XIII. JERUSALEM[229]
SITUATION. GIHON. CAVE-DWELLERS. THE EL-AMARNA PERIOD. JEBUSITE JERUSALEM. THE CITY OF DAVID: Millo. David’s reign. SOLOMON’S JERUSALEM: Site of Solomon’s buildings. Solomon’s temple. Solomon’s palace. FROM SOLOMON TO HEZEKIAH. HEZEKIAH. FROM HEZEKIAH TO THE EXILE. THE DESTRUCTION OF 586 B. C. THE SECOND TEMPLE. NEHEMIAH AND THE WALLS. LATE PERSIAN AND EARLY GREEK PERIODS. IN THE TIME OF THE MACCABEES. ASMONÆAN JERUSALEM. HEROD THE GREAT: Herod’s palace. Herod’s theater. Herod’s temple. THE POOL OF BETHESDA. GETHSEMANE. CALVARY. AGRIPPA I AND THE THIRD WALL.
=1. Situation.=--Since 1867 excavations have been made at Jerusalem from time to time. The most important of these were mentioned in Chapter IV. An attempt will be made here to set before the reader the growth and development of Jerusalem from period to period, as that growth is now understood by foremost scholars. Our knowledge of the situation and form of the city in the different periods is based partly on formal excavations, partly on remains that have been accidentally found, and partly on a study of the references to Jerusalem in the Bible and other ancient writings. These references are interpreted in the light of the topography and of the archæological remains.
Jerusalem is situated on the central ridge of Palestine, where the ridge broadens out to a small plateau. The plateau at this point is approximately 2,500 feet above the level of the Mediterranean Sea. In a narrower sense the site of the city is two rocky promontories which run south from the plateau with the valley El-Wad (in Roman times the Tyropœon) between them. On the north these promontories merge into the plateau, but on the east, south, and west the valleys of Hinnom and the Kidron sharply separate them from the surrounding land. The steep sides of these valleys made fortification easy in ancient times. The highest point of the western hill is about 400 feet higher than the bottom of the Kidron valley, which in ancient times was 20 to 40 feet deeper than now; (see Fig. 240). Indeed, the position was almost impregnable. Only on the north was the city vulnerable.
West of the city hills gently rise to a slight elevation and shut out the view. The easternmost of the two promontories is lower than the western, which in its turn slopes to the east. Just south of the Mount of Olives, to the east of Jerusalem, there is a rift in the hills through which the distant mountains of Moab can be seen. From elevated buildings in the city the Dead Sea is also visible. The slope of the hills of Jerusalem and her broader outlook to the eastward are significant of the influences that moulded her earlier history. During the centuries that Israel was an independent nation the Philistine plain was nearly always in the hands of a hostile people. Jerusalem was thus cut off from influences that might otherwise have reached her from across the Mediterranean, and was shut up to influences that reached her through kindred tribes and nations to the east. Thus in intellectual kinship, as well as in physical outlook, the gaze of Jerusalem was directed toward the Orient.
All Palestinian cities of importance were situated near perpetual springs. There are at Jerusalem but two unfailing sources of water--the Ain Sitti Miriam (the ancient Gihon) and the Bir Eyyub (Biblical En-rogel). These are both in the Kidron valley, the former just under the brow of the eastern hill some 400 yards from the southern point of the hill, the latter at the point where the valley of Hinnom and the Kidron unite. Of these two sources of supply, the Gihon is pre-eminently fitted to attract an early settlement. It is almost under the hill, whereas the other is out in the midst of the open valley. Gihon, too, is at the base of a hill that can be defended easily on three sides, whereas a town built on a hillside above En-rogel, as the modern Silwan is, could be easily attacked from above. These conditions determined the situation of the earliest settlement, which was near Gihon.
=2. Gihon.=--The Parker expedition of 1909-1911 revealed by its excavations the fact that the source of the spring of Gihon is a great crack in the rock in the bottom of the valley far below the present apparent source.[230] This crack is about 16 feet long, is of great depth, and runs east and west. The western end of it just enters the mouth of the cave where the apparent source is today, but the eastern end passes out into the bed of the valley. All the water would discharge into the valley but for a wall at the eastern end of the rift, built in very ancient times, which confines the water and compels it to flow into the cave. This wall was constructed by some of the earliest inhabitants of the place. The spring thus produced is intermittent. Its flow is not ceaseless. The water breaks from the hole in the rainy season, three to five times a day; in the summer but twice a day; and after the failure of the spring rains, less than once a day. This fact indicates that the waters collect in some underground cavern from which they are drained by a siphon-like tunnel. The “troubling” of the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:4) is thought by some scholars to have been due to the action of such a siphon-like spring.
=3. Cave-dwellers.=--About this spring the Parker expedition found large caves and rooms excavated in the rock, and indications that these had once been inhabited. A great deal of pre-Israelite pottery was also found around the spring. These indications seem to show that the site was inhabited for at least a thousand years before David, and perhaps for two thousand, and that its first inhabitants were cave-dwellers. One naturally thinks in this connection of the cave-dwellers of Gezer. It is possible that the first Jerusalemites belonged to the same period and were of the same race. One thinks, too, of the sacred cave and the stone altar on the next peak of the eastern ridge to the north, where the temple afterward stood, and wonders whether it may not have been the sanctuary of this early cave-dwelling race. A definite answer cannot be given to this question. One can only recognize that it may possibly be true.
=4. The El-Amarna Period.=--The next knowledge we have of Jerusalem comes from the letters of Ebed-Hepa, which were written to Amenophis IV of Egypt between 1375 and 1357 B. C. At that time it was already a walled city, for Ebed-Hepa speaks of “throwing it open.”[231]
The fortified city of Ebed-Hepa was, no doubt, identical with the later Jebusite city. It was situated on the eastern hill just above the spring of Gihon. Probably in the period just before this time it had, like Gezer, been surrounded by a massive wall. In connection with this fortification the rock near Gihon had been scarped (cut to a perpendicular surface) in order to increase the difficulty of scaling the wall.[232] As the wall of Gezer lasted for a thousand years, so this Egyptian wall continued to the reign of David.
It is privately reported that Weil in his excavation in 1913-14 found on the eastern hill remains of a wall with a sloping glacis similar to that belonging to the earliest period of Megiddo. This would not only confirm our inference that Jerusalem was a walled city in the time of Ebed-Hepa, but indicate that its wall had been built at a much earlier time. It was also in the fourteenth century B. C. the capital of a considerable kingdom which Ebed-Hepa ruled as a vassal of the king of Egypt. This kingdom extended as far west as Beth-shemesh and Keilah (1 Sam. 23:1), including, perhaps, Gezer. Aijalon seems to have been included in it on the north, and Carmel in Judah (1 Sam. 25:2) on the south.
When the letters of Ebed-Hepa were written, his kingdom was being attacked and apparently overcome by the Habiri, a people who may have been the first wave of the Hebrew conquest.[233] The letters of Ebed-Hepa cease without telling us whether or not the Habiri captured his city. If they did and they were really Hebrews, they did not hold it long, for, when the Biblical records lift the veil that hides so much of the past, Jerusalem was in the hands of the Jebusites. (See Josh. 15:63; Judges 1:21.)
=5. Jebusite Jerusalem.=--The Jebusites held it all through the period of the Judges (Judges 19:10, 11). Israel did not capture it until the reign of David. (See 2 Sam. 5:6-8.) At some earlier period of the history of Jerusalem an underground rock-cut passage similar to the one at Gezer[234] had been made, so as to permit the inhabitants in case of siege to descend to the spring for water without going outside the walls; (see Fig. 241). The natural slope of the hill had been reinforced at this point by the escarpment of the rock, and the Jebusites felt so secure that they taunted the Hebrews from the top of the walls. Joab, however, discovered the way to this underground passage through the cave back of the spring, Gihon, and, leading a band of men up through it, appeared suddenly within the city, taking the Jebusites by surprise, and captured it.
=6. The City of David.=--David then took up his residence at Jerusalem, thus making it the capital of the kingdom of Israel. Thus the city of the Jebusites, situated on the eastern hill, which was called Zion, became the “city of David.”
A few modern writers still insist that the “city of David” was on the western hill, which since 333 A. D. has been called Zion. This, as most scholars have seen, is an impossible view. Solomon built a palace for Pharaoh’s daughter near his own on the temple hill, and, when she moved into it, she went up out of the city of David (1 Kings 9:24). As the western hill is higher than the eastern, she must have gone from a point on the eastern hill lower than the temple. When the temple was completed, Solomon brought the ark up from the city of David to the holy of holies in the new temple (2 Chron. 5:2). Scripture thus confirms the inferences from the pottery and the water supply, that the “city of David” was on the eastern hill, and that that hill was Zion. It was a small town, since the space it could occupy was not more than thirteen acres, and may have been less.
(1) Millo.--After occupying his new capital David “built round about from Millo and inward” (2 Sam. 5:9). What was Millo? This is a great puzzle, and there are many varying opinions about it. The word literally means a “filling,” and is employed in Assyrian for the building up of a terrace on which a building may be erected. It may have been a “filling” on the line of the valley that separated the hill of the citadel of David from Moriah or the temple hill. It would seem to have been on the edge of the city, since David built from there “inward.” Some have supposed it to be a fortress, and the Septuagint translated it by “akra,” which means “citadel.” Some have thought of it as a fort, others as a solid tower. If on the line of the valley mentioned, it may have been at the northeast corner, or at the northwest corner of the town. Some have supposed that it was at the southern end of the eastern hill in order to protect a pool there. Just below the southern end of the eastern hill in the valley of the Kidron lay the “King’s Gardens,” and just across the valley, the village of Siloah. In 2 Kings 12:20 it is said that Joash was killed in Millo, leading down to Silla. We know of no Silla. Is it a corruption of the Hebrew word for “shade” or is it a corruption of Siloah? In the former case the reference might be to the King’s Gardens, in the latter to the village of Siloah. Either of these suppositions would favor a site for Millo at the south end of the hill, but the words “leading down to Silla” may have had quite a different origin and meaning.[235] We must, therefore, confess that the location of Millo cannot at present be determined.
(2) David’s Reign.--As David’s reign advanced and his success in war compelled neighboring nations to pay tribute, probably the population of Jerusalem increased. Such an increase would naturally lead to the erection of houses outside the walls, as it has in recent times. It is altogether probable that a settlement on the western hill was thus begun in the reign of David. There is no hint, however, that he took any steps to enclose such a settlement within a wall. The phrase “the way of the gate” in 2 Sam. 15:2 implies that there was still but one gate in the walls. This is in striking contrast to the number of gates in later times. The only record that we have of further action on David’s part that affected the future growth of Jerusalem refers to the way in which he took over the rock on Mount Moriah and the sacred cave under it and made a sanctuary to Jehovah. (See 2 Sam. 24.) This action, at a later time, determined the site of the temple.
=7. Solomon’s Jerusalem.=--David left Jerusalem a military fortress; Solomon transformed it into a city with imposing buildings. This creation of a more imposing city was in accord with the general character of Solomon’s reign. He established a large harem, made marriage alliances with many neighboring kings, maintained such an establishment that it was necessary to make a regular levy on a different portion of the country each month for supplies, and endeavored to make his capital as splendid as the capital of a rich commercial Phœnician monarch. Such a policy necessitated, probably, the enlargement of Jerusalem. David, who began life as a shepherd-boy, was content to live the simple life to the end; Solomon, born to the purple, desired to surround himself with a pomp befitting his rank. The Biblical writers were more interested in the construction of the temple and of Solomon’s palace than in any other phase of his work, but they have left us some hints of his activities in other directions.
They tell us that he “built Millo and the wall of Jerusalem” (1 Kings 9:15), that he “built the wall of Jerusalem round about” (1 Kings 3:1), and that he “built Millo and repaired the breach in the city of David, his father” (1 Kings 11:27). Evidently Millo had fallen into disrepair since David rebuilt it, and the walls of the city of David on the eastern hill were also in need of repairs. These repairs he made, but did he go further? It is intrinsically probable that he did. The king who fortified Hazor in Naphtali, Megiddo, Gezer, Beth-horon, Baalath, and Tamar would hardly leave a large suburb of his capital on the western hill unfortified. The statement that he “built the wall of Jerusalem round about,” while it does not clearly state that he did more than fortify the “city of David” on Zion, seems to imply that he did. This view is strengthened by Bliss’s discovery on the western hill of some walls that connected once with a great fortress at the southwest corner of the western hill, which he believed to be the work of Solomon.
The site of this fortress is now occupied by “Bishop Gobat’s School,” an English foundation for the education of native boys. When the school was rebuilt in 1874 Mr. Henry Maudsley examined the surface of the rock, which is escarped, or cut perpendicularly, for about 100 feet to the southeast of the school and 43 feet north of it. The scarp is about 40 feet high at the highest point; (Fig. 242). The school is built on a large projection of the scarp 45 feet square and 20 feet high. The surface of the rock under the school bears unmistakable signs that there was once an ancient tower there. To the eastward of this Bliss discovered the foundations of an ancient tower. Beyond this to the east there was a deep rock-cut ditch. The tower on its northeast corner fitted into another rock-scarp which ran northward into land on which they could not excavate.[236] The deep rock-cut ditch or moat at the east of the scarp suggests that at the period of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099-1188 A. D., this fortress formed the fortification of the southwest corner of the city, from which the wall ran off sharply in a direction a little east of north. This view is confirmed by the discovery which Bliss made of a wall, apparently built by the Crusaders, that ran in a north-easterly direction by an irregular course along the high part of the western hill toward the temple area. As this wall rested on remains of the Roman time it cannot well have belonged to a time earlier than the crusading period. May not, then, Maudsley’s scarp itself have been cut by the Crusaders who were most energetic and masterly builders? This seems hardly probable, for Josephus, in describing the course of the wall on the west side of the western hill, says that beginning at Herod’s palace (the modern Turkish fortress) the wall ran southward through a place called “Bethso.”[237] Bethso is a corruption of Beth-zur, which means rock-fortress--an apt description of the tower on Maudsley’s scarp. As Josephus makes no mention of the construction of a fortress at this point by Herod, it was probably built at an earlier period. The writer holds with Bliss that it is probable that the original fortress on the site of Bishop Gobat’s School was constructed by Solomon and that he enclosed the top of the western hill with a wall. Whether that wall simply enclosed the top of the hill and followed something of the same course as the wall of the Crusaders mentioned above (so Bliss thinks), or whether it ran down the eastern slope of the western hill to the southern point of the “City of David,” it is impossible now to determine.
The view that Solomon extended the city to the western hill cannot be proved, since there is no definite reference in the Bible to the western hill in the time of Solomon, and there is no inscription on the masonry found definitely to connect it with him. In consideration of all the conditions it seems probable that Solomon enclosed a part of the western hill. If so, the wall built by Solomon on the north side of the western hill was probably on the line of what Josephus called the “first wall.” This wall, was rebuilt from time to time. The débris of a part of it seems still to be in place at the east end of “David Street” in modern Jerusalem. A short street, high above the surrounding levels, now runs on the top of this débris.[238]
(1) Site of Solomon’s Buildings.--Concerning the building of Solomon’s palace and the temple there can be no doubt, for the Bible contains accounts of the construction of these. Their general location is also well known. They were across the little valley which separated the part of Zion called Ophel (where the city of David was situated) from the part sometimes called Moriah.[239] This hill-top included the threshing-floor of Araunah, the Jebusite (2 Sam. 24), and Solomon now enclosed this with a wall. Sir Charles Warren believed that he found portions of this wall at the southeast angle of the ancient temple area, 80 feet below the present surface of the ground. During his excavations in the years 1867-1870 he sunk at this point a shaft to the native rock, from the bottom of which a tunnel was carried inward to the base of the wall. He found twenty-one courses of drafted stones below the surface at this point, and the stones in the lower courses bore quarry marks which resemble old Hebrew or Phœnician characters.[240] The lower courses of stones were from 3 feet 6 inches to 4 feet 3½ inches in height. Some of the characters were cut in the stones; some painted on them. It is most probable that these were remains of the work of Solomon; (see Figs. 244, 245, and 246).
The enclosure of this hill-top with a wall set it apart from the rest of Jerusalem. It was a kind of separate fortress. At the time it emphasized the majesty of Solomon--his apartness from his people. This separate enclosure of the temple hill was perpetuated through the whole history of Jerusalem and is maintained today. In all periods the temple hill has been a fortress that could be defended apart from the city.
(2) Solomon’s Temple.--Of the form and situation of the buildings of Solomon on the hill that was enclosed by this new wall, there is a wide diversity of opinion. This diversity arises in part from the fact that some scholars take at their face value statements of Josephus, the Talmud, and other late sources concerning Solomon’s temple, while others attribute less weight to the statements of those sources which were written long after this temple was destroyed, and base their views rather on the earlier documents. The last is the only sound method of study, and is the course followed here. We shall take as evidence of the plan and situation of the buildings the Biblical writers who had seen them.
We are at the start confronted, however, with a difficulty, since no Biblical writer has given us an exact statement as to what part of the hill Solomon’s temple occupied. Most modern scholars hold, nevertheless, that it was built at the highest point of the hill just west of the sacred cave, which has already been mentioned,[241] and the old rock-altar above it. This view is confirmed by Josephus[242] and is undoubtedly correct, although three or four modern scholars have doubted it. The temple would naturally be built near the spot where the angel is said to have appeared to David (2 Sam. 24:16), and as angels are frequently represented in the Old Testament as appearing upon rocks (see Judges 6:11, f.; 13:19)[243] it is altogether probable that the appearance to David was on the rock-altar at the top of the hill. On this rock the animals for sacrifice were slain, as the conduits for blood still visible on its top indicate. Near it, then, or on it the altar of burnt-offerings stood. We learn from Ezekiel, who had served as a priest in the temple of Solomon, that the temple faced the east, that it stood to the west of the altar, and that there was room between the temple and the altar for twenty-five men. (See Ezek. 8:16.) The temple was a rectangular building with its greatest length running east and west. Its measurements were 124 feet for the length, 50 for the breadth, and 55 for the height. It was constructed of stones and cedar beams. The outer temple, afterward called the holy place, was 70 feet long, 34½ feet wide, and 52 feet high. Back of it was the holy of holies, where the ark was placed. It was a cube 34½ feet each way. Apparently there was a chamber above it.[244] This room was adorned with carvings of cherubim, palms, and open flowers (1 Kings 6:29, 32, 35). It had no window. According to 2 Chron. 3:14, it was separated from the holy place by a veil. The holy place contained the table of show-bread and ten golden lamp-stands (1 Kings 7:49).[245] The lattice work high up in the walls of this room (1 Kings 6:4) can have admitted only an uncertain light. The building was richly adorned with cedar and gold. It consisted of three stories, and the walls were of varying thickness, since ledges were built in them to receive the beams of the different stories. Each story contained a series of chambers for storage or the use of the priests. Those of the first story were five cubits wide, those of the second six, and those of the third seven; (see Figs. 247-249).
In front of the temple was a porch of unknown height, and before this were two bronze pillars with ornamented tops, named Jachin and Boaz. A little to the southeast of the temple in the open air was a brazen laver supported by twelve brazen oxen (1 Kings 7:23-26, 39). Before the temple Solomon also placed a brazen altar (2 Chron. 1:5, 6; 2 Kings 16:14). Another article of temple furniture is described as a “base.” It was apparently a portable holder for a laver. It was made of bronze, provided with wheels, and ornamented with figures of lions, cherubim, and palm-trees (1 Kings 7:27-37); (see Figs. 251, 252).
It is clear that the temple was not, like a modern church, intended for the accommodation of the people. It was simply Jehovah’s dwelling. Hither the priests might come to bring the offerings of the people, and to propitiate him. Solomon surrounded the temple with a court enclosed by a wall of three courses of hewn stones and cedar beams (1 Kings 6:36). This court became in later time the auditorium of the nation. Outside of this was a larger court with walls of similar construction (1 Kings 7:12); (see Fig. 243).
(3) Solomon’s Palace.--Just to the south of the temple court, separated from it only by a wall, was a middle court in which was Solomon’s own palace and the palace of Pharaoh’s daughter (1 Kings 7:8). These palaces were a little lower down the hill than the temple, and Solomon had a private “ascent” by which he could go up into the temple (1 Kings 10:5). The royal palaces were so near that a shout in the court around the altar could be heard in the palace (2 Kings 11:12, 13). These palaces were built of hewn stone and cedar. South of this court was still another, separated from it by a wall. In this most southerly and lowest of the courts stood the hall of state, in which was the throne room, where Solomon sat in judgment. This hall was paneled with cedar from floor to roof. The throne was of ivory, was approached by six steps, and flanked on each side by lions (1 Kings 10:18-20). South of this and probably intended as its vestibule was the “porch of pillars,” 86 by 52 feet (1 Kings 7:6). Still south of this stood the “house of the forest of Lebanon” (1 Kings 7:2), so called because its four rows of cedar pillars were poetically suggestive of a Lebanon forest. This was the largest of all the buildings, being 172 feet long, 86 feet wide, and 52 feet high. There seem to have been two stories, the uppermost of which was supported by 45 pillars in three rows. Josephus says that the upper room of this hall was designed to “contain a great body of men, who would come together to have their causes determined.”[246] He may have been influenced, however, in making the statement by the customs of his own time.
As one went northward, then, up the hill from the “city of David,” he passed through a gateway into the large court. In this court he came first to the “house of the forest of Lebanon.” Beyond this he would enter through the “porch of pillars” into the splendid hall of judgment with its imposing throne. If he were a favored servant or an honored guest of the king, he might be admitted to the inner court, in which case he would behold the imposing palaces of Solomon and his principal queen. A passageway to the eastward of this more private court led the person not so favored to the sacred court about the temple.
In the construction of these buildings Solomon employed Phœnician architects and workmen. His buildings were, therefore, more imposing than those ordinarily erected in Palestine. The Phœnicians were the intermediaries of the ancient world, and were the recipients of influences from Babylonia, Egypt, the Hittites, Cyprus, and the Mycenean world. Through them something of the world’s architectural culture touched the buildings of Solomon.
=8. From Solomon to Hezekiah.=--Between the time of Solomon and Hezekiah, the Bible furnishes us with but little information about Jerusalem. One topographical fact is given us in the narrative of the war between Amaziah of Judah and Jehoash of Israel, before 782 B. C. After Jehoash had been victorious in the battle at Beth-shemesh, he came up to Jerusalem and “brake down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim unto the corner gate, four hundred cubits” (2 Kings 14:13); (see Fig. 304). This wall was afterward repaired by Uzziah, who strengthened it with towers.
Indeed, it seems probable that Uzziah’s work was more extensive and that, in order to render the city more impregnable, he added a second wall on the north. Certainly a wall existed here before the Exile, for when Nehemiah rebuilt the walls, this wall joined the temple area at its northwest corner, and we know of no king after Uzziah who would be likely to construct such a defence unless it was Hezekiah. As the city easily withstood the attack of Pekah and Rezin in 735 (Isa. 7:1, ff.), it seems probable that Uzziah was the builder.
This wall by whomsoever it was built was in all probability on the line of the so-called “second wall” of Josephus. As to just what its course was we cannot now tell, further than that it started from near the Corner Gate, near where the modern Turkish fortress now stands, and terminated at the temple area. Some have supposed that after leaving the Corner Gate it ran as far northward as the line on which the northern wall of the modern city runs, then eastward from there to a point near the present Damascus Gate, and then turned southward to the temple area. This seems improbable, however, since in the time of Zechariah the tower of Hananel, which stood near the northwest corner of the present area of the Mosque of Omar, was the most northerly point of the city. It is thus possible that this second wall may have run south of the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Its whole course accordingly lies underneath the present city. None of this has been excavated except a short part of the course near the ancient Corner Gate. In 1885, when digging was in progress for the foundations of the Grand New Hotel, just inside the Jaffa Gate and north of the Turkish fortress, a course of large Jewish stones was laid bare which the late Dr. Merrill and others believed to be a part of this second wall. The nature of the digging did not, however, disclose its course for any great distance; the part revealed ran nearly north and south.
Unless Solomon built the wall which ran from Maudsley’s scarp at the northwest corner of the western hill eastward down the slope of that hill to the southern point of the eastern hill, it must have been built by some king of this period. No hint is given us as to who built this wall. It may have been done in the reign of Jehoshaphat, which was a period of prosperity and expansion (2 Kings 3:4-12), or in the reign of Uzziah, which was also a very prosperous time. The need of stronger defenses created by the advance of the Assyrians into western Asia in the ninth and eighth centuries B. C. makes it probable that Uzziah was the builder. At all events it was accomplished by the time of Hezekiah.
In the reign of Ahaz there was a conduit (Isa. 7:3) leading from the “upper pool,” or Gihon, to a lower pool, which probably lay somewhere near the mouth of the Tyropœon valley. This conduit has been discovered. It was designed partly to conduct water from Gihon out into the valley of the Kidron for the irrigation of the king’s gardens, and partly to fill the lower pool so that cattle could come and drink. Isaiah refers to the waters of this conduit as “the waters of Shiloah that go softly” (Isa. 8:6). Of course, this conduit was in Isaiah’s time an old one. It is impossible to tell when it was first constructed. It may have been made as early as the time of Solomon or David, or even in Jebusite times.
In the reign of Ahaz a change was made in the nature of the altar of burnt-offerings in the temple. When Ahaz went to Damascus to do homage to Tiglath-pileser IV of Assyria, he saw an altar that pleased him, and sent a pattern of it home to the high priest, Urijah, with directions to have one made like it for the temple. This Urijah did. This altar was apparently constructed of stone. It displaced the brazen altar of Solomon, which was henceforth kept for the king’s private use (2 Kings 16:10-16). It is thought by some that the measurements of this stone altar are reproduced in Ezekiel 43:13-17. The brazen altar had always been out of accord with the Hebrew law. (See Exod. 20:24-26.)
=9. Hezekiah.=--Apart from his reform (2 Kings 18:1-6) and the invasions of Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:9, ff.), the event of especial interest mentioned in connection with Hezekiah is that “he made the pool and the conduit and brought the water into the city” (2 Kings 20:20). Scholars are agreed that this refers to the rock-cut aqueduct in which the Siloam inscription was found.[247] This was for the time of its construction a notable engineering achievement, though recent exploration of the tunnel shows that the workers frequently went astray and cut in directions that they did not intend. Indeed, it is probable that the great bends in the tunnel were made on account of such mistakes and not as Clermont-Ganneau formerly thought in order to avoid the tombs of the kings. Up to the present, search for these tombs has been vain. They must have been somewhere on the eastern hill, but there is no reason to believe that they were at the great depth at which this tunnel was cut through the rock.
If the supposition made above as to the walls of Uzziah is correct, it was Hezekiah who built the first wall across the mouth of the Tyropœon valley so as to enclose within the city his new pool. This wall was found by Bliss. It formed the dam of the pool. It was strongly buttressed and had been rebuilt from time to time. Bliss detected five periods in its history.[248]
=10. From Hezekiah to the Exile.=--After Hezekiah, the general features of Jerusalem remained the same down to the time of the Babylonian Exile in 586 B. C. We hear of a Fish Gate, probably where it was at a later time, at the north of the city in the wall built by Uzziah. Zephaniah mentions in connection with it “the second quarter” of the city (Zeph. 1:10), which was probably the part of the town between the north wall of Uzziah and the older north wall of Solomon on the western hill. The prophetess Huldah lived there in the time of Josiah (2 Kings 22:14). Zephaniah also mentions a part of the city called Maktesh or the Mortar (Zeph. 1:11). This was a part of Jerusalem occupied by Phœnician traders and craftsmen. It was probably in the hollow between the two hills, i. e., in the Tyropœon valley.
In the reign of Manasseh we hear of the sacrifice of children. For this purpose a pit was excavated on the floor of the valley of Hinnom, to the south of the city, and arrangements were made to burn the victims. This was called Topheth (Jer. 7:31). Later it was defiled (2 Kings 23:10), and to perpetuate the defilement refuse from the city seems to have been burned there. The valley of Hinnom is in Hebrew gai hinnom. Later generations conceived that the heavenly Jerusalem had also its valley of Hinnom for the consumption of its refuse, hence gai hinnom is used in the New Testament in the form Gehenna as a name of hell. (See Matt. 5:29; 10:28.)
=11. The Destruction of 586 B. C.=--Toward the end of the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar in the year 586 it is said that the men of war fled by the way of the gate between the two walls which was by the king’s garden (2 Kings 25:4). This was evidently a gate by the Pool of Siloam, where the two walls of the eastern hill and the wall which came down the western hill and crossed the mouth of the Tyropœon valley all came together.[249]
In August of the year 586 B. C. Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar. The temple, the royal palace, and the residences of the principal men were burned and the walls of the city were broken down (2 Kings 25:9, 10). All that was combustible was burned, including the city gates (Neh. 1:3). All portable things of value were carried away. Jerusalem now entered on a period of desolation. The city was probably not entirely deserted. Some of the poor who still managed to extract a subsistence from the desolate hills still found shelter in her ruins. All the well-to-do inhabitants were transported to Babylonia.
It is often assumed that the site of the temple was unused during the Exile and that no offerings were made there, but Jer. 41:4, 5 shows that this was not the case. Probably an altar was repaired very soon, and the poor people still went through their most indispensable religious ceremonies amid the desolation, for men came from Samaria two months after the destruction of the city to celebrate there the Feast of Tabernacles.
This destruction of the city and the deportation of its population made a very deep impression on the Jews. How their affections clung to the desolate and defaced city is touchingly depicted in the book of Lamentations and in the 137th Psalm. Indeed, the destruction of the real Jerusalem was the beginning of that ideal Jerusalem which has been so influential in the religious history of the world.[250]
=12. The Second Temple.=--Beyond the erection of an altar, already mentioned, the first steps toward the rebuilding of the temple were taken, so many scholars think, in the second year of King Darius of Persia, i. e., in 520 B. C. Eighteen years earlier Cyrus had made it possible for this to be done,[251] but for various reasons it had not been undertaken.[252] The man whose preaching moved the people to begin the rebuilding was Haggai, and the circumstances under which he did it are recounted in his book. Haggai’s persuasion was later seconded by the efforts of Zechariah. Through four years the house slowly rose, and was finally completed in March of the sixth year of Darius (516 B. C.), five months less than 70 years after it was destroyed.
There is no doubt that the second temple was built on the lines of the first, which were probably still traceable in the débris. It was also constructed of stone which still lay about the top of the hill--stone that had been used in the work of Solomon. It was not because it was smaller than the first temple that old men who had seen that wept as they looked on the new one (Ezra 3:12), but because it was less ornate. It was probably without ornament. Josephus (Contra Apion, i, 22) says that the temple court was enclosed by a wall a plethra in length and 100 Greek cubits in breadth, i. e., 485½ by 145½ feet. It was not, then, very large. It is uncertain whether there was at this time more than one court; 1 Macc. 4:48 speaks of “courts,” but Josephus tells[253] how the people pelted Alexander Jannæus with citrons while he was officiating at the altar during the Feast of Tabernacles, so that it is probable that the courts were not separated by a wall, but by a difference of elevation. The inner court was probably higher than the other, as it is around the Mosque of Omar today.
Within this court was an altar of unhewn stones. The temple itself consisted as before of the holy place and the holy of holies. Before the holy place was a porch, and around the building there were many small chambers as formerly. The holy of holies was separated from the holy place by a veil (1 Macc. 1:22), but now it contained no ark of the covenant, as that had been lost in 586 B. C. The holy of holies in the second temple was empty except for the “stone of foundation” on which the high priest placed his censer on the day of atonement.[254] In the holy place the table of show-bread stood in front of the veil. Instead of the ten golden lamp-stands of Solomon’s temple there now stood there the lamp with seven branches (see Zech. 4). A golden altar of incense replaced it (1 Macc. 1:21) in the time of the Maccabees, though it may not have been placed there before the time of Ezra.
Such was the temple as reconstructed after the Exile. In one important respect its perspective was changed. The royal palace and the administrative buildings, which before the Exile had shared the crest of the northern spur of Zion with the temple, were not rebuilt. The temple stood there alone. Little by little the part of the hill to the south of the temple was cleared of the débris and the ground became a temple court. This was significant of the religious condition of the post-exilic time. Kings had vanished; the worship of Jehovah held the supreme place in the thought of the people.
=13. Nehemiah and the Walls.=--For seventy-two years after the temple was rebuilt, the walls of the city still lay in ruins. That they were at last restored was due to the patriotism and energy of a noble young Jew, Nehemiah, who had been a cup-bearer to Artaxerxes I of Persia. The story of how he obtained the royal permission to return to Jerusalem as governor, with authority to rebuild the walls, how upon his arrival he traced by their ruins the lines of the old walls, with what energy and amid what difficulties he pushed their rebuilding to completion in the course of three months in the year 444 B. C., is told in detail in Nehemiah 1-7 and need not be repeated here.
At the northwest corner of the western hill there was placed in the wall at this time a gate called the Valley Gate (Neh. 3:13). This was the gate discovered by Bliss[255] a little to the east of the old fortress on Maudsley’s scarp. When the wall was completed, a ceremony of dedication was held. At this festival two processions started from this Valley Gate; one of these went around the south side of the city, the other around the north side (Neh. 12:31-40). They met at the temple. The procession that went around the south side of the city passed by the Dung Gate, which was situated in the southern wall well down the hill, then by the Fountain Gate, near the Pool of Siloam, then up the “ascent of the wall” by the stairs of the “City of David,” and passed the Water Gate somewhere above the spring of Gihon. Still above this, probably just to the east of the temple area, was the Horse Gate (Neh. 3:28). The other company, starting from the Valley Gate at the southwest corner of the city, passed northward by the “Tower of the Furnaces” unto the broad wall, above the Gate of Ephraim, by the Old Gate, and by the Fish Gate, past the Tower of Hananel and the Tower of Hammeah, unto the Sheep Gate. This description, together with the line of the previous wall, enables us approximately to determine the outline of post-exilic Jerusalem; (see Fig. 305). The one point of doubt has to do with the line of the second wall on the north of the city, laid out probably by Uzziah. As that line is directly under the present city it has never been possible to follow it by excavations. We can only conjecture what its course may have been. The towers of Hananel and Hammeah were clearly north of the temple area. They probably fortified the wall along the edge of a shallow valley which separated Moriah from the hill north of it. This hill was later called Bezetha.
=14. Late Persian and Early Greek Periods.=--After the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, we have no clear topographical references to Jerusalem until the second century B. C. It seems probable that Jerusalem and Judah rebelled against one of the later Persian kings and that the city suffered.[256] We hear that Ptolemy I of Egypt also captured Jerusalem,[257] but whether these experiences led to any modification in the form of the city, we do not know. The Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, often called Ecclesiasticus, which was written about 180 B. C., indicates that Jerusalem was a carefully organized city. Many professions and much commerce were represented in it, as well as many human sins and foibles.[258] The author declares[259] that a high priest, Simon, the son of Onias (probably Simon II, 218-198 B. C.), repaired the temple and fortified the city. What the nature of either work was, we do not know. So far as can be ascertained, he confined himself to the strengthening of old defenses, and did not change the topography.
In the early part of the reign of Antiochus IV, while many Jews were kindly inclined to Greek culture and to Greek ways, an outdoor gymnasium was established in Jerusalem.[260] This was in a hollow just above the Tyropœon valley to the west of the south end of the temple enclosure.[261] Josephus calls it the Xystus, a Greek name that reveals its character. Some reminder that it was once a gymnasium perhaps lingers in Maidan, the modern Arabic name for the locality, which means hippodrome, or place of combat.
=15. In the Time of the Maccabees.=--In the Maccabæan period the city was divided into three parts--the city proper, the temple, and the Akra or citadel. As to the situation of the Akra, there is a wide difference of opinion. Into the different theories it is impossible to go.[262] The writer agrees with George Adam Smith, that in all probability the Akra was the “City of David” of the earlier time, as 1 Maccabees states (1:33; 7:32, 33; 14:36). We first hear of this Akra in 198 B. C., when an Egyptian garrison held out in it against Antiochus III.[263] It was so shut off from the rest of Jerusalem that, though, after the onslaught of Antiochus IV on the Jews in 168 B. C., Judas Maccabæus recovered the city and temple as early as 165 B. C., the Syrians kept possession of the Akra for twenty-three years more, until they were finally dislodged by Simon the Maccabee in 142 B. C.[264]
=16. Asmonæan Jerusalem.=--During the Asmonæan dynasty which grew out of the Maccabæan struggle,[265] three new features were added to Jerusalem. One was a castle, to the northward of the temple area built by John Hyrcanus I, 135-105 B. C.[266] This was known to Greek-speaking Jews as Baris, which is a corruption of the Hebrew Birah, a fortress. Its walls are massive and high. It commanded the approach to the temple area from the north, and greatly strengthened the effectiveness of the temple fortification.
One of the Asmonæans, probably John Hyrcanus I, built a palace in Jerusalem.[267] This palace apparently stood on the site now occupied by the Synagogue of the German Jews in Jerusalem.[268] It was connected with the temple area by a bridge,[269] of which a remnant of the easternmost span, now called “Robinson’s Arch,”[270] is still visible on the western wall of the temple enclosure. This bridge was destroyed by Pompey when he captured Jerusalem in 63 B. C.,[271] and its remains were found by Warren in the bottom of the Tyropœon valley, 80 feet below the present surface of the ground.[272] As the Asmonæans were high priests as well as kings, this bridge gave them easy access to the temple from their palace. The palace itself, situated on a part of the western hill that overtopped the temple hill, was so placed that the royal priest could sit in his palace and watch what was transpiring in the temple courts and in the valley below.
The third accomplishment of the Asmonæans was probably the construction of Solomon’s Pools and the High Level Aqueduct by which the water was brought into Jerusalem.[273] This work appears also to have been accomplished by John Hyrcanus I, for Timarchus, the biographer of Antiochus VII, who was a contemporary of Hyrcanus I, says of Jerusalem that “the whole city runs down with waters, so that even the gardens are irrigated by the water which flows off from it.”[274] Such a description would be quite unfitting, if all the water had been supplied by Gihon, En-rogel, and the cisterns about Jerusalem. It implies that a perpetual stream of water, such as came through one of the aqueducts, flowed into the city.
One other structure is attributed to an Asmonæan. Alexander Jannæus was very unpopular with the Pharisees, and once, as already noted, he was pelted by the people with citrons. He thereupon erected a wooden barrier around the temple and the altar, thus excluding the laity from a close approach to the temple,[275] and creating a court for the priests alone.
Jerusalem suffered from four sieges in the troublous days when the Asmonæan power was waning and that of Rome was being established. The first was by Haretat, King of the Nabathæans, in 65 B. C., but was lifted without result.[276] The second was that of Pompey in 63 B. C. It resulted in the capture of the city and in considerable damage. The bridge across the Tyropœon to the royal palace was broken down.[277] The third was that of the Partisans in 40 B. C., when they captured the city and placed Antigonus, son of Aristobulus II, on the throne.[278] The fourth was that by which Herod the Great became master of Jerusalem in 37 B. C. At this time a part of the two northern walls were broken down.[279] The topography of the city was in no way changed until after the conquest by Herod, who changed the face of Jerusalem in many ways.
=17. Herod the Great.=--The first work of Herod was to rebuild and strengthen the fortress to the north of the temple. This he did at the beginning of his reign while Mark Antony was still in power in the East. He accordingly renamed the castle Antonia.[280] Herod also rebuilt and strengthened the walls which he had battered down in taking Jerusalem, adding towers to make them more impregnable. At the southwest corner of the city he erected three new towers,--Hippacus, Phasael, and Mariamne.[281] These all probably stood in or near the space now covered by the Turkish fortress at the Jaffa Gate. Hippacus was apparently the northwest tower of the present citadel, Phasael the easternmost of the towers in the same structure, which still bears the name “Tower of David”; Mariamne lay to the east of these. Hippacus was 80 cubits high, Phasael 90, and Mariamne 50. On the north of these, perhaps near the point where the northwest corner of the present city wall is, stood Psephinus, an octagonal tower 70 cubits high.
(1) Herod’s Palace.--In connection with the towers Hippacus and Phasael and on the site of the present Turkish citadel, Herod built a new and splendid royal palace.[282] Its walls on the west and north were the same as the old city walls; on the east and south, walls of the same massiveness were erected. It contained two halls, each the size of the sanctuary, with couches within for a hundred guests. There were many other richly furnished chambers. The towers and the palace were faced with marble. Stretching to the southward, of the palace were colonnades which bordered on open courts, in which shrubberies, fountains, and long walks abounded. These fountains were fed by the High Level Aqueduct.
This palace commanded the highest point of the southwestern hill. Its construction finally transferred the controlling power to the western hill, or as Josephus calls it, the “Upper City.” Ever after this the western hill was the seat of political power. When Procurators ruled Judæa this palace became the prætorium.[283] It was to this castle that our Saviour was brought to be tried by Pontius Pilate. It was to its entrance, probably on the east, that Pilate brought Jesus and offered to release him, when the people cried: “Away with this man ... crucify him” (Luke 23: 18, 21). This palace, built by one of the ablest and most unscrupulous of men, is thus associated with one of the most sacred and tragic moments of history. From that day to this it has remained the seat of political authority in Jerusalem. Its presence on the western hill has gradually drawn the name Zion from the original city of David to the western hill, and so distorted the Old Testament traditions that even several modern scholars[284] still refuse to give credence to the clear voice of the Old Testament as to the site of the original Zion. The palace, battered down and rebuilt again and again, still retains in its walls many of the massive stones of Herod. This palace was completed about 23 B. C.
(2) Herod’s Theater.--About 25 B. C. Herod founded an athletic gathering to be celebrated every five years in honor of Augustus.[285] Josephus, in speaking of this fact, says that Herod built a theater in Jerusalem, and also a very great amphitheater in the plain. If he actually built a theater in the city, all traces of it have disappeared. To the south of the city on a hill considerably beyond the Valley of Hinnom, the remains of a great theater were discovered some years ago by the late Dr. Schick.[286] This theater faced the north, its diameter was more than 130 feet, and spectators seated in it could see Jerusalem in the distance. It is thought by some scholars that this is the theater to which Josephus alludes, as Herod would hardly have ventured to outrage Jewish feeling by placing such a structure in the sacred city. If the discovery of Dr. Schick represents Herod’s theater, it is quite unknown where the “amphitheater in the plain,” to which Josephus makes reference, was situated.
(3) Herod’s Temple.--When the palace of Herod was completed, the splendid structures of Antonia and the palace quite overshadowed the old dingy temple. The temple had frequently been repaired by the high priests, and perhaps during the Maccabæan time had been somewhat embellished, but it nevertheless remained essentially as it had been rebuilt after the Exile. Herod had built Sebaste on the site of ancient Samaria in 27 B. C., and began about 22 B. C. to build Cæsarea. In these and other cities he had erected splendid temples to heathen deities; naturally he desired to make the temple of his capital city worthy to stand beside them. He had difficulty in persuading the Jews to let him touch the sacred house, but yielding in many things to their scruples, work was finally begun in the year 20-19 B. C. Some of the priests became carpenters and stone-cutters, so that no profane hands need touch the sacred shrine.[287] The old temple was taken down and the new one erected in the space of eighteen months. But much remained to be done and the work dragged along until after Herod’s death. In the time of Christ “forty and six years was this temple in building” (John 2:20), and it was not then completed. It was finished only in 64 A. D., six years before it was finally destroyed.[288] The temple itself occupied the site of its predecessor, and was of the same plan and dimensions. These Herod did not dare to change. They were consecrated by nearly a thousand years of sacred associations. If he could not enlarge it, however, he could make it higher, and he made its elevation a hundred cubits or 172 feet. He also enlarged the porch, making it 120 feet broad. The whole was built of huge blocks of white stone, with plates of gold upon the front.[289] The holy of holies consisted, as before, of a dark, empty room, 35 feet in each dimension. It was separated from the holy place by curtains, an outer and an inner, which were a foot apart. The holy place was still 40 by 20 cubits, but was now made 40 instead of 30 cubits high.[290] Its furniture was the same as in the second temple: the table of show-bread, the altar of incense, and the lamp with seven branches; (Fig. 250). The entrance to the holy place, 15 cubits wide and 70 cubits high, was not closed by doors. Josephus declares that it was left open to set forth the “unobstructed openness of heaven.”[291]
On the top of the temple, spikes with sharp points were arranged to prevent birds from lighting upon it and defiling it. Twelve broad steps led down from the temple to the court of the priests.[292] These steps occupied nearly all the 22 cubits of space between the porch and the altar. Not far from the steps at the south stood the great laver, which had replaced the brazen sea of Solomon’s temple. The altar of unhewn stones rose upon the sacred rock--sacred since the days of the Jebusites (and possibly since the stone age), to which it was fitted by masonry. The base of the altar was 32 cubits square and 1 high. On this rose a structure 30 cubits square and 5 cubits high. On this was a ledge 1 cubit broad, to which the horns of the altar were attached. Not far above was another ledge, also a cubit broad, on which the officiating priests might stand. Above this was the altar hearth itself, which was 24 cubits square. South of the altar was a structure of masonry on which priests could stand; north of it, the place for the slaughter of the victims. Here the victims to be slain were tied to rings in the pavement. There were tables of marble on which they could be washed and flayed. Beams supported by pillars also contained hooks on which they could be hung for quartering. Herod, as noted above,[293] probably constructed the Low Level Aqueduct. By means of this he brought a larger supply of water into the temple area, so that there was an abundance of water with which to flush the holy place, and wash away the blood and refuse with which the place must often have reeked, especially on festal days.
A low wall a cubit in height marked off the court of the priests from the court of Israel. Accounts differ as to whether this wall was on the east only or whether it ran around the whole temple. The court of Israel lay to the east of the court of the priests. Again our sources of information differ as to its exact size. Here the “congregation of Israel” could assemble to witness the sacred sacrifices. To the east of the court of Israel lay the court of the women. These were separated by a wall, but, owing to the downward slope of the hill, the court of the women was fifteen steps lower than that of Israel. Indeed, the level of the court of Israel was only maintained by a series of arches which supported a pavement. Perhaps the idea of a court for the women had been a gradual development of the post-exilic time, in which they had been permitted to watch the sacrifices from a definitely defined position in the rear of the men. At all events, this court became a prominent feature in the temple of Herod, and from elevated seats on its eastern side women could still watch the sacred ceremonies of the temple. With the exception of this gallery, the court of the women was open to men. It was 135 cubits square and so was relatively large. Apparently the temple treasury was situated in this court, together with the money boxes, for women had access to these. Here probably Christ was sitting when he saw the poor widow cast into the treasury her two mites (Mark 12:41, f.; Luke 21:1, f). Around these courts ran a wall 43 feet high. This wall was pierced by nine gates, four on the north, four on the south, and one on the east. A gate also separated the court of the women from the court of Israel. Either the gate that opened out of the court of the women to the eastward, or the one between the court of the women and the court of Israel (it is uncertain which one) had been given by one Nicanor and was of fine Corinthian bronze. It was sometimes called “the gate beautiful” and sometimes “Nicanor’s gate.” It was by this gate, and so near the treasury where people were devoting their money to religion, that Peter and John found the lame man begging (Acts 3:2, f.).
Outside all these courts lay the court of the Gentiles. This was separated from the courts described above by a Soreg or ritual wall, which no Gentile might pass. Herod placed inscriptions in Greek at the various gates in this ritual wall, which warned Gentiles on pain of death not to enter. The court of the Gentiles surrounded the other courts on the north, east, and south; it was, however, most extensive on the east and south; (Fig. 257). To obtain a greater area for this court on the south, Herod extended the level of the hill by erecting great arches which supported a pavement. This structure still remains; it is now called “Solomon’s stables”; (Fig. 258). In the Crusading period horses were stabled there. Around the court thus enlarged ran a beautiful colonnade. The pillars for this and for Herod’s palace were quarried from the rock around Jerusalem. One pillar which had a defect and was accordingly never moved from the quarry was found a few years since in front of the Russian cathedral north of the city.
Although the temple has passed away and other sacred buildings have since the second century been erected in succession near its site, the expanse of the court of the Gentiles remains, and as the devout Christian visits it he seems almost to hear the footfalls of Christ and of Paul!
=18. The Pool of Bethesda.=--Another spot connected with the life of Christ lay not far from the temple on the north; it was the Pool of Bethesda. It was situated near the Sheep Gate, which was just northeast of the temple. Since the thirteenth century the Birket Israin[294] which lies between the temple area and the modern St. Stephen’s Gate has been identified by some with Bethesda. Since 1889 it has been thought by many that two pools discovered in that year, now far under ground, in the land of the Church of St. Anne, just north of St. Stephen’s Gate, constituted the Pool of Bethesda; (see Fig. 259). It is really impossible to decide between the two possibilities on the evidence we have. Both are in the region where we should look for the Pool of Bethesda.
=19. Gethsemane.=--Two other spots near Jerusalem are of the deepest interest to the Christian student--the Garden of Gethsemane and Golgotha. The fact is certain that the Garden of Gethsemane lay on the western slope of the Mount of Olives. (See Luke 22:39; John 18:1; Mark 14:26, 32.) Since the sixteenth century the Roman Catholics have shown a little garden, which lies just above the Kidron, as the Garden of Gethsemane. More recently the Russian Church has walled in the space next above it as the real garden. There is no certainty that the garden was on either site. To the Jews of the first century a garden was not a place for flower-beds, but an olive orchard, and such an orchard may have extended widely over the hillside. We cannot now identify the spot made sacred by the Master’s agony, but we know as we look at this hillside that it was somewhere on it.
=20. Calvary.=--The site of Calvary or Golgotha is not so easily discerned. Since the year 326 A. D., when Helena, the mother of the Emperor Constantine, visited Jerusalem, there has been a continuous tradition in favor of the site on which the Church of the Holy Sepulcher stands. We know from Hebrews 13:12 that the crucifixion took place outside the city walls. Unfortunately, we cannot tell whether the second wall of this period ran north or south of the spot on which the Church of the Holy Sepulcher stands, for the whole region lies under the modern city, where excavation has been impossible. If the second wall turned eastward before it had gone as far north as this spot, it may well be that the crucifixion occurred where the church now stands. Pilate condemned Jesus at the palace of Herod near the gate Gennath at the northwest corner of the city of that day. Doubtless the mob swept along with Jesus through the gate Gennath to the spot called Golgotha. If the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was on that spot, the walk was not a long one; (see Fig. 260).
In 1849 Otto Thenius suggested that the hill north of the modern Damascus Gate above “Jeremiah’s Grotto” was the real Golgotha; (Figs. 261, 262). This was also suggested by Fisher Howe in 1871, and advocated by Gen. C. E. Gordon in 1881. Near it is a garden in which is a rock-hewn tomb; (Figs. 263, 264). Since the days of Gordon a kind of Protestant tradition and cult has grown up about this spot that in certain quarters evokes some of the devotion called forth among Catholics and Oriental Christians by the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. It must be said that the tomb in the garden is, like many similar tombs in the neighborhood, probably not earlier than the third or fourth century A. D., and there is really no more reason for regarding this spot as Golgotha than any other hill-top near the city. The exact spot where our Lord suffered is not certainly known.
Ecclesiastical tradition has fixed upon many other spots in Jerusalem as the places where certain events in the life of Christ occurred, but none of these has a sufficient degree of probability in its favor to merit a mention in an archæological work.
=21. Agrippa I and the Third Wall.=--In the reign of Herod Agrippa I (41-44 A. D.), Jerusalem was again enlarged. Agrippa built a third wall on the north. Its course is described by Josephus,[295] but as most of the landmarks mentioned by him are unknown, opinions differ as to its course. It is certain that it started at the tower Hippacus and went northward to the tower Psephinus, that it enclosed the hill Bezetha, and that it ran along the edge of the Kidron valley to join the old wall. Some scholars suppose that it ran about on the line of the present northern Turkish wall of the city; others, as Robinson and Merrill, thought it ran much further north so that its northeastern corner was near the “Tombs of the Kings.” While there is not decisive evidence in the matter, the first view, that the third wall ran near the line of the modern wall, seems the more probable. This wall was begun by Agrippa, who did not dare to finish it lest Claudius should suspect him of an intention to rebel. It was, however, completed by the Jews before the last tragic struggle of the years 66-70, and formed one of the features of Jerusalem when Paul made his later visits to the city.
We have not space to follow the fortunes of Jerusalem further. The history of the “Virgin Daughter of Zion” since 70 A. D., when the walls were broken down and the temple destroyed never to be rebuilt, has been no less checkered and tragic than in the centuries that preceded,[296] but the hearts of all Christians as well as of Jews and Mohammedans turn to her with sympathy and affection, because of their debt to the holy men who at various times, from David to Paul, lived in her and walked her streets, and because of her tragic associations with the life and death of One who was more than man.
XIV. THE DECAPOLIS
ORIGIN. DAMASCUS. SCYTHOPOLIS. CITIES EAST OF THE SEA OF GALILEE. GADARA. PELLA AND DION. GERASA. PHILADELPHIA. JESUS IN THE DECAPOLIS.
=1. Origin.=--Three times in the Gospels the Decapolis is mentioned: Matt. 4:25; Mark 5:20 and 7:31. Decapolis is a Greek name and means “the ten city” (region). The ancient writers who mention it agree that it originally consisted of ten cities in which Greek population was dominant and which were federated together. Pliny[297] gives the ten cities as Damascus, Philadelphia, Raphana, Scythopolis, Gadara, Hippos, Dion, Pella, Gerasa, and Kanatha. Ptolemy, the astronomer and geographer, in the second century A. D. enumerated eighteen cities as belonging to it. In the time of Christ it probably consisted of but ten. The Decapolis apparently was created by the Roman General Pompey, when he conquered this region for Rome in 65-63 B. C. These cities with Greek populations appear to have appealed to him and he granted them certain privileges, including a degree of autonomy. They were, however, subject to the Legate of Syria. Hippos, Scythopolis, and Pella were released by him at this time from the Jewish yoke.[298] Josephus, at the end of the first century A. D., does not reckon Damascus in the Decapolis, but before the time of Paul, Damascus had been captured by the Nabathæans or Arabians, and may not, when retaken by Rome, have been again accorded the privileges of the cities of the Decapolis.
=2. Damascus=, which is mentioned in the annals of Thothmes III before 1447 B. C., and in the accounts of Abraham (Gen. 14:15; 15:2), has been continuously in existence as a city ever since, and is one of the most flourishing cities of Syria at the present time. It was occupied in the thirteenth or fourteenth century B. C. by Aramæans who held it all through the Old Testament period. Kings of Damascus frequently fought with Israel. From the time of Alexander the Great it came under Hellenic influences. After his death it was first possessed by the Ptolemies of Egypt, but was taken by the Seleucid kings of Antioch before 261 B. C. It is situated in one of the most fertile oases of the world--an oasis that Arabian poets delighted to compare to Paradise. Probably Alexander’s successors, who, as we shall see, built many Hellenic cities, beautified this oasis with one of them, but as the site has been occupied continuously, no buildings from this time remain. One feature at Damascus that still recalls Biblical times is the street called Straight, which runs westward from the eastern gate into the heart of the city. It was in a house on the ancient forerunner of this street that Paul first lodged at the time of his conversion (Acts 9:11); (see Fig. 265).
One other part of Damascus recalls a Biblical narrative. This is the river Barada which still runs through the heart of the city. It is the river called Abana in 2 Kings 5:12, and was said by Naaman to be “better than all the waters of Israel”; (see Fig. 266).
=3. Scythopolis= was the only one of the cities of the Decapolis west of the Jordan. It was on the site of the Beth-shean of the Old Testament (Josh. 17:11; 1 Sam. 31:10, 12; 2 Sam. 21:12; 1 Kings 4:12). Beth-shean was already a city at the time Palestine was conquered by Thothmes III[299] and there has apparently been a town near this spot ever since. It seems to have been called Scythopolis by the successors of Alexander the Great, probably because a group of Scythians had taken the city and settled there. When it came into the possession of Scythians we can only conjecture, but it was probably at the time of the great Scythian invasion of Palestine, about 625-615 B. C. This invasion called forth the dark prophecies of the book of Zephaniah. Scythopolis appears from certain coins[300] to have become a Hellenic city in the time of Alexander the Great. In the time of Ptolemy Euergetes I, 247-222 B. C., it was subject to Egypt,[301] but it passed to the dominions of the Seleucidæ of Antioch in 198 B. C. Upon the break-up of the Syrian empire in 65-63 B. C., Pompey made it one of the cities of the Decapolis.
The remains of the Hellenic city have now entirely disappeared with the exception of the great stone amphitheater. This may still be seen[302] in the valley on the south side of the mound which covers the ruins of the ancient Beth-shean, where it is overgrown with briers. The name Scythopolis has long since disappeared, and the old Hebrew name for the place still survives in the name of the modern town Beisan. This modern town is situated on the south side of the valley mentioned above, a little distance from the mound which covers the ancient city. Scythopolis was situated at the point where the plain of Jezreel or Esdraelon joins the Jordan valley. In the time of Christ the Jews from Nazareth and its vicinity, when going to the three annual festivals at Jerusalem, came down the plain and then followed the Jordan valley down to Jericho (see Luke 19:1), in order to avoid going through Samaria. From the time that Jesus was twelve years old he must, therefore, have often passed by Scythopolis on his way to Jerusalem. As it was a Gentile town, however, neither he nor his companions would enter it on such occasions, as they would thereby be rendered unclean.
=4. Cities East of the Sea of Galilee.=--To the east of the Sea of Galilee lay three of the cities of the Decapolis. Hippos was comparatively near the sea, where Susiye now lies. The Jews of the Talmudic period called the place Susitha.[303] Hippos is the Greek for horse. Susitha is a Hebrew translation of this and Susiye is an Arabic corruption of the Hebrew. All traces of the ancient Hippos except the name have disappeared.
Where Raphana was situated has not yet been definitely determined. It is probably the same as Raphon mentioned in 1 Macc. 5:37, which was near to Ashteroth-karnaim[304] (Gen. 14:5). Ashteroth-karnaim was situated either at Tell Ashtara or at Tell Ashary, both of which are between twenty and twenty-five miles east of the Sea of Galilee. Raphana, then, probably lay about twenty miles due east from Hippos.
Still eastward of this lay the city of Kanatha, though scholars are divided in opinion as to whether its site is to be identified with El-Kerak or with Kanawat. If its site was at El-Kerak it was about forty miles east of the Sea of Galilee; if at Kanawat it was about fifty-five miles distant from the sea. As there are at Kanawat abundant ruins of a beautiful Hellenic city,[305] Kanatha was probably situated here rather than at El-Kerak. This was the Kenath of Num. 32:42.
=5. Gadara.=--A little to the south of the southern end of the Sea of Galilee on the east of the Jordan and south of the Yarmuk lay the city of Gadara, another member of the Decapolis. Its site is now marked by the ruins of Umm Keis or Mukês. Here ruins of the Hellenic city are still to be seen, including a great theater cut out of the black basaltic rock. Gadara was a strong fortress as early as the time of Antiochus the Great in 218 B. C.,[306] and was afterward besieged by Alexander Jannæus,[307] 104-79 B. C.
=6. Pella and Dion.=--On the east of the Jordan, a little further south than Scythopolis or Beth-shean, but in the deep depression of the river valley, Pella, another city of the Decapolis, was situated. The site now bears the name Fahl. The city is mentioned in the list of Thothmes III, 1503-1447 B. C., as Pahul. Pella is a Greek form of this name. The Greek city of Pella is said by Stephen of Byzantium[308] to have been founded by Alexander the Great. In the Talmud it is called Pahal,[309] and the modern name Fahl is an Arabian form of this. Extensive ruins of the Hellenic city are still visible at Fahl.[310]
Dion is also said to have been founded by Alexander the Great and was apparently not far from Pella. It is thought by Merrill[311] and G. A. Smith to have been situated on the site of the modern Eidun, about twenty miles east of Pella, though this is doubted by others.[312] If Dion was at this point few, if any, antiquities remain to bear witness to the fact.
=7. Gerasa=, the modern Jerash, lay on one of the tributaries of the Jabbok about fifty miles southeast of Pella. We do not know what the name of the place was in Old Testament times. It is first mentioned in the time of Alexander Jannæus (104-79 B. C.).[313] It was then called Gerasa and was probably already at that time a Hellenic city. By whom it was built, we do not know, but it was probably one of the early Ptolemies of Egypt. From 100 B. C. till the Mohammedan conquest in 637 A. D., it flourished as a beautiful city, and later it was a city of some importance. It probably was overtaken by some calamity and the site of the Hellenic city abandoned soon after the year 637, as there are no Arabic remains above the Græco-Roman material. In the year 1121 Baldwin II, of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, made a campaign against Gerasa, where the ruler of Damascus had caused a castle to be built. In the next century the Arabian geographer, Yakut, describes it as deserted. It appears to have been ruined by an earthquake.
Apparently the Hellenic city at Gerasa lasted longer than any of the other cities of the Decapolis unless it be Kanatha. One can, accordingly, gain from the ruins of Gerasa an excellent idea of the general appearance of one of these cities.[314] The writer has never seen more beautiful ruins than those at Jerash except the ruins at Athens. As one approached the site from the south he faced a beautiful arched gateway. After passing this gateway one looked northward down a long colonnaded street, which at a little distance from the gate broadened out into a circular forum. At distances approximately equal from one another this main street was crossed by other colonnaded streets. A number of these columns are standing in different parts of the town. The remains of two imposing temples, of two theaters, of a large Christian basilica, and of various other buildings, impress one with the former glory of the city. A number of the buildings at Gerasa were built in the second century A. D. in the reign of the Antonines; (see Figs. 268, 269).
=8. Philadelphia=, the most southerly of the cities of the Decapolis, was on the site of Rabbah Ammon (Deut. 3:11; Josh. 13:25; 2 Sam. 11:1, etc.). This was situated on the upper Jabbok about twenty miles east of the Jordan valley, where Amman now lies. The Hellenic city here was built by Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt, who reigned from 283-247 B. C. It was named Philadelphia from him. In 218 B. C. the city was taken by Antiochus III, who captured the cistern to which in time of siege the Philadelphians went for water by an underground passage,[315] after which thirst compelled them to surrender. Joab centuries before had captured the city for David by the same method,[316] and in 30 B. C. Herod the Great again took it in the same way.[317] The remains of the Hellenic temple, of the theater, and of other buildings, including a Christian basilica, are still to be seen at Amman.[318] In the fourth century A. D. Philadelphia was one of the prominent cities of the Roman province of Arabia; (see Figs. 270, 271).
These cities of the Decapolis appear to have been built on a similar plan. Each had a colonnaded street through the center of the town, each had at least one temple and one theater, and some of them more. All were architecturally beautiful. They all possessed a similar government also, and each appears to have controlled the villages in its district.
=9. Jesus in the Decapolis.=--The prevailing influences in the Decapolis were pagan, and yet there were Jews living in it, for multitudes of them from the Decapolis followed Jesus (Matt. 4:25). On at least two occasions our Lord himself went into the territory of the Decapolis. We read in Mark 5:1 that Jesus and his disciples “came to the other side of the sea to the country of the Gerasenes.” The Authorized Version reads “to the country of the Gadarenes.” The country to which Jesus came at this time cannot have been that of the Decapolitan city Gerasa, for, as we have seen, that lay far to the south. It was in a direct line nearly fifty miles from the Sea of Galilee. Neither can it have been to the region of Gadara that he came, for Gadara lay at least five miles to the south across the deep valley of the Yarmuk. There was, however, on the east shore of the Sea of Galilee a town called Gergesa, the modern Kursi. This place was near the city of Hippos, and possibly one of the towns subordinate to Hippos. As Jesus and the disciples walked back from the sea they met the demoniac, whom Jesus healed. It was in connection with this healing that the herd of swine was destroyed--an incident that could happen in no part of Palestine except Decapolis or Philistia, for swine were unclean to Jews and they never kept them. The demoniac, when cured, went and preached Jesus in the Decapolis (Mark 5:20).
Again, toward the end of the ministry of Jesus, after he had withdrawn for a time to Phœnicia, he returned by crossing the high lands of northern Galilee and coming down east of the Jordan “through the midst of the borders of Decapolis” (Mark 7:31).
XV. ATHENS, CORINTH, AND THE CHURCHES OF ASIA
ATHENS. CORINTH. THE CHURCHES OF ASIA: Ephesus. Pergamum. Thyatira. Sardis. Philadelphia. Smyrna. Laodicea.
The greater part of Biblical history was enacted in Palestine and the great valleys of Mesopotamia and the Nile. The Apostle Paul, however, broke the Jewish bonds of primitive Christianity and carried the Gospel to the coasts of the Ægean Sea. In cities of this region he spent years of his active missionary life; to churches of this region most of his epistles were sent, and to churches of this part of the world the seven messages to the churches were addressed. We cannot, therefore, conclude this sketch of what archæology has done to throw light upon the Bible without saying a few words concerning exploration and excavations in certain parts of Greece and Asia Minor. It will be impossible for lack of space to go thoroughly into the history of this region, but as these lands were not, like Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, and Palestine, closely connected with Biblical history for a long period, detailed history of them before the Apostolic age will not be missed by the student of the Bible.
The results of scattered discoveries at Thessalonica and elsewhere will be presented in Part II, Chapter XXVII. At this point attention will be directed to a few important cities.
=1. Athens=, the chief city of Attica, one of the least productive parts of Greece, is the far-famed mistress of the world’s culture and art. Emerging from obscurity in the seventh century before Christ, gaining a position of leadership in the Persian wars after 500 B. C., Athens established a considerable empire. In this period fell the age of Pericles, 460-429 B. C., when the artistic and literary genius of Athens reached a height never equaled in human history. Socrates was born here in 469 and lived till 399 B. C. Here Plato, who was born about 428, became a pupil of Socrates and afterward taught. Hither came Aristotle, after the year 367, to sit at Plato’s feet. Here from the age of Pericles the acropolis was crowned with those architectural creations that are at once the admiration and the despair of the world; (see Fig. 277). It stirs the imagination to think of Paul in such a city.
In the time of Paul, Athens was a Roman city, though still one of the great artistic and philosophical centers of the world. At a little distance from the acropolis on its northern side, a forum of the Roman period was laid bare in 1891; (see Fig. 272). Possibly this is the market-place in which Paul, during his stay there, reasoned every day with them that met him (Acts 17:17), though of this we cannot be certain, for, while this was a market-place in the Roman period, the older market of the Athenian people lay to the westward of it.
To the west of the acropolis lies the old Areopagus, or Mars’ Hill (Fig. 273), from which it was long supposed that Paul made the address recorded in Acts 17:22-31. Ramsay,[319] following Curtius, has made it probable that the address was delivered to the city-fathers of Athens, not because they were putting Paul to a judicial trial, but because they wished to see whether he was to be allowed to teach Christianity, which they took for a new philosophy, in the university of Athens--for Athens itself was a kind of university. It seems probable that the meetings of the city-fathers, who were collectively called the Areopagus (Acts 17:22), were held not on the top of the rock, but in the market-place. The Athenian altar “to an unknown god” is treated in Part II, Chapter XXVII, § 2.
=2. Corinth.=--From Athens, Paul went to Corinth, where he spent a year and a half (Acts 18:1, 11). Corinth was one of the old cities of Greece. In Homeric and earlier times it appears to have been subject to Argos. Situated on the isthmus between northern Greece and the Peloponnesus, the sea-trade of Corinth made it an important city. It rose to prominence in the seventh century before Christ. At some early time foreigners from the east, probably Phœnicians, had settled in Corinth and established the worship of the Semitic goddess Astarte on Acro-Corinthus, a hill that rises some five hundred feet above the city. The goddess was here known as Aphrodite,[320] and the debasing character of her worship tended to foster that lack of sensitiveness in matters of social morality with which Paul deals in his First Epistle to the Corinthians. The trade of Corinth made it rich and its riches excited the enmity of Rome. It was accordingly destroyed by the Romans in 146 B. C., but a century later was rebuilt by Julius Cæsar. Ancient Corinth has now entirely vanished.
Excavations were begun at Corinth by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens in 1896 under the direction of the late Prof. Rufus B. Richardson. The work has been carried forward season by season ever since.[321] Although there were no topographical indications to help the excavators at the start, the theater, the Agora or market-place, a Roman street, the road to Lechæum, and the temple of Apollo have been discovered; (Figs. 274, 276).
Of greatest interest to the student of the Bible is a stone discovered in 1898 on the Lechæum road near the propylæa, or gateway leading to the market-place. This stone once formed the lintel of a door and bore an inscription in Greek letters. Although the beginning and the end of the two words written on it are broken away, it is clear that the inscription was “Synagogue of the Hebrews.”[322] The cutting of the letters was poorly done, and the block was a second-hand one, adapted from some other use. It seems probable, therefore, that the Jewish community at Corinth was not wealthy. The block was of considerable size and so was probably found not far from where the synagogue stood. If so, this synagogue, which is probably identical with the one in which Paul preached (Acts 18:4), stood on the Lechæum road not far from the market-place. Other discoveries in the neighborhood indicate that this was a residence quarter of the city, and we learn from Acts 18:7 that the house of Titus Justus, where apparently Paul organized the first church in Corinth, “joined hard to the synagogue.” The house of Justus must, then, have been here, and the Lechæum road often echoed to the footsteps of Paul. Probably the judgment-seat to which the Jews dragged Paul for the hearing before Gallio (Acts 18:12) was in the market-place, so that the excavations have revealed to us the parts of Corinth of special interest to a reader of the Bible.
=3. The Churches of Asia.=
(1) Ephesus was situated on the Cayster river in western Asia Minor, about three miles from the sea, but in ancient times the sea was navigable up as far as the city. Cities which form the point of contact between land and sea traffic become in most countries populous and wealthy. In western Asia Minor four cities, situated at the mouths of the four river valleys through which caravans could proceed into the interior, became populous and important. These were Miletus (see Acts 20:15, 17, f.) at the mouth of the Mæander, Ephesus at the mouth of the Cayster, Smyrna at the mouth of the Hermus, and Pergamum on the Caicus. In the earliest times known to us Ephesus was eclipsed in importance by Miletus, but before the beginning of the Christian era Ephesus had outstripped her rival. This was due to several causes, one of which was the partial silting up of the harbor of Miletus. In Roman times Ephesus lay on the great line of communication between Rome and the East in general.[323] In later centuries the harbor of Ephesus was in its turn silted up, and the site is now deserted except for a neighboring wretched Turkish village.
In Homer’s Iliad[324] the Carians are called the “barbarous-speaking Carians.” This would indicate that they were not Greek, and it is thought by some that they may at this time have been of Hittite stock. Miletus was in Caria, and at that time Ephesus also. It is certain that the earliest inhabitants of Ephesus were not Greek, but of Asiatic origin. They established here, either on a mountain top about five miles from the sea, just above the modern railway station of Ayassuluk, or on a mountain a little to the south, the worship of an Asiatic goddess, probably Hittite. Later, in the seventh century before Christ, the Ionian Greeks came and settled among the Asiatics. They identified the goddess with their own Artemis (Authorized Version, Diana), and moved her temple down into the plain,[325] where it continued to stand far into Christian times. In the sixth century B. C. Ephesus was conquered by the Lydians, and then by the Persians. In later centuries it passed under the control of Alexander the Great, of the Seleucidæ of Syria, and of the kings of Pergamum. In 133 B. C. it passed with the rest of the kingdom of Pergamum into the hands of Rome and became a part of the Roman Province of Asia. Because of its situation it quickly became the most important city of the province. It was noted for its wealth and its commerce. Rome became the patron of Hellenic culture in the East, so Ephesus was, of course, made an architecturally beautiful city.
At first Pergamum was the capital of the Province of Asia. In the second and third centuries of the Christian era Ephesus had become the capital. Buchner[326] thinks that this transfer was made in the reign of Claudius, 41-54 A. D. If this were true, Ephesus was the capital of the province at the time of Paul’s residence there, but there is considerable doubt about the facts, and in the beginning of the second century A. D. Pergamum still ranked as the official capital.[327]
The temple of Artemis lay about two miles to the northeast of the ancient city. Its site was determined in 1869 by the English explorer, J. T. Wood, who partially excavated it (1869-1874).[328] Wood brought to light various marble fragments which are preserved in the British Museum, but he was more interested in making conjectural restorations of the temple than in telling what he found. As he was not an expert in ancient architecture his work is, accordingly, unsatisfactory. In 1904-1905, the British Museum employed Mr. Hogarth to complete the excavation of the site. Hogarth carried the excavation down to the virgin soil, and, being a skilled archæologist, he was able to reconstruct the history of the building.[329]
There seems to have been a small tree shrine on the site of the temple before the Ionians came. Between the seventh century and the fifth, three different structures were erected on the spot. The last of these was called the temple of Crœsus, because this king of Lydia presented some beautiful columns to it, though the structure was not completed till a century after his time, or 430 B. C. This structure was burned in 356 B. C. on the night that Alexander the Great was born. Later a larger temple, 425 by 220 feet, was built on the site, with the help of contributions from the whole of Asia. This was standing until long after Paul’s time. It was very beautiful. Some of the porphyry columns now in Santa Sophia at Constantinople are said to have been taken from it. It has been thought by some that this beautiful temple suggested to Paul his figure in 1 Cor. 3:10-17, since the words were written from Ephesus.
This temple was venerated over all of western Asia Minor. To it came many pilgrims every year, to whom Ephesian silversmiths sold little replicas of the temple. It was because Christianity became so popular through the preaching of Paul that the profitable sale of these shrines was interfered with, that the riot in Ephesus occurred as described in Acts 19:23-41.
Before Mr. Wood had discovered the site of the temple he had discovered the theater within the limits of the ancient city. This has been examined more thoroughly by the Austrian, Dr. Wiberg, who, beginning in 1894, conducted excavations at Ephesus for many years. All the lower parts of this theater still remain (see Figs. 280, 281) and bring vividly to the imagination the assembly held in it on the occasion of the riot just referred to. (See Acts 19:29-41.) The Austrians have also laid bare a considerable part of the central street of the Ephesus of Roman times; (see Fig. 278).
A little to the north of the theater is the ancient stadium. Some scholars think that when Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:32, “If after the manner of men I fought with beasts at Ephesus,” he is speaking of an incident that literally occurred, and suppose that he was actually condemned to be thrown to the beasts in the stadium, to make a spectacle for the Ephesian populace, and that in some way he escaped alive. It is possible that this may be true. If so, this stadium (see Fig. 282) presents to the eye a spot which is of great interest to every Christian.
Ephesus, as the mother-church of the churches of Asia, is the first one to which in the book of Revelation a letter is addressed. By the time Revelation was written the first glow of Christian enthusiasm had worn off, gnostic heresy had found a place in the Church, and its “first love” was gone.
(2) Pergamum, the modern Bergama, lay in the valley of the Caicus in Mysia, about fifteen miles from the sea. The city was built on a hill about three miles north of the river. It was apparently a place of some importance at a comparatively early date, but its chief importance began with the reign of Philetærus, who made it an independent kingdom and ruled it from 284-263 B. C. Philetærus had been a trusted servant of Lysimachus, King of Thrace, one of the trusted generals of Alexander the Great. Under the dynasty founded by Philetærus, Pergamum became one of the chief seats of Hellenic culture. Eumenes I (263-241 B. C.) endeavored to make Pergamum a rival of Alexandria as a literary center, and when the king of Egypt forbade the exportation of papyrus in order to check the literary aspirations of Pergamum, the servants of Eumenes invented a prepared kind of skin on which to write. It was called pergamena, but time has corrupted it to “parchment.”
In the course of the second century before Christ the kingdom of Pergamum included all of western Asia Minor north of the Taurus. When in 133 B. C. Attalus III, the last of the kings of Pergamum, died, he left his kingdom by will to the Roman republic, with which Pergamum had long been in alliance. Rome thus came into possession of her Province of Asia, the first of her Oriental provinces. Pergamum was its capital, certainly until the reign of Claudius, and probably until the second century A. D. The Romans regarded themselves as the patrons of Hellenic culture in the East and for centuries kept Pergamum the beautiful city which the Pergamene kings had made it. Bergama, the squalid modern Turkish city, lies apart from the splendid ruins of the ancient town; (see Fig. 283).
More than thirty years ago the Germans began to explore and to excavate at Pergamum,[330] and the Museum at Berlin is enriched with many beautiful objects found there. The visitor to Pergamum may still see, however, the great gymnasium with many graceful columns still standing. Above it, on a higher slope, are the sites of theaters and temples, and the great altar of Zeus. Farther up the hill stood the temple of Athenæ Polias, which was also a library, and above this the temple of Rome and of Augustus.
In Rev. 2:13 the church at Pergamum is said to dwell where “Satan’s throne is.” Interpreters have been divided in opinion as to whether this is a reference to the worship of Æsculapius, or to the presence of the great throne-like altar of Zeus, or to the fact that Pergamum was the seat of the worship of the Roman emperor.[331] On the whole, it seems probable that “Satan’s throne” is a reference to the fact that Pergamum was the seat of the government and of the worship of the emperor of Rome. When Augustus inaugurated emperor-worship in order to give the empire a bond of common sentiment, the first temple of the cult was erected at Pergamum. This was in 29 B. C. Under Vespasian and his successors it became a test of one’s Christianity whether he would or would not[332] offer incense to the statue of the emperor, and Christians were often persecuted because they would not. It is probable that in the remains of the temple to the emperor archæologists have brought to light Satan’s throne. If, however, that throne were the altar of Zeus, it has nevertheless been brought to light.
(3) Thyatira, the modern Ak-Hissar, lay in a valley which joined the valley of the Hermus to the valley of the Caicus. The general direction of this valley was north and south. It was made an important city by Seleucus I of Syria (312-282 B. C.) in the latter part of his reign. Before this it had been an obscure village. Josephus declares[333] that Seleucus made Jews citizens of the cities which he founded in Asia, and apparently Thyatira was one of these, for there appears to have been a flourishing Jewish colony there. A little later than Seleucus, Thyatira became a city of Pergamum, and passed in 133 B. C. with the territories of that realm under the dominion of Rome. Thyatira was noted for its dyeing. Madder root, with which they dyed a Turkey-red, grows abundantly in the neighborhood.[334] As the ancients employed the names of colors with great laxity, this was often termed purple. Lydia, an enterprising seller of this purple, a Jewess from Thyatira, was present at Philippi when Paul and Silas preached there (Acts 16:14). Lydia was converted, and perhaps it was she who carried the Gospel back to Thyatira. Nothing has been discovered at Thyatira that throws light on the message to its church in Rev. 2:18-29.
(4) Sardis was one of the oldest cities of western Asia. It is situated on the south side of the great valley of the Hermus, just at the point where the river Pactolus issues from the Tmolus mountains. Pottery found in the course of excavations there carries its history back to sub-Mycenæan, if not to Mycenæan, times.[335] It was the seat of the worship of Atys or Cybele, a goddess that seems to have been kindred to the mother-goddess of the Hittites. It is probable that, could we penetrate back far enough, we should find that the place was once occupied by Hittites. Herodotus traces the descent of the first dynasty that ruled over the country to the goddess just mentioned.[336] Following this dynasty was, he says, another of twenty-one kings who ruled before the dynasty founded by Gyges. The Lydian kingdom of which we know began with Gyges in 697 B. C. and ended with Crœsus in 546 B. C. Lydian inscriptions found at Sardis are written in the same alphabet as Etruscan inscriptions found in Italy. This indicates that the Lydians and Etruscans were closely akin, but, as the inscriptions have not yet been deciphered, they do not throw much light on either people.[337] It is possible that both peoples were related to the Hittites, but that is at present only a hypothesis.
The mountains to the south of Sardis are composed largely of gravel deposits left there by the melting of the glaciers at the end of the last glacial period. From these gravels the Pactolus brought down gold in ancient times. This was one of the sources of the wealth of the Lydian kings, and contributed to those riches which are still celebrated in the saying: “As rich as Crœsus.”
The Lydian kingdom fell when Cyrus captured Sardis in 546 B. C. With the fall of the Persian empire the city passed into the hands of Alexander the Great, and subsequently into the hands of his general, Antigonous, then to the Seleucidæ of Syria, then to the kings of Pergamum, and so to the dominion of Rome.
In 17 A. D. Sardis was shaken by a great earthquake which nearly destroyed the city. A mass of gravel and conglomerate rock was then hurled from the hill of the Acropolis of Sardis down into the city toward the temple, where the work of the excavator shows that it still lies.[338] A part of the city must have been buried under it. The city recovered from this disaster and by the end of the first century a Christian church existed there (Rev. 3:1-6). Sardis continued to be a city of importance until 1400-1403 A. D., when the Tartar conqueror, Timur or Tamerlane, swept over the country destroying everything before him. From this destruction Sardis never recovered. Two or three tiny wretched Turkish villages are now all that occupy the spot.[339]
The Acropolis of Sardis was composed of gravel and a comparatively soft conglomerate rock. It looks imposing and in ancient times looked far more imposing than now. It has been gradually crumbling away through the centuries. Ramsay thinks that this instability on the part of the city itself is alluded to in the words, “thou hast a name that thou livest, and thou art dead” and in the exhortation to be watchful and to strengthen the things that remain, which follows it (Rev. 3:1, 2); (see Fig. 284).
Excavations were begun at Sardis by Princeton University under the direction of Prof. Howard Crosby Butler in 1909, and the digging continued for five seasons until interrupted by the great war.[340] The work began at the point where two columns of the ancient temple of Cybele were still protruding from the soil. The temple has been cleared and a considerable area around it has been examined. It appears that the temple was built in the fourth century B. C., that it suffered greatly in the earthquake of 17 A. D., and never was as splendid afterwards, though it was still in use in the second century A. D.[341] Many objects have been discovered which throw light upon the history and art of Lydia, and two bi-lingual inscriptions, one Lydian and Aramaic, the other Lydian and Greek, were found. These may afford the key to the decipherment of both Lydian and Etruscan. Jewelry resembling Etruscan jewelry found in Italy was also discovered.[342]
To the student of the Bible the most interesting discovery at Sardis was a little Christian church built at the southeast corner of the temple.[343] The entrance to this church was from the temple platform itself. The structure was entirely of brick and was in a remarkably good state of preservation. The building had apparently lost only its wooden roof. The apse of the church was toward the east, and still contained its primitive altar. It is uncertain at what date altars became a part of Christian worship. Origen in the third century A. D. admits the charge of Celsus that the Christians had no visible altar,[344] but Eusebius[345] in the next century speaks as though altars existed throughout the Christian world. This church at Sardis was built after the temple of Cybele had fallen into disuse, and even if not earlier than the fourth century of our era, this little structure is evidence that the name of the church had not been blotted out of the book of life (Rev. 3:5), but that it had rather appropriated to itself the once splendid precincts of the ancient heathen goddess.
(5) Philadelphia was situated twenty-eight miles east of Sardis, and lay in the valley of the Cogamis, a tributary of the Hermus. It is still a flourishing city of about 15,000 inhabitants. It is now called Ala-Sheher.[346] It is not to be confounded with the Philadelphia of the Decapolis in Palestine.[347]
Philadelphia was founded by Attalus II, King of Pergamum, 159-138 B. C., who was called Philadelphus because of his devotion to his predecessor and brother, Eumenes II. Hence the city was named Philadelphia. It was founded for the purpose of spreading Hellenism in the eastern part of Lydia, and so was a missionary city from the first. With the other Pergamene territories it became a dependency of Rome in 133 B. C. In 17 A. D. it suffered severely from the same earthquake that destroyed Sardis. Indeed, at Philadelphia the quakings were even more severe. The trembling of the earth lasted for a long time. When Strabo wrote in 20 A. D. earthquake shocks at Philadelphia were an every-day occurrence. Few people lived in the city; most of the inhabitants spent their time outside.[348] Allusion to this is, perhaps, made in Rev. 3:12: “he shall go out thence no more.”
After the earthquake the city appealed to Rome for help. Tiberius granted it and also permitted the city to change its name to Neocæsarea, or the city of the young Cæsar.[349] This, too, seems to be alluded to in Rev. 3:12, where another new name is to be conferred.
At Ala-Sheher a part of the city wall of Philadelphia may still be traced, and the sites of the acropolis, the theater, and the stadium may also be seen, as well as the ruins of an old Christian church.[350]
(6) Smyrna, at the mouth of the Hermus, is one of the very old cities of Asia Minor. A colony of Æolian Greeks founded a city here more than a thousand years before Christ. A little later the place was captured by Ionian Greeks, who held it till about 600 B. C., when it was conquered by the kings of Lydia and destroyed.[351] For three hundred years the name designated a district rather than a city. Lysimachus, the general of Alexander the Great who became king of Thrace (301-282 B. C.), refounded Smyrna as a Greek city about three miles southwest of the old site, and it has continued ever since to be an important seaport of Asia Minor. It passed with the other cities of the region successively under the sway of the kings of Syria, the kings of Pergamum, and of Rome. Smyrna is today one of the largest cities of the East with a population of between two and three hundred thousand.
Smyrna claimed to be the birthplace of Homer. Ælius Aristides (born 117 A. D.), who lived at Smyrna, several times likens the city to a crown, and apparently the crown was in some way associated with Smyrna; (see Fig. 287). The goddess of the place, who was a kind of Cybele, is pictured as wearing a crown.[352] This is, no doubt, the reason why in Rev. 2:10 a crown of life is promised to the church of Smyrna if she is faithful. No excavations have been made at Smyrna, but above the city the tomb of Polycarp,[353] said in tradition to have been a disciple of the Apostle John, is shown. Polycarp was martyred in 155 A. D. in one of those times of tribulation predicted in Rev. 2:10.
(7) Laodicea is situated a hundred miles east of Ephesus, in the valley of the Lycus, where the Lycus empties into the Mæander. It was founded by Antiochus II of Syria, 261-246 B. C.,[354] and named for his wife. Like Philadelphia, it was designed to be a missionary of Hellenism to the country of the region. Like the other Hellenic cities it was beautified with temples, theaters, and colonnaded streets. Later Laodicea passed under the control of Pergamum, and with that kingdom fell to Rome in 133 B. C. An influential element in its population was Jewish, and before Paul’s imprisonment in Rome a Christian church had been founded there (Col. 4:13). The city of Laodicea appears to have been devoted to commerce and to material things. In Rev. 3:15 its church is said to have been lukewarm. Except that its lukewarmness may have come from its commercial spirit, there is nothing in the history or archæology of the city that illustrates the letter[355] to it in Rev. 3:14-22.
The site of Laodicea is now almost deserted. Only the wretched Turkish village of Eski Hissar represents habitation, but hundreds of acres are covered with the ruins of the once splendid city. For hundreds of years the villagers of neighboring hamlets have used the place as a quarry, but nevertheless its ruins are impressive. Two theaters are in a fairly good state of preservation; the seats are still in place.[356] The stadium is in a similar condition of preservation. Its aqueduct and its gates are still imposing in their dilapidation, but the desolation of Laodicea recalls the words: “I will spew thee out of my mouth” (Rev. 3:16); (see Fig. 288).
Part II
TRANSLATIONS OF ANCIENT DOCUMENTS WHICH CONFIRM OR ILLUMINATE THE BIBLE
Foreword
As noted in the Preface, the inferences drawn by different scholars, when they compare the Bible with the records brought to light by exploration, diverge according as their critical and theological views differ. In the comments made throughout Part II, as in Part I, the writer has endeavored to maintain a neutral attitude and impartially to report in each case the principal inferences drawn by the most important groups of scholars, that the reader may know something of the latitude of opinion that prevails. To have recorded every opinion would have expanded the work far beyond the limits prescribed, and would have burdened the reader with many views that are mere vagaries. The temptation is always strong to declare that the interpretation of an ancient record which accords with one’s own views must be right, but unfortunately problems in ancient history that are thus dogmatically settled do not remain settled. A deeper faith, confident in the ultimate triumph of truth, patiently awaits further light.
Chapter I
AN EPIC OF THE CREATION WHICH CIRCULATED IN BABYLON AND ASSYRIA IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY BEFORE CHRIST[357]
TEXT OF THE EPIC. COMPARISON OF THE EPIC WITH THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. THE EPIC AND OTHER PARTS OF THE BIBLE.
=I. Text of the Epic.=
Tablet I
1. Time was when above heaven was not named
2. Below to the earth no name was given.
3. Then the primeval Abyss their begetter,
4. The roaring Sea who bore them,--
5. Their waters together were mingled;
6. No field had been formed, no marshland seen.
7. Time was when gods had not been made,
8. No name was named, no destiny [determined];
9. Then were created the gods in the midst [of heaven].
10. Lakhmu and Lakhamu were formed [together].
11. Ages multiplied, .......................
12. Anshar and Kishar were created, and over them ......
13. Days were prolonged, there came forth ......
14. Anu, their son ...................................
15. Anshar and Anu ...................................
16. And the god Anu ..................................
17. Nudimmud whose fathers, his begetters ....................
18. Abounding in wisdom, understanding ...............
19. He was strong exceedingly ................................
20. And he had no rival ......................................
21. They were established and ................................
22. In confusion were T[iâmat and Apsu][358] ...................
23. They were troubled .................................
24. In sin (?) .........................................
25. Apsu was not diminished ............................
26. Tiâmat roared ......................................
27. She smote and their deeds ..........................
28. Their way was not good; they themselves prospered.
29. Then Apsu, the begetter of the great gods,
30. Cried to Mummu, his minister, and said,
31. O Mummu, my minister, who delightest my heart,
32. Come, unto Tiâmat [let us go].
33. They went, before Tiâmat they lay down,
34. A plan they formed against the gods [their offspring].
35. [Apsu] opened his mouth, [he said to her],
36. Unto Tiâmat, the brilliant, a word he spoke:
37. “[Intolerable to me] is their advancement,
38. By day I have no rest, at night, no peace.
39. But I will destroy their way, an end will I make.
40. Let there be a cry, then we may be at peace!”
41. When Tiâmat heard these words,
42. She was angry and spoke against them [a curse];
43. [She was] grievously [pained] she raged ....................
44. A curse she let fall, unto [Apsu she spoke]:
45. “What are we that we [should perish]!
46. Let their way become difficult.” ...........................
47. Mummu answered, Apsu [he counseled]
48. .... not favorable was the counsel of the Roarer:
49. “Their way is strong, but do thou confound [it],
50. By day thou shalt be calm, by night thou shalt lie down.”
51. Apsu heard and his face brightened,
52. [Since] he planned evil against the gods, his sons,
53. ............... [clasped his neck],
54. [He took him on] his knees and kissed him.
55. [They undertook the evil which] together they had planned.
56. .................................. they ....................
57. ............................................................
58. A cry; a cry ........ in stillness they sat
59. ............................................................
60. Ea the wise went up, he saw their horrors (?),
(More than thirty lines here are too broken for connected translation.)
93. ....................... thy ......... they subjugated,
94. ....................... weeps (?) and sits wailing.
95. .................................. of fear,
96. ..................... not shall we ourselves rest.
97. ......................... Apsu laid waste,
98. He and Mummu who were bound in ............
99. .................. quickly thou shalt go
100. ....................... we ourselves may rest.
101. ..........................................................
102. ..................... we ourselves may rest.
103. ..................... their mercy avenge!
104. ................................ to the storm .............
105. ..................... the word of the bright god,
106. .................. what thou givest, we will indeed do!
107. ..................... the gods in .........................
108. ............................... the gods [she] created.
109. They separated themselves, to the side of Tiâmat they came;
110. They raged, they planned, they rested not night or day.
111. They prepared for battle, fuming, raging;
112. Their assemblage was formed and they began war.
113. Mother Khubur, who formed all things,
114. Made unrivaled weapons, spawned great serpents,
115. Sharp of tooth, unsparing of fang;
116. With poison instead of blood their bodies she filled.
117. Fierce dragons with terror she clothed,
118. Luster she made abundant, to loftiness made them equal.
119. Whoever beheld them, terror (?) overcame him;
120. Their bodies they reared up without turning their breast.
121. She established vipers, serpents, and Lakhami,[359]
122. Hurricanes, raging hounds, scorpion-men,
123. Mighty storms, fish-men, and rams (?);
124. They bore merciless weapons, fearless of battle.
125. Her behests were mighty; without rival were they.
126. Moreover eleven such as these she created.
127. Among the gods, her firstborn, who at her side gathered,
128. She exalted Kingu, made him great in their midst,
129. To march before the forces, to lead the host,
130. To raise the conquering weapon, to lead the attack,
131. To direct the battle, as commander-in-chief;
132. To him she entrusted it, made him sit in purple (?):
133. “Thy spell I have uttered; in the assembly of gods I have made thee great.
134. The sovereignty of all the gods, I have placed in thy hand
135. Surely thou art exalted, my only spouse!
136. May they magnify thy name over all the Anunnaki.”
137. She gave him the tablets of destiny, on his breast she laid them:
138. “Thy command shall be unalterable, established, thy word.”
139. Now Kingu was exalted, he received the highest rank,
140. Among the gods, his sons, he fixed fate:
141. “The opening of your mouth shall quench the fire-god;
142. Who so is exalted in excellence, let him increase in might.”
Tablet II
1. Tiâmat made mighty her work
2. [Evil] she cherished against the gods, her offspring.
3. [To avenge] Apsu, Tiâmat planned evil.
4. Her [forces] how she joined, to Ea was divulged.
5. Ea [hearkened] to this thing,
6. He was thrown into [great] straits, he sat in silence.
7. [The days] went by; his anger was appeased,
8. [To the place] of Anshar, his father, he proceeded.
9. [He went] before the father who begat him, Anshar,
10. [All that] Tiâmat had planned he repeated unto him.
11. “Tiâmat, our mother, has come to hate us;
12. Her assembly is set; with rage she is hot;
13. Turned unto her are the gods, all of them,
14. With those ye created, they walk at her side.
15. They have separated themselves; at the side of Tiâmat they go;
16. They rage, they plan; they rest not day or night.”
(Lines 17-48 continue the literal repetition of lines 109-142 of the first tablet which was begun in lines 15, 16. After this the narrative continues:)
49. [When Anshar heard how Tiâmat] was greatly in disorder,
50. [He smote his breast], he bit his lip,
51. [His mind was disturbed], his heart was not at rest,
52. ................................ his cry was wrung from him.
53. [Away Ea, my son, go forth to] battle!
54. ............................ my work (?) thou shalt establish!
55. [Mummu and] Apsu thou hast already struck down.
56. [Kill also Kin]gu who comes up before her
57. ................................ deliberation.
58. ............................ gods Nudimmud.
(A break of ten or twelve lines occurs at this point in the tablet.)
72. [Anshar] spoke to his son [a word]:
73. “Thou, this [son of mine], my warrior,
74. [Whose strength is mighty], whose attack irresistible,
75. [Go], stand before Tiâmat,
76. [That] her wrath [may be appeased], her heart softened,
77. [But if] she will not hearken to thy word,
78. Our [word] shalt thou speak to her, that she may be appeased.”
79. [He heard] the utterance of his father Anshar,
80. He took the straight path to her, he entered the way.
81. Anu [drew near], he beheld the terror (?) of Tiâmat,
82. [He did not ascend to her presence], but turned back,
83. [Then turned he to Ea and called] him, he, Anshar,
84. [Opened his mouth] and spoke to him,
85. [“Hateful are the ways of Tiâmat] to me.”
(Some twenty lines here are too fragmentary for translation.)
108. [Ea opened his mouth (?)] and spoke to him:
109. [“Marduk, my son, hear the word of] thy father.
110. Thou art he, my son, who canst enlarge his heart.
111. ................................ to the battle draw nigh,
112. ............................ [to] Emarukka[360] give peace.”
113. Then the lord rejoiced at the words of his father;
114. He drew near and stood before Anshar.
115. Anshar beheld him and his heart was filled with joy,
116. He kissed his lips and his fear departed from him.
117. ............ is not hidden; open thy lips.
118. Verily I will go, I will attain the wish of thy heart.
119. .......... is not concealed; open thy lips.
120. Verily I will go, I will attain the wish of thy heart.
121. Who is the man, who would bring thee out to his battle?
122. [And now] shall Tiâmat, a woman, come against thee with weapons?
123. ................................ rejoice and exult;
124. On the neck of Tiâmat thou shalt shortly tread.
125. ................................ rejoice and exult;
126. On the neck of Tiâmat thou shalt shortly tread.”
127. “My son, who knows all wisdom,
128. Tiâmat pacify with thy pure incantation.
129. Thy way speedily take;
130. .......... thou shalt not fear, thou shalt use a spell afterward.”
131. Then the lord rejoiced at the word of his father,
132. His heart exulted and to his father he spoke:
133. “O Lord of the gods, fate of the great gods,
134. If I accomplish your preservation,
135. Take Tiâmat captive and save your lives,
136. Appoint an assembly, make my fate strong, let it come in.
137. In Upshukkunnaku seat yourselves joyfully together,
138. The word of my mouth shall determine fate instead of you.
139. Let there not be changed whatever I create,
140. May the command of my lips not be altered or opposed.”
Tablet III
1. Anshar opened his mouth and said,
2. [To Gaga] his [messenger] a word he spoke:
3. “[O Gaga, thou messen]ger, thou rejoicest my heart.
4. [To Lakhmu and Lakh]amu will I send thee;
5. [The desire of my heart] mayest thou attain.
6. ................................ bring (?) before me.
7. [May there come] the gods, all of them,
8. [Let them prepare for converse], at banquets let them sit,
9. [Bread may they eat], wine may they prepare,
10. [For Marduk], their [avenger], let them decree the fate.
11. [Go, Ga]ga, before them stand,
12. [And all that] I tell thee repeat unto them
13. [Anshar], your son, hath sent me,
14. [The purpose of his heart he] hath disclosed to me,
15. [Saying]: Tiâmat, who bore us, hates us,
16. An assemblage is appointed, angrily she rages,
17. Turned to her are the gods, all of them,
18. With those whom ye created, they march at her side,
19. They are rebellious, at Tiâmat’s side they come,
20. They rage, they plot, they rest not day nor night,
21. They prepare for battle, fuming and raging,
22. An assembly is made, they start a revolt.
23. Mother Khubur, who formed all things,
24. Has made weapons without rival, has spawned monster-serpents,
25. Sharp of tooth, unsparing of fang,
26. With poison like blood their bodies she has filled;
27. Fierce dragons with terror she has clothed,
28. Luster has made abundant, to loftiness made equal.
29. Whoever beholds them, terror (?) overcomes him.
30. Their bodies they raise up without turning their breasts.
31. She has established vipers, serpents, Lakhami,
32. Hurricanes, raging hounds, scorpion-men,
33. Mighty storms, fish-men, and rams;
34. They bear merciless weapons, fearless of battle.
35. Her behests are mighty, without rival are they.
36. Moreover eleven such as these she has created.
37. Among the gods, her firstborn, who are gathered at her side,
38. She has exalted Kingu, made him great in their midst,
39. To march before the forces, to lead the host,
40. To raise the conquering weapon, to lead the attack,
41. To direct the battle as commander-in-chief;
42. To him she has entrusted it, made him sit in purple, [saying,]
43. ‘Thy spell I have uttered, in the assembly of gods I have made thee great,
44. The sovereignty of all the gods I have placed in thy hand,
45. Surely thou art exalted, O my spouse!
46. May they magnify thy name over all the Anunnaki.’
47. She has given him the tablets of destiny, on his breast has laid them, [saying,]
48. ‘Thy command shall be unalterable, established be thy word.’
49. Now Kingu has been exalted, has received highest rank,
50. Among the gods, her sons, he fixes fate, [saying]:
51. ‘The opening of your mouth shall quench the fire-god,
52. Whoso is exalted in excellence, let him increase in might.’
53. I sent Anu; he had no power before her,
54. Nudimmud feared and turned back,
55. Marduk has set forth, the leader of the gods, your son,
56. As a foe of Tiâmat his heart prompts him to go.
57. He opened his mouth and spake to me, [saying]:
58. ‘If I accomplish your preservation,
59. Take Tiâmat captive, and save your lives,
60. Appoint an assembly, make my fate strong, let it come in.
61. In Upshukkunaku seat yourselves joyfully together,
62. The word of my mouth shall determine fate instead of you.
63. Let there not be changed whatever I create,
64. May there not be altered or opposed the command of my lips.’
65. Hasten, therefore, and quickly decree your fate,
66. That he may go and fight your strong enemy.”
67. Then Gaga went, his way he pursued,
68. To the place of Lakhmu and Lakhamu, the gods, his fathers;
69. He kissed the ground at their feet,
70. He bowed himself; he stood up, he addressed them, [saying]:
71. “Anshar, your son, hath sent me,
72. The purpose of his heart he has disclosed to me
73. Saying: Tiâmat, who bore us, hates us;
74. An assemblage is appointed, angrily she rages,
75. Turned to her are the gods, all of them,
76. With those whom you created, they march at her side,
77. They are rebellious, at Tiâmat’s side they come.
78. They rage, they plot, they rest not day nor night,
79. They prepare for battle, fuming and raging,
80. An assembly is made, they start a revolt.
81. Mother Khubur, who formed all things,
82. Has made weapons without rival, has spawned monster-serpents,
83. Sharp of tooth, unsparing of fang,
84. With poison like blood their bodies she has filled;
85. Fierce dragons with terror she has clothed;
86. Luster has been made abundant, to loftiness made equal.
87. Whoever beholds them, terror (?) overcomes him.
88. Their bodies they raise up without turning their breasts.
89. She has established vipers, serpents, Lakhami,
90. Hurricanes, raging hounds, scorpion-men,
91. Mighty storms, fish-men, rams;
92. They bear merciless weapons, fearless of battle.
93. Her behests are mighty, without rival are they.
94. Moreover eleven such as these she has created.
95. Among the gods, her firstborn, who are gathered at her side,
96. She has exalted Kingu, made him great in their midst,
97. To march before the forces, to lead the host,
98. To raise the conquering weapon, to lead the attack,
99. To direct the battle as commander-in-chief;
100. To him she has entrusted it, made him sit in purple, [saying]:
101. ‘Thy spell I have uttered, in the assembly of the gods I have made thee great;
102. The sovereignty of all the gods I have placed in thy hand
103. Surely thou art exalted, O my spouse!
104. May they magnify thy name over all the Anunnaki.’
105. She has given him the tablets of destiny, on his breast has laid them, [saying]:
106. ‘Thy command shall be unalterable, established be thy word.’
107. Now Kingu has been exalted, has received highest rank,
108. Among the gods, her sons, he fixes fate, [saying:]
109. ‘The opening of your mouth shall quench the fire-god,
110. Whoso is exalted in excellence, let him increase in might.’
111. I sent Anu, he had no power before her,
112. Nudimmud feared and turned back,
113. Marduk has set forth, the leader of the gods, your son,
114. As a foe of Tiâmat his heart prompts him to go.
115. He opened his mouth and spake to me, [saying:]
116. ‘If I accomplish your preservation,
117. Take Tiâmat captive and save your lives,
118. Appoint an assembly, make my fate strong, let it come in.
119. In Upshukkunaku seat yourselves joyfully together,
120. The word of my mouth shall determine fate instead of you,
121. Let there not be changed whatever I create,
122. May there not be altered or opposed the command of my lips.’
123. Hasten, therefore, and quickly decree your fate,
124. That he may go and fight your strong enemy.”
125. Lakhmu and Lakhamu heard, they cried aloud;
126. The Igigi, all of them, wailed bitterly, [saying:]
127. “What has changed that they should desire to take us (?)
128. We do not understand what Tiâmat has done.”
129. Then they massed themselves together, they went,
130. The great gods, all of them, who decree fate.
131. They entered in before Anshar, they filled, [Upshukkunaku].
132. Brother kissed brother in the assembly .................
133. They prepared for converse, sat down to the banquet,
134. Bread they ate; wine they prepared.
135. The sweet drink confused their minds (?),
136. Drunk were they with drink, their bodies were filled (?),
137. They became very unsteady, their hearts were exalted,
138. For Marduk, their deliverer, they decreed the fate.
Tablet IV
1. They prepared for him a princely chamber:
2. In the presence of his fathers for sovereignty he became mighty. [They said:]
3. “Thou art most honored among the great gods,
4. Thy destiny is without rival, thy command is Anu’s!
5. O Marduk, thou art most honored among the great gods,
6. Thy destiny is without rival, thy command is Anu’s!
7. From today without opposition shall be thy command;
8. To exalt and to abase is verily in thy power;
9. Established is thy utterance, irresistible thy command.
10. None among the gods shall invade thy province.
11. Sustenance, the desire of shrines of the gods,
12. While they are in need, shall be certain in thy sanctuary!
13. O Marduk, thou art the preserver of our lives!
14. We give thee sovereignty over the totality of all the world.
15. Sit thou in the assembly, thy word shall be exalted!
16. Thy weapon shall never be o’ercome, may it destroy (?) thy foe!
17. O lord, he who trusts thee--his life save!
18. But the god that is wed to evil, its life pour out!”
19. Then they placed in the midst a garment,
20. And unto Marduk, their firstborn, they spoke,
21. “Thy fate, O Lord, let it be first among the gods!
22. To destroy and to create--speak, let it be established!
23. At thy command let a garment perish!
24. Again at thy command let the garment re-appear!”
25. Then he spake with his mouth, the garment perished;
26. Again he commanded and the garment was recreated.
27. As the utterance of his mouth the gods, his fathers, saw,
28. They rejoiced, they uttered blessing: “Marduk is king!”
29. They bestowed upon him the scepter, the throne, and the battle-axe;
30. They gave him an unrivaled weapon, which turns back (?) the foe.
31. “Go, Tiâmat’s life cut off;
32. May the winds bear her blood to secret places!”
33. When the gods, his fathers had fixed Bel’s fate,
34. The way of prosperity and success they caused him to take.
35. His bow he prepared, his weapon he chose,
36. A spear he bound on him at his waist,
37. He raised the heavenly weapon, with his right hand grasped it,
38. His bow and quiver at his side he hung,
39. He placed the lightning before his face,
40. With quivering flame his body he filled.
41. He made a net to enclose Tiâmat’s body,
42. He caused the four winds to seize so that nothing of her could escape;
43. The south wind, the north wind, the east wind, the west wind,
44. He brought to the side of the net, the gift of his father Anu,
45. He made the evil wind, the bad wind, the tempest and the hurricane,
46. The four winds, the seven winds, the whirlwind (?), the unhealthy wind;
47. He brought forth the winds which he had made, the seven of them,
48. To trouble the inward parts of Tiâmat, they came after him.
49. The lord raised up the tornado, his mighty weapon,
50. As a chariot, a storm unrivaled for terror he mounted,
51. He harnessed for himself and attached to it four steeds,
52. “Destroyer,” “Unmerciful,” “Overwhelmer,” “Fleet-footed.”
53. [Foam-covered (?)] were their teeth, filled with poison,
54. Skilled were they [to run down], taught to destroy.
55. ................................... mighty in battle,
56. Left and right they opened (?) ...............
57. His garment was [rage], with terror was he clad,
58. With his overpowering brightness his head was crowned.
59. He made straight the way, he took his path,
60. To the place of Tiâmat, the raging (?), his face he set.
61. With his lip .............................. he cursed (?),
62. A plant of magical power (?)--he seized with his hand.
63. On that day they exalted (?) him, the gods exalted (?) him;
64. The gods, his fathers, exalted (?) him, the gods exalted (?) him.
65. The lord approached, the waist of Tiâmat he scanned,
66. Of Kingu, her spouse--he beheld his terrifying-glance (?).
67. As Marduk gazed, Kingu’s progress was impeded,
68. Destroyed was his purpose, frustrated his deed,
69. And the gods his helpers, who marched at his side,
70. Saw the warrior and leader; their look (?) was troubled.
71. Tiâmat perceived it (?); she did not turn her neck.
72. With proud (?) lips she uttered words of defiance:
73. “Who decreed (?) that thou shouldst come as lord of the gods?
74. Have they assembled from their places, are they to serve thee?”
75. The lord raised the tornado, his mighty weapon,
76. [Against] Tiâmat who was raging, thus he spoke:
77. “[Why hast thou] made thyself great? Exalted thyself on high?
78. [Why does thy heart] prompt thee to battle (?)
79. [How can thy helpers] defy (?) the gods, their fathers?
80. [Why] dost thou hate their [command], their ru[le despise]?
81. [Why hast thou exalted Kingu] to be thy spouse?
82. [Hast given] him the functions of deity?
83. [How] canst thou seek after evil?
84. [And against] the gods, my fathers, thy evil plan devise?
85. [Let] thy forces be joined, girded on thy weapons!
86. Stand! I and thou--come let us fight!”
87. Tiâmat, when she heard this,
88. Was like one possessed; she lost her reason.
89. Tiâmat cried out vehemently with high voice,
90. Like roots divided in twain her legs trembled.
91. She uttered an incantation, she cast a charm,
92. And the gods of battle demanded their weapons.
93. Then took their stand Tiâmat and the leader of the gods, Marduk;
94. For the fight they approached, for the battle they drew near.
95. The lord spread out his net and enclosed her,
96. The evil wind from behind he thrust into her face.
97. As Tiâmat opened her mouth to its full extent,
98. The evil wind he drove in, so that her lips could not close.
99. With the mighty winds he filled her belly;
100. Her courage was taken away, and she opened her mouth.
101. He let fall the spear, he burst open her belly,
102. He cut through her inward parts, he pierced her heart,
103. He bound her and her life destroyed;
104. Her body he cast down, upon it he stood.
105. After Tiâmat, the leader, he had slain,
106. Her army he broke, her host was scattered,
107. And the gods, her helpers, who marched by her side,
108. Trembled, feared, they turned their backs;
109. They sought an exit, to save their lives;
110. With a cordon they were encompassed; escape was not possible.
111. He caught them, their weapons he broke,
112. Into the net they fell, in the snare they remained.
113. All quarters of the world they filled with lamentation.
114. His wrath they endured; they were held in bondage.
115. And the eleven creatures, whom she had filled with terribleness,
116. The troop of demons who marched as her helpers (?),
117. He threw into fetters, their power he [broke];
118. Along with their opposition he trampled them under his feet.
119. And Kingu who had been exalted over them,
120. He took captive, as the god Dugga he counted him.
121. He took from him the tablets of destiny, not rightly his,
122. He sealed them with a seal, in his own breast he laid them.
123. After his enemies he had seized and destroyed,
124. His arrogant foe had completely humiliated (?),
125. The triumph of Anshar over the foe had fully established,
126. The wish of Nudimmud had accomplished, Marduk, the warrior
127. Over the bound gods strengthened his hold,
128. Unto Tiâmat, whom he had bound, he turned back.
129. The lord trod upon Tiâmat’s feet
130. And with his unsparing weapon crushed her head.
131. He cut through the veins of her blood,
132. He caused the north wind to bear it to secret places.
133. His fathers saw it; they rejoiced, they exulted,
134. Gifts and presents they brought unto him.
135. Then the lord rested; he gazed upon her body,
136. The flesh of the monster he divided; he formed a cunning plan.
137. He split her open like a flat fish into two halves,
138. One half of her he established and made a covering of the heavens,
139. He drew a bolt, he established a guard,
140. And not to let her waters come out, he commanded.
141. He passed through the heavens, he surveyed the regions,
142. Over against the deep he set the dwelling of Nudimmud.
143. The structures of the deep the lord measured,
144. As a palace like unto it he founded Esharra.
145. In the palace Esharra which he built in the heavens,
146. He caused Anu, Ellil, and Ea at their stations to dwell.
Tablet V
1. He [Marduk] ordained the stations of the great gods;
2. As stars their likenesses as constellations of the zodiac he placed.
3. He ordained the year, into parts he divided it,
4. For the twelve months he established three stars.
5. After the days of the year he had fashioned as images,
6. He founded the station of Jupiter, to determine their bounds;
7. That none might go wrong or err,
8. The station of Bel he established, and Ea by his side.
9. He opened gates on both sides.
10. A lock he made strong on the left and the right,
11. In the midst thereof he placed the zenith;
12. The moon-god he caused to shine; the night he entrusted to him.
13. He appointed him a being of the night, to determine the days;
14. Monthly, without ceasing, into a crown he made him, [saying:]
15. “At the beginning of the month shine upon the lands,
16. Horns exhibit, to determine six days;
17. On the seventh day let the tiara disappear;
18. On the fourteenth day thou shalt stand over against the [two] halves.
19. When the sun-god on the horizon ........... thee,
20. Thou ......... to be resplendent, and thou shalt turn (?) backward (?)
21. [Fourteen days] unto the path of the sun-god thou shalt approach,
22. [On the 28th day] thou shalt approach the sun-god ...........
23. .............................. signs (?), seek (?) her way!
24. ................ approach ye and judge justice!
25. .................................... to destroy,
26. ........................................................ me.”
(Some lines are lost at this point. It is estimated that forty of them are lacking.)
67. After .................................
68. In Esagila[361] .................................
69. To establish ................................
70. The station of .............................
71. The great gods ................................
72. The gods ...........................
73. He received .........................
74. The net which he had made the [great] gods saw,
75. Saw the bow, how skillful [its workmanship];
76. The work which he had done, they [loudly] praised.
77. Then arose Anu in the assembly of the [great] gods,
78. The bow he kissed it .............................
79. “Long-wood shall be one name, and a second .................
80. Its third name shall be Bow-star in the heavens.”
81. He fixed its position [unto distant days].
82. After the destiny of ..............................
83. [He set] a throne ......................................
84. ......................... in the heavens ...................
(Practically all the remainder of Tablet V is as yet undiscovered. From a very broken fragment, preserved in the British Museum, it appears that when the gods saw the work of Marduk in adorning the heavens with constellations, they broke into rapturous praise of him. It is these words to which reference is made at the beginning of Tablet VI.)
Tablet VI
1. Marduk, the word of the gods, when he heard it,
2. His heart was stirred, he formed a brilliant plan.
3. He opened his mouth, to Ea he spoke,
4. What in his heart he had conceived he made known to him:
5. “My blood will I divide, bone will I [fashion],
6. I will make man, yes, man ...................
7. I will create man who shall dwell on the [earth];
8. Truly shall the service of the gods be established--of them and their shrines.
9. I will alter the ways of the gods, and will change [their paths],
10. Together shall they be honored, and unto evil shall [they]” ......
11. Then Ea answered him and said:
12. ........ the ......... of the gods have I changed,
13. ................... one .....................
14. ........ shall be destroyed, and people will I .............
15. ............. and the gods ................
16. ........... give and they ..............
17. ......... shall assemble (?) and the gods .............
18. ............................................................
19. .............. the gods ................................
20. .................. the Anunnaki ..................
(The rest of Tablet VI is still unrecovered, except a few lines at the end.)
140. When ......................................
141. They rejoiced ....................................
142. In Upshukkunnaku they set [their assembly].
143. Of their heroic son, their savior they [cried]:
144. “We whom he succored.” ..................
145. They seated themselves, in the assembly they named him ........
146. They all cried aloud (?), they exalted him ..........
Tablet VII
1. “O Asharu, bestower of harvests, founder of agriculture,
2. Creator of grain and plants, who made green herbs to grow,
3. O honored Asharu, revered in the house of counsel, rich in counsel,
4. Whom the gods honor, fearing [laid hold upon them]
5. O honored Asharu, powerful prince, the light [of the fathers who begat him],
6. Who directs the decrees of Anu, Bel, [and Ea].
7. He was their preserver, who ordained ..........
8. He whose provision is abundance, he goeth forth ..........
9. Tutu, the creator of their renewal is he.
10. If their want be pure, then are [they satisfied];
11. If he make an incantation, then are the gods [appeased];
12. Should they attack him in anger, he will repulse their array;
13. Let him therefore be exalted in the assembly of the gods.
14. None among the gods is like unto him!
15. Tutu-Ziukinna is the life of the host of the gods.
16. Who established for the gods the bright heavens.
17. Their way he received, [their path] ordained.
18. Never forgotten among men shall be his [mighty] deeds.
19. Tutu as Zi-azag thirdly they named, bringer of purification,
20. God of the favoring breeze, the lord who hears and is merciful,
21. Who creates fulness and plenty, who establishes abundance,
22. Who turns whatever is small into something great.
23. “In sore distress we caught his favoring breeze,”
24. Let them honor him, praise him, bow humbly before him.
25. Tutu as Aga-azag may the mighty ones praise,
26. The lord of the pure incantation, who makes the dead to live,
27. Who to the captive gods showed abundant compassion,
28. The oppressive yoke he laid upon the gods, his enemies,
29. For their[362] release he created mankind,
30. The merciful one, with whom is life!
31. Established and never forgotten be his word
32. In the mouth of the black-headed race,[363] whom his hand created.
33. Tutu as Mu-azag, fifthly, his pure incantation may their mouth proclaim,
34. Who through his pure incantation destroys all evil ones,
35. Shagzu, who knows the hearts of the gods, who sees through the innermost parts.
36. The evil doer he permits not to go out with him (?).
37. Founder of the assembly of the gods [who gladdens] their heart.
38. Who subdues the disobedient ..........
39. Director of righteousness ......
(The tablet is too broken for connected translation, until nearly the end, where it continues:)
107. Truly he holds their beginning and ending ..........
108. Saying, “He who passed through the midst of Tiâmat [without resting],
109. Let his name be Neberu, who seizes the midst,
110. Who the stars of heaven--their ways he upholds;
111. As a flock verily the gods pasture, all of them.”
112. He bound Tiâmat, her life he apportioned, he ended.
113. In the future, people, old in years,
114. Shall renew unceasingly, “let him be lord forever!”
115. Because he created the places and fashioned the fastnesses
116. “Lord of countries” Bel, his father, named him.
117. The names the Igigi named, all of them,
118. Ea heard, and his heart rejoiced:
119. “He whose name his fathers have magnified
120. He, even like me, shall be named Ea.
121. The binding of all my commands shall he control,
122. All my decrees shall he proclaim!”
123. By the name “Fifty” did the great gods
124. His fifty names make known, they made his path pre-eminent.
125. May they be held fast and the first men reveal them,
126. The wise, the understanding shall consider them together;
127. May the father repeat them and the son lay hold upon them,
128. So that shepherd and herdsman may open their ears,
129. And may rejoice in Marduk, the lord of the gods,
130. That his land may be fertile, that he may have prosperity.
131. His word is established, his command unfailing,
132. The word of his mouth, no god hath annulled.
133. He casts his glance without turning his neck,
134. When he roars, no god can face his anger.
135. Wide is his heart, great his goodness;
136. The sinner and transgressor in his presence ..........
137. They received instruction, they spake before him.
(The concluding lines are too broken for connected translation.)
=2. The First Chapter of Genesis and the Foregoing Creation Epic.=
The Babylonian Creation Epic, in the form in which we know it, took shape in the city of Babylon. Naturally, therefore, the god Marduk is made the central figure. It is he only who was sufficiently powerful to overcome the primeval dragon, it was he who created the heavens and the earth, it was he whom at the end gods and men adored.
A Babylonian priest, Berossos, in a work composed after the time of Alexander the Great, gives an account of Babylonian ideas of the creation of the world, which is but the tradition of the epic in a slightly different form. A neoplatonic philosopher, Damascius, who lived about 560 A. D., has also preserved a part of the tradition in a form almost identical with that of the epic.
Scholars of all shades of opinion agree that there is some connection between this Babylonian tradition and the first chapter of Genesis, though they differ as to whether the Biblical writer was acquainted with the Babylonian tradition as we have it in the epic, or whether he knew an earlier form of the story.
The points of similarity which have been urged between Genesis and the Babylonian epic are the following: 1. They begin somewhat similarly, Genesis with the words “In the beginning,” the epic with the words:
“Time was when above heaven was not named; Below to the earth no name was given.”
2. Both accounts assume that primeval chaos consisted of a mass of waters, and to this mass of waters they give the same name. The Hebrews called it t{e}hōm, “deep”; the Babylonians, Tiâmat. These are really the same word in the two closely related languages, just as day and Tag are the same word in an English and a German form. In Genesis we are told that “The Spirit of God moved (R. V. margin, was brooding) upon the face of the waters”; in the Babylonian epic, the waters, which were thought to be of two genders, were embosomed. In both the result is the beginning of the creative process.
The two accounts agree that the heavens and the earth were created by the division of the primeval ocean by a firmament (the Babylonian calls it a covering), which held up a part of the waters, so that the earth could be formed beneath. They accordingly agree in the conception that there is a super-celestial ocean, i. e., “the waters which are above the firmament” (Gen. 1:7).
Another striking similarity is found in the arrangement by sevens: the Babylonian epic is arranged in seven tablets, or cantos, the Hebrew account, in seven days. The Babylonian series culminates in the praise of Marduk by all the gods; the Hebrew, in the institution of the sabbath. The two series agree in connecting the heavens with the fourth epoch of creation, and the creation of man with the sixth.
In other respects the order differs. In the Babylonian account the moon and stars are created on the fifth day, instead of on the fourth. As Marduk is identified with the sun, that orb is assumed; its creation is not described. The creation of animals is not described in any text which we can attach to a definite tablet of the Babylonian series. It is, however, given in a fragment which reads as follows:
1. When the gods in their assembly had made [the heavens],
2. The firmament had established and bound [fast],
3. Living things of all kinds had created,
4. Cattle of the field, beasts of the field, and moving things of the city.
5. After .......... unto all kinds of living things ..........
6. [Between beasts] of the field and moving things of the city had divided...
7. .......... all creatures, the whole creation ..........
8. ............ that which in the whole of my family ..........
9. [Then arose] Nin-igi-azag, two small creatures [he created],
10. In the assembly of the beasts he made [their form] brilliant,
11. .......... the goddess Gula ..........
12. ................ one white and one black ..........
13. ............ one white and one black ..........
The Babylonian account, then, contained somewhere the story of the creation of the animals, though, like the other parts of the Babylonian account, its order and atmosphere differ widely from the Biblical narrative.
Some of these resemblances are of no great significance. The fact that the two accounts are arranged by sevens may be due simply to the fact that that number was sacred among both peoples. It is thought by some scholars that its use in Genesis was consciously adopted in order to lead up to the sabbath and glorify it. This might be true, even if the writer of the chapter knew of the Babylonian arrangement by sevens.
The features of the two narratives, which have convinced some scholars of all shades of opinion that there is a real kinship between the two accounts, are their agreement as to the nature of primeval chaos, and the division of the primeval ocean by a firmament for the creation of the heavens and the earth. Both writers had, so to speak, the same raw material of objective conceptions.
The differences between the accounts are, however, most marked. To speak first of that which is least important, the Hebrew order is in many respects different from the Babylonian. In the Babylonian the gods are generated in the first tablet, the world is not created till the fourth, and the creation of all other things is told in tablets four, five, and six. In other words, creation is divided into two parts, each of which is told in three tablets. The first three tablets deal with gods, the second three with the world and living things.
This twofold division is found in the first chapter of Genesis. Here the creative process is divided into two stages, each embracing four works, and occupying three days. The distribution of these works is strikingly different from the Babylonian. On the first day, light and darkness were created; on the second, the firmament; on the third, the earth and vegetation; on the fourth, the heavenly bodies; on the fifth, fishes and birds; on the sixth, animals and men. The first series of three days prepared the heavens and the earth; the second series studded the sky with orbs and the earth with living beings. There is a striking parallelism between the two series. The first begins with the creation of light; the second, with light-giving bodies. To the third and sixth days two creative acts each are assigned. On the second day the seas are isolated; on the fifth they are stocked with fishes. On the third day dry land emerges, on the sixth terrestrial animals are made. On the third also herbs began to grow; on the sixth they are assigned to animals and men for food. The classification of the acts of creation in Genesis is clear and consistent, and thoroughly independent of that in the Babylonian account.
A more important difference lies in the religious conceptions of the two. The Babylonian poem is mythological and polytheistic. Its conception of deity is by no means exalted. Its gods love and hate, they scheme and plot, fight and destroy. Marduk, the champion, conquers only after a fierce struggle, which taxes his powers to the utmost. Genesis, on the other hand, reflects the most exalted monotheism. God is so thoroughly the master of all the elements of the universe, that they obey his slightest word. He controls all without effort. He speaks and it is done. Granting, as most scholars do, that there is a connection between the two narratives, there is no better measure of the inspiration of the Biblical account than to put it side by side with the Babylonian. As we read the chapter in Genesis today, it still reveals to us the majesty and power of the one God, and creates in the modern man, as it did in the ancient Hebrew, a worshipful attitude toward the Creator.
=3. The Babylonian Creation Epic and Other Parts of the Bible.=
The Babylonian poem, crude though it seems to us, had a powerful fascination for the imagination. With more or less distinctness parts of it seem to have been known to various Hebrew writers, who, attributing to their own God, Jehovah, the rôle ascribed in the epic to Marduk, used these stories as poetic illustrations. At least this is the view of a considerable group of scholars. Some object that, if this were true, it would degrade Jehovah to the level of Marduk, but the objection does not seem well founded. The Hebrews might well have been such ardent monotheists as to believe that each and every mighty manifestation of power had been the work of Jehovah, without in any way lowering Jehovah to the level of a heathen god. The most important parallels which have been cited are here given, so that the reader may judge for himself as to which view is the more probable.
In Job 9:13, 14 we read:
God will not withdraw his anger; The helpers of Rahab do stoop under him. How much less shall I answer him, And choose out my words to reason with him?
Rahab is believed by many to be here an epithet of Tiâmat. It means “the one who acts boisterously” or “proudly.” Those who thus think believe the lines in Job to refer to the overcoming of Tiâmat’s helpers in Tablet IV, lines 105-118, of the Babylonian creation epic, which read as follows:
After Tiâmat the leader he had slain, Her army he broke, her host was scattered, And the gods, her helpers, who marched at her side, Trembled, feared, they turned their backs; They sought an exit, to save their lives; With a cordon they were encompassed, escape was not possible. He caught them, their weapons he broke, Into the net they fell, in the snare they remained. All the quarters of the world they filled with their lamentation. His wrath they endured, they were held in bondage. And the eleven creatures, whom she had filled with terribleness, The troop of demons who marched as her helpers, He threw into fetters, their power he broke; Along with their opposition he trampled them under his feet.
This would seem to suit the reference in Job, and to give point to Job’s words. As our Saviour used stories in his parables, so this poet may have used this well-known story to illustrate his point.
Again Job 26:12, 13 reads:
He stirreth up the sea with his power, And by his understanding he smiteth through Rahab. By his Spirit the heavens are garnished; His hand hath pierced the swift serpent.
Four of the ancient versions of the Old Testament, with a very slight change in the Hebrew letters, read Job 26:13:
The bars of heaven fear him; His hand hath pierced the swift serpent.
Into comparison with v. 12 and the last line of 13, scholars have brought Tablet IV, line 93, ff., which runs:
Then took their stand, Tiâmat and the leader of the gods, Marduk; For the fight they approached, for the battle drew near. The lord spread out his net and enclosed her, The evil wind from behind he thrust into her face. As Tiâmat opened her mouth to its full extent, The evil wind he drove in, so that her lips could not close. With the mighty winds he filled her belly. Her courage was taken away, and she opened her mouth. He let fall the spear, he burst open her belly, He cut through her inward parts, he pierced her heart, He bound her and her life destroyed; Her body he cast down and stood upon it.
Into comparison with the first line of v. 13, as the versions give it, scholars have brought line 135, and ff., of the same tablet:
Then the lord rested, he gazed upon her body, The flesh of the monster he divided; he formed a cunning plan. He split her open like a flat fish into two halves; One half of her he established and made a covering of the heavens. He drew a bolt, he established a guard, And not to let her waters come out, he commanded.
With the passages quoted above Psa. 74:13, 14 has also been compared:
Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: Thou brakest the heads of the sea-monsters in the waters. Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces; Thou gavest him to be food to the people inhabiting the wilderness.
Verses 16, 17 of the same Psalm continue the theme with the words:
The day is thine, the night also is thine: Thou hast prepared the light and the sun. Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: Thou hast made summer and winter.
The theme is the same as that of the epic, viz.: the creation of the world. It would appear from v. 14 that as the Hebrews called Tiâmat Rahab, so they called Kingu leviathan. Those who so think find another reference to the Babylonian creation epic in Job 3:8:
Let them curse it that curse the day, Who are ready to rouse up leviathan.
Apparently there were magicians who professed to be able to arouse such a monster.
Other references to leviathan are thought to employ the same illustrative material. Thus in Isa. 27:1 we read:
In that day Jehovah with his hard and great and strong sword will punish leviathan the swift serpent, and leviathan the crooked serpent; and he will slay the monster that is in the sea.
In Job 41 there is a long description of the crocodile under the name leviathan. In verses 19-21 some things are said of him that do not suit a real crocodile, and some scholars have thought that the language was influenced by the Babylonian material. These verses are:
Out of his mouth go burning torches, And sparks of fire leap forth. Out of his nostrils a smoke goeth, As of a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindleth coals, And a flame goeth forth from his mouth.
Other references to Rahab, which have been thought to use the same illustration, are Psalm 89:10:
Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces as one that is slain; Thou hast scattered thine enemies with the arm of thy strength.
Also, Isaiah 51:9:
Is it not thou that didst cut Rahab in pieces, That didst pierce the monster?
As to whether these sacred writers really employed the material of the Babylonian epic to give force to their illustrations, the judgments of men will differ in accordance with their views of what is possible for an inspired writer.
In the following passages Rahab is used to denote Egypt as a proud and imperious country. These uses are clearly figurative and metaphorical.
Isa. 30:7:
For Egypt helpeth in vain and to no purpose: Therefore have I called her Rahab that sitteth still.
Psa. 87:4:
Rahab and Babylon I proclaim my votaries.
A fragmentary account of an Assyrian version of the creation epic has been found. It agrees with the Babylonian account in beginning with Tiâmat, though the course of creation appears to have been different. The tablets known to us present it, however, in a form too fragmentary for us to follow the course of the narrative.
II. ANOTHER ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION FOUND AT BABYLON.[364]
TEXT OF THE ACCOUNT. COMPARISON OF IT WITH GENESIS 2.
=1. Text of the Account.=
1. A holy house, a house of the gods, in a holy place had not been made;
2. No reed had sprung up, no tree had been created.
3. No brick had been made, no foundation had been built,
4. No house had been constructed, no city had been built;
5. No city had been built, thrones had not been established;
6. Nippur had not been constructed, Ekur had not been built;
7. Erech had not been constructed, Eanna had not been built;
8. The deep had not been formed, Eridu had not been built;
9. The holy house, the house of the gods, the dwelling had not been made,--
10. All lands were sea,--
11. Then in the midst of the sea was a water-course;
12. In those days Eridu was constructed, Esagila was built,
13. Esagila where, in the midst of the deep, the god Lugal-dul-azaga abode,
14. (Babylon was made, Esagila was completed).
15. The gods and the Anunaki he made at one time.
16. (The holy city, the dwelling of their hearts’ desire, they named as first),
17. Marduk bound a structure of reeds upon the face of the waters,
18. He formed dust, he poured it out beside the reed-structure.
19. To cause the gods to dwell in the habitation of their hearts’ desire,
20. He formed mankind.
21. The goddess Aruru with him created mankind,
22. Cattle of the field, in whom is breath of life, he created.
23. He formed the Tigris and Euphrates and set them in their places,
24. Their names he did well declare.
25. The grass, marsh-grass, the reed and brushwood (?) he created,
26. The green grass of the field he created,
27. The land, the marshes, and the swamps;
28. The wild cow and her young, the wild calf; the ewe and her young, the lamb of the fold;
29. Gardens and forests;
30. The wild goat, the mountain goat, (who) cares for himself (?).
31. The lord Marduk filled a terrace by the seaside,
32. ............ a marsh, reeds he set,
33. .................. he caused to exist.
34. [Reeds he creat]ed; trees he created;
35. In their ........... in their place he made;
36. [Bricks he laid, a founda]tion he constructed;
37. [Houses he made], a city he built;
38. [A city he built, a throne] he established;
39. [Nuppur he constructed], Ekur he built;
40. [Erech he constructed], Eanna he built.
(At this point the tablet is broken. When it again becomes legible, it is in the midst of an incantation.)
=2. Comparison with Genesis 2.=
This account of the creation has sometimes been compared with Genesis 2:4, ff., which describes a time when there was no grass or vegetation on the earth, and then goes on to describe the creation of man and animals, speaking of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
In this account of the creation it is stated (line 21) that the goddess Aruru with Marduk created mankind.
In another Babylonian poem, the Gilgamesh epic, which contains the Babylonian story of the flood, there is an account of the creation of man which accords much more closely with Gen. 2:7 than that which we are considering. It runs:
The goddess Aruru, when she heard this, A man like Anu she formed in her heart. Aruru washed her hands; Clay she pinched off and spat upon it; Eabani, a hero she created, An exalted offspring, with the might of Ninib.
Here is clearly a tradition, similar to Genesis, that God formed man from the dust of the ground. The allusion to Aruru indicates that this formed a part of the early Babylonian tradition. There is considerable evidence that in an earlier form of the Babylonian account Marduk had no place. He was introduced into it later by the priests of Babylon. Aruru was in that earlier form the creator of man, and probably was said to have formed him from clay, as in the Gilgamesh epic.
While these points of likeness are evident, there are great differences between the two narratives. The Babylonian account speaks not only of grass and reeds as non-existent, but of cities and temples also, which, it tells us, were created later. It has no picture of Eden; its thought centers in well-known Babylonian cities. While Marduk appears as supreme in the Babylonian poem, the gods and Anunaki, or spirits of earth, are recognized, so that the polytheistic view is not entirely absent. In the Biblical picture, on the other hand, Jehovah is supreme. Opinions of scholars differ as to whether there was any real connection between the two narratives. Whatever opinion one may hold on this point, there can be no question but that the second chapter of Genesis is dominated by those religious conceptions which were so uniquely manifested in Israel, while they are absent from the Babylonian narrative.
(For a new Babylonian account of the creation of man, see Appendix.)
III. THE BABYLONIAN SABBATH
FEAST OF MARDUK AND ZARPANIT. A DAY CALLED SHABATUM. A DAY IN SOME TABLETS AT YALE.
=1. Feast of Marduk and Zarpanit.=
The seventh day is the feast of Marduk and Zarpanit. It is an evil day. The shepherd of the great people shall not eat flesh cooked on the coals which is smoked. The garment of his body he shall not change; a clean one he shall not put on. A sacrifice he shall not offer. The king in a chariot shall not ride. In triumph he shall not speak. In the secret place a seer shall not give an oracle. The physician shall not lay his hand on the sick. It is not fitting to utter a malediction. At night before Marduk and Ishtar the king shall bring his offering; a libation he shall pour out. The lifting up of his hands shall then be pleasing to the gods.[365]
This passage occurs in a tablet which describes the nature of all the days of a month. The same prohibitions are recorded for the fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days. The tablet has often been brought into comparison with the Hebrew sabbath, partly because the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days are involved, partly because the prohibitions remind the reader of Exodus 20:8-11 and Deut. 5:12-15.
Exod. 20:8-11. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Deut. 5:12-15. Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the Lord thy God commanded thee. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and the Lord thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.
In reality the Babylonian prohibitions apply to certain classes of people only, and not to the whole population. A study of the contract literature shows that there was no cessation of business upon these days of the month, so that resemblance to the Hebrew sabbath is really quite slight.
=2. A Day Called Shabatum.=
These days were not, so far as we know, called shabatum, but another tablet[366] tells us that the fifteenth day of each month was so called. Shabatum is etymologically the same as the Hebrew sabbath. As the Babylonian months were lunar, the fifteenth was the time of the full moon, so that in Babylonian the day denoted the completion of the moon’s growth. In the Old Testament “sabbath” is sometimes coupled with “new moon,” as though it may also have designated a similar day. (See 2 Kings 4:23; Amos 8:5; Hosea 2:11; Isa. 1:13; 66:23, and Ezek. 46:3.) This Babylonian shabatum can, in any event, have no direct relationship to the Hebrew sabbath as a day of rest once a week.
=3. A Day in Some Tablets at Yale.=
A series of tablets in the Yale Babylonian Collection, a portion of which has been published by Prof. Clay,[367] shows that special sacrifices were offered on the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth of each month. These sacrifices show that these days were thought to have some peculiar significance, but, whatever that significance may have been, the evidence cited shows that it was not the same as that of the Hebrew sabbath.
IV. THE LEGEND OF ADAPA AND THE FALL OF MAN
COMPARISON WITH GENESIS 3. THE ADAPA MYTH.
Four fragments of the Adapa myth have been found. They really present but three parts of the story, as two of them cover the same ground. These three parts of the story are translated in this chapter. It will be noted that the fragments do not present the entire story. Between fragments I and II, as well as between fragments II and III, some lines have fallen out, and the last fragment is broken away before the end of the account is reached. Nevertheless, from the parts which we have it is clear that the Babylonians shared with the Hebrews some of the traditions recorded in the third chapter of Genesis.
=1. Comparison with Genesis 3.=
In the first place, Adapa, like Adam, had gained knowledge. This knowledge carried with it a power hitherto regarded as an attribute of divinity. It enabled Adapa to break the wing of the south wind; it tempted Adam and Eve “to become like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5). As in Genesis, knowledge did not carry with it immortality. Ea, the god who had permitted Adapa to become wise, feared that he might gain immortality, as Jehovah thought that Adam might “put forth his hand and take of the tree of life and eat and live forever” (Gen. 3:22). (For Babylonian and Assyrian conceptions of the tree of life, see Figs. 291, 293.)
Ea accordingly told Adapa a falsehood when he was about to go into the presence of the supreme god, Anu, in order to prevent him from eating the food that would make him immortal; Jehovah drove man from the garden where the tree of life grew. The two accounts agree in the thought that immortality could be obtained by eating a certain kind of food. The lines at the end of the Adapa story are much broken, but they make it clear that as a punishment for what he had done, Adapa was subjected to sickness, disease, and restlessness. This corresponds to the toil inflicted upon man (Gen. 3:17-19), and the pangs of childbirth imposed upon woman (Gen. 3:16). It appears also that as Adam and Eve were clothed with skins in consequence of their deed (Gen. 3:21), so Adapa was clothed by Anu in a special clothing.
These similarities indicate that the Babylonians possessed the same general ideas of the connection of increasing knowledge, with the attributes of divinity on the one hand, and with suffering and clothing on the other, which are presented in Genesis. An increasing number of modern scholars regard the Babylonian story as an earlier form of a narrative which the Hebrew writer took and purified. Others hold that it is a somewhat degenerate form of the Biblical narrative. In any event, the Babylonian story proves the Biblical conceptions to be very ancient, and, by its contrasts to that of Genesis, it exhibits the dignity and religious value of the Biblical narrative. In the Babylonian myth, the gods, Ea and Anu, are divided and work at cross purposes; Ea tells a falsehood to accomplish his end. Genesis, while it represents Jehovah as feeling and acting in a much more human way than some parts of the Bible do, still portrays him as a consistently righteous, omnipotent God, who demands obedience, and whose punishments are the reasonable recompense for transgressions. The superiority of the Old Testament stands out in striking contrast.
=2. The Adapa Myth.=[368]
I
1. He possessed intelligence ..........
2. His command like the command of Anu ..........
3. Wide intelligence he (Ea) made perfect for him, the destiny of the country to reveal.
4. Unto him wisdom he gave; eternal life he did not grant him.
5. In those days, in those years the wise man of Eridu,--
6. Ea as a chief (?) among men had created him,--
7. A wise man whose command no one could restrain,
8. The prudent, the most wise among the Anunnaki was he,
9. Blameless, clean of hands, anointed, the observer of divine commands,
10. With the bakers he made bread,
11. With the bakers of Eridu he made bread,
12. The food and water of Eridu he prepared daily,
13. With his clean hands he prepared the table,
14. And without him the table was not cleared.
15. The ship he steered; fishing and hunting for Eridu he did.
16. Then Adapa of Eridu,
17. While Ea lay upon a bed in a chamber (?),
18. Daily the closing of Eridu he made right.
19. At the pure quay, the quay of the new-moon, he embarked upon the ship,
20. The wind blew, his ship sailed,
21. With the rudder he steered the ship
22. Upon the broad sea.
........................................................
II
1. ....................................
2. The south wind [blew and capsized him],
3. To the house [of the fishes] it made him sink,
4. “O south wind [increase] thy rage as much as [thou art able],
5. Thy wing I will break.” As he spoke with his mouth,
6. The wing of the south wind was broken, seven days
7. The south wind blew not on the land. Anu
8. To his messenger, Ilabrat, said:
9. “Why has the south wind not blown upon the land for seven days?”
10. His messenger Ilabrat answered him, “My lord
11. Adapa, the son of Ea, the wing of the south wind
12. Has broken.” Anu, when he heard this,
13. Cried “Help!” He ascended his throne: “Let some one bring him to me.
14. Likewise Ea, who knows the heavens, summon him,
14a. To King Ea to come.”[369]
14b. To him he caused word to be borne,
14c. .......... To him, to King Ea,
14d. He sent a messenger.
14e. He is of great understanding, he knows the hearts of the great gods,
14f. .......... of the heavens, he establishes it.
15. [A soiled garment he made] him wear; with a mourning garment clad him,
16. He clothed him and gave him counsel,
17. Saying: “Adapa, into the presence of Anu, the king, thou art going,
18. Fail not the order, my word keep,
19. When thou goest up to heaven and approachest the gate of Anu,
20. At the gate of Anu, Tammuz and Gishzida
21. Stand, they will see thee, they will ask: ‘Lord,
22. For whose sake art thou thus, Adapa? For whom
23. Art thou clad in a mourning garment?’ ‘In our country two gods have vanished, therefore
24. Am I thus.’ ‘Who are the two gods who in the land
25. Have vanished?’ ‘Tammuz and Gishzida.’ They will look at one another and
26. Be astonished. Favorable words
27. To Anu they will speak. A joyful countenance of Anu
28. They will reveal to thee. When thou standest in the presence of Anu,
29. Food of death they will offer thee to eat;
30. Thou shalt not eat. Water of death they will offer thee to drink;
31. Thou shalt not drink. A garment will they show thee;
32. Put it on. Oil they will set before thee; anoint thyself.
33. The command which I give thee, forget not. The word
34. Which I have spoken hold fast.” The messenger
35. Of Anu came: “Adapa of the south wind
36. The wing has broken. Into my presence bring him.”
37. The road to heaven he made him take and to heaven he ascended.
38. When to heaven he ascended, when he approached the gate of Anu,
39. At the gate of Anu, Tammuz and Gishzida were standing.
40. When they saw him they cried: “Adapa, help!
41. Lord, for whose sake art thou thus?
42. For whom art thou clad in a mourning garment?
43. In the country two gods have vanished; therefore in a mourning garment
44. Am I clad. Who are the two gods who from the land have vanished?”
45. “Tammuz and Gishzida.” They looked at one another and
46. Were astonished. When Adapa before Anu the king,
47. Approached, Anu saw him and cried:
48. “Come, Adapa, why of the south wind the wing
49. Hast thou broken?” Adapa answered: “Anu, my lord,
50. For the house of my lord in the midst of the sea
51. I was catching fish. As I was midway of the voyage
52. The south wind blew and capsized me;
53. To the house of the fishes it made me sink. In the anger of my heart
54. [The south wind] I cursed. At my side answered Tammuz
55. And Gishzida: ‘The heart should be toward Anu.’
56. They spoke, he was appeased, his heart was won (?).
57. “Why has Ea, to impure man, of the heavens
58. And the earth revealed the heart?
59. Strong (?) has he made him (Adapa); a name he has given him.
60. We--what can we do to him? Food of life
61. Bring him, that he may eat.” Food of life
62. They brought him; he ate it not. Water of life
63. They brought him; he drank it not. A garment
64. They brought him; he clothed himself. Oil
65. They brought him; he anointed himself.
66. Anu looked at him; he wondered (?) at him.
67. “Come, Adapa, why dost thou not eat nor drink?
68. Now thou shalt not live; men are mortal (?).” “Ea my lord
69. Said: Thou shalt not eat, thou shalt not drink.”
70. Take him and bring him back to earth.
71. ............ looked upon him.
III
1. ........................
2. He commanded him and he ...........
3. The garment, he commanded him and he clothed himself.
4. ...... Anu wondered greatly at the deed of Ea.
5. The gods of heaven and earth, as many as there are: “Who is thus mighty (?)?
6. His command is the command of Anu. Who can surpass [him]?”
7. As now Adapa from the horizon to the zenith of the heavens
8. ...... looked, he saw his terror ...... (i. e., the terror he inspired)
9. [Which] Anu concerning Adapa upon him ...... had placed.
10. [The service (?)] of Ea he made his satisfaction.
11. Anu fixed as his lot his lordship in brilliance to the distant future.
12. .......... Adapa, the seed of mankind,
13. [Who] victoriously broke the wing of the south wind,
14. And to heaven he ascended. “Thus let it be!”
15. ...... that which he in evil ways imposed on the people,
16. .......... sickness which he placed in the bodies of people.
17. ........ Ninkarrak appeased.
18. Sickness [shall co]me, his disease be violent,
19. .......... destruction shall fall upon him,
20. [In] good sleep he shall not rest,
21. .... shall overturn (?) the joy of people’s hearts.
(The remainder is broken away.)
V. THE PATRIARCHS BEFORE THE FLOOD
BABYLONIAN LONG-LIVED KINGS. COMPARISON WITH GENESIS 5. COMPARISON WITH GENESIS 4. COMPARISON WITH THE LIST OF BEROSSOS.
A Biblical narrative that challenges attention is that in Genesis 5, which contains the list of long-lived patriarchs who flourished before the flood. This narrative finds a striking parallel in the following tablet which tells of long-lived kings who are said to have ruled in ancient Babylonia. The beginnings of all the columns of the tablet are broken away.[370]
=1. Babylonian Long-lived Kings=
Column I
2. ...... ruled 900 (?) years;
......................
7. Galumum
8. ruled 900 (?) years;
9. Zugagib
10. ruled 840 (?) years;
11. A-ri-pi, son of Mashgag,
12. ruled 720 years;
13. Etana, the shepherd,
14. who ascended to heaven,
15. who subdued all lands,
16. ruled 635 years;
17. Pilikam,
18. son of Etana,
19. ruled 350 years;
20. Enmenunna
21. reigned 611 years;
22. Melam-Kish,
23. son of Enmenunna,
24. ruled 900 years;
25. Barsalnunna,
26. son of Enmenunna,
27. ruled 1200 years;
28. Mes (?) zamu, son of Barsalnunna,
29. ruled ...... years;
30. ...... son of Barsalnunna;
Column II
.........................
1. from Kish
2. the kingdom
3. passed to Eanna.
4. In Eanna
5. Meskingashir,
6. son of Shamash,[371]
7. as lord,
8. as king,
9. ruled 325 years.
10. Meskingashir
11. entered into
12. and went out from ......
13. Enmeirgan,
14, 15. son of Meskingashir,
16. king of Erech,
17. the people of Erech
18. strengthened,
19. as king
20. ruled 420 years.
21. Lugalbanda, the shepherd,
22. ruled 1200 years.
23. Dumuzi, the hunter[372] (?),
24. Whose city is among fishes,
25. ruled 100 years.
26. Gilgamesh,
27. whose father
28. was lord of Kullab,
29. ruled 126 years.
Column III
(The kingdom)
1. of Erech
2. passed to Ur.
3. In Ur
4. Mesannipada
5. was king;
6. he ruled 80 years.
7. Meskiagnunna,
8. son of Mesannipada,
9. ruled 30 years.
10. Elu ........
11. ruled 25 years.
12. Balu .......
13. 36 years.
14. 4 kings
15. ruled 171 years.
16. As to Ur
17. the kingdom
18. passed to Awan.[373]
Column IV[374]
1. ruled 21 years.
2. Ishme-Dagan,
3. son of Idin-Dagan,
4. ruled 21 years.
5. Libit-Ishtar,
6. son of Idin-Dagan,
7. ruled 11 years.
8. Ur-Ninib,
9. son of Im .......,
....................
Column V
1. Total 51 kings--
2. their years were 18000 ...+
3. 9 years ....... months .......
4. Four times
5. in Kish:
6. total 22 kings--
7. their years were 2610+
8. 6 months, 15 days.
9. Five times
10. in Erech:
11. total 13 kings--
12. their years were 396--
13. ruled.
14. Three times
15. in Ur:
16. total 3 kings--
17. their years were 356--
18. ruled.
19. Once
20. in Awan:
21. total 1 king--
22. his rule was 7 years.
23. Once
24. in[375] .......
Column VI
1. (total .......) kings--
2. (their years) were 196--
3. ruled.
4. Twice in Agade:
5. total 21 kings--
6. their years were 125 years
7. 40 days--ruled.
8. Once
9. in the people
10. of Gutium:
11. total 11 kings--
12. their years were 159 years--
13. ruled
14. in Isin (?).
15. Eleven
16. royal cities
17. ruled.
18. Total 134 kings.
19. Grand total 28876+
20. years,
21. ...... months.[375]
This interesting document does not stand alone. Three other tablets published in the same volume[376] contain similar material, though all that would have a bearing on our present topic is too broken for connected translation. It is clear from the translation here given that the Babylonians ascribed to some early kings reigns as long, and even longer in some cases, than those ascribed to the antediluvian patriarchs in Genesis 5.
The peculiar spelling of Galumum and Zugagib in the Babylonian characters, together with the meaning of the words, shows that they are animal names. Zugagib means “scorpion” and Galumum, “lamb.” In the lines which preceded, probably similar animal names were recorded. Perhaps this expresses the idea that animals were made before men, as is stated in Gen. 1:24-26.
=2. Comparison with Genesis 5.=--The next name, Aripi,[377] may also have been read Adimê, and perhaps was so read by the Sumerians themselves. If it came to the Hebrews in this form they would naturally equate it with the Hebrew Adam, which means “man.”
Etana, the shepherd, is said in this list to have gone to heaven. This at once suggests the fate of Enoch, who “was not; for God took him” (Gen. 5:24). In the Sumerian the words “to heaven” are AN-ŠU, which may also be read AN-KU. If these words were not fully understood by the Hebrews, to whom Sumerian was not only a foreign language but a dead language, they might easily be mistaken for a proper name, and would in Hebrew give us Enoch.[378] Another suggestion as to the method of borrowing is also possible. Later traditions cherished the name of a king, Enmeduranki, whom they called a king of Sippar or Agade.[379] Enmeduranki means “the hero who binds together heaven and earth.” Etana is in our list of kings called a king of Kish, but in later times kings of Kish were also called kings of Agade. It is altogether probable, therefore, that the “hero who binds together heaven and earth” is simply another designation of Etana who went to heaven. The last two syllables of Enmeduranki, i. e., AN-KI, “heaven and earth,” would, if taken over into Hebrew, also give Enoch. If we assume that Etana and Enoch are the same, we may at a later point be able to determine by which of these processes the name is most likely to have come into Hebrew. In an old poem, fragments of which have been found on some broken tablets from Nineveh, the fortunes of Etana were given in detail. He is said to have been carried to heaven on the back of an eagle. If he be really the prototype of Enoch, this lends a touch of realism to the narrative.
The Sumerian name Enmenunna means “exalted hero” or “exalted man.” A natural translation of this into Semitic Babylonian about 2000 B. C. would be Mutu-elu,[380] or, in one word, amelu, and an equally natural translation of this into Hebrew would give us Enosh.
Pilikam,[381] the next name, means in Sumerian “with intelligence to build.” In Babylonian Semitic it would be literally Ina-uzni-erêšu, or, rendered in one word, ummanu, “artificer.” The Hebrew translation of this is Kenan, which means “artificer.” Melamkish gives us the Hebrew Lamech by the simple elision of the first and last consonants. All people are lazy and words sometimes wear away both at the beginning and at the end.[382]
Barsalnunna, translated into Semitic Babylonian, becomes Shitḫu-elu.[383] Seth may well be a transfer of a part of this name to Hebrew. The final radical of the first part of the name may have worn away or have been accidentally omitted.
Meskingashir is resolvable into four elements, MES-KI-INGA[384]-SHIR,[385] “the hero” or “man who is great” or “exalted.” Translate this into Semitic Babylonian and it becomes Mutu-ša-elu, which is almost exactly Methuselah.
Enmeirgan becomes when translated into Semitic Mutu-šalal-eqla,[386] and Mahalalel is a much closer transfer of the first two elements of this to Hebrew than are Sennacherib, Esar-haddon, Merodach-baladan, and Evil-merodach of the names Sin-akhi-irba, Ashur-akhi-iddina, Marduk-apal-iddin, and Amel-Marduk. Finally Dumuzi means “son of life,” or “living son,” and Jared[387] means “descendant.”
The equivalent of Noah does not appear in this list, but there is no doubt that he was Ziugiddu, otherwise called Ut-napishtim, of the Babylonian accounts of the flood.
We have then the following equivalents, four of which are Hebrew translations of Sumerian names; three, transfers into Hebrew of the whole or of parts of Semitic Babylonian equivalents of these Sumerian names, two of which are transfers to Hebrew of portions of a Sumerian original, and one of which, Noah, is still unexplained.
Sumerian Semitic Babylonian Hebrew
Adimê Adam Barsalnunna Shitḫu-elu Seth Enmenunna Mutu-elu (or amelu) Enosh Pelikam Ina-uzni-ereshu (or ummanu) Kenan Enmeirgan Mutu-šalal-gan Mahalalel Dumuzi Apal-napišti Jared Etana Enoch Meskingashir Mutu-ša-elu Methuselah Melamkish Lamech Ziugiddu Noah
Of course, it may be objected that our list of kings did not furnish the originals of these patriarchs, since there are more kings than patriarchs, even though some of the names of kings have been lost by the breaking of the tablet. In this connection, however, one should remember that in 1 Chron. 1-9, many names which appear in the earlier books of the Bible are omitted, and that in Matt. 1:8, three kings--Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah--are omitted from the genealogy of Christ. (Compare 2 Kings 11-15.) It appears, then, that Biblical writers did not always copy a full list.
It thus seems that the tablet translated above may be related to the text of Genesis 5 in the names of the patriarchs as well as in the matter of their ages. When we recall that the tablet was apparently written in the year 2170 B. C., it seems probable that it may be a source from which the Biblical names came.
=3. Comparison with Genesis 4.=
But our examination of the matter cannot stop here. In Gen. 4:16-23 there is a list of the descendants of Cain strikingly similar to the list of the descendants of Seth in Genesis 5. If the names of Adam and Abel be supplied from Gen. 4:1,2, the two lists appear as follows:
Genesis 4 Genesis 5
Adam Adam | +----+------+ | | | | Abel Seth Seth | | | | | Enosh Enosh Cain (Hebrew קין) Kenan (Hebrew קינן) Enoch Mahalalel Irad (Hebrew עירד) Jared (Hebrew ידד) Mehujael Enoch Methushael Methuselah Lamech Lamech Noah
The close parallelism of these two lists of names is really greater than it appears to the English reader to be. Cain, which means “artificer,” is in Hebrew the same word as Kenan, lacking only one formative letter at the end. Irad and Jared differ in Hebrew only by the wearing away of one consonant. Mehujael is as much like Mahalalel, and Methushael as much like Methuselah as the Assyrian name of Tiglath-pileser, Tukultu-apal-esharra, is like Tiglath-pileser, while Enoch and Lamech are the same.
The importance of this likeness arises from the fact that the so-called critical scholars claim that these two lists of names are in reality the same original list as it came through two lines of tradition and was worked up differently by two writers. This view has been vigorously opposed by some conservative scholars, notably by the late Professor Green, of Princeton.[388]
Between rival critical hypotheses it is not the function of archæology to decide. It must be admitted, however, that the names of the descendants of Genesis 4 can be equated with those of our Babylonian kings, as well as those of Gen. 5. Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cain, Enoch, Mehujael, and Methushael would be derived exactly as it has been explained that the corresponding names of Genesis 5 could be derived. It only remains to explain the names Abel and Irad. It will be noticed that Abel occupies in the list a position next to Adam and Cain; Abel is also said to have been a shepherd. In the list of Babylonian kings Etana the shepherd comes in between Adimê (Aripi) and Pilikam, the equivalent of Cain. It is probable, therefore, that Etana is the king that corresponds to Abel. Etana is described in the Sumerian as “the shepherd who went to heaven,” SIBA LÙ AN-ŠU NI-IB-E-DA. If the two words SIBA LÙ became detached and misunderstood as a proper name, the s at the beginning, according to a well known phonetic law, could become h and give us the Hebrew Abel. Irad may also be ir-tu, a corruption of ZI-IR-TU, a name of the mother of Dumuzi, who may at times have been referred to as the son of ZI-IR-TU.[389] These possibilities are not proof that the names arose as suggested, but are not without weight.
If Abel arose from the traditions of Etana and Enoch did also, and if the names of Genesis 4 are derived from the list of Babylonian kings, then Etana figures twice in the fourth chapter of Genesis. If Enoch is a fragment of the name Enmeduranki, a possibility already recognized, it is not difficult to understand how Etana came into the tradition twice.
=4. Comparison with the List of Berossos.=
Another list of names awaits comparison. Berossos, a Babylonian priest who died about 260 B. C., compiled a list of kings who lived before the flood, and attributed to them incredibly long reigns. His work has not survived, but his list is quoted by two early Christian writers, Eusebius and Syncellus, and Hommel[390] and Sayce[391] have claimed that his names are, many of them, identical with the patriarchs of Genesis 5.
The list of Berossos is as follows:
Kings Length of reign
Alorus 36,000 years Alaparos 10,800 " Amēlon 46,800 " Ammenon 43,200 " Megalaros 64,800 " Daonos or Daos 36,000 " Euedorachos 64,800 " Amempsinos 36,000 " Otiartes 28,800 " Xisouthros 64,800 " -------------- Total 432,000 years.
It has long been recognized that Amēlon is the Semitic Babylonian word amelu, “man.” It is a Babylonian synonym of Mutu-elu, the equivalent of Enosh, and is also a translation of Enmenunna. Ammenon has also been recognized as the Semitic Babylonian ummanu, “artisan.” It is a translation in one word of the Sumerian Pilikam.
Daonos or Daos has, too, been seen to be the phonetic transliteration into Greek letters of the Sumerian Dumu, the first part of the name Dumuzi.
Euedorachos has also been thought to be the Sumerian Enmeduranki, whom we have recognized as another name for Etana. Four of the names of Berossos are thus easily connected with names in the new list of kings.
The fifth one, Megalaros, might be a corruption either of Mutu-shalal or of Mutu-ša-elu, and so go back ultimately either to Enmeirgan or to Meskingashir. Xisouthros is clearly the same person as Ziugiddu. He had no connection with this list of kings, but is, like Noah in Genesis 5, attached to it on account of the flood. Hommel long ago saw that Otiartes is the same as Ubara-tutu, who is said in the account of the deluge which was found at Nineveh to have been the father of Utnapishtim, the hero of the deluge.[392] Berossos has, accordingly, not only added the hero of the deluge, but has displaced one of the names from the king list in order to find a place for the father of Xisouthros.
The other names are puzzling. Poebel has suggested[393] that Alorus may be a Greek corruption of the Sumerian name Laluralim, who is said to have been a king of Nippur. An old text which contains this name[394] is accompanied by a gloss zugagib, “scorpion,”[395] and the first king in the list translated above is Zugagib. If, therefore, this suggestion is true, the name may go back to the same source as the others, after all.
Amempsinos has been thought by some to be a corruption of the well known Babylonian name Amil-Sin. There was an Amil-Sin in the first dynasty of Babylon, but why the name should be inserted here cannot at present be explained; nor has a satisfactory explanation been suggested for Alaparos.
The above discussion may be summed up in a few words. The Babylonian list of kings with which this chapter begins makes no reference to the flood, neither does the fourth chapter of Genesis. All the names in Genesis 4 may be found in the Babylonian list, though Etana seems to have been inserted twice under different names. As Genesis 5 omits Abel, it has Etana only once. All the other names of Genesis 5, except Noah, are found in the Babylonian list. Noah has been added to connect the list with the flood. The ages of the patriarchs in Genesis 5 correspond approximately to the general lengths of the reigns assigned to the kings in the tablet. Berossos seems to have exercised much greater freedom, inserting several names, the origin of some of which cannot now be made out. He also greatly exaggerated the lengths of the kings’ reigns.
These correspondences are simply noted. It is but a few months since the writer discovered them, and he was the first to do so. It is too early to correctly estimate their ultimate significance. It should, however, be observed that the Biblical numbers (Gen. 5) lack the gross exaggerations of Berossos, and that, if the correspondences here pointed out are real, the tradition embodied in Genesis is carried back to a time from 800 to 1000 years earlier than Moses.