
the opposite page. British Museum, Assyrian Saloon. The face of the king
is mutilated in the original bas-relief, and has been restored.
The precise date of this expedition to Egypt and second siege of Jerusalem
is unknown, but it must have taken place between 688 and 680 B.C. It is
not by any means improbable that the date may some time or other be fixed,
for an account of it will probably be found in the ruins of the cities of
Assyria somewhere. That Herodotus calls Sennacherib “king of the Arabians
and the Assyrians” is probably due to the fact that he seems to have been
in alliance with “the queen of the Aribi”—_(šar)rat_ D.P. _Aribi_—or
Arabians, at the time. Esarhaddon speaks of his father Sennacherib as
having captured the Arabian city Adumū, and inscriptions of
Aššur-banî-âpli also refer to Sennacherib’s expedition thither, and to his
connection with an Arabian king named Ḫaza-îlu (Hazael). With regard to
Palestine itself, the reality of the siege of Lachish is testified to by
the fact, that a large portion of Sennacherib’s sculptures represent him
as being present at the siege of Lachish in person, when the prisoners and
the booty taken were passed before him in procession. The inscription
accompanying this scene reads as follows—
“Sin-âḫê-iriba, king of the world, king of the land Aššur,
sat upon his throne of state, and
the spoil of Lakisu
passed before him.”
It would be strange indeed if this event, of which he was evidently very
proud, were omitted from the history of what he must have regarded as his
glorious deeds. As it does not occur in the account of his expedition to
the land of Ḫatti, there is hardly any doubt that it belongs to the later
campaign there, when he took the city, though he failed, as has been seen,
to take Jerusalem. In all probability there were two sieges of Lachish,
and it was very possible that the city was taken only on the second
occasion. In any case, it was from Lachish that Sennacherib sent the
Tartan, the Rabsaris, and the Rabshakeh to Hezekiah, with a great army to
besiege Jerusalem, and it is noteworthy that the Rabshakeh reproaches him
with trusting to Egypt, the power with which Assyria was at that moment in
conflict; and in Sennacherib’s second message to Hezekiah (2 Kings xix. 9)
the words accompanying it clearly show that the general opinion was, that
it was the march of Tirhakah against him which called it forth. It is
noteworthy in this connection, that Tirhakah cannot have been on the
throne of Egypt so early as 700 B.C., the date of Sennacherib’s first
campaign against the West.
There are therefore many arguments in favour of two expeditions of
Sennacherib to Palestine, with two sieges of Jerusalem, and also, to all
appearance, two sieges of Lachish.
The following is the account of his death given in the Babylonian
Chronicle—
“On the 20th day of Tebet, Sin-âḫê-eriba, king of Assyria, his son killed
him in a revolt. For (? 25) years Sin-âḫê-eriba had ruled the kingdom of
Assyria. From the 20th day of the month Tebet until the 2nd day of the
month Adar, the revolt in Assyria continued. Month Adar, day 18th,
Aššur-âḫâ-iddina (Esarhaddon), his son, sat upon the throne in Assyria.”
According to Berosus, who agrees with the Biblical account in this, it was
two of his sons who killed him, but it may be taken that, though they were
both morally responsible, one only actually performed the deed. Shareser
is not mentioned, either by Abydenus or Polyhistor, as taking part in the
murder; it would seem to be very probable, that Adrammelech was the
culprit. From Berosus it is also clear that Esarhaddon had nothing to do
with it, and this is to a certain extent confirmed by his inscriptions,
which, as will be seen farther on, represent him as warring in Armenia,
whither his brothers had fled.
According to the received chronology, the assassination of Sennacherib and
the accession of Esarhaddon took place in the year 680 B.C.
Esarhaddon.
It is a matter greatly to be regretted that the royal inscriptions of
Esarhaddon have not come down to us in a complete state, and also that we
do not possess the later portions of the Assyrian Eponym Canon with
historical references, which would enable us to fix the date of the
campaigns. Of course, there is every probability that they are mentioned
in chronological order, but as their dates are not stated, at least some
uncertainty must prevail.
[Plate XII.]
Esarhaddon, King of Assyria. The kneeling figure, which has the negro type
of features and wears the uraeus ornament, is apparently Tirhakah, his
opponent in Egypt. The prisoners here represented are regarded as being
treated as the same king treated Manasseh (2 Chr. xxxiii. 11, R.V. marg.).
Found at Zenjirli. From _Mittheilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen_,
Part XI., by permission of the publishing-house of Georg Reimer, Berlin.
It is therefore impossible to say with certainty whether the recital, in
forcible though apparently well-chosen language, of what took place in
Ḫanigalbat, or Mesopotamia, belongs to the account of the conflict with
his brothers (who would have liked to overthrow Esarhaddon that one of
them might reign in his stead) or not. The wording, however, makes it very
probable that the narrative does refer to them, for he overtook them on
the Nineveh road, and the disappearance of their resistance was more than
gratifying to the new king—
“The Nineveh-road, with difficulty (but) speedily, I traversed—
before me, in the land of Ḫani-galbat, the whole of their mighty
warriors halted before my expedition, and prepared their weapons.
The fear of the great gods, my lords, overwhelmed them, and
the attack of my mighty battle they saw, and became as demented.
Ištar, lady of war and battle, lover of my priesthood,
stood by my side, and broke their bows.
She scattered their serried battle(-array), and
in their assembled mass they called out thus:
“This is our king.”
By her supreme command they came over to my side.”
Oracles encouraging Esarhaddon exist, and possibly refer to this
expedition.
Unfortunately the mutilation of the record, by which the beginning is
wanting, has deprived us of the names of both conspirators, which are,
therefore, only preserved by the Bible, Berosus, Abydenus, and Polyhistor.
Various have been the conjectures as to what the true Assyrian forms of
the names would be, and only one, that of Adrammelech, has been found with
any probability of its being the right one. The name in question is that
of Aššur-munik, or, perhaps better, Aššur-mulik, for whom Sennacherib
built a palace. From its form in Hebrew, Sharezer should be Šar-uṣur in
Assyrian, _i.e._ “protect the king,” the name of the deity called upon
being omitted.
Though Esarhaddon’s inscriptions do not give any chronological data, the
Babylonian chronicle indicates the dates of his campaigns with sufficient
precision. From it we learn that in his first year he had to put down a
rebellion in Ur, led by Zēru-kênu-lîšir, whom Esarhaddon calls
Nabû-zēr-napišti-lîšir, son of Merodach-baladan. In the year 676 B.C., his
expedition to Sidon took place, and Abdi-milkutti, the king, was beheaded
in 675. After taking the spoil of the city, he says that he “assembled the
kings of Ḫatti and the sea-coast, all of them,” and there is every
probability that it was at this time that he “took Menasseh with hooks,”
or, as the Revised Version has it, with chains, and bound him with
fetters, and brought him to Babylon, where, as sovereign of that land
also, he sometimes held court. Though severe, and probably also cruel
sometimes, Esarhaddon was more mercifully inclined than his father, and
allowed Menasseh to resume the reins of government at Jerusalem. There is
no reference to this in the inscriptions of Esarhaddon, though he
mentions, in his list of tributaries, Menasseh king of the city of Judah.
This list, which is from a cylinder-inscription, is as follows—
“I gathered also the kings of Ḫatti and across the river ...
Ba’alu king of Ṣurru (Tyre): Menasê (Menasseh) king of the city of
Yaudu:
Qauš-gabri, king of the city of Udumu (Edom); Muṣur’i, king of the
city Ma’ab (Moab);
Ṣilli-bêlu, king of the city of Ḫazitu (Gaza); Mitinti, king of
the city of Isqaluna (Askelon);
Ikausu, king of the city of Amqarruna (Ekron); Milki-ašapa, king
of the city of Gublu (Gebal);
Matan-ba’al, king of the city of Aruadu (Arvad); Abi-baal, king of
the city of Samsimuruna;
Budu-ilu, king of the city Bêt-Ammana (Beth-Ammon); Aḫi-milki,
king of the city of Asdudu (Ashdod);
12 kings of the sea-coast. Ekištura, king of the city Edi’al
(Idalium);
Pilâgurâ, king of the city of Kidrusu; Kîsu, king of the city
Sillûa;
Itûandar, king of the city Pappa (Paphos); Erêsu, king of the city
of Sillu;
Damasu, king of the city Kurî (Kurium); Admezu, king of the city
Tamesu (Tamessus);
Damûsi, king of the city Karti-ḫadasti (the new town, a Phœnician
settlement);
Unasagusu, king of the city Lidir; Buṣusu, king of the city Nurîa:
10 kings of the land of Yatnana (Cyprus), within the sea—
altogether 22 kings of the land of Ḫatti, the sea-coast and the
middle of the sea, all of them,
I directed, and great beams, enormous poles,
trunks of cedar and cypress from the midst of Sirara
and Libnana (Lebanon) (etc., etc., etc.),
from the midst of the wooded mountains,
the place of their growing,
for the requirements of my palace,
with toil and with difficulty
I caused them to be brought to Nineveh.”
The tribute which he exacted was not, therefore, a tribute of gold,
silver, and other precious things, but simply the building materials which
Esarhaddon required for his palace, and the kings of Heth, including
Menasseh, contributed to this together with the kings of Cyprus—and to all
appearance they had to transport these things to Nineveh! It was the
labour and expense of transport rather than the material itself, which
rendered this tribute so precious.
Judging from his records, Esarhaddon was fully as active as the other
kings of Assyria in making conquests. He attacked the people of Armenia
(the Mannâa), the rebellious land of Barnaku—“those who dwell in the land
of Til-Ašurri,”(116)—the Medes, the Chaldeans, the Arabians (see p. 382),
and Egypt, in the direction of which he had already made a little
expedition (to the cities of Arzâ and Aaki (?) of the brook of
Egypt—probably the river of Egypt of Gen. xv. 18, and other passages). His
first real expedition to Egypt, however, was in the tenth year of his
reign (670 B.C.). Three battles were fought there, and Memphis was
captured by the Assyrians on the 22nd of Tammuz. Whether he really and
effectually subjugated the country or not, is not known, but he again
marched to the same place in the last year of his reign, and falling ill
on the road, died on the 10th day of Marcheswan. He was succeeded by
Aššur-banî-âpli (Asshur-bani-pal) in Assyria, and Šamaš-šum-ukîn
(Saosduchinos) in Babylonia, and the two kingdoms, united by so much
bloodshed, became once more separated (668 B.C.).
Aššur-Banî-Âpli.
Thus it happened, that Aššur-banî-âpli, on coming to the throne, found
himself involved in a war with Egypt. To such a ruler, it must have seemed
a hard thing to relinquish what his father had fought, and perhaps died,
to acquire and retain. This being the case, he sent forth his army to
reduce the country again to subjection, Tirhakah having taken advantage of
the death of Esarhaddon to revolt. In the course of this campaign his
representative (there is every probability that Aššur-banî-âpli never went
westwards, or, indeed, made any warlike expedition in person whatever)
received the tribute of the kings of the sea-coast and “the middle of the
sea,” _i.e._ Phœnicia and Cyprus. This list is, with few exceptions, the
same as that given by Esarhaddon, and includes Minsê (= Minasê, _i.e._
Menasseh) of the land of Yaudi or Judah. In some cases, however, changes
had taken place and these are duly registered—Yakinlû instead of
Matan-ba’al, king of the land of Aruada (Arvad); Ammi-nadbi (Amminadab),
king of the land of Bît-Ammana (Beth-Ammon), instead of Budu-ilu. For the
kings of Cyprus, however, no change is indicated, a circumstance which
leads one to look upon the list with some suspicion, it being not
impossible that the names of certain rulers are inserted to make a seeming
addition to the Assyrian king’s glory. They are all represented, however,
as supporting, with their troops and their ships, on land and on sea, the
army of Aššur-banî-âpli. The result was the defeat of Tirhakah, and the
restoration of the kings, prefects, and governors whom Esarhaddon had
appointed as rulers of the country.(117)
No sooner had the Assyrians departed, than Tirhakah won over all the
princes they had installed to his side, and the work had to be done over
again. The Assyrian generals, however, returned promptly, and the
rebellion was at once put down. Of the princes who were captured, Necho
alone was spared, and, with his son, set as ruler in Ḫatḫariba (Athribis).
About this time Tirhakah died, and Urdamanê, son of Sabaco, mounted the
throne, and made Thebes and On (Heliopolis) his principal strongholds,
besieging the Assyrian army of occupation in Memphis. Another expedition
on the part of the Assyrians therefore became necessary, and was at once
undertaken, and with complete success, except that Urdamanê remained, to
all appearance, still at large. Practically, however, the greater part of
Egypt became at this time an Assyrian province.
But many were the conquests of this really remarkable king, which his
generals accomplished for him. Soon came the turn of Ba’al, king of Tyre,
whose subjection brought about that of Yakinlû, king of Arvad, Mugallu,
king of Tubal, and Sandasarme of the land of the Ḫilakkâa (Cilicians).
Aššur-banî-âpli also speaks of the mission of Yakinlû, king of Arvad, who
sent his sons to him with presents, and made obeisance. These princes bore
the interesting names Azi-ba’al, Abi-ba’al, Aduni-ba’al, Sapati-baal,
Pudi-baal, Ba’al-yašupu, Ba’al-ḫanunu, Ba’al-maluku, Abi-milki, and
Aḫi-milki, showing the popularity of the element _baal_ in the names of
the people of Arvad. Azi-ba’al was designated as the next king, and all
the brothers were sent back with rich gifts. He also tells the story of
the dream of _Guggu šar Luddi_ (Gyges, king of Lydia), to whom the god
Aššur is said to have appeared, exhorting him to submit to
Aššur-banî-âpli, and overcome his enemies by invoking his name. Following
this advice, he succeeded in conquering the Gimmirrâa (people of Gomer),
capturing their chiefs, of whom he sent two in fetters to the Assyrian
king, with valuable gifts.
Gyges did not send any more embassies, however, and allied himself with
Tušamilki, king of the land of Muṣur (generally regarded as Psammeticus of
Egypt, but to all appearance another Muṣur—probably that to the north—is
meant), and for this he received the curse of the Assyrian king. The
result was, that the Gimmirrâa came and ravaged his country. This being
the case, his son, who succeeded him, thought best to renew the Assyrian
alliance, and therefore sent an embassy with a message to the following
effect—“The king whom god hath chosen art thou; thou cursedst my father,
and evil was wrought before him. As for me, the servant fearing thee, be
gracious to me and let me bear thy yoke.”
[Plate XIII.]
Assur-banî-âpli (Assurbanipal), "The Great and Noble Asnapper," Hunting
Lions. British Museum. Assyrian Saloon.
Gyges, in Assyrian Gug(g)u, is regarded as the original of the mystic Gog
of Ezekiel xxxviii. 39, and his country, Lydia (Luddu), is generally
explained as the Biblical Lud, though a certain amount of doubt regarding
it exists.
Aššur-banî-âpli’s other campaigns were against the Vannites, the Elamites,
the Babylonians (on account of his brother Saosduchinos, king of that
country, refusing to acknowledge his suzerainty), after that twice more
against Elam, then against the Arabians, and finally against Ummanaldaš,
king of Elam, whom he seized as a hawk does his prey. In all, however, he
captured four Elamite princes, whom he caused to be attached to his
carriage (_ina marri šadadi, rukub šarruti-ia_(118)), and as for the
Arabian princes whom he had taken as prisoners, he caused them to wear
chains and badges of service, and to work at the building of his palace,
as was the custom in those days.
We can easily imagine him—the great and noble Aššur-banî-âpli, called by
Ezra (iv. 10) Asnapper (better Asenappar), who transferred the Dinaites,
Apharsathchites, Tarpelites, Apharsites, Archevites, Babylonians,
Susanchites (Susanians), Dehavites, and Elamites, to swell the mixed
multitudes in the cities of Samaria. Many a time is he represented in the
beautiful bas-reliefs which he caused to be carved as the adornments of
his palace at Nineveh, and we there see him, the patron of art, as the
bold sportsman and hunter, just as his tablets show him as the greatest
patron of literature of his time, one who knew the literature of his race,
who took a pride in learning, and himself copied out tablets “in the
assembly of the experts.”
The “great and noble Asnapper” is worthy of a statue in every land where
the languages of Assyria and Babylonia are studied.
How the sudden downfall of the Assyrian empire really came about we do not
know. In all probability it remained intact until the death of
Aššur-banî-âpli, which took place in 626 B.C. His son,
Aššur-êtil-îlāni-ukinni, has left no historical records, though it is not
by any means impossible that some light may ultimately be thrown on his
reign. One of the enigmas of his time is: What was the circumstance which
called forth the following communication?—
“The message of the daughter of the king to Aššurâaitu the queen. As yet
thou writest not thy tablet, and dictatest not thy letter? Shall they say
thus: ‘Is this the sister of Šerû-êṭerat, the eldest daughter of the
Harem-house of Aššur-êtil-îlāni-ukinni, the great king, the mighty king,
the king of the world, the king of Assyria?’ And thou art the daughter of
the bride, the lady of the house of Aššur-banî-âpli, the son of the great
king of the Harem-house, who was Aššur-âḫa-iddina (Esarhaddon), king of
Assyria.”
Some of the expressions in this letter seem obscure, but the probable
explanation is, that the daughter of one of the last Assyrian
kings—perhaps Sin-šarra-iškun (Saracos)—writes to the chief wife of
Aššur-banî-âpli urging her to take action by exhorting the chiefs of the
nation at a crisis in the history of the country, which crisis was
probably that which led to the downfall of the mighty kingdom which had
reached its zenith of power during the reign of Aššur-banî-âpli. At this
time, according to Nabonidus, a king of the Umman-manda or Medes, whose
name is doubtful, but which may be Iriba-tuktê, entered into alliance with
a ruler who must be Nabopolassar of Babylon, the father of Nebuchadnezzar,
and accomplished the vengeance of Merodach, the god of the Babylonians,
who willed that the destruction wrought upon his city by Sennacherib
should be amply avenged. This vengeance was apparently the downfall of the
Assyrian empire and the destruction of Nineveh, in accordance with
statements of Alexander Polyhistor, Abydenus, and Syncellus. It is
Diodorus Siculus, however, who gives the fullest account. He relates that
there was a legend (according to an oracle) that the city could not be
taken until the river became its enemy. Arbaces, the Scythian, was
besieging it, but was unable to make any great impression on it for two
years. In the third year, however, the river(119) was swollen by rains,
and being very rapid in its current, a portion of the wall was carried
away, by which the besiegers gained an entrance. The king, recognizing in
this the fulfilment of the oracle, raised a funeral pyre, and gathering
together his concubines and eunuchs, mounted it, and perished in the
flames. Thus came the great Assyrian empire to an end.
“The oracle concerning Nineveh:
The Lord is a jealous God and avengeth.
Who can stand before His indignation?
With an _overrunning flood_ He will make a full end of the place
thereof, and will pursue His enemies into darkness.
The _gates of the rivers_ are opened, and the palace is dissolved.
Thy shepherds slumber, O king of Assyria, thy worthies are at
rest; thy people are scattered upon the mountains, and
there is none to gather them.”
And there is much more in the same strain that the Hebrew Oracle of Nahum
concerning the fall of Nineveh gives.
But it was not simply the capture of an important city—it was the
enslavement and ultimate annihilation of a whole nation. Who can imagine
their despair? Less than fifty years earlier, Assyria had been the most
powerful nation of the then known world, and the people suddenly saw
themselves deprived of that proud position which they had enjoyed for so
many centuries. Their national existence had, in fact, been brought to an
abrupt end, but the few Assyrian names which appear in Babylonian
contracts many years after their downfall show that theirs was a proud
indomitable spirit, which could not give way to misfortune, and which
probably hoped for better things and more prosperous times. Their
descendants are still to be found among the Chaldean Roman Catholic
Christians of the country which was the scene of their forefathers’
dominion when they ruled the land of their inheritance. Their most worthy
representatives in modern times are the family of the Rassams, one of whom
was for many years British Consul at Mossoul (a post which his nephew now
fills), and another is the well-known veteran, Hormuzd Rassam, Layard’s
helper, for some time Resident at Aden, and later a prisoner with that mad
ruler, King Theodore of Abyssinia. To him we owe the discovery of
Aššur-banî-âpli’s palace, the ruins of Sippara and Cuthah, and many
thousand cylinders and tablets bearing upon the manners, customs, history,
religion, etc., of the Babylonians and Assyrians, which have been used
freely in the compilation of this book.
CHAPTER XI. CONTACT OF THE HEBREWS WITH THE LATER BABYLONIANS.
Nabopolassar and the restoration of the power of
Babylonia—Nebuchadnezzar—Evil-Merodach—Neriglissar and his
son—Nabonidus—The Fall of Babylon—Nabonidus and Belshazzar—Cyrus
and Cambyses—Darius and his successors.
How great the change which came over the Eastern world with the
disappearance from the political horizon of the power of Assyria can
hardly be estimated. In the time of Merodach-baladan, the Chaldean who had
mounted the Babylonian throne, an embassy was sent to the Jewish king
Hezekiah with a present and kind inquiries as to his health, apparently to
see whether it was worth while making an alliance with him.
Merodach-baladan felt that he would need all the outside help that he
could get against the Assyrians, with whom he was in constant conflict.
With the downfall of Assyria, however, all was changed. The Jews’ whilom
friend became their enemy, and, as indicated in 2 Kings xx. 17 ff., the
Israelites were to lose their independence at the hands of the descendants
of those who were then seeking their friendship.
There is hardly any doubt that the later Assyrian kings regarded Babylonia
as an integral part of the Assyrian empire, and had perfect faith in the
fidelity of the inhabitants. It may reasonably be doubted, however,
whether the Babylonians had really forgotten the cruel treatment they had
received at the hands of Sennacherib. In addition to this, there must have
existed for a considerable period the feeling that they, the Babylonians,
were the more ancient people of the two, and that the Assyrians were but a
later offshoot of their own stock, owing to them all their civilization,
manners, customs, laws, and literature. It will thus be seen that they
were sufficiently of the same origin to be regarded as one people, and for
this reason, many of the cities of Babylonia were satisfied and happy
under Assyrian rule, which they preferred, to all appearance, to that of
the Chaldeans, a nation which, though inhabiting their own borders, was in
reality more alien to them than the Assyrians in language, manners, and
customs, and whom they probably regarded as being only half civilized.
The general opinion is, that Nabû-âbla-uṣur (Nabopolassar), the general
whom Sin-šarra-iškun (Saracos), the last king of Assyria, sent against his
enemies (who seem to have invaded Babylonia by sea at the northern end of
the Persian Gulf), was a Chaldean, and this is, in fact, confirmed by the
quotation in Eusebius’s Armenian Chronicle (p. 44) from Polyhistor, where
it is stated that after Samuges (Šamaš-šum-ukîn, the brother of
Aššur-banî-âpli), Sardanapallus (this is a mistake for Nabopollasarus),
the Chaldean, reigned for twenty-one years. If this be the case, it is a
matter of surprise that Sin-šarra-iškun should have given into the hands
of one belonging to a tribe of old hostile to Assyria, the command of his
army at such a critical time. In any case, the result was most disastrous
for Assyria, as the foregoing chapter has shown.
In the opinion of Friedrich Delitzsch, Nabopolassar was not the general of
Sin-šarra-iškun, but in all probability a viceroy installed by
Aššur-êtil-îlāni-ukinni, and retained by Sin-šarra-iškun, in which case it
is to be supposed that he made an alliance with the Medes (as related by
Alexander Polyhistor and Abydenus), and cemented it by marrying his son
Nebuchadrezzar to Amunhean, Amuhean, or Amytis, daughter of Astyages, king
of the Medes; and according to the latter author, it was after this that
he marched against Nineveh. Fried. Delitzsch may therefore be regarded as
most probably right, for the king of the Medes would hardly have consented
to bestow his daughter upon the son of one whom he could not otherwise
have regarded as being of royal race.
Though Nabopolassar had close connection with Syria, his name is not
mentioned in the Bible narrative. For our information concerning him we
are indebted to Josephus, who, quoting the Babylonian writer Berosus,
relates what was recorded in the Babylonian chronicles of that period.
After the division of the territory of Assyria, of which Egypt took a
part, the former allies began to quarrel among themselves, the result
being that Nabopolassar, wishing to regain possession of Syria, which at
this time acknowledged the suzerainty of Egypt, decided to attack that
country. According to Berosus, he not only regarded himself as master of
Coele-Syria and Phœnicia, but also of Egypt. Hearing, therefore, “that the
governor which he had set over Egypt and over the parts of Coele-Syria and
Phœnicia had revolted from him, he was not able to bear it any longer, but
committing certain parts of his army to his son Nabuchodonosor, who was
then but young, he sent him against the rebel.” This is regarded as having
taken place in 605 B.C. The governor attacked by the young Nebuchadnezzar
was apparently Necho, who was completely defeated at Carchemish, and
expelled from Syria.
Whilst upon this expedition, Nebuchadnezzar heard of the death of his
father at Babylon, in the twenty-first year of his reign, as Josephus,
quoting Berosus, has it. This accords with the statement concerning him in
the Canon of Ptolemy, and also with native Babylonian chronology, as may
be seen from a tablet in the Museum of Edinburgh, of which the following
is a translation—
“The 21st year of Nabopolassar a profit was made.
The 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar a profit was made.
The 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar a profit was made.
The 3rd year the same.
The fourth year the same.”
Returning to Babylon, the young prince found that his supporters there had
looked after his interests, and no pretender having appeared to dispute
with him the throne, he was at once acknowledged king. The death of
Nabopolassar and the accession of his son Nebuchadnezzar took place in the
year 604 B.C.
Unfortunately, but few inscriptions of Nabopolassar have been found, and
of them some are duplicates, and all refer to his architectural or
engineering works. The principal treats of his restoration of the temple
Ê-temen-ana-kia, the shrine at Ê-sagila, which the Babylonians regarded as
the Tower of Babel. It is written in the archaic style of writing much
affected by his son Nebuchadnezzar, and has certain peculiarities of
spelling. Like most of the pious architectural inscriptions of Babylonia,
there is no reference to historical events, but the king speaks of
Nabium-kudurra-uṣur (Nebuchadrezzar), “the eldest, firstborn, and beloved
of my heart,” and his younger brother, Nabû-šumam-lìšir. Both the king and
his two sons took part in the restoration of the temple, bringing with
their own hands material for the work, the younger son also assisting by
pulling the cord of the cart which carried it. The receptacles which they
used to carry the material were made of gold and silver. Other
inscriptions of this king refer to the digging out of the canal of the
Euphrates near the city Sippara, and to Nabopolassar’s restoration of the
temple of “the Lady of Sippar,” called Ê-edinna, “the house (temple) of
the plain,” or “of Edina,” _i.e._ Eden.
When Nebuchadnezzar (in Babylonian Nabû-kudurri-uṣur—he was the second of
the name) came to the throne, he found himself in possession of a mighty
kingdom, consolidated by his father’s talent, and he could himself boast
of having had a hand in its enlargement and greater security. Everything
was, to all appearance, at peace, and the new king had no reason to fear
either a pretender to the throne, or the advent of enemies from without.
One of his tributaries, namely, Jehoiakim, king of Judah, after paying
tribute three years (604-602 B.C.), rebelled, but was again reduced to
subjection (2 Kings xxiv. 1 ff.).
Later, however, uprisings of a more earnest nature came to the ears of the
Babylonian king, constraining him to act. Apparently in consequence of the
promises of Egypt, Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim, brought against himself
the hostility of the king of Babylon, who sent an army to besiege
Jerusalem, afterwards journeying thither himself, the result being, that
the city was taken, and the Jewish king, with his court, yielded, and were
carried away to Babylon (598 B.C.). The number of captives on this
occasion exceeded 10,000, and the treasures of the palace and the Temple
formed part of the spoils sent to Babylon. The country was not annexed,
however, for Nebuchadnezzar made Mattaniah king of Judah instead of
Jehoiachin, changing his name to Zedekiah.
Gratitude to the power which had raised him, however, became weakened with
years, and, encouraged by Pharaoh Hophra, he rebelled in the ninth year of
his reign, the result being that Jerusalem was once more besieged. Pharaoh
Hophra now marched with an army across the Egyptian border to the help of
his ally, whereupon the Babylonians raised the siege of Jerusalem for a
time to get rid of the invader (Jer. xxxvii. 5-7). According to Josephus,
the Egyptians were totally defeated, and returned to their own land (Jer.
xxxvii. 7). The siege of Jerusalem was then resumed, and the city was
taken at the end of a year and a half, notwithstanding a very courageous
resistance. The date set down for this event is July 586 B.C.
Zedekiah with his army fled, but was pursued by the Chaldeans, and
captured in the plains of Jericho. Nebuchadnezzar was then at Riblah,
where, to all appearance, a court was held (see 2 Kings xxv. 6), and
sentence pronounced against the faithless vassal, whose sons were then
slain before his eyes, his sight destroyed, and he himself carried captive
to Babylon. It was a barbarous sentence, and was quite in accordance with
the customs of the age, just as the legal formalities were to all
appearance in conformity with Babylonian tradition. The destruction of the
Temple and all the principal houses of the city by fire, followed, this
destruction being wrought by Nebu-zar-adan (Nabû-zēr-iddina), the captain
of Nebuchadnezzar’s guard, who also carried captive all who remained in
the city. Only the lowest class of the people remained to carry on the
cultivation of the land. Others were sent to Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, and
by his orders put to death. Those of the Jews who remained, however, were
not placed, as might reasonably have been expected, under a Babylonian
governor, but under Gedeliah the son of Ahikam, who was made governor. His
death at the hands of his own countrymen took place shortly after, thus
putting an end to the last vestige of native Jewish rule in Palestine.
Next came the turn of Tyre, which the Babylonian king blockaded for no
less than thirteen years (585-573 B.C.), but was apparently successful in
the end, when the inhabitants acknowledged Babylonian overlordship. That
its capture cost him great pains is testified by Ezekiel (xxix. 18), who
states that, to take the city, “every head was bald, and every shoulder
was peeled” in consequence of the carrying of material for the operations
against the city, yet neither he nor his army reaped any material
advantage from this conquest, “for the service that he had served against
it.” The name of a city Ṣûru, which is probably Tyre, occurs on a tablet
dated in Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty-fifth year (569 B.C.—four years after the
city was taken). It refers to a transaction in which sesame is sold, an
official of the city being a party to the contract. Later on, in the
fortieth year of Nebuchadnezzar, a contract was entered into between
Milki-idiri, governor of Kidis (Kedesh), with regard to some cattle. This
document is dated at Tyre (Ṣurru) on the 22nd of the month Tammuz. Not
only Tyre, therefore, but the whole district, owned the dominion of
Nebuchadnezzar at this time.
Just as successful were Nebuchadnezzar’s operations against Egypt.
According to an Egyptian inscription, the Babylonian king attacked Egypt
in the year 572 B.C., penetrating as far as Syene and the borders of
Ethiopia. Hophra, who still reigned, was defeated and deposed, the general
Amasis being raised to the throne in his place to rule the land as a
vassal of the Babylonian king. According to the only historical fragment
of the reign of this king known, Nebuchadnezzar made an expedition to
Egypt in his thirty-seventh year. This was to all appearance against his
vassal Amasis, who, like Zedekiah, had revolted against the power which
had raised him to the throne. The rebellion was suppressed, but the
ultimate fate of Amasis is not stated.
According to Megasthenes, who lived in the time of Seleucus Nicator,
Nebuchadnezzar conquered North Africa, crossing afterwards into Spain by
the Strait of Gibraltar, returning to Babylonia through Europe and Asia
Minor. Such an expedition, however, it is hardly likely that he ever
undertook, and the account of this exploit may therefore be relegated to
the domain of the fables with which the ancient historians sometimes
ornamented their work.
Concerning the relations of Nebuchadnezzar with Daniel, the
wedge-inscriptions of Babylonia give no indication whatever. Four hundred
and fifty or more contract-tablets dated in his reign are known, but in
none of them is there any reference to Daniel, at least in a form that can
be recognized. The Babylonian name given to him, Belteshazzar, is
apparently an abbreviated form, which would be, in Babylonian,
Balaṭ-su-ûṣur, “Protect thou (O God), his life.” If this be the
explanation, a better transcription of the Hebrew form would be
Beletshazzar (making the first sheva vocal and the second silent instead
of the reverse). The name of the deity has, in accordance with custom,
been suppressed in the Hebrew form, but it is probable that either the
patron-deity of Babylon, Bêl, or else the favourite deity of the
Babylonians in general, Nebo, the god of learning, may have preceded the
first element as the name now stands. In the inscriptions of Babylonia and
Assyria, many examples of abbreviated names occur, on account of what we
should consider their inordinate length, and to such an extent was this
customary, that one element only, out of three or four, might alone be
used. Thus, in the contracts of the time of Nebuchadnezzar, at least
fourteen persons of the name of Balaṭu, and seven of the name of Balaṭ-su
occur, and it may be safely taken that they are all abbreviations of names
similar to that bestowed upon Daniel. Apart from the question whether the
Book of Daniel is to be regarded as a part of the Hagiographa or not, the
fact that his descent is not given there would make it impossible to
recognize him, if his name was still further abbreviated by the
Babylonians, among so many bearing names possibly the same as his. Even
though his book be regarded as a romance, there is always the question,
whether the personages mentioned therein may not really have existed.
With regard to the other names in Daniel, it is to be noted that Shadrach
and Meshach, the names given to Hananiah and Mishael, are doubtful in
Babylonian, the corresponding forms not having been found. Abednego, on
the other hand, the Babylonian name of Azariah, has long been recognized
as being written for Abed-Nebo, “servant of Nebo,” either by a scribal
error, or (as seems more probable) in order to deface the name of a
heathen deity. The name of Ashpenaz, the master of the eunuchs, is still
more doubtful, if anything; but that of Arioch, the “king’s captain,” is
one which has been well known for some time, being none other than the
ancient name (cf. Genesis xiv.) corresponding with the Akkadian Êri-Aku or
Êri-Eaku, “servant of the Moon-god,” a rare name in later times (see pp.
222 ff.).
Naturally nothing concerning Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams occurs in the
inscriptions of Babylonia, though dreams which were regarded as having a
signification are sometimes recorded. This being the case, it might be
supposed that something upon the subject would in all probability be
sooner or later found. But what we should expect to find in the extant
inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar is a reference to the golden image,
threescore cubits high and six cubits wide, which he is said to have set
up in the plain of Dura. Had he erected such an enormous thing, even if it
had been merely gilt, and not of solid gold, one would expect that he
would at least have made a slight reference to it. That he may have set up
images of his gods is not only possible, but probable—indeed, he must have
dedicated at least a few during his long reign, but it is evident that
none of them was of sufficient importance to cause him specially to refer
to it in his inscriptions. It is therefore not impossible that there is
some exaggeration in the dimensions of the figure referred to in Daniel.
There is also considerable uncertainty as to the position of the plain of
Dura, in the province of Babylon. The most probable explanation is that of
Prof. J. Oppert, the veteran Assyriologist, who found what appeared to be
the base of a great statue near a mound known as Dúair,(120) east of
Babylon. It is not improbable, however, that “the plain of Dura, in the
province of Babylon,” means simply an extensive open space near one of the
great fortifications (_dûru_) of the city. That all the principal
officials of the kingdom should be expected to come to the dedication of
such an image is exceedingly probable.
[Plate XIV.]
Bas-relief supposed to depict the triple wall of Babylon, with a portion
of the palace within. In the original, water flows at the base of the
lowest wall. The above is the upper part of slab No. 89 in the Assyrian
Saloon of the British Museum, and apparently illustrates Assur-bani-âpli’s
campaign against his brother, Samas-sum-ukin (Saosduchinos), King of
Babylon (cf. p. 391). (Two at least of the walls of Babylon were _much
older_ than the time of Nebuchadnezzar.)
The portion of Daniel referring to Nebuchadnezzar which receives the best
illustration from the inscriptions is that referred to after the relation
of his second dream, where he is represented as walking in or upon his
palace, and one may imagine that he had gone up to enjoy the view of the
city, and whilst doing so, with almost justifiable pride the words, “Is
not this great Babylon, which I have built for the royal dwelling-place,
by the might of my power and the glory of my majesty?” escaped him. From
his inscriptions (and they are fairly numerous) we learn, with regard to
Babylon, that it owed most of its glories as they then existed to this,
the greatest of its kings. That the king did not always distinguish
between what he built and what he rebuilt—indeed, none of his predecessors
seem to have done so either, a circumstance probably due to the poverty of
the Akkadian and Semitic Babylonian languages in that respect—would
explain the words attributed to him.
According to the great India-House inscription, which was carved by order
of Nebuchadnezzar, Nabopolassar had built (= rebuilt) the two great walls
of Babylon, called Imgur-Bêl and Nemitti-Bêl. He had dug the great
city-moat, and raised two strong walls on its banks, similar, in all
probability, to what other kings had done before him. To all appearance
also he lined the banks of the Euphrates with embankments (probably the
quays of which Herodotus speaks), and constructed, within the city, a road
leading from Du-azaga, “the holy seat,” where the oracles were declared,
to Aa-ibur-sabû, Babylon’s “festival-street,” close to the gate of Beltis,
for the yearly procession of the god Merodach.
[Plate XV.]
Bas-relief, supposed to represent the Hanging Gardens at Babylon, about
645 B.C. On the slope is a temple, a stele with the figure of a king, and
an altar on the path in front. On the right pointed arches support a
terrace planted with trees. Streams water the sides of the wooded hill.
British Museum, Assyrian Saloon, No. 92 (upper part). The above, with
Plate XIV., apparently illustrate Assur-bani-âpli’s campaign against his
brother Samas-sum-ukin (cf. page 391).
All these erections Nebuchadnezzar completed or altered and improved. He
added to the defences which his father had built, and raised the level of
the street Aa-ibur-sabû from the “glorious gate” to the gate of Istar. The
raising of the “festival-street” necessitated the raising of the gateways
through which it ran. Gates were made of cedar covered with copper,
probably after the style of the great gate found by Mr. Rassam at Balawat
in Assyria, which was adorned with bands of bronze chased with scenes of
Shalmaneser II.’s warlike exploits in relief. In all probability there
were but few gates in Babylon of solid metal, notwithstanding that there
is no mention in Herodotus of their having been constructed merely of wood
covered with ornamented strips of bronze. The thresholds of these gates
were of bronze, probably similar to that of which a part was found by Mr.
Rassam at Borsippa (evidently the doorstep of one of the entrances to the
temple called Ê-zida), and which may now be seen at the British Museum.
These and other portals at Babylon were guarded by images of bulls and
serpents, also of bronze. In addition to this, Nebuchadnezzar built a wall
on the east side of the city, high like a mountain, so that no enemy could
approach. Access to the city was gained by gates, the doors of which were
likewise of cedar ornamented with bronze. For further protection, he
“caused great waters like the volume of the sea to surround the land,” and
to cross them was “like the crossing of the broad sea, the Salt Stream”
(the Persian Gulf). He then rebuilt the palace of his father, its walls
having been undermined by the waters of the Euphrates, which ran near.
Advantage of the changes made in this building was taken to raise the
gateways, which had become too low in consequence of the raising of the
festival-street of Merodach. In addition to this, he built another palace,
adjoining that of his father, decorating it with cedar, cypress, and other
precious woods; gold, silver, and precious stones; and adorning it with
sculptures and with gates overlaid with bronze. According to the
India-House inscription of Nebuchadnezzar, the fabric of this building was
completed in fifteen days, a fact so remarkable that it is specially
mentioned by Berosus (see Josephus, _Antiquities_, x., xi. 1), whose word
may be taken as proving the translation of the passage in question.
Besides restoring the temples of the cities, or at least the principal
ones, he restored all the chief temples of Babylonia, notably that at
Sippar, the chief centre of the Sun-god worship, and the great
temple-tower dedicated to Nebo at Borsippa. This last, indeed, was one of
the works upon which he prided himself most, as is proved by the fact that
it is mentioned in all his inscriptions, including those on his bricks,
along with the temple known as Ê-sagila (later pronounced Ê-sangil), the
“temple of Belus,” which he calls “the tower of Babylon,” the principal
shrine of which seems to have been called “the House of the Foundation of
Heaven and Earth,” indicating clearly the estimation in which the
Babylonians held it (see p. 138). It was there that the god Merodach, the
principal deity of the Babylonians, and the founder of the temple in
question, was worshipped.
But one might go on for a long time describing what Nebuchadnezzar did for
the city which, more than any other, he loved, and to which he brought the
spoils of his many expeditions. There is no doubt that this, the last
great king of Babylon, was a most successful ruler, of whom his people
were proud. He was pious, and an intense lover of his country—two
characteristics which endeared him, the one to the priesthood, the other
to the people at large. Could we but find the real history of his reign,
it would undoubtedly prove to be full of interest, and also of enormous
importance, not only on account of the light that it would throw upon
Jewish history during his period, but also on account of its bearing upon
a most important epoch in the life of the Babylonian nation.
It is noteworthy that, in Herodotus, many of the great architectural works
of his reign are attributed to Nitocris, who, he states, was the mother of
Labynetus (Book I. 185-188). Now, who this Labynetus was, is clear from
the statement that it was he against whom Cyrus marched—namely the
Nabonidus of other Greek historians, and the Nabû-na’id of the
inscriptions. Nitocris would therefore seem to have been the name of the
queen of Nebuchadnezzar, and if so, it shows upon what grounds Nabonidus
claimed the throne, and how Belshazzar, in the Book of Daniel, could be
described as the son or descendant of Nebuchadnezzar. But in this case
Nitocris must have been another wife of Nebuchadnezzar, and not the Median
princess whom he had married when young. If she supplanted Amytis,
Nebuchadnezzar’s Median wife, in the affections of her husband, it is easy
to see how she could have feared a Median invasion, as indicated by
Herodotus.
Nebuchadnezzar died in the year 561 B.C., leaving his crown to
Awēl-Maruduk, the Evil-Merodach of 2 Kings xxv. 27, and the
Abilamarōdachos of Josephus, who, however, also gives, in his book against
Apion (i. 20), the genuine Babylonian form as transcribed by Berosus,
namely, Eueilmaradouchos. Two other sons of Nebuchadnezzar are also
mentioned in the contract-tablets of his reign, namely, Marduk-šum-uṣur
(in his fortieth year) and Marduk-nadin-âḫi (forty-first year). (See pp.
434, 435.)
The substitution of the mild rule of Evil-Merodach for the vigorous
government of his father must have been witnessed by the Babylonians with
considerable misgiving, for in the East, especially at that period, the
successful ruler was he who was the most energetic. There is every reason
to believe, however, that the character of Evil-Merodach was that of a man
in every way kind and considerate, as is shown by the fact, that he
released Jehoiachin (whom Nebuchadnezzar had taken prisoner), spoke kindly
to him, and set his throne above those of the other vassal kings in
Babylon. The only thing, according to Josephus, recorded about him by
Berosus was, that “he governed public affairs lawlessly and
extravagantly”—words which imply that he displeased the priestly class, of
which Berosus was one. His name appears in certain contracts (published by
Mr. Evetts) as ruler of Babylonia for about two years, from the 26th of
Elul of his accession year to the 4th day of Ab of his second year—about
two years and five months in all. According to Berosus, he was slain by
his sister’s husband, Nēriglissöoros, the Nergal-šar-uṣur of the
inscriptions, who then ascended the throne.
The name is the same as that given as Nergal-sharezer in Jer. xxxix. 3,
13, one of the princes of the Babylonians who was present at the taking of
Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and who at that time bore the title of
Rab-mag, which is to all appearance the Rab-mugi of the Assyro-Babylonian
inscriptions. It is thought by many, and is not by any means improbable,
that the Nergal-sharezer of the passage referred to and the
Nergal-šar-uṣur of Babylonian history are one and the same, though there
is no evidence that the latter ever bore the title of Rab-mag.
It was in the year 559 B.C. that Evil-Merodach was murdered, and
Neriglissar at once seized the throne of his brother-in-law. Berosus (as
quoted by Josephus) gives no details as to his reign. In his inscriptions
he states that he was (like Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar before him)
patron of Ê-sagila and Ê-zida, the temple of Belus at Babylon and that of
Nebo at Borsippa, and that the great gods had established his dominion.
After speaking of the god Nebo, he makes a reference to Ura, the god of
death, which, under the circumstances, one can hardly regard as otherwise
than significant—
“Nebo, the faithful son, a just sceptre has caused his hands to
hold.
To keep the people, preserve the country,
Ura, prince of the gods, gave him his weapon.”
He then mentions his father, Bêl-šum-iškun, whom he calls “king of
Babylon,” and describes the restoration and decoration of Ê-zida and
Ê-sagila, together with the palace which he built for himself at Babylon,
and other architectural work.
But to describe his father as “king of Babylon” was a statement somewhat
removed from the truth. In the contract-tablets of the time of
Nebuchadnezzar and Evil-Merodach, where the name of Neriglissar occurs
somewhat frequently as a purchaser of houses, land, etc., he is called
simply “son of Bêl-šum-iškun,” without any other title whatever (see p.
438). But perhaps Neriglissar’s statement is due to some historical event
of which we are ignorant.
Neriglissar died in the month Nisan or Iyyar of the fourth year of his
reign, and was succeeded by his son Labāši-Marduk, the Labarosoarchod of
the Greek writers. According to Berosus (Josephus against Apion, i. 20),
he was no more than a child, and it may be supposed that he was a younger
son of Neriglissar, though concerning this we have no information. He only
reigned nine months, a plot having been laid against him by his friends,
and he was tormented to death, “by reason of the very ill-temper and ill
practices he exhibited to the world” (Berosus). After his death, according
to the same historian, the conspirators met, and elected one of their
number, Nabonnedus (Nabuna’id), as king. “In his reign it was that the
walls of the city of Babylon were curiously built with burnt brick and
bitumen,” is all that Berosus has to say with regard to the sixteen years
of his reign which preceded his overthrow.
Many inscriptions of the reign of this king exist, and we are able to gain
from them an excellent idea of the state of the country and the historical
events of this important period. All that Nabonidus tells us concerning
his origin is, that he was the son or descendant of Nabû-balaṭ-su-iqbî,
whom he calls _rubû êmqu_, “the deeply-wise prince.” Who he may have been
is not known, but there exist two tablets of the nature of letters written
by a certain Nabû-balaṭ-su-iqbî to Aššur-banî-âpli, whose faithful servant
he professed to be, protesting against the treatment which he had received
at the hands of certain men who were hostile to him. If both these letters
were written by the same person, they must belong to about the year 652
B.C. (the eponymy of Aššur-naṣir, which is mentioned in one of them). As
that was about one hundred years before Nabonidus came to the throne, this
personage, if related to him, must have been his grandfather or
great-grandfather. Other persons of the same name are mentioned in the
fifth, eleventh, eighteenth, and thirty-fourth years of Nebuchadnezzar,
but it seems very unlikely that the father of Nabonidus should be one of
these.
According to the Babylonian Chronicle, Nabonidus was at the beginning of
his reign engaged in the west, to all appearance cutting down, among other
things, trees on Mount Amanus for building purposes at Babylon. Something
also took place by the Mediterranean (_tâmtim ša mât Amurrî_, “the sea of
the land of Amoria”). Apparently he had also troops in this district, and
sacrifices were performed there.
After this there is a gap until the sixth year of his reign, the entry for
which, however, refers wholly to Astyages’ operations against Cyrus, and
its disastrous results, for he was made prisoner, Ecbatana sacked, and the
spoil brought to Anšan, Cyrus’s capital.
Previous to this, as Nabonidus informs us in his cylinder-inscription
found by Mr. Rassam at Abu-habbah (Sippar), the Medes had been very
successful in their warlike operations, and had even besieged Haran,
making it impossible for Nabonidus to carry out the instructions of his
god Merodach, revealed to him in a dream, to restore the temple of Sin in
that city. On the king of Babylon reminding the deity of the state of
things in that part, and speaking of the strength of the Median forces, he
was told that in three years’ time their power would be destroyed, which
happened as predicted. He now caused his “vast army” to come from Gaza and
elsewhere to do the needful work, and when completed, the image of the god
Sin was brought from Babylon, and placed in the restored shrine with joy
and shouting. Naturally the Babylonian king was overjoyed at the release
of Haran from the power of the Medes—could he have foreseen that Cyrus,
their conqueror, would one day hurl him from his throne, his enthusiasm
concerning the success of “the young servant of Merodach” (as he calls
him) would have been greatly abated.
In his seventh and eighth years the king was in Temâ, and the crown prince
(apparently Belshazzar is meant), with the great men and the army, was in
Akkad (the northern part of Babylonia, of which the city of Agad or Agadé
was the capital). The king did not go to Babylon, Nebo did not go to
Babylon, Bel did not go forth, the festival _akitu_ (new year’s festival)
was not performed, though the victims seem to have been offered in
Ê-sagila and Ê-zida as usual, and (the king) appointed a priest
(_uru-gala_) of the weapon (?) and the temple. In the ninth year also the
same state of things existed, and this year the mother of the king died,
to the great grief of the people. It is also recorded for this year that
Cyrus, apparently in the course of one of his military expeditions,
crossed the Tigris above Arbela.
From the fact that the religious processions and ceremonies are given as
being unperformed every year from the seventh to the eleventh of his
reign, it is clear that a great deal of discontent was caused thereby, as
is, in fact, indicated by the cylinder-inscription of Cyrus detailing
under what conditions he himself entered Babylon. It was evidently one of
the duties of the Babylonian kings (and, as we have seen, the Assyrian
kings conformed to this when they became kings of Babylonia) to perform
the usual ceremonies, and the ruler neglecting this was certain to fall
into disfavour with the priesthood, and, by their influence, with the
people as well.
Whatever may have been the sins of omission of Nabonidus—whether they were
trivial or otherwise—there is no doubt that they made a bad impression on
the people, and gave rise to all kinds of statements against him when the
days of misfortune came. For the scribe who drew up Cyrus’s record after
the taking of Babylon, all Nabonidus’s doings with regard to the temples
and statues of the gods were to be quoted against him. The temple dues had
been allowed to fail, and the gods quitted their shrines, angry at the
thought that Nabonidus had brought foreign gods to Šu-anna (a part of
Babylon). With regard to this last accusation, it may be remarked that a
popular ruler would in all probability have been praised for bringing the
gods of other places to Babylon—it would have been either a tribute to the
power of Babylonia in war (a power conferred upon her, in their opinion,
by her gods); or else the payment of homage by the gods of other cities to
those of Babylon, acknowledging at the same time their (and her)
supremacy.
The fact is, Nabonidus was either the most intelligent, or one of the most
intelligent, men in Babylonia. To all appearance he was not a ruler, but a
learned man, full of love for his country and its institutions, and
desirous of knowledge, which he obtained at all costs. Whenever he had to
restore a temple, he at once excavated in its foundations for the records
of early kings which he knew to be there, and he was often successful in
finding what he wanted. As he always recorded what he found, his
cylinder-inscriptions nearly always possess a value far beyond those of
other kings of Babylon. He seems to have delighted in what he saw when
engaged in this work—he not only tells you that he read the texts thus
discovered, but he refers to their perfect condition, and nearly always
says something about the ruler who caused them to be placed in the
foundations. He, too, is worthy of a statue in every place where the
language of his native land is studied.
Naturally, his antiquarian researches, necessitating, as they did, the
destruction of a part of the fabric of the temple under repair at the
time, were not looked upon altogether with favour by the priests and the
people, hence the dissatisfaction to which the scribes, who were probably
of the priestly caste, afterwards gave vent. Besides this, was it not
necessary that they should justify themselves for accepting a foreign
ruler, of a different religion from their own?
Nabonidus gives no hint in his inscriptions that he was aware of any
dissatisfaction at what he was doing. In all probability he was as
religious as any of his predecessors had been, and his son Belshazzar was
as the second ruler in the kingdom. Records exist showing that Belshazzar
sent offerings to the temple at Sippar whilst he was in that
neighbourhood, and the king’s own offerings are sometimes mentioned with
them. The king had therefore a good deputy performing his work. With
regard to the bringing of foreign gods to Šu-anna, Cyrus’s scribe probably
refers to the deities of Haran, which were taken thither before the siege
of the place by the Medes. When the enemy had departed, Nabonidus restored
the temple in that city, and replaced the deities referred to in their
shrines. The transport of the idols may have been merely to place them for
the time being in a place of greater security.
There is, then, every probability that Belshazzar, son of Nabonidus, was
the real ruler. What an excellent understanding existed between him and
his father may be gained from the inscription which Nabonidus caused to be
composed to place in the foundations of the temple of the Moon (the god
Sin) at Ur (identified with Ur of the Chaldees), the concluding lines of
which run as follows—
“As for me, Nabonidus, king of Babylon,
from sin against thy great divinity
save me, and
a life of remote days
give as a gift;
and as for Belshazzar, the eldest son,
the offspring of my heart, the fear of thy great
divinity cause thou to exist in his heart, and
let not sin possess him, let him be satisfied with fulness of
life.”
The text being undated, there is no means of ascertaining in what year the
restoration of the temple of the Moon at Ur took place.
The story of the downfall of the Babylonian empire and the end of native
rule in Babylonia is told by the Babylonian Chronicle as follows—
“(Year 17th), Nebo to go forth (?) from Borsippa ... the king entered the
temple E-tur-kalama. In the month (?) ... and the lower sea, revolted ...
went (?). Bêl went forth, the festival Akitu (new year’s festival) they
held as usual (?). In the month ... the gods (?) of Marad, Zagaga and the
gods of the city of Kiš, Beltis and the gods of Ḫursag-kalama, entered
Babylon. At the end of the month Elul the gods of the land of Akkad who
were above the atmosphere and below the atmosphere entered Babylon, the
gods of Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippar did not enter. In the month Tammuz
Cyrus made battle at Opis on the Tigris among the soldiers of Akkad. The
people of Akkad raised a revolt; people were killed; Sippar was taken on
the 14th day without fighting. Nabonidus fled. On the 16th day Ugbaru
(Gobryas), governor of the land of Gutium, and the soldiers of Cyrus
entered Babylon without fighting—after Nabonidus they pursued (?), he was
captured in Babylon. At the end of the month the regiment (?) of the land
of Gutium surrounded (?) the gates of Ê-sagila (the temple of Belus). A
celebration (?) of anything, in Ê-sagila and the shrines, was not being
made, and a (lunar ?) festival was not proceeding. Marcheswan, the third
day, Cyrus descended to Babylon; they filled the roads before him. Peace
was established to the city—Cyrus promised peace to Babylon, all of it.
Gubaru (Gobryas), his governor, appointed governors in Babylonia, and from
the month Kisleu to the month Adar the gods of the land of Akkad, whom
Nabonidus had sent down to Babylon, returned to their places. The month
Marcheswan, the night of the 11th day, Ugbaru (Gobryas) (went?) against
... and the son (?) of the king died. From the 27th of the month Adar to
the third of the month Nisan, there was weeping in Akkad, all the people
bowed down their heads. On the 4th day Cambyses, son of Cyrus, went to
Ê-nig-ḫad-kalama-šummu (‘the house where the sceptre of the world is
given,’ the temple of Nebo). The man of the temple of the sceptre of
Nebo....”
(The remainder is mutilated, and the sense not clear—to all appearance it
refers to religious ceremonies and sacrifices in which Cambyses took
part.)
Here, again, the suggestion seems to be, that because the king thought fit
to send the statues of the various gods of the land to other cities than
their own “on a visit,” as it were, the priesthood was justified in
renouncing allegiance to him (and in this the people naturally followed
them), and in delivering the kingdom to a foreigner. It has been said that
the success of Cyrus was in part due to the aid given to him by the Jews,
who, sympathizing with him on account of his monotheism, helped him in
various ways; but in all probability he could never have achieved success
had not the Babylonian priests (as indicated by their own records) spread
discontent among the people.
More important, however, are the details of the conquest by Cyrus. He must
have entered Babylonia on the north-east, and met the Babylonian army at
Opis. That the conflict went against the Babylonians may be taken for
granted, though it is not stated. Apparently the country was divided into
two parties—those for resistance, and those who were probably discontented
on account of the king’s reputed unorthodoxy. A conflict between these
took place, and there was bloodshed, the result being that no resistance
could be offered to the army of Cyrus, who entered Sippar, the seat of the
worship of the Sun-god, without fighting. To all appearance Nabonidus was
at his post, but recognizing that all was lost, fled. Two days later
Gobryas (not Cyrus, be it observed) entered Babylon with the army of Cyrus
without fighting, and apparently captured Nabonidus there. This took place
about the end of June, and it was October before Cyrus entered the city.
Judging from the text, he was well received, and the result of the
conference between him and Gobryas was, that the latter “appointed
governors in Babylon,” or “in Babylonia,” as the words may be also read.
Another stroke of policy was the return to their habitations of the images
of the gods which Nabonidus had transferred to other places, thus
appeasing the priests.
At this point come some very important and difficult phrases. On the night
of the 11th of Marcheswan, Gobryas descended (or went) upon or against
something, and the king, or the son of the king, died. The combination of
these two statements, taken in connection with the record in Daniel v. 30,
suggests that the latter reading is the correct one, though the first,
which would make it to mean that the king was slain, is not excluded, and
would make very little difference in the record, it being possible that
Belshazzar, as the successor of Nabonidus, might be meant. An earlier
explanation was, that the doubtful group stood for “the wife” of the king,
but in this case it would be difficult to explain how it is that the
verbal form (which is ideographically written, and may be read either
_imât_, “he dies,” _tamât_, “she dies,” or _mêtat_, “she died”) should
differ from that used in the case of the king’s mother, where _imtût_, the
historical tense of the secondary form of the kal, is the form used. The
use of _imât_ for _imût_, “he died,” would be paralleled by the use of
_irab_ or _irub_, “he entered,” in other parts of the inscription.
Naturally, in a case of doubt, the seeker after truth in the matter of
Babylonian history consults the record of the Babylonian historian
Berosus. In the case of the taking of Babylon, however, there are such
noteworthy differences, that one may well be excused for doubting his
statements, notwithstanding his trustworthiness in other matters. He says
that when Nabonnedus saw that Cyrus was coming to attack him, he met him
with his forces, was beaten, and fled with a few of his troops to
Borsippa. Cyrus then took Babylon, and gave order that the outer walls
should be demolished, the city having proved very troublesome to him, and
cost him much pains to capture. He then proceeded to besiege Nabonnedus in
Borsippa, but the Babylonian king decided not to attempt to resist, and
yielded. Cyrus therefore treated him kindly, and though he would not allow
him to remain in Babylonia, he gave him Carmania as a place where he might
dwell. “Accordingly Nabonnedus spent the rest of his time in that country,
and there died.”
The Babylonian Chronicle, however, says nothing about Nabonidus having
taken refuge in Borsippa, nor of his being besieged there, nor of his
having submitted at that place. On the contrary, he was taken in Babylon,
which city had been captured without fighting, and there was on that
account no immediate excuse for demolishing the walls, which, as native
records tell us, were dismantled in the time of the Seleucidæ. The fact
is, Berosus did not wish it to be thought that the Babylonians had allowed
their country to pass into the hands of a foreign ruler without
resistance, hence this statement as to the capital holding out. To all
appearance, Berosus is truthful where it is not to his interest to be
otherwise.
The probability is, therefore, that “the son of the king,” Belshazzar,
held out against the Persians in some part of the capital, and kept during
that time a festival on the 11th of Marcheswan, when Gobryas pounced upon
the place, and he, the rightful Chaldean king, was slain, as recorded in
Daniel. In this case, Darius the Mede ought to be “Gobryas of Gutium,”
who, like the former, appointed governors in Babylonia, and “received the
kingdom” for Cyrus. If this be the case, Daniel would seem to have been in
Belshazzar’s power, though his knowledge of what was going on on the
Persian side gave him courage to reject that prince’s favours with scorn.
Officially, Belshazzar is never mentioned as king, though the Jewish
captives must have regarded him as such, and probably spoke of him
humorously as being the true ruler. This alone can account for his being
called “king of the Chaldeans,” and for his appointing Daniel to be the
“_third_ ruler in the kingdom,” as has been already suggested. That he was
also confused with his father is shown by the statement in Josephus, where
he is spoken of (_Antiq._ x. xi. 2) as being called Nabonidus by the
Babylonians (“Baltasaros, who by the Babylonians was called Naboandelos”),
though Josephus’s transcription of the names is as incorrect as a Greek’s.
Cyrus now found himself master of Babylonia, without any pretender to
molest him; and being the acknowledged ruler of the land, he made himself
as popular as he could by protecting the various religions which were to
be found in his new dominions. The Jews are said to have sympathized with
him on account of his being a monotheist, but to the Babylonians he seemed
to be of the same religion as themselves, and his inscriptions show that,
whether with his consent or not, the gods of the Babylonians were spoken
of and invoked on his behalf just as if this were the case, and we know
that he allowed his son to take part in the Babylonian religious
ceremonies.
But to show clearly the way in which Cyrus ruled, a portion of his
cylinder-inscription, found by Mr. Rassam at Babylon, is given here—
(To all appearance Nabonidus had tried to make various religious changes
and reforms, the words “in the likeness of Ê-sagila” suggesting that he
had at least thought of building another temple similar to that venerable
fane.)
“The gods, who dwelt in the midst of them (_i.e._ the temples), forsook
their dwellings in anger that he (Nabonidus) had made (them) enter within
Šu-anna.(121) Marduk in the presence of ... was going round to all the
states whose seat had been founded, and the people of Šumer and Akkad, who
had been like the dead,(122) became active(123) ... he had mercy upon the
whole of the lands—all of them found (and) looked upon him. He sought also
a just king, the desire of his heart, whose hand he might hold, Cyrus,
king of the city Anšan, he called his title, to all the kingdoms together
(his) na(me) was proclaimed.
“The land of Qutû, the whole of the troops of the Manda, he (Merodach)
placed under his feet, he caused his hands to capture the people of the
dark head,(124) in righteousness and justice he cared for them. Merodach,
the great lord, the protector of his people, looked with joy upon his
fortunate work and his just heart. He commanded that he should go to his
city Babylon, he caused him to take the road to Tindir,(125) like a friend
and a companion he walked by his side. His vast people, which, like the
waters of a river, cannot be numbered,(126) had their weapons girded, and
marched by his side. Without fighting and battle he caused him to enter
into Šu-anna. His city Babylon he protected in (its) trouble. Nabonidus,
who did not fear him (_i.e._ Merodach), he delivered into his hand. The
people of Tindir, all of them, the whole of the land of Šumer and Akkad,
princes and high-warden, bowed down beneath him, and kissed his feet—they
rejoiced for his sovereignty, their countenances were bright.
“The lord who, in trust that he (Merodach) gives life to the dead, spared
on every side from destruction and injury. Well did they do him
homage—they held in honour his name. I am Cyrus, king of the host, the
great king, the powerful king, king of Tindir, king of the land of Šumer
and Akkad, king of the four regions, son of Cambyses, the great king, king
of the city of Anšan, grandson of Cyrus, the great king, king of the city
of Anšan, great-grandson of Šišpiš (Teispes), the great king, king of the
city of Anšan, the all-enduring royal seed whose reign Bêl and Nebo love,
for the contenting of their heart they desired his rule.
“When I entered in peace into (the midst) of Babylon, I founded in the
king’s palace a seat of dominion with pleasure and joy. Merodach, the
great lord, broad-hearted for ... the sons ... Tindir and ... me, and
daily I looked upon his image (?). My vast army marches in the midst of
Babylon peacefully, the whole of (the people of Šumer and) Akkad I made to
have no opposition. Within Babylon and all its districts in peace I had
care for the sons of Tindir ... as without heart (?) ... and a yoke (which
was) unseemliness for them was imposed (?). I comforted their sighing, I
did away with their distress. For the work Merodach, the great lord,
established the command—to me, Cyrus, the king his worshipper, and
Cambyses, the son (who is) the offspring of my heart ... all of my army
graciously he approached, and in peace before it kindly did he lead (?).
(By his) supreme (command) the whole of the kings dwelling in the royal
abodes of every region from the upper sea to the lower sea, (those)
dwelling ... the kings of the Amorites(127) (and) the dwellers in tents,
all of them, brought their valuable tribute and kissed my feet within
Šu-anna. From ... -a, the city of Aššur,(128) and Susa, Agadé, the land of
Ešnunak (Umliaš), Zamban, Mê-Turnu, (and) Dûr-îlu to the border of Qutû,
the districts (on the banks) of the Tigris—from old time had their seats
been founded—the gods dwelling within them I returned to their places, and
caused eternal seats to be founded, all their people I collected and
returned to their dwellings. And the gods of Šumer and Akkad, which
Nabonidus, to the anger of the lord of the gods, had caused to enter
within Šu-anna, by the command of Merodach, the great lord, I set in peace
in their shrines—seats of joy of heart. May the whole of the gods whom I
caused to enter into their places pray daily before Bêl and Nebo for the
lengthening of my days, may they announce the commands for my happiness,
and may they say to Merodach that ‘Cyrus, thy worshipper, and Cambyses,
his son, ... (in) the countries (?), all of them, he has founded a seat of
rest’....”
(Here follow the ends of nine more lines, from which, however, no certain
sense can be gained.)
It will be seen, that this interesting and valuable inscription is in
substantial agreement with the Chronicle. The grievance concerning the
transference of the statues of the divinities is repeated and amplified,
and the fact that Cyrus entered Babylon without fighting is confirmed
(against Berosus, Xenophon, and the other Greek authors who describe the
taking of Babylon).
Cyrus, however, here appears before us in quite a new character, namely,
as the champion of Babylonian religious orthodoxy against Nabonidus’s
heterodoxy! That Cyrus was ignorant of the contents of this inscription
(which must have been written by his orders) is in the highest degree
improbable. That he may have been affected by Zoroastrian monotheism is
likely, but if so, it was but a thin varnish, for he was to all appearance
a polytheist at heart, as his Anzanian fathers (who, as we know from
recent discoveries at Susa, were largely influenced by the religion of
Babylonia) had been from the earliest times. He had chosen well the time
of his invasion, as is shown by the revolt (apparently against Nabonidus)
which is referred to in the Chronicle. It is strange how the Babylonians
were in the main ready to accept a new ruler. In the earliest times we
have mention of the Arabic dynasty which the native records call the
dynasty of Babylon; later on came Cassites, Elamites and Assyrians, and
now the country received an Elamite king who ruled over Persia. In the
course of time other aliens would come and rule over them, but their
acceptance of these was much less a matter of choice, or, rather, of
apathetic acquiescence than on the occasion when they accepted Cyrus king
of Anšan.
We see, moreover, from this inscription, that Cyrus did restore the
various exiles to their homes, thus securing as far as possible the
fidelity of those whom he wished to secure as his supporters. Among these
were the Jews, and it is on account of this that his name is so favourably
mentioned in the Old Testament. Cyrus himself says, that he caused all the
gods whose statues had been brought to Babylon to be returned to the
places whence they had come, and it is clear that, as the Jews had no
divine statues, Cyrus did what he could for them, and sent back to
Jerusalem the sacred vessels (Ezra i. 7), and also gave a grant for the
rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra iii. 7). In the decree quoted in Ezra (i. 2
ff.), where he is represented as saying that “the Lord God of heaven” had
given him all the kingdoms of the earth, it is best to see in that, as in
his Babylonian cylinder-inscription, a desire, for policy’s sake, to be
“all things to all men.” His success must have been largely due to the
fact, that he had learned the art of ruling men.
It is to be supposed that he continued as he had begun, and that his rule
was tolerated by the people. According to the contract-tablets, he
associated his son with him on the throne during part of his first year,
Cambyses becoming king of Babylon, whilst Cyrus retained the wider title
of “king of countries.” Probably Gobryas had died, hence this change.
Cyrus died in 529 B.C., and Cambyses took the throne. During his reign the
Babylonians seem to have become discontented, desiring, perhaps, to have a
ruler elected by themselves. Whilst, therefore, Cambyses was absent in
Egypt, which country he conquered in the year 527 B.C., a Median, who was
a Magian named Gomates, taking advantage of the dissatisfaction which
prevailed, gave out that he was Bardes or Smerdis (called by the
Babylonians Barzia), declared himself the son of Cyrus, whom Cambyses had
murdered, and mounted the throne. Media, Persia, and Babylonia at once
went over to him, and Cambyses hastened from Egypt to meet the pretender.
Whilst in Syria, on the way home, he killed himself (521), perhaps by
accident, though it is not impossible that it was a case of suicide, and
the pretender retained for a very short period possession of the throne.
Another prince of the same family, Darius son of Hystaspes, now came
forward, and after defeating Bardes and a number of other pretenders,
among them Nidintu-Bêl, son of Aniru, who claimed to be Nebuchadnezzar the
son of Nabonidus, mounted the throne. In fact, almost every province of
the Persian empire had a pretender of its own, so that Darius found plenty
of work ready to his hand. One by one, however, they were defeated, and
“the lie” was put down in all the countries acknowledging Persian
rule—Darius was sole and undisputed king.
It is unfortunate that no historical records referring to the reigns of
Cyrus and Cambyses exist, except the Chronicle, which, however, ends with
the accession year of the former. We have, therefore, no independent
records of what took place in Syria, though it must be confessed, that
there is great doubt whether the composer of the Chronicle at the time
would have considered the return of the Jews and the rebuilding of the
Temple as of sufficient importance to place on record there. The Bible and
Josephus give circumstantial accounts of what occurred, but the official
view of the circumstances of the granting of the permission to rebuild the
Temple and the city by Cyrus, and its countermanding, at the instance of
the Samaritans, during the reign of Cambyses, would be interesting in the
extreme.
To find something about Zerubbabel, who is said to have been the friend of
Darius (Jos., _Ant._ xi. iii. 1), would also be welcome, but this we can
hardly dare to hope for. Zerubbabel (better Zeru-Babel, without the
doubling of the _b_) is a name which is far from uncommon in the contracts
of Babylonia. One, for instance, lived during the time of Nabonidus, and
dwelt at Sippara. He was to all appearance of Assyrian origin. Another,
the descendant of a smith, was the father of a man named Nabû-âḫê-bulliṭ,
who lived in the third year of Darius. A third bearing the same name is he
who is recorded as having acquired some ewes in the eleventh year of
Darius. His father bore the unusual name of Mutêriṣu. For yet another
example, see p. 441. It will thus be seen that the name was far from rare
in ancient Babylonia.
And in the published contract-tables of Darius’s reign, of which nearly
600 have been made available for study, there is little bearing upon Old
Testament history. The same may also be said of his historical
inscriptions, of which that engraved on the great rock at Behistun in
Persia is the most important. It is in his historical inscriptions,
however, that the character of the man may be read. In the first lines,
where he tells of his origin, you read of his pride of descent, just as,
farther on, he tells the story of his conflicts—how, with the help of his
father, Hystaspes, who seconded him loyally and (there is hardly any
doubt) affectionately, he overcame all the rebels, and having annihilated
the lie which he hated so intensely, he could say, after his successes,
that “the land was his.”
And through it all shines at every point, as it were, his adoration of the
god whom he worshipped, Ahuramazda, by whose grace and favour he had been
successful. There is no doubt about his religious faith—in his
inscriptions he appears as a monotheist of the severest type, and for this
reason he must have had but little sympathy with the polytheism of the
Babylonians, and the other nationalities over which he ruled, whose faith
was in a plurality of gods. It is true that offerings seem to have been
made in his name in the temples of Babylonia, but these must have been due
to old grants which had not been rescinded, and which the king and his
advisers probably would have regarded as bad policy to abolish.
Naturally there is every probability that such a ruler as Darius would
have sympathies with the Jews, on account of their monotheism, and it may
be supposed that such a feeling towards them would have led him to consent
to the upholding of Cyrus’s decree that the Temple at Jerusalem should be
finished, as detailed in Ezra vi. 1 ff. Darius relates in the Behistun
inscription, that he restored the temples of the gods (Bab. _bêtê ša
îlāni_, Median _ziyan nappana_, “temples of the gods,” Pers. _āyadāna_,
“shrines”) which Gomates the Magian, the pseudo-Bardes or Smerdis, had
destroyed. That a single word (_āyadāna_) is used in Persian, whilst the
phrase “temples of the gods,” in the plural, is used in Babylonian and
Median, shows merely the desire to speak to the latter nations in the
language to which they were accustomed, and at the same time indicates
that neither the one nor the other, unlike the Persians, were monotheists.
Gomates was therefore not a monotheist, otherwise he would not have
destroyed the temples, which would seem to have been those of Darius’s own
faith; for this king would hardly have thought it worth while to mention
the fact of their destruction, had they been the sacred places of a creed
which he despised, and it is only natural to suppose, from his very
frequent mention of Ahuramazda, the god whom he worshipped, that he was
proud of being a monotheist.
It may therefore be taken, that if Darius Hystaspis ordered the completion
of the Temple at Jerusalem, and the giving of funds in aid of the work, it
was out of sympathy with the Jews. As his reign was one of tolerance, he
did not interfere with the religion of either the Babylonians or the
Medians, but in all probability he did not imitate Cyrus by grants on his
own account, and under a royal decree, to the temples of those, to him,
heathen countries. There is considerable doubt, however, whether it is
this king who is referred to in Ezra and Esdras, as Sir Henry Howorth has
shown (_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, 1901, pp. 147
ff., 305 ff., 1902, pp. 16 ff.), the ruler intended being in all
probability Darius Nothus, whose position agrees with the chronology of
these books, and does away with much difficulty as to their acceptance as
historical authorities.
According to Darius, twenty-three countries owned his sway: Persia, Elam,
Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, “by the sea,” Sarpada, Ionia, Media,
Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Drangiana, Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria,
Sogdiana, Paruparaesana, Scythia, Sattagydia, Arachosia, and Maka.
Palestine was evidently included in the district designated “by the sea.”
After a most active reign, Darius died in the year 486 B.C., having
appointed his son Xerxes as his successor.
The reign of this ruler, and his attempt to reduce Greece to submission,
are well known. It was probably after his disastrous failure, when he had
returned to Persia, that he took as one of his wives the Jewess Esther, as
related in the book bearing her name. His inscriptions are short ones,
referring to the buildings erected by his father and himself. In all
probability he thought that his warlike exploits, overwhelmed as they were
by misfortune, were not of a nature to bear recording. In his own
inscriptions, his name is given as Ḫiši’arši or Ḫiši’arša’i in Babylonian,
and Khshayarsha in Old Persian. In the contract-tablets, however, it
appears as Aḫšiaršu, Aḫšiwaršu, Akšiaršu, Akkašiaršu, and Ḫišiarši. It is
from one of the forms with prefixed _a_ that the Hebrew Aḫashwērôs (A.V.
Ahasuerus) has apparently come, the most probable original being one
similar to the Aḫšuwaršu of a contract-tablet in the Museum at Edinburgh.
Xerxes died in the year 464 B.C., and was succeeded by his son Artaxerxes,
the Artakhshatra of the Old Persian inscriptions, and the Artakšatsu or
Artakšassu of Babylonian inscriptions. Though it was not without bloodshed
that he reached the throne, he proved to be a successful ruler—more so, in
fact, than his predecessor, whose expedition against the Greeks had ended
only in disgrace and the loss of an enormous number of troops taken from
all the nations over which he ruled. It is therefore not to be wondered at
that his reign should have been regarded as wise and temperate. In any
case, he was well disposed towards the Jews, and gave permission, in his
seventh year, to Ezra, to go up to Jerusalem with a royal grant, to settle
affairs there, and sacrifice to the God of the Jews (Ezra vii., viii.).
Later on, he gave permission to Nehemiah to return to the land of his
fathers to restore and rebuild the walls of the city. As Nehemiah was his
cupbearer, it is easily conceivable that he did this to please him, and to
reward one who had evidently been a faithful servant, but it is not
improbable that the king at the same time had in his mind the rebellion of
his general Megabysus, who had risen against him in protest against the
treatment meted out by his royal master to his captive Inarus. To have a
well-fortified city defended by those who had benefited greatly by his
rule, must have seemed to the Persian ruler good policy.
Artaxerxes died in the year 425 B.C., and was succeeded by his son, Xerxes
II., who reigned only two months, at the end of which time he was murdered
by Sogdianus, a bastard son of Artaxerxes, who then became king. Seven
months only, however, was the length of this new ruler’s reign, he being,
in his turn, put to death by another of the bastard sons of Artaxerxes,
Darius Ochus, after he had surrendered to him. This ruler is the Darius
Nothus of history, who mounted the throne in 424 B.C. His reign was noted
for the numerous insurrections against his dominion which took place, but
is of special interest because of the resumption of the work of rebuilding
the Temple of Jerusalem, which had been stopped by the decree of
Artaxerxes, as recorded in Ezra iv. 21-24. (See Sir H. Howorth in the _P.
S. B. A._, 1901, pp. 307, 308.)
CHAPTER XII. LIFE AT BABYLON DURING THE CAPTIVITY, WITH SOME REFERENCE TO
THE JEWS.
The reign of Nebuchadnezzar—The earliest mention of
Nabonidus—Neriglissar and his relations with his fellow-citizens
before his accession—He marries his daughter Gigîtum to the
director of Ê-zida—Prince Laborosoarchod—Nabonidus and the temples
at Sippar—Prince Belshazzar’s transactions—His offerings at
Sippar—His sister’s gift to her god (or goddess)—Princess
Ukabu’sama’s transaction—The Jews at Babylon—Babylonian business
and other letters—Širku’s slave—A loan at Erech—Work upon a
plantation—Sale of an ass—Jews and Babylonians—The dead slave—A
right of way—The story of Abil-Addu-nathānu and Bunanitum—The
outcast slave—The Egyptian slave and her infant—Širku’s
transactions—Babylon as the Jewish captives saw it.
I.
If trade-activity be a test of prosperity, then the Babylonians of the
period extending from the end of the reign of Nabopolassar to the end of
that of Darius could have had but little to complain of on the whole,
notwithstanding the changes of dynasty which took place. Over three
thousand inscriptions covering this period have been published, and there
is every reason to believe that, if all the texts in the various museums
were made known, twice this number might be reached. There is, therefore,
an abundance of material with which to reconstruct the life of that
period. Naturally, many of this enormous number of inscriptions are
comparatively uninteresting, and some of the texts are of little or no
value, even to specialists. This being the case, it will easily be
understood that, as they are mostly of the nature of contracts, with a
certain number of legal documents, the information which many of them give
is comparatively meagre, and there is a great deal of repetition. That
some of them, notwithstanding these disadvantages, are sufficiently
interesting, will be seen from the examples which this chapter contains.
Among all these documents we find repeated, with some differences which
the course of centuries had brought about, the same transactions, and the
same daily life as has already been treated of in the fifth chapter, pp.
159-191. There are purchases and sales of land, property, and slaves,
loans at interest and without interest, and all the various kinds of
contracts which the daily needs of a large population call forth.
Marriage-contracts and contracts of apprenticeship are also not uncommon,
wills and divisions of property—generally in greater detail than of
old—are also to be found. To these must be added the leasing and hire of
houses, the purchase and hire of ships, divisions of property, inventories
of the same, receipts of different kinds, etc. etc.
For the most part, the people who pass before us are slaves, servants,
money-lenders, merchants, and other of the common folk, with a sprinkling
of scribes, priests, both of the higher and the lower classes (generally
the latter), palace officials, now and then a judge, or a governor, or one
of the subordinate officials. Did we know them all, perhaps we should
think more of them, and estimate them at their true worth; but in the
appearance and reappearance of their names we see only the plaintiff or
the defendant, the buyer or the seller, and it is but rarely that we can
recognize them as men of note, though in many cases it is to be
conjectured that they were so. It is only seldom that the crown prince or
one of his brothers, appears, or a relative of the ruling king comes
within our range—as for the king himself, except in the date of a
document, his name is rare in the extreme, and when he appears actively,
it is in the character of patron of the temples, or something of a similar
nature.
Naturally the king was hedged about with a considerable amount of
reverence, which must have manifested itself in many ways which we shall
probably never know. This consideration for the name of the king would
lead to his being represented by an agent, doing away with the necessity
of his appearing in person, when dealing with his subjects. Though he
prudently keeps out of sight, it is hardly a dignified thing that the
great Nebuchadnezzar should appear as a moneylender, even by proxy, as he
seems to do in the following document. But we do not know the whole
history of the transaction, so must not hastily accuse him of an unkingly
action—his appearance may be unauthorized, or the loan may be capable of a
perfectly natural explanation.
“Ten shekels (in) ingots (?), the silver of Ina-êši-êṭir, son of Nadin,
the king’s agent. The king’s silver, which was given for gold (? = as
capital) to Ina-êši-êṭir, (is) due from Nabû-êṭir, son of Šulâ, descendant
of the mead-dealer. At the end of the month Tisri he will give (it) back.
His property, as much as there is, (is) the security, until Ina-êši-êṭir
receives the king’s silver. Witnesses: Nadin, son of Marduk, descendant of
Irani; Nergal-iddina, son of Nabû-kaṣir, descendant of Êpeš-îli; and the
scribe, Ana-Bêl-upâqu, son of Bêl-šum-iškun, descendant of the
mead-dealer. Babylon, month Tammuz, day 28th, year 21st,
Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, king of Babylon.”
Though security is referred to, there is no mention of interest, but
Ina-êši-êṭir probably expected something of the kind. The question also
arises, whether the sum may not have been advanced without the authority
of his royal master. The original of the expression translated “ingots”
suggests that the pieces may have been in the form of a sword-blade.
Among the tablets referring to Nebuchadnezzar’s offerings, 84-2-11, 23,
and its duplicate 270 of the same collection, are probably the most
interesting. This inscription is to the effect that Izkur-Marduk had given
up with willingness the office of _naš-paṭrūtu_ to Nabû-balaṭ-su-iqbî. His
duty was to perform the king’s sacrifices every year before the goddess
Išḫara, “dwelling in Ê-ša-turra, which is within Šu-anna,” and before
Pap-sukal, of “the temple Ê-kidur-kani, the house of the Lady of heaven,
of the bank of the water-channel of _âlu-eššu_ (the new city) which is
within Babylon.” The animals sacrificed were oxen and sheep, and the parts
offered before the two deities are fully specified. The contract ends with
a longer curse than usual in tablets of this class: “Whoever the words and
this gift changes, as much as has been conferred (?) on
Nabû-balaṭ-su-iqbî, may Merodach, Zēr-panitum, Išḫara, and Pap-sukal
bespeak his destruction; may Nebo, the scribe of Ê-sagila, shorten his
long days. The spirit of Marduk, Zēr-panitum, (and) his gods, and
Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, the king their lord, they have invoked.” The names of
three witnesses and the scribe follow this, after which is the date, 29th
day of Tammuz, 32nd year of Nebuchadnezzar. A portion of the sacrifices
were to be made on the 8th day of Nisan, _i.e._ at the beginning of the
second week of the new year.
As stated in his long inscriptions referring to the restoration of the
temples at Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar looked upon that city as the one whose
temples he especially delighted to honour, and this text referring to his
offerings seems to bear out that statement. As, however, his inscribed
cylinders from other places show that he did not neglect the shrines of
his provincial capitals altogether, so certain inscriptions referring to
his offerings elsewhere show that he did not withhold what was considered
as due from him to the other shrines of his realm. Thus, in his
thirty-fifth year he is recorded to have made a gift or offering of an
object, made or set with some kind of stone, to the goddess of Sippar, Aa,
the consort of the Sun-god, and another object of gold to the god himself.
In all probability, the text referred to is only one of a number of
inscriptions referring to the king’s offerings, for even this great and
popular ruler would hardly have dared to risk the hostility of the priests
merely to gratify his desire to enrich and embellish his capital city. In
addition to the king, the officials of his court sometimes made offerings
at Sippar, as is indicated by the following short inscription—
“One ass, tithe which Nabû-šarra-uṣur, the king’s captain, has given to
the temple Ê-babbara. Month Iyyar, day 20 less 1, year 42nd,
Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, king of Babylon.”
To all appearance, Nabû-šarra-uṣur was a man sufficiently well off, if, as
may well be supposed, he possessed nine other asses besides the one which
he was giving as tithe. From the nature of the offering, this could not
have been made on account of the king, though he must from time to time
have commissioned others to act on his behalf, as the following
inscriptions inform us that his sons did—
“..., tithe of (Marduk)-šum-uṣur, the son of the king, Zubuduru, messenger
of Marduk-šum-uṣur, the son of the king, has given to Ê-babbara. The sheep
(is) in the cattle-house in the care of Šamaš-êreš. Month Adar, day 17th,
year 40th, (Nabû-kud)urri-uṣur, (king of Babylon).”
The word to be restored at the beginning is probably “1 sheep,” this being
the number implied farther on. If so, it cannot be said that he was by any
means a large owner of these animals. The following refers to tithe in
silver paid by the same prince—
“1/3 and 5 shekels (= 25 shekels) of silver (is) the tithe which
Marduk-šum-uṣur, son of the king, has given by the hands of Šamaš-kain-âḫi
and Aqabi-îlu to Ê-babbara. Month Iyyar, day 14th, year 42nd,
Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, king of Babylon.”
Another inscription, dated in the forty-first year of Nebuchadnezzar,
refers to another son, named Marduk-nadin-aḫi, whose servant,
Sin-mâr-šarri-uṣur, had paid half a mana for fruit (dates). The name of
the servant, which means “Moon-god, protect the son of the king,” is
interesting, and testifies to the devotion of the family of its owner to
the royal house.
These references to the sons of Nebuchadnezzar naturally raise the
question of the parentage of Nabonidus, whose son, Belshazzar, is called,
in Daniel, the son—_i.e._ descendant—of Nebuchadnezzar. As this is a
historical point of some importance, even the most uncertain light, when
thrown upon it, may turn out to be of considerable value. In all
probability, therefore, this is the most appropriate place to introduce
what may be called
The Earliest Mention Of Nabonidus.
This document is preserved on two tablets, the most correct being very
much crowded in one part, and the other very neatly and clearly, but at
the same time very incorrectly, written. Both are, therefore, in all
probability, copies, made at dates some time after the original document
was drawn up.
Though the more clearly-written copy is rather incorrect, it furnishes in
some cases interesting variants, which will be noticed in their place. The
value of the text as a historical document depends, in part, as will
easily be recognized, upon the trustworthiness of a statement which the
incorrect copyist has read into it.
Both these documents belong to the collection obtained by the late George
Smith on his last ill-fated journey to the East. They are numbered S +,
769 and 734.
“Adi’îlu, son of Nabû-zēr-iddina, and Ḫulîti, his wife (the divine
Ḫulîtum!(129)) have sold Marduka (Mordecai), their son, for the price
agreed upon, to Šulâ, son of Zēr-ukîn. The liability to defeasor (?) and
pre-emptor (?), which is upon Marduka, Adi’îlu and Akkadu respond for.”
“Witnesses: Nabû-na’id (Nabonidus), who is over the city(130); Agar’u;
Mušêzib-Bêl, son of Marduka(131); Zērîa, son of Bâbîlâa; Ukîn-zēra, son of
Yadi’-îlu(132); Rêmut, son of Marduka; and the scribe Nabû-zēr-ikîša, son
of Marduk- ... Ḫuṣṣiti-ša-Mušallim-Marduk, month Sebat, day 16th, year
8th, Nabû-kudurrî-uṣur, king of Babylon.”
It will probably seem strange to most readers that Babylonian parents, who
were as a rule fond of children, should sell their son; but it is
impossible to pronounce judgment against them without knowing more, so as
to be able to take into consideration the circumstances in which the thing
was done. Though the document resembles those recording the sale of
slaves, certain phrases are left out (compare the inscriptions referred to
on pp. 465 ff.).
The exclamatory addition of the scribe in one case, where he writes the
name of the mother, Ḫulîtum, with the prefix for divinity, shows that he
regarded her as being with the gods—to all appearance she had, at the time
of making the copy, departed this life. It may be taken as implying
respect, reverence, and something more.
Naturally there is no suggestion that the Nabonidus who is given as the
first witness, with the title “he who is over the city,” was the son of
Nabû-balaṭ-su-iqbî, afterwards king of Babylon. The scribe of the second
tablet calls him “the son of the king,” but there is no indication, from
Babylonian sources, that he was one of the sons of Nebuchadnezzar. It is
true that, in Daniel, Belshazzar is spoken of as if Nebuchadnezzar was his
father (or, better, grandfather), but this is the first indication that
the Babylonians ever thought of Nabonidus, his father, as one of the sons
of the great Nebuchadnezzar. The question is, whether the scribe who made
the second and more incorrect copy would have read into the doubtful
characters which his original evidently contained, a statement which he
must have known to be untrue, incorrect, or impossible. In view of the
fact that the copy in question must have been made sufficiently near to
the time of Nabonidus for the facts to be still known, a wilful error is
to all appearance excluded, though, on the other hand, the incorrectness
of other parts of the tablet obliges us to take the statement for what it
is worth. The traces of a character after the words “son of the king” are
doubtful—they look like the remains of three horizontal wedges, the two
lower ones being fairly clear. As the topmost wedge is the most doubtful,
it is possible that the traces which remain are really part of the sign
for “city,” in which case the scribe wrote “son of the king of the city,”
placing the determinative prefix for “man” before the character for
“king”—a most unusual way of writing the word. It enables us to surmise,
however, that the reading of his original was really _ša muḫḫi âli_,
instead of _ša êli âli_ (both phrases have the same meaning), that he
regarded _ša_ as _a_, that he thought _muḫ-ḫi_ to be the characters for
“man” and “king,” and that he read the last of the phrase, the character
for “city,” correctly.
They are a couple of as interesting, but, at the same time, as
unsatisfactory, tablets, as could well be imagined.
It is to be noted that the name of Nabonidus is not altogether uncommon in
the inscriptions. In most cases, however, we know that it is either not
the well-known king of that name, or that his identity with him is
doubtful. That the person here referred to was a man of some consequence
is indicated by his title, “he who is over the city,” and it often happens
in that case (as here) that the name of his father and other remoter
ancestor is omitted. This is sometimes the case with Neriglissar, who is
very often named in the contract-tablets of Babylonia, and his name is
then either given without any indication of his parentage, or else with
the simple addition “son of Bêl-šum-iškun.”
Another figure which appears at this time is that same Neriglissar who was
to play so important a part in the affairs of Babylonia at a later date.
In the case of this prince (unlike the Nabonidus of the inscription
translated above) we are not tormented by any doubts whatever. It is
really and truly Neriglissar, and none other. He first appears in
Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty-fourth year, in the following legal document—
“100 sheep of Kili(gug?), servant of Nergal-šarra-uṣur, concerning which
Abî-nadib, son of Ya-ḫata, said to Nergal-šarra-uṣur, son of
Bêl-šum-iškun, thus—
“ ‘Nabû-ṣabit-qâtâ, servant of Nergal-šarra-uṣur, brought them by my
hand.’
“If Abî-nadib (and) Nabû-ṣabit-qâtâ prove (this), Abî-nadib is free; if he
prove it (not), Abî-nadib will give to Nergal-šarra-uṣur 100 sheep, (with)
wool (?) and young (?).
“Witnesses: Ṣilli-Bêl, son of Abî-yadiša; Kabtia, son of Marduk-zēr-ibnî,
descendant of the potter; Nabû-naṣir, son of Zillâ; and the scribe,
(Nabû)-âḫê-iddina, son of Šulâ, descendant of Êgibi. Takrētain (?), month
Elul, day 2nd, year 34th, Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, king of Babylon.”
Neriglissar must therefore have been an extensive cattle-owner, and had
many servants, some of whom at least must have been men of substance, like
Abî-nadib, who engages to restore to his master the 100 sheep, if it could
be proved that they had been lost by his fault. Judging from the name,
Abî-nadib (= Abinadab) must have come from the west, his Biblical
namesakes being Israelites. Nabû-ṣabit-qâtâ elsewhere appears as the
major-domo of the crown prince (? Laborosoarchod = Labâši-Marduk) during
the reign of Neriglissar, and of Belshazzar during the reign of his father
Nabonidus. The reader will meet his name again in the translations which
follow.
A similar transaction to the above is one in which two servants of
Neriglissar were concerned, but in which the prince himself seems not to
have been directly interested. It is as follows—
“(At the end?) of the month Sivan, Šarru-îlûa, servant of
Nergal-šarra-uṣur, will bring his witness and will prove to Ḫatānu,
servant of Nergal-šarra-uṣur, that Šarru-îlūa gave to Ḫatānu the iron
_raqundu_. If he prove it, Ḫatānu will give to Šarru-îlūa a _raqundu_.
“Witnesses: Mušêzib-Bêl, son of Nabû-iltama’, and the scribe,
Nabû-âḫê-iddina, descendant of Êgibi. Upia (Opis), month Nisan, day 29th,
(year ...)th, Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, king of Babylon.”
During the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, the “chief of the house” or major-domo
of Neriglissar was Bêl-êṭiranni, who is mentioned as having borrowed
money, whether on his own or his master’s behalf is not known. This took
place in the forty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar. The following is an order
for the delivery of goods to the prince—
“Cause ... iron implements (and) 80 _kudutum_ to be taken to
Nergal-šarra-uṣur by the hands of Nabû-šum-iddina, secretary of
Nergal-šarra-uṣur. Month Iyyar, day 12th, year 43rd, Nabû-kudurri-uṣur,
king of Babylon.”
To all appearance prince Neriglissar was a very busy man, who sought to
add to his worldly goods by every means in his power, and did not disdain
to engage in trade in the attainment of wealth. What he had apparently
begun in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, he continued in the time of
Evil-Merodach, during whose reign there are several inscriptions referring
to his transactions with regard to houses. In the first of these
inscriptions he hires a house for 11 mana of silver from Nabû-âbla-iddina,
by his agent, Nabû-kain-âbli (first year of Evil-Merodach, month and day
lost).
In another contract he acquires 4 canes, 1 cubit, 8 fingers (of land) from
Marduk-šakin-šumi, and 2 canes, 6-2/3 cubits from Kurbanni-Marduk, for a
total of 4 mana 19 shekels of silver. (Babylon, month Tebet, day 9th, 1st
year of Evil-Merodach.)
In the third contract it would seem that the property in land of
Nabû-âbla-iddina had been given over to his creditors, of whom
Nabû-banî-âḫi was one, the amount due to him being, in all, 53 shekels of
silver, due to him from Nabû-âbla-iddina in the name of a third party. By
the authority of Neriglissar it would seem that 42-1/3 shekels of silver
were paid to Nabû-banî-âḫi, who then gave to Neriglissar a contract for 53
shekels of silver, promising, at the same time, to speak to the king’s
scribes, and draw up and deliver to Neriglissar a _sealed_ document. If he
did not do this, he was to be liable for the silver and its interest.
By advancing the money to this creditor, Neriglissar became himself a
creditor of the estate of Nabû-âbla-iddina (15th of Adar, 1st year of
Evil-Merodach), and it seems to have been his intention to get the whole
of the land and the houses thereon into his own hands. He therefore
acquired further interest in the property a few weeks later (26th of
Nisan, 2nd year of Evil-Merodach), and again after a further interval of
three months (14th of Tammuz, 2nd year of Evil-Merodach). To all
appearance, the amounts advanced by Neriglissar to the creditors of the
estate were less than the sums due to them from Nabû-âbla-iddina on
account of their claims. He seems, however, to have got them to give him
receipts in full, and they had to promise to deliver sealed documents. He
must have made a considerable profit out of this species of
bill-discounting.
The last tablet referring to the estate of Nabû-âbla-iddina is dated in
the accession year of Neriglissar’s own reign (9th of the 2nd Adar), and
in this Nabû-âḫê-iddina secures an interest by paying 26-¼ shekels of
silver on account of a sum of 52-½ shekels—just half. The land is stated
to have been “sold for silver for a palace,” and the money was paid by the
intermediary of Nabû-âḫê-iddina, Neriglissar’s representative in such
matters before he ascended the throne. The following is a translation of
this interesting document—
“52-½ shekels of silver due to Ikîšâ, son of Gilûa, descendant of
Sin-šadûnu, which is upon (_i.e._ due from) Nabû-âbla-iddina, son of
Balaṭu, descendant of the butler (?), in (part payment) of the price of
the house of Nabû-âbla-iddina, which has been sold for silver for the
palace. In agreement with the creditors, Ikîša, son of Gilûa, descendant
of Sin-šadûnu, has received 26-¼ shekels of silver from the hands of
Nabû-âḫê-iddina, son of Šulâ, descendant of Êgibi, and has given the
contract for 52-½ shekels of silver, which is upon (_i.e._ due from)
Nabû-âbla-iddina, to Nabû-âḫê-iddina.
“Witnesses: Dâanu-šum-iddina, son of Zēru-Bâbîli, descendant of the
dagger-bearer; Nabû-nadin-šumi, son of Ablâ, descendant of Sin-nadin-šumi;
Bêl-šunu, son of Uššâa, descendant of Âḫi-banî;
“and the scribe, Nabû-balaṭ-su-iqbî, son of Ikîšâ, descendant of
Sin-šadûnu. Babylon, month of the later Adar, day 9th, year of the
beginning of dominion of Nergal-šarra-uṣur, king of Babylon.”
But Neriglissar was now king, and had no need and but little desire to
appear before his subjects as a purchaser of houses, or as a trader in any
way (it is probably on this account that his name does not occur in the
above document). When he engaged in anything of the kind, it was
henceforth through agents. The only exception known is the
marriage-contract of his daughter Gigîtum, who espoused the high priest of
Nebo at Borsippa. The following is a translation of this document, as far
as it is preserved—
“Nabû-šum-ukîn, priest of Nebo, director of Ê-zida, son of
Širiktum-Marduk, descendant of Išdē-îlāni-dannu, said to
Nergal-šarra-uṣur, king of Babylon: ‘Give Gigîtum, thy virgin daughter, to
wifehood, and let her be my wife.’ Nergal-šarra-uṣur (said) to
Nabû-šum-ukîn, priest of Nebo, director of Ê-zida....”
(About twenty-eight lines are wanting here, the text becoming again
legible at the end of the list of witnesses on the reverse.)
“..., son of Nabû-šum-lišir, ...; ...-ri, son of Nabû-šarra-uṣur, the
judge (??);
“Nabû-šum-uṣur, the scribe, son of Aššur ... Babylon, month Nisan, day
1st, year 1st, (Nergal-šarra)-uṣur, king of Babylon. Copy of Ê-zida.”
The mutilation of the record is unfortunate, as the conclusion of the
matter cannot be ascertained, but it may be regarded as fairly certain
that Neriglissar really did give his daughter Gigîtum in marriage to
Nabû-šum-ukîn, for had it been otherwise, there would have been but little
need to draw up the document of which the fragment here translated has
been preserved to us. The remainder of the tablet was probably taken up
with the usual conditions—the penalty Nabû-šum-ukîn would have to pay
should he divorce or abandon his wife; the penalty Gigîtum would have to
suffer if she disowned or forsook her husband; directions with regard to
the amount and disposal of her dowry, etc. This and similar inscriptions
seem to suggest that Herodotus was probably wrongly informed with regard
to the compulsory nature of the public prostitution of unmarried women
which, he says, was practised in Babylonia, the expressions found in these
inscriptions often pointing, as in the present case, to a belief, on the
part of the bridegroom, in the chastity of the woman chosen by him to be
his wife.
The date corresponds with the Babylonian New Year’s Day, 559 B.C.
With this inscription we take leave of Neriglissar except as the ruler
whose name the scribes used to date by.
Though, according to Berosus, Laborosoarchod (Labāši-Marduk) was a mere
child when he came to the throne, there is no doubt, from the inscription
which follows, that he was old enough to have an establishment of his own,
and also to carry on the business of money-lender, Nabû-ṣabit-qâtâ (see p.
439) being his representative in the transactions in which he engaged. As
it is an inscription typical of its class, it is given here in full—
“12 mana of silver of the son of the king, which (has been advanced
through) the hand of Nabû-ṣabit-qâtâ, chief of the house of the son of the
king, is upon (_i.e._ due from) Šum-ukîn, son of Mušallim-îlu. In the
month Nisan the silver, 12 mana, in its full amount, he will repay.
Everything of his, in town and country, all there is, is the security of
the king’s son—another creditor shall not have power over it until
Nabû-sabit-qâtâ receives the money. Nabû-âḫê-iddina, son of Šulâ,
descendant of Êgibi, takes responsibility for the receipt of the money.
“Witnesses: Šamaš-uballiṭ, son of Ikîšâ; Kalbâ, son of Bêl-êreš; the
scribe Bêl-âḫê-ikîšâ, son of Bêl-êṭeru. Babylon, month Elul, day 10th,
year 2nd, Nergal-šarra-uṣur, king of Babylon.”
What the crown prince did, it goes without saying that all the court
officials sought to do. An instance of this is Bêl-âḫê-iddina, the king’s
captain, who is recorded as having lent 2/3 of a mana of silver to Ardîa
and Šulâ, at an interest of one shekel upon every mana monthly—twenty per
cent. yearly—a sufficiently high interest, though it was the usual rate in
Babylonia. This inscription is dated at Babylon, 7th day of Kisleu, 2nd
year of Neriglissar. It is noteworthy, however, that there is no mention
of interest in the document drawn up for Labāši-Marduk’s major-domo.
Interesting is the inscription in which two partners engage to meet two
other men, also partners, at the gate of the house of the king’s son to
come to an arrangement concerning profits which they had made _ša zallānu
u dusê_, _i.e._ with regard to two “lines” of leather goods (9th day of
Tammuz, 3rd year of Neriglissar). It also furnishes further testimony to
the fact that this prince had a separate establishment.
After Laborosoarchod’s nine months came the reign of Nabonidus, whom, as
will be remembered, the Babylonians and Cyrus, his conqueror, accused of
neglecting the gods, and sending them forth from their shrines to the
cities around. Perhaps his crime consisted in his preference for the gods
of other cities than Babylon, the city which Nebuchadnezzar’s lavish
favours had somewhat spoilt, and who resented her neglect at the hands of
the antiquarian king. However that may be, contemporary records show that
he gave to the benefit of Sippar, the city of the Sun-god, not
unfrequently. A mutilated inscription refers to full-grown oxen and sheep
from the son of the king, for the king’s sacrifices, divided between two
temples at Sippar, one of them being that of Anunitu[m] (7th of Adar, 9th
year of Nabonidus); and things from the _bît makkur nidinit šarri_
(“warehouse of the king’s gifts”) are often mentioned. Naturally he had to
make gifts to many shrines in Babylonia.
Whether the following refers to oxen for sacrifice or not is doubtful—
“20 shekels of silver have been given to Nabû-šarra-uṣur, the sec(retary)
of the king, for oxen for the husbandmen who are in the city Ḫa(buru). He
has not given the oxen. Month Nisan, day 16th, year 7th, Nabû-na’id, king
of Babylon.”
The above inscription comes from Sippar, near which the city referred to
must have stood.
Several inscriptions refer to the storehouse into which the king’s gift
was delivered. The following is a specimen of these texts—
“Fruit, the amount of the 10th year, Ana-âmat-Bêl-atkal has given into the
storehouse of the gift of the king. Month Kisleu, day 14th, year 10th,
Nabû-na’id, (king) of Êridu.
“35 _gur_, Šamaš-killi-anni.
“12 _gur_ 90 _qa_, Šum-ukîn and Rêmut.
“65 _gur_ 144 _qa_, Ikîšâ.
“45 _gur_ 72 _qa_, Kinâ.
“62 gur, Niqu(du).
“17 _gur_ 72 _qa_, ...
“Altogether 23(8 _gur_ 18 _qa_).”
This and other inscriptions, especially one referring to 250 _gur_ of
grain, shows that Nabonidus was fairly liberal to the temples at Sippar.
It is also very probable that he provided for the needful repairs of this
and other temples from time to time, one of the inscriptions (dated in his
third year) recording a contribution of half a talent and 7 mana of silver
for work done on the great temple-tower of Sippar, Ê-babbara, besides 8
mana 20 shekels of silver as tithe, seemingly for grain for the city
Ḫaburu, where, it is to be conjectured, an agricultural farm belonging to
one of the temples of Sippar was situated.(133)
It is not by any means improbable that Nabonidus had a residence at
Sippar, and if so, this would explain the reason of his favouring that
city, and at the same time add to the causes of the discontent of the
“sons of Babylon.” This is implied by a small tablet apparently inscribed
with an account of the receipts and expenditure of the temple Ê-babbara at
Sippar, which occupied the position of purveyor of water, and took the
place of the water-company of the cities of modern Europe—
“2 mana 13 shekels of silver, the price of the king’s water, which is from
Bêl-âbla-iddina, the overseer of(134) Kî-Bêl, the chief man of the king’s
water, has been brought by the hands of Šamaš-kain-âbli, son of Balatu.
“From the amount, 2 mana of silver have been given for 80 measures (?) of
oil to Nabû-uṣur-šu, son of Dummuq, descendant of Gaḫal, in the presence
of Kalbâ, the secretary. 13 shekels of silver are in the treasury.
“Silver, 2 mana, is with Nabû-dûr-pâniâ. Of the amount, 4 shekels of
silver have been paid for 2 _parrum_(135)-stones, which were given to
Aššur-rîmananni, son of Nabû-balaṭ-su-iqbî.
“Month later Adar, day 27th, year 6th, Nabû-na’id, king of Babylon.”
Another tablet, dated in Nabonidus’s accession year, indicates that the
temple supplied water, for a fixed sum, to a part of Sippar called “the
city of the Sun.”
From other tablets we obtain also information about the family of
Nabonidus. Most of them, as is to be expected, refer to Belshazzar, the
heir to the throne, who is conjectured to have been the second ruler in
the kingdom, thus explaining how it was that the position of “third ruler
in the kingdom” could be offered to the Prophet Daniel. Like the other
rulers of Babylonia, Nabonidus had granted to Belshazzar, or at least
permitted him to occupy, a separate house, which was situated within
Babylon, beside the house of Marduk-îriba, son of Rêmut, descendant of
Miṣrâa. From the inscription referring to this which has come down to us,
it may be conjectured that Marduk-îriba was a minor, and his sister,
Bau-êṭirat, therefore acted for him. Bêl-rêṣūa, servant of Belshazzar,
approached her and succeeded in acquiring her brother’s land for 45
shekels of silver, which was duly paid to Marduk-îriba. Though it is not
stated, this transaction probably took place on behalf of Belshazzar, who
wished to add to his possessions, and as it is dated in the month Adar, in
the 1st year of Nabonidus, it would seem that he decided to enlarge the
domain he was entitled to as crown prince shortly after he found himself
occupying that position.
Another tablet referring to Belshazzar is a contract drawn up for one of
his secretaries (on the one hand), by which he obtained the occupation of
a house in exchange for a loan of silver—a common arrangement in those
days in Babylonia. The following translation will enable the reader to see
the terms of this, the type of a numerous series of documents—
“The house of Nabû-âḫê-iddina, son of Šulá, descendant of Êgibi, which is
beside the house of Bêl-iddina, son of Rêmut, descendant of the _dikû_,
(is granted) for 3 years to Nabû-kain-âḫî, secretary of Bêl-šarra-uṣur,
the son of the king, for 1-½ mana of silver. He has let (it) upon (the
condition that) ‘there is no rent for the house, and no interest for the
money.’ He shall repair the woodwork and renew the dilapidation of the
house. After 3 years, the silver, 1-½ mana, Nabû-âḫê-iddina shall (re)pay
to Nabû-kain-âḫi, and Nabû-kain-âḫi shall leave the house in the
possession of Nabû-âḫê-iddina.”
Here follow the names of three witnesses and the scribe, after which comes
the date: “Babylon, month Nisan, day 21st, year 5th, Nabû-na’id, king of
Babylon.”
As the 1-½ mana of silver would have brought in 18 shekels at the usual
rate of interest, that sum may be taken as representing the rent of the
house in question.
Another inscription, dated two years later, shows that Nabû-kain-âḫi,
Belshazzar’s secretary, borrowed 35 shekels of silver from
Nabû-ṣabit-qâtâ, that prince’s major-domo, to purchase a slave, and that
the loan was duly repaid. The curious thing in connection with this
transaction is, that the money advanced is stated to be “tithe of Bêl,
Nebo, Nergal, and the lady (_i.e._ Ištar) of Erech,” implying that
Nabû-ṣabit-qâtâ was entitled to certain sums from this source, or else
that he had control of them, and could advance money to others therefrom.
Information concerning all the items of income and expenditure of the
temples would probably furnish interesting reading, showing, as it should,
who were the people who benefited from the funds available, and upon what
grounds.
It is noteworthy that, in these inscriptions referring to transactions
between the members of Belshazzar’s household, no interest seems to have
been charged on the loans granted; and if this was really so, it indicates
a considerable amount of loyalty among these men towards each
other—indeed, it is doubtful if it could be surpassed at the present day.
Strangest of all these contracts in which Belshazzar is mentioned, is
probably that in which the prince himself seems to appear as one of the
contracting parties—as a dealer in clothes. As it is the only one
referring to him thus, a translation of the inscription in question is
here given in full—
“20 mana of silver, the price of the garments(136) (which were) the
property of Bêl-šarra-uṣur, the son of the king, which (are due), through
Nabû-ṣabit-qâtâ, chief of the house of Bêl-šarra-uṣur, the son of the
king, and the secretaries of the son of the king, from Iddina-Marduk, son
of Ikîšā, descendant of Nûr-Sin. In the month Adar of the 1(1th) year, the
silver, 20 mana, he shall pay. His house, which is beside the
(plantation?), his slave, and his property in town and country, all there
is, is the security of Bêl-šarra-uṣur, the son of the king, until
Bêl-šarra-uṣur receives his money. (For) the silver, as much as (from the
sum) is withheld, interest he shall pay.
“Witnesses: Bêl-iddina, son of Rêmut, descendant of the _dikû_; Êtel-pî,
son of ..., descendant of ‘the father of the house’; Nadin, son of
Narduk-šum-uṣur, descendant of the master-builder; Nergal-ušallim, son of
Marduk-..., descendant of Gaḫal; Marduk-naṣir, son of Kur-..., descendant
of Dabibu; and the scribe, Bêl-âḫê-ikîša, son of Nabû-balat-su-iqbî.
Babylon, month ..., day 20th, year 11th, Nabû-na’id, king of Babylon.”
But Belshazzar did not confine himself to dealing in woollen stuffs or
clothes, as many another inscription indicates. This was but an
unimportant incident in his life which chance has preserved to us, and how
far the transaction may have taken place with (or without) his own
knowledge, it is impossible to say. For a considerable time, however, he
was with the army in Akkad, and whilst there, he interested himself
greatly in the welfare of the temples at Sippar, making donations to them,
not only on his own behalf, but also for his father. Thus, on the 11th of
Iyyar, in the 9th year of his father’s reign, he gave to the god Šamaš a
tongue of gold weighing one mana; and on the 7th of Adar of the same year
he gave two full-grown oxen for sacrifice (his father gave one on that
occasion), together with fourteen sheep, and in addition other sacrifices
were made on his and his father’s behalf in the temple of the goddess
Annunitum. The following little inscription, being rather out of the
common, is probably above the average in the matter of interest—
“1 shekel and a quarter of silver for the hire of a ship for 3 oxen and 24
sheep, the sacrifices of the king’s son, which went in the month Nisan for
Šamaš and the gods of Sippar.
“In the presence of Bêl-šarra-bulliṭ, who has given the offerings of the
king to Šamaš-iddina and Dannu-Âddu. He has given 60 _qa_ of fruit as
their offerings. Month Nisan, day 9th, year 10th, Nabû-na’id, king of
Babylon.”
Seemingly Belshazzar sent the sheep and oxen from his estate to Sippar by
water.
Interesting to an equal degree is likewise the inscription recording a
gift made by his sister—
“27 shekels of silver is the weight of one cup, tithe of
Ina-Ê-sagila-rêmat, the daughter of the king. By the hands of
Bêl-šarra-(bulliṭ), as a king’s offering, she has given (it) to the
god.... The cup is in the treasure-house.
“Month Ab, day 5th, year 17th, (Nabû-na’id) king of Babylon.”
Though this inscription is defective in places, there is every probability
that little or nothing more than the name of the god is wanting. The name
of Bêl-šarra-(bulliṭ) shows that the inscription must belong to the time
of Nabonidus, and, in fact, the initial wedges of his name are visible.
The name of a second daughter of Nabonidus seems to appear in another
inscription from Sippar, though, as it is rather carelessly written, this
is doubtful. Notwithstanding the uncertainty attending the name, however,
the inscription is worth quoting in full—
“3 _gur_ 75 _qa_ of sesame Ukabu’sama (?), daughter of the king, has sold,
through Tattanu, for silver, to Ê-babbara. The silver has not been
received.
“Month Ab, day 7th, year 16th, Nabû-na’id, king of Babylon.”
With this we take leave of Nabonidus and his family, as revealed by the
contracts and temple accounts from Babylon and Sippar. The picture these
and the historical inscriptions give of the Babylonian royal family is not
altogether unpleasing, and that this king, with his son, were the last
rulers of their race, is greatly to be regretted. But, alas, they had
offended the priesthood of Babylon, and all the people accepted, without a
murmur, the alien ruler, of a differing faith from theirs, who presented
himself, in hostile array, at their doors. It was the beginning of the end
of their life as a nation, and who shall say that they did not deserve it?
If they had made even a show of resistance, the world could hold them
excused, but this was not the case, as their own records show, and
whatever Nabonidus’s faults may have been, they do not attain to the
culpability of the nation, which, instead of protecting him—if for no
other reason, it ought to have done this for his son’s sake—practically
betrayed him to the enemy.
II.
So far, in depicting the life which the Jews, during the Captivity, must
daily have seen around them, we have given the tablets whereon the court
and its officials are referred to, and though these reveal certain phases
of life in Babylonia among the people, typical of the time, they can
hardly be held to show the life _of_ the people—those engaged in the
life-struggle of which every great city is the battlefield, and has been
the battlefield since the first gathering of large bodies of men in one
place.
Who among us can estimate the misery caused by the tearing away of the
slave from the home of the master with whom he had for many years dwelt in
content?—it must have far outweighed the few cases in which a slave in
those days benefited by such a change. That the loss of his slaves was
sometimes also a wrench to the owner is indicated by the fact that he is
generally—if not always—made to say, that he parts with them cheerfully.
He had to admit this for the satisfaction of the buyer, who naturally
feared that the old master would return and ask for the contract to be
annulled, saying that it was all a mistake on his part—he did not really
wish to get rid of them, and would like to have them back again.
Naturally the tablets do not reveal to us all this, nor the joys and
sorrows, the successes and the failures, which those great cities of the
ancient East must have contained. But they allow us to guess a great deal.
Did the man ever get the money back which he had lent? Did he receive the
money for the things he had sold and given credit for? These and other
similar questions are always occurring to the student of these documents,
which reveal always the grave side of life in that ancient land—never the
gay side—even a wedding, being a contract, was a thing much too serious to
allow its joyful nature to shine through at any point.
As the documents which best represent the character of the Babylonians are
the letters, it has been thought well to begin (as in the case of the
chapter upon the earlier Babylonians) with a few specimens of these, and
in the forefront the following may be cited as not unworthy of a prominent
place—
“Tablet of Nabû-zēr-ibnî to Ugarâ, Balaṭu, Nabû-bêl-šumāti, and
Šamaš-udammiq, his brothers.
“Now to Bêl and Nebo for the preservation of the life of my brothers I
pray.
“Bêl-epuš, who is along with you, is my brother. Whoever speaks his evil
words, as my brothers wish, let him be silent. As for him, from the
beginning to the end, brothers of each other are we. As warning to my
brothers I send this. Let my brothers do what is right. I should like to
see an answer (to this) letter from my brothers.”
Whether we are to substitute “friend” and “friends” for “brother” and
“brothers” is uncertain, but is very probable. In any case, the writer
would seem to show considerable courage in the course he was taking, as
well as confidence in the righteousness of his cause.
The following is apparently the letter of a father in poverty to his more
successful son—
“(Letter of) Iddina-âḫâ (to) Rêmūt, his son.
“May (Bêl) and Nebo bespeak peace and life for my son.
“He, my son, knoweth that there is no corn in the house. Let my son cause
2 or 3 _gur_ of corn to be brought by the hands of some one whom thou
knowest. Wilt thou not send by the hands of the boatman whom thou
indicatedst? As for him, (he is coming?) to me—send a gift, cause it to go
forth to (thy) father. To-day I pray Bêl and Nebo for the preservation of
the life of my son. Rêmat asks after the peace of Rêmūt, her son.”
The change from the third person to the second is noteworthy, and may have
been caused by the necessity of distinguishing between the son and the
messenger to whom the writer referred. Rêmat was evidently the writer’s
wife.
The following is a letter of a different nature, and leads to speculations
as to the state of things—
“Letter of Marduk-zēr-ibnî to Šulâ his brother.
“May Bêl and Nebo bespeak the peace of my brother.
“Why dost thou destroy my house? thou goest before the destruction of
thine (own) house. When thou hadst taken the responsibility of holding the
field, my field was sold, and the date-palms which I grow have been
destroyed. And thou (remainest) contented in thy house!(137) Now (as for)
the corn which I have planted in my field, thou (always) takest the whole.
I am now sending to my lord: Come, enter my field, and give me my
harvests. Behold, the corn which has been got ready thou (always)
deliverest: Ikîšā and Nabû-âḫa-iddina, if they wish, can take it. Speak to
the judges about it.”
Apparently the writer of the letter was vexed because his friend (and
lord) had not fulfilled his undertaking to look after his interests.
Letters of a business nature are not unfrequent, and are generally dry and
uninteresting. The character of the inscriptions of this class which least
exhibit these defects may be gathered from the following text, which also
has an interest because the sender was a slave. The original belongs to
the collection of tablets acquired by the late Sir Cuthbert Peek for his
father, the late Sir Henry Peek:—
“Letter from Dâan-bêl-uṣur to Širku, my lord. I pray to-day to Bêl and
Nebo for the preservation of the life of my lord.
“Concerning the lambs which my lord sent, Bêl and Nebo indeed know that
there is a lamb (for them) from thee. I have made the irrigation-channel
and the wall. Behold, send thy servant with the sheep and thy servant with
the lambs, and a command that they may cause a sheep to be brought up as
an offering (?) to Nebo (?), for I have not acquired a single lamb for
money. (On) the 20th day I worked for Šamaš; lo, (there were) 56—I caused
20 head to be bought for my lord from his hand. (As for) the garlic for
the governor, which my lord bought, the lord of the fields (? the chief
overseer), when he came, took possession of (it), and it was sold to the
governor of the district of our fields for silver, but enough (?) thereof
I have retained (?); and as my lord said thus: ‘Why hast thou not sent the
messenger? the ground is suitable (?)—I sent thee a number (?) of (them).’
Let one messenger take thy message (?), and depart.”
Portions of this inscription, especially towards the end, being very
obscure, the translation is not so sure as could be wished. Nevertheless,
it may be taken as indicating fairly well the drift of the whole, and thus
answer the purpose for which it is given, namely, to show what texts of
this class generally refer to, and how excellently they reveal to us the
conditions of Babylonian life at the time when they were written.
This tablet belongs to the reign of Darius Hystaspis, and is addressed to
one of the most prominent men of Babylon at the time, Širku, otherwise
“Marduk-naṣir-âblu, son of Iddinā, descendant of Êgibi.”(138) He was an
active man, and his business transactions, which begin, as far as we have
record of them, in the third year of the king named, consist of the usual
loans, exchanges, purchases, sales, agreements, etc., which exist in large
numbers during this period. In the third year of Darius he seems to have
been in Elam, perhaps upon business of state, the name of a high
Babylonian official being mentioned on the tablet which records this fact.
Later on, he comes before us as a large owner and dealer in ships, some of
which, of small size, he seems to have used for the construction of a
bridge of boats. He owned Dâan-bêl-uṣur, the writer of the tablet
translated above, Nanaa-bêl-uṣri, his wife, and their six children, who
dwelt on his property in the city of Šuppatum. On one occasion, as
recorded on a tablet in the Louvre, they formed part of the security for a
sum of 45 mana of silver, advanced by Širku to Šarru-dûri, “the king’s
captain, son of Idra’.” Further references to both master and slave will
be found farther on.
As the tablets referring to life at Babylon are exceedingly numerous, and
many of them have special interesting points of their own, a few selected
specimens are here translated, and may be regarded as characteristic and
typical in their class and subject.
A Loan Granted On Security At Erech.
“One mana of silver of Nabû-banî-âḫi, son of Ablaa, son of the gatekeeper,
unto Bâbîa, son of Marduk-êreš, and Ša-Nanaa-šî, his wife. The door of the
gatekeepers of the Salimu-gate, and his property, of (both) town and
country, all there is, are the security of Nabû-banî-âḫi.
“Witnesses: Bêl-âḫê-iddina, son of Gudadū; Nabû-zēr-ukin, son of Sumâ;
Nabû-zēr-ikîša, son of Ginnâ; and the scribe Mušêzib-Bêl, son of
Nanaa-têreš. Erech, month Tisri, day 15th, year 21st, Nabû-kudurri-usur,
king of Babylon.”
In all probability, the possession of the door carried with it the right
of receiving any toll or dues connected therewith. As Nabû-banî-âhi, the
lender, belonged to the family or clan of gatekeepers, he would not be
regarded altogether as an interloper. The name of one of the borrowers,
Bâbîa, “my gate,” is suggestive, and shows the enthusiasm of his parents
for their profession.
The Work Upon A Plantation.
“144 _qa_ (is the amount needed for) the seeding of the plantation of
Nabû-šum-lîšir, which Nabû-šar-îlāni has taken for cultivation.(139)
(During) 4 years, everything, whatever grows on the date-palms and in the
earth, belongs to Nabû-šar-îlāni; (during the succeeding 4 ?) years a
third, and 4 years (after that) a fourth. Nabû-šum-lîšir with
Nabû-šar-îlāni (?) ... 10 years Nabû-šar-îlāni ... gardener of
Nabû-šum-lîšir ... everything, whatever (gro)ws in the earth, belongs to
Nabû-šar-îlāni.
“(The duty) of doing the work, digging (the irrigation-channels), raising
(?) embankments (?), protecting the plantation, restoring what is wanting
of the date-palms, raising water, Nabû-šar-îlāni undertakes. (If) he
contravene (this contract), he shall compensate (to the extent of) 1 mana
of silver.”
Here follow the names of three witnesses and the scribe, the date being—
“City of Sûqâain, month Elul, day 26th, year 11th, Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, king
of Babylon.”
Sale Of An Ass.
“The ass of Ârad-Meme, son of Gimillu, descendant of Êpeš-ili, he (the
owner) has sold to Šubabu-sara’, son of Temišâa, for half a mana six and a
half shekels of silver. Êtillu, son of Rêmut, descendant of Dabibi (and)
Nergal-iddina, son of Dâanu-Marduk, descendant of Lugal-arazū, guarantee
the serviceableness of the ass. It is a branded ass, upon whose front is a
mark.”
Here come the names of three witnesses and the scribe, followed by the
date—
“City of the land of Ṣuma’, (or Ṣuba’), month Tammuz, day 16th, year 40th,
Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, king of Babylon.”
From a tablet in the Edinburgh Museum it would seem that asses were
branded to distinguish them, and that, in place of a mere mark, the name
of the owner was somehow impressed. Cattle were marked with the letters of
the Aramaic alphabet.
Jews And Babylonians During The Captivity.
“When Nabû-na’id, son of Nabû-gamil, brings his witness, and proves to
Aâḫḫa’u, son of Šanîāwa, that Nabû-na’id has given the proceeds of 2-½
mana of silver to Aâḫḫa’u and Baruḫi-îlu, (then) the profit which has been
made with them (the 2-½ mana) belongs to Nabû-na’id, and all right to the
share which belongs to him remains—one do. (? share) (belongs to) Aâḫḫa’u.
If the witness do not prove it, his property, as much as Nabû-na’id has
taken, one do. (? share) he will return and will give to Aâḫḫa’u.
“Witnesses: Iddina-Marduk, son of Akkîa, Yašum-ma, son of Âḫê-šu;
Balaṭ-su, son of Âḫê-šu, and the scribe, Nabû-âḫê-iddina, son of Êgibi.
Upê (Opis), month Tammuz, day 21st, year 40th, Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, king of
Babylon.”
Apparently it was a dispute about profits, which was to be settled, as was
usual in such cases, by producing a witness. Šanîāwa is one of those names
ending in _iāwa_ which were certainly not Babylonian, and which are
generally regarded as Israelite, like Šubunu-yāwa = Shebaniah;
Nathanu-yāwa = Nathaniah, and many others; and its later form would
probably be Shaniah. Baruḫi-îlu is probably for Baruchiel, and, if so,
would show that the pronunciation of the aspirated _k (ch)_ as _ḫ (kh)_,
common among Jews on the Continent and in the East, is of very ancient
date.
The Dead Slave.
“On the 5th day of the month Kisleu, Šarru-kînu, son of Ammanu, will bring
his witness to the city Piqudu (Pekod), and he will testify to Idiḫi-îli,
son of Dînâ, that Idiḫi-îli sent to Šarru-kînu thus: ‘Do not litigate
against me concerning thy slave who was killed—I will make up to thee the
life of thy slave.’ If he prove it, Idiḫi-îli shall pay to Šarru-kînu 1
mana of silver, the price of his slave. If he do not prove it (he is
free).”
After the names of three witnesses and the scribe, is the date—
“Upê, month Marcheswan, day 7th, year 40th, Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, king of
Babylon.”
A Right Of Way.
“Marduk-iriba, son of Rêmut, descendant of the Miṣirite,(140) and Kalbâ,
son of Balaṭu, descendant of the chief of the construction (?), in their
going forth, shall go forth over the brook; they have no power over the
exit of the wall of the house of Nabû-âḫê-iddina, son of Šulâ, descendant
of Êgibi; the exit of the wall of the house of Nabû-âḫê-iddina belongs to
Nabû-âḫê-iddina.”
Here come the names of five witnesses, including the scribe, and then the
date—
“Babylon, month of the later Adar, day 24th, year 1st, Nabû-na’id,(141)
king of Babylon.”
The Story Of Abil-Addu-Nathanu And Bunanitum.
This is contained, as far as it is preserved, on a series of five tablets,
four of which are in the British Museum, and the fifth in the Museum of
Art at New York. Abil-Addu-nathānu would seem, from his name, which would
be the West-Semitic Ben-Hadad-nathan, to have come from Damascus, and
settled at Babylon, and afterwards at Borsippa. His wife Bunanitum (or
Bunanith) was to all appearance a Babylonian.
The Purchase Of The House At Borsippa.
“7 canes, 5 cubits, 18 fingers, a built house, the territory of a
plantation(142) which is within Borsippa, which Dâan-šum-iddina, son of
Zērîa, descendant of Nabâa, has bought from Ibâ, son of Zillâ, descendant
of the carpenter, for 11-½ mana of silver, for the price complete, by the
authority of Abil-Addu-nathānu, son of Addîa, and Bunanitu, his wife,
daughter of Ḫariṣâa. That house he has received, the silver of
Abil-Addu-nathānu and Bunanitu as the price of the house has been given.
Dâan-šum-iddina has no share in the house or the silver. The tablet which
Dâan-šum-iddina has sealed in his name, he has given to Abil-Addu-nathānu
and Bunanitu. The day a copy of the sealed document of the purchase or any
contract for that house appears in the house of Dâan-šum-iddina or in any
other place, it belongs to Abil-Addu-nathānu and Bunanitu.”
Here follow the names of four witnesses and two scribes. The date is—
“Babylon, month Shebat, day 24th, year 2nd, Nabû-na’id, king of Babylon.”
The agent through whom the purchase was made has to declare that no part
of the property or the money belonged to him, hence the final clause of
the contract, which was intended to prevent trouble at any future time.
At the end are the seal-impressions of the two scribes.
The Loan To Make Up The Sum Required To Purchase The Property.
“1-½ mana 8-½ shekels of silver of Iddina-Marduk, son of Ikîšā, descendant
of Nûr-Sin, upon (= due from) Abil-Addu-nathānu, son of Addîa, and
Bunanitu, his wife. It increases to them monthly at the rate of 1 shekel
of silver upon each mana. They shall pay the interest from the month Sivan
of the 5th year of Nabû-na’id, king of Babylon. The silver was the balance
of the silver for the price of a house, which was paid to Ibâ. They shall
pay the interest monthly.”
After the names of two witnesses and the scribe comes the date—
“Barsip (Borsippa), month Iyyar, day 3rd, year 5th, Nabû-na’id, king of
Babylon.”
As this tablet was written two years and three months after the house at
Borsippa was bought, it is clear that the money had been advanced, but the
indebtedness of Abil-Addu-nathānu had not been placed, until the date of
the second tablet, on a legal footing. Probably he intended to pay the
money, but had not the wherewithal, and this being the case, the lender
agreed to allow the debt to remain unpaid, stipulating only that the
interest should be paid at the usual rate of one mana upon every mana
monthly. As will be seen from the other documents, the principal was not
paid for many years after this. There is no record whether any payment of
interest had been made in the meanwhile, but, in any case, the rate is far
beyond what at the present time is considered fair.
A First Payment Made After The Death Of Abil-Addu-Nathānu.
This is a small tablet similar in shape to the last, and is now preserved
in the Museum of Art at New York.
“8 shekels of silver Iddina-Marduk, son of Ikîšā, descendant of Nûr-Sin,
has received from the hands of Bunanitu, with the first payment, which
(has been made) since the death of Ablada-nathanu, her husband, from the
interest of his money. In the presence of Tabnêa, son of Nabū-âḫê-iddina,
descendant of the priest of ...; Nabû-kain-âbli, son of Marduk-šum-ibnî,
descendant of Dannu-Nabû. Barsip (Borsippa), month Adar, day 18th, year
8th, Nabû-na’id, king of Babylon.
“There is to be no abatement (?).”
As the loan was contracted in the second year of Nabonidus, it cannot be
said that Iddina-Marduk had been by any means pressing in the matter. The
numerous documents which exist show that the Babylonians were good at
making contracts, but they were probably not so strict in keeping them,
and certainly not so merciless (to judge from the history here unfolded)
as the people of the modern West in enforcing them.
The phonetic spelling of the name of the husband, Ablada-nathānu, is
interesting, as it shows the Babylonian pronunciation. Ben-Addu-nathan,
however, was a possible form, and may have been even a fairly common one.
The Legal Action After The Death Of Abil-Addu-Nathānu.
“Bunanitu, daughter of Ḫariṣâa, said thus to the judges of Nabû-na’id,
king of Babylon—
“ ‘Abil-Addu-nathān, son of Nikmadu’, had me to wife, and he took 3-½ mana
of silver as my dowry, and one daughter I bore to him. I and
Abil-Addu-nathān, my husband, traded with the silver of my dowry, and we
bought 8 canes, a built house, the territory of a large property,(143)
which was within Barsip, for 9-2/3 of a mana of silver, with 2-½ mana of
silver which was from Iddina-Marduk, son of Ikîšā, descendant of Nûr-Sin,
as balance, and we fixed (it) as the price of that house, and we paid and
received it together. In the 4th year of Nabû-na’id, king of Babylon, I
made an agreement with Abil-Addu-nathān, my husband, concerning my dowry,
and Abil-Addu-nathān, in the kindness of his heart, sealed the 8 canes,
(and) that house which is within Barsip, and bequeathed it to me for
future days, and on my tablet made it known thus: ‘2-½ mana of silver,
which Abil-Addu-nathān and Bunanitu took from Iddina-Marduk, and paid as
the price of that house, they received together.’ He sealed that tablet,
and wrote thereon the curse of the great gods. In the 5th year of
Nabû-na’id, king of Babylon, I and Abil-Addu-nathān, my husband, took
Abil-Addu-amara as our son, and wrote the tablet of his sonship, and made
known 2 mana 10 shekels of silver and the furniture of a house as the
dowry of Nûbtâ, my daughter. Fate took my husband, and now Aqabi-îlu, the
son of my father-in-law, has laid claim upon the house and everything
which had been sealed and bequeathed to me, and upon Nabû-nûr-îli, (the
slave) whom we had acquired by the hands of Nabû-âḫê-iddina for silver. I
have brought it before you, make a decision.
“The judges heard their words, they read the tablets and contracts which
Bunanitu brought before them, and they caused Aqabi-îlu not to have power
over the house at Barsip, which had been bequeathed to Bunanitu instead of
her dowry, over Nabû-nûr-îli, whom she and her husband had bought for
silver, or over anything of Abil-Addu-nathānu; Bunanitu and
Abil-Addu-amara, by their tablets, they caused to be confirmed.
Iddina-Marduk pleads for (?), and will receive, the 2-½ mana of silver
which had been given towards the price of that house. Afterwards Bunanitu
will receive the 3-½ mana of silver, her dowry, and her share besides.
Nûbtâ will receive Nabû-nûr-îli, according to the contracts of her father.
“By the decision of this judgment.
“Nergal-banû-nu, the judge, son of the builder;
“Nabû-âḫê-iddina, the judge, son of Êgibi;
“Nabû-šum-ukîn, the judge, son of Irani;
“Bêl-âḫê-iddina, the judge, son of ...
“Bêl-êṭir, the judge, son of ...
“Nabû-balaṭ-su-iqbî, the judge, son of ...
“Nadinu, the scribe, son of ...
“Nabû-šum-iškun, the scribe, son of the ...
“Babylon, month Elul, day 26th, year 9th, Nabûna’id, king of Babylon.”
Two copies of this document exist, neither of them being the original.
They were probably made for persons interested in the result of the
judgment.
It has been suggested that the claim of Aqabi-îlu to all his brother’s
property was based upon the fact that he was the eldest of the family.
This, however, is hardly likely to have been the case, the Babylonian law
concerning the wife’s dowry—_i.e._ that it was her own in any event—being
clear and incontrovertible. The probability therefore is, that he claimed
the property hoping that she might not be able to prove her right. The
clear statements of this document, and the common-sense judgment delivered
by Nabonidus’s judges are full of simplicity and dignity, and show well
the Babylonian character.
The Final Repayment Of The Loan To Iddina-Marduk.
A tablet recording the payment of interest has already been translated (p.
461), and from that it would seem that no repayment on account of the
money lent to Abil-Addu-nathānu and Bunanitu took place until after the
former’s death. When the last payment was made is unknown, but it must
have been some time after the lawsuit. From the portion of the tablet
recording it, it would seem that the amount remaining to be paid was 2
mana and 10 shekels, which was paid jointly by Abil-Addu-amari and
“Bunaniti, his mother,” who probably lived on the property with him and
her daughter.
Thus ends the life-story of this Babylonian family, as far as at present
known.
In addition to the names Abil-addu-nathānu and Abil-Addu-amara (or
-amari), both of which contain the name of the deity Abil-Addu or
Ben-Hadad, the name of the brother, Aqabi-îlu, is interesting. It is
naturally a synonym of a Hebrew name found under the form of Aqabi-yāwa,
the Talmudic Aqabiah, with _-yāwa_ or _-iāwa_ for _-iah_, as in Šanîāwa,
which appears on p. 458.
Ê-Sagila-Râmat And Her Father-In-Law’s Slave.
“Ikîšā, son of Kudurru, descendant of Nûr-Sin, sealed a tablet of adoption
for Rêmanni-Bêl, his slave, whose name is called Rêmut, for the giving of
his food and his clothing. Rêmanni-Bêl, whose name is called Rêmut, after
he had sealed the tablet of his adoption, ran away, and he did not give
him food, oil, and clothing. Ê-sagila-râmat, daughter of Zērîa, descendant
of Nabâa, wife of Iddina-Marduk, son of Ikîšā, descendant of Nûr-Sin,
reverenced him, feared him, and befriended him, and gave him food, oil,
and clothing. Ikîšā, son of Kudurru, descendant of Nûr-Sin, in the joy of
his heart, annulled the tablet of the adoption of Rêmanni-Bêl, and sealed
and bequeathed him to Ê-sagila-râmat and Nûbtâ, her daughter, daughter of
Iddina-Marduk, descendant of Nûr-Sin. He shall reverence Ê-sagila-râmat
and Nûbtâ, her daughter. Afterwards Ê-sagila-râmat shall leave him to
Nûbtâ, her daughter. Whoever changes these words, and destroys the
contract Ikîšā has drawn up and given to Ê-sagila-râmat and Nûbtâ, her
daughter, may Merodach and Zēr-panitum command his destruction.”
The names of four witnesses and the scribe follow. Date: “Babylon, month
Iyyar, day 9th, year 13th, Nabû-na’id, king of Babylon.” Postscript: “At
the sitting of Bissā, daughter of Ikîšā, descendant of Nûr-Sin.”
From this it would seem that Ikîšā made Rêmanni-Bêl his heir, freeing him
from the position of a bondsman, in exchange for his (Ikîšā’s) keep, but
that Rêmanni-Bêl, declining the advantage and the responsibility, ran
away, whereupon the burden fell upon Ikîšā’s daughter-in-law,
Ê-sagila-râmat. This the last-named seems to have undertaken willingly,
and in return, Ikîšā annulled Rêmanni-Bêl’s adoption, and bequeathed him,
as a slave, to Ê-sagila-râmat and her daughter. Means probably existed for
bringing back the runaway, when the news of his return to his old
condition would be communicated to him. Ê-sagila-râmat’s husband,
Iddina-Marduk, is the one who advanced to Abil-Addu-nathānu and Bunanitu
the money to make up the price of their house.
Iddina-Nabû Sells His Egyptian Slave And Her Infant.
“Iddina-Nabû, son of Mušêzib-Bêl, has cheerfully sold Nanaa-ittîa, his
slave, and her daughter, a child of three months, Egyptians captured by
his bow, for 2 mana of silver, the complete price, to Itti-Marduk-balaṭu,
son of Nabû-âḫê-iddina, descendant of Êgibi. Iddina-Nabû has received the
money, 2 mana of silver, the price of Nanaa-ittîa and her daughter, from
the hands of Itti-Marduk-balaṭu. Iddina-Nabû guarantees against the
existence of any liability of defeasor (?), legal claimant, royal service,
or freedmanship with regard to Nanaa-ittîa and her daughter.”
Here come the names of four witnesses and the scribe.
“Babylon, month Kisleu, day 23rd, year 6th, Kambuzîa (Cambyses), king of
Babylon.
“Besides the contract of 240 gur of fruit, from Itti-Marduk-balaṭu, which
was unto (or due from) Iddina-Nabû.”
This document may be held to testify to the reality of Cambyses’ campaign
in Egypt, which took place in his 5th year (525 B.C.). It is also a proof
that the Babylonians took part in the campaign.
It is noteworthy that three copies of this document exist, one being in
the British Museum, another in the Museum of Art at New York, and the
third in the museum founded by the late Sir Henry Peek at Lyme Regis. The
tablet recording the contract for the 240 gur of fruit also exists, and is
preserved in the British Museum.
Among the tablets of the time of Nabonidus, translations of all the
records known which refer to the family of Ben-Hadad-nathan or
Abil-Addu-nāthanu have been given, and examination of the numerous other
tablets of the reigns of his predecessors and his successors down to the
time of Darius, and perhaps Xerxes, shows that similar more or less
complete family histories could be made. One of the most interesting of
these, and the most complete on account of the number of documents (by far
the greater number of the contracts from Babylon and its neighbourhood, of
the period to which he belongs, contain his name) are those referring to
Širku, a tablet from whose slave Dâan-bêl-uṣur has been given above (p.
454). This man’s history has been tentatively dealt with by the present
author in Part IV. of the catalogue of tablets belonging to the late Sir
Henry Peek. From a tablet in the Louvre, we find that Širku was not his
real name, but that he was called Marduk-naṣir-âbli. The curious thing
about this double naming of Širku, however, is that the majority of the
tablets where he is called Širku say that he was the son of Iddina, and
the majority of those calling him Marduk-naṣir-âbli say that he is the son
of Itti-Marduk-balaṭu. Fortunately documents exist reversing this
parentage, and showing conclusively that Širku and Marduk-naṣir-âbli are
one and the same personage. Were it otherwise, we should have to credit
his slaves with two masters, and his wife with two husbands, a state of
things probably unknown in Babylonia.
From a tablet dated in the first year of Darius, we learn that he bought a
field before the great gate of Uraš in the province of Babylon, this field
being beside that of his wife Âmat-Bau, which she had brought as her
dowry. Other documents record that he made loans of silver and produce,
both alone and associated with his brothers. In these his proper name is
generally used, but sometimes he was called Širku. The hiring and letting
of houses, the buying and selling of slaves, etc., are also recorded of
them. In the third year of Darius he and his brothers came into
considerable property in Babylon, sharing it among them, and there is also
record of Marduk-naṣir-âbli paying his father’s debts. This increase in
their resources naturally enabled them to deal in the produce of their
fields, and in all probability they managed his wife’s as well, whilst
there is at least one record that she lent money on her own account. To
enumerate all the interesting points which the tablets reveal to us
concerning their various transactions, however, would naturally take too
much time and space.
In exchange for the slave Dâan-bêl-uṣur, the slave’s wife, their six
children, and a cornfield upon the canal called Ṭupašu, which
Marduk-naṣir-âbli gave to his wife Âmat-Bau, he received from her two sums
of silver and one of gold, a ring, and two slaves, who had been part of
her dowry. The slaves he gave her, though now her property, were in all
probability still at his disposition, but Dâan-bêl-uṣur seems to have
served him so well when in charge of his affairs, that after having parted
with him, though only to his wife, he must have found, to his regret, that
he and his family were naturally not so much at his disposition as when he
could call them his own.
Under the name of Marduk-naṣir-âbli, he appears before us principally in
the character of an agriculturalist and dealer in produce, combining with
this money-lending on occasion. As Širku, he dealt largely in ships, and
apparently also in boats for pontoon bridges. In the fifth year of Darius
he was in Elam, and there is a reference to the sending to him of a
messenger, “with the charioteers of Bêl-âbla-iddina, captain of Babylon.”
Many years afterwards Širku is said to have received the rent of a house
situated “upon the _giššu_ of Borsippa,” and the question naturally
arises, whether _giššu_ may not be for _gišru_, “bridge,” though a house
upon a bridge crossing a comparatively narrow canal near Babylon is
certainly not what one would expect.
On the 16th of Sivan in the twenty-sixth year of Darius, Širku was the
scribe who drew up a contract referring to two ships, one apparently for
service on the Euphrates, the other for the bridge. Later on, he borrowed
some money upon the security of two of his female slaves, Mušêzibtum and
Narû, the wrist of the former being inscribed with the name of one of his
relations, the other with his own name, Širku (it is given as Šišku on the
tablet). This loan is distinctly stated to be for the purpose of acquiring
“a ship for the bridge” (_êlippu ša giširi_), and this he seems to have
bought two months later, unless there was another contract for a vessel
which has not come down to us. In the Peek collection is a large tablet
referring to the completed bridge, the traffic upon it, and the ships
moored to it, suggesting that a portion of it at least was used as a quay
or landing-stage. More research is needed, however, ere its precise nature
will be clear—perhaps the etymology is misleading, and _gišru_ or _giširu_
means, in Babylonian, “pier” or “landing-stage” simply.
The following is one of the inscriptions which refer to his hiring a ship—
“(Concerning) the ship of Iddina-Bêl which is with Šamaš-iddina, son of
Bêl-iddina, for navigation. He has given the ship for hire as far as
_bištum ša ṣêrûa_ (= _birtum ša ṣêrûa_, ‘the fortress of _ṣêrûa_’) for 1/3
of a mana of white silver, coined, to Širik (Širku), son of Iddinā,
descendant of Êgibi. The silver, 1/3 of a mana, the hire of the ship, and
its provisions, he has received. The ship shall not cross the great
(water), if it pass, he shall pay 5 mana of silver. Each has taken (a copy
of this contract).”
The names of three witnesses and the scribe follow this, after which is
the date—
“Babylon, month Adar, day 6th, year 26th, Darius, king of Babylon and
countries.”
The tablets in which Marduk-naṣir-âbli, _alias_ Širku, are mentioned,
prove that Babylonia maintained its character as a maritime nation to a
very late date. As, however, voyages on the ocean are not provable, it is
doubtful whether their ships sailed to any great distance—in all
probability they confined themselves to making coast-voyages only. Judging
from the penalty attached to taking the ship across the great (water), the
question naturally arises, whether the sea (the Persian Gulf) may not have
been intended. The word used in the original is _rabbu_, which would then
correspond with the last word of the poetic expression, “the rolling
main.”
Such, as far as space allows, was life at Babylon and the chief cities of
Babylonia, where the Israelites dwelt for so many years, and colonies of
them existed until a very late date, as the drinking bowls inscribed with
charms against sickness and evil spirits in Hebrew and Aramaic show. Some
of the Hebrew names contained in the tablets from Babylonia have already
been referred to (p. 458), and to these several others may be added, such
as Banāwa or Beniah; Gamariāwa or Gemariah; Malakiāwa or Malchiah, who had
a son bearing the heathen name of Nergal-êṭir; together with several
similarly-formed but otherwise unknown names (as was to be expected).
Examples of these are, Azziāwa, Ḫuliāwa, Nirîāwa and Agirîāwa. The
Gemariah mentioned above was witness, with his compatriot Barikîa
(Berechiah) and others, on the occasion when Ša-Nabû-duppu sold
Nanaa-silim, his Bactrian slave-girl. The scribe’s name on this occasion
was Marduka (Mordecai), son of Épeš-îli. Mordecai means “the Merodachite,”
and is interesting as showing how Babylonian monotheism, such as it was,
reconciled the Jews to accept what they would otherwise have regarded as a
heathen name.
Interesting in the extreme would it be, if we could know what the Jews
thought of the country and the city of their captivity. In that enormous
walled tract known as the city of Babylon were large open spaces covered
with gardens, and cornfields, and orchards, mostly, perhaps almost
exclusively, of date-palms, the fruit of which formed such an important
part of the food of the people. These were the trees, in all probability,
on which the Jewish captives hung their harps when, in their captivity,
they mourned for the city of Sion, from which they were so far away. The
rivers of Babylon, of which the well-known psalm speaks, were the Tigris
and the Euphrates, with the innumerable canals and watering-channels which
the nature of the country rendered so necessary to the fertility and
productiveness of the land, and without which it would have been a desert.
There, too, they looked upon the buildings of old time, the fanes which
were there when their forefather Abraham was a dweller in the land,
changed, doubtless, beyond recognition. Chief among these was the great
temple of Belus, joined to the tower called “the temple of the foundation
of heaven and earth,” and which Nebuchadnezzar speaks of as “the tower of
Babylon.” There, too, were the shrines dedicated to Zēr-panitum, consort
of Merodach, the goddess Nin-maḫ; Nebo, the god of wisdom; Sin, the
Moon-god; Šamaš, the Sun-god; Gula, the goddess of healing, and many other
divinities. Whilst the Jews were there, they must have seen many of this
king’s building operations—the strengthening of the fortresses and the
walls, and the repair and extension of the moats and ditches; the raising
of the level of the great street, Aa-ibûr-sabû (the remains of which have
just been found by the German explorers on the site of the city), along
which, yearly, at the beginning of the year, processions went, and the
images of the gods were in all probability carried. Then there was the
rebuilding of the royal palace, with its roof and doors of cedar, the
latter being also overlaid with bronze, probably after the manner of the
bronze gates of Shalmaneser found by Mr. Rassam at Balawat. The thresholds
were also of bronze, and the palace was adorned, in other parts, with
gold, silver, precious stones, and various other costly things.
They must have seen, also, the construction, between the two great
fortifications called Imgur-Bêl and Nē-mitti-Bêl, of that great building
which was to serve as a castle and a royal residence at the same time.
This was in connection with the old palace of Nabopolassar,
Nebuchadnezzar’s father, built, as already stated, in a fortnight. Chief
among the shrines restored by Nebuchadnezzar with great magnificence must
be mentioned Ê-kua, the sanctuary of Merodach, in the temple Ê-sagila (the
temple of Belus), and that called Du-azaga (“the glorious seat”),
otherwise described as “the place of fate,” where yearly, on the new
year’s festival (the 8th and 9th of Nisan) the statue of the god Merodach,
“the king of the gods of heaven and earth,” was placed, and the king’s
future declared on the question being put. Doubtless the glory of the
place attracted not a few, causing them to decide to stay there
permanently, and these, mingling with the native population, were lost to
Israel, like their brethren of the ten tribes, and even as Nergal-êṭir,
son of Malakiāwa (see above) seems to have been.
CHAPTER XIII. THE DECLINE OF BABYLON.
The Jews who remained at Babylon and other cities of the
land—Alexander the Great’s intentions with regard to the city, and
the result of their non-fulfilment—A Babylonian lamentation dated
in the reign of Seleucus Nicator and his son—The desolation of the
city after the foundation of Seleucia—The temples still
maintained—Antiochus Epiphanes and the introduction of Greek
worship—His invasion of Egypt—The Arsacidæ—A contract of the time
of Hyspasines—Materials for history—Further records of the time of
the Arsacidæ—The latest date of Babylonian worship—The Christians
of Irak or Babylonia.
Notwithstanding the return of large numbers of Jews to Jerusalem, a
considerable portion of the nation had become attached to the land of
their captivity, and remained in Babylon and the other cities of Chaldea,
as well as in Persia. These, no longer captives, but settlers by their own
free will, had probably decided to stay in the land either from the desire
to continue the businesses which they had started there, the relinquishing
of which would have meant, in all probability, ruin to themselves and
their families; or because of aged relatives for whom the journey to
Jerusalem, however much they might have desired it, would have been an
impossibility; or because of official and civil positions which they held
either at court or in the employment of rich or influential personages, by
whose support they hoped to be able to aid their compatriots; or because
of the attractions of a great city, whose origins must for them have
possessed a special interest (notwithstanding the horrors of the captivity
which their forebears must have experienced there), and whose position for
thousands of years as the capital of a large province gave it a
preponderating influence, not only in the country of which it was the
capital, but in all the civilized world at the time.
This being the case, there numbers of the Jews stayed, and there they
witnessed the gradual departure of the sceptre from that city which one of
their own writers had described as the glory of kingdoms, and the beauty
of the Chaldees’ excellency. After the passing of the kingdom into the
hands of the alien Persian kings, things went on as usual under their rule
for a considerable time—the people lived on their land, and bought and
sold, and transacted their ordinary business, and trade seems to have been
good (judging from the number of documents which have been preserved)
until the end of the reign of Darius Hystaspis. Thereafter there was
either a great falling off, or else the documents were deposited in other
places, or a more perishable material was used for them. In any case, they
become comparatively scarce, and their rarity may be due to the departure
of trade from the capital, brought about by the removal of the court from
Babylon, and the consequent migration of her merchants to other places.
Things had been going, in fact, from bad to worse for Babylon, and among
the clay records left, some of the royal names which we should like to see
are to all appearance absent. It was still, however, a place of great
importance, when, in the year 331 B.C., it opened its gates to Alexander
the Great, surrendering, like Susa and Persepolis, without striking a
blow. Doubtless to them it was perfectly indifferent under which foreign
potentate they lived, and a change in that respect could not make their
condition worse, and might be to their advantage. Had he not died long
before the term which nature has fixed, the city might have taken upon it
such a renewed lease of life as would have caused it to exist as a great
capital to the present day. As it happened, the Babylonians began to see
their fondest hopes realized, for it must soon have become noised abroad
that the new conqueror of Asia intended to make Babylon his Eastern
capital, and they saw the clearing away of the rubbish which was the
preliminary to the restoration of the great and renowned temple of Belus,
Ê-sagila (or Ê-sangil as they called it at that time), actually
proceeding, not only during the reign of Alexander, but also during that
of his successor, Philip, as well. The mental calibre of the latter,
however, who came to the throne on the death of Alexander in the year 323
B.C., must soon have told the Babylonians that the realization of his
great predecessor’s schemes was hopeless, and the downward course of the
city’s star, arrested as it were for a moment, soon began again.
The next change of rulers was that following upon the unworthy bearing of
Antigonus with regard to Seleucus, Alexander the Great’s favoured general,
who had espoused his claims to the throne of the Eastern empire. After
aiding Ptolemy of Egypt against Demetrius, son of Antigonus, he set out
with a small force, and gathering recruits in his course, especially among
the Babylonians, with whom he was popular, he entered their capital
without opposition in 312 B.C., from which date the era of the Seleucidæ
is regarded as beginning. How the Babylonians took the foundation of
Seleucia on the Tigris, which is often mentioned in the numerous
astrological tablets of this period, is not recorded, but from the way in
which they speak of the migration of the inhabitants of Babylonia to
Seleucia implies that they took it greatly to heart.
“Blessed shall he be who serveth thee as thou hast served us,” sang the
Psalmist when lamenting the captivity of the Jews at Babylon, and if
success in conquest be a sign of blessedness, then Seleucus must have been
happy indeed. The Babylonians could not have regarded the continual and
increasing desolation of their city with indifference, however, and it is
not impossible that their loyalty to their king suffered somewhat in
consequence. This, to all appearance, found vent in expressions of regret,
and an old lamentation, referring to the depredations of the Qutû at a
period so remote that we can hardly, at this distance of time, estimate,
and of which a copy was made for a certain Bêl-zēr-lîšir, might well
express their feelings at this period:
“For the misfortunes of Erech, for the misfortunes of Agadé, I am
stricken.
The Erechitess wept, that departed was her might, the Agaditess
wept, that departed was her glory (?);
The daughter of Erech wept, the daughter of Agadé cried aloud;
As for the daughter of Larancha, in her garment her face was
hidden.
The Ḫursagkalamitess wept, that her husband was in trouble;
The Ḫulḫutḫulitess wept, that cast down was her sceptre;
The Mašitess wept, that her 7 brothers were slain, that her
brother-in-law was stricken.
The Agaditess wept, that her elder was slain, the lord of her
well-being;
The Kešitess wept—they have wrought destruction (?) for the name
of her house: ‘My helpers are shattered’;
The Dunnaitess wept, ‘Who has a resting-place, who has leave to go
forth?
Whose is it to defeat (?) the enemy, (with) the exits cut off?’
The daughter of Niffer wept, for the raging (?) Qutû assembled,
She bowed down her face on account of the trouble of the husband
of her well-being.
The Dûr-îlitess wept, for the Qutû collected,
For the son of her city destroyed, the overthrow of her father’s
house.
Weep for Erech, ravaging (and) shame has she received—
As for me, in the storm a place of refuge I know not.
Weep for Larancha (for the spoiling?) of (my) mantle I am in
trouble.
My eyes see not my ..., the mothers are cut off from the child.
Weep for Niffer, as for me, (with) abundance of affliction (?)
Heaven has bound me fast;
The throne of my glory has been caused to pass away from me;
The bridegroom, the husband of my well-being, Bêl has taken away
from me.”
“Like its original written, made clear, and acquired.
Tablet of Bêl-zēr-lîšir, son of Bêl-âba-usur, descendant of the
sculptor.
(By) the hands of Bêl-bulliṭ-su, his son. He who fears the king
shall not take (?) (this) tablet (?) away.
“Babylon, month Elul, day 15th, year 25th, Siluku and Antiukusu
(Seleucus and Antiochus), king of countries.
By those same “rivers of Babylon” where the Israelites had mourned in
captivity, thinking of Jerusalem, there the Babylonians themselves came at
last to lament the departed glories of their land. Many a time, it is
true, they had seen the country which was their fatherland overrun by
enemies, but it had always recovered, and risen to a greater height of
prosperity. This time, however, there was to be no healing of her wound.
The large and well-peopled space within the walls of the great city
gradually became uninhabited, and the houses fell into ruin. A time even
came at last when the great walls had to be demolished—or at least
practically so—in order that they might not afford protection to the
lawless bands which infested the country, and were only too ready to make
the most of such an advantage.
Notwithstanding the desolation of the city, however, a certain number of
people continued to inhabit the site, probably officials of the temples
(whose services still continued), and tradesmen who supplied the wants of
those whose duty held them attached to the place. Here, year after year,
the usual sacrifices were offered to the old gods of the Babylonians,
especially “My Lord and Lady,” _i.e._ Bêl (Merodach) and Beltis
(Zēr-panitum, his consort), and prayers were made for the king at the time
reigning, and also for his sons (if he had any). That inscriptions may
come to light which will show more clearly the state of things in that
vast ruined city is exceedingly probable, and a sufficient number of
tablets referring to this period are known to exist even now, and show in
some measure the state of the city and the kind of people who dwelt in
such parts of it as had been reserved for that purpose.
To those who inhabited Babylon’s desolation, the most important thing, in
all probability, was the worship, with all the old rites and ceremonies,
of the deities whose temples and shrines still existed there. But those
old priests and temple scribes occupied their time in another way, namely,
the keeping of careful records of every historical event for the purpose
of being able to tell the future. These historical notices are preceded by
indications of the positions of the moon and the planets, together with
the price of grain or other produce, during the period referred to. The
positions of the planets, etc., were combined afterwards, by the “monthly
prognosticators,” with the historical happenings, for the purpose of
foretelling events, which at that late period was probably done much more
systematically than during earlier ages, to the great advantage of the
modern student of this period.
The following will give an idea of these historical notices:—
(Month Ab, 143rd year, Anti’ukusu, king = 168 B.C., reign of Antiochus
Epiphanes.)
“An., the king, marched victoriously among the cities of the land of
Meluḫḫa, and ... the people (_puliṭē_(144) the Greek πολίτης)
(constructed?) idols (_puppē_, evidently a Greek word, probably meaning
‘images of gods’) and works like a shrine (of?) the Greek(s?)....”
The inscription then goes on to speak of the appointment of a _zazak_
(apparently a grade of priests) by the king, the handing to him of the
gold in the treasury of Ê-saggil for the great (shrine) of Bêl, the
(dedication?) of an unsuitable or an untimely image of the god Uru-gala on
the 8th day of the month, and other similar occurrences. From the lines
translated above, it will be seen that the Babylonians had not by any
means escaped from the influence of Greek civilization, not only Greek
words, but also, to all appearance, Greek gods and shrines having made
their appearance. The word used in speaking of the image of the god
Uru-gala is _tamšil_, but the things which the citizens made were _puppē_,
possibly used like our word “idol.” It is possibly to this period, or a
little later, that the transcriptions into Greek of Babylonian tablets
(which promise to be of considerable value for the study of the
Assyro-Babylonian language) belong.
If the translation given above be correct, it would confirm the account in
the second book of Maccabees (vi. 2), from which it would appear that this
ruler tried to habituate the Jews to Greek customs, and also to the Greek
religion, going even so far as “to pollute also the temple in Jerusalem,
and to call it the temple of Jupiter Olympus; and that in Garizim, of
Jupiter the Defender of strangers, as they did desire that dwelt in the
place” (vi. 2). “The abomination of desolation” which was set on the altar
at Jerusalem (1 Macc. i. 54) is understood by commentators to mean an
idol-altar, though almost any heathen image would suit the sense, and a
statue of a god, with or without a shrine, might be meant. The reference
to Meluḫḫa in all probability refers to one of his expeditions to Egypt,
and is generally supposed to indicate Ethiopia.
Another change which the Babylonians experienced was when the rule of
their Greek masters was exchanged for that of the Parthians, and the
Seleucidæ gave way to the Arsacidæ. Concerning the period of the change,
and the way in which it came about, very little is known. The varied
fortunes of the Seleucid princes is illustrated by the fact that a satrap
of Media named Timarchus, in 161-160 B.C., had succeeded in proclaiming
himself king of Babylon; and from 153-139 B.C., Arsaces VI. (Mithridates
I.) was in possession of all the district east of the Euphrates—Babylonia,
Elam, and Persia. After his death, however, all this portion seems to have
returned to the rule of the Seleucidæ, and their era was in all
probability restored. After the death of Antiochus Sidetes, in 129 B.C.,
the province of Kharacene became independent under a ruler named
Hyspasines or Spasines, who, two years later, seems to have made himself
master of Babylon. An interesting tablet dated in the reign of this king
(who used the Seleucian era) shows something of the state of things on the
site of the old city, and that somewhat vividly.
(The inscription is preceded by five introductory lines, which are
unfortunately imperfect, but do not seem to affect the transaction as a
whole.)
“In the month Iyyar, the 24th day, year 185th, Aspāsinē (being) king,
Bêl-lûmur, director of Ê-saggil, and the Babylonians, the congregation of
Ê-saggil, took counsel together, and said thus—
“’Itti-Marduk-balaṭu, chief of the construction over the artificers (?) of
the houses of the gods, scribe of Anu-Bêl, son of Iddin-Bêl, who formerly
stood (?) at the side of Aspāsinē, the king, who (relieved?) want in the
gate of the king; lo, this is for Bêl-âḫê-uṣur and Nabû-mušêtiq-ûrri, his
sons—
“ ‘(As) they find the whole of his keep, a sum (?) has been collected (?)
in the presence of the aforesaid Bêl-lûmur and the Babylonians, the
congregation of Ê-saggil.
“ ‘From this day of this year we will give 1 mana of silver, the
sustenance of Itti-Marduk-balaṭu, for their father, to Bêl-âḫê-uṣur and
Nabû-mušêtiq-ûrri, from our (own) necessities. The amount, as much as
Itti-Marduk-balaṭu, their father, has taken, they shall keep for (his)
keep, and they shall give the grant for this year.’
“(Done along) with Bêl-šunu; Nûr; Muranu; Iddin-Bêl; Bêl-uṣur-šu, the
scribe of Anu-Bêl, and the deputy-scribes of Anu-Bêl.”(145)
Though the translation is necessarily, from the mutilation of the text,
not altogether satisfactory, certain items of information which it
contains will hardly admit of doubt. There were still inhabitants of the
city, there were temple-servants, who were probably under a kind of
overseer of the works, and these apparently attended to all the temples.
Whether this man was too old to work or not is doubtful, but it would seem
that it was considered too much that his sons should keep him altogether,
hence the drawing up of the document here quoted.
It is noteworthy that, instead of Merodach, or Bêl-Merodach, the god of
Babylon, who became the chief deity of all Babylonia, a new deity appears,
namely, Anu-Bêl, _i.e._ Anu the Lord, or, paraphrased, the Lord God of
Heaven, probably the god Merodach identified with Anu. The religion of the
Babylonians probably underwent many changes during this later period, when
those who belonged to it came into contact with foreigners, many of them
most intelligent men, whose teaching must have had with them great weight.
Another important inscription, in the British Museum, gives many details
of the period of this little-known king, Aspāsinē. From this we learn that
the Elamites made incursions in the neighbourhood of the Tigris.
Pilinussu, the general in Akkad, apparently carried on operations against
another general, and seems to have gone to the cities of the Medes before
Bāgā-asā, the brother of the king. A man named Te’udišī also seems to have
opposed the general in Akkad. Yet another inscription of the same period
states that Ti’imūṭusu, son of Aspāsinē, went from Babylon to Seleucia (on
the Tigris), showing that the former renowned place was still regarded as
one of the cities of the land. At this time one of the opponents of
Aspāsinē’s generals was “Pittit, the enemy, the Elamite.” Elam, to its
whole extent, was smitten with the sword, and Pittit (was slain, or
captured). Sacrifices were made to Bel, probably on account of this
victory.
Similar inscriptions of the time of the Arsacidean rule in Babylonia also
exist, and would probably be useful if published. Unfortunately, they are
all more or less damaged and mutilated, but of those which I have been
able to make notes of, one may be worth quoting. The following extract
will show its nature:—
“This month I heard thus: Aršakā the king and his soldiers departed to the
city of Arqania.... (I) heard thus: The Elamite and his soldiers departed
to battle before the city Apam’a which is upon the river Ṣilḫu....”
The remainder is very mutilated, and requires studying in conjunction with
all the other inscriptions of the same class, though even then much must
necessarily be doubtful.
In many of these inscriptions each of the long paragraphs ends with a
reference to the sacrifices which had been made in the temples of Babylon
among the ruins, and sometimes, though rarely, they refer to something of
the nature of an omen. The following will serve as an example:—
“... descended to Babylon from Seleucia which is upon the Tigris. Day 10,
the governor of Akkad ... the congregation of Ê-saggil, (sacrificed) one
ox and 4 lambs in the gate Ka-dumu-nuna of Ê-saggil, (and) made (prayer
for the lif)e of the king and his preservation. On the 5., one ox and 3
lambs (they sacrificed). The congregation of Baby]lon came to Ka-dumu-nuna
of Ê-saggil, offerings like the former ones were made ... went forth from
Sippar. This month a goat brought forth, and the litter was 15.”
Contract-tablets, some of them of a very late date indeed, within a decade
or two of the Christian era, show that the temples still existed, and that
sacrifices and services still went on, probably uninterruptedly, at the
temples of Babylon, and this implies that, though the country had no
national existence, the beliefs of the people survived for many centuries
the downfall of their power. In all probability, what took place at
Babylon had its counterpart in other places in the country—the fanes
renowned of old—as well. Indeed, it is known that, at the most perfectly
preserved of the temple-towers of Babylonia at the present day—that at
Borsippa, now and for many centuries known as the Birs Nimroud, “the tower
(as it is explained) of Nimrod,”—the services and worship were continued
as late as the fourth century of the Christian era. The worship of Nebo,
the god of wisdom, or, rather, letters, had always been extremely popular,
hence, in all probability, the continuation of his cult until this late
date. But this was to all appearance the last remnant of the powerful and
picturesque creed of old Babylon, and details of its slow and gradual
disappearance from the religious beliefs of the world would probably be as
interesting as the story of its growth and development.
“The Church at Babylon,” mentioned in 1 Peter v. 13, is generally
understood allegorically, as of the Church in the world, or that in the
great Babylon of the time when the apostle wrote, namely, Rome. Though it
is unknown whether a Christian Church existed in his time anywhere in
Babylonia, it is probably certain that the native Christians of Baghdad
(and ’Irāq in general) are pure descendants of the ancient Babylonians, to
whom, in form and stature, as well as in character, and their tendency to
progress, they have a great likeness. The same may be said of the native
Christians of Assyria.
Could we but know the history of Assyria at this period, it is very
probable that we should find it to resemble in certain things—perhaps in
the main—that of Babylonia after her downfall. From the religious point of
view, also, there must have been similarity. They, too, knew the worship
of the “merciful Merodach,” to them a type of Christ, and his father Êa
(from whom he obtained the means of helping mankind), in name and position
a type of Jah, God the Father, whom the Christians worshipped. But we
shall never in all probability know whether they thus analyzed and
compared the two faiths, though it is very possible that they did, for it
is said that the Egyptians were attracted to Christianity by the
comparison of Christ with their Osiris. Such, however, is the tendency of
the mind of mankind. Ever unwilling to break with the old, he seeks for
some analogy in the new, to form a bridge whereby to pass to higher
things. Minor deities have ever tended to become Christian saints, and
such may have been—indeed, probably was—the case with the Babylonians and
the Assyrians.
APPENDIX. THE STELE INSCRIBED WITH THE LAWS OF ḪAMMURABI.
This monument was found at Susa, in the excavations undertaken by the
French Government, by MM. de Morgan and Prof. V. Scheil. It is a column of
diorite, measuring about 7 feet in height, tapering slightly from the
bottom upwards. The circumference of the base is about 2 yards, and at the
summit about 5 feet 5-½ inches. As, however, the stone is not square, it
may be described as measuring, roughly, 22 inches broad at the base, and
16 inches just above the bas-relief at the top, where it is rounded
somewhat irregularly.
The bas-relief, which is in perfect condition, measures about 2 feet 2
inches in height, and represents Ḫammurabi standing, facing to the right,
towards the sun-god Šamaš, who sits on a throne of the usual recessed
design. The god is bearded, clothed in a flounced robe, and has his hair
looped up behind. His hat is pointed, and is adorned with four (eight)
horns, rising at the side, and coming forward, where their points are
turned up. His right shoulder is bare, and in his right hand he holds a
staff and a ring, emblematic of authority and eternity, or his apparent
course in the heavens. His right hand is held against his breast, and wavy
lines, probably representing his rays, arise from his shoulders.
Ḫammurabi, who stands before the seated god, is clothed in a long robe
reaching to his feet, and held up by his left arm. His right shoulder and
arm are bare, and the hand is raised as if to emphasize the words he is
uttering. Like the god, he is heavily bearded. On his head he wears the
globular thick-brimmed hat distinctive of men in authority for many
hundred years before his time, and for a considerable period afterwards.
The inscription, which is in horizontal columns, covers all four sides of
the stone, and is divided into two parts, called by Prof. Scheil, who
first translated it, the “obverse” and the “reverse” respectively. The
former is in 16 columns, after which come 5 columns which have been
erased, probably, as Prof. Scheil remarks, to insert the name and titles
of an Elamite king, Šutruk-Naḫḫunte, who has his inscription placed on
several other monuments of Babylonian origin found there. For some reason
or other, the space on the stele of Ḫammurabi still remains blank. The
“reverse” has 28 columns of inscription. The columns are narrow, and the
lines consequently short, but as the latter are no less than 3638 in
number, the text is a very extensive one, and when complete, must have
consisted of over 4000 lines.
The inscription consists of three portions: the Introduction, consisting
of 4 columns and 25 lines, detailing all the benefits which Ḫammurabi had
conferred on the cities and temples of the land; the Laws, which occupy
the remainder of the obverse, and 23 columns of the reverse (in all, 40
columns less 25 lines); and the Conclusion, occupying the remaining 5
columns, in which he recounts his own virtues, and in a long curse, calls
upon the gods whom he worshipped to punish and destroy any of his
successors who should abolish or change what he had written, or destroy
his bas-relief.
The Laws Of Ḫammurabi.
Introduction.
When the supreme God, king of the Annunaki,(146) and Bel, lord of the
heavens and the earth, who fixes the destinies of the land, had fixed for
Merodach, the eldest son of Aê, the Divine Lordship over the multitude of
the people, and had made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by
its supreme name, caused it to be great among the countries (of the
world), and caused to exist for him in its midst an everlasting kingdom,
whose foundation is as firm as heaven and earth.
At that time Ḫammurabi, the noble prince—he who fears God—me—in order that
justice might exist in the country, to destroy the evil and wicked, that
the strong might not oppress the weak,—God and Bel, to gladden the flesh
of the people, proclaimed my name as a Sungod(147) for the black-headed
ones,(148) appearing and illuminating the land.
Ḫammurabi, the shepherd proclaimed of Bel am I—the perfecter of abundance
and plenty, the completer of everything for Niffur (and) Dur-an-ki,(149)
the glorious patron of Ê-kura;(150)
The powerful king who has restored the city Êridu to its first state, who
has purified the service of Ê-apsû;(151)
The best of the four regions, who made great the name of Babylon,
rejoicing the heart of Merodach, his lord, who daily stays (at service) in
Ê-sagila;(152)
The kingly seed whom the god Sin has created, who endows with riches the
city of Ur;(153) humble, devout, he who brings abundance to
Ê-kiš-nu-gala;(154)
The king of wisdom, favourite of Šamaš, the powerful one, he who founded
(again) the city of Sippar, who clothed with green the burial-places of
Aa,(155) who made supreme the temple Ê-babbara,(156) which is like a
throne (in) the heavens;
The warrior benefiting Larsa,(157) who renewed the temple Ê-babbara(158)
for Šamaš his helper;
The lord who gave life to Erech, procuring waters in abundance for its
people, he who has raised the head of the temple Ê-anna, completing the
treasures for Anu and Innanna;(159)
The protector of the land, who has reassembled the scattered people of
Nisin, who has made abundant the riches of the temple E-gal-maḫ;(160)
The unique one, king of the city, twin brother of the god Zagaga, he who
founded the seat of the city of Kiš, who has caused the temple
Ê-mete-ursag(161) to be surrounded with splendour, who has caused the
great sanctuaries of the goddess Innanna to be increased;
Overseer of the temple of Ḫursag-kalama, the enemies’ temple-court, the
help of which caused him to attain his desire;(162)
He who has enlarged the city of Cuthah, made great everything for the
temple Meslam;(163)
The mighty steer who overthrows the enemy, the beloved of the god
Tutu;(164)
He who causes the city of Borsippa to rejoice, the supreme one, he who is
tireless for the temple Ê-zida;(165)
The divine king of the city, wise, alert, he who has extended the
agriculture of Dilmu,(166) who has heaped up the (grain) receptacles for
the powerful god Uraš;(167)
The lord (who is) the adornment of the sceptre and the crown, with which
the wise goddess Mama has crowned him;
Who has defined the sanctuaries of Kêš, who has made plentiful the
glorious feasts for the goddess Nin-tu;
The provident and careful one, who set pasturages and watering-places for
Lagaš and Girsu, he who procured great offerings for Ê-ninnû;(168)
He who holds fast the enemy, the favourite of the divinity, he who fulfils
the portents of the city Ḫallabu, he who has gladdened the heart of
Ištar;(169)
The prince undefiled, whose prayer(170) Addu(171) has heard, he who gives
rest to the heart of Addu, the warrior, in the city Muru;
He who set up the ornaments in the temple E-para-galgala, the king who
gave life to the city of Adab;
He who directs the temple E-maḫ, the prince who is the city-king, the
warrior who is without rival;
He who has given life to the city Maškan-šabri, who has caused abundance
to arise for the temple Mešlam;
The wise, the active one, who has captured the robbers’ hiding-places,
sheltered the people of Malkâ in (their) misfortune, caused their seats to
be founded in abundance, (and) instituted pure offerings for Aê and
Damgal-nunna, who have made his kingdom great for ever.
The prince who is city-king, who subjugated the settlements of the
Euphrates, the boundary (of) Dagan, his creator, who spared the people of
Mera and Tutul;
The supreme prince, who has made the face of the goddess Ištar to shine,
set pure repasts for the divinity Nin-azu, who cared for his people in
(their) need, fixing their dues within Babylon peacefully;
The shepherd of the people, whose deeds are good unto Ištar, who set Ištar
in the temple Ê-ulmaš within Agadé of the (broad) streets; he who makes
the faithful obedient, who guides the Race;(172)
Who returned its good genius to the city of Asshur, who caused (its)
splendour (?) to shine forth;
The king who in Nineveh has caused the names of Ištar to be glorified in
Ê-mešmeš;(173)
The supreme one, devoted in prayer to the great gods, descendant of
Sumula-ilu, the mighty son of Sin-mubaliṭ, the eternal seed of royalty;
The powerful king, the Sun of Babylon, he who sends forth light for the
land of Šumer and Akkad, the king causing the four regions to obey him,
the beloved of the goddess Ištar, am I.
When Merodach chose me to govern the people, to rule and instruct the
land, law and justice I set in the mouth of the land—in that day did I
bring about the well-being of the people.
The Laws.
1. If a man ban a man, and cast a spell upon him, and has not justified
it, he who has banned him shall be killed.
2. If a man has thrown a spell upon a man, and has not justified it, he
upon whom the spell has been thrown shall go to the river,(174) (and)
shall plunge into the river, and if the river take him, he who banned him
may take his house. If the river show that man to be innocent, and save
(him), he who threw the spell upon him shall be killed; he who plunged
into the river may take possession of the house of him who banned him.
3. If a man in a lawsuit has come forward (to bear) false witness, and has
not justified the word he has spoken, if that lawsuit be a lawsuit of
life,(175) that man shall be killed.
4. If he has come forward (to bear) witness concerning wheat or silver, he
shall bear the guilt of that lawsuit.
5. If a judge has given judgment, and decided a decision, and delivered a
tablet (thereupon), and afterwards his judgment is found faulty, that
judge, for the fault in the judgment he had judged, they shall summon, and
the claim which is in question(176) he shall (re)pay twelvefold, and in
the assembly they shall make him rise up from his judgment-seat, and he
shall not return, and he shall not sit again with the judges in judgment.
6. If a man has stolen the property of a god, or of the palace, that man
shall be killed; and he who has received the stolen thing from his hand
shall be killed.
7. If a man has bought either silver, or gold, or a man-slave, or a
woman-slave, or an ox, or a sheep, or an ass, or anything whatever, from
the hands of the son of a man or the slave of a man, without witness or
contract, or has received it on deposit, that man is a thief—he shall be
killed.
8. If a man has stolen either an ox, or a sheep, or an ass, or a pig, or a
ship—if it be from a god or from the palace, he shall (re)pay thirtyfold;
if it be from a poor man, he shall restore tenfold. If the thief have not
wherewith to (re)pay, he shall be killed.
9. If a man who has lost his property meet with his lost property in the
hands of a man, (and) the man in whose hands the lost thing has been found
say “a certain seller sold it—I bought it before certain witnesses,” and
the owner of the lost object say “Let me bring witnesses who will
recognize my lost object,” the buyer shall bring forward the seller who
sold it, and the witnesses before whom he bought (it), and the owner of
the lost object shall bring forward the witnesses who will recognize his
lost object. The judge shall see what they have to say, and the witnesses
before whom the purchase was made, and the witnesses knowing the object
lost shall speak before God,(177) and (if) the seller is the thief, he
shall be killed. The owner of the lost object shall take (back) his lost
object; the buyer shall receive (back) from the house of the seller the
silver which he has paid.
10. If the buyer has not brought forward the seller who sold it to him and
the witnesses before whom he bought (it), (and) the owner of the lost
object has brought forward witnesses recognizing his lost object, the
buyer is a thief—he shall be killed; the owner of the object lost shall
take (back) the lost object.
11. If the owner of the lost object has not brought forward witnesses
recognizing his lost object, he is a rogue, (and) has made a false
accusation—he shall be killed.
12. If the seller has gone to his fate, the buyer shall receive from the
house of the seller the claims of that judgment fivefold.
13. If that man have not his witnesses at hand, the judge shall grant him
a delay of six months,(178) and if he have not procured his witnesses in
six months,(179) that man is a rogue—he shall bear the guilt of that
judgment.
14. If a man has stolen the young son of a man, he shall be killed.
15. If a man has caused to go forth from the gate either a slave of the
palace, or a handmaid of the palace, or the slave of a poor man, or the
handmaid of a poor man, he shall be killed.
16. If a man has sheltered the escaped male or female slave of the palace
or of a poor man in his house, and at the request of the steward has not
sent him forth, the master of that house shall be killed.
17. If a man has met the escaped male or female slave in the fields, and
has taken him back to his master, the master of the slave shall give him
two shekels of silver.
18. If that slave will not name his master, he shall take him to the
palace, his intention shall be inquired into, and they shall return him to
his master.
19. If he has shut up that slave in his house, and afterwards the slave
has been found in his hands, that man shall be killed.
20. If a slave escape from the hands of the man who has found him, that
man shall call God to witness(180) unto the master of the slave, and shall
be held blameless.
21. If a man has made a breach in a house, in front of that breach they
shall kill him and bury him.
22. If a man has exercised brigandage, and has been taken, that man shall
be killed.
23. If the brigand has not been captured, the man who has been robbed
shall take the thing which he has lost before God, and the city and the
authorities within whose territory and boundaries the brigandage has been
exercised shall make up to him what he has lost.
24. If (it be a question of) a life, the city and authorities shall pay
one mana of silver to his people.
25. If the house of a man has been set on fire,(181) and a man who went to
extinguish it has raised his eyes to the property of the owner of the
house, and taken the property of the owner of the house, that man shall be
thrown into that same fire.
26. If an army-leader or a soldier, who has been commanded to go his way
on a royal expedition, does not go, and has hired a mercenary, and his
substitute is taken, that army-leader or soldier shall be killed, he who
changed with him shall take his house.
27. If an army-leader or a soldier, who by the king’s misfortune is kept
prisoner, afterwards they have given his field and plantation to another,
and he has carried on its administration; if (the original owner) then
return and reach his city, they shall return to him his field and
plantation, and he himself shall carry on its administration.
28. If the son of an army-leader or a soldier, who is kept prisoner by the
king’s misfortune, is able to carry on the administration, they shall give
to him the field and plantation, and he shall carry on the administration
for his father.
29. If his son is young, and is unable to carry on the administration for
his father, the third part of the field and plantation shall be given to
his mother, and his mother shall bring him up.
30. If an army-leader or a soldier neglect his field, his plantation, and
his house on account of the burden, and leave it waste, (and) another
after him has taken his field, his plantation, and his house, and has
carried on its administration for three years, if he return and wish to
cultivate his field, his plantation, and his house, it shall not be given
to him—he who took and has carried on its administration shall continue to
administer.
31. If for one year (only) he has let (them) lie waste, and has returned,
his field, his plantation, and his house they shall give to him, and he
shall carry on his administration himself.
32. If a merchant has redeemed an army-leader or a soldier who has been
kept prisoner upon a royal expedition, and has caused him to regain his
city—if in his house there be (the wherewithal) for his redemption, he
shall then redeem himself. If in his house there be not (the wherewithal)
for his redemption, in the house of his city’s god he shall be redeemed.
If in the house of his city’s god there be not (the wherewithal) for his
redemption, the palace shall redeem him. His field, his plantation, and
his house shall not be given for his redemption.
33. If a governor or a prefect have a substitute,(182) or for a royal
expedition accept a mercenary as substitute and incorporate (him), that
governor or prefect shall be killed.
34. If a governor or a prefect take the property of an army-officer, ruin
an army-officer, lend an army-officer for hire, grant an army-officer in a
lawsuit to a magnate, take the gift which the king has given to an
army-officer, that governor or prefect shall be killed.
35. If a man purchase from the hands of an army-officer the cattle and
sheep which the king has given to the army-officer, he shall forfeit his
money.
36. Field, plantation, and house of an army-officer, soldier, and
tax-payer he(183) shall not sell for silver.
37. If a man buy the field, plantation, or house of an army-officer,
soldier, or tax-payer, his contract shall be broken, and he shall forfeit
his money. The field, plantation, or house shall return to its owner.
38. Army-officer, soldier, or tax-payer shall not leave to his wife or his
daughter (anything) from the field, plantation, and house of his
administration, and shall not give them for his indebtedness.
39. He may leave to his wife and his daughter (any part) of the field,
plantation, or house which he has bought and owns, and may give it for his
indebtedness.
40. But to an agent or other official, he may give his field, his
plantation, or his house for silver, (and) the purchaser shall carry on
the administration of the field, plantation, and house which he has
bought.
41. If a man has enclosed the field, plantation, or house of an
army-officer, soldier, or tax-payer, and given substitutes, the
army-officer, soldier, or tax-payer may return to his field, plantation,
or house, and take the substitutes which have been given to him.
42. If a man has hired a field for cultivation, and has not caused wheat
to be in that field, they shall summon him for not having done work in the
field, and he shall give to the owner of the field wheat like his
neighbour.
43. If he has not planted the field, and has let it lie, he shall give to
the owner of the field wheat like his neighbour, and the field which he
has let lie he shall break up for cultivation, shall enclose (it) and
return (it) to the owner of the field.
44. If a man has hired an uncultivated field for cultivation(184) for
three years, and he has been idle and has not cultivated the field, in the
fourth year he shall break up the field for cultivation, shall hoe (it),
and shall enclose (it) and return (it) to the owner of the field, and for
every 10 _gan_ he shall measure (to him) 10 _gur_ of wheat.
45. If a man has given his field for rent to a planter, and has received
the rent of his field, and afterwards a storm(185) has inundated the
field, or has (otherwise) destroyed the produce, the loss belongs to the
planter.
46. If he have not received the rent of his field, and has let the field
for a half or a third (of the produce), the planter and the owner of the
field shall share the wheat which has been produced in the field
proportionately.
47. If the planter, because his husbandry did not yield profit(186) in the
first year, direct the field to be cultivated (by another), the owner of
the field shall not object. The planter then shall cultivate his field,
and shall take the wheat at harvest-time, according to his contract.
48. If there be interest (upon a loan) against a man, and a storm(187)
inundate his field, or has (otherwise) destroyed the produce, or by want
of water there is no wheat in the field, that year he shall not return any
wheat to the creditor.(188) He shall damp his tablet (? to alter it), and
shall not pay interest(189) for that year.
49. If a man has borrowed money from an agent, and has given to the agent
a field laboured for wheat or sesame, (and) has said to him: “Plant the
field, and gather and take the wheat or the sesame which will be
produced;” if the planter has caused wheat or sesame to be in the field,
at harvest-time the owner of the field may take the wheat or sesame which
has been produced in the field, and shall give to the agent wheat for his
silver and his interest(190) which he received from the agent, and (for)
the cost of the cultivation.
50. If he has given (as security) a planted field, or a field planted with
sesame, the owner of the field shall take the wheat or sesame which is
produced in the field, and shall return the silver and its interest to the
agent.
51. If there be no silver (wherewith) to repay, he shall give to the agent
sesame at their market-price for his silver and his interest, which he
received from the agent, according to the tariff of the king.
52. If the planter has not caused wheat or sesame to be in the field, it
does not annul his contract.
53. If a man has neglected to stren[gth]en his [dyke], and has not
streng[thened his] dyke, [and] a breach has o[pened] in [his] dyke, and
water has inundated the enclosure, the man in whose dyke the breach has
been opened shall make good the wheat which it has destroyed.
54. If the wheat does not suffice to make good (the damage), they shall
sell that (man) and his goods for silver, and the people(191) of the
enclosure, whose wheat the water carried away, shall share together.
55. If a man has opened his irrigation-channel to water, (and) has been
negligent, and the water has flooded the field of his neighbour, he shall
measure (to him) wheat like(192) (that of) his neighbour.
56. If a man has opened the water, and the water flood the work of the
field of his neighbour, he shall measure (to him) 10 _gur_ of wheat for
each 10 _gan_.
57. If a shepherd has not agreed with the owner of a field for grass to
pasture his sheep, and without the owner of the field has pastured sheep
(in) the field, the owner shall reap _his_ fields; the shepherd who,
without the owner of the field, pastured sheep (in) the field, shall pay
to the owner of the field 20 _gur_ of wheat for every 10 _gan_ besides.
58. If, after the sheep have left the enclosure, (and) the whole flock has
passed through the gate, the shepherd place the sheep (again) in the
field, and cause the sheep to pasture (in) the field, the shepherd shall
keep the field (where) he has pastured them, and shall measure to the
owner of the field, at harvest-time, 60 _gur_ of wheat for every 10 _gan_.
59. If a man, without (the permission of) the owner of a plantation, has
cut down a tree in the plantation of a man, he shall pay half a mana of
silver.
60. If a man has given a field to a gardener to plant as a plantation,
(and) the gardener has planted the plantation, he shall tend the
plantation for four years. In the fifth year the owner of the plantation
and the gardener shall share equally; (thereafter) the owner of the
plantation shall apportion and take his share.
61. If a gardener has not completed the plantation of a field, and has
left an uncultivated place, they shall set for him the uncultivated place
in his share.
62. If he has not planted the field which has been given him for a
plantation, if (it be) grain, the gardener shall measure to the owner of
the field the produce of the field, for the years during which it has been
neglected, like his neighbour; and he shall do the work of the field, and
return (it) to the owner of the field.
63. If the field (was) waste land, he shall do the work of the field, and
return (it) to the owner of the field, and he shall measure for every year
10 _gur_ of wheat for each 10 _gan_.
64. If a man has given his plantation to a gardener to cultivate, the
gardener, as long as he holds the plantation, shall give two-thirds of the
produce of the plantation to the owner of the plantation, (and) shall take
a third himself.
65. If the gardener has not cultivated the plantation, and has diminished
the produce, the gardener [shall measure to the owner of the field]
produce (like) his neighbour.
(Five columns have here been erased, apparently by the Elamite king who
intended to inscribe his name upon the monument. Prof. Scheil estimates
that this contained about 35 sections of the laws, containing the
remaining sections referring to the cultivation of plantations or
orchards, the letting of houses, and the laws relating to commercial
transactions, of which a portion is preserved after the gap. As pointed
out by Prof. Scheil, the following sections, from fragments of tablets
found at Nineveh by Hormuzd Rassam and the late Geo. Smith, probably came
in here.)
[If a man has borrowed silver from an agent, and has given] to the agent
[a date-orchard, and] has said to him: “Take for thy money the dates, [as
much as] will be produced in [my] orchard, for thy money;” (if) that agent
be not in agreement, the owner of the orchard shall take the dates which
are produced in the orchard, and return to the agent the silver and its
interest, according to his tablet; and the owner of the orchard may ta[ke]
the surplus dates which have been produced in the orchard.
[If a man has hired a house, and] the man has paid to the owner of [the
house] the complete money for his rent for a year, [and] the owner of the
house, before the days are full, command the ten[ant] to go [forth],—the
owner of the house, [as] he sends the tenant [forth] from his house before
the time,(193) [shall return to the tenant a proportionate sum, for having
gone forth from his house], from the money which the tenant has pai[d to
him].
[If a man] owe (?) wheat (or) silver, and has not wheat or silver
[wherewith] to [pay], but possess (other) goods, whatever is in his hands
he shall gi[ve] to the agent, before witnesses, as profit, [and] the agent
shall not f[ind fault], and shall ac[cept it].
(Portions of other laws are also preserved, but they are too fragmentary
to enable the sense to be gathered.)
100. [If an agent has advanced silver to a commissioner, and he has had
good fortune in the place to which he went], he shall write down the
profits of his silver, as much as he has received, and the day when they
make up their accounts he shall pay (it) to his agent.
101. If he found no profit where he went, he shall make up the silver
which he took, and the commissioner shall repay it to the agent.(194)
102. If an agent has advanced silver to a commissioner for profit, and he
found loss where he went, he shall return the capital of the silver to the
agent.
103. If, whilst going on his way, an enemy caused him to lose what he was
carrying, the commissioner shall call God to witness(195) and shall go
free.
104. If an agent has given to a commissioner grain, wool, oil, or any
other goods for trading, the commissioner shall write down the silver
(received), and shall return it to the agent. The commissioner shall take
a sealed document of the silver which he gives to the agent.(196)
105. If the commissioner has been negligent, and has not taken a sealed
document of the silver which he has given to the agent, the silver not
certified shall not be placed in the business.(197)
106. If a commissioner has taken silver from an agent, and dispute
(withhold it from) his agent, that agent shall summon the commissioner
before God and the witnesses concerning the money taken; the commissioner
shall repay to the agent the silver, as much as he has taken, threefold.
107. If an agent act unjustly to a commissioner, and the commissioner has
returned to the agent everything which the agent had given to him, (and)
the agent dispute with the commissioner (concerning) anything which the
commissioner has repaid to him, that commissioner shall summon the agent
before God and the witnesses, and the agent, for having disputed (with)
his commissioner, anything which he has received he shall repay to the
commissioner sixfold.
108. If a wine-woman has not accepted wheat as the price of drink, (but)
has accepted silver by the large stone, or has set the tariff of the drink
below the tariff of the wheat, they shall summon that wine-woman, and
shall throw her into the water.
109. If a wine-woman, (when) riotous fellows are assembled at her house,
does not seize those riotous fellows and take them to the palace, that
wine-woman shall be killed.
110. If a devotee who dwells not in a cloister open a wine-house, or enter
a wine-house for drink, that female they shall burn.
111. If a wine-woman has given 60 _qa_ of second (?) quality drink, for
thirst, she shall take 50 _qa_ of corn at harvest-time.
112. If a man is travelling,(198) and has given to (another) man silver,
gold, (precious) stones, and his other property(199) and has caused him to
take them for delivery, (and) that man has not delivered what he was to
transmit at the place to which he was to transmit (it), and has taken it
away, the owner of the consignment shall summon that man for anything
which he took and did not deliver, and that man shall give (back) to the
owner of the consignment fivefold anything which had been given to him.
113. If a man have (an account of) wheat or silver against a man, and
without the owner of the wheat has taken wheat from the barn or the
depository, they shall summon that man, for having taking wheat, without
the owner of the wheat, from the barn or depository, and he shall return
the wheat, as much as he took, and he shall forfeit whatever it may be, as
much as he lent.(200)
114. If a man have no (account of) wheat or silver against a man, and make
his distraint, for every distraint he shall pay one-third of a mana of
silver.
115. If a man have (an account of) wheat or silver against a man, and make
his distraint, and the person distrained(201) die, by his fate, in the
house of the distrainer, that lawsuit has no claim.
116. If the person distrained die in the house of the distrainer by blows
or by ill-treatment, the owner of the person distrained shall summon his
agent;(202) and if (the person distrained) was the son of the man, they
shall kill his (the distrainer’s) son; if he was the servant (slave) of
the man, he shall pay one-third of a mana of silver; and he shall forfeit
whatever it may be, as much as he lent.
117. If a man has contracted a debt, and has given his wife, his son, (or)
his daughter for the money, or has let (them) out for service, three years
they shall serve the house of their purchaser or master, in the fourth
year he shall grant their freedom.
118. If he let out a male or female slave for service, (and) the agent
pass (them) on (and) give them for silver, there is no claim.
119. If a man has contracted a debt, and has sold his female-slave who has
borne him children, the owner of the slave may (re)pay the silver which
the agent has paid, and redeem his slave.
120. If a man has delivered his grain for storage in the house of a man,
and a deficiency appears in the granary, or the master of the house has
opened the storehouse and taken the grain, or he has disputed as to the
total of the grain which was delivered at his house, the owner of the
grain shall claim his grain before God, and the master of the house shall
cause the grain which he has taken to be made up, and shall give (it) to
the owner of the grain.
121. If a man has delivered grain (for storage) at the house of a man, he
shall pay yearly 5 _qa_ of grain for every _gur_ (as) the price of the
storage.
122. If a man give silver, gold, or anything else, to a man on deposit, he
shall show the witnesses everything, whatever he gives; he shall make
contracts, and (then) give (it) on deposit.
123. If he has given it on deposit without witnesses and contracts, and
they dispute (this) to him where he gave it, that lawsuit has no claim.
124. If a man has given silver, gold, or anything else, to a man, before
witnesses, on deposit, and (the man) dispute with him, he shall summon
that man, and whatever he has disputed, he shall make up and give (back).
125. If a man has given his property on deposit, and where he gave (it),
his property disappeared, with the property of the owner of the house,
either through a breaking in or through a trespass, the master of the
house which was in fault shall compensate for his property which he gave
him on deposit and (which) was lost, and he shall make (it) up to the
owner of the property. The master of the house shall seek his lost
property, and take it from the thief.
126. If a man, his property not being lost, say that his property is lost,
he shall bring forward his deficiency. As his property has not been lost,
he shall state his deficiency before God, and whatever he has claimed they
shall cause him to make up, and he shall give (it) to (make up) his
deficiency.
127. If a man has caused the finger to be raised against a devotee or the
wife of a man, and has not justified it, they shall set that man before
the judges, and mark his forehead.
128. If a man has taken a wife, and has not made her contract,(203) that
woman is not a wife.
129. If the wife of a man is taken in adultery with another male, they
shall tie them together, and throw them into the water. If the owner of
the wife spare his wife, and the king spare his servant....
130. If a man force the wife of a man who has not yet known a male, and
(who) dwells in the house of her father, and has lain in her bosom, and
they have found him, that man shall be killed, the woman shall be allowed
to go.
131. If the wife of a man has been accused by her husband,(204) and he has
not found her on the couch with another male, she shall swear by God,(205)
and return to her house.
132. If, on account of another male, the finger has been pointed at the
wife of a man, and she has not been found with another male on the couch,
she shall plunge into the river for her husband(’s sake).
133. If a man has been made captive, and there is in his house the
wherewithal to eat, (and) his [wife] has [gone] forth [from] her [house],
[and afterwards?] has [en]tered into another house, [as] that woman has
not guarded her homestead, and has entered another house, they shall
summon that woman, and throw her into the water.
134. If a man has been made captive, and there is not in the house the
wherewithal to eat, his wife may enter another house; that woman is not in
fault.
135. If a man has been made captive, and there is not in his house the
wherewithal to eat,(206) (and) his wife has entered another house, and has
borne children, (and) afterwards her husband return, and reach his city,
that woman shall(207) return to her husband; the children shall go to
their father.
136. If a man has abandoned his city and fled, (and) afterwards(208) his
wife has entered another house, if that man return, and (wish to) take his
wife, as he hated his city and fled, the wife of the deserter shall(209)
not return to her husband.
137. If a man set his face to repudiate a concubine who has borne him
children, or a wife who has caused him to have children, he shall return
to that woman her (marriage) gift, and shall give to her the usufruct of
field, plantation, and goods, and she shall bring up her children. After
she has brought up her children, they shall give to her, from the property
which has been given to her children, (a share of) the produce like (that
of) one son, and she may marry the husband of her choice.(210)
138. If a man (wish to) repudiate his spouse, who has not borne him
children, he shall give to her silver, as much as was her dower, and he
shall restore to her the wedding-gift which she brought from the house of
her father, and shall repudiate her.
139. If there be no dower, he shall give her one mana of silver for the
repudiation.
140. If (he be) a poor man, he shall give her one-third of a mana of
silver.
141. If the wife of a man, who dwells in the house of the man, set her
face to go forth, commit foolishness (?), ruin her house, despise her
husband, they shall summon her, and if her husband say: “I have divorced
her,” he shall let her go her way. (As for) her repudiation(-gift),
nothing shall be given to her. If her husband say: “I have not repudiated
her,” her husband may marry(211) another woman; that woman shall dwell in
her husband’s house like a servant.
142. If a woman hate her husband, and say: “Thou shalt not possess me,”
her reason for that which she lacks shall be examined, and if she has been
continent, and have no fault, and her husband go out, and neglect her
greatly, that woman has no defect; she shall take her wedding-gift, and
shall go to the house of her father.
143. If she has not been continent, and has gone about, she has ruined her
house, (and) despised her husband; they shall throw that woman into the
water.
144. If a man has married a wife, and that wife has given a maid-servant
to her husband, and she has had children, (if) that man set his face to
take a concubine, they shall not allow that man—he shall not take a
concubine.
145. If a man has married a wife, and she has not caused him to have
children, and he set his face to take a concubine, that man may take a
concubine, (and) may introduce her into his house, (but) he shall not make
that concubine equal with (his) wife.
146. If a man has married a wife, and she has given a maid-servant to her
husband, and (the maid-servant) has borne children, (if) afterwards that
maid-servant make herself equal with her mistress, as she has borne
children, her mistress shall not sell her for silver; she shall place a
mark(212) upon her, and count her with the maid-servants.
147. If she has not borne children, her mistress may sell her for silver.
148. If a man has married a wife, and a malady has seized her, (and) he
has set his face to marry a second, he may marry. He shall not divorce the
wife whom the malady has seized; she may stay in the house he has made,
and he shall support her as long as she lives.
149. If that woman is not content to dwell in the house of her husband, he
shall deliver to her her marriage-gift, which she brought from the house
of her father, and she shall go her way.
150. If a man has presented to his wife a field, a plantation, a house,
and property, (and) has left her a sealed tablet, after her husband(’s
death) her sons shall make no claim against her. The mother may give her
property(213) to the son whom she loves,—to the brother she need not give.
151. If a woman who dwells in the house of a man contract with her
husband, and cause (him) to deliver a tablet, so that a creditor(214) of
her husband may not seize her, if that man have interest of money against
him before he marries that woman, his creditor shall not seize his wife,
and if that woman have interest of money against her before she enter the
house of the man, her creditor shall not seize her husband.
152. If interest accrue against them after that woman has entered the
house of the man, they shall both be responsible to the agent.
153. If the wife of a man cause her husband to be killed on account of
another male, they shall impale that woman.(215)
154. If a man has known his daughter, they shall expel that man from the
city.
155. If a man has chosen a bride for his son, and his son has known her,
(and if) he (himself) then afterwards has lain in her bosom, and they have
found him, they shall bind that man, and cast her into the water.(216)
156. If a man has chosen a bride for his son, and his son has not known
her, and he (himself) has lain in her bosom, he shall pay her half a mana
of silver, and shall restore to her whatever she brought from the house of
her father, and she shall marry the husband of her choice.
157. If a man, after his father, has lain in the bosom of his mother, they
shall burn them both.
158. If a man, after his father, be found in the bosom of her who brought
him up, (and) who has brought forth children, that man shall be turned out
of (his) father’s house.
159. If a man, who has brought to his father-in-law’s house furniture(217)
(and) has given a dower, pay attention to another woman, and say to his
father-in-law: “I will not marry thy daughter,” the father of the girl
shall take the property which has been brought to him.
160. If a man has brought furniture to the house of his father-in-law,
(and) given a dower, and the father of the girl say: “I will not give thee
my daughter,” the property, as much as has been brought to him, he shall
cause to be equal,(218) and shall return.
161. If a man has brought furniture to the house of his father-in-law,
(and) given a dower, and his friend slander him, (and) his father-in-law
say to the husband of the wife:(219) “Thou shalt not marry my daughter,”
he shall cause to be equal the property, as much as has been brought to
him, and return (it), and his friend shall not marry his wife.
162. If a man has married a wife, (and) she has borne him children, and
that woman has gone to (her) fate, her father shall have no claim upon her
marriage-gift—her marriage-gift belongs to her sons.
163. If a man has married a wife, and she has not caused him to have
children, (and) that woman has gone to (her) fate, if his father-in-law
has returned to him the dower which that man took to the house of his
father-in-law, her husband shall have no claim upon the marriage-gift of
that woman—her marriage-gift belongs to the house of her father.
164. If his father-in-law has not returned to him the dower, he shall
deduct from her marriage-gift all her dower, and return (the balance of)
her marriage-gift to her father’s house.
165. If a man has presented to his son, who is foremost in his eyes, a
field, a plantation, and a house, (and) has written for him a tablet,
(and) afterwards the father has gone to (his) fate, when the brothers
share together, he shall take the gift which the father gave him, and they
shall share equally in the property of the house of the father besides.
166. If a man has taken wives for the sons which he has had, (and) has not
taken a wife for his youngest son, (and) afterwards the father has gone to
(his) fate, when the brothers share together, they shall set aside the
money of a dower for their youngest brother, who has not taken a wife,
from the property of the father’s house, besides his (lawful) share, and
shall cause him to take a wife.
167. If a man has married a wife, and she has borne him sons, (and) that
woman has gone to (her) fate, (and) after her he has married another
woman, and she has brought forth sons, (and) afterwards the father has
gone to (his) fate, the sons shall not share according to the mothers.
They shall take the marriage-gifts of their mothers, and the property of
the father’s house they shall share equally.
168. If a man set his face to discard his son, he shall say to the judge:
“I discard my son;” the judge shall inquire into his reasons. If the son
has not committed a grave fault which cuts him off from sonhood, the
father shall not cut off his son from sonhood.(220)
169. If he has committed against his father a grave fault which cuts him
off from sonhood, the first time (the father) shall refrain. If he has
committed a grave fault a second time, the father shall cut his son off
from the sonhood.
170. If a man’s wife has borne him children, and his maid-servant has
borne him children, (and) the father in his lifetime say to the children
whom the maid-servant has borne to him: “My children,” he has reckoned
them with the children of the wife. After the father has gone to (his)
fate, the children of the wife and the children of the maid-servant shall
share in the property of the father’s house equally; the son (who is) the
child of the wife shall choose and take at the sharing.
171. And if the father, during his lifetime, has not said to the children
whom the maid-servant has borne to him: “My children,” after the father
has gone to (his) fate, the children of the maid-servant shall not share
in the property of the father’s house with the children of the wife. (If)
he has set free the maid-servant and her children, the children of the
wife shall not claim the children of the maid-servant for service. The
wife shall take her marriage-gift and the dowry which her husband gave her
(and) recorded upon a tablet, and she shall sit in the seat of her
husband; as long as she lives, she shall enjoy (them)—she shall not sell
them for money—they belong to her children after her.
172. If her husband has not given her a dowry, they shall make up to her
her marriage-gift, and she shall take, from the property of her husband’s
house, a share like (that of) one son. If her sons afflict her, to send
her forth from the house, the judge shall inquire into her reasons, and
(if) he set the fault upon the children, that woman shall not go forth
from her husband’s house. If that woman set her face to go forth, she
shall leave to her children the dowry which her husband gave her. She
shall take the marriage-gift of her father’s house, and the husband of her
choice shall marry her.
173. If that woman, in the place where she has entered, has borne to her
second husband children, after that woman has died, the former and latter
children shall share her marriage-gift.
174. If she has not borne children to her second husband, then the
children of her (first) spouse shall take her marriage-gift.
175. If a slave of the palace or the slave of a poor man has married the
daughter of a (free) man, and has borne children, the owner of the slave
shall not make a claim upon the children of a (free) man’s daughter for
servitude.
176a. And if a slave of the palace or a slave of a poor man has married a
(free) man’s daughter, and when he has married her, she has entered the
house of the slave of the palace or the slave of the poor man with a
wedding-gift from the house of her father, and after they have been
established, they have built a house and have property, (if) afterwards
the slave of the palace or the slave of the poor man has gone to (his)
fate, the daughter of the (free) man shall take her marriage-gift, and
they shall divide the property, which her husband and she had after they
were established, into two parts, and the owner of the slave shall take
half, (and) the daughter of the (free) man shall take half for her
children.
176b. If the daughter of the (free) man had no marriage-gift, the property
which her husband and she possessed after they were established they shall
divide into two parts, and the master of the slave shall take half, the
daughter of the (free) man shall take half for her children.
177. If a widow whose children are young set her face to enter another
house,(221) she shall not enter without the judge. When she enters another
house, the judge shall inquire concerning what remains of her first
husband’s house, and they shall entrust the first husband’s house to the
second husband and to that woman, and shall cause them to deliver a
tablet. They shall keep that house and bring up the young (children). They
shall not sell (any) utensil for silver. The buyer who buys a utensil of
the children of a widow shall forfeit his money; the property shall return
to its owner.
178. If a devotee, or a public woman, to whom her father has presented a
gift, (and) has written for her a tablet, (and) on the tablet which he has
written for her has not written for her (concerning) the giving of what
she should leave to whomsoever she pleased, and has not let her follow the
desire of her heart, after the father has gone to (his) fate, her brothers
shall take her field and her plantation, and according to the amount of
her share shall give to her food, oil, and clothing, and shall satisfy her
heart. If her brothers have not given her food, oil, and clothing
according to the amount of her share, and have not satisfied her heart,
she may give her field and plantation to the farmer who may seem good to
her, and her farmer shall support her. Field, plantation, and property,
which her father gave her, she shall enjoy as long as she lives—she shall
not give (them) for silver, nor shall she be answerable (to) another
(therewith)—her share as daughter belongs to her brothers.(222)
179. If a devotee or a public woman, to whom her father has presented a
gift, (and) has written for her a sealed tablet, (and) on the tablet which
he has written for her has written for her (concerning) the giving of what
she should leave to whomsoever she pleased, and has let her follow the
desire of her heart, after the father has gone to (his) fate, she shall
give what she leaves to whomsoever she pleases—her brothers have no claim
upon her.
180. If a father has not presented a gift(223) to his daughter, who is a
recluse or a public woman, after the father has gone to (his) fate, she
shall take a share in the property of the father’s house like a son, and
enjoy (it) as long as she lives. What she leaves belongs to her brothers.
181. If a father has brought to a god a hierodule or a virgin, and has not
presented to her a gift,(224) after the father has gone to (his) fate, she
shall share in the property of the father’s house a third (as) her
inheritance, and she shall enjoy (it) as long as she lives. What she
leaves belongs to her brothers.
182. If a father has not presented a gift to his daughter, priestess of
Merodach of Babylon, (and) has not written for her a sealed tablet, after
the father has gone to (his) fate, she shall share, with her brothers, in
the property of the father’s house a third part (as) her inheritance, and
she shall not carry on its administration. The priestess of Merodach may
give what she leaves to whomsoever she pleases.
183. If a father has presented a marriage-gift to his concubine-daughter,
given her to a husband, (and) written for her a sealed tablet, after the
father has gone to (his) fate, she shall not share in the property of the
father’s house.(225)
184. If a man has not presented to his concubine-daughter a marriage-gift,
(and) has not given her to a husband, after the father has gone to (his)
fate, her brothers shall give her a wedding-gift according to the amount
(of the property) of the father’s house, and shall give her to a husband.
185. If a man has adopted(226) a child by its name,(227) and has brought
it up, that foster-child cannot be claimed back.
186. If a man has adopted a child, and when he had adopted him, he
rebelled against his (foster-)father and his (foster-)mother, that
foster-child shall return to his father’s house.
187. The son of a favourite attending the palace, and the son of a public
woman, cannot be claimed back.(228)
188. If an artizan(229) has taken a child to bring up,(230) and has taught
him his handicraft, he cannot be claimed back.
189. If he has not taught him his handicraft, that foster-child(231) may
return to his father’s house.
190. If a man has not reckoned with his sons a young child which he has
adopted and brought up, that foster-child may return to the house of his
father.
191. If a man who has adopted a child and brought him up, has built a
dwelling, (and) after he has children (of his own) set his face to cut off
the foster-child, that child shall not go his way. His foster-father shall
give him one-third of his property as his inheritance and (then) he shall
go. He shall give him nothing of the field, plantation, and house.
192. If the son of a favourite or the son of a public woman say to his
foster-father and his foster-mother, “Thou art not my father, thou art not
my mother,” they shall cut out his tongue.(232)
193. If the child of a favourite or the child of a public woman come to
know his father’s house, and despise his foster-father and his
foster-mother, and go to his father’s house, they shall tear out his
eyes.(233)
194. If a man has given his child to a nurse, and that child has died in
the hands of the nurse, and the nurse, without [his] father and his
mother, rear another child, they shall summon her, and as she has rear[ed]
another child without [his] father and mother, they shall cut off her
breasts.
195. If a son smite his father, they shall cut off his hands.
196. If a man has destroyed the eye of the son of a man, they shall
destroy his eye.
197. If he has broken the limb of a man, they shall break his limb.
198. If he has destroyed the eye of a poor man, or broken the limb of a
poor man, he shall pay one mana of silver.
199. If he has destroyed the eye of a man’s slave, or broken the limb of a
man’s slave, he shall pay half his value.(234)
200. If a man has knocked out the teeth of a man of his rank, they shall
knock out his teeth.
201. If he has knocked out the teeth of a poor man, he shall pay one-third
of a mana of silver.
202. If a man has struck the head(235) of a man who is greater than he, he
shall be struck in the assembly sixty times with an ox-hide whip.
203. If the son of a man(236) has struck the head of the son of a man who
is like himself, he shall pay one mana of silver.
204. If a poor man has struck the head of a poor man, he shall pay ten
shekels of silver.
205. If the slave of a man has struck the head of the son of a man, they
shall cut off his ear.
206. If a man has struck a man in a quarrel, and do him hurt, that man
shall swear: “I did not strike him knowingly,” and he shall be responsible
for the physician.
207. If he die of his blows, he shall swear (the same). If (it was) the
son of a man, he shall pay one-half a mana of silver.
208. If it was the son of a poor man, he shall pay one-third of a mana of
silver.
209. If a man has struck the daughter of a man, and caused what was within
her to fall from her, he shall pay ten shekels of silver for what was
within her.
210. If that woman die, they shall kill his daughter.
211. If by blows he has made what was within the daughter of a poor man to
fall from her, he shall pay five shekels of silver.
212. If that woman die, he shall pay one-half a mana of silver.
213. If he has struck a man’s slave-woman and made that which was within
her fall from her, he shall pay two shekels of silver.
214. If that slave-woman die, he shall pay one-third of a mana of silver.
215. If a physician has treated a man for a grave injury with a bronze
lancet, and cured the man, or opened the cataract of a man with a bronze
lancet, and cured the eye of the man, he shall receive ten shekels of
silver.
216. If it was the son of a poor man, he shall receive five shekels of
silver.
217. If it was a man’s slave, the owner of the slave shall pay to the
physician two shekels of silver.
218. If a physician has treated a man for a grave injury with a bronze
lancet, and caused the man to die, or opened the cataract of a man with a
bronze lancet, and destroyed the eye of a man, they shall cut off his
hands.
219. If a physician has treated a poor man’s slave for a grave injury with
a bronze lancet, and has caused (him) to die, he shall make good slave for
slave.(237)
220. If he has opened his cataract with a bronze lancet, and destroyed his
eye, he shall pay half his value in silver.(238)
221. If a physician has made sound the broken limb of a man, or saved a
diseased part, the patient(239) shall pay to the physician five shekels of
silver.
222. If it be the son of a poor man, he shall pay three shekels of silver.
223. If it was a man’s slave, the owner of the slave shall pay to the
physician two shekels of silver.
224. If an ox-doctor or an ass-doctor has treated an ox or an ass for a
grave injury, and has saved (it), the owner of the ox or the ass shall pay
to the physician one-sixth (of a shekel) of silver (as) his hire.
225. If he has treated the ox or the ass for a grave injury, and caused
(it) to die, he shall give to the owner of the ox or the ass a quarter of
its price.
226. If a barber, without the (knowledge of the) owner of a slave, has
marked an inalienable slave with a mark, they shall cut off the hands of
that barber.(240)
227. If a man has deceived a barber, and he has marked an inalienable
slave with a mark, they shall kill that man, and bury him in his house;
the barber shall swear: “I did not mark knowingly,” and shall go free.
228. If a builder has made a house for a man, and has finished it (well),
for a house of one _šar_, he shall give him two shekels of silver as his
pay.
229. If a builder has made a house for a man, and has not done his work
strongly, and the house he has made has fallen down, and killed the owner
of the house, that builder shall be killed.
230. If it cause the son of the owner of the house to die, they shall kill
the son of that builder.
231. If it cause the slave of the owner of the house to die, he shall give
to the owner of the house a slave like (his) slave.
232. If it has destroyed the property, whatever it has destroyed, he shall
make good. And as he did not make strong the house he constructed, and it
fell, from his own property he shall rebuild the house which fell.
233. If a builder has made a house for a man, and has not caused his work
to be firm, and the wall has fallen over, that builder shall strengthen
that wall with his own money.
234. If a boatman has calked a vessel of 60 _gur_ (burthen) for a man, he
shall give him two shekels of silver as his pay.
235. If a boatman has calked a vessel for a man, and has not perfected his
work, and in that (same) year that vessel sail, (if) it have a defect, the
boatman shall alter that vessel, and repair (it) with his own capital, and
give the repaired vessel to the owner of the vessel.(241)
236. If a man has given his vessel to a boatman for hire, and the boatman
has been neglectful, and sunk or lost the vessel, the boatman shall
replace the vessel to the owner of the vessel.
237. If a man has hired a boatman and a vessel, and has freighted it with
wheat, wool, oil, dates, and any other kind of freight; (if) that boatman
be neglectful, and sink the vessel, and lose what is within (it), the
boatman shall replace the vessel which he has sunk, and whatever he lost,
which was within it.
238. If a boatman has sunk a man’s vessel, and refloated it, he shall pay
half its value(242) in silver.
239. If a man [has hired] a boatman, he shall give him 6 _gur_ of wheat
yearly.
240. If a down-stream vessel collide with an up-stream vessel, and sink
(it), the owner of the sunken vessel shall declare before God whatever has
been lost in his vessel, and (he) of the down-stream vessel which sank the
up-stream vessel shall replace for him his vessel and whatever was lost.
241. If a man has driven the ox (of another) to work, he shall pay
one-third of a mana of silver.
242 and 243. If a man has hired for a year, (as) hire of a draught-ox he
shall pay to its owner 4 _gur_ of wheat. (As) hire of a carrier(?)-ox, 3
_gur_ of wheat.
244. If a man has hired an ox (or) an ass, and a lion kill it in the
field, (the loss) is its owner’s.
245. If a man has hired an ox, and cause it to die by negligence or by
blows, to the ox’s owner he shall make up ox for ox.(243)
246. If a man has hired an ox, and has broken its foot or cut its
nape,(244) to the ox’s owner he shall make up ox for ox.
247. If a man has hired an ox, and has poked out its eye, he shall pay to
the ox’s owner half its value in silver.
248. If a man has hired an ox, and has broken its horn, cut off its tail,
or pierced(245) its nostril, he shall pay a quarter of its value in
silver.
249. If a man has hired an ox, and God has stricken it and it has died,
the man who hired the ox shall swear by God,(246) and shall go free.
250. If a mad bull, in its onset, has gored a man, and caused (him) to
die, that case has no claim.(247)
251. If a man’s ox—goring for goring—has made known to him its vice,(248)
and he has not sawn off its horns, (if) he has not shut up his ox, and
that ox has gored the son of a man, and caused him to die, he shall pay
half a mana of silver.
252. [If] it be a man’s servant, he shall give one-third of a mana of
silver.
253. If a man has hired a man to stay upon his field, and [ha]nded to him
the produce (?), confided to him the oxen, [and] contracted with him [to]
cultivate the field, if that man has stolen the wheat or the vegetables,
and it is found in his hands, they shall cut off his hands.
254. If he has taken away the produce and deprived(249) the oxen, he shall
replace the amount of the wheat which he has wasted (?).
255. If he has let out(250) the oxen of a man for hire, or stolen the
wheat, and not made (it) to grow in the field, they shall summon that man,
and for every 10 _bur-gan_ he shall measure 60 _gur_ of wheat.
256. If his borough cannot respond for him, they shall leave him in that
field with the oxen.
257. If a man has hired a field-labourer, he shall give him 8 _gur_ of
wheat yearly.
258. If a man has hired an ox-herd (?), he shall give him 6 _gur_ of wheat
yearly.
259. If a man has stolen a watering-machine from the enclosure, he shall
give to the owner of the watering-machine five shekels of silver.
260. If he has stolen a shadoof or a plough, he shall give three shekels
of silver.
261. If a man has hired a herdsman to pasture oxen and sheep, he shall
give him 8 _gur_ of wheat yearly.
262. If a man an ox or sheep for....
263. ... If he has lost [an ox] or a sheep which has been given to [him],
he shall restore to [their] owner, ox for [ox], sheep for [sheep].
264. If a [herdsman], to whom oxen or sheep have been given to pasture,
has received his wages, everything (?) as agreed (?), and is
satisfied,(251) has reduced the oxen, (or) reduced the sheep, (or)
lessened (their) young, he shall give (back) young and increase according
to his contracts.
265. If a herdsman, to whom oxen and sheep have been given to pasture, has
acted wrongly, and changed the natural increase,(252) and has given (it)
for silver, they shall summon him, and ten times what he has stolen, oxen
and sheep, he shall make good to their owner.
266. If in the fold an act of God has taken place, or a lion has killed,
the herdsman shall declare his innocence before God, and the owner of the
fold shall meet the destruction of the fold.
267. If the herdsman has been in fault, and has caused damage in the fold,
the herdsman shall make up the loss caused by(253) the damage which he has
brought about in the fold, (both) oxen and sheep, and shall give (them) to
their owner.
268. If a man has hired an ox for treading out (the corn), 20 _qa_ of
wheat is his hire.
269. If he has hired an ass for treading out (the corn), 10 _qa_ of wheat
is his hire.
270. If he has hired a young animal for treading out (the corn), 1 _qa_ of
wheat is his hire.
271. If a man has hired oxen, a cart, and its driver, he shall give 180
_qa_ of wheat daily.
272. If a man has hired the cart by itself, he shall give 40 _qa_ of wheat
daily.
273. If a man has hired a workman, from the beginning of the year to the
fifth month he shall give six grains(254) of silver daily; from the sixth
month to the end of the year, he shall give five grains of silver daily.
274. If a man hire an artizan, (as) wages of a ... five [grains] of
silver; (as) wages of a brickmaker (?)(255) five grains of silver; (as)
wages of a linen-weaver(256) five grains of silver; (as) wages of a
stone-worker(?)(257) ... grains of silver; (as) wages of a milkman (?) ...
[grains] of silver; (as) [wages] of a ... ... [grains] of silver; (as)
[wages] of a carpenter four grains of silver; (as) wages of a ... four
grains of silver; (as) [wages] of a house-superintendent (?) ... grains of
silver; (as) [wages] of a builder (?), ... grains of silver. [dai]ly [he
shall g]ive.
275. [If] a man has hired a small boat (?), three grains of silver is its
hire daily.
276. If he has hired a down-stream (vessel), he shall give two grains and
a half of silver (as) its hire daily.
277. If a man has hired a vessel of 60 _gur_, he shall give one-sixth (of
a shekel) of silver daily (as) its hire.
278. If a man has bought a male or female slave, and before he has
fulfilled his month an infirmity has fallen upon him, he shall return him
to his seller, and the buyer shall receive back the silver he has paid.
279. If a man has bought a male or female slave, and he is liable to be
reclaimed,(258) his seller shall respond to the claim.(259)
280. If a man, in a foreign country, has bought a male (or) female slave
of a man, (and) when they have arrived in the midst of the land, a
(former) owner of the male or female slave recognize his male or female
slave, if their male and female slave are children of the land, he shall
set them free without payment.(260)
281. If they are children of another land, the buyer shall declare before
God the money(261) he has paid, and the (former) owner of the male or
female slave shall give to the agent the money he has paid, and shall
recover his male or female slave.
282. If a slave has said to his master: “Thou art not my master,” he shall
summon him as his slave, and his master shall cut off his ear.
Decrees of equity, which Ḫammurabi, the able king, has established, and
has procured (for) the country lasting security and a happy rule.
Ḫammurabi, the accomplished king, am I. For the head-dark (ones),(262)
whom Bel assigned, (and whose) shepherding Merodach has given, I have not
been neglectful, I have not relaxed—peaceful localities have I found for
them,(263) I have opened the narrow defiles, light have I caused to go
forth to them. With the powerful weapon which Zagaga and Ištar have
conferred upon me, with the acuteness which Aê has bestowed, with the
might which Merodach has bestowed, I have rooted out the enemy above and
below.(264) I have dominated the depths,(265) I have made happy the flesh
of the land, the people of the dwellings (therein) have I caused to lie
down in security—fear caused I not to possess them. The great gods have
elected(266) me, and I am the shepherd giving peace, whose sceptre is
just, setting up my good shadow in my city. I have pressed the people of
the land of Šumer and Akkad in my bosom; by my protective spirit
fraternally (?) have I guided them in peace; in my wisdom have I protected
them. For the strong not to oppress the weak, to direct the fatherless
(and) the widow, I have raised its(267) head in Babylon, the city of God
and Bel. In Ê-sagila, the house whose foundations are firm like heaven and
earth, I have written on my monument my most precious words to judge the
justice of the land, to decide the decisions of the land, to direct the
ignorant; and I have placed (them) before my image as king of
righteousness.
The king who is great among the city-king(s) am I; my words are renowned,
my power has no equal; by the command of Šamaš, the great judge of heaven
and earth, may righteousness have power in the land;(268) by the word of
Merodach, my lord, may my bas-reliefs not have a destroyer; in Ê-sagila,
which I love, may my name be commemorated in happiness for ever. The
ignorant man, who has a complaint,(269) let him come before my image (as)
king of righteousness, and let him read my inscribed monument and let him
hear my precious words, and my monument explain to him the matter. Let him
see his judgment, let his heart expand, (saying): “Ḫammurabi is a lord who
is like a father, a parent to the people; he has caused the word of
Merodach, his lord, to be reverenced, and has gained the victory for
Merodach above and below. He has rejoiced the heart of Merodach, his lord,
and fixed for the people happiness(270) for ever, and (well) has he
governed the land.” Let him pronounce (it) aloud, and with his heart
perfect, let him pray before Merodach, my lord, (and) Zērpanitum, my lady.
May the winged bull, (and) the protecting spirit, the gods of the entrance
of Ê-sagila, (and) the wall of Ê-sagila, daily further (his) desires(271)
in the presence of Merodach, my lord, and Zērpanitum, my lady.
For the future, the course(272) of days for all time: May the king who is
in the land protect the words of righteousness which I have written on my
monument. Let him not change the law of the land which I have adjudged,
the decisions of the country which I have decided; let him not cause my
bas-relief to be destroyed. If that man have intelligence, and wish to
govern his country well, let him pay attention to the words which I have
written on my monument, and may this monument show him the path, the
direction, the law of the land which I have pronounced, the decisions of
the land which I have decided. And let him rule his people,(273) let him
pronounce justice for them, let him decide their decision. Let him remove
the evil and the wicked from his land, let him rejoice the flesh of his
people.
Ḫammurabi, the king of righteousness, to whom Šamaš has given (these)
enactments,(274) am I. My words are noble, my works have no equal—they
have brought forth the proud (?) to humility (?) the humble (?) to wisdom
(?) (and) to renown. If that man(275) is attentive to my words, which I
have written on my monument, and set not aside my law, change not my word,
alter not my bas-relief—that man like me, the king of righteousness, may
the god Šamaš make his sceptre to endure, may he guide his people in
righteousness. If that man regard not my words, which I have written on my
monument, and despise my curse, and fear not the curse of God, and do away
the law which I have ordained—(if) he change my word, alter my bas-relief,
destroy my written name, and write his (own) name, (or) on account of
these curses cause another to do so,(276) that man, whether king, or lord,
or viceroy, or personage who has been elected,(277) may the great God, the
father of the gods, proclaimer of my reign, take back from him the glory
of my kingdom, break his sceptre, curse his destiny. May Bel, the lord who
determines the destinies, whose command is unchangeable, he who has
magnified my kingdom, rouse against him revolts which his hand cannot
suppress, causing (?) his destruction upon his seat.(278) A reign of
sighing, days (but) few, years of want, darkness without light, death the
vision of (his) eyes, may they set for him as (his) destiny. May he decree
with his grave lips the destruction of his city, the dispersion of his
people, the taking away of his royalty, the annihilation of his name and
his record in the land. May Beltis, the great mother whose command is
supreme(279) in E-kura, the lady who makes my thoughts propitious, instead
of judgment and decision, make his word evil before Bel, may she
accomplish the ruin of his country, the loss of his people, the pouring
out of his life like water by the command of Bel the king. May Aê, the
great prince, whose decisions have the precedence,(280) the sage of the
gods, he who knows everything, who lengthens the days of my life, take
back from him understanding(281) and wisdom, bring him back into
forgetfulness.(282) May he dam up his rivers at (their) sources, (and)
cause grain, the life of the people, not to exist in his land. May Šamaš,
the great judge of heaven and earth, he who rules living things, the lord
my trust, destroy his dominion; may he not pronounce his judgment, may he
confuse his path, may he annihilate the course of his army. May he place
for him, in his oracles,(283) an evil design to snatch away the foundation
of his dominion and to destroy his country. May Šamaš’s word of misfortune
speedily attack him; may he snatch him from the living on high, beneath in
the earth may he deprive his spirit(284) of water. May Sin, lord of the
heavens, the god my creator, whose brightness(285) shines resplendent
among the gods, withdraw from him crown and throne of dominion. May he fix
upon him a grave misdeed, his great fault, which will not disappear from
his body, and may he cause the days, the months, the years of his reign to
end in sighing and tears. May he increase for him the burthen of his
dominion, may he fix for him as (his) fate a life which is comparable(286)
with death. May Hadad, lord of fertility, dominator of heaven and earth,
my helper, withhold from him the rains in the heavens, the flood in the
springs. May he destroy his country with want and famine, may he angrily
rage over his city, and turn his country to mounds of the flood.(287) May
Zagaga, the great warrior, the eldest son of (the temple) Ê-kura, he who
goes at my right hand, break his weapons on the battle-field. May he turn
for him day into night, and may he set his enemy over him. May Ištar, lady
of war and battle, who lets loose my weapons, my propitious genius, lover
of my reign, in her angry heart, in her great wrath, curse his dominion,
his favours into evils may she turn, may she turn.(288) In the place of
war and battles may she break his weapons, may she make for him confusion
and revolt, may she cast down his warriors, may she cause the earth to
drink their blood, may she cast down in the plain a heap of corpses of his
warriors, may she not cause his soldiers to have [burial?]. As for him,
may she deliver him into the hand of his enemy, and bring him as a captive
to the land which is hostile to him. May Nergal, the strong one among the
gods, unrivalled battle,(289) he who causes me to attain my victory, in
his great might burn(290) his people like a tiny bundle of reeds. With his
strong weapon may he subjugate him, and may he crush his members like an
image of clay. May Nintu, the supreme lady of the lands, the mother my
creator, withhold from him his son, and cause him to have no name, in the
midst of his people may she not produce a human seed. May Nin-Karrak,
daughter of Anu, she who announces my happiness, let forth from Ê-kura
upon his members a grave sickness, an evil pestilence, a grievous injury,
which they cannot cure, whose nature the physician does not know, which he
cannot ease with a bandage, (and which), like the bite of death, cannot be
removed. Until she take possession of his life, may he groan for his
manliness.(291)
May the great gods of heaven and earth, the Anunna(292) in their assembly,
the divine bull of the house,(293) the bricks of Ê-babbara,(294) curse
that (man), his reign, his country, his army, his people, and his nation,
with a deadly curse—with powerful curses may Bel, by his word which cannot
be changed, curse him, and speedily may they overtake him.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
These laws, as being the oldest known, have attracted considerable
attention, and much has been said concerning their connection with the
Mosaic Code. Whatever connection there may be between them, however, it
must be kept well in mind, that they have been formulated and compiled
from totally different standpoints. Notwithstanding the references in the
Code of Ḫammurabi to religious things, there is no doubt that the laws
given therein are purely civil, and compiled either by the king as
temporal ruler of the land, or by his advisers, or by the judges who
“decided the decisions of the land.” Charitable enactments were therefore
as far from the intention of the compilers of the Babylonian code as such
things are from the intention of the legislation of this or any other
modern civilized community or nationality. The Law of Moses, on the other
hand, has long been recognized as a Priestly Code, into which all kinds of
provisions for the poor, the fatherless, the necessitous, were likely to
enter, and have, in fact, entered. From this point of view, Moses’ code is
immeasurably superior to that of the Babylonian law-giver, and can hardly,
on that account, be compared with it.
From existing duplicates of this inscription, we know that it bore a title
which, in accordance with the usual custom in ancient times, was taken
from the first few words of the inscription, in this case _Ninu îlu
ṣîrum_, “When the supreme God.” In the Ninevite duplicate in the British
Museum, however, a kind of title in the modern sense of the word is given,
namely, _Dinani Ḫammurabi_, “The Laws of Ḫammurabi,” the first word being
from the common Semitic root which appears, in Semitic Babylonian, under
the form of _dânu_, “to judge.” As far as our information goes, it would
seem that, whilst the Hebrew _tôrah_ was both judicial, ceremonial, and
moral, the Babylonian _dînu_ was judicial only. Ceremonial enactments are
entirely foreign to it, and morality, in the modern sense of the word,
though represented, does not hold a very high place, though it must not be
forgotten that five columns of the text are wanting.
That there should be, therefore, but few parallels between the Codes of
Moses and of Ḫammurabi was to be expected, though naturally likenesses and
parallelisms are to be found, the Hebrews being practically of the same
stock as the Babylonians, and also, as has been shown, under the influence
of the same civilization. It will be noticed, in reading through the code,
that not only are there no laws against sorcery, worshipping other than
the national god or gods, and prostitution, but there are actually
enactments referring to the first and the last, showing that they were
recognized. Moral, religious, ceremonial, and philanthropic enactments
are, in fact, entirely absent.
3-4. With the enactments concerning false witness, cp. Ex. xx. 16; Deut.
v. 20, etc. More especially, however, are the directions in Deut. xix. 16
ff. noteworthy. Here the direction is, to do to the false witness “as he
had thought to do to his brother.” In this case, too, the logical penalty
would be death, in a matter involving the life of a man.
7 (liability to be regarded as a thief on account of the purchase or
receiving of things without witnesses or a contract) is to a certain
extent paralleled by Lev. vi. 2 ff., where, however, the penalty for
wrongful possession is not death, but the restoration of the object
detained, with a fifth part of the value added thereto.
8 (theft of live-stock) is illustrated by Ex. xxii. 1, where it is ordered
that the thief restore five oxen for a stolen ox, and four sheep for a
stolen sheep. All laws dealing with theft seem to have been more severe
among the Babylonians than among the Hebrews, and inability to make the
object good, with the penalties attached thereto, was visited with death
(6-11, 14, 15, etc.).
14. This enactment is exactly parallel with Ex. xxi. 16: “He that stealeth
a man ... shall surely be put to death.”
21 (housebreaking). Ex. xxii. 2-4, justifies the killing of a burglar
caught in the act before sunrise, but not otherwise.
57. In the case of unlawful pasturing, it is probable that Ex. xxii. 5 may
furnish the key to the obscurities of this Babylonian enactment. According
to the Mosaic law, the owner of the cattle had to make the damage good
with the best of his field or vineyard. To ensure getting the best, and
his due share, the most satisfactory way would be to reap the offender’s
field, if he had one.
110. The opening (seemingly in the English sense) of a wine-house by a
temple-devotee, or her merely entering such a place, was in all
probability equivalent to prostituting herself, and if so, this law may be
compared with Lev. xxi. 9, in which the daughter of a priest, if she
profaned herself (and her father) by playing the whore, was to be put to
death by burning.
117. As is shown by the preceding enactments, the person of a man might be
seized for debt, but this shows that he might allow his wife, his son, or
his daughter to be taken to work it off, and in that case they were to be
set free in the fourth year. In Hebrew law (Ex. xxi. 2) an ordinary
purchased slave was free after six years’ service, but if a man sold his
daughter (v. 7), she did not “go out as the men-servants do.”(295)
125. The theft of things on deposit entailed only restitution if the
person with whom they were deposited were not in fault. In Ex. xxii. 7-9
the person condemned had to pay or restore double the value of the things
stolen.
129. In this law the conditional clause at the end is incomplete, but it
may be supposed that liberty was accorded therein to the king and to the
injured husband to exercise mercy, and commute the death-penalty in any
way they thought fit, attaching thereto any other penalty which might seem
good to them. According to Lev. xx. 10, the adulterer and the adulteress
were to be put to death, but in what manner is not stated. To all
appearance no mercy was given.
130. As this is a case of a married woman living in her father’s house,
Ex. xxii. 16 is not an exact parallel. The woman being unbetrothed, the
man who had violated her had to endow and marry her.
155. Incest of the nature referred to here is practically a complete
parallel with Lev. xx. 12, where, however, the nature of the death-penalty
is not stated. If the correction of the code of Ḫammurabi suggested in the
footnote (“they shall bind that man, and cast _him_ into the water”) be
the true one, the man would seem to have been regarded as the chief
sinner, and the woman was probably left to be dealt with by the son’s
family. The mere binding of the man, as in the text, would be no adequate
punishment, and the correction: “They shall bind _them_, and cast _them_
into the water,” pre-supposes a very serious mistake on the part of the
scribe.
157. This is a parallel with Lev. xviii. 8, and xx. 11, and the penalty is
death in both codes. The word “mother” in the Babylonian Code probably
includes “step-mother” as well.
195. This is parallel with Ex. xxi. 15, where, however, the smiting of the
mother is included, and the more severe penalty of death is prescribed,
instead of merely cutting off the offending members as a punishment.
196, 197, 200, 210. These illustrate the dictum: “An eye for an eye, and a
tooth for tooth” (Ex. xxi. 24, 25; Lev. xxiv. 20; Deut. xix. 21; Matt. v.
38). They were naturally the common punishments of the period when the
penalty of imprisonment could not be imposed.
199. The destruction of the eye of a man’s slave, or the fracture of his
limb, was apparently held to entail the diminution of his value by
one-half, which the person who inflicted the injury had to pay. Nothing is
said, however, concerning injury to a slave by his master, and this law,
therefore, has no parallel in the Mosaic ordinance given in Ex. xxi. 26,
27, where the master is spoken of as the possible aggressor, and had to
set his slave free on account of the injury he had received.(296)
206. The law regarding injuries inflicted upon a man in a quarrel is
parallel with Ex. xxi. 18, 19, except that the latter decrees that the
person inflicting the injury, in addition to causing the injured man to be
completely healed, has also to pay for his loss of time. On the other
hand, it is noteworthy that, in the Code of Ḫammurabi, he who committed
the injury had to swear that he did not do it knowingly—that is, with the
intention of injuring the man, otherwise he probably came under the law of
retaliation, Nos. 196, 197, and 200.
209. This is parallel with Ex. xxi. 22, but whereas the penalty for the
injury to the woman was fixed at ten shekels of silver, the law of Moses
allowed the husband to estimate the compensation, which was certified and
probably revised by the judges.
210. It was not only “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” but
also “a daughter for a daughter,” even when a mortal injury may not have
been intended. This is practically the same as Ex. xxi. 23: “And if any
mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.”
241. As this law stands, it refers to the unlawful working of another
man’s ox, and not to an ox taken in pledge, for the working of which there
could be no remedy, any more than there was for taking a man’s wife,
child, or slave, in pledge to work out a debt.
244 (loss of an animal through attack by a wild beast). Compare Ex. xxii.
13: “If it (an animal delivered into the care of another) be torn in
pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that
which was torn.” Apparently there was no obligation to place the animal in
a safe place. Cf. Gen. xxxi. 39 (Jacob’s reproof to Laban): “That which
was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bare the loss of it.”
245 ff. These are to a certain extent illustrated by Ex. xxii. 14, 15, in
which passage, if the owner of the injured animal was not present, the
borrower had to make good any loss. If, however, the owner was there to
protect it, there was no penalty, as he could in all probability have
prevented the injury from being inflicted, and in any case might be
supposed to have control over the animal.
250. The owner of a furious bull was protected from loss, even though the
result was fatal, if he did not know that the animal was vicious. In Ex.
xxi. 28, though the owner of the offending ox was to go free, the animal
itself was to be stoned to death, and its flesh not eaten. There is no
doubt that this was hard on the owner, but it must have had an excellent
effect, and ensured the proper enclosing of all doubtful animals.
251. Even when the master knew that his ox was vicious, the Babylonians
were more lenient than the Hebrews, who, in such a case, besides the
destruction of the ox, decreed the death of the owner as a punishment for
his negligence (Ex. xxi. 29). As will be seen from verse 30, however, he
might be spared by paying such ransom as might be imposed upon him.
252. One-third of a mana of silver is equivalent to 20 shekels, so that
the sum here indicated as compensation for the death of a slave who has
been gored by a bull differs from that awarded in Ex. xxi. 32, by ten
shekels—one-sixth of a mana more.
266. This is in part covered by 244 (destruction of cattle by a lion), and
is parallel with Ex. xxii. 10, 11, where, also, an oath had to be sworn
between the parties, and the herdsman in whose care the cattle were, went
free of all obligation. The accident causing the loss, however, is not
there described as “an act of God.”
267. The wording of this law clearly indicates that it would apply if the
herdsman were in fault, and suggests that the same condition must be read
into Ex. xxii. 12, where, if the cattle were stolen from him, he had to
make the loss good.
Besides the enactments in the Code of Moses, however, we find, in the
interesting and important monument translated above, and in the legal
documents of the period to which it belongs, noteworthy parallels to other
parts of the Old Testament. Reference has already been made (pp. 174, 175,
and 185, 186) to the contracts of the period of Ḫammurabi’s dynasty which
illustrate the matter of Sarah giving Hagar to Abraham because she herself
was childless (Gen. xvi. 1, 2). That this was the custom in Babylonia is
now confirmed by law 144, which also furnishes the reason why it was the
wife who chose her partner in the husband’s affections. It was because the
first wife preferred to choose herself the woman who was to replace her,
and in doing this, she chose one who would be her subordinate, not one who
might become a really serious rival. A parallel case is that of Bilhah
(Gen. xxx. 4). Hagar’s despising her mistress (Gen. xvi. 4) is illustrated
by law No. 146, which allows the mistress to reduce her to the position of
a slave again, which was agreed to by the patriarch, the result being that
Hagar fled (v. 6).
The determination to have the possession of the cave of Machpelah placed
upon a thoroughly legal footing (Gen. xxiii. 14-20) may, perhaps, be
illustrated by law No. 7, though there is not much parallelism between the
two instances, a field with a cave and trees being a difficult thing to
steal. There is hardly any doubt, however, that the patriarch desired that
no accusation should be brought against him or his descendants for
unlawfully using it, as is suggested by the fact that when Ephron offered
to give it, he said that he did so “in the presence of the sons of my
people” only, but when the transaction was completed as Abraham wished, it
was done not only in the presence of the children of Heth, but before all
who went in at the gate of his city (Gen. xxiii. 18), and naturally
included strangers as well.
Abraham’s seeking a wife for his son (Gen. xxiv. 4) is in conformity with
laws 155, 156, and 166; gifts are given (Gen. xxiv. 53 and laws No. 159,
160, etc.); seemingly the father-in-law retained the presents given by his
son-in-law, if he could get possession of them (Gen. xxxi. 15 and laws
159-161), and these belonged to the wife (wives) and the children (xxxi.
16 and laws 162, 167, 171, ff.).
Whether the theft of her father’s teraphim by Rachel (Gen. xxxi. 19) could
be construed as sacrilege or not is doubtful, but this may well have been
the penalty thought of by Jacob when Laban accused some of his household
of theft (Gen. xxxi. 32 and law No. 6), though theft, if there were no
restitution, was in Babylonian law always punishable with death.
The punishment of death by burning, which Judah decreed for his
daughter-in-law Tamar (Gen. xxxviii. 24), is parallel with that meted out
to a devotee opening or entering a wine-house (probably a place of
ill-repute), but the parallel ends there—there is no law in the code of
Ḫammurabi, as at present preserved, decreeing death by burning for a widow
who became a harlot.
Theft from a palace (law No. 6) is parallel with Gen. xliv. 9, where the
sons of Jacob admit the justice of a death-penalty if Joseph’s cup were
found in the possession of any of them. Whether the purchase of the
Egyptians and their land for bread by Joseph had any analogy in Western
Asia or not, is uncertain, though law No. 115, as well as those which
precede it, refer to something similar, but in these cases the servitude
was terminable, which does not appear from Gen. xlvii. 19 ff. Thereafter
the Egyptian ruler took from these farmer-thralls a fifth part of the
produce, which compares well with the half or third exacted by the owner
of a field in Babylonia from the hirer (law 46). Finally, the clauses of
the laws of Ḫammurabi referring to adoption (No. 185) might be quoted in
illustration of the adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh by their grandfather
Jacob (Gen. xlviii. 5), especially when read in connection with the
inscriptions translated on pp. 176 and 177, where the sharing of the
adopted son “like a son” is expressly referred to.
In the New Testament, Gal. iv. 30: “Cast out the bondwoman and her son,
for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the
freewoman,” finds illustration in law 171 of Ḫammurabi’s code, and the
parable of the talents (Matt. xxv. 14 ff.) reminds one of the agent
sending forth commissioners to get gain for him by trafficking, as in laws
100-102. 103-107 do not bear directly upon this parallel, but are worth
noting in connection with it.
It will be long ere all that can be said about this noteworthy inscription
finds expression. There is much needing comment, and much to study
therein, and the precise rendering of many a word has still to be found
out.
Babylon And The Bible.
A great deal has been written concerning the two lectures which the
renowned Assyriologist, Friedrich Delitzsch, delivered some time ago
before the German Emperor, under the title of _Babel und Bibel_. These
lectures have now been published, and from their style and contents, one
can easily judge how great was the interest which they aroused. Those who
were privileged to hear them must have enjoyed a true archæological feast,
all the more exquisite in that the subject was that which throws more
light upon the Old Testament than any other known.
His lectures deal, for the most part, with the things which are touched
upon at greater length in this book—the early records of Babylonia and
Assyria, the history, the literature, the arts, and the sciences of those
countries, and of the great cities of which they were so proud. Beginning
with “the great mercantile firm of Murašû and Sons in the time of
Artaxerxes,” about 450 B.C., and the Hebrew names found therein, he speaks
of Ur of the Chaldees, Carchemish, Sargon of Agadé, Ḫammurabi, the Bronze
Gates of Shalmaneser II., Sargon of Assyria, Sennacherib, Assurbanipal
(Aššur-banî-âpli or Sardanapalus), the Laws of Ḫammurabi (translated in
full in this volume), the processions of gods,(297) the blessing of
Aaron,(298) the advanced civilization of Babylonia 2250 years B.C., and
many other things. To touch upon all his points would be to repeat much
that has been treated of in this book, and that being the case, all the
most important of them are referred to in the following pages under
special headings:—
Canaan.
That he is right in calling Canaan at the time of the Exodus “A domain of
Babylonian culture” is indicated by the testimony of the Tel-el-Amarna
tablets, and is fully shown in the present work, Chapters V.-VII. In the
notes appended to the first lecture he refers to the fact that there
existed, in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, a town called Bît (or Beth)
Ninip, after the Babylonian god—“even though there may not have been in
Jerusalem itself a _bît Ninip_, a temple of the god Ninip.”
The Sabbath.
In the present work, the Sabbath is referred to on pl. II., where
photographs of two fragments (duplicates) explaining the word are given.
Prof. Delitzsch calls attention, in the notes to his first lecture, to
this text, together with the British Museum syllabary 82-9-18, 4159, col.
I., l. 24, where _ud_ (weakened to _û_), meaning “day,” is explained by
_šabattum_, “Sabbath,” as “_the_ day” _par excellence_, and from other
passages he reasons that the old rendering of the word as “day of rest,”
_ûm nûḫ libbi_, “day of rest of the heart”—cf. pl. II.—is the correct one.
The following list of Sumerian and Babylonian days of the month will serve
to show exactly how the matter stands:—
Sumerian. Semitic Translation.
Babylonian.
U ûmu day.
U-maš-am [mišil] ûmu half a day.
U-gi-kam [ûmu] kal first day (Sum.),
the whole day
(Sem.).
U-mina-kam ši-na [ûmu] second day.
U-eši-kam šela[štu ûmu] third day.
U-lama-kam irbit fourth (day).
U-ia-kam ḫamil[tu] fifth (day).
U-âša-kam šeš[šitu] sixth (day).
U-imina-kam sib[itu] seventh (day).
U-ussa-kam saman[atu] eighth (day).
U-ilima-kam tilti do. ninth day.
U-ḫu-kam êširti do. tenth day.
U-ḫuia-kam šapatti fifteenth day
(Sum.), Sabbath
(Sem.).
U-mana-gi-lal-kam ibbû twentieth day less
1 (Sum.), the
wrathful (Sem.).
U-mana-kam êšrû twentieth day.
U-mana-ia-kam ârḫu bat[tu] twenty-fifth day
(Sum.), festival
month (Sem.).
U-eša-kam šelašâ thirtieth day.
U-na-am bubbulum rest-day (Sum.),
(day of) desire
(Sem.).
U-ḫul-gala u-ḫulgallum evil day.
U-ḫul-gala ûmu lim[nu] evil day.
U-šu-tua ûmu rimku libation-day.
U-elene ûmu têliltum purification-day.
From the above it will be seen, that the _šapattum_ or Sabbath was the
15th day of the month, and that only. That it was a day of rest, is shown
by the etymology, the word being derived from the Sumerian _ša-bat_,
“heart-rest,” which probably has, therefore, no connection with the
Semitic root _šabātu_, which, as far as at present known, is a synonym of
_gamāru_, “to complete.” It was the day of rest of the heart, but being
the 15th, it was also the day when the moon reached the full in the heart
or middle of the month, and its name may, therefore, contain a play upon
the two ideas which the word _libbu_ contains. In accordance with the
general rule, the consonants of words borrowed from the Sumerian were
often sharpened when transferred to Semitic Babylonian, hence the form
_šapattum_ instead of _šabattum_, though the latter is also found.
The nearest approach to the Sabbath, in the Jewish sense, among the
Babylonians, is the _û-ḫulgala_ or _ûmu limnu_, “the evil day,” which, as
we know from the Hemerologies, was the 7th, 14th, 21st, 28th, and 19th day
of each month, the last so called because it was a week of weeks from the
1st day of the foregoing month. It is this, therefore, which contains the
germ of the idea of the Jewish Sabbath, but it was not that Sabbath in the
true sense of the term, for if the months had 30 days, the week following
the 28th had 9 days instead of 7, and weeks of 8 and 9 days therefore
probably occurred twelve times each year. The nature of this original of
the Sabbath is shown by the Hemerologies, which describe how it was to be
kept in the following words:—
(The Duties Of The 7th Day).
“The 7th day is a fast of Merodach and Zēr-panitum, a fortunate day, an
evil day. The shepherd of the great peoples shall not eat flesh cooked by
fire, salted (savoury) food, he shall not change the dress of his body, he
shall not put on white, he shall not make an offering. The king shall not
ride in his chariot, he shall not talk as ruler; a seer shall not do a
thing in a secret place; a physician shall not lay his hand on a sick
man;(299) (the day) is unsuitable for making a wish. The king shall set
his oblation in the night before Merodach and Ištar, he shall make an
offering, (and) his prayer(300) is acceptable with god.”
For the 14th, 21st, 28th, and 19th, the names of the deities differ, and
on the last-named the shepherd of the great peoples is forbidden to eat
“anything which the fire has touched.” Otherwise the directions are the
same, and though generally described as a lucky or happy day, it was
certainly an evil day for work, or for doing the things referred to. It is
to be noted, however, that there is no direction that the day was to be
observed by the common people.
Was The Flood A “Sin-Flood”?
That the Flood was a “sin-flood” (“dass die Sintflut eine Sündflut(301)
war”) among the Babylonians as among the Hebrews has already been stated
(p. 112—cf. p. 107, I, II ff.), and with this Prof. Delitzsch, answering
the criticisms of Oettli, agrees. Replying to König, he energetically
repudiates the idea that “the Babylonian hero saves his dead and living
property, but in both Biblical accounts there appears, instead of that,
the higher point of view of the preservation of the animal-world.” He then
cites Berosus, according to whom Xisuthros received the command to take
into the ark winged and four-footed animals, and quotes the line
translated on p. 103: “I caused to go up into the midst of the ship ...
the beasts of the field and the animals of the field—all of them I sent
up.”
The Dragon And The Serpent-Tempter.
Prof. Delitzsch’s notes upon the Dragon of Chaos are exceedingly
interesting, as is also the picture which he gives, from a little seal in
the form of a long bead, of the god Merodach “clothed in his majestic
glory, with powerful arm, and broad eye and ear, the symbols of his
intelligence, and at the feet of the god the captive Dragon of the
primæval waters.” From our point of view the deity does not look very
majestic, but it is an exceedingly interesting representation, the more
especially as he bears in his left hand (in the drawing) the circle and
staff of Šamaš, the sun, showing the correctness of the theory which made
Merodach likewise a sun-god. It is noteworthy, however, that a similar
object found by the German expedition to Babylonia shows a figure of
Hadad, the wind-god, as the Babylonians conceived him, and accompanying
him are a winged dragon and another creature—indeed, each deity seems to
have had his own special attendant of this nature. Are we, therefore, to
understand that each deity overcame a dragon or other animal? or may it
not be, that Merodach had a kind of dragon as his attendant, and the one
depicted sitting by his side, close to his feet, is the creature devoted
to him, and not the Dragon of Chaos at all?
The Dragon of Chaos, Tiamtu or Tiawthu, appears in the inscriptions as the
representative of the Hebrew _tehôm_, which is the same word without the
feminine ending. It is also regarded, however, as being represented in the
Old Testament by _liwyāthān_ (leviathan), _tannîn_, and _rahab_, explained
as “the winding one,” “the dragon,” and “the monster” respectively. As far
as our knowledge at present goes, none of these names occur in the
Babylonian inscriptions, but there is sufficient analogy between the
Biblical passages which contain them and the story of Tiamtu to establish
an identity between the two sources.
In the passage “Awake, awake,” etc. (Is. li. 9), the cutting of Rahab in
pieces, and the piercing of the dragon, are made into similes typifying
the drying up of the Red Sea, so that the Israelites might pass over, and
on this account the words standing for these creatures seem to have become
an allegorical way of referring to Egypt, caught, like Tiamtu, in a net
(Ezek. xxxii. 2, 3). In Job ix. 13 the “helpers of Rahab” are mentioned,
recalling the gods who aided Tiamtu, and in xxvi. 12 “he smiteth through
Rahab” is a reminiscence of the piercing of the head of Merodach’s
opponent.
In Job xli. 3 the words “Lay thine hand upon him; remember _the battle_,
and do so no more,” evidently refer to leviathan in v. 1, here typical of
Tiamtu, the battle being that which Merodach fought with her. “Shall not
one be cast down even at the sight of him?” in verse 9, recalls the
dreadful appearance of Tiamtu and her helpers, whose aspect filled the
gods of the Babylonians with fear. Still another parallel is to be found
in the verse “Their (the enemies’) wine is the poison of dragons
(_tanninim_),” Deut. xxxii. 33, reminding us of the monsters created by
Tiamtu, whose bodies were filled with poison like blood.
All these passages naturally prove that the legend was well known to the
Hebrews, and must also have been current among their neighbours. Though
they identified her with the sea (_tehom_), they did not, to all
appearance, use that word to indicate the Dragon of Chaos, as did the
Babylonians—she was a serpent, a dragon, or a monster. Though she may be
the type of the serpent-tempter (the difference of sex makes a little
difficulty), the compiler of the first two chapters of Genesis rigorously
excluded her from the Hebrew Creation-story. The story of leviathan, the
dragon, or the monster, was a legend current among the people, and used by
the Hebrew sacred writers as a useful simile, but it seems to have formed
no part of orthodox Hebrew religious belief.
Prof. Delitzsch has boldly reproduced, on p. 36 of his _Babel und Bibel_
(German edition), what has been regarded in England as the driving of the
evil spirit from the temple built at Calah by Aššur-naṣir-âpli (885 B.C.),
but he calls it “Fight with the Dragon.” The evil spirit represented is
certainly a kind of dragon, but on the original slab in the British Museum
the creature is a male, and not a female, as in the Babylonian
Creation-story. Identification with the Dragon of Chaos is therefore in
the highest degree improbable, and as it would seem from his answer to
Jensen, Delitzsch does not regard it as having anything to do with the
Creation-story, but a representation of “a fight between the power of
light and the power of darkness in general.” This seems exceedingly
probable, as is also his statement that in such a conception as that of
Tiamtu, it may easily be imagined that plenty of room for fancy existed.
The serpent-tempter in Gen. iii. 1 is an ordinary serpent, _naḫas_, the
type of the evil one. He had no part in the creation, and was to all
appearance one of the beasts of the field created by God. Tiamtu, his
Babylonian parallel, on the other hand, does not seem to have been in any
sense a tempter—she simply tried to overcome the gods of heaven, aided by
her followers and offspring, among whom were some of the divine beings
created by the gods. That in consequence of this, she may have been
regarded as having tempted those of her followers who were the offspring
of the gods of heaven, is not only possible, but probable, and if
provable, we should have here the identification of the Dragon of Chaos
with the serpent-tempter.
And this leads him to the question as to whether the celebrated
cylinder-seal referred to on p. 79 is really intended to be a picture of
the circumstance of the fall of man. Delitzsch points out, that the
clothed condition of the figures prevents him from recognizing in the tree
the tree “of knowledge of good and evil”—perhaps there glimmers through
the Biblical account in Gen. ii. and iii. another and older form of the
story, in which only one tree, the tree of life, appeared. The words in
ii. 9: “and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” seem, as it were,
patched on, and the narrator completely forgets this newly-introduced
“tree of the knowledge of good and evil” to the extent, that he even, by
oversight, makes God allow man, in contradiction to iii. 22, to eat of the
Tree of Life (ii. 16). All this seems very plausible, but may it not be,
that man, before eating of the tree of knowledge, was permitted to eat of
the tree of life, which was denied to him after the Fall? If this be the
case, there was probably no forgetfulness on the part of the narrator, and
the story hangs excellently together. And here it is to be noted that both
the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, were in
the midst of the garden (ii. 9), that the woman seems to be aware of the
existence of one tree only (iii. 3), and there is no statement that the
man knew the nature of the fruit which his wife handed to him (6), though
it may be surmised that, with the prohibition with regard to one of them
in his mind, he ought to have inquired. The heaviest punishment therefore
falls upon the tempter, the woman coming next, and the man having the
lightest though even his is sufficiently severe.
In the design on the cylinder Delitzsch sees a male and a female figure,
with a serpent, and in this both Hommel and Jensen agree. Delitzsch,
moreover, says: “The distinguishing of the one figure by horns, which was,
in Babylonia, as in Israel, equally the common symbol of strength and
victoriousness, I regard as a very delicate device of the artist to
introduce into the two clothed human figures the sex-distinction in an
unmistakable manner.” He is of opinion that nothing very decisive can as
yet be pronounced concerning the serpent, but one might connect therewith
the appearance of Tiamtu, who also, like leviathan in Job iii. 8 and “the
old serpent” in the Apocalypse, may be assumed to have been still
existing. (Compare p. 32 of the present work, lines 112 and 113.)
He points out that in a list of rivers, etc., there is one called “the
river of the Serpent-god destroying(302) the abode of life”
(_Id-Sir-tindir-duba_), which is also a confirmation of the theory that
the Babylonians possessed the legend of the serpent-tempter. Noteworthy
also is the following text, which he refers to “by the way,” with a slight
indication of the contents:—
“... sin, fixing the command.
... of the ordinance, the man of lamentation.
... the maid, has eaten the evil thing—
... Ama-namtagga has done what is evil
The fate of Ama-namtagga is hard(303)—
Her fate is hard, her face is troubled with a tear.
She has sat on a glorious throne,
She has lain on a glorious couch,
She has learned to love aright,
She has learned to kiss.”
The mutilation of this inscription renders the true interpretation
doubtful, but it would seem to be exceedingly probable that there is in it
some reference to the fate of our first mother, inherited by all her
daughters to the end of time.
Ama-namtagga means “The Mother of Sin,” and her having eaten and done what
is evil makes an interesting parallel with the case of Eve.(304)
The Cherubim.
Concerning the Cherubs something has been said in this book, pp. 80-82,
and to this Prof. Delitzsch adds a few more instances. As others have
done, he regards the cherubim of the Babylonians and Assyrians as being
the winged bulls, with heads of men. As an angel he gives a picture of a
winged female figure holding a necklace(305); the demons he depicts are
from the slabs in the Assyrian Saloon of the British Museum, where two of
these beings are fighting with each other; and devils he regards as being
typified by a small but mutilated statuette of a creature with an animal’s
head, long erect ears, and open mouth with threatening teeth. For the
existence of guardian-angels he quotes the letter of Ablâ to the
queen-mother: “Bel and Nebo’s messenger of grace (_âbil šipri ša dunqi ša
Bêl u Nabû_) will go with the king of the countries, my lord.” Of especial
interest, however, is his reference to the inscription of Nabopolassar, in
which that founder of the latest of the Babylonian empires states that
Merodach “called him to rule over the land and the people, caused a
guardian-god (cherub) to go by his side, and caused all the work which he
undertook to succeed.” Besides the cherubs or guardian-angels, the
Babylonians believed in numerous evil gods and devils, besides Tiamtu and
the serpent-tempter of mankind.
Babylonian Monotheism.
The question of Babylonian monotheism, and of the antiquity of the name
Yahweh (Jehovah) attracted a considerable amount of attention, and has
been supplemented by Delitzsch very fully in the notes to his first
lecture. Upon this point something was said in the present volume (pp. 47
and 58-61), and the author is practically at one with Prof. Delitzsch. As
the inscription translated on p. 58 shows, the Babylonians were
monotheists, and yet they were not. They believed in all their various
gods, and at the same time identified those gods with Merodach. Just as,
in the beliefs of India, each soul may be regarded as emanating from, and
returning to, the Creator, and forming one with Him at the final death of
the body, so the gods of the Babylonians were apparently regarded as parts
of, and emanations from, Merodach, the chief of the gods, who, when they
conferred upon him their names, conferred upon him in like manner their
being. It is in this way alone that Merodach, the last-born of the great
gods, can be regarded as the father and begetter of the gods (see pp. 45,
46).
Prof. Delitzsch has therefore done a service in bringing more prominently
to the notice of students and scholars the text of which the obverse is
printed on p. 58, and mentioning the paper where it first appeared.(306)
The study of the religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians has been
greatly furthered thereby.
With regard to the question, whether besides this tablet, there be other
indications that the Babylonians—or a section of them—believed in one god,
Delitzsch quotes, as did also the present author, many names supporting
this idea. Thus he gives the following:—
Ilu-ittîa, “God is with me.”
Ilu-amtaḫar, “I called upon God.”
Ilu-âbi, “God is my father.”(307)
Ilu-milki, “God is my counsel.”
Yarbi-îlu, “God is great.”
Yamlik-îlu, “God rules.”
Ibšî-ina-ili, “He existed through God.”(308)
Awel-ili, “Man of God.”(309)
Mut(um)-ili, “Man of God.”
Ilûma-le’i, “God is mighty.”
Ilûma-âbi, “God is my father.”
Ilûma-ilu, “God is God.”
Šumma-îlu-lâ-îlîa, “If God were not my god?”
And if more be wanted, to these may be added Ya’kub-îlu, Yasup-îlu,
Abdi-îlu, Ya’zar-îlu, and Yantin-îlu, on p. 157; Ili-bandi, “God is my
creator,” p. 166; Sar-îli, “Prince of God,” p. 170; Uštašni-îli, “My God
has made to increase twofold,” p. 178; Nûr-ili, “Light of God,” p. 184;
Arad-îli-rêmeanni, “The servant of God, (who) had mercy on me,” p. 187;
Yabnik-îlu, “God has been gracious (?),” p. 243; and many others. Remarks
upon some of these names will be found on pp. 244, 245. Similar names
occurring during the time of the later Babylonian empire will be found on
pp. 434, 463 (Aqabi-îlu), 435, 436 (Adi’-ilu and Yadi’îlu), 458
(Baruḫi-ilu, probably a Jew, and Idiḫi-îlu). It will therefore be seen
that names of a monotheistic nature were common in Babylonia at all
periods, but as they are greatly outnumbered by the polytheistic
ones,(310) their exact value as testimony to monotheism, or to a tendency
to it, is doubtful. In certain cases, the deity intended by the word _îlu_
is the family god, but in the above examples, names implying this have
been as far as possible avoided.
“Of what kind and of what value this monothesis was, our present sources
of knowledge do not allow us to state, but we can best conclude from the
later development of Jahvism.” (Delitzsch.)
Jahweh (Jehovah).
Most important of all, however, from the point of view of the history of
the religion of the Jews, is what Delitzsch states concerning the name
Jahweh (Jehovah). On p. 46 of his first lecture (German edition) he gives
half-tone reproductions of three tablets preserved in the British Museum,
which, according to him, contain three forms of the personal name meaning
“Jahwe is God”—_Ya’we-îlu_, _Yawe-îlu_, and _Yaum-îlu_. The last of these
names we may dismiss at once, the form being clearly not that of Yahweh,
but of Yah, the Jah of Ps. civ. 35 and several other passages. The other
two, however, are not so lightly dealt with, notwithstanding the
objections of other Assyriologists and Orientalists. It is true that
Ya’pi-îlu and Yapi-îlu are possible readings, but Delitzsch’s objections
to them are soundly based, and can hardly be set aside. The principal
argument against the identification of Ya’we or Yawe with Yahwah is, that
we should have here, about 2000 years before Christ, a form of the word
which is really later than that used by the Jewish captives at Babylon 500
years before Christ, when it was to all appearance pronounced Ya(’)awa or
Yâwa (see pp. 458, 465, 470, 471). If, however, we may read the name Ya’wa
(Ya’awa) or Yâwa, as is possible, then there is nothing against the
identification proposed by Delitzsch. That [Cuneiform] was used with the
value of _wa_ is proved by such words as _warka_, “after,” where the
reading _wearka_ seems to be impossible, and the necessary distinction
between _ma_ and _wa_ (the former was written with a different character)
would be maintained. It is worthy of note that Ya’wa must have been more
of a name than Yau, which was a primitive Babylonian word for “God,” it is
doubtful whether it could always be written without the divine prefix. As,
however, the divine name Ae or Ea, with others, is often written so
unprovided, such an objection as this could not be held to invalidate
Delitzsch’s contention.
The probability therefore is, that Delitzsch is right in transcribing the
name as he has done, if we may change the final _e_ to _a_, and he is also
probably right in his identification. Nevertheless, we require more
information from the records of ancient Babylonia before we can say, with
certainty, that the first component of the name Ya’wa-îlu is the Yahweh of
the Hebrews, though we are bound to admit that the identification is in
the highest degree probable. Delitzsch speaks of the possibility of
_ya’ve_ being a verbal form (it would be parallel to names like
Yabnik-îlu), only to reject it, as a name meaning “God exists” (Hommel and
Zimmern) is certainly not what one would expect to find. On the other
hand, Zimmern admits the possibility that Yaum may be the name of a god,
and possibly the name Yahu, Yahve may be present in it. As he is against
Delitzsch on the whole, this is an important admission.
Additional Notes To Ḫammurabi’s Laws.
P. 492, §. 8. The “poor man” who is mentioned here and in several other
places, is referred to under a Sumerian term translated by the Semitic
_muškinu_, Arabic _miskīn_, from which the French _mesquin_ is derived
(through the Spanish _mezquino_). With the Babylonians, however, the “poor
man,” as expressed by this term, was only one who was comparatively
wanting in this world’s goods. That he was able to pay a fine, presupposes
that he was the possessor of property, and this is confirmed by a
bilingual explanatory list, which reads as follows:
Giš šar kirû Plantation.
giš šar êgal kirû êkalli plantation of the
palace.
giš šar lugal kirû šarri plantation of the
king.
giš šar mašdu kirû muškini plantation of a
poor man.
_Muškinu_ is rendered by Winckler “freedman.”
P. 493, § 26 ff. It is difficult to find a satisfactory rendering for the
words translated “army-leader” and “soldier.” Winckler translates
“soldier” and “slinger.” Perhaps the latter should be rendered “scout.”
P. 495, §§ 43 and 44. The word translated “shall enclose (it)” is in
accordance with the meaning given for the root _šakāku_ in Delitzsch’s
_Handwörterbuch_. If, however, the rendering “plough” in § 260 (p. 513),
first proposed by Scheil, be correct, then in all probability the
translation in the two sections should be “shall plough (it).”
P. 498, l. 12. Literally, “the man the tenancy, the silver of his rent
complete for a year, to the lord of the house has given.”
P. 499, § 108. The “large stone” was seemingly large only by comparison
with the “small stone” which weighed 1/3 of a shekel.
P. 500, § 116, etc. “The son of a man” Winckler translates as “a free-born
person.”
P. 501, § 126. Or “As (in the case of) his property (which) has not been
lost, he shall state his deficiency before God.”
P. 510, §§ 215, 218, 220. Instead of “cataract” Winckler translates
“tumour,” but thinks “lachrymal fistula” still better, though “cataract”
is possible.
P. 513, § 257. Here, as in other places, the character for field-labourer
is the archaic form of [Cuneiform] _ikkaru_ or _îrrišu_.
APPENDIX TO THE THIRD EDITION.
The Hittites.
In consequence of the very important discoveries of the German explorers
at Boghaz-Köi, the site of the ancient Hittite capital Ḫattu,(311) much
light will be thrown on the ancient history, religion, manners, and
customs of that portion of Western Asia, and Syria as well, together with
the relations of the empire of the Hittites with Egypt. As far as can at
present be judged, the language of the Hittites was Aryan, and the similar
terminations in such Kassite(312) words as are known point to its being of
the same family, and the same may, perhaps, be said of Mitannian.(313) The
excavations at Boghaz-Köi began where fragments of tablets had already
been found, namely, on the slope of the hill at Böyük-kale, the documents
becoming more complete as the explorers went higher. Another mass of
records was found at the foot of the hill, by the ruins of the temple. It
was in the upper find that the Babylonian version of the treaty between
Rameses II. and the Hittite king Ḫattušil was found. The founder of the
dynasty was Šubbiluliuma, the name read _Sapalulu_ in the Egyptian version
of the treaty. He was evidently a warrior-king, whose overlordship the
state of Mitanni acknowledged, and seems to have been succeeded by his son
Arandaš. The next ruler was Muršil, the _Maurasar_ of Egyptologists, who
appears to have been a great conqueror. Muršil’s successor was his brother
Mutallu (_Mautenel_), who, however, was apparently killed in a revolt,
whereupon the renowned Ḫattušil (the _Khetasir_ of Egyptologists) mounted
the throne. His queen was Pudu-ḫipa, and they had a son Dudḫalia, whose
name recalls the Tidal (Tid’al) of the 14th chapter of Genesis, and the
Tudḫula (or Tudḫul) of the tablets which apparently refer to Chedorlaomer
and his allies.(314) In the Babylonian version of the treaty of Ḫattušil
with Rameses II., we learn that the titles of the Egyptian king were
_Wašmua-ria šatepuaria Ria-mašeša mâi Amana mâr Mim-mua-Ria binbin
Min-paḫirita-Ria_, _i.e._ User-maat-ra Ra-messu Mery Amen, son of
Men-maat-ra (Seti I.), grandson of Men-peḫti-ra (Rameses I.).(315)
The Ḫabiri.
Dr. Hugo Winckler, the explorer of Boghaz-Köi, who has published many
interesting details of the result of his researches, states that parallel
passages prove the identity of the Sa-gas (_see_ pp. 291, 292) of the
Tel-al-Amarna tablets with the Ḫabiri, and that not only the Sa-gas
people, but also the Sa-gas gods are referred to. For these latter, he
says, compare the image of the “valley of the _’oberim_” (translated “them
that pass”) in Ezekiel (xxxix. 11), in which further justification of the
comparison of _ḫabiri_ and _’eber_ (Eber, regarded as the ancestor of the
_’Ibrim_ or Hebrews) results. One would like to have further details of
the learned explorer’s opinions upon this point. To all appearance the
connection of _’oberim_ with _’eber_ would involve a change in the
vocalization. For the author, the difficulty of connecting _ḫabiri_ with
_’Ibrim_ (Hebrews) still continues to exist. The connection of _ḫabiri_
with _’Ibri_ (Hebrew) requires that the _ain_ should have been pronounced
as _ghain_, and the Septuagint generally gives _gh_ when it was so
pronounced.(316) In _’Ibrim_, however, this is not the case, and Prof.
Swete has only the soft breathing in his edition.
A Letter Apparently From Prince Belshazzar (_see_ pp. 446-451).
This is evidently one of the documents obtained by Mr. Hormuzd Rassam at
Sippar (Abu-habbah), as the reference to Bunene, one of the deities of the
city, shows. Unfortunately, it is very defective, there being only eight
lines (five of them incomplete) on the obverse, and the remains of the
last three lines of the communication on the reverse. What makes it
probable that the Belshazzar who sent the letter is the son of Nabonidus,
and the hero of the fall of Babylon, is, that no honorific expressions are
used with reference to the person to whom it is addressed—he does not call
Mušêzib-Marduk his lord, or father, or brother, as was the custom in
private correspondence. As far as it is preserved, the following is a
rendering of this document, which is of interest mainly on account of the
personality of its assumed writer—
“Letter of Bêl-šarra-uṣur to Mušêzib-Marduk. May the gods grant thee
prosperity. Behold, I have sent Bêl-šunu and ... the (two) _mašmašē_,
to.... Send the requirements for the robes (?) of the deity Bunene....
(Several lines are wanting here.)
... I have caused ... to be ... the threshold ... may all....”
The documents referring to Belshazzar’s residence at Sippar, are mentioned
on pp. 414, 449, 450.
The Aramaic Papyri From Elephantine.
These noteworthy documents, which have attracted considerable attention,
were found in the ruins of the city which lie at the southern point of the
island. Almost all the brick-built private houses of Elephantine are in a
ruinous state, partly due to the ravages of time, but principally to the
Fellahin, who have for many years dug there for garden-mould. To the south
of the place where Mr. Mond’s Aramaic papyri(317) are said to have been
found, Greek papyri were discovered, but proceeding north of that point,
the German explorers soon came upon the Aramaic fragments. Those first
found are said to have been in earthen vessels, but the most important of
them (the texts translated below) were buried, without any protective
covering, close to the eastern and southern walls of the room in which
they lay. To all appearance these last had escaped the notice of the
earlier excavators, who had thrown them away with the rubbish cast aside
as containing nothing more worth carrying off.
The text of the most perfect of them reads as follows—
“To our lord Bagohi, governor of Judea, thy servants Yedoniah and his
companions, the priests in the fortress of Yeb, salutation! May our Lord,
the God of heaven, grant (thee) prosperity at all times, and set thee in
favour before Darius the king, and the sons of the (royal) house a
thousandfold more than now, and may He give thee long life. Be at all
times joyful and firm. Now speak thy servants Yedoniah and his companions
as follows—
“In the month Tammuz in the 14th year of Darius the king, when Arsâm
(Asames) had marched forth and gone to the king, the priests of the god
Khnub, who are in Yeb, the fortress, [made] with Waidrang, who is the
governor here, a secret union of the following nature—
“ ‘The temple of Yahû, the god who is in Yeb, the fortress, shall be
removed(318) from that place.’
“Thereupon that Waidrang, the _laḫya_,(319) sent letters to Nephayan, his
son, who was commander-in-chief in Syene, the fortress, saying—
“ ‘The temple which is in Yeb, the fortress, they shall destroy.’
“Thereupon Nephayan brought in Egyptians, together with other warriors;
they came to the fortress of Yeb together with their _tali_,(320)
penetrated into that temple, destroyed it down to the ground. And they
shattered the stone columns which were there. It also happened, (that)
they shattered the seven stone doors,(321) built out of a hewn block of
stone, which were in that temple, and their heads, they ...(322) and their
hinges which were in the marble, those were of brass,(323) and the
roofing, consisting wholly of cedar beams, together with the plaster
pavement (?) of the forecourt (?) and other (things) which were there—all
this have they burned with fire. And the sacrificial dishes of gold and
silver, and the things which were in that temple, all have they taken and
have used as their own. And since the days of the kings of Egypt have our
fathers built that temple in Yeb, the fortress. And when Cambyses came up
to Egypt, he found that temple (already) built, but they pulled all the
temples of the gods of Egypt down. In that temple, on the contrary, no one
had destroyed anything.
“And after they had done this, we, with our wives and children, wore
mourning-garments, fasted, and prayed to Yahû, the lord of heaven, who had
given us warning concerning that Waidrang, the _kalbya_.(324) They have
taken the chains(325) away from his feet, and all the treasures, which he
had acquired, have gone to ruin. And all the men who wished evil to that
temple, have all been killed, and we have been witnesses thereof.
“Also before this, at the time when this evil was committed upon us, did
we send a letter to our lord, and to Yehoḥanan, the high-priest, and his
companions, the priests who were in Jerusalem, and to Ostan (Ostanes), his
brother, that is, ’Anani,(326) and the free ones (princes) of the Jews.
They have not sent us one letter (in reply).
“Also since the days of Tammuz of the 14th year of Darius the king, and
until this day, we wear mourning-garments and fast, our wives have been
made as a widow, we have not anointed (ourselves with) oil nor drunk wine.
Also since then and until (this) day of the 17th year of Darius the king
they have not made food-offerings, incense-offerings, and burnt-offerings
in that temple.
“Moreover, thy servants, Yedoniah and his companions, and the Jews, all
citizens of Yeb, speak as follows—
“ ‘If it be good to our lord, mayest thou consider upon that temple, for
its rebuilding, as they do not allow us to rebuild it. Look to the
receivers of thy benefits and favours, who are here in Egypt. Let a letter
be sent from thee to them with regard to the temple of the god Yahû, to
rebuild it in Yeb, the fortress, even as it was heretofore built. And they
shall offer food-offerings and incense-offerings and burnt-offerings upon
the altar of the god Yahû in thy name. And we will pray for thee at every
time—we and our wives and our children and all the Jews who are here, if
they(327) have then worked until that temple is rebuilt.
“ ‘And a share shall be thine before Yahû the god of heaven from the man
who offers to him a burnt-offering and a sacrifice, a value equal to the
worth of a silver (shekel) for (every) 1000 talents.(328) And with regard
to the gold, concerning that we have sent and given instruction. We have
also sent everything in a letter in our name to Delaiah and Shelemiah,
sons of Sanaballat, governor of Samaria. Also Arsames had no knowledge of
all that which has been done unto us.’
“On the 20th of Marcheswan in the year 17 of Darius the king.”
A fragment of a duplicate gives some instructive variants of this
exceedingly interesting document, from which it would appear that gold and
treasure was given to Waidrang to induce him to act against the temple of
Yahû at Yeb.
To this plea on the part of Yedoniah and the Jewish congregation at Yeb a
favourable answer was given, as the following document shows—
“Memorandum of what Bagohi and Delaiah said to me—Memorandum as follows—
“ ‘Thou shalt speak in Egypt before Arsames concerning the temple of the
sacrificial altar of the God of Heaven which is in Yeb, the fortress,
before our time, before Cambyses, which Waidrang, that _lahia_,(329)
destroyed in the 14th year of Darius the king, to rebuild it in its place,
as it was formerly. And they shall offer food-offerings and incense upon
that altar, even as was wont to be done formerly.’ ”
Nothing could be more satisfactory than this little episode of the Jewish
colony at Yeb—it needs but the discovery of the record of the rebuilding
and the inauguration of the temple to round it off.
Bagohi governor of Judea is the Bagoas or Bagoses of Josephus,
_Antiquities of the Jews_, xi. 7. The high-priest Johannes or John (the
Yoḫanan mentioned on p. 539) had slain his brother Jesus in the temple,
because the latter, supported by Bagoas, sought to dispute with him the
High-priesthood. Notwithstanding the protests of the Jews, Bagoas
penetrated into the temple, and imposed upon it a fine of 50 drachmas for
every lamb sacrificed therein. It will thus be seen, that in offering to
him a percentage of the sacrifices in return for his support in rebuilding
the temple at Yeb, Yedoniah and his companions were acting in accordance
with what was known to be his character. The reference to Yohanan’s
refraining from helping them, it is reasonable to suppose, also occurred
to them as likely to further their desires.
Yedoniah, the chief of the Jewish colony at Yeb and the writer of the
longer document, is probably likewise named in the Oxford papyri—he was
either Yedoniah ben Hosea or Yedoniah ben Meshullam, but could not have
been identified with a third of the name, Yedoniah ben Nathan, as this
last is stated to have been an Aramean of Syene. We have to await further
light upon his identity.
Arsames, who is mentioned in the second paragraph (p. 537), is probably,
as Sachau points out, the Arsanes of Ktesias, who was governor of Egypt
when Darius II. mounted the throne. He left Egypt and went to the court of
Darius, and the priests of Chnum(330) in Elephantine profited by his
absence to destroy the Jewish temple there. In this they were supported by
Waidrang, who, in the absence of Arsames, seems to have exercised the
office of governor. To all appearance he had been commander-in-chief of
the army in Egypt, a post held, at the time this document was written, by
Nephyan his son. There is some doubt as to the reading and vocalization of
the name Waidrang, and consequently, also, as to its true form, but it is
regarded as certainly Persian. It is thought that its Persian prototype
may have been _Vayu-darengha_,(331) “companion of the wind-god,” whilst
his son’s name, in Persian, is possibly _Napâo-yâna_, “favour of the god
Napâo.” Should these identifications be found correct, they will have, as
Sachau remarks, considerable value in ascertaining the principle upon
which names in Persian were given.
To all appearance Arsames returned to Egypt, and a reaction followed which
ended in the disgrace of Waidrang and his followers, who were deprived of
the spoils which they had stolen from the temple at Yeb, and the Jews also
became, in the end, witnesses of the death of all their persecutors. It
seems probable that the central government was greatly displeased at the
action of Waidrang and the priests of Chnub, for the Persians seem always
to have been well-disposed towards the Jews—moreover, cupidity, and not
the good of the state, was at the bottom of Waidrang’s action. The
destruction wrought, however, was not immediately made good, hence this
document, which throws such a vivid light upon the state of Egypt and the
Jews in those days. It is but just to the Persians of that period to say,
that notwithstanding their seemingly Persian names, Waidrang and his son
were apparently not Persians, but possibly Semites, as the (probably
gentilic) adjectives applied to the former seem to show.
The date of this document is regarded as not admitting of any doubt, as
may be gathered by the references to the regnal years of Darius in
conjunction with the names of historical personages—Bagohi (Bagoas or
Bagoses of Josephus), governor of Judea, Yehoḥanan or John, the
high-priest at Jerusalem, and the two sons of Sanaballaṭ,(332) the
governor of Samaria in the time of Artaxerxes I. (Longimanus). The ruler
of the Persian empire when these documents were written, must therefore
have been Darius II. (Nothus), who reigned for 19 years, namely, 424-405
B.C. The 14th year of Darius II.—the date of the destruction of the temple
at Yeb—was 410 B.C., and his 17th year—the date when the appeal was sent
to Bagohi—corresponds with 407 B.C. This fixes, among others, the date of
Yehoḥanan, and Sachau points out as noteworthy that one of his brothers,
named Manasseh, was son-in-law of the governor of Samaria, Sanaballaṭ, as
related in Nehemiah xiii. 28. Another brother of the high-priest was the
one whom he killed in the temple (Jesus). In this record, however, a third
brother, Ostan or Ostanes, appears. To all appearance this last bore also
another name, to wit, ’Ahani, which would be his true Hebrew appellation.
If, however, the Babylonian construction has been followed here, this
Ostan or Ostanes would be brother of ’Ahani, a personage of importance in
Jerusalem, but not otherwise known. Adopting the rendering given in the
translation, however, it is noteworthy that two brothers named Yehoḥanan
and ’Ahani are mentioned in 1 Chronicles iii. 24. These, however, were
descendants of David, whereas the brothers mentioned in the papyrus must
have been descendants of Aaron.
A high Persian official named _Uštanu or Uštannu (Ostanu_ or _Ostan_)
occurs on two Babylonian tablets in the British Museum, and also on one in
the possession of Lord Amherst of Hackney. He bears the title “governor of
Babylon and across the river,” possibly meaning all the tract west of the
Euphrates. This man, however, can hardly at the same time have been
governor of Egypt, and the texts in which he is mentioned seem, moreover,
to belong to the time of Darius Hystaspis, in which case he lived at a
much too early date.
The Egyptians called the island of Elephantine Yeb, and its capital bore
the same name as the island. It is transcribed Ab by those who follow the
old system of reading Egyptian, so that the present documents seem to
support the philological views of the Berlin school. A common ideograph
for the name of the island is an elephant with an upturned trunk, showing
that Yeb really means “elephant-island,” and that Elephantine is simply
the Greek translation of the native name. The temple of Khnum (Khnumba,
Khnub), whose priests are referred to in the papyri, was destroyed by
Moḥammed Ali in 1822.
The Hebrew divine name is written Yahu, which is apparently the longer
form of the biblical Jah, seen in such names as Hezekiah (Assyrian
_Ḫazaqi-yau_), Gemariah or Gemariahu (Jer. xxix. 3; xxxvi. 10, etc.). As
is shown on p. 471, this termination was pronounced _iāwa_ by the
Babylonian Jews, which raises the question whether the Yahu of these
papyri may not have been pronounced _Yāwa_ also.
Dr. L. Belleli, of the Philological Section of the _Instituto di Studi
Superiori_ in Florence, doubts the genuineness of the papyri found at
Elephantine on account of chronological difficulties. In the case of the
documents here translated, however, no such difficulties can be said to
exist, and the forger of such things would have to be not only a splendid
Aramaic scholar acquainted with the Berlin scheme of transcribing
Egyptian, but also a historian and the possessor of an exceedingly lively
imagination.
The above description is based upon Eduard Sachau’s noteworthy monograph,
_Drei aramäische Papyrusurkunden aus Elephantine_, Berlin, Königliche
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1907. The documents in question were
discovered by Dr. Otto Rubensohn, and the collection included some papyri
still in roll-form, and various fragments. The principal document
translated above belonged to the former category, and was successfully
unrolled by Herr Ibscher, the keeper of the Royal Museum. The reproduction
shows it as a large sheet of papyrus, folded in two, and certain damaged
portions, on the left, imply that it was rolled upon itself about six
times.
NOTES AND ADDITIONS.
P. 11. It is needful to state, as has been pointed out to the writer, that
“our English translation would make all (the Biblical Creation-story)
appear English.” In other words, the test of language is not an unfailing
one.
Pp. 14-15. To the names of translators of the Babylonian Creation-stories
must be added P. Jensen, and W. L. King, who has published important
additions to the text.
P. 21, l. 4. Alternative rendering: “He beheld Tiamtu’s snarling” (see the
note to p. 24).
P. 22. With the first paragraph on this page the contents of the third
tablet, and with the last paragraph those of the fourth, begin.
P. 24. Instead of “they clustered around him,” Jensen translates
(doubtfully), “they ran round about him,” and King, “they beheld him.”
Something may be said in favour of each, but the rendering of the text
seems more probable. Also, instead of “Examining the lair,” I am inclined
to return to my earlier rendering, “Noting the snarling of Kingu, her
consort.” The four succeeding lines read:—
“He looks, and his advance(333) becomes confused,
His understanding is destroyed, and his action fails (?),
And the gods, his helpers, going by his side,
Saw the [con]fusion (??) of their leader, (and) their sight was
troubled (too).”
King attributes this fear and confusion not to Merodach, but to Kingu and
his followers, which would seem to be more consistent, but the difficulty
is, that the original gives no indication that this was the case. Further
discoveries may throw light upon the point.
P. 27. The Lumaši (l. 2), according to _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western
Asia_, vol. III., pl. 57, were seven constellations, and seem to have been
included in the thirty-six stars or constellations mentioned two lines
lower down. A list of these will be found in the _Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society_ for 1900, pp. 573-575.
P. 28, l. 29. The translation of this line is based on that of Mr. L. W.
King, who first published the text. The word for “bone” is _iṣṣimtum_, the
Heb. _’eṣem_, Arab. _’adhm_. If the word be correctly read (the character
_tum_ is doubtful), it is possibly connected with _êṣimtum_, which
translates the Sumerian character standing for a weapon or a long straight
object.
Pp. 29-31. Tutu and other names given to Merodach in this section are
referred to on pp. 45-46. By “the people” in line 15 (p. 30) are
apparently to be understood the gods.
P. 44. Other names of the goddess Aruru, who assisted Merodach in the
creation of man, are “the lady potter,” “the constructor of the world,”
“the constructor of the gods,” “the constructor of mankind,” “the
constructor of the heart.” Aruru was the goddess of progeny, and is one of
the forty-one names by which “the lady of the gods” was known. An
interesting Sumerian (dialectic) hymn to her exists in the Brussels
Museum.
P. 47, ll. 29-32. Instead of “in their (the fallen gods’) room,” Jensen
suggests, “for their redemption.” That the fallen gods were to be redeemed
(lit.: “spared”) by the merits of the race of men which Merodach created
is a new idea, which further information may confirm.(334)
P. 59, l. 13. Ea is the Aê of the preceding pages, the Oannes of
Damascius. There is reason to believe that the name was also read Aa,
which would account for the Greek form which he employs, and likewise for
the identification of this god with the Aa of l. 4 and the following
paragraph.
P. 63, l. 27. Perhaps the most interesting of recent discoveries is the
identification (by Prof. Zimmern) of Euedoreschos with the Enweduranki of
the tablet described on p. 77. The original Greek form must have been
Euedoranchos (see the note to the page mentioned). Euedocus (l. 21) is
probably the Sumero-Akkadian En-me-duga.
P. 67. For further notes in connection with Tiamat, see the discussion of
Delitzsch’s _Babel und Bibel_ at the end, pp. 529-532. It is noteworthy
that this name heads the list of abodes of the gods published in the
_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_ for Dec., 1900, pp.
367-369. The explanation is unfortunately broken away, but it may be
surmised that as the goddess of the watery wastes of the earth she was
described as the abode of the gods who were regarded as her followers.
P. 72. The description of Tammuz as “the peerless mother of heaven” is
probably to be explained by the fact, that _ama-gala_, “great mother,” is
one of the Sumerian words for “forest,” and Tammuz was identified with the
forest of Eridu, the divine abode where he dwelt.
P. 73. For Pir-napištim, Ut-napištim is a possible reading (see below,
note to p. 99).
For further notes upon the trees of Paradise, see pp. 531.
P. 77. Euedoranchos. The forms of this name, as handed down, are
Εὐεδωραχος, Εὐεδωρεσχος, and Εὐερωδεσχος. Eusebius’s Chronicle, however,
gives the best form, namely, Edoranchus.
P. 78, l. 20. Perhaps it would be better to say that the Hebrew accounts
of the Creation “probably came from Babylonia”—they may not have
originated there.
Pp. 80-82. For further remarks upon the cherubin, see p. 533. In “the
_kurub_ of Anu, Bel,” etc., which also occurs, we probably have a variant
form.
P. 83, ll. 1-5. It is noteworthy that Ablum (“Son”) as a personal name
actually occurs (De Sarzec, _Découvertes_, pl. 30 bis, No. 19). Compare
Ablaa, “my son,” p. 533, l. 12.
P. 90. For further information about the name Gilgameš, see the
_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_ for 1903, pp. 198-199.
Prof. Hommel has pointed out that an inscription exists stating that he
built the fortress of Erech, thus bringing him almost within the domain of
history.
P. 99. (The Legend of Gilgameš.) Dr. Meissner’s discovery of a fragment of
a new version of the Gilgameš-legend(335) is a most welcome addition to
our knowledge. A description of this text will be found in the
_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_ for March and May,
1903, where a comparison of the two versions is also given. It speaks of
his visit to the land of darkness in quest of his friend Ea-banî (whose
name, as this inscription indicates, should properly be read Enki-du or
Ea(Aê, Aa)-du). In the second column it details his conversation with
Siduri (“the _Sabitu_”), in which he refers to the death of his beloved
companion, since whose departure he had not sought to live, but having
seen her face, he expresses the hope that he will now not see death. The
_Sabitu_, however, answers him to the effect that he would not find the
life which he sought—death was the lot which the gods had set for mankind.
Eat, therefore, make festival, rejoice day and night, put on fine apparel,
take pleasure in child and wife—such was her advice. In the last column of
this version the hero meets with Sur-Sunabu (Ur-Šanabi), who asks him his
name. Gilgameš tells him who he is and whence he came, and asks to be
shown Uta-naištim, the remote, as the Babylonian Noah seems to be called
in this version of the legend. About one-third of the tablet, giving the
lower parts of columns 1 and 2, and the upper parts of columns 3 and 4, is
the amount preserved.
The above seems to show, that the name of the friend of Gilgameš was
Êa-du, (Aa-du, Aê-du, or Enki-du), not Êa-banî; whilst Ur-Šanabi the
boatman, was really called Sur-Sunabu (or Sur-Šanabi); and Pir-napištim,
the Babylonian Noah, was Ut-napištim.
P. 104, ll. 1 and 6. Jensen suggests, for _muir kukki_, the translation
“rulers of darkness(?)”:—
“(If) the rulers of darkness cause to rain down one evening a rain of dirt
(?),
Enter into the ship, and shut thy door!”
That period arrived;
“The rulers of darkness rain down one evening a rain of dirt (?).”
_Muir_, however, seems to be singular, not plural. Another meaning of the
word is “messenger.”
P. 108, l. 35. If this translation be correct, the throwing down of a part
of the food recalls the casting of meal on the ground as an offering to
the gods. It is not unlikely that the preparation of the food, and setting
it by his head, was accompanied by some prayer or incantation to secure
his recovery, as in the inscription translated in the _Proceedings of the
Society of Biblical Archæology_, May, 1901, pp. 193 and 205-210. Sleeping
with a cruse of water near the head (1 Sam. xxvi. 11-12) was probably
simply a provision against thirst, with no special meaning. On p. 111,
there is just the possibility that “The leavings of the dish” were what
was allowed to remain therein for the gods, and “the rejected of the food”
may have been that which was thrown on the ground as an offering.
P. 113, ll. 19 ff. A number of the deities identified with the god Ea or
Aa are given in the _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. II.,
pl. 58, and form a parallel with the inscription printed on p. 58. Deities
seem also to have been identified with Nebo. The centres where these gods
were worshipped therefore had likewise their monotheistic system, in which
all the other gods were identified with the patron-deity of the place,
just as those Babylonians who worshipped Merodach identified all the other
gods with him.
P. 119. There has been a great deal of discussion as to the way in which
Šumer could be connected with Shinar, the chief reasons against their
identification being that the latter must have come from a Babylonian
form, of whose existence there is no evidence, and that it stood for the
whole country (except, possibly, Larsa), whereas Šumer was the name of the
southern part only. Hommel derives the Biblical Shinar from Ki-Imgir,
through the intermediate forms Shingar, Shumir (Šumer) and Shimir. This is
based upon the tendency which _k_ had to change into _š_, whilst the
substitution of _m_ for an older _g_ or _ng_ can be proved. As, however,
Shinar corresponds practically with the whole of Babylonia, a modification
of Prof. Hommel’s etymology may, perhaps, best meet the case. The whole of
the country was called by the Sumerians Kingi (or Kengi) Ura, and the
expression _mâda Kingi-Ura_ is rendered, in the lists, _mât Šumeri u
Akkadī_, “the land of Sumer and Akkad.” It is therefore clear, that
Kingi-Ura corresponds with the whole tract, and is practically synonymous
with the Biblical Shinar. The change from _k_ to _š (sh)_ being provable,
it is possible that Kingi-Ura, pronounced Shingi-Ura, may have originated
the Hebrew form Shinar (better Shin’ar), through the intermediate forms
Shingura and Shingar.
The statement that Elam was the firstborn of Shem (Gen. x. 22) receives
illustration from the fact, that many inscriptions have been found showing
that Semitic Babylonian was not only well known, but also used in that
country. From the order in which the names occur in Genesis, it ought to
be the earliest of the Semitic settlements, coming before Asshur,
Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram. If, however, Arpachshad stand, as is generally
thought, for Babylonia, it is quite clear that there is no indication of
chronological order in this, for Assyria was certainly younger, as a
Semitic settlement, than Babylonia, and it would seem that Elam was
colonized with Semites from the last-named country. This would make Elam
to be simply the first Semitic colony, as Prof. Scheil has already
suggested.
A good example of the slim racial type is shown on pl. V., second
seal-impression. For a long time after the Sumerians had become one nation
with the Semitic Babylonians, the type of the figures represented on the
cylinder-seals and sculptures remained unchanged, and it is on this
account that Ḫammurabi is portrayed, on the slab reproduced as pl. I., in
the old non-Semitic costume. The early Semitic type is shown on pl. III.,
no. 1 (no. 2 shows the late Assyrian type). In pl. VI. the Sumerian style
is there, but the type is rather thick. This, however, may be partly due
to the sliding of the cylinder when the impression was taken.
P. 124. Sargon of Agadé’s conquests, according to the omens referring to
his reign, were as follows:—(paragraph 1) Elam, (2) the land of the
Amorites, (4 and 5) the land of the Amorites (twice), (6) doubtful, (7) he
crossed the sea of the rising of the sun, and the reference to three years
in that district seems to refer to the time he stayed there, (8)
apparently no expedition, (9) he ravaged the land of Kazalla, (10) he put
down a revolt in his own country, (11) he fought against Suri or Sumaštu.
P. 125, l. 27. The old Sumerian or Akkadian laws are only known to us from
a few specimens preserved in the tablets of grammatical paradigms (the
series _Ana itti-šu_), and will be found on pp. 190-191. It is probable
that they were made use of in compiling the Code of Ḫammurabi.
P. 127, l. 21 ff. But perhaps it was the city of Aššur which came forth
from Babylonia (_i.e._ was a Babylonian colony), and its ever-increasing
inhabitants who founded the other cities mentioned.
P. 130 (the derivation of Nimrod). Another suggestion is, that Nimrod may
be the name of Merodach, as “Lord of Marad” (Nin-Marad). As far as I have
been able to see, however, this name of Merodach does not occur, and
moreover, it was Nergal, and not Merodach, who was lord of
Marad—Merodach’s city was Babylon. Prof. Hommel’s acute suggestion, that
Namra-ṣit may be a Babylonian form of Nimrod, would seem to be doubtful.
P. 131 (Merodach’s net). The bow of Merodach, after his fight with Tiamtu,
was placed in the heavens, and seemingly became one of the constellations,
but we do not hear of any similar honour having been conferred on his net,
notwithstanding the great service which it had rendered him. In Habakkuk
i. 15-17 there is a curious passage in which “the Chaldean” is described
as catching men with his angle and his net, as fishes are caught, and
making sacrifice to his net and his drag on account of his success with
them. Heuzey, the well-known French Assyriologist and antiquarian, makes a
comparison between this passage and the Vulture-stele, on which an ancient
Babylonian prince is represented as having placed his conquered foes in a
great net. This, however, does not explain the statement that the Chaldean
sacrificed and offered incense to his net and his drag, and it is doubtful
whether the Prophet had either that or any similar sculpture or picture in
his mind. There is, nevertheless, just the possibility that the
Babylonians were accustomed to pay divine honours to the net of Merodach,
and this may have given rise to the statement in the passage quoted.
Whether the relief on the Vulture-stele be derived from the legend of
Merodach or not, is doubtful—in all probability it merely expresses a
simile derived from catching wild animals with a net, as exhibited by the
sculptures of Aššur-banî-âpli in the Assyrian Saloon of the British
Museum.
Pp. 132-133. With regard to the statements on these pages, the Rev. John
Tuckwell writes: “Gen. xi. 1 must in all fairness be regarded as going
back prior to ch. x, in order to tell the history of Babylon from its
foundation. Again:—Why contradict Genesis? We do not know who ‘began’ to
build Babylon—Sayce suggests ‘Etana.’ It is quite possible that ‘they left
off to build the city,’ and resumed the work under Nimrod. There is no
need to regard any of the statements as ‘interpolations’ if thus read. If
all mankind perished by the Flood, as both stories appear to teach, there
must surely have been a time when ‘the whole earth was of one language.’ ”
P. 134. For the derivation of Shinar, see the note to p. 119.
P. 136. The Mohammedan legend of the Tower of Babel, as told in the
Persian work, _Rauzat-us-Safa_,(336) may be interesting. It is as
follows:—
“When Nimrud had witnessed the extinction of the pile of fire, and had
beheld the roses produced therein by the benign Creator, he aspired to
ascend to heaven.... Nimrud ... spent many years in erecting a tower,
which was so high that the bird of imagination could not reach its summit.
When it was completed, he ascended to the pinnacle of the spire, but the
aspect of the heavens remained precisely the same as from the surface of
the earth. This astonished and perplexed him. The next day the tower fell,
and such a fearful noise struck the ears of the inhabitants of Babel that
most of them fainted from the effects thereof; and when they had recovered
their senses they forgot their own language, so that every tribe spoke a
different idiom, and seventy-two tongues became current among them.”
P. 136, l. 3 from below. Nannara was the moon-god, the same as Sin. L. 6
from below, read _Ê-bar-igi-ê-di_.
P. 144, l. 9 from below. The Rev. C. H. W. Johns, in his Assyrian deeds
and documents, has pointed out the likeness of the names _Naḫiri_ and
_Naḫarau_ (or _Naḫarâu_) to Nahor, referred to by Kittel in his little
book upon Delitzsch’s _Babel und Bibel_.(337) _Naḫiru_, however, is the
common Assyro-Babylonian word for “nostril,” and is also the name of a
creature of the sea supposed to be the dolphin. _Naḫarâu_ it may be noted,
notwithstanding the absence of the prefix of divinity, bears every
appearance of being a name like _Bêl-Yau_ on p. 59, the initial _y_ or _i_
being omitted as in the case of _Au-Aa_ seven lines lower down. Judging
from analogy, _Naharâu_ should mean “Naḫar is Jah,” but whether this has
anything to do with the name Nahor or not is doubtful—as Assyrian
equivalent we should rather expect _Naḫuru_.
P. 145, l. 11 from below. The name of a Babylonian district called Pulug
occurs in a Babylonian geographical list, and may be the same as Peleg.
Though the ideogram is different, this is possibly the same as the Pulukku
of the _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. II., pl. 52, l. 53,
where it is explained as _Bît ḫarê_, “the house of the cutting,” or
“excavation.” The Babylonians would therefore seem to have regarded Pulug
or Pulukku as referring to the division of the land of Babylon by the
cutting of the irrigation-channels which gave it its fertility.
P. 146, l. 4. There is no great probability that the name Terah has
anything to do with _Tarḫu_, which occurs in certain names found in
Assyrian contracts (Johns, _Assyrian Deeds_, pp. 127, 458, etc.).
P. 147, l. 4 from below. The family of Terah may, however, have become
pastoral on leaving Ur of the Chaldees.
P. 148 (Abram). According to Prof. Breasted (_American Journal of Semitic
Studies_, Oct. 1904) mention is made in the geographical list of Shishak
at Karnak of “the field of Abram,” and if this identification be correct,
it is the earliest reference to the great ancestor of the Hebrews and the
nations associated with them, though it cannot be said that the date (time
of Jeroboam and Rehoboam) is a very remote one. Owing to the same Egyptian
character being used for both _r_ and _l_, Maspéro read the word as the
plural of _’abel_, “meadow.”
P. 150, l. 23. Illustrations of the old Akkadian (or Sumerian) laws will
be found in the contracts of adoption of Bêl-êzzu and Arad-Išḫara on pp.
176 and 177. The laws themselves are given on p. 190.
P. 152, second paragraph. It is needful to state that a few Semitic
Babylonian inscriptions of an exceedingly early date (seemingly before
3000 B.C.) exist, likewise a few Sumero-Akkadian texts after 2300 B.C.,
and the periods of the two languages therefore overlap. Judging from the
inscriptions, however, Sumero-Akkadian goes back to a date much earlier
than the earliest Semitic, but it was to all appearance hardly used after
the period of the dynasty of Ḫammurabi.
P. 158, l. 11. The Gutites were probably Medes.
P. 161, l. 11. It is not improbable that Sippar-Amnanu means simply
“Amonite Sippar,” the second word of the compound being apparently from
Amna,(338) which is possibly the Babylonian form of the name of the
Egyptian sun-god, Amon. _Ya’ruru_ is seemingly the old form of Aruru, one
of the names of Ištar, who was also worshipped there.
P. 166. The wedding-gift was to all appearance the price paid by the
bridegroom for the bride, in this case handed to the bride’s brother and
sister. For the laws concerning this payment, see Ḫammurabi’s Code,
sections 163 and 164 (p. 505). It was generally handed to the bride’s
father (upon a dish, according to _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western
Asia_, vol. v., pl. 24, ll. 48-51_cd_).(339) Instead of “Ammi-ṭitana the
king,” Dr. Schor reads Ammi-ṭitana-šarrum, _i.e._ as the name of a man,
meaning “Ammi-ṭitana is king.” If this be correct, the document is not a
record of the marriage of a princess.
P. 168. The grain given to Šeritum was probably of the nature of a
deposit—according to Ḫammurabi’s Code, sect. 257, the wages of a reaper
were not one _gur_ of grain, but eight.
P. 173-174. Upon the question of adoption, see Ḫammurabi’s Code, sections
185-193. As there is no indication, in these enactments, that female
children were included, it is doubtful whether Ana-Aa-uzni and Aḫḫ-ayabi
had any remedy in case of repudiation, or refusal to perform all the
conditions. Calling the gods to witness was probably regarded as being a
sufficient safeguard. Nevertheless, the usage of the language was such
that “daughtership” could be included in “sonship.”
Pp. 174 ff. It is noteworthy that, in this contract, there is no
indication of the second wife having been taken to vex the first (Lev.
xviii. 18, A.V.), and as the second was to be subordinate to the first,
rivalling (as the R.V. translates) was as far as possible prevented. As
the children already born are referred to (p. 175, l. 20), the second
marriage could not have been due to the absence of offspring, and it may
therefore be supposed that the second wife was taken on account of the
ill-health of the first (Ḫammurabi’s Code, sect. 148). This is supported
by the clauses referring to the services which Iltani was to perform for
her “sister.”
P. 176. The adoption of Bêl-êzzu illustrates section 191 of Ḫammurabi’s
Code. Both are based upon the Sumerian laws translated on pp. 190 and 191.
The word translated “deep” (line 19) is one generally used for the ocean,
the abode of Ea (Aa), god of the waters. It may have been something
similar to “the brazen sea” in the temple at Jerusalem.
P. 177. Arad-Išḫara was evidently adopted under the same law and enactment
as the foregoing. The declaration of the foster-father of his right to
have children is interesting.
Upon the adoption of Karanatum, compare pp. 173 and 174, with the note
thereon.
Pp. 178 and 179. The three tablets giving equal portions to each of the
three brothers, illustrate sections 165 and 167 of the Code, which enacts
that all brothers shall share equally. Any gift or share in the property
left by the mother would probably be recorded on another document.
P. 180. Laws 178 ff. of Ḫammurabi’s Code show that votaries and
priestesses had special privileges in the matter of inheriting property,
and it would seem from the tablet of Erištum, the sodomite or public
woman, that her station did not allow her the choice, that being the right
of her sister, Amat-Šamaš, priestess of the sun.
P. 181. Naramtum apparently had no children, and seems to have been
divorced in accordance with section 138 of Ḫammurabi’s Code.
P. 185. The case of Šamaš-nûri is illustrated by sections 144-146 of
Ḫammurabi’s Code.
Pp. 187 and 188. The conditions of the hiring of a slave were probably
those of the old Sumerian law translated on p. 191.
P. 199, l. 26. Elamite overlordship was naturally coextensive with that of
Babylon as long as the latter power acknowledged Elamite supremacy.
P. 201, l. 5 from below. _Qanni_ is probably one of the Assyro-Babylonian
words for “sanctuary.”
P. 203. In addition to the deities mentioned, Aššur-banî-âpli
(Assurbanipal) speaks of the goddess Nin-gala, the “great lady” or
“queen,” as having a temple called Ê-gipara at Haran. She is mentioned
with Nusku (p. 202) and is called “the mother of the gods,” Šamaš, the
sungod, being described as her firstborn. To all appearance she was the
consort of the Moongod, Nannar.
P. 208, last line. “Yoke of the _Elamites_” would probably have been the
better term. (See the note to p. 199.)
P. 209, l. 8 from below. Oppert always refused to accept the
identification of Amraphel with Ḫammurabi.
P. 222, l. 4 from below. It would appear from the Babylonian lists that
Tudḫula may be read simply Tudḫul, notwithstanding the final _a_ at the
end.
P. 243, ll. 25 ff. The name Aqabi-îlu (p. 463, l. 15) is similarly formed
to that of Ya’kubi-îlu, and from the same root, but it is not identical
with it. There is no probability that Egibi (p. 439, l. 2, etc.) has any
connection with the name Jacob, as has been suggested. Its connection with
the (? Assyrian) name Ḫakkubu seems to be still more unlikely. Upon these
and similar names, see Hommel, “_Ancient Hebrew Tradition_,”(340) p. 112.
P. 246, l. 5. If my memory serves me, the name Gadu-ṭâbu, “the fortune is
good,” occurs on a contract-tablet in the British Museum. (I unfortunately
forgot to make note of it at the time, hence my inability to give the
reference.)
P. 249, after the first paragraph. Jacob’s wrestling with “a man” (Gen.
xxxii. 24 ff.) brings out the interesting name Peniel or Penuel (vv. 30
and 31), explained as “the face of God,” so called because he had there
“seen God face to face.” A similar name to this is the Babylonian
_Ana-pâni-îli_, “to the face of God,” sometimes shortened to _Appâni-îli_.
The documents bearing the latter are of the time of Samsu-iluna, and are
therefore rather earlier than the time of Jacob. Besides the meaning given
above, other renderings are possible, and the question arises, whether
_Ana-pâni-îli_ means “(let me go) to the presence” or “before the face of
God,” or that its bearer was asked for by his father “at the presence of
God.” Many other possible renderings will also, in all probability, occur
to the reader, but it is noteworthy, that in this case, the Biblical
narrative may, by chance, serve to explain this Babylonian compound, for
as “the man” with whom Jacob wrestled was the representative of the
Almighty, so _pâni_ in the Babylonian name may be interpreted in the same
way, and the person bearing it may have been offered or dedicated to the
face, or presence (that is, the representative) of God. It is to be noted
that the owner of the name on Mr. Offord’s cylinder (pl. vi. no. 2) was a
worshipper of the god Hadad or Rimmon, and was not, therefore, a
monotheist.
P. 273, l. 8. The date of Amenophis II., according to Petrie, was about
1449 to 1423.
P. 278. The non-Semitic pronunciation of _Ninip_ was possibly _Nirig_, and
the Semitic reading _En-mašti_ (so Prof. A. T. Clay). An earlier reading
of the Aramaic character regarded as _m_ was _n_, which would give
_Ênu-rêštū_, “the primæval lord,” or the like, a title of Ninip and of
other gods. For other suggestions, see Hrozný in the _Revue Sémitique_,
July 1908.
P. 279, l. 2. The name Bidina may also be read Kaština, apparently a
variant of the Babylonian Bidinnam or Kaštinnam.
L. 12 ff. The mention of _Dumu-zi_, _i.e._ Tammuz or Adonis, goes back to
about 3500 B.C., or earlier. Hymns to Tammuz in the dialect of the
Sumerian language exist, dating from about 2000 years before Christ, the
most noteworthy of these compositions at present known being that
preserved in the Manchester Museum.
L. 27. Mutzu’u. It is doubtful whether this name is complete on the tablet
where it occurs. Possibly Mutzuata, a name occurring on the Bronze Gates
found by Mr. Rassam at Balawat, furnishes an indication as to the way in
which it should be completed. (Knudtzon reads _Mut-baḫlu_, written for
Mut-ba’la, possibly meaning “the man of his lord.”)
L. 31. Yabitiri. The inscription referring to his early life is translated
on pp. 284-285.
L. 37. For Addu-nirari, read Adad-nirari, the Assyrian form.
P. 280, line 4 and note. Nin-Urmuru (?) Knudtzon reads as Bêlit(=
Ba’lat)-Ur-Maḫ-Meš. In Assyro-Babylonian this would probably be read
_Bêlit-nêši_, a name meaning “the lady of the lions.”
P. 286, note 1. For the name Mut-zu’u, compare the note to p. 279, l. 27,
above. Knudtzon’s new translation differs somewhat from that given here.
P. 293, l. 26. Another Zimrêda (to all appearance) is mentioned in an
inscription in the British Museum. This text comes from Babylonia, and is
possibly of an earlier date. It apparently refers to the affairs of the
Babylonian principality of Suḫu and Maër.
P. 319, l. 14. Suḫi and Maër are mentioned together in the document
referred to above, note to p. 293, and in the inscription of
Šamaš-rêš-uṣur, governor of that district, published by Dr. Weissbach in
his _Babylonische Miscellen_. This district lay, according to that
scholar, somewhere near the point where the Habûr runs into the Euphrates.
As the western boundary of this state is entirely unknown, the full value
of Tiglath-pileser I.’s boast cannot be estimated, but the district
ravaged must have been a considerable stretch of country.
P. 325. The inscription referring to Gazzāni probably forms part of one of
those in which the ruler asks the gods (generally Šamaš and Hadad) for
success against the countries which he intended to invade. Sargon of
Assyria, Esarhaddon, and Aššur-banî-âpli (Assurbanipal) all had similar
inscriptions composed for them. From the manner in which the text is
written, however, it is probable that it antedates these.
P. 329, l. 4 from below. Instead of “advanced,” another possible
translation is “rose up.”
P. 330, l. 3. Instead of Gilzau, Kirzau and several other readings are
possible.
The “battle of Qarqara,” as it is generally called, is illustrated by
strip I (old mark C) of the Bronze Gates of Shalmaneser II.(341) The
scenes only represent the capture of the cities Pargâ, Adâ, and Qarqara of
Urḫilêni (= Irḫulêni) of the land of the Hamathites, there being no
reference either to Ahab, or to his allies. The city of Qarqara was later
on taken by Sargon (see p. 363).
P. 341, l. 4. Instead of _Persia_, read _Pahlav_ as the identification of
Parsua (Hommel).
P. 343, l. 22. As the character translated “lady” means also “sister,” it
may in reality indicate the relationship of Sammu-ramat to
Bêl-tarṣi-îli-ma.
P. 346, l. 22. Tiglath-pileser “III.,” or “IV.”
P. 347, l. 25. Sardurri of Ararat is the Sardaris (II.) of the Armenian
cuneiform texts.
P. 349, l. 6. Ḫatarikka is also spelled with one _k_, as on pp. 344 and
345.
P. 374, l. 20. In Kammusu-nadbi we have an instance of the occurrence of
the name of Chemosh, the national god of the Moabites. This name is also
found in that of Kamušu-šarra-uṣur, apparently a Babylonian, perhaps of
Moabite origin (see the note to p. 466).
P. 376, l. 21. Urbi occurs as the name of a city or district in a
Babylonian geographical list, from which we learn also that there was an
“upper” and a “lower” Urbi. It is immediately followed by Pulug (see the
note to p. 145).
L. 8. from below. Kallima-Sin is now read Kadašman-Ḫarbe (or Muruš).
P. 381, foot-note. According to Prof. W. Max Müller, _Orientalische
Literaturzeitung_, Nov., 1902, Mer-en-Ptah and “the great sorcerer and
high-priest of Memphis” were brothers, and the incident of the vision took
place before Mer-en-Ptah’s battle with the Libyans, when, as he himself
states, he saw in a dream a figure like that of Ptah, who said to him
“Take,” giving him the sword, and “Put away from thee thy
faintheartedness.” Max Müller attributes the chronological error neither
to Herodotus nor to the Egyptian scribes who supplied him with
information, but to Hecataeus of Miletus, whose work Herodotus used—“an
Egyptian would not have made such a chronological blunder.” This,
naturally, much diminishes the value of the extract as a parallel to the
account of the destruction of Sennacherib’s army before Jerusalem.
P. 384, l. 1 ff. The following is Nabonidus’s account of the murder of
Sennacherib and the events which led up to it, from the inscription
published by the Rev. V. Scheil in the _Recueil des Travaux relatifs à la
Philologie et à l’Archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes_, vol. XVIII.,
pp. 1 ff.:—
“He (this must be Sennacherib) went to Babylon, he laid its sanctuaries in
ruin, he destroyed the reliefs,(342) the statues he overthrew. He took the
hands of the prince, Merodach, and caused him to enter within
Aššur(343)—according to the anger of the god then he treated the land. The
prince, Merodach, did not cease from his wrath—for 21 years he set up his
seat within Aššur. (In) later days a time arrived, the anger of the king
of the gods, the lords, was then appeased. He remembered E-sagila and
Babylon, the seat of his dominion. The king of Mesopotamia,(344) who
during the anger of Merodach had accomplished the ruin of the land, the
son born of his body slew him with the sword.”
For the Babylonians, the Assyrian king was the instrument of Merodach’s
wrath.
P. 385. The British Museum “black stone” mentions Esarhaddon’s elder
brothers: “I, Esarhaddon, whom thou (O Merodach) hast called, in the
assembly of my elder brothers, to restore those buildings” (_i.e._ the
temples, etc., damaged by floods).
P. 393. Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, in an
inscription found by the German expedition, and published by Dr. Weissbach
in his _Babylonische Miscellen_, refers to the downfall of Assyria in the
following words:—
“The Assyrian, who from remote days ruled all people, and with his heavy
yoke oppressed the people of the land,(345) I, the weak, the humble, the
worshipper of the lord of lords, by the mighty force of Nebo and Merodach,
my lords, cut off their feet from the land of Akkad, and caused their yoke
to be thrown off.”
As the text is not of any great length, Nabopolassar could not give
details, but notwithstanding his humility, it is noteworthy that he takes
all the credit to himself. The inscription is written on four cylinders
from Ê-ḫatta-tila, the temple of Ninip in Šu-anna.
P. 399, l. 8. The spelling of the name of Nebuchadnezzar differs somewhat
in the various inscriptions, but the meaning is always practically the
same—“Nebo, protect the boundary” or “my boundary,” according as the
second component ends in _a_ or _i_. In Nabium (p. 398, l. 7 from below)
we have an old form fully spelt out.
[Plate XVI.]
Emblems used by Esarhaddon, and carved on the upper surface of the black
stone presented to the British Museum by Lord Aberdeen. It represents a
divine tiara upon an altar, a priest, the sacred tree of the Assyrians, a
bull, a mountain (?), a plough, a date-palm, and a rectangular
object—perhaps the walls of a town. The same emblems, arranged in a
circle, are found on the cylinders from Babylon inscribed with his
architectural works in that city.
P. 400, l. 25. The name of at least one Nabû-zer-iddina (son of Ab[laa?],
descendant of Irani) occurs in the contracts of the time of
Nebuchadnezzar. This man, however, was a scribe, and there is no
indication that he had ever been captain of the guard.
P. 403, ll. 7 ff. The penalty of death by fire, inflicted on Shadrach,
Meshach, and Abednego, receives illustration from the notes to p. 480.
P. 405, l. 21. The German excavations at Babylon have revealed the
appearance of the gate of Ištar as a plain opening in a wall of the city,
covered with glazed brickwork, ornamented with bulls and dragons
alternately, arranged in vertical rows, a decoration which is repeated in
the thickness of the wall and in the inner recesses. (See Delitzsch’s _Im
Lande des einstigen Paradieses_, figures 25 and 26.) For the position of
the gate, see the note to pp. 471, 472.
P. 406, ll. 2 and 3 from below. “The House of the Foundation of Heaven and
earth” is the Ê-temen-ana-kia of p. 138.
P. 413, above. As an example of the sending of the statues of deities
temporarily away from their shrines, see p. 278, where mention is made of
the image of Ištar of Nineveh, sent to Egypt by king Dušratta.
P. 415, l. 23, and four following pages. Ugbaru and Gubaru are generally
regarded as two forms of the name Gobryas, and though this seems certain,
there is just the possibility, that they are the names of two different
persons.
P. 425, l. 10 from below. The tablet mentioning Zēru-Bâbîli son of
Mutêriṣu exists in two examples, one being in the British Museum, and the
other (which has an Aramaic docket) in the possession of Mr. Joseph
Offord. It is translated in the _Quarterly Statement_ of the Palestine
Exploration Fund, July, 1900, pp. 264 ff.
P. 439, l. 26. The _raqundu_ was probably a weaver’s or embroiderer’s
tool, returned in exchange for that lent.
P. 446, ll. 8 ff. from below. The inscription referred to is published in
the _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, Dec. 1895, pp.
278, 279.
P. 453, ll. 6-8. Prof. Campbell Thompson translates: “I send this as a
_trouble_ to my brothers”—_i.e._ “I am sorry to trouble you, but I hope
you will do what is right.”
P. 457, l. 19. Arad-Mede may also be read Arad-Gula. In the next line
Šubabu-sara’ may be Šumabu-sara’.
P. 466 (the sale of an Egyptian slave). Another text of the same nature,
dated in the same year, is in the De Clercq collection. It refers to the
sale of an Egyptian slave-woman named Tamūnu (“she of Amon”). The text is
published, with a translation by Prof. J. Oppert, in the second vol. of
the _Catalogue_.(346) The slave in question belonged to Itti-Nabû-balaṭu,
son of Kamušu-šarra-uṣur, “Chemosh, protect the king”—probably indicating
that the bearer of the name was of Moabite origin, or the introduction of
the god of the Moabites into Babylonia.
Pp. 471-472. The German excavations have already settled many doubtful
points concerning the topography of Babylon, and it is certain that, after
the destruction of the city, exaggerated accounts of its enormous extent
obtained credence. According to Delitzsch, it was not larger than Munich
or Dresden, though even that is a good size for an Oriental city. The
principal ruins are on the right bank of the river, and included Babil
(“Probably a palace”), to protect which the city-wall makes a considerable
angle on the north. From this point the wall continues its course in a
south-easterly direction for a considerable distance, and turning at a
right angle at its farthest point from the river, runs back in a
south-westerly direction to meet it again. About a mile south of Babil the
visitor comes upon the great ruin known as the Kasr, where stood
Nebuchadnezzar’s second palace. On the eastern side of this is the
“procession-street” of the god Merodach, from which came some very fine
reliefs of “the Lion of Babylon,” beautifully wrought in coloured and
enamelled brick. The temple of the goddess Nin-maḫ lay to the south-east
of the southern end of the street, and between the two was situated the
celebrated Gate of Ištar, adorned with lions and strangely-formed dragons,
already referred to (p. 551). Proceeding to the south-west from the temple
of Nin-maḫ, we reach Nebuchadnezzar’s earlier palace, a very extensive
structure, with a spacious court-yard and a large hall used as a
throne-room, on the south side of which the recess for the throne is still
visible. The palace of his father Nabopolassar, which adjoined it on the
west, has not yet been excavated. About half-a-mile to the south of these
palaces lie the ruins of the great temple of Belus, in the mound now known
as Amran-ibn-Ali (see pp. 137 ff., 476, 480, ff.). The German excavations
have thus confirmed the identification of the site, as indicated in the
_Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. I., pl. 48, no. 9
(published in 1861). This text, which is a brick-inscription of
Esarhaddon, reads as follows:—
“Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, king of Babylon, has caused the brickwork of
Ê-saggil, Ê-temen-ana-kia, to be built anew for Merodach his lord.”
According to the German plan, the portion of the city on the west of the
river was of exceedingly small extent.
Artists will soon be able to depict the scenery of Babylon as a background
for pictures of this world-renowned city with considerable accuracy.
P. 478, l. 24. An alternative rendering instead of “sculptor,” is
“seal-engraver.”
P. 480. On account of the Greek words, I give here a transcription of the
late Babylonian text of the extract printed on this page:—
_An(tiukkusu) šarru ina âlāni ša mât Meluḫḫa šalṭaniš itta-luku-ma ...
(amēlu) puliṭê puppê u êpšētam ša kima uṣurtu (amēlu) Yāwannu...._
_Uṣurtu_ may be translated “bas-relief” instead of “shrine,” but the
rendering would not be materially changed thereby.
The remainder of the inscription, which is exceedingly interesting, is
rather mutilated, and a trustworthy translation of it is at present
exceedingly difficult. Certain thieves (_šarraqa_), however, seem to be
mentioned, and had to all appearance stripped (_iqlubū_) the image of
Uru-gala and another, “a deity whose name was called Ammani’ita.” On the
10th of Marcheswan these thieves were captured and imprisoned, and on the
13th to all appearance judged and condemned. _Ûmu šuati ina išati qalû_,
“That day they were burnt in the fire”—such is the end of the story.
This seems not to be in accordance with the laws of sacrilegious theft, as
stated in sections 6 and 8 of Ḫammurabi’s code. Perhaps the law had
changed in the 1800 years which had elapsed since the time of that ruler;
or stripping a sacred image was a much more heinous crime than mere theft
from a temple, which, in the first degree, was punishable with death.
It is noteworthy that refusal to worship the image set up by
Nebuchadnezzar was visited, in Dan. iii, with the same penalty, probably
as showing contempt for the divinity.
P. 484, l. 13. The river Ṣilḫu is probably the Sellas in Messinia, where
one of the numerous cities named Apameia (Apam’(i)a) lay.
Pp. 489-491. Not the least interesting of this long list of temples and
cities are Aššur and Nineveh, of which we have here the earliest mention.
INDEX.
Aa, Aê, Ea (Aos), 17, 26, 56, 61, 77;
? the same name as Yâ, 59, 112;
transferred to Merodach, 32, 113;
his other names and titles, 62;
abode and form, 62, 63;
offspring, attendants, and consort, 63, 64;
parentage, 17, 64;
god of handicrafts, rivers, and water, the sea and life therein, 62, 63;
ever ready with counsel, 64;
warns Pir-napištim of the coming of the Flood, commands him to build a
ship, and tells him what to say to the people, 102;
reproaches Ellila, 107;
deifies Pir-napištim, 107, 108;
worshipped at Eridu, 160;
month Iyyar dedicated to him, 65;
figures of Aa, 247
Aa (Aê, Ea), Yâ, Ya’u, names containing, 59, 546
Aa (goddess), 160
Aah-mes, Egyptian captain of marines, 270
Aah-mes, Pharaoh, 269, 270
Aa-ibur-sabû, Babylon’s festival street, 405, 472
Aa-rammu of Edom, 374
_Abarakku_, 258
Abdi-Aširta (Abdi-Aširti, Abdi-Ašratum, Abdi-Aštarti), the Amorite, 278,
293;
the forms of his name, 313;
writes to the king of Egypt, 314
Abdi-îli (Abdeel), 157
Abdi-li’iti of Arvad, 374
Abdi-milkutti of Sidon beheaded, 386
Abdi-tâba of Jerusalem, 233;
in a different position from Melchizedek, 235;
writes to the king of Egypt, 294, 295, 297-299;
see also 293
Abed-nego (Abed-nebo), the Babylonian name of Azariah, 129, 403
Abel-Beth-Maachah, 352, 353
Abēšu’ (Ebisum), king, 153, 155;
his daughter hires a field, 167
Abi-baal of Samsimuruna, 386
Abil-Addu-nathānu, life of, 459 ff.
Abil-akka, 352
Abil-Sin, king, 153
Abi-nadib (Abinadab), 438, 439
Ablum, “son,” as a personal name, 547
Abram, Abraham, his parentage, meaning of his first name, and traditions
concerning him, 146, 147, 196;
a Chaldean or Babylonian, 147;
probable Assyrian form of his name, 148;
the importance of his period, 149 ff.;
his seeming mistrust of the sons of Heth, 150, 151;
was there a movement towards monotheism in his time? 198, 199;
the Sabeans dedicate a chapel to him, 203;
the field of Abram, 552
_Abrech_, Sayce’s explanation of, 258
_Abriqqu_, 258
Absence of names of Egyptian kings, 250
_Abubu_, one of the weapons of Merodach, 24
Abu-habbah (Sippar), 158, 411
Abu-ramu, 148
Abydenus, 63, 384, 385, 393
Abyss, the, measured by Merodach, 26.
_See_ Apsū, Apason
Accad, a city of Nimrod’s kingdom, 118.
_See_ Akkad
Accho, 277;
lawless acts of the people, 281, 282, 360, 374
Accusation, false, 501 (127)
Achzib (Akzibi), 374
Act of God, 513, 523
Adad-’idri, 329;
resists the Assyrian king, 334, 335;
= Ben-Hadad, 337
Adad-nirari of Assyria, 279
Adad-nirari, king of Nuḫašše, 317
Adad-nirari III., king, 339, 342, 344;
inscriptions of, 340, 341, 343
Adam, various etymologies of the word, 78;
_adam_ in the bilingual story of the Creation, 78, 79
Adamah, 292
Adaya, 297
Addu (Hadad), 157, 170, 277
Adini of Til-barsip, 328
Administration, 493, 494
Adonis (_see_ Dumuzi, Tammuz), 82, 279
Adoni-zedek, 324
Adoption, 173, 175 177, 463, 465, 508, 509, 525, 553 ff.
Adram(m)elech, 378, 384, 385
Adultery, 501, 502
Aesculapius, the serpent, and the magic herb, 109 _n._
Agad, Agadé, 124, 412, 422;
its temple-tower, 136;
misfortunes sung, 477.
_See_ Akkad
Agaditess, lamentation of the, 477
Agents and travelling merchants, laws concerning, 495
Agricultural implements, theft of, 513
Ahab (Ahabbu of the Sir’ilâa), 329-331, 335, 337, 338
Ahaz and Tiglath-pileser, 353, 356
Aḫi-milki of Ashdod, 386
Aḫi-miti of Ashdod, 369
Aḫi-tâbu (Ahiṭub), 281
Ahuni of Til-barsip, 328
Ahuramazda, 426, 427
Ain-anab, 293
Ainsworth, W. F., his description of the ruins of Haran, 200
Ajalon, 280, 297
Akizzi, king of Qatua, 289-290, 317
Akkad (Accad), 119;
references to the country and its language, 121, 412;
the ideograph for, 122;
in early times a collection of small states, 123;
names of their capitals, 124;
the gods of, 415;
revolt in, 415;
weeping in, 416
Akkad, the city (Agadé), 124, 135
Akkadian, Akkadians, 119, 120, 121;
probably migrants, 134;
will overthrow the nations, 123;
their language that of most of the earlier inscriptions, 124;
its gradual disuse, 125;
disappearance of their specific racial type, 125;
their literature current also in Assyria, 126;
their laws retained, 125;
transcription and translations of inscriptions, 219-221
Akkû (Accho), 374
Alašia (? Cyprus), 277
Al Aštarti, city, 278
Al bêth Ninip, “the city of the temple of Ninip,” 278
Aleppo, 304, 329
Allala-bird, Ištar breaks his wings, 96
Allat, the temple of, 182
Alliance by marriage, 276
Amadeh, 273
Amāna, the god Ammon, 278
Ama-namtagga, “the mother of sin,” 532
Amanus mountains, 349, 368
Amaru, a name of Merodach, 54
Amar-uduk (Merodach), 54
Amasis, pharaoh, Babylonian vassal, 401
Amattu (Hamath), 363
Amedi, city, 372
Amen-em-heb, officer of Thothmes III., 272
Ameni (Amen-em-ha), inscription of, 261
Amenophis II., 273;
Amenophis III., 274, 316;
Amenophis IV., 269, 293, 299, 302;
his names, 303
Amherst of Hackney, Lord, his tablet mentioning Ostanes, 544
Amki, the cities of, 288, 289, 317
Ammani’ita, goddess, 561
Amminadab (Ammi-nadbi) of Beth-Ammon, 389
Ammi-ṭitana, king, 153;
extent of his dominions, 155;
letter from, 165;
lord of Amurrū, 215
Ammi-zaduga, king, 153;
tablet dated in his reign, 168, 332
Ammonites (Amanians), 329, 333
Ammurabi, a form of the name Hammurabi, 209
Ammurapi (Hammurabi), 210
Amna, a name of the sun-god, 144
Amon (the god Ammon), 278
Amoria (the land of the Amorites), 155, 205, 206, 207, 208, 374, 422
Amorite, Amorites, 156, 157, 300;
in Babylonia, 169, 277, 310;
tribute from the, 328, 341;
their kings do homage to Cyrus, 422;
their deities, 156, 170 _n._;
names, 170
Amorite tract, the, 169, 312
Amorite, an, the father of Jerusalem, 316
Amosis, the prince who knew not Joseph, 307
’Amq, identified with Amki, 289
Amraphel (Hammurabi), 125, 152;
identified with Hammurabi by Prof. Schrader, 209;
explanations of the final _l_, 211;
colophon-dates of his reign, 211-214;
his successor, 153, 187, 188
Amtheta, mother of Abram, 146
Amu, the ethnic name of the “impure” Hyksos kings, 265
Amurrū (the land of the Amorites), 122, 134, 155, 205, 206 (207), 208,
328, 341;
ruled over by Sargon of Agadé, 215;
claimed by Ḫammurabi, 215;
ruled by Ammi-ṭitana, 311;
the cuneiform ideographs for, 122, 311, 312;
used for “west,” 311
Amurrū (the god), 156, 312
Amurrū (personal name), 157
Amytis, 407
Anab, 293
Anamimi, the spring of, 305
“An eye for an eye,” etc., 509, 522
Animals created by Merodach, 40;
animals sent into the ark, 103, 117;
animals held in honour at On, 264, 265
Ankh-kheperu-Ra, “the beloved” of Amenophis IV., 303
Anman-ila, king, 54 _n._, 154
Annihilation, the, of Assyria, 393
Annunit, 224. _See_ Anunitum
Anos (= Anu), 17
Ansan, city, 411, 420, 421
Anšar and Kišar, production of, 16;
their names, 65;
connection of Anšar with Asshur, 66;
identity of the two deities, 66;
similar names, 67
Anšar and the revolt of Tiamtu, 20
Antiochus (Epiphanes), tablet referring to his reign, 480, 561
Anu, god of the heavens, 16;
asked to subdue Tiamtu, 20;
fails, 21;
mentioned with Ištar, 41;
worshipped at Erech, 160, 231;
Merodach founds a place for him, 26;
he joins with other deities to send a flood, 101
Anu-Bêl, the god, 482, 483
Anunitum, goddess of Sippar, 160;
Nabonidus’ and Belshazzar’s offerings to her temple, 445, 450
Anunnaki (spirits or gods of the earth), creation of, 40;
present at the Flood, 104
Aos (Aa, Aê, or Ea), 17. _See_ Aa
Apam’a (Apameia), city, 484
Apason (Apsū, the primæval ocean), 16;
husband of Tauthé (Tiamtu), 17
Apharsathchites, the, 391
Apharsites, the, 391
Aphek, city, 330
Apophis (’Apop’i), 262
Apparazu, city, 334
Apprenticeage, 508
Apsū (= Apason), the primæval ocean, the abyss, 17;
non-existent at the beginning, 39;
its fountain, 41, 44;
E-sagila there, 40, 43;
the abode of Tammuz, 43
Arabia, Sennacherib, king of, 378, 381
Arabians (Arbâa), 329, 333, 388, 391;
help Sennacherib, 382
“Arabic” dynasty, the, 169
Arabs, 347
Araḫtu, the canal, 70
Aramaic dialects, 140;
papyri, 539 ff.
Arame, king, 334
Aramean tribes, 347, 356
Arameans, 371
Aram-naharaim, 207
Arandaš, Hittite king, 537
Ararat (Urarṭu), 127, 336, 347, 351, 367, 368
Arareh, 293
Ararma (Larsa), 218
Araske (Nisroch, the god Assur), 378
Arazias, land of, 341
Arbaces, the Scythian, 393
Arbela, 412
Archevites, the, 391
Arganâ, city, 329
Argob, 313
Ari, the land of the Amorites in Sumerian, 312
Arioch, 164;
identified with Eri-Aku, 209
Arioch, the king’s captain, 403
Ark (ship), command to build the, given by Aê (Ea, Aa), 102, 117;
description of the, 103;
entered by Pir-napištim, his family, etc., 103;
given into the hands of a pilot, 104;
stopped by the mountain of Niṣir, 105;
Bel’s anger on seeing it, 106;
its building and provisionment, 103, 115
Armenia, 311, 344, 373;
Sennacherib’s sons take refuge there, 378
Armenians (Mannâa), 387
Arnon, 313
Arpachshad, possible etymologies of, 143, 144 _n._
Arpad, 340, 345, 347
Arqania, city, 484
Arrapha (Arrapachitis), 345, 346
Arsakā (Arsaces), departs to Arqania, 484
Arsâm (Arsames), 539, 542
Art of the Hittites, 323
Artaxerxes, friendly to the Jews, 428;
his death, 429
Artificers of the ark saved in the vessel, 103, 115, 117
Aruada (Arvad), 386, 390
Aruru, the goddess of Sippar-Aruru, 43, 44;
aids Merodach to create the seed of mankind, 40;
creates Ea-banî, 93;
her names, 546
Arvad, city, 272, 322, 328, 386, 390
Arvadites (Arudâa), 329, 374
Arzauya of Ruhizzu, 289
Arzawa, 298
Ašaridu, letter of, 210
Asari-lu-duga (Merodach), 54, 155
Asaru or Asari (Merodach), 54, 143
Asdudimma, city, 369
Asenath, the name, 258;
legend concerning her, 259
Ashdod, 322, 369, 370, 376, 386
Ashdodites (Asdudâa), 374
Asherah, the, 278, 314
Ashtoreth, Ashtaroth, 156, 157, 278, 313
Askelon, 277, 297;
conquered by Meneptah II., 306, 374, 386
Asnapper (Assur-banî-âpli), 391;
letter apparently addressed to him, 210
Aspāsinē (Hyspasines), Kharacenian king, 482, 483
Assarachoddas (Esarhaddon), 378
Asshur, builder of the cities of Assyria, 118
Asshur (Aššur), city, creation or foundation of, 28, 38, 374, 422;
earliest mention of, 490;
revolts, 345, 346;
land of, 340
Assignment for loan, 498
Aššur, the national god of the Assyrians, 202, 329, 340;
Delitzsch’s etymology of, 66
Aššurâaitu, queen, 392
Aššur-âḫâ-iddina (Esarhaddon), 392
Aššur-banî-âpli, 129;
letters to, 201, 410;
restores the temple of Nusku at Haran, 202;
see also 251;
refers to Sennacherib, 382;
his reign, 388-392;
his palace discovered, 394
Aššur-dan, king, 344;
wars in Babylonia, etc., 345
Aššur-êtil-îlāni-ukînni, 392
Aššur-mulik (Aššur-munik), 385
Aššur-nadin-šum, son of Sennacherib, made king of Babylon, 379;
his deposition, 380
Aššur-naṣir, eponym, 410
Aššur-naṣir-apli, I., 327
Aššur-naṣir-âpli II., 327;
attacks Carchemish, 321;
marches to the Mediterranean, 328
Aššur-nirari II. marches to Hatarika, Arpad, 345;
and Namri, 346
Aššur-uballiṭ to Amenophis III., 282
Aššur-uttir-aṣbat = Pitru, 329
Assyria, Assyrians, 122, 123;
spoke the same language as the Babylonians, 126;
their origin, 126;
character, rulers, artistic skill, 128;
invasion by, 331;
revolt of, 345, 374;
downfall of, 391 ff., 395;
Christians of, 485
Assyro-Babylonian language, the, widely known, 140, 275
Astamaku, city, 334
Aštarte (Istar) and the Asherah, 314
Astyages captured by Cyrus, 411
Ašur-nadin-âḫi of Assyria, 283
’Atar-’ata (’Atar-ghata), Tar-’ata, Atargatis, or Derketo, 203
Atargatis, goddess of Haran, 203
Aten, the sun’s disc, its suggested etymology, 303
Athribis, 389
Atra-ḫasis (Gk. Xisuthrus), a name of Pir-napištim, 107, 117;
the coming of the Flood revealed to him in a dream, 107
Augury from entrails, 240
Avaris, the Hyksos shut up in, 252;
the centre of their rule, 254;
taken by the Egyptians, 270
Avitus of Vienne, Bishop, 47
Ay, pharaoh, 303
Azariah, 338, 348
Aziru, 279, 293, 313, 315
Azor (Azuru), 375
Azriau or Izriau (Azariah), 348, 349
Azuri of Ashdod, 369
Azzati (Gaza), 285
Ba’ali, city, 340
Ba’ali-ra’asi, 337
Ba’al(u) of Tyre, 386
Baal-zephon (Ba’ali-ṣapuna), 349;
(Ba’il-ṣapuna), 369
Ba’asa (Baasha), 333
Baba (Beby), 261;
his inscription, 262
Babel = Babylon, 118, 135
Babel, Tower of, supposed, 44, 132-141, 398
Bâbîa, name, 456
Babylon, founded by Merodach, 40;
principal centre, 124;
Dynasty of Babylon, 142, 152, 153;
city destroyed by Sennacherib, 380, 381;
Jehoiachin carried to, 399;
the gods of Akkad enter, 415;
at the time of the Captivity, 471-473;
the proposed new capital under Alexander the Great, 476;
its walls dismantled under the Seleucidæ, 418;
as revealed by the German excavations, 560;
the Church at, 485;
tablets dated at, 432, 440-444, 448, 449, 459, 460, 464, 466, 478
“Babylon and the Bible,” 525, ff.
Babylonia (Sumer and Akkad, Shinar), 118, 119;
majority of inscriptions Semitic, 119;
federated under Ḫammurabi, 149;
change in its rule, 152;
under Assyrian rule, 327, 356, 357, 371, 379, 380, 386, 391;
under Cyrus, 419 ff.;
Darius and his successors, 424 ff.;
the Greeks, 475 ff.;
Kharacenians, 481;
Parthians, 484
Babylonia at the time of Abraham, 171, 347
Babylonian, Babylonians, character, 150;
dress, 171;
manners, 172, 391;
racial characteristics, 119, 120;
downfall of their empire, 415;
fought in the army of Cambyses, 467;
their religion, 49 ff., 159 ff.;
gods worshipped at a late date, 479
Babylonian Chronicle, the, 361, 383, 385
Bactrian slave-girl, the, 471
Bāgā-asā, brother of Hyspasines, 483
Baghdad, the Christians of, 126
Bagohi (Bagoas, Bagoses), 539 ff.
Baḫiani, 322
Balawat, gates of, 405
Ball, the Rev. C. J., 54;
compares Akkadian with Chinese, 121
Barbers and slave-marking, 511
Bardes (Barzia), 424
Baruḫi-îlu (? Baruchiel), 458
Bashan, the plain of, 277
Bashmurites, origin of the, 266
“Battle,” the, 530
Behistun (rock), 426
Bêl, “the lord,” a name given to Merodach, 32, l. 116, 54;
= Baal, Beecl, etc., 55;
as god of lordship and dominion, 58;
his dislike for Pir-napištim, 102;
his anger at the escape of the patriarch and his people from the Flood,
107.
_See_ Anu-Bêl
Bêl, “the lord” = Ellila (Illil) = Illinos, 17;
called “the father,” 32, l. 116
Bel and the Dragon, story of (= the Semitic Babylonian story of the
Creation), 20
Bêl-âbla-iddina, captain of Babylon, 469
Bêl-âḫê-iddina, one of Neriglissar’s captains, 444
Bêl-bulliṭ-su (a scribe), 478
Bêl-êṭiranni, major-domo of Neriglissar, 438
Bêl-ibnî (Belibus), 379
Belichus (river), 328
Bel-Merodach, 18
Belos (Bel-Merodach), 17, 18;
his temple, 471, 472, 552
Bêl-rêṣuā, Belshazzar’s servant, 447
Bêl-šarra-bulliṭ, agent of Nabonidus and Belshazzar, 450
Bêl-šarra-uṣur, chief of a Median province, 367
Bel-shamin worshipped at Haran, 203
Belshazzar (Bêl-šarra-uṣur), son of Nabonidus, 414;
was he descendant of Nebuchadnezzar? 339, 407;
as crown prince, 412, 447 ff.;
in Akkad, 412, 449;
his position, 414;
though heir to the throne, 447; never mentioned as king, 419;
a sale of clothes, 449;
his appointment of Daniel, 419;
a letter apparently from, 538;
his death, 417-419
Bêl-šum-iškun, father of Neriglissar, 409, 438
Bêl-tarṣi-îli-ma, of Calah, 343
Belteshazzar (Daniel), explanation of the name, 402
Beltis, goddess, 415
Bêl-ušallim, the enchanter, tablet of, 155
Bêl-Yau, “Bel is Jah,” name, 59
Bêl-zēr-lîšir, copy of an old lamentation made for, 447, 478
Bene-berak (Banâa-barqa), 375
Ben-Hadad II. (son of Ben-Hadad I.), 330;
restores cities, 331;
besieges Samaria, 333;
meets Shalmaneser, 335;
see also 329, 337, 338, 342;
Ben-Hadad (god), 317
_Bennu_, the bird of Râ or Rê, 265
Berechiah, 471
Bêri, the Ḫašabite, to the king of Egypt, 288
Berlin Museum, 372
Berosus, the Babylonian author, 63, 378, 379 (siege of Jerusalem), 384,
385 (death of Sennacherib), 406, 408, 409, 410, 418, 422
Bertin, George, his suggestion with regard to the “sons of god,” 86
Beth-Ammon, 322, 386, 389
Beth-Ammonites, the, 374
Beth-arbel, 361
Beth-Dagon (Bît-Daganna), 375
Bethel (_bêt-îli_), the, at Haran, 201;
division of property declared in the, 180
Beth-Ninip, the city, 235, 299
Bethuel, the name, 245
Beyrout, 293
Biamites, origin of the, 266
Bigamy, 503
Bilingual Creation story, 38-41
Bin-Addu, 317
Bin-Addu-’idri, 329.
_See_ Ben-Hadad
Birch, Dr. S., 253
Birds, sending forth of the, 106, 116
Birejik, 207
Birs-Nimroud (Tower of Nimrod), services in, 485.
_See_ E-zida
Bît-Amukkāni (Chaldean tribe), 356
Bît-Baḫiani, 322
Bît Ḫumrî, Bît Ḫumrîa (Israel), 332, 352, etc.
Bît Ninip in the province of Jerusalem, 2, 235, 299
Bît-Yakin, 371
Black Obelisk, 332, 337
Blessed, the abode of the, at the mouths of the rivers, 73
Blessing of Aaron, Delitzsch’s parallel to, 526
Boatmen’s wages and penalties, 511-512
Boats and ships, hire of, 514, 515;
boats of skins, 319
Body, the, of Joseph not taken at once to Canaan, 266, 267
Boghaz Keui (Köi), 205, 317, 537, 538
Bond and free, marriages between, 506, 507, 525
Borrowers, liabilities and rights of, 495, 496
Borsippa, the temple tower at, 137;
tablets dated at, 461, 462.
_See_ Birs-Nimroud, E-zida
Bosanquet (Mr.), 345
Bow of Merodach, 28
Branding of animals, 457
Breasted, Prof., 552
Brick in Babylonia, 135
Brigandage, 493
Brugsch, Prof., 253, 304, 305;
his translation of the inscription of Baba, 262
Bubastis, 263
Budu-îlu of Beth-Ammon, 374, 386
Builders, their pay and liabilities, 511;
Babylonian kings as, 398
Building of the ship or ark, 102, 103, 117
Bull, divine, sent against Gilgameš and his friend, 97;
killed and mutilated by the latter, 97, 98
Buntaḫtun-ila, king, 54 _n._, 154
Burial of Seqnen-Rê, 269
Burra-buriaš (Burna-burias), king, 276, 293;
speaks of Canaan, 205;
his letter to Amenophis III., 281
Bûr-Sin, king, 124, 164;
meaning of his name, 217, 218
Buzu, city, 182
Buzur-Kurgala, the pilot or boatman of the ship (ark), 104
Caedmon, 47
Cain and Abel, parallel to the story of, 82-84
Calah (Nimroud), built by Asshur, 118, 126, 341;
statues at, 343;
revolt in, 346
Calne, 348
Calneh, one of the cities of Nimrod’s kingdom, 118;
identified with Niffer, 126, 135
Camarina (Urie), 146;
its probable etymology, 147, 197
Cambyses (Kambuzîa), performs ceremonies, 416;
becomes king, 424;
tablet of his reign, 466;
his campaign in Egypt, 467
Canaan, 204, 205;
mentioned by the Pharaoh, 301, 304, 306;
“a domain of Babylonian culture,” 526
Canaanites, Rameses II. and the, 305
Canals, the Babylonian, 159
Canon, the Babylonian, agrees with that of Ptolemy in naming Pûlu or
Poros, 357, 358
Canon of Ptolemy, 358, 398
Canons, the eponym, 352, 353, 358
Cappadocia, 318
Captives asked for, 301, 302
Caravans, attacks on, 281, 285, 286
Carchemish, 272, 304, 319, 321, 329-334, 339, 367
Carchemishites, 350
Carmania, Nabonidus exiled to, 418
Carmel, Thothmes III. at, 271
“Cedar, beloved of the great gods,” the, 76
Carrier’s responsibility, 499
Cart, oxen and driver, hire of, 514
Chaboras (Habor), river, 364
Chaldean, Chaldeans, the tribes, 341, 347, 356;
not liked by the Babylonians, 371;
Esarhaddon and the, 388;
Nabopolassar supposed to be a, 396
Chaldean Christians, the, 394
Characters, Assyrian, 312;
Babylonian, 122
Changelings, 509
Chariots of the Hittites, 319
Chedor-, 209.
_See_ Kudur-
Chedorlaomer, 209, 215;
at first identified with Kudur-mabuk, 222;
probably the Kudur-laḫmal, or Kudur-laḫgumal of the inscriptions, 223,
232
Chemosh, the god of the Moabites, 557, 559 ff.
Cherub, cherubim, 80-82, 533, 547
Chiefs of Takhsi made captive, 273
Chinzeros (Ukîn-zēr), 356, 357
Chnub, Chnum, priests of, plot against Jews, 539, 542, 543
Choosing the inheritance, 180
Christians, of Mossoul and its neighbourhood, 394;
of Baghdad and Irak, 485
Chronological trade-document, a 398
Cilicia (Kefto), 274, 368;
places near, conquered by Sennacherib, 379
Cilicians, the, 390
Cities, creation of, in Babylonia, 28;
their growth, 171;
invoked as deities, 181;
those benefited by Ḫammurabi, 489, 491
Cities, etc., of the western states, before the Hebrews, 277
Cittaeans, 360
Civilization in Babylonia, antiquity of, 170
Clay, Prof. A. T., 555
Cleopatra’s Needle, 265
Coast-lands, Mediterranean, pay tribute to Aššur-banî-âpli, 388
Code of Ḫammurabi, 491-515;
notes upon, 519, ff., 545, 546;
illustrations of, 166, 168, 173 ff., 176, ff., 179, ff.
Collisions at sea, 512
Colophon-dates, 178-182, 184, 185, 187, 188, 211-214
Combat with the Dragon, 18 ff.
Commagene, 319, 329, 372
Commissariat, letter concerning the, 287
Commissioner and agent, relations between, 498, 499
Compensation for slaves, 458, 459, 513, 523
Conciliation, Elamite policy of, 233
Concubines, 502, 503, 508
Confusion of tongues, the, 132, 133, 139, 140, 170
Congregation, the, of, E-saggil, 126 B.C., 482
Constellations, Merodach sets the, 27
Consulting the teraphim, 247
Contempt for gods, 553, (480)
Cossaeans (Kaššû), 373, 537
Costume of the people in Babylonia 2000 B.C., 171
Countries known to the Babylonians and Assyrians, list of, 206
Courts of Justice in the temples and at the gates of cities, 163
Creation, the Hebrew story of, 11 ff.;
how it grew, 9 ff.;
differences between it and the Babylonian accounts, 34 ff., 48-49
Creation-legend, the Semitic, an heroic poem, 10;
extracts from, 18, 19, 21-23, 35, 36;
remarks upon, 20, 33-38
Creation-legend, the bilingual, 38-45;
why compiled, 39
Creation-legends, though differing, contain similar ideas, 10
Creation-tablet, the first, 16;
Damascius’ version, 16;
remarks thereon, 20;
the second, 20, 21;
third, 22;
fourth, 22-26;
fifth, 26-28;
sixth, 28, 29;
last, 29-33
Cruelty of the Egyptians to captives, 273
Cultivation, tablet referring to, 456, 457
Cure of Gilgameš, the, 108, 109
Cush, the father of Nimrod, 118, 204
Cuthah, the temple-tower at, 136;
tribute from, 341;
its site found by Rassam, 394
Cylinder-seal with supposed representation of Adam’s fall, 79
Cyprus (Yatnana or Ya(w)anana), 128, 304, 373;
its kings, 386, 387;
tributary to Egypt, 272;
aids Aššur-banî-âpli, 389
Cyrus, his operations against Astyages, 411;
crosses the Tigris, 412;
subjugates Babylonia and enters the capital, 415;
helped by the Jews, 416;
his treatment of Nabonidus, 418;
master of Babylonia, 419;
his inscription, 420 ff.;
champion of the Babylonian gods, 422;
restores exiles to their homes, 423;
his death, 424
Daché and Dachos, miswritten for Laché and Lachos, 17
Dagon (Dagunu), 59;
(Dagan), 142, 279
_Daily Telegraph_ expedition, the, 90;
finds a fragment of a second story of the Flood, 117
Damage by herdsmen, 514
Damascius, his version of the Babylonian Creation-story, 16, 17, 63
Damascus, the city (Dimasqu, Dimasqa), Israelites build streets there,
331;
Mari’u, the king besieged there, 341;
“land of,” 353;
Ahaz goes there, 356, 363
Damascus, the country (Ša-imēri-šu, Imēri-su), 329, 334, 336-338;
Mari’u, king of, 341;
subdued by Assyria, 348 (353);
Rezon of, 354
Damu, goddess, “the great enchanter,” 16
Daniel, 402, 417
Daos, the shepherd of Pantibiblon, his long reign, 63
Dapur (Tabor), 305
Darius Hystaspis, mounts the throne of Babylon, 424;
the contract-tablets of his reign, 425, 468-471;
his monotheism, 426, 427;
the extent of his dominions, 427
Darius II., 539, 542
Dark head, people of the, 420
“Dark vine,” the, of the Babylonian Paradise, Eridu, 71, 75
Dâ-šartî, a captive, 302
Date, probable, of the Hyksos invasion, 265;
of the Exodus, 306
“Daughter for daughter,” 510, 522
Daughter (? adopted), sale of a, 185
Dauké (= Damkina), 17, 18;
consort of Aa or Ea, 64
Day, the evil, 528
Days of creation, no reference to, 49;
days of the month, 526, ff.
Dead slave, the, 458, 459
Death of Shalmaneser II., 339;
IV., 361;
Sargon, 372;
Sennacherib, 383;
Esarhaddon, 388;
the last king of Assyria, 393;
Belshazzar, 419
Death-penalty for adultery, 501, 521
Debt, working off of, 500, 521;
responsibility of husband and wife for, 503, 504
De Clercq collection, the, 560
Decoration, Babylonian, 551 (405), 552 (471-472)
Defamation, 501
Dehavites, the, 391
Deified kings, 164
Deities as witnesses, 187
Deities of Mitanni, 277, 278
Deities of west Asian origin, 156
Deities probably foreign, 157
Delaiah, son of Sanballat, 541
Delitzsch, Prof., Friedrich, 14, 15, 36, 78;
restorations by, 122, 361;
his etymology of _sadû_, 248;
_Babel und Bibel_, etc., 525, ff., 546, 559
Deposit, goods on, 499, 500, 501, 521
Derketo (Atargatis), goddess, 203
Dêru, Babylonian city, 363
Desertion, 502
Devotees, recluses, priestesses, and public women, 161, 499, 507, 508
“Dibbara Legend,” the, 122
Digging of canals, dating by the, 159
Dimasqa, Dimasqu (Damascus), 336, 341, 353, 363
Dinaites, the, 391
Diodorus Siculus upon the taking of Nineveh, 393
Disaster, the Assyrian, at the siege of Jerusalem, 378
Disowning of a son, 176, 177, 505
Distraint, 500;
a parallel to the case of the Egyptian farmers, 525
Divination, 247
“Divine Daughters,” the, 160
Divine honours paid to Egyptian rulers, 270
Division of property, 178-181
Divorce, 181, 502
Double-formed and bull-like monsters, Ea and his attendants, 63, 64
Dove, swallow, and raven sent forth from the ship (ark), 106
Dower, return of, 502, 504
Dowers and gifts to virgins, priestesses, etc., 508
Downfall of Assyria, the, 392, 393;
Nabopolassar upon the, 550
Dragon of Chaos, the, 18;
dragon and the serpent-tempter, 529 ff.
Dreams, royal, 390, 411
Dress of the scribes in early Babylonia, 171, 172
Driver, Prof., 260 _n._
Du-azaga, “the holy seat,” 405
Dûdu, name, 315
Dudḫalia, 537
“Due of the Sun-god,” the, 167
Dū-maḫa, a sacred place, 228
Dumuzi-Abzu, “Tammuz of the Abyss,” 43, 63
Dungi, Babylonian king, 124, 152, 164
Dunip (Tenneb), city, 277;
resists the enemies of Egypt, 294
Dunnaitess, lamentation of the, 477
Dura, plain of, 403, 404
Dûr-Ammi-zaduga, city, 172
Dûr-Dungi, 325
Dûr-îlitess, lamentation of the, 478
Dûr-Kuri-galzu, 347
Dûr-Ladinna, 371
Dûr-maḫ-îlāni, son of Eri-Eaku, 223, 224, 226, 227, 231, 233
Dûr-Sargina (Khorsabad), the temple-tower there, 137, 369
Dusratta, king of Mitanni, 276, 278, 304, 316
Dynasty of Babylon, 142, 152, 153;
Babylonia at the period of the, 169 ff.
Ea, the god, 17, 26, 56, etc.
_See_ Aa
Eaašarri, 278 _n._
Ea-banî (Aê-banî, Aa-banî), the man of the wilds, 92;
his creation and appearance, 93;
is seen by a hunter, enticed, and induced to go to Erech, 94;
he accompanies Gilgameš against Ḫumbaba, 94, 95;
kills a divine bull, 97, 98;
his dreams and death, 98;
his resurrection, 110 (Ea-du, Enki-du)
Ea-du or Enki-du, 92 _n._, 548
E-ana, E-anna, the temple at Ecrech, 39, 229;
its sanctuary, 91
Early life of a Syrian prince, 285
E-babbara (the temple at Sippar), 160, 434;
expenditure of, 446;
(the temple at Larsa), 218
E-bara. _See_ E-babbara
Ebed-tob (Abdi-ṭâba), 291
Ebers, Prof., his translation of the inscription of Ameni, 261;
upon Apophis, 263
Ebisum (Abēšu’), king, 153, 155
Eden, Garden of 13, 69;
the native land of the Babylonians, 14;
Sippar of Eden, 70, 72;
Eden not referred to as the earthly paradise in the Babylonian
inscriptions, 72
Edina, “the plain” (Eden), 43, 72
Edom (Udumu), 322, 341, 370, 374, 386
Edrei, 313
Egypt (Musuru, Musru, Musur, Miṣir), 249-309;
the Hyksos invasion, 251;
gradually loses Palestine, 290;
governors still faithful to, 293;
invaded by Sennacherib, 381;
an Assyrian province;
see also 363, 365, 375
Egypt, the brook (? river) of, 388
Egypt Exploration Fund, the, 305
Egyptian civilization, 250
Egyptian king, the, to the prince of the Amorites, 300
Egyptian loan-words, 143, 144
Egyptian slave, sale of an, 466, 551;
testifies to Cambyses’ campaign in Egypt, 467
Egyptians (Muṣurâa), 375;
their decision with regard to the Israelites, reason of, 268
E-ḫulḫul, the temple of Sin or Nannara at Haran, 202
Ejectment before the end of the term, 498
E-kidur-kani, temple at Babylon, 433
Ekron (Amqarruna), 375, 376, 377, 386
E-kua, sanctuary of Merodach, 472
Elah, 355
Elam, a mountainous country, 206;
firstborn of Shem, 549;
its power, 209;
conquered by Sargon, 362 (363);
Merodach-baladan in, 373;
ravaged by Sennacherib, 380;
conquered by Aššur-banî-âpli, 391;
acknowledges the sway of Darius, 427
Elamite, Elamites: Ḫumbaba, 94, 95;
Chedorlaomer, 209, 215, 222, 224, 227;
Kudur-mabuk, Kudur-laḫ(gu)mal, etc., 222-225, 230, 232;
hostile to Assyria, 372, 379, 380, 391;
their incursions near the Tigris, 483;
see also 122, 140, 170, 229
Elath, 353
Elders, rule of, 280
Elephantine, the Aramaic papyri from, 539 ff.
Elephants killed by Tiglath-pileser I. in the land of Haran, 200;
and in Lebanon, 201;
elephants in the district of Niy, 273
Elephants’ tusks, 321
El-Kâb, 261
Ellasar, city, 124
Ellila (v. Bel)
Ellipu, country of, 341, 372
Elmesum, princess, marriage-contract of, 166
Elmešum’s letter to his father, 172
Eltekah (Altaqû), 375
Elulaeus of Tyre, 360
E-maḫ (temple), 161
Embankment of the Sun-god, the 213
E-melam-anna, the temple of Nusku at Haran, 202
Emutbālu or Yamutbālu, conquered by Ḫammurabi, 211, 212, 213, 216, 217,
219, 220
Enchantments, Istar’s, 97
Endowment of an adopted daughter, 173
Engur, mother of Aa or Ea, 64
Enki-du, the friend of Gilgameš, 92 _n._, 540
En-nu-gi and the Flood, 101
Ennun-dagalla, 228
Enoch, 84
Enšara and Ninšara, 67
Enweduranki (Euedoreschos), 63, 77, 538, 539
Ephron, 315
Eponym dates in the reign of Shalmaneser IV., 358
Erech non-existent at the beginning, 39;
built by Merodach, 41;
called “Erech the walled,” and ruled over by Gilgameš, 91;
besieged, 91;
other references to the city, 92, 93, 94;
rejoicing there on the death of the divine bull, 98;
Gilgameš returns thither after seeing Pir-napištim, 110;
one of the cities of Nimrod’s kingdom, 118, 124, 135;
its temple-tower, 136;
the city delivered to Rîm-Sin, 221;
lamentation over its misfortunes, 477, 478;
tablet dated at, 456
Ereš-ki-gala (Persephone), 279
Eri-Aku (Eri-Sin), 216, 217, 218, 233;
inscription of, 219
Eridu, the Babylonian Paradise, 71, 72, 73;
non-existent at first, 39, 42;
made, 40;
not the earthly city of that name, 43;
a type of Paradise, 43;
the incantation of, 44;
one of the principal cities of Babylonia, 124
Esâ (? = Esau), 157, 245
E-saggil, 223, 224. _See_ E-sagila
E-sagila (E-saggil, E-sangil), completed by Merodach, 40, 43;
meaning of the name, 43, 139;
the temple of Belus, 137, 246, 472;
restored by Samsu-iluna, 161;
restoration attempted under Alexander and Philip, 476;
offerings at, 412, 480;
its congregation, 482;
see also 409, 415
E-sagila, the temple “within the Abyss,” founded by Lugal-du-azaga, 40, 73
E-sagila-râmat and her father-in-law’s slave, 465, 466
Esarhaddon (Aššur-âḫâ-iddina), 383, 384-388;
apparently crowned at Haran, 201-202;
in Ḫanigalbat, 384, 385;
in Babylonia and the Mediterranean states, 386, 387;
in Armenia, and on the east of Assyria, 388;
in Egypt, 251, 388;
he restores the temple of Belos, 560;
mentions his brothers, 558, and his father’s campaign against the Arabs,
382;
his death, 388
E-šarra, the heavens, 26
E-šarra, an Assyrian temple, 328, 340
E-ša-turra, a temple at Su-anna, 433
Esau, the name, 157, 245
Escaped slaves, 493
Esdraelon, defeat of Syrians at, 271
Ešnunna(k) (Umliaš), soldiers of, defeated by Ḫammurabi, 213;
destroyed by a flood, 214;
its gods restored by Cyrus, 422
Etakama (Edagama), of Kinza and Kadesh, 279;
pretending to be faithful to Egypt, attacks Amki, 288, 289;
hostile to Egypt, 293
E-temen-ana(-kia), the tower of Babylon, 136, 138, 139, 406, 559;
and shrine of E-sagila, 398, 560
E-temena-ursag, temple, 213
Etham, 304
Ethobaal (Tu-ba’alu), 374
E-tur-kalama, a Babylonian temple, 214, 415
Euedoreschos, 63, 546, 547
E-ur-imina-ana(-kia), the tower of Borsippa, 136, 138
Euphrates, creation of, 40;
mentioned, 329, 334, 335, 336, 339, 341, 344, 471, etc.
Eupolemus concerning Abraham, 146, 196
Eusebius, 396
Eve, a Babylonian type of, 532
Events chosen to date by, 159
Evetts, Mr. B. T. A., 408
Evil-Merodach (Awel-Maruduk), 408;
murdered, 409;
tablets dated in his reign, 440, 441
Evil spirit, the, driven from the temple, 530
Evolution in the Babylonian story of the Creation, 33, 34
Exodus, date of the, 306;
pharaoh of the, 309
Expulsion of Eve, a parallel to, 83
Expulsion of the Egyptians from Palestine, 302
“Eye for an eye,” 509, 522
E-zida, the temple-tower at Borsippa, restored by Nebuchadnezzar, 138,
139, 406;
Evil-Merodach, 409;
its people resist Kudur-laḫgu(mal), 229, 230;
its bronze doorstep, 405;
incantation concerning, 41;
see also 412, 415, 485
Ezra, Sir H. Howorth upon, 427, 429
“Fair son,” the, his carrying off, 83
Faithlessness, 503
Fall? did the Babylonians possess the legend of the, 79, 531, 532
False witness, 491
Family of the hero of the Flood saved with him, 103, 115, 117
Famines in Egypt, 260, 261
Father’s lawsuit, a, 182
Fear of God, lines upon, 50
Female rule, 280
Fifteenth day = Sabbath, 527
Fire, penalty of death by, 480
Flood, the Biblical story, 87 ff.;
the Babylonian story, 100 ff.;
introduction to, 89, ff.;
first read by G. Smith, 90;
a chapter of the Legend of Gilgameš, 90;
related to him by Pir-napištim, 101;
decided upon by the gods, 101, 102;
its approach, arrival, and effect, 104, 105;
duration and subsidence, 105, 106;
due to the god Bel, 106;
why sent, 107, 112;
Pir-napištim dreads its coming, 104, 116;
the second Babylonian story of the, 117;
was it a “Sin Flood”? 529;
description of the tablets recording, 100, 101
Followers of Tiamtu, the, 530
Food, incantation in which it is used, 540
Foster-children and their disowning, 176, 177, 505
Four kings against five, the, 208
Fraudulent practices, 513
Furious cattle, laws concerning, 512, 523
Furniture, lists of, 189
Future life, 111
Gad, the name, 246 (Gadu-ṭâbu)
Gadlat, goddess of Haran, 203
Gadu-ṭâbu, name, 547
Gala-Aruru = Istar the star = the planet Venus, 44
Galilee, attacked by Tiglath-pileser, 353
Galilee, South, invaded by Amenophis II., 273
Garden of Eden, 69
Garizim, temple at, re-dedicated to Jupiter, 481
Garment, the vanishing, 23
Garu, Petrie’s identification of, 292
Gate of Istar at Babylon, 551, 552
Gates of city, judgment in the, 163
Gath (Gimti), 299
Gath-Carmel, 296
Gauzanitis, 304
Gaza (Ḫazitu), 277, 376 386, 411;
Thothmes III. at, 271;
Yabitiri guards, 285;
Hanon of, 352, 363, 365, 366
Gazzāni (a ruler), 224, 325, 556
Gebal (Gublu), 278, 293, 313, 317, 322, 339, 386
Gebalite, whose brother drove him from the gate, 300
Gebalites (Gublâa), 350, 374
Gedaliah, governor of Jerusalem, put to death, 400
Gemariah, 471
Gergesa, 324
Gezer, 297, 299, 306
Giammu, prince, 328
Gift to a son, 505
Gigîtum, Neriglissar’s daughter, 442
Gihon, river, 69, 70
Gilead, 353
Gilgameš, ancient hero, king of Erech, 73, 91;
the legend concerning him, 90 ff.;
and his friend Ea-banî, 92;
who consents to go to him, 94;
he seeks the place of Ḫumbaba, 94;
who is killed, 95;
Ištar makes love to him, 95, 96;
he reproaches her, 96, 97;
and she sends a divine bull against them, 97;
dreams concerning him, 98;
he mourns for Ea-banî and sets out on his great journey, 98;
he meets Ur-Sanabi, the pilot, and Pir-napištim, 99;
who tells him the story of the Flood, 101 ff.;
he is restored to health, 108, 109;
finds the magic plant, 109;
loses it, and reaches Erech, 110;
sees the spirit of Ea-banî, 111;
the new version of the legend referring to him, 547 ff.
Gilgameš-series, the getting together of the, 90
Gilu-ḫêpa, wife of Amenophis II., 276
Gimil-Sin, king, 124, 164
Gimmirrâa, the, 390
Gimti (Gath), 299
Gimtu (Gath?), 369
Gindibu’u, an Arabian tribe, 333
Girgashites, the, 310, 324-326
Gišdubar, Gišṭubar, Gisdhubar. _See_ Gilgameš
Glosses in the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, 234 _n._
Gobryas (Gubaru, Ugbaru) of Gutium, enters Babylon, and appoints governors
there, 415, 417, 418, 419;
(goes) against ..., 416, 417;
receives the kingdom for Cyrus, 419
“God,” names for, in the chief tongues of the ancient East, 170, _n._
Gods and their seats, 160, 415;
tithe granted to, 448;
processions of, 526;
they fear the Flood, 105;
those who joined Tiamtu, 20, 25;
their punishment, 25
Gods, figures of, found under the pavement of palaces, 247
Gods identified with Merodach, 58
Gods of On (Heliopolis), 264
Gods of the west of Asia, 277
Gog, 391
“Gold, much gold,” 277, 283
Gomer, people of, 390
“Good wishes,” the tablet of, 81
Goshen, 268
Government of states, 279
Gozan, 345, 364
Greek words in Babylonia, 480
Greetings, Babylonian, 172, 452, 453, 454
Gublu (Gebal), 313
Guites, 329;
(= Goim?), 332, 333
Gula, goddess of healing, 86, 472
Gutians, Gutites, 158, 170, 552
Guti-kirmil, 296
Gutû or Gutium, 206, 207, 415
Gyges’ son, the dream of, 390
_Ḫabati_, the, 292, 299
_Ḫabbatu_, 291. _See_ Habati
_Ḫabiri_, the, 269, 291, 295, 296, 297, 538;
they possess the land, 299
Ḫaburu, city in Babylonia, 446
Hadad, 160, 277, 330;
of Aleppo, 329.
_See_ Addu
Ḫādara, Rezon’s birthplace, 354
Hades, “the land of no-return,” 65
Hagar, her position, 186;
parallels (with differences) to the case of, 174, 175, 185, 236, 524
Ḫâi, 315
Halah (Ḫalaḫḫa), 364
Ḫalman, 325
Hamah (Hamath), 317
Ḫamanu (Amanus), mountains, 328, 334, 336, 349
Hamath (Amatte), Hamathites (Amatâa), Irhulêni of, 329, 334;
districts of, 349;
Yau-bi’idi (Ilu-bi’idi) of, 322, 363;
see also 348
Ḫammatites (? = Hamathites), Eni-îlu of the, 350
Ḫammurabi (Amraphel), changes during his reign, 125;
its length, 153;
tablets dated therein 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187;
references to his conquest of “Mair and Malgia,” 187;
other references to him, 209-215, 238;
his code of laws, 491-515;
his image on the stele, 487;
the benefits he had conferred on the cities of Babylonia, 488-491;
his opinions of his reign, 515, 516;
his curse upon any destroying or changing his record, 517-519
Ḫammurabi-ḫêgalla, canal, 211
Ḫammurabi-nuḫuš-niši, canal, 212
Ḫammurabi-Samši, name, 164, 187
Ḫana-galbat, Ḫani-galbat, king of, 283;
the caravans of, 286;
Esarhaddon fights (? against his brothers) there, 384, 385
Ḫanni, messenger of Egypt, 301
Hanon of Gaza, 352
Ḫanû, land of, 206
Haran born at Ur of the Chaldees, 144
Haran (city, the Bab. Ḫarran), a centre of lunar worship, 147, 195;
Terah and his family migrate thither, 192, 195;
its probable origin, 199, 200;
its ruins, 200;
elephants in the neighbourhood in early times, 200, 201;
its gods and temples, 201, 202, 534;
Esarhaddon (?) crowned there, 201, 202;
Nabonidus restores the temple of Sin, 202;
its renown in later days, 202, 203;
the city besieged, 411;
deities restored, 414
Ḫarḫar, called by the Assyrians Kar-Sarru-ukîn, 367, 368
Ḫarri-si’isi, 325
Ḫatānu, servant of Neriglissar, 439
Ḫatarika, Ḫatarikka, 344, 345, 349
Hatred of Bel for the hero of the Flood, 102, 113
Hatshepsut, queen regent, 271
Ḫatta, 288. _See_ Hatti
Ḫatti, Ḫattî (Hittites, Kheta, people of Heth), 205, 288, 319, 341;
their depredations, 317;
ships of, used by Sennacherib, 379;
Syria and the Holy Land, 386.
_See_ Heth, Hittites
Ḫattu, city, 205
Ḫattu-šil, (Kheta-sir), 320, 537
Haupt, Prof. Paul, upon the description of the ship or ark, 114
Hauran, the (Ḫauranu), 336
Ḫâya, a messenger, 286
Ḫaza, 340
Hazael of Arabia, 382
Hazael of (Ša-)Iamēri-šu (Damascus), 337, 338, 342
Ḫaza-îlu, 336, etc. _See_ Hazael
Hazor, 277, 353
Heathen images, the, of Jacob’s household, 247, 248
Heavens, Merodach arranges the, 27
Hebrews, their ancestor and his language, 204;
in Egypt, 268;
did not leave with the Hyksos, 267;
their commonwealth, 327;
were they the _Ḫabiri_? 538
Heliopolis, 258
Helios (Samas), 203
Hellenizing influence, the, of Antiochus Epiphanes, 480
Helpers of Rahab, the, 530
Hephaistos (Sethos), 381, 382
Herdsmen, their duties and liabilities, 213, 214, 524
Hereditary chiefs, 279
Herodotus upon the Temple of Belus, 137, 405;
Sennacherib’s expedition to Egypt, 381, 382;
Nitocris’ architectural works, 407;
see also 342, 443
Heth, 368, 369; the sons of, 315.
_See_ Ḫatti, Hittites
Hezekiah (Ḫazaqiau), 375, 376, 377, 395
Hiddekel, the Tigris, Babylonian form of the name, 84
Hiding heathen images, 248
Hieroglyphic inscriptions of the Hittites, 317
Hilprecht, Prof. H. V., 124
Hire of animals for agricultural work, 514;
field labourers and herdsmen, 513;
fields, 495;
of a ship (by Belshazzar), 450;
(by Sirku), 470
Hired “from himself,” 188
Hired men, their responsibilities, 513
Hiring of slaves and freemen, for money, 187, 188;
for produce, 188;
risks of the hirer, 191
Hirom (Ḫirummu) of Tyre, 350
Hittite, Hittites, 140, 205, 274, 277, 315-323, 341;
attack Tuneb, 316;
tributary, 272, 316, 320;
their architecture borrowed by the Assyrians, 323;
inscriptions, where found, 317;
their language, 537
Hittite, a, the mother of Jerusalem, 316
Holy Land, 340;
its state before the entry of the Israelites, 277
Home, the, of the Hittites, 318
Hommel, Prof., 14, 54;
suggests a connection of Ea, Aê, or Aa, with Ya’u (Jah), 113;
his early etymology of Arpachshad, 143;
his work upon Egyptian culture 144 _n._;
the Hittite inscriptions, 318;
Gilgameš, 547;
Shinar, 549;
early names, etc., 555, 557
Hophra encourages Zedekiah against Nebuchadnezzar, 399;
marches to support him, 400;
deposed, 401
Hor-em-heb, 303
Horner, Rev. J., 331
Horse, glorious in war, loved by Istar, 96
Horus, 264
Hosea, Hoshea (Ausi’a), king, 354, 355, 359;
the prophet, 361
House of Belshazzar, its situation, 447
Household goods, 189;
gods, 247
Housebreaking, 493, 521
Houses and cities, built by Merodach, 40
Houses, private, 188, 189
Howorth, Sir H., 427, 429
Hui, his tomb at Thebes, 303
Ḫulḫutḫulitess, lamentations of the 477
Ḫumbaba, apparently an Elamite, 94;
Gilgameš and Ea-banî seek his domain, 94, 95;
his end, 95
Ḫursag-kalama, Babylonian city, 415
Ḫursag-kalamitess, lamentations of the, 477
Husband, causing death of, 504
Ḫuṣṣiti-ša-Mušallim-Marduk, tablet dated at, 436
Hyksos, or shepherd-kings, legends concerning, 252;
their fear of an Assyrian (Babylonian) invasion, 251;
their policy in time of famine, 260;
quit Egypt, 252, 270;
at Tanis, 264;
those who remained reduced to subjection, 270;
their descendants, 266
Hyspasines, 481. _See_ Aspāsinē
Ian-Ra (Ra-ian), was he the pharaoh of Joseph? 263
Iāwa, the ending of names, 470, 471.
_See_ -yāwa
Ibi-Sân sells his daughter, 185
Ibi-Sin, king, 124, 152, 164
Ibi-Tutu, king (?), 230, 231
Ibscher, Herr, 544
Idalium, 386
Idigna, Akkado-Babylonian form of the name of the Tigris, 84
Igigi, address to Merodach by the, 29-33;
his title among them, 32
Ijon, 353
Ikausu of Ekron, 386
Ili-milki (Elimelech), 295
Ili-rabiḫ, 288, 289
Illegitimate children, acknowledgement of, 505, 506
Illinos (Illil, the god Bel), 17
Iltani, princess, hires a field, 167
Iltani, princess, sun-devotee, hires a reaper, 168
Ilu-bi’idi (Yau-bi’idi) of Hamath, 322, 363, 366
Ilu-dâya, the Hazite, writes to the king of Egypt, 288
Imgur-Bêl, wall of Babylon, 405
Immerum, king, 154
Immortality, the Chaldean Noah attains, 101, 108
“Impure,” the name given by the Egyptians to the Hyksos, 254
Inaction of the Egyptian king, 296, etc.
Ina-E-sagila-rêmat, daughter of Nabonidus, 450
Ina-êši-êṭir, Nebuchadnezzar’s agent, 432
Incantation for E-zida (the Birs-Nimroud), 41;
against “sickness of the head,” 55;
to purify, 86
Incest, 504, 521, 522
India-House Inscription, extract from the, 138, 139;
references to Babylon, 405, 406
Inheritance, 178-181, 503-507;
of virgins, priestesses, etc., 508
Injuries, penalties for, to slaves, 509, 522;
to a woman, 510, 522;
in a quarrel, 509, 510, 522
Inscriptions, the Hittite, 317, 318
_’Ir_, the Hebrew for “city,” and _uru_, 241
Irḫulēni of Hamath, 329; = Urhi-lēni, 332;
resists the Assyrian king, 334, 335
Irnini, a god, 95
Irqata, rule of, 280
Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, 242
Išḫara, goddess, invoked, 433
Isidore of Charax, 192
Isin, Isinna (Karrak), city, 124, 211
Isis, 264
Isis-Hathor (Venus Urania), 264
Isqal(l)una (Askelon), 374, 386
Israel, 351, 352, 355;
on the monolith of Meneptah, 306
Israel, the name, probable Assyro-Babylonian forms, 157, 245
Israelites, allied with Ben-Hadad, 329-333, 337;
subject to Hazael, 342
_Iššaku_, “chief” (= _patesi_), 127
Ištar, 55;
her search for Tammuz in Hades, 65;
makes love to Gilgameš, 96;
her cruelty to her lovers, 96, 97;
sends a divine bull against Gilgameš and Ea-banî, 97;
which they kill, 98;
her grief on account of the Flood, 105, 116;
worshipped at Erech, 160;
her spouse Tammuz, 279;
Ištar’s gate, at Babylon, 405, 559, 560
Ištar and the _asherah_, 278
Ištar of Babylon, 212;
Haran, 203;
Nineveh, 278, 491, 551
Ištara, goddess, 156
Išullanu, Ištar’s treatment of, 97
Itu’u, on the Euphrates, 344
Iyyar, the month of Ea (Aa, Aê), 65
Izdubar. _See_ Gilgameš
Jabesh, 293
Jacob, Jacob-el, 157, 183, 243, 244, 547
Jaffa, Yabitiri guards, 285
Jah, 113, 535
Jahweh (Jehovah), 535
Janoah, 353
Jebus (Jerusalem), 323
Jebusites, 312, 323, 324
Jehoahaz, 342
Jehoiachin, captive in Babylon, 399;
released by Evil-Merodach, 408
Jehoiakim, 399
Jehoram, 338, 339
Jehu, “son of Omri,” 332, 337-339
Jensen, Prof., 140, 318, 546, 548
Jerabis (Carchemish), 317
Jerusalem (Uru-salim, Ursalimmu), 234, 277, 280, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379;
legend attributing its foundation to the Hyksos, 252;
Ahaz besieged there, 353;
invested twice by the Babylonians, 399, 400;
Temple destroyed, 400;
Temple polluted, 481
Jesus, brother of Johanan, murdered, 542
Jews (Yaudâa), 375;
at Damascus, 331;
last vestiges of their rule, 400;
Cyrus helped by, 416;
probably thought him a monotheist, 419;
names of Jews at Babylon, 470, 471;
why did they remain in the cities of their exile? 474 ff.
Jezreel, 338
Jilting, 504
Joash, king of Israel, 340, 342
Johns, the Rev. C. H. W., 551, 552
Joppa (Yappû). _See_ Jaffa, Yapu
Joseph, the name, 243;
its probable meaning, 244
Joseph in Egypt, 255 ff.;
as viceroy, 260;
no native record of his administration, 253;
his death, 266, 267
Josephus, 359, 382, 408-410;
upon the Hyksos, 251;
the period of Joseph, 262;
the Amorites, 313;
the siege of Jerusalem, 377, 378;
the murder of the high-priest’s brother, 542
Jotham, 355
Judah, 353;
one of the states regarded by the Assyrians as Hittite, 322, 386 (Yaudu)
Judeans (Yaudâa), 375. _See_ Jews
Justin upon Abraham, 147
Kadašman-ḫarbe or Kadašman-Murus, 123;
transports the Sutites, 291
Kadesh, 279;
(Kidša), 300;
conquered by Seti I., 304;
(Kidiš), 401
Ka-dumu-nuna, the gate of E-saggil, 484
Kaldu (the Chaldean tribes in Babylonia), 341
Kalisch, 266
Kallima-Sin (now read Kadašman-ḫarbe), king, 276
Kames, king of Egypt, 269
Kamid-el-Lauz, 293
Kammusu-nadbi of Moab, 374
Kan’ana (Canaan), 304
Karanatum, her adoption, 177;
her name and that of Ashteroth Karnaim, 157
Kar-Adad (fortress of Hadad), 349
Kar-Duniaš, Kara-Dunias, Karu-Dunias (Babylonia), 120 _n._;
ruled by Kudur-laḫgumal, 225;
_see also_ 281, 286
Kar-Nebo, maternal grandfather of Abram, 146
Kar-Shaimaneser (-Shalmanu-aša-rid), city, 339
Kar-Sippar, 167
Kaši (= Kašši), 297, 298
(_see_ Kassite)
Kassite, Kassites, 122, 140, 170, 537
Kedesh, 272, 353
Kefto, identification of, 274
Keilah, 299
Kemi (Egypt), 271
Kêš, a Babylonian city, 124
Kêšitess, lamentations of the, 477
Kheta (Hittites), 274;
their treaty with Egypt, 304;
Meneptah’s reference to, 306
Kheta-sir = Ḫattu-šil, 320, 537
Khorsabad (Dûr-Sargina), 137, 369
Kidnapping, 492, 493, 520
Kidiš (Kadesh), 401
Kili(gug ?), Neriglissar’s servant, 438
Kili-Tešub son of Kali-Tešub, 319
Killing and mutilating hired animals, 512, 523
Kinaḫḫi (Canaan), 281, 301
King, Mr. L. W., 28, 545, 546
King, the, 164-168
Kingi or Kengi (a part of Babylonia), 134, 351
Kingi-Ura or Kengi-Ura = Sumer and Akkad (Babylonia), 206
Kingu, Tiamtu’s husband, exalted, receives the Tablets of Fate, 19;
is overcome by Merodach and deprived of them, 25;
bound, 36
Kirbiš Tiamtu, 24, 31
Kirkišâti, 324, 325
_Kirubu_ = Heb, _kerûb_, “cherub”;
_kirub nismû_, _kirub šarri_, 81
Kiš, a Babylonian city, 415
Kišar, “host of earth,” 16
Kišara-gala, 66
Kisi, Aramean leader, 349
Kiškanū-tree in Eridu, 75;
its fruit, 76
Kissaré and Assoros (Kišar and Anšar), 17
Kizirtum, princess, 166
Knudtzon, Prof., 556
Ktesias, 203
Kudma-bani, district, 179, 180
Kudur in Elamite names, 209, 222
Kudur-laḫgumal, 230, 231
Kudur-mabuk, inscription of, 219;
his sons Eri-Aku and Rîm-Sin, 216
Kûites, the, 350
Kullanû, city, 348
Kulummite(s), 372
Kummuhi (Commagene), 319, 320, 329
Kundaspu of Commagene, 329
Kurium, 387
Laban, the name, 245
Labaya, father of Mut-zu’u, 286;
his sons, 293, 297, 298
Laborosoarchod (Labāši-Marduk), son of Neriglissar, 410;
lends money, 443, 444
Labynetus, Cyrus marches against, 407.
_See_ Nabonidus
Lachish, 277, 297, 377
Lachish epigraph, the, 382
Lagamal (Lagamar, Lagamaru), 222
Lagaš, a Babylonian city, 124
Laḫamu, consort of Laḫmu, 16
Laḫamu, creatures produced by Tiamtu, 19
Laḫmu and Laḫamu, production of, 16;
these names in Damascius, 17
“Lake of Abraham the Beloved,” 192, 193
“Lament of the Daughter of Sin,” 83
Lamentations, Babylonian, 194, 195, 477, 478
“Land of the city of Jerusalem,” 297
Landed property acquired by Neriglissar, 440-442
Lands, etc., created by Merodach, 40
Language of Canaan, 204
Larancha, lamentation of, 477, 478
Larsa (Ellasar), 124;
the temple-tower at, 137;
a centre of sun-worship, 160
Laws, Sumero-Akkadian, 190, 191, 550;
Ḫammurabi’s, 491-515, 553, 554
Lawsuit of Bunanitu, the, 462-464
Lawsuits, 182, 184
Layard, Sir A. H., discoverer of the palaces of Nineveh and Calah;
and Rassam, his helper and successor, 394
Laz (goddess), 211
Leasehold system, the, 190
Lebanon, elephants in, 201;
Saniru (Shenir) before, 336;
_see also_ 387
Legal precedents, 190, 191
Legend of Asenath, 259
Legend of Chedorlaomer, 227-230
Legend of Râ-’Apop’i, 254
Lenormant, inscription published by, 216
Letter concerning an inscription of Ammurapi (Hammurabi), 210
Letters from Abdi-ṭâba (Ebed-ḫiba, Ebed-ṭâba, Ebed-tob), 294-299;
Ammi-ṭitana, 165;
Akizzi of Qatna, 289;
Ašur-uballiṭ, 382;
Bêri, 288;
Burra-buriaš, 281;
Ilu-dayan, 289;
Mut-zu’u, 286;
Yabitiri, 284;
Yidia, 286, 287;
the king of Egypt, 300;
the king’s daughter to Queen Aššu-râaitu, 392
Leviathan, 530
Leviticus xviii. 18, the tablet illustrating, 545
_Lex talionis_, 509, 522
Lêya, a captive, 302
Libation, the, of the Babylonian Noah, 106
Lieblein upon the pharaohs of the Oppression and the Exodus, 269
Life at Tanis in Egypt, 264
_Lingua franca_, the, of Western Asia, 140
Lion (divine), loved by Ištar, 96
Liver, the, in divination, 247
Loan to make up purchase-money and its repayment by instalments, 460, 461,
464, 465
“Lord and Lady, my,” 479
Lud, 391
Ludlul the Sage, lines by, 50
Lugal-zag-gi-si, early Akkadian king, 123, 124
Luli of Sidon, 373
Lullubite, Lullubites, 123, 325
Lulubū (Lullubū), country, 206, 208
Lulumu (Lulubū), 207, 351
_Luluppu_-tree, the legend of the, 76
_Lumaši_-constellation, 545
Luxor, 326
Lydia (Luddu), 390, 391
Machpelah, differences between Babylonian contracts and that referring to,
236-238, 524
Mad bull or vicious ox, death or injury from, 512, 513
Maër (and Suḫi), principality, 548
Magdala, 293
Maḫ, Babylonian goddess, 105, 106, 116
Mahler, Dr. Edouard, upon the stele of Meneptah II. and the Exodus, 306
Mair, city, 213, 214
Majesty, plural of, in addressing the king, 284;
(in the Chedor-laomer-legend it refers to the god)
Malgia, city, 211, 213, 214
Malik (Moloch), 156;
Maliku, 170 _n._
Mamre, 315
Mamun, khalif, 266
Man, creation of, 28, 40, 45, 47
Manamaltel, king, 154, 155
Manasseh (Minsê, Minasê), 340;
pays tribute to Esarhaddon, 386;
to Assur-banî-âpli, 389
Manda barbarians, Medes, 420
Manê, a messenger, 276
Manetho, 251, 274
Mankind, destruction of, in the Flood, 105;
in future other means to be used, 107, 112, 116
Man’s duties, 45
Marad, city, 415;
its patron-deity, 542
Marduk (Merodach), 33, etc.
Marduk-âbla-iddina (Merodach-baladan) of Babylonia, 379
Marduk-îriba, one of Belshazzar’s neighbours, 447
Marduk-nadin-aḫi, son of Nebuchadnezzar, 435
Marduk-našṣi-abli. _See_ Sirku
Marduk-šum-uṣur, son of Nebuchadnezzar, 434
Marduk-zakir-šumi of Babylonia, 379
Maritime nation, Babylonia a, 115, 116
Mari’u of Ša-îmēri-šu, 341, 342
Marking of slaves, 469
Marriage, 173-175, 186
Marriage-contracts, 173, 174;
of Princess Elmešu, 166;
of Neriglissar’s daughter, 442;
indispensable, 501
Martu = Amurrû, 312
Mašitess, lamentation of the, 477
Maspero, Prof., 253;
upon the Sallier Papyrus, 255 _n._
Matan-ba’al of Arvad, 386
Mattaniah (Zedekiah), 399
Max Müller, Prof. W., 274
Medes, the (Madâa, Umman-manda), in alliance against Assyria, 392;
at Haran, 411, 414;
_see also_ 341, 351, 364, 388
Media, 206, 346, 351, 368
Mediation, 53
Mediterranean, the, 340, 341;
states of, 365
Megasthenes, 401
Megiddo, 274;
Thothmes III. at, 271
Meissner, Dr., 547
Melakiyin, the, 266
Melchizedek, 324;
in Heb. vii. 3, 234
Meluḫḫa, 370, 375, 480, 481
Memphis, 263;
captured by Esarhaddon, 388, 389 _n._
Menahem (Meniḫimme, Minḫimmu), 350, 351, 374
Menander, 360
Menanu of Elam, 380
Menant, M. J., 560
Menasê (Manasseh), 386
Meneptah II. (Merenptah), the pharaoh of the Exodus, 269, 305
Mentiu (Bedouin), 270
Mer, Merri, a name of Hadad or Rimmon, 207, 212
Merchants of Babylonia killed, 281
Merodach, the god, his parentage, 33, 63;
the same as Nimrod, 126;
the gods’ champion against Tiamtu, 21, 22;
installed as king, 23 (163);
prepares for the fight, 23, 24;
attacks and conquers Tiamtu, 25, 537;
takes the Tablets of Fate, 25;
cuts Tiamtu asunder, 26;
orders the universe anew, 26 ff.;
receives new names, etc., 29-33;
his “incantation,” 41;
founds Babylon, Niffer, and Erech, 40, 41, 42, 126;
creator of the gods, 43;
his titles, 44;
explanations of some of his names, 45, 54, 56;
identified with other gods, 47, 58;
glorified above them all, 49;
prayer to be delivered into his gracious hands, 51;
the other deities mediators with him, and his manifestations, 53, 58;
heavenly bodies, identified with him, 55;
the benefactor of mankind, 56, 57;
the begetter of the gods, 533, 534;
his description, 529;
his weapons, 550;
names compounded with his, 57;
which in the end was almost = _îlu_, 58, 61;
he was the “great hunter,” 131;
worshipped especially at Babylon, 160, 407;
his yearly procession, 405;
his vengeance, 392;
his merciful nature, 486;
replaced in the end by Anu-Bel, 483
Merodach in West Asia, 279
Merodach-baladan, king of Babylon, 357, 361, 364, 370, 371, 373, 379, 380,
395
Merom, 305
Merwân II., khalif, 266
Mesech, 230
Mesha of Moab, 338
Mesopotamia, 204, 207, 336, 351
Messengers dying abroad, concerning, 283, 284
Mesu, the land of, 341
Methusael, 84
Middle class, the, 171
“Mighty king,” the, 234, 280
Milki-asapa of Gebal, 386
Milki-idiri, governor of Kedesh, 401
Milki-îli, Milkîli, 293, 297, 298, 299
Milku (Melech, Moloch), 279
Milton, 47
Minsê (Manasseh), 389
Mitâ of Musku (Mesech), 367
Mitanni (Naharain, Naharaim), 276, 277, 304;
its language not Semitic, 275;
vassal state, 537
Mitinti of Ashdod, 374, 376
Mitinti of Askelon, 355, 386
Mitunu, the eponyme of, Sennacherib’s campaign against Hezekiah, 378
Mnevis, the bull, 265
Moab (Ma’ab, Ma’abi), 322, 338, 370, 386
Moabites, the, 326, 374;
driven out, 313
Moloch, 279
Mond, Mr., his papyri, 539
Monotheism and polytheism in Babylonia, 47, 198, 533
Monotheistic names, 534;
systems, 541
Monster, the, 530
Monsters, produced by Tiamtu, 18 ff.
Month, Egyptian god, 262
Months and stars, 27
Moon, purpose of the, 27, 37
Moph or Noph (Men-nofr, Memphis), 264
Mordecai (Mardecai), 61, 436, 471
Moses, notes upon his date, 306;
was he saved by Teie’s daughter? 307
Mosque of Abraham at Urfa (Orfa or Edessa), 192
“Mother of Sin,” the, 532
Moumis (= Mummu), son of Tauthé and Apason, 17
Mouths of the rivers, a sacred place, 71, 108
Mugallu of Tubal, 290
Mugheir, regarded as Ur of the Chaldees, 147, 193;
but not altogether certain, 197
Müller, Prof. W. Max, 557
Mummu Tiamtu, the first producer.
_See_ Tiamtu
Muršil, Hittite king, 537
Muru, a centre of the worship of Hadad, 490
Muṣaṣir, 127
Mušêzib-Marduk of Babylonia, 380
Mushtah, 293
_Muškinu_, 536
Musku (Mesech), 371
Muṣrites, 329;
(Muṣrâa), 333
Muṣru, the land of, 354
Muṣur’i of Moab, 386
Muṣuru, Muṣur, Miṣraim (Egypt), 366, 370
Mut-Addu to Yanhama, 292
Mutallu, Hittite king, 537
Mut-îli = Methusael, 84, 245
Mut-zu’u, 279;
letter from, 286
Nabonassar, 347;
his death, 356
Nabonidus, “who is over the city,” witness to a contract, 436;
described on one copy as the son of the king, 436 _n._, 437
Nabonidus, king, his parentage, 410;
expeditions, and reference to Cyrus, 411;
said to have neglected the gods, 412;
and brought strange deities, 413;
his antiquarian researches, 413;
his son Belshazzar, 414, 447 ff.;
his daughters, 450, 451;
his flight before the army of Cyrus, and capture, 415;
sent to Carmania, 418;
his record of the downfall of Assyria, 392;
of the death of Sennacherib, 537 ff.;
other inscriptions, 411, 414;
tablets dated in his reign, 444-451;
his pious works, 445, 446;
Berosus upon his reign, 410
Nabopolassar, king, supposed to have been a Chaldean, 396;
his alliance with the Medes, 392, 397;
marches against Nineveh, 392, 393, 397;
his connection with Syria, 397;
he builds the two great walls of Babylon, 410;
his guardian-god, 533;
frees Akkad from Assyrian yoke, 558
Nabû-balaṭ-su-iqbî, the father or ancestor of Nabonidus, 410, 437
Nabû-bêl-uṣur, governor, 346
Nabû-kain-âḫi, secretary of Belshazzar, 447, 448
Nabû-nadin-zēri, 356
Nabû-ṣabit-qâtâ, servant of Neriglissar, 438;
Laborosoarchod, 443;
and Belshazzar, 448 ff.
Nabû-šarra-uṣur, one of Nebuchadnezzar’s captains, 434;
a secretary of Nabonidus, 445
Nabû-šum-iddina, secretary of Neriglissar, 440
Nabû-šum-ukîn, Babylonian king, 356;
a priest of Nebo, 442
Nagitu, the three cities called, 373, 380
Naharaina, Naharaim (Upper Mesopotamia), 270, 271, 272, 274, 288, 296,
304.
_See_ Nahrima, Narima, Na’iru
Naḫarâu and Nahor, 551
Nahor, the city of, 204
Nahor, 551;
traditions concerning, 146
Nahrima (Naharaim), 296.
_See_ Naharaina
Nahr-Malka, 158;
referred to by Mr. Rassam, 159
Nahum upon the fall of Nineveh, 393
Na’iru (Mesopotamia), 341, 351
Nal mountains, 351
Names given to Merodach, 30-32
Names of captives, 302
Nammu, a river-god, 43
Namri, 336, 346, 347
Namyawaza, an Egyptian vassal, 290, 293
Nannar(a), worshipped at Ur and Haran (Ḫarran), 147, 160, 219 ff.;
hymns referring to him, 194, 195
Naphtali, 353
Napḫu’ruria, Napḫuri (Amenophis IV.), 281, 282
Naram-Sin conquers Elam, 124
Narima (Naharaim), 288
Navigation, Babylonian, 470, 512
Naville, Prof. E., 253, 305;
upon the stele of Meneptah II., 306
Nebo identified with Merodach, 58;
takes part at the coming of the Flood, 104;
worshipped at Borsippa, 160, 409, 415;
named also Lag-gi, 370;
his titles, 343
Neb-mut-Râ (Amenophis III.), 276
Nebuchadnezzar (Nebuchadrezzar), son of Nabopolassar, 392;
marries Amytis, sent against the army of Egypt, 397;
aids, with his brother, in the restoration of the temple E-sagila, 398;
mounts the throne, 398, 399;
affairs in Palestine, Syria, Egypt, etc., 399-402;
his dreams and the golden image, 403, 404;
his buildings, 405-407;
his sons, 408;
was Nabonidus his son-in-law? 407, 437, 438;
tablets dated in his reign, 432-440;
his offerings, 433;
his use of divination, 247;
his name, 558
Nebuzaradan, 400, 558 ff.
Necho of Memphis and Sais, 389 _n._
Nefer-titi, the Egyptian name of Tâdu-ḫêpa, 276
Negeb, the, 272
Negligence, loss or damage from, 496, 513
Nemitti-Bêl, wall of Babylon, 405
Nephayan, commander-in-chief at Syene, 539 ff.
Nergal, Nerigal, god of war, etc., 279, 330;
identified with Merodach, 58;
worshipped at Cuthah, 160;
and in Alašia, 278
Nergal-sharezer, 408, 409
Nergal-ušêzib of Babylonia, 380
Neriglissar (Nergal-šarra-uṣur), son of Bêl-šum-iškun, 409, 438;
cattle-owner, 339;
trader, 440;
banker, 441;
mounts the throne, 408, 409;
his daughter’s marriage, 442;
tablets dated in his reign, 441-444;
his death, 410
Net, Merodach’s, wherewith he catches Tiamtu, 24, 131, 550
Nibhaz, god of the Avvites, 129
Nîbiru, planet Jupiter, 27
Nicolas of Damascus upon Abraham, 147
Niffer (Calneh), non-existent at the beginning, 39;
built by Merodach, 41;
called Nippur (Niffer), 124;
its temple-tower, 136;
its streets and houses, 188, 189;
the daughter of Niffer laments, 477, 478
Nimmalḫê, an Amorite captive, 302
Nimmuaria (Neb-mut-Râ, Amenophis III.), 276
Nimrod, son of Cush, his power and kingdom, 118, 119;
the same as Merodach, 126, 127, 129, 130;
“the mighty hunter,” 131;
his land, 126;
how his name assumed this form, 129, 550;
Arabic Nimrud, 551
Nina, goddess, 64
Nin-aḫa-kudu, goddess, 41
Nin-edina, 77
Nineveh (Ninua), 376, 378, 387;
probably named after Nina, daughter of Ea or Aa, 64;
built by Asshur, 118, 126, 127;
earliest mention of, 491;
its destruction, 393
Nineveh-road, the, 384, 385
Nina-gala, goddess of Haran, 546
Nin-igi-azaga (Aa or Ea), 114
Ninip identified with Merodach, 58;
his names, 235, 236, 555;
worshipped near or at Jerusalem and in the west, 235, 278;
in the Flood-story, 101, 104, 107
Ninšaḫ inscription dedicated to, 220
Nin-Urmuru (?), 280;
possible reading _Bêlit-nêši_, 548
Nippuru, 28, 37.
_See_ Calneh, Niffer
Nisaba, the legend of, 76
Niṣir, the mountain on which the “ship” rested, 90, 106
Nisroch, the god Asshur, 129
Nitocris, queen, 407
Niy, city, 271;
elephant-hunting near, 273
Non-existent things at the beginning, 16, 39
Nudimmud (= Aa, Aê, or Ea), 18;
asked to subdue the Dragon, fails, 21;
an abode made for him, 26
Nuḫašše, 317;
an Assyrian district, 280
Nûr-îli-šu, builds and dedicates a temple, 162
Nûr-Rammāni (Nûr-Addi), king of Larsa, 218
Nusku, one of the gods of Haran, 202
Obelisk, the, emblematic, 265
Offerings, royal, to the gods, 433, 444-446
Officials’ rights, duties, and responsibilities, 493, 494
Offord, Mr. J., his cylinder, pl. vi. and p. 548;
his tablet, 559
Og of Bashan, 313
Omri (Ḫumrî), the “house of Omri,” 332;
“son of Omri,” 337, 339;
“land of Omri,” 341
On (Heliopolis), 258, 264;
the shrine of, 265
Opis on the Tigris, the battle of, 415, 416;
tablets dated at, 439, 450, 459
Oppert, Prof., 14;
his suggested Babylonian etymology of Abel, 82, 83;
dates from Hebrew sources, 332
Oppolzer upon the Sothis period, 307
Oracles (for Esarhaddon), 385;
(concerning Nineveh), 393
Osah (Ušû), 374
Osiris, Merodach identified with, 54;
worshipped at On, 264
Ostâu (Ostanes), 540, 543 ff.
Oxen, the hire of, 512
Padî of Ekron, 375, 376, 377
Palace, house bought for a, 441;
theft from a, 491, 492, 525
Palaces of Nebuchadnezzar at Babylon, 552
Palastu (Philistia), 341 (_see_ Pilišta)
Palestine, Egyptian successes in, 270;
Assyrian do., 329, 336, etc. (Amurrū, Ḫattî)
Pallukatu (the Pallacopas), 70
Pâlûma, a captive, 302
Panbesa, letter of, 305
Pantibiblon, supposed to be Sippar, 63
Paphos, 387
Pap-sukal, the god, 433
Papyri of Elephantine, the, 539-544
Paradise, the Babylonian, description of, 71, 72;
its inaccessibility, 72
Pariktum (canal), 167
Partnership, 183
Party-walls or fences, 190
Pasturing, 496, 497
_Patesi_ (priest-kings or viceroys), 126
Patinians, Kalparundu of the, 334
Patriarchs before Abraham, 141 ff.
Paura (Pauru, Puuru), the king’s commissioner, 297, 298
Peek, Sir Cuthbert, 179
Pekah, 352-355
Pekod, 458
Pekodites, the, 347
Peleg, 145, 552
" 544 (note to p. 145)
Pelusium besieged, 378, 381
Penalties, for changing the words of a contract, 174;
for divorcing a wife, or denying a husband, and denying sisterhood (by
adoption), 175;
for denying an adopted son, an adopted father, 176, 177;
for denying a mistress (by a female slave), 185;
_see also_ 190, 191
Peniel or Penuel, 547
Pen-nekheb, officer of Thothmes I., 270
Pentaur, Egyptian poet, 304
People, the, in early Babylonia, 169-191
Persian rule in Babylonia, 423 ff.
Pethor (Pitru), 329
Petrie, Prof. Flinders, 250, 253, 274, 275, 292, 293, 297, 303, 312, 313;
upon the revival of native Egyptian power, 269;
on Amenophis II., 273;
monolith found by, 305
Pharaoh not drowned in the Red Sea, 307
Philistia (Pilišta, Palastu), 341, 352, 353, 361, 370
Phœnicia, 272, 360
Phœnix, the, 265
Physicians’ fees and liabilities, 510, 511
Pi-Beseth (Pi-Bast, Bubastis), 263
Piercing of Rahab, the, 530
Pilinussu, general of Hyspasines, 483
Pilišta (Philistia), 352, 353, 361
Pilot or boatman (of Gilgameš), 99;
(of the ship or ark), 104, 116
_Pirke di Rabbi Eliezer_, 307
Pir-napištim, the Babylonian Noah, 73;
Gilgameš sees him afar off, 99;
they converse, 100;
tells Gilgameš the story of the Flood, 101-108;
directs his wife to cure Gilgameš, 108;
tells him of a wonderful plant, 109;
he was a worshipper of Ea (Aê, Aa), 113, 114;
and was called also Atra-ḫasis, 107, 112, 117;
his faithfulness to the old deity Aê, 114;
his name probably Ut-napištim, 547
Pir’u of Musuri or Musri, 366, 370;
one of the kings of the sea-coast and the desert, 368
Pishon, river, 69, 70
Pisiris of Carchemish, 350, 367
Pithom, 305
Pittit, an Elamite, 483
Place of fate, the, 472
Plague of darkness, the, 309
Plantation, concerning a, 456, 457
Planting and plantations, 497
Plant making the old young, the, 75
Plants, Merodach creates, 40
Pliny, his reference to king Horus, 124
Polyhistor, 393
Polytheism, the difficulty of escaping it, 246
Potiphar, 255;
the name, 258
Poti-phera, meaning of, 258
Prayer to be freed from sin, 50-52
Presents, interchange of, 276
Priestesses and votaries, privileges of, 507, 508, 546 (180)
Priest of Nebo marries the daughter of Neriglissar, 442
Priests of On, the, 265
Primæval Ocean, the, 16
Principal cities, the, of Babylonia, 124
Procession-street at Babylon, the, 552
Profaning herself, of a temple-devotee, 499, 521
Property of officials, 493-495
Prostitution probably not compulsory, 443
Protection of caravans, the, 282
Prove purchase and gift, contracts to, 438, 439, 458
Ptolemy, 357, 358
Pul (= Pûlu, Poros), 357, 358
Pulug, Pulukku, or Peleg, 544
Pura-nunu (the Euphrates), 158
Purattu (Phuraththu), the Euphrates, 158
Purchase of a house, 460
Qarqara, royal city, 329, 330, 363;
the battle there, 556 ff.
Qatna, 290, 317
Qauš-gabri of Edom, 386
Quê, 371
Qutite, Qutites, 123, 170
Qutû, the land of, 420, 422;
old lamentation referring to the, 477.
_See_ Qutite
Râ or Rê, the Egyptian Sun-god, 254, 264
Râ-’Apop’i and the king of the south, 254
Rabbātum, land of, 224
Rabi-mur of Gebal, 288
Rab-mag (? = Rab-mugi), 408
Races, many, in Babylonia, 119, 169, 170, 541, 542
Rahab, 68, 530
Râ-Harmachis, 264
“Raian ibn el-Walid,” pharaoh, 263
Raising the spirit of Ea-banî, 110
Rameses I., 303
Rameses II., the pharaoh of the Oppression, 269, 304, 305, 307, 537
Rammānu (Rimmon), 160, 277
Ramoth-Gilead, 338
Ranke, Dr. Hermann, 148, 154 _n._
Raphia (Rapiḫu), 363
Râ-seqenen (Seqenen-Rê) III., 261
Rassam, Mr. Hormuzd, 38;
finds the gates of Balawat, 405, 556;
his reference to the Nahr-Malka, 159;
finds bas-relief and inscription of Ḫammurabi, 215;
cylinder of Cyrus, 411, 419;
his family in the East, 394
Raven, sending forth of the, 106
Rawlinson, Sir Henry, recognizes Eridu as a type of Paradise, 71;
his identification of Ur (Mugheir), 193;
and Kudur-mabuk, 222
Reaper, hire of a, 168
Receiver, liabilities of a, 492, 520
Rehoboth, Rehoboth-Ir, built by Asshur, 118, 127
Reisner, Dr. G. A., 156
Religion of the Western states, 277-279
Religious element, the, 159 ff.
Rent, 448
Reproaching the Amorite, 300
Repudiation of master by slave, 515 (law 282)
Resen, its origin, 126, 127
Respect for parents, 509, 522
Retaliation, the law of, 509, 510
Rezin, Rezon (Rasunnu), 350, 353, 355
Ria (the Egyptian Râ or Rê), 254
Rianappa, the representative of Egypt, 287
Rib-Addi of Gebal, etc., 293, 313
Rieu, Dr., 263
Right of way, tablet concerning, 459
Rim-Anu, king, 217
Rimmon (or Hadad), god of the atmosphere, identified with Merodach, 58;
in the Flood-story, 104, 277 (Addu, Rammānu)
Rîm-Sin, 164;
connection of this name with Eri-Aku, 216, 217;
capture of, 213, 214, 217;
inscription of, 220, 221
Rivers, the mouths of [which are on] both sides, 73;
the place of the Babylonian Paradise, 71, 72
Rost, Dr. P., 347, 348, 352
Royal family, the, among the people, 166-168
Royal letters, 165
Rubenstein, Dr. Otto, 544
Rubute, city, 299
Rûkipti of Askelon, 355, 356
Rutennu (Syrians), 303;
the Upper, 274;
Upper and Lower, 304;
conquered by Thothmes I., 270
Sabbath, the Babylonian, 27, 527, 528, pl. ii.
Sabeans, the, 203, 363
Sachau, Prof. E., 539 ff., 542
Sacrifice, the, on coming out of the ship (ark), 106
Sacrilegious theft, the punishment of, 553
Sadi-Tesub, son of Hattu-šar, 320
_Šadû_, _Šaddu_, “mountain,” “lord,” “commander,” 248
SA-GAS = _ḫabatu_, _ḫabbatu_, 291, 292, 538
Ša-imērišu, Imērisu (Syria of Damascus), 329, 334, 336, 337, 341, 354, 356
Sajur (river), 329
Šala, consort of Rimmon or Hadad, 212
Salatis, Hyksos king, 251
Salem, 239-241
Sale of a son by his parents, 435, 436
Sales of land, 237, 238;
slaves, 466, 559 ff.
_Šalim_, _šalimmu_, _Šulmanu_ (_Salmanu_), _Šalmanu nunu_, _šalāmu_,
239-241
Salmayātu, worshipped at Tyre, 278
Salvation, Babylonian desire for, 52
Samaria, 322;
Ben-Hadad’s attempts upon, 330, 333, 338;
Pekah’s flight from, 354, 355;
revolts, 363;
Menahem of, 350
Samarians, city of the, 350
Šamaš, the Sun-god, 77;
identified with Merodach, 58;
monsters guard him, 98;
appoints the time for the coming of the Flood, 103, 104, 115;
in Mitanni, 278
Šamaš-šum-ukîn, king of Babylon, 388
Sammu-ramat (Semiramis), 342, 343
Samsê, Samsi, queen of Arabia, 354, 363
Samsi-Adad III., king, 339
Samsimuruna, city, 386
Samsimurunâa, Menahem, the, 374
Samsu-iluna (king), 142;
length of his reign, 153;
tablets dated therein, 179, 180, 187, 188
Samsu-ṭitana, king, 153
Sân (deity), 156
Sân (Zoan), 263;
the inhabitants said to be of a different type from those of other
places in Egypt, 266
Sanaballat (Sinuballiṭ), governor of Samaria, 541, 543
Sanacharib (Sennacherib), 378, 381
Sangara of Carchemish, 329, 334;
called king of the Hattê, 321
Šaniāwa, name, 458
Saniru (Shenir), 336
Saosduchinos (Samaš-šum-ukîn), 388;
refuses to acknowledge his brother’s suzerainty, 391
Sapîa, city, 357
Saracos (Sin-šarra-iškun), 392, 396
Sarah, 148
Sarasar (Shareser), 378
Sardurri of Ararat, 347
Šargani (Sargon of Agadé), 124
Sargon of Agadé, 124, 313;
ruler of Amurrū, 215;
period and extent of his rule, 150;
_see also_ 549 ff.
Sargon (Sargina) the later, the Arkeanos of Ptolemy, 362;
his annals, 367;
his conquests, 322, 363-372;
his death, 372
Sarḫa (Zorah), 280
Sar-îli, name, 157, 245
Šarru and Šullat, foundation of a temple to, 162
Šarru, a captive, 302
Sarru-dûri, one of Darius’s captains, 456
Šarru-îlûa, servant of Neriglissar, 439
Šarru-lû-dâri of Askelon, 374
Šarru-lû-dâri of Zoan, 389 _n._
Sauê mountains, 349
Sayce, Prof., 14;
identifies the Babylonian story of Paradise, 71; 124;
researches in Hittite, 140, 318;
upon the Amorites and Tidalum, 311, 312;
his analysis of a Hittite name, 321;
see also 283 _n._, 332, 539 _n._
Scape-goat, Babylonian parallel to the, 53
Scheil, the Rev. V., 117, 487 ff., 536, 549, 558
Schrader, Prof. Eberhard, 143;
identifies Amraphel with Ḫammurabi, 209;
_see also_ 341, 342
Sea, the, personified by Tiamtu, 16, 67;
the abode of the god of knowledge, 62
Sea-coast, kings of the, 334, 335, 340
Seir, 296
Seizing the person for debt, 500, 521
Seleucia upon the Tigris, 476, 483, 484
Seleucus and the Babylonians, 476;
Seleucus and Antiochus, tablet dated in the reign of, 477, 478
Sellas river. _See_ Ṣilḫu
Semiramis, 342, 344
Semitic names replace the Akkadian, 125;
Semitic inscriptions more numerous, 119
Sennacherib, 129, 372, 373-384;
in Armenia, against Merodach-baladan, the Cosseans and Yasubigalleans,
Ḫatti (Sidon, Ekron, Hezekiah, etc.), 373-376;
before Lachish, 377, 382;
in Babylonia, 379;
Elam, 380;
against Egypt, 381;
his treatment of the Babylonians, 396;
his death, 383, 384, 550
Seqnen-Rê, the death of, 255 _n._
Šêri (Seir), 296
Serpent and magic plant, 109;
serpent-god and the abode of life, 532;
serpent-tempter, the 531
Serû-êṭirat, princess, 392
Sethos and Hephaistos, 549 (381)
Seti I., Meneptah, 304
“Seven” a round number, 263
Seven kings of Cyprus send tribute, 372
Seventh day, the Flood stops on the, 105;
the birds sent forth seven days later, 106;
duties of the, 528 (_see_ Sabbath)
Shaaraim, 297
Shaddai, a possible etymology of, 248
Shalam (Salamis), 305
Shalman, 239
Shalmaneser II., his accession, 328;
refers to Ahab and Ben-Hadad, 331 ff.;
Jehu son of Omri, 332, 337-339;
his death, 339
Shalmaneser III., his accession and expeditions, 344
Shalmaneser IV., his accession and expeditions, 357, 358-362
Share of the cultivator, the, 495, 525
Shareser, Sarasar, 378, 384, 385
Shasu Bedouin, the, 271, 304
Shaving the head in Egypt and Western Asia, 257
Sheep, the, of Neriglissar’s servant, 438
Shelemiah, son of Sauballaṭ, 541
Shem, 141
Shepherd kings, the, in Egypt, 251, 252 ff.
Shepherd loved by Ištar, her treatment of him, 96, 97
Sheshonq of Busiris, 389 _n._
Shinar (Babylonia), 118;
regarded as equivalent to Sumer, 119, 134;
its etymology, 548 ff.
Ship, Gilgameš and Ur-Šanabi embark in a, 99;
Gilgameš lies down in its “enclosure,” 108
Ship, Pir-napištim commanded to build one to escape the Flood, 102, 113;
its building and provisionment, 103, 114;
the embarkation, 103, 104, 115;
the pilot, 104, 116;
the god Uragala, 104;
Pir-napištim looks forth, 105;
the mountain of Niṣir, and the sending of the birds, 105;
Ellila’s anger and Aê’s kindness, 106, 107
Shrine of Râ at On, 265
Shrines of the gods at Babylon, 472
Shuhites, 319
_Shulchan Aroch_, the, 306
Sibitti-bi’ili of Gebal, 350
Sickness of the head, incantation against, 55, 56
Sidon in the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, 277, 300;
its tribute to Shalmaneser II. (337), 338, 339;
conquered by Adad-nirari, 341;
Tiglate-pileser III., 360;
Sennacherib, 373;
Esarhaddon, 386;
Great and Little Sidon, 374
Sidonians (Ṣidunâa), 328, 337, 374
Ṣidqâ of Askelon, 374
Siduri, goddess, consulted by Gilgameš, 99
Sihon, 313
Ṣilḫu, river (the Sellas ?), 484, 561
Ṣili-Ištar and Iribam-Sin, their dissolution of partnership and the
lawsuit following, 183-185
Silili, mother of the horse beloved of Ištar, 96
Ṣilli-bêl of Gaza, 376, 386
Siluna, country of, 340
Similes, Babylonian, 52
Ṣimirra (Simyra), 348, 351
Simti-Šilhak, king, 219
Simyra (Ṣimirra, Ṣumuru), 277, 293, 313, 348, 351, 363
Sin, the Moon-god, identified with Merodach, 58;
worshipped at Ur and Sippar, 160, 194, 195;
also at Haran, 201, 202, 411
Sin-idinnam of Larsa, 165, 169, 218
Sinjar, 304
Sin-mâr-šarri-uṣur, servant of one of Nebuchadnezzar’s sons, 435
Sin-mubaliṭ, king, 153;
tablets of his reign, 178, 179, 180, 181
Sin-šarra-iškun (Saracos), the last king of Assyria, 392, 396
Sippar or Sippara (now Abu-Habbah), discovered by H. Rassam, 394;
its four names, 70;
supposed to be Sepharvaim, 158;
dated tablets from, 211;
captured by Tiglath-pileser, 347;
by Cyrus, 415, 416;
its gods, 415;
_see also_ 38, 63, 484
Sippara of Eden, 70
Sippar-Amnanu(m), 161, 552 ff.
Sippar-Ya’ruru (Aruru), 161, 165, 553
Sirara, forests of, 387
Sir’ilites (Sir’ilâa, Israelites), 329, 330, 332, 335, 337
Sirku, a Babylonian magnate, 454, 467 ff.
Širru, land of, 206, 207
Sirû, land of, 206, 207
Sisters, the, of Belshazzar, 450, 451
Slander, 504 (law 161)
Slavery, 182, 185-187, 515
Small Hittite states, 322
Smerdis, 424
Smith, George, publishes the Babylonian Creation-story, 14;
the original of Berosus’ Canon, 84; the Gilgameš-series, 90;
conducts the _Daily Telegraph_ expedition, 90;
and finds a fragment of the second Flood-story, 117;
arranges the series, 91, 93, 95;
identifies Arioch, 209;
concerning Shalmaneser IV., 359, 362
Smiting a father, 509 (law 195)
So, king of Egypt, 359, 365, 366
“Son of his God,” the, 86
“Sons of God,” the, 85
Sons of Syrian chiefs educated in Egypt, 274
Sons, the, of Yakinlû of Arvad, 390
Sothis period, 307
Spells, 491 (laws 1 and 2)
Sphinxes, Hyksos, 264
Spiegelberg upon the stele of Meneptah II., 306
Spirit of Ea-banî, the raising of, 110
Spirits of heaven and earth, invocation of, 56
Spirits of the departed, their lot, 111
Stars, creation of, 27
States regarded by the Assyrians as Hittite, 322
Steindorff’s translation of Zaphnath-paaneah, 257
Stele of Meneptah II., extract from the, 306
Stephen, Saint, 192
Storage and deposit, 500 (laws 120 ff.)
Storm at the coming of the Flood, description of the, 104, 105
Streets of Babylonian cities, 188, 189
Šu-anna (Su-ana), a part of Babylon, foreign gods taken thither, 414, 420;
Cyrus enters and receives tribute there, 420, 422;
_see also_ 433
Šu-ardatum, 299
Ṣuba’ or Ṣuma’, city of the land of, tablet dated at, 457
Subarte, 318
Šubbiluliuma, Hittite king, 537
Sūḫu and Maër, states, 319, 556
Šulmanu-ašarid (Shalmaneser), 239
Ṣuma’, land of. _See_ Ṣuba’
Šum-Addu (Šamu-Addu) of Šam-ḫuna, 279
Suma-îlu, king, 162, 163
Šumer (= Kengi), Sumerian, 119, 134;
texts (incantations), 39 ff., 55, 86, 120, 121
Šumer and Akkad, 541;
mentioned by Cyrus, 420;
in titles, 347, 421
Sumero-Akkadian, its nature, 120, 121;
early period, 552
Sumu, apparently a deity, 142;
names compounded with his, 142
Sumu-âbi, king, 153, 154
Sumu-Dagan, name, 142
Sumu-la-îli (king), his name, 142, 153, 154;
tablet dated in his reign, 173, 174;
(Sumulel), 181
Sumulel (= Sumu-la-îli), 181
Šumu-libšî, a witness, 167
Sun, a title of the kings of Egypt, 284, 286, 287, 289, 295
Sun, the city of the, 446
Sun the indicator of the seasons, 115
Sun-devotees, Babylonian, 161, 168
Sun-god, the, 58, 77, 92, 103, 115;
(_see_ Šamaš), worshipped at Sippar and Larsa, 160;
the centre of his worship in Egypt, 258
Sûqâain, tablet dated at, 457
Surgeons’ fees and penalties, 510
Surippak, where the gods decided to make a flood, 101;
the native place of Pir-napištim, 102
Suri or North Syria, the king of, 347
Sur-Šanabi (Ur-Šanabi), 540
Suru, land of, 206, 207
Susa, city of, 422
Susanchites, the, 391
Šûta, royal commissioner, 296
Šutadna of Akka (Accho), 281
Sutekh, the god of the Hyksos, 254
Sutî (Sutite, Sutites), 123, 158, 170, 291, 292, 368;
brigands, 283
Šûzubu (Nergal-usêzib), 380
Swallow, the, sent forth, 106
Swearing by the gods and the king, 162, 163, 174 ff.
Syncellus, 393
Syria, Egyptian successes in, 270, 271;
(Rameses II.), 304;
Syria in the time of Amenophis III., 274;
on the stele of Meneptah, 306;
Shalmaneser II. there, 336 ff.;
Adad-nirari, 341;
Shalmaneser III., 344;
Tiglath-pileser, 347, 351;
Sargon, 367;
Sennacherib, 373 ff.
Syrian campaigns, Thothmes I., 270
Tabal (Tubal), 367
Tablet of Good Wishes, the, 81
Tablets of Fate given to Kingu, 19;
taken by Merodach, who presses his seal upon them, 25
Tablets referring to Chedorlaomer, Tidal, and Arioch, 223 ff.
Tâdu-hêpa, princess of Mitanni, asked in marriage (? for Amenophis IV.),
276
Takhsi, near Aleppo, 273
Takrēta_in_ (?), tablet dated at, 439
Talents, parable of the, 525
Talmud, the, 195 _n._, 203
Tamessus, 387
Tamar, the case of, 525
Tammuz, in Akk. Dumu-zi or Du-mu-zida, 72, 82;
his names, 539;
possible parallel to the story of Cain and Abel, 83;
his wife, Ištar, causes him grief, 96;
his temple-tower at Agadé (Akkad), 136;
worshipped also at Eridu, 160;
in the west, 279;
early date of his worship, 555;
_see also_ 547
Tammuz of the Abyss, 43, 63, 65
Tâmtu, the coast-land, 122, 123
Tanis (Zoan), 264.
_See_ Sân
Taribu, queen, 173
Tarpelites, the, 391
Tašmêtum, spouse of Nebo, 213
Tauthé (= Tiamtu), 16, 67
Taylor Cylinder, 373
Teie (Teyi), the first wife of Amenophis III., 275, 276
Tel-Aššur (Til-Ašurri), 388
Tel-Basta (Bubastis), 264
Tel-el-Amarna tablets, 249, 275-302
Tel-Sifr ruin-mound, 176, 211, 214
Temâ, Babylonian city, 412
Temeni, land of, 343
Temple, gift of a, 162
Temple (Jewish) at Elephantine, 539 ff.;
destroyed, 540
Temple of Belus, the, 552
Temple of the Sun-god, declaration made in the, 184
Temples restored by the early kings, 161, 162;
benefited by Ḫammurabi, 489-491
Temple-towers, Babylonian, 136 ff.
Tenneb (Tunep, Dunip), 277;
its government, 280
Terah, traditions concerning, 146;
stated to have been an idolater, 147, 195;
his journey from Ur to Haran, 192, 195, 196;
his name compared, 544
Teraphim, the, 246, 524
Tešupa or Tešub, Hadad of Mitanni, 277
Teuwatti of Lapana, 289
Thargal, for Thadgal = Tidal, 232.
_See_ Tudḫula
Thebais, kings of, 252
Thebes and the Thebans, their aid in expelling the Hyksos, 269, 270;
the birthplace of Thothmes III., 271;
stronghold of Tirhakah, 389
Theft (death-penalty for), 491, 492;
by an _employé_, 513;
of things deposited, 501, 521;
_see also_ 520, 561
Thompson, Prof. Campbell, 559
Thoth, 264
Thothmes I., 270
Thothmes II., 271
Thothmes III., 271, 316
Thothmes IV., 274, 316
“Throne-bearers” of the gods, 82
Thureau-Daugin, Morsiem F., 218
Tiamat, 67. _See_ Tiamtu
Tiamtu or Tiawthu (= Tauthé), 16, 17, 33;
being joined by certain gods, prepares to fight, 18 ff.;
her husband Kingu, 19, 20;
terrifies the gods Anu and Nudimmud, 21;
caught by Merodach, 24, 131;
conquered, 25;
cut asunder, 26;
her head pierced, 31;
meaning of her name, 33, 67;
why applied, 68;
her desire to be the creator or producer, 34, 35;
how typified in the O. T., 68
Tiamtu, the sea-coast, 230
Tidal, 222.
_See_ Tudḫula
Tidalum = Tidnu = Amurrū, 312
Tidnu, the Akkadian name of Amurrū (the land of the Amorites), 206, 208,
312;
ideograph for, 312
Tiglath-pileser I., 129;
kills elephants in Mesopotamia and Lebanon, 200, 201;
attacks the Hittites, 318
Tiglath-pileser III., 346;
“king of Sumer and Akkad,” 347;
captures Arpad, 347;
Kullanû, etc., 348;
tribute from Syria, 350;
marches to Madâa, Nal, and Ararat, 351;
takes Gaza, 352;
marches to Damascus, helps Ahaz, 353;
describes the flight of the Syrian king, 354;
his conquests, 355, 356;
submission of Chaldean tribes, entry into Babylon, death, 357;
= Pul, 357, 358
Tigris and Euphrates, creation of, 40;
mentioned in Gen. i., 69;
rivers of the district of Sippar, 158;
and of Babylon, 471
Tigris, the, flows close to Nineveh, 393;
Cyrus and the districts of, 422;
Elamite incursions thither, 483.
_See_ Seleucia
Ti’imūṭusu, son of Aspāsinē, 483
Til-barsip, 328
Til-garimme (Togarmah), 271, 368
Tilla (= Ararat), 122, 208
Timašgi (regarded as Dimaški = Damascus), 290
Timnah (Tamnâ), 375
Tindir (Babylon), 420, 421
el-Tireh, 293
Tirhakah, 383, 388, 389
Tithes, payments of, 434
Title of the Gilgameš legend, 91
Togarmah (Tilgarimme), 271, 368
“Tooth for tooth,” 509
Topography of Babylon, 552
Tower of Babel, the Mohammedan legend of the, 551
Transcription of lines referring to Antiochus’s rule in Babylonia, 553
Tree-felling, 497 (law 59)
Towns in the ancient East, 188
Trade between Canaan and Babylonia, 281
Translation of the hero of the Flood, 108, 116
Translation, Semitic, inserted in the divided Akkadian lines, 38
“Tree of the drink of life” = the vine, 75
“Tree of knowledge,” 73;
the Babylonian parallel of the, 77
“Tree of life,” 73;
a Babylonian parallel of the, 75
Trees, sacred, of the Babylonians and Assyrians, 74-77, pl. III.
Tribes classed as Amorites, 311
Tribute of Carchemish of the Hittites, 321
Tubal, 367, 390
Tuckwell, the Rev. J., 551
Tudḫula, the probable Babylonian form of Tidal, 222, 223, 224, 227, 231,
232, 537, 554
Tukulti-Ninip I. annexes Babylonia, 327, 371
Tum or Tmu, 264
Tunep, Syrian town, 272;
its resistance, 305
(Dunip, Tenneb)
Ṭpašu, canal, 468
Turbazu killed, 296
Tušamilki of Muṣur, 390
Tutamû, king of Unqu, 348
Tutu, a name of Merodach, 30;
the explanation given, 45
Tûya, a captive, 302
Two wives, marriage-contracts for, 174, 175
Ty, Ay’s queen, 303
Tyre (Ṣurru), 277, 338, 339, 360, 373, 386, 400;
blockaded by Nebuchadnezzar, 490;
Ṣûru =? Tyre, 401;
contract dated at, 401
Tyre, the land of, conquered by Adad-nirari, 341
Tyre, Old (Palaetyrus), 360
Tyrians, the land of the, pays tribute, 328, 337, 350;
resists Shalmaneser IV., 360
Ube, Syria of Damascus, 290
Udumu, 310;
(Edom), 322, 341, 370, 374, 386
Ugga, the god of Death, 36
Ukabu’šama, daughter of Nabonidus, 451
Ukîn-zēr (Chinzeros), 356, 357
Ukka, 127
Ukus, patesi, 124
Ul-Šamaš, city, 213
Umbara-Tutu, father of Pir-napištim, 102
Ummanaldas of Elam, 391
Umman-manda, the, 230, 392
Ummu Ḫubur, a designation of Tiamtu, 18
Unknown tongue, an, 140
Unlawful pasturing, 496, 521
Unqu, 348
Unskilful surgical treatment, penalties for, 510, 511
Unug, Akkadian form of the name of Erech, 84
Upaḫḫir-bêlu, eponymy of, 372
Upê, Upia (Opis), 439, 458, 459
Upê-rabi, “Opis is great,” name, 182
Upšukenaku, the place of assembly of the gods, 21
Ur (of the Chaldees), 124;
its temple-tower, 136, 193-195;
= Urie or Camarina, 146, 147, 196, 197;
identified with Mugheir, 193;
possibly really Uri or Ura (Akkad), 197;
rebels against Assyria, 386;
Nabonidus’s inscriptions at, 414, 415;
name of its wall or fortification, 220
Ura, god of pestilence, 107;
legend of Ura, 122;
“Ura the unsparing,” 228;
invoked by Evil-Merodach, 409
Ura-gala and the ship (ark), 104
Urarṭu (Ararat), 127.
_See_ Urtū
Uraš, god of Dailem, 279;
the great gate of, 468
Urbi, the, 376, 557
Urdamanê, son of Sabaco, 389
Urfa (Orfa), the traditional Ur of the Chaldees, 192, 193
Uri or Ura = Akkad, 122, 134
Urie (Ur of the Chaldees), 146;
a centre of lunar worship, 147
Urikku of the Kûites, 350
Uriwa, the Akkadian form of Ur (Mugheir), 193 ff.
Ur-kasdim (Ur of the Chaldees), 193.
_See_ Ur of the Chaldees
Urraḫinaš, Hittite city, 320
Ursalimmu (Jerusalem), 375, 376
Ur-Šanabi, the pilot or boatman, accompanies Gilgameš to see Pir-napištim,
99;
takes the hero to be cleansed, 109;
returns with him to Erech, 109, 110;
Sur-Šanabi, 548
Urṭū (apparently short for Urarṭu), Ararat, 122, 208
Uru (in Uru-salim), probably from the Akkadian, 241
Uru-gala, the image of, 480, 561
_Uruk supuri_, “Erech the walled,” 91
Uru-ku, the dynasty of, 154
Urumaians (Hittites), 318
Uru-milki of Gebal, 374
Uru-salim (Jerusalem), 234, 239
Uruwuš (king), 124
Usertesen I., 261
Uštan(n)u (Ostanes), 543 ff.
Ut-napištim, 548
Van, 127, 367
Vannites, 391
Venus, 203.
_See_ Istar
Veterinary surgeons’ fees and penalties, 511
Vicious cattle, laws concerning, 512, 523
Village settlements, growth of, 171
Vine, the, 75
Vine of the Babylonian Paradise, 71
Violation, penalty for, 501, 521
Virgins, priestesses, and hierodules, 508
Vowel-changes in the Akkadian dialects, 241
Waidrang, governor of Elephantine, 539
Wall built at Ur (Uriwa) by Eri-Aku, 220
Ward, Dr. W. Hayes, conductor of the Wolfe expedition, 70
“Warehouse of the king’s gifts,” the, 445
Water, concerning the king’s, etc., 446
“Waters of death,” the, 99
Way, the Rev. Dr. J. P., 155
Weissbach, Dr., 556, 558
Wedding-gift, the bridegroom’s, 553
West called Amurrū (Amoria, the land of the Amorites), 205
West-land, no record of an expedition to, in the reign of Ḫammurabi, 214,
215;
his claim to this tract, 215
West-Semitic deities, 156;
names, 157
Whitehouse, Mr. F. Cope, 263
Wiedemann, Prof., 253
Wife of Pir-napištim prepares the magic food, 108, 109
Wife-seeking, Abraham’s, for his son, parallels to, 524
Wild animals damage by, 512, 523
Winckler, Dr. Hugo, 235, 297, 537, 538
Wine-women, 499 (laws 108 ff.)
Wišyari, a captive, 302
Witnesses necessary, 500, 501;
names of, 162, 237, 238, etc.
Working an ox unlawfully, 512, 523
Working-off debt, 500 (law 117)
Workmen, hire of, 188, 514
Worship, lines upon, 49
Xenophon, 422
Xerxes, forms of his name, 428
Yaana or Yawani, a Hittite, 369, 370
Yaanana. _See_ Yatnana.
Yâ, Ya’u, Au, Aa, names containing, 59
Yâ-abî-ni, name, 60
Yabitiri, governor of Gaza and Jaffa, 279;
to the king of Egypt, 284
Yabušu, name, 324
Ya-Dagunu, name, 59
Ya’enḫamu (Yanḫamu), 298
Yahu (Jah, Jehovah), temple of, at Elephantine, 539 ff., 544
Yahwah, 342.
_See_ -yāwa
Yakinlû of Arvad, 389;
sends his sons to Assur-banî-âpli, 390
_Yakubu_, _Yakubi_, _Yakub-îlu_, _Ya’kubi-îlu_ (Jacob, Jacob-el), and
other similarly-formed names, 157, 183, 243-245, 554
Yamutbālu, Emutbālu, conquered by Ḫammurabi, 211, 212, 214, 216
Yanḫamu, an Egyptian official, 285, 295, 298
Yanzû, king of Na’iri or Mesopotamia, 367
Yapa-Addu, 293
Yapti’-Addu killed, 296
Yapu, Yappu (Jaffa), 285, 375
Yaraqu traversed by Shalmaneser, 334, 349
Yasubigalleans, 373
_Yašupum_, _Yašup-îlu_ (Joseph, Joseph-el), and other similarly-formed
names, 157, 243
Yatnana (Yaanana), Cyprus, 387
Ya’u, Yaum, etc., 535, 536;
suggested etymology of, 113;
supposed to have been identified with Aa or Ea, 18
Yaua (Jehu), 337, 339
Yau-bi’idi (= Ilu-bi’idi) of Hamath, 322, 363, 366
Yaudu, Yaudi (Judah), 370, 386, 389
Yaum-îlu, name, meaning “Jah is God” (Joel), 199 _n._
Ya’wa, Yâwa, 535
-yāwa, names ending in, 458, 465, 470, 471
Ya(’)we-îlu, name, 535
Yeb (Elephantine), 539 ff.;
meaning of the name, 544
Yedoniah of Elephantine, 539 ff.
Yehohanan (Johanan or John), 540, 542
Yidia of Askelon to the king of Egypt, 286, 287
Yoke of Assyria thrown off by Nabopolassar, 550
Young, plant to make the old, 109
Zabibé, queen of Arabia, 350
Zabû, Zabium (king), 153;
tablets dated in his reign, 174, 183, 237
Zagaga, god of battle, identified with Merodach, 58;
temple of, at Kiš, 213, 214, 415, 489
Zahi (Phœnicia), 270
Zaphnath-paaneah, Steindorff’s translation of, 257
Zarephath (Sareptu), 374
Zedekiah, captured, 400.
_See_ Mattaniah
Zelah, 297
Zēru-kênu-lîsir, son of Merodach-baladan, 386
Zēr-panitum, consort of Merodach, 160, 212;
swearing by, 433;
invocation of, 466;
_see also_ 472, 479
Zērû-Bâbîli (Zerubbabel, better Zeru-Babel), a frequent name, 425, 441,
559
Zeus (Belos), 137
_Zikurat Babili_, 139
Zilû city, 296
Zimmern, Prof. H., 68, 536, 546
Zimrêda of Sidon, hostile to Egypt, 293;
Zimrêda of Lachish, threatened, 296;
another Z., 556
Ziri-Bašani (field of Bashan), 277
Zoan, supposed place where Joseph met Pharaoh, 253
Zubuduru, messenger of Nebuchadnezzar’s son, 434
FOOTNOTES
1 Written on the edge of the tablet in the Assyrian copy.
2 Cf. the royal names, Anman-ila, Buntaḫtun-ila, etc., in the
so-called Arabic Dynasty of Babylon. (P. 154.)
3 Literally “he who feareth not his god.”
4 The Akkadian line has “the sickness (disease) of the head.”
_ 5 Cuneiform Inscriptions and the O.T._, 2nd edit. vol. i. p. 28.
6 A later explanation by Prof. Sayce is, that Enoch may be Ḫana, “on
the east side of Babylonia,” with the determinative suffix _ki_
(making Ḫanaki) added. See _Expository Times_, Jan. 1902, p. 179.
7 In this description of the contents of the 12 tablets referring to
Gilgameš, the common reading of the name of his friend and companion
has been retained, partly to keep a form which was more or less
familiar, and partly because the reading is doubtful. From the new
text discovered by Meissner, however, the name would seem not to be
Êa-bani, but Êa-du or Enki-du. Future discoveries may ultimately
give us the true reading.
8 Variant, “with loud voice.”
9 Variant, “Maḫ.”
10 Compare the story of Aesculapius, who, when in the house of Glaucus,
killed a serpent, upon which another of these reptiles came with a
herb in its mouth, wherewith it restored its dead companion to life.
Aesculapius was to all appearance luckier than Gilgameš, for it was
with this herb that he restored the sick and dead, whereas the
Babylonian hero seems to have lost the precious plant.
11 Apparently meaning the same as if the word “artificers” only had
been used. Compare the expression “a son of Babylon” for “a
Babylonian.”
12 Marshall Brothers, Paternoster Row.
13 The Assyrians, when referring to Babylonia, generally call it
“Akkad,” which ought rather, therefore, to be the district nearest
to them—that is, the northern part of the country, immediately south
of their own borders. They also called this part Karduniaš, one of
the names by which it was known in Babylonia.
14 See p. 122.
15 Other possible instances of the occurrence of this element in names
of this time are Zumu-rame, Šumu-ḫammu (apparently for Sumu-ḫammu),
Sumu-ḫala, Samu-abum, Samukim, Sumu-entel (so probably to be read
instead of Sumu-ente-al), Sumu-ni-Ea, “Our Shem is Ea,” and in all
probability many others could be found. (See Hommel, _Ancient Hebrew
Tradition_.)
16 For further information upon Babylonia and Egypt, compare Prof. F.
Hommel’s “Der babylonische Ursprung der ägyptischen Kultur,”
München, G. Franz, 1892. A new etymology of Arpachshad, very similar
to that of Prof. Schrader, has, however, lately been suggested by
Prof. Sayce, and afterwards by Prof. Hommel, who has apparently
abandoned that given above.
17 See the tablet translated on pp. 182-183, and compare the documents
quoted on pp. 174, 178 ff., 180, 184, 185, 186-7.
18 In consequence of variations in the lists, there is doubt as to the
total of the reigns of the above kings. The shorter indications have
been given above, as far as the reign of Samsu-iluna. A small tablet
from Babylon (Rassam excavations) gives Sumu-abi 15, Sumu-la-ila 35,
Zabû 14, Abil-Sin 18, Sin-mubaliṭ 30, Ḫammurabi 55, and Samsu-iluna
35—total, with the others, 304 years instead of 285. Perhaps there
were usurpers, whose reigns have not been included. There seems to
have been an interregnum after the reign of Samu-abi (_Proceedings
of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, 1899, p. 161).
19 Or _Buntaḫtun-ila_, in an inscription published by Hermann Ranke
(_Pennsylvania Expedition_, vol. VI., part 1, 1906).
20 The name really seems, however, to be Sumuenteal, probably a
scribe’s error.
21 Or “heroic son”—_dumu ursa[ga?]_.
22 The Ebišum of the chronological lists.
23 Yosephia and Habe-Ibraheem.
24 See the _Quarterly Statement_ of the Palestine Exploration Fund,
July 1900, pp. 262, 263.
25 An interesting commentary on this is furnished by the British Museum
tablet K, 2100, which informs us that the god Rimmon or Hadad was
called _Addu_ or _Dadu_ in Amorite, _Tešsub_ in the language of _Su_
(Mesopotamia), _Maliku_ in the language of _Suḫ_, (the Shuites),
_Kunzibami_ in Elamite, and _Buriaš_ in Kassite. The same
inscription also states that the word for “God” was _ene_ in _Su_,
_nab_ in Elamite, _malaḫum_ in Amorite, _kiurum_ in Lulubite,
_mašḫu_ in Kassite, and gives the additional synonyms (? in
Babylonian) _qadmu_, “he who was first,” _digirū_ (from the Akkadian
_dingir_, “god”), and also, seemingly, _ḫilibu._
26 To all appearance letters were originally read out to the person
addressed by a professional reader.
27 This often happens, the most interesting case being the tablets
referring to Bunanitum, four in number, acquired in 1876, 1877, and
a year or two later. Another of the series is in New York. Cf. pp.
459-465.
28 I have purposely given the translation of the inner tablet, that of
the envelope being less simply worded, and therefore not quite so
easy to understand. The list of witnesses, however, is from the
envelope, this being much more satisfactory in that it gives the
father’s name and the title of the person in some cases.
29 The envelope here adds: “At no future time shall he make a claim.”
30 This is apparently an expression taken from the contracts referring
to the purchase of houses, in which the same set phrases were used.
31 In the list of household goods inscribed on the tablet Bu. 91-5-9,
337, are enumerated 1 bed, 1 couch, 2 tables, other objects, mostly
of wood, to the number of 42; 7 pots, 1 chair, 4 _ušratum_ (probably
vessels containing the tenth part of some measure), 5 _hamsatum_
(probably vessels containing the fifth part of a measure), 31 _qa_
of sesame, and a few other things.
32 Generally read Ê-giš-šir-gal.
33 Probably the first line of the next tablet.
34 The Talmud says that Terah worshipped twelve divinities, one for
each month of the year.
35 There was a temple of the sun and the moon at a town at no great
distance from Ur [Mugheir], now represented by the mounds of
Tel-Sifr, where a number of tablets with envelopes were found.
36 One of the most interesting names found in the texts of this period
is that of Yaum-îlu, “Jah is God,” occurring in a letter. Yau (Jah)
was one of the Babylonian words indicating the Supreme God, only
used, however, in special cases. (Cf. pp. 58 ff.)
37 See the inscription translated on p. 155.
38 In inscriptions referring to Haran the Moon-god bears this name.
39 Apparently the god Sin, through the priest, his representative. For
Esarhaddon’s successes in Egypt, see p. 388.
40 The _ayin_ of the second element must have been pronounced like the
Arabic _ghain_, making ’Atar-ghata, which would probably be a better
transcription.
41 A corrupt form of the same name.
42 This is probably not the land of Ḫana referred to on p. 84, note,
which was apparently a Babylonian principality, and retained its
independence to a comparatively late date. It was a district which
had especially skilful stone- and metal-workers.
43 A doubtful rendering.
44 Or “Year of the images of the 7 gods.”
45 Or “Year of (the temple) Ê-namḫe.”
46 It may just be mentioned that date 30, “Year of the army of Elam,”
if correctly rendered, may refer to the Elamite expedition to the
West, but it seems more likely that it records a disaster to the
Elamite arms, which enabled Ḫammurabi to overthrow Rîm-Sin of
Emutbālu next year.
47 A deity, probably the god of destruction.
48 Further details will be found in the paper, _Certain Inscriptions
and Records_, etc. in the _Journal of the Victoria Institute_,
1895-96, pp. 43-90. Published also separately.
49 The word _ḳâtu_, “hand,” in Semitic Babylonian, means also “power,”
and as an explanatory gloss, the scribe has introduced the Hebrew
זרוע or עורז, _zuruḫ_ in Assyrian transcription, meaning “arm,” or,
here, “power.” Apparently he was afraid that _ḳâtu_ would not be
understood.
50 In this connection Maspero’s remarks upon this fragment (_Records of
the Past_, 2nd series, vol. ii. p. 43) are worth repeating. He
points out that there were three Pharaohs named Soqnun-rî (=
Seqnen-Rê), and he implies that it was in all probability the last
of these which is referred to. He perished by a violent death,
perhaps in battle against the Hyksos themselves. “He had shaved his
head the morning before, ‘arraying himself for the combat like the
god Montu,’ as the Egyptian scribes would say. His courage led him
to penetrate too far into the ranks of the enemy; he was surrounded
and slain before his companions could rescue him. The blow of an axe
removed part of his left cheek and laid bare the teeth, striking the
jaw and felling him stunned to the ground; a second blow entered far
within the skull, a dagger or short lance splitting the forehead on
the right side a little above the eye. The Egyptians recovered the
body and embalmed it in haste, when already partly decomposed,
before sending it to Thebes and the tomb of his ancestors.... The
author of the legend may probably have continued the story down to
the tragic end of his hero. The scribe to whom we owe the papyrus on
which it is inscribed must certainly have intended to complete the
tale; he had recopied the last lines on the reverse of one of the
pages, and was preparing to continue it when some accident
intervened to prevent his doing so.... It is probable, however, that
it went on to describe how Soqnun-rî, after long hesitation,
succeeded in escaping from the embarrassing dilemma in which his
powerful rival had attempted to place him. His answer must have been
as odd and extraordinary as the message of ’Apôpi, but we have no
means even of conjecturing what it was.”
51 Compare the name of the well near which Hagar the Egyptian woman
fell down exhausted when fleeing from Sarai, Abraham’s wife: “The
well of _the living one_ who seeth me.”
52 Driver, in Hastings’s _Dictionary of the Bible_, under Joseph.
53 Or “to each hungry person.”
54 This and other transcriptions of the name into cuneiform character
suggests that it was generally pronounced Neb-mu’a-Re’a.
55 Another god of Mitanni seems to have been Eaašarri, probably from
the Babylonian _Êa šarru_, “Êa (Aê) the king.” Other Mitannian
deities are Šimîgi and Sušbi.
56 Compare the Arabic _eshāra_, “sign.”
57 Nin-urmuru (?) is only a provisional transcription, being at least
partly Akkadian. Her name in all probability began with _Bêlit_,
“lady of” = _Bâalat_. As the name ends with the plural sign, the
question naturally arises whether it may not be practically a
title—“Lady of the Urmuru” (?), or something of the kind.
_ 58 I.e._ to king Amenophis, to whom he was writing.
59 In all probability this is metaphorically spoken, and means simply
that he captured him. The feet of those vanquished in battle were
sometimes cut off, but it is hardly likely that a man would survive
this without medical treatment.
60 Lit. “stood before him.”
61 Lit. “a servant of faithfulness.”
62 Lit. “I look thus, and I look thus.”
63 It is doubtful whether the full form of the name is preserved, the
tablet being broken at this point.
64 Ḫani-galbat is identified with northern Mesopotamia (Aram-Naharaim),
and was the land ruled over by Dušratta, king of Mitanni, a synonym
of which, at least in part, the district known as Ḫani-galbat was.
Ḫana-galbat is apparently a variant spelling.
65 Or “the keeper of thy horses.” The dual sign before the word
“horses” suggests that “attendant,” “guardian,” or “driver” of the
two horses of the king’s chariot is meant. The expression is
apparently intended merely to indicate the writer’s position as
vassal.
66 Lit. “to whose head,” apparently meaning “to whose self” = “to
whom.”
67 Thus in the original—apparently Abdi-ṭâba thought that “they
backbite” (_îkalu karsi_) might not be understood.
68 The name is lost.
69 The number is lost.
70 This number is incomplete.
71 Lit. “taken hostility against me.”
72 Lit. “there is alliance to all the governors.”
73 The scribe has left out a wedge in the middle character, making the
name _Kapasi_.
74 Apparently meaning that Milki-îli, pretending to be faithful to the
king of Egypt, intended to ask him, later on, for the territory
governed by Lab’aya and Arzawa, in order to give it back to them,
they having forfeited it by their rebellion.
75 So Naville and others.
76 Sothis rose heliacally on the 9th of Epiphi of the 9th year (1545
B.C.) of Amenophis I. Amosis, his predecessor, ruled twenty-two
years, so that his first year must be 1575 B.C. Subtract 240 years,
the period of oppression, from 1575, and we obtain 1335 as the date
of the Exodus.
77 Mahler suggests that it was one of the sons of Rameses II. who met
with his death in the Red Sea when pursuing the departing
Israelites.
78 Also Abdi-Aširta, Abdi-Ašratum.
79 Lit. “chariots of the harness of their yoke.”
80 Prof. Sayce translates “like moon-stone I laid low.”
81 Or “fear which dreaded.”
82 These words _(ša mât Ḫat-ta-a-a_) are inserted in this place in
squeeze 84.
83 See the list, p. 374 (with 373 and 378). Amurrū (Amoria, p. 374)
appears as in Ḫatti (p. 373), or synonymous with it.
84 Lit. “of his decision.”
85 See p. 224.
86 The land of the Amorites.
87 Or Šizanians.
88 Only eleven are mentioned.
89 The god of death and battle.
90 Thus in the inscription, but translators generally read _Gilzanu_.
_ 91 Guide to the Nimroud Central Saloon_, p. 31. This rendering is
based on a careful comparison of the inscription with the
bas-relief.
92 “Son of Ê-saggil” means that he was one of the deities worshipped in
the temple bearing that name. The god Ninip is called “son of
E-sarra,” for the same reason. Nebo was especially worshipped,
however, at Ê-zida.
93 “The broad (land of) ... li,” however, occurs, and, as Professor
Hommel actually suggests, may be a reference to _Nap-ta-li_ or
Naphtali.
_ 94 I.e._ like the ruins of cities which had been swept away by a
flood. In both Assyria and Babylonia floods were common things, and
the devastation they caused naturally gave rise to the simile.
95 According to Fried. Delitzsch, this is incorrectly given for Sewe,
the Sib’e of the Assyrian inscriptions.
96 If it be Sargon, then it was naturally he who carried Israel captive
to Assyria, placing them in Halah, Habor, and the cities of the
Medes.
_ 97 I.e._ those of the island of Tyre, which still held out.
98 Lit. “I smote their overthrow.”
99 See the chapter upon the Tel-el-Amarna letters (p. 281 ff.).
100 It is noteworthy, however, that Sabaco is elsewhere called Sabaku
(see below, p. 389).
101 “The two borders,” see Sayce. The Assyrian form is singular, as is
also the Babylonian Miṣir, which has _i_ for _u_ in both syllables.
The Arabic form is Miṣr. Muṣur(u), Misir(u), Miṣraim, and Misr are
all forms of the same name.
102 Compare p. 366, where the earlier payment of tribute is referred to.
103 See pp. 283, 291, 292.
104 The land of Heth, Syria in general.
105 Lit. “wrought anew.”
106 Or Ya(w)anana. (This is added from the bull-inscription.)
107 Or _Ṣidqaa_ (for _Ṣidqaia = Zedekiah_).
108 Unknown objects—perhaps gold bangles or similar things.
109 Lit. “whatever its name.”
110 Or “I.”
111 Elibus in Alexander Polyhistor, as quoted by Eusebius, _Armenian
Chronicle_, 42.
112 It is impossible, with our present knowledge, to determine the date
of Merodach-baladan’s envoy to Hezekiah (2 Kings xx. 12), but if at
the late period indicated, he must have been in hiding, and waiting
for the chance to mount the throne again.
113 This, together with Nagitu, and Nagitu-di’ibina, are apparently
different from the Nagite-raqqi or Nagitu-raqqu mentioned above.
Apparently Merodach-baladan had fled from the Nagitu “within the
sea” to the mainland.
114 The Babylonian Chronicle claims victory for the allies, and
Sennacherib for the Assyrians. The sequel implies that the latter is
the more trustworthy.
_ 115 I.e._ Mer-en-Ptah, Seti I. As, however, this king reigned as early
as 1350 B.C., Herodotus must have been misinformed. Tirhakah, “king
of Ethiopia,” was Sennacherib’s opponent at the period of the siege
of Jerusalem (2 Kings xix. 9).
116 Tel-Assar (Isaiah xxxvii. 12)—Assar probably = Asari (p. 54).
117 There were twenty provinces in all, including those of Nikû, king of
Mempi and Sâa (Necho of Memphis and Sais); Šarru-lû-dâri (an
Assyrian name), king of Ṣi’anu (Zoan or Tanis), Susinqu (Sheshonq),
king of Buširu (Busiris), and many others.
118 “To the long chariot, the vehicle of my royalty.”
119 As pointed out by Commander Jones in 1852, the river responsible for
the disaster was not the Tigris, but must have been the Khosr, which
flows through Nineveh from the N.E., and runs into the Tigris W.S.W.
of the village of Armushieh.
120 Apparently Duwair, S.S.E. of Babylon. This, however, is probably not
a real place-name, the word really meaning “mound.”
121 A part of Babylon.
122 Lit. “like as a corpse.”
123 Lit. “went round” or “about.”
124 Probably meaning Asiatics, in contradistinction to the fair
inhabitants of Europe.
125 The old name of Babylon as “the seat of life” = old Babylon.
126 Lit. “their number cannot be announced.”
127 Lit. “of the land of Amoria.”
128 The old capital of Assyria.
129 An addition by the scribe of the first tablet (the more correct
copy), seemingly partly erased.
130 The second copy (the less correct) has, instead of “who is over the
city,” the words “the son of the king ...,” which (judging from the
word for “man” before “king”) the scribe must have read into the
traces which he saw.
131 This must be another Marduka—it is most unlikely that it is the son
of Adi’îlu and Ḫulîtu, concerning whom the document was written.
132 Variant, Adi’îlu, possibly the seller of Marduka, and if so,
Ukîn-zēra must have been the brother of the man sold.
133 See above, p. 445, where the husbandmen are referred to.
134 Probably = “under.”
135 Apparently from the root _par_, “to be bright.” These stones were
probably sacred to the Sun-god.
136 Or “the woollen stuffs.”
137 Lit. “thou (art) in thy house, in thy heart (there is) good to
thee.”
138 It seems to have been sometimes the custom for a man to be known by
more than one name.
139 Lit. “gardenership.”
140 This may mean “the Egyptian,” but as there were more than one Miṣir,
this is doubtful.
141 Nabonidus.
142 Or, perhaps, “(in) the plantation-territory.”
143 Or, perhaps, “the territory of the great farther side.”
144 As the Babylonians had no means of indicating the sound of _o_,
characters containing _u_ had to be used in such words as these. The
Babylonian pronunciation of the Greek πολίτης was, therefore,
_poliṭē_. Another form of this plural word, namely, _puliṭannu
(poliṭānu)_, also occurs.
145 In 1890, when this inscription was copied, it was in the possession
of Mr. Lucas, who kindly gave me permission to publish it. I do not
know who possesses the tablet at present. The seal-impression at the
end is exceedingly indistinct.
146 The spirits of the earth.
147 The Sungod was the god of justice, hence this comparison.
148 The inhabitants of the land.
149 The temple-tower of Niffur.
150 The temple of Bel at Niffur.
151 The temple of Eridu.
152 The temple of Bel at Babylon.
153 See p. 193.
154 The temple of Ur—see p. 194 ff.
155 The moon-goddess of Sippar.
156 The temple of the sun at Sippar.
157 Ellasar.
158 The temple of the sun at Larsa (Ellasar).
159 The god and goddess of Ê-anna, the temple of Erech.
160 The temple of Isin or Nisin.
161 The temple of Kiš.
162 Apparently a conflict had taken place here, and the success of the
Babylonian arms was attributed to the god of the place.
163 The temple of Cuthah.
164 Merodach—see p. 30 ff.
165 The temple of Borsippa.
166 The modern Dailem.
167 The god of Dilmu.
168 The temple at Lagas.
169 Goddess of Ḫallabu.
170 Lit.: “the raising of the hand.”
171 Hadad.
172 Or, with Scheil: who has rectified the course of the Tigris. As,
however, the sign for “river” is wanting, the meaning “family,”
“race,” which this word has, is to be preferred.
173 The temple of Ištar of Nineveh, later called E-masmas.
174 Lit.: “to the river-god,” and so throughout the clause.
175 A matter of life and death.
176 Lit.: “which is in that judgment.”
177 Cf. 126, 131.
178 Lit.: “a period to the sixth month.”
179 Lit.: “in the sixth month.”
180 Lit.: “shall call upon the spirit of God.”
181 Lit.: “In the house of a man fire has been kindled.”
182 Lit.: “a man of substitution.”
183 The officer, etc.
184 Lit.: “for opening.”
185 Lit.: “the god Hadad.”
186 Or, “did not cover the cost.”
187 Lit.: “the god Hadad.”
188 Lit.: “the lord of the interest.”
189 Lit.: “profit.”
190 Or, “its interest.”
191 Lit.: “sons,” or “children.”
_ 192 I.e._ in the same proportion.
193 Lit.: “in days not full.”
194 In the British Museum fragment 80-11-12, 1235, found by Mr. Rassam
in Babylonia, 100 and 101 form a single section, the last one of the
5th tablet.
195 Lit.: “invoke the spirit of God.”
196 In other words, “he shall take a receipt for the amount.”
197 Probably = “shall not be placed to his credit.”
198 Lit.: “dwells on the road.”
199 Lit.: “the possessions of his hand.”
200 Lit.: “and to whatever its name, as much as he gave, he shall
renounce.”
201 Lit.: “the distraint.”
202 Apparently the agent who lent him the money, and who is called “the
distrainer” in the foregoing lines.
203 Has not made a contract for her.
204 Lit.: “If the wife of a man her husband accuse her.”
205 Lit.: “she shall invoke the spirit of God.”
206 The original text adds “before him,” probably meaning “before he
left.”
207 Or “may.”
208 Lit.: “after him.”
209 Or “need.”
210 Lit.: “she may take the husband of her heart.”
211 Lit.: “take.”
212 Or “a chain.”
213 Lit.: “her after (property).”
214 Lit.: “a lord of interest.”
215 Lit.: “set her upon a stake.”
216 There is a mistake in the text here, the most probable reading being
“cast _him_ into the water.”
217 Lit.: “movable(s),” French _du meuble_.
218 Perhaps “shall add to it an equal amount,” as a kind of
compensation. Scheil has “il égalera.”
219 That is, to the man himself.
220 In all probability it is an adopted son who is meant—it is doubtful
whether a man could do more than disinherit his own child.
_ 221 I.e._ decide to marry again.
222 Lit.: “her sonhood, of her brothers it is.”
223 The same word is used as in the case of a marriage-gift.
224 The same word is used as in the case of a marriage-gift.
225 That is, she must content herself with the marriage-gift.
226 Lit.: “taken to childship.”
227 Or “in his name.”
228 These were in the position of orphans, having no proper home.
229 Lit.: “the son of a worker.”
230 Or “as a foster-child.”
231 Here the term would seem to be equivalent to “apprentice.”
232 Evidently such a denial on the child’s part was regarded as the
height of ingratitude (see the footnote to § 187).
233 In the original “his eye.”
234 Lit.: “price.”
235 Or “skull,” Scheil: “cerveau.” Peiser’s rendering, “cheek” (Backe),
seems to be the best. (This applies to laws 203-205 as well.)
236 According to Winckler, this expression (“son of a man”) means “a
free-born man.”
237 Lit.: “slave like slave.”
238 Lit.: “the silver of half his price.”
239 Lit.: “lord of the injury.”
240 This was regarded as a fraud, and punished as such.
241 Or “the boatman shall repair that vessel, and strengthen (it) with
his own capital, and give the strengthened vessel (back) to the
owner of the vessel.”
242 Lit.: “price.”
243 Lit.: “ox like ox.”
244 Such is the general translation. An injury of this kind would render
the animal useless, as it would be unable to bear the yoke, hence
this enactment.
245 Or “slit.”
246 Lit.: “shall invoke the spirit of God.”
247 As the dog his first bite, so the bull was allowed his first toss
free.
248 Or “failing,” “defect.”
249 Or “weakened,” “starved.”
250 Lit.: “given.”
251 Lit.: “it is good to his heart.”
252 Lit.: “the fate,” _i.e._, divine decree concerning them.
253 Lit.: “of.”
254 The character used is the same as that for grain (wheat, etc.), but
the weight is unknown.
255 Winckler: “potter.”
256 Lit.: “man of linen.” Scheil, Winckler, and Johns translate
“tailor.”
257 A part only of the word is preserved.
258 Lit.: “he has had a claim.”
259 Lit.: “shall answer the claim.”
260 Lit.: “he shall make their freedom without silver.” This law seems
to indicate that neither owner was regarded as having a right to
them.
261 Lit.: “silver.”
262 The people.
263 The Ninevite duplicate has a different reading.
264 Probably = “north and south,” or “in mountain and valley.”
265 Winckler: “put an end to battles.”
266 Lit.: “proclaimed.”
267 Apparently meaning the head of the stone bearing this inscription.
268 The Nineveh duplicate has: “by the command of Šamaš and Hadad,
judges of justice, deciders of decisions, may justice have power.”
269 Lit.: “a word.”
270 Lit.: “good flesh.”
271 Lit.: “thoughts.”
272 Lit.: “the going forth.”
273 Lit.: “his dark of head.”
274 Scheil: “given rectitude.”
275 The future king.
276 Lit.: “cause another to take (this responsibility).”
277 Lit.: “whose name has been proclaimed.”
_ 278 I.e._, his throne.
279 Lit.: “honourable.”
280 Lit.: “go before.”
281 Lit.: “ear.”
282 Or “oblivion.”
283 Or “visions.”
284 Lit.: “spirits” (_utukke_). Perhaps the “soul” and “spirit” are
meant, the plural being indicated by writing the character twice,
though nothing certain can be deduced from this.
285 Scheil and Winckler: “sickle” (= crescent), but this seems to be a
different word.
286 Scheil: “is in conflict.”
287 Mounds of an inundation, such as the great Flood was supposed to
have produced.
288 Probably repeated by an error of the stone-cutter.
289 The Nineveh duplicate has: “whose battle has no equal.”
290 Or “bind.”
291 Or “strength,” apparently meaning the imperfectness of that quality.
292 Generally referred to under the fuller form Anunnaki.
293 Or “temple,” either that of Merodach at Babylon, or Ê-babbara.
294 The temple of the Sun at Sippar or at Larsa—probably the former.
295 In Ex. xxi. 8 it is presumed that the master of the girl betrothed
her to himself, as in the case of Šamaš-nûri (p. 185), who, however,
could be sold as a slave if she denied her mistress.
296 The old Sumerian law referring to injuries to slaves (p. 191)
inflicts a fine on the _hirer_, not on the owner.
297 Isaiah xlv. 20: “They have no knowledge that carry the wood of their
graven images.” R. V.
298 Num. vi. 26: “The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee,”
equivalent to “to raise the eyes” in Assyro-Babylonian.
299 Lit.: “shall not bring his hand to the sick.”
300 Lit.: “the raising of his hands.”
301 This form is due to a false etymology, but it is used by Delitzsch
as a very convenient compound word.
302 The word may also be translated “inhabiting,” but this does not seem
to be so good.
303 Lit.: “ill.”
304 For parallels to the Babylonian legend of Tiamtu in the Talmud and
Midrash, see S. Daiches in the _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xvii.
(1903), pp. 394-399.
305 Similar figures are shown on the slabs in the British Museum
(Nimroud Gallery) standing before the sacred tree.
_ 306 The Religious Ideas of the Babylonians_, in the Journal of the
Transactions of the Victoria Institute, 1895.
307 P. 181.
308 P. 183, where the reading is Ibsina-ili.
309 P. 184.
310 For a list of these, see “Observations sur la Religion des
Babyloniens 2000 ans avant Jésus-Christ,” by Th. G. Pinches, in the
_Revue de l’Histoire des Religions_, 1901.
311 See Hugo Winckler, _Die im Sommer 1906 in Kleinasien ausgeführten
Ausgrabungen_, Orientalische Literatur-Zeitung, Dec. 15, 1906;
_Vorläufige Nachrichten über die Ausgrabungen in Boghaz-Köi im
Sommer 1907_, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, Dec.
1907 (No. 35).
312 See pp. 297, 298, where Cassites (_Kâsi_) are referred to. The
Kassites east of Babylonia were the Cosssæans of the Greeks. (Cf.
pp. 122, 140, 170.)
313 See pp. 275 ff.
314 See pp. 222 ff.
315 It will be noticed that the Hittite-Babylonian transcription is of
considerable value for the pronunciation of Egyptian.
316 See p. 232.
_ 317 Aramaic Papyri discovered at Assuan_, edited by A. H. Sayce and A.
E. Cowley. London, 1906.
318 Lit.: “they shall remove.”
319 Sachau suggests that this may be gentilic, and mean “the Lachite.”
320 Possibly “companions” (Sachau).
321 Variant: “the 7 great doors.”
_ 322 QYMu_, a word of doubtful meaning.
323 Or “bronze.”
324 Sachau suggests that this may be the name of Waidrang’s tribe—that
of Caleb, or the like.
325 Possibly signs of dignity or wealth, made of some precious metal.
326 In the original _Ostan âḫûhi zi ’Anani_, a construction which
reminds us of the Babylonian _âbli-šu ša_, “son of.” May we,
therefore, read “Ostanes, brother of ’Anani?”
327 That is, the receivers of Bagohi’s benefits.
328 As such a reward would be much too small, Sachau suggests that the
_kinkar_ (? talent) was much below the value of an ordinary talent.
329 See page 539.
330 Chnub, the Greek _Chnubis_, _Knuphis_, or _Kneph_.
331 If this be the case, _Waidareng_ is also a possible reading.
332 Sanballat in Nehemiah. The transcription here used is that of the
Septuagint, but the vocalization is in both cases incorrect—it
should be Sin-uballiṭ. This name, which is Babylonian, means “the
moon-god has given life.” He is called a Horonite in Neh. ii. 10,
19.
333 Lit.: “going.”
334 See the Author’s _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ (A. Constable &
Co., 1906), pp. 43-44.
_ 335 Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1902, I.: _Ein
Altbabylonisches Fragment des Gilgamosepos_, von Bruno Meissner.
Berlin, Wolf Peiser Verlag.
336 Oriental Translation Fund, New Series, I. _The Rauzat-us-Safa; or
Garden of Purity_, by Mirkhond. Translated by E. Rehatsek. Royal
Asiatic Society, 1891.
_ 337 The Babylonian Excavations and Early Bible History_, by Prof.
Kittel, translated by Edmund McClure, M.A., with a preface by Henry
Wace, D.D. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1903.
_ 338 Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. v., pl. 2, l. 40, and
_Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets_, part xii., pl. 6. Cf. p.
144.
339 Probably illustrating the Sumerian Laws.
340 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1897.
_ 341 The Bronze Ornaments of the Palace Gates of Balawat_, with an
introduction by Walter de Gray Birch, and descriptions and
translations by Theophilus G. Pinches. Published at the Offices of
the Society of Biblical Archæology, Bloomsbury, W.C.
342 Or “images.”
343 Assyria.
344 See p. 207, upper part.
345 That is, Babylonia.
_ 346 Collection de Clercq. Catalogue méthodique et raisonné_, par M. de
Clercq, avec la collaboration de M. J. Menant. Paris, Leroux, 1885,
etc.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends - of Assyria and Babylonia" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.