IV. ASSYRIA, BABYLONIA, AND THE HEBREWS, WITH REFERENCE TO THE SO-CALLED GENEALOGICAL TABLE…

IV. ASSYRIA, BABYLONIA, AND THE HEBREWS, WITH REFERENCE TO THE SO-CALLED GENEALOGICAL TABLE

The Akkadians—The Semitic Babylonians—The Hebrews—Nimrod—Assur—The Tower of Babel and the confusion of tongues—Babylonian temple-towers—How the legend probably arose—The Patriarchs to the time of Abraham.

“And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.

“He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod, the mighty hunter before the Lord.

“And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.

“Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth (or, the streets of the city), and Calah.

“And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city.”

Such is the Biblical account of the origin of the two most powerful states of the ancient East, Babylonia and Assyria. It has been many times quoted and discussed, but there seems always to be something new to say about it, or to add to it, or what has already been said may be put in another and clearer way. It is for one or more of these reasons, as well as for the completeness of this work, that the author ventures again to approach the well-worn problems that these verses present.

Every reader, on taking up a book dealing with this period of ancient Eastern history, will probably have noticed, that the word which most frequently meets his eye (if the book be an English one) is Akkad, the Semitic equivalent of the Biblical Accad. If, however, it be a continental work, the equivalent expression will be Šumer—which word, indeed, he will meet with also in English works, if the writer be at all under German or other foreign influence.

The reason for this divergence of opinion is very simple, the fact being that there were two tribes or nationalities, Šumer being before Akkad when the two countries are mentioned together, and as it is regarded as identical with the Shinar of Gen. x. 10, Šumer and Šumerian may possibly be preferable, but in all probability Akkad and Akkadian are not wrong.

As we see from the chapter of Genesis referred to, there were many nationalities in the Euphrates valley in ancient times, and the expression “Cush begat Nimrod,” would imply that the inhabitants of Babylonia were all Cushites. Yet the great majority of the inscriptions found in that country of a later date than about 2000 B.C. are Semitic.

Large additions have of late years been made to the number of ancient remains from Babylonia, and most of these are of a very early period. We are thus in a position to compare not only the different types of that early period with each other, but also with the sculptures of later date. The cylinder-seals show us a comparatively slim race, long-bearded, erect and dignified, and these characteristics are also recognizable among the various types revealed to us by the still earlier sculptures. The representations of kings and deities are often heavily bearded, but, on the other hand, high officials and others are generally clean shaven. These peculiarities, with the difference of costume, especially the thick-brimmed hats, would seem to imply distinct foreign influence, or, rather, in combination with the differences of racial type exhibited, considerable foreign admixture. Perhaps, however, the true explanation is, that the plain of Shinar represents the meeting-point of two different races—one Cushite and the other Semitic.

And this fact, as is well known, is confirmed by the existence of what is regarded as the language of the Akkadians, and also of a dialect of the same. This is not the place to discuss the question whether these non-Semitic idioms be really languages or only cryptographs—the author holds, in common with Sayce, Oppert, Hommel, and all the principal Assyriologists, that they are real languages—but a reference to the few passages where these idioms are spoken of may not be without interest.

One of these is the fragment known as S. 1190 in the British Museum, where the contents of the tablet of which it formed a part are referred to as “Two Šumerian incantations used” (seemingly) “for the stilling of a weeping child.” Another tablet refers to the languages, and states that the tongue of Šumer was like (the tongue of) Akkad, or assumed a likeness to it at some time or other. This document also refers to another form of speech that was the tongue of the prince, chief, or leader. Yet another fragment refers to Akkad as below (? to the south) and Šumer above (? to the north),(13) but it is doubtful whether this refers to the position of the country. A fourth large fragment written partly in the “dialect” is referred to as a “Šumerian” text.

Both from the ethnographical and the linguistic side, therefore, ample testimony to the existence of a non-Semitic race (or non-Semitic races) in the plain of Shinar in ancient times is at hand. As to the language intended in the expression “Two Šumerian incantations” (spoken of above) there can be no doubt, the original idiom in question being the non-Semitic tongue already referred to—that tongue which was like the tongue of Akkad, of which it was apparently a more decayed form. The title given cannot refer to the translation into Assyro-Babylonian which accompanies it, as this is undoubtedly of later date than the composition itself.

There is then no doubt that the Akkadians and the Šumerians were two tribes of the same race, probably intermixed to a certain extent with foreign elements (people with oblique eyes being depicted on at least two of the sculptures of the early period from Tel-Loh), and speaking a language differing entirely from that of their Semitic fellow-countrymen,—a language which was of an agglutinative nature, introducing into its verbal forms whole rows of analytical particles, which sometimes gave to the phrase a precision of meaning to which the Semitic Babylonian has but little pretension, though Šumero-Akkadian is generally difficult enough in other respects, in consequence of the excessive number of the homophones that it contains. Indeed, it is sometimes difficult to see how the speakers of the latter language could have understood each other without resorting to some such distinctive aids similar to the tones used in modern—as probably also in ancient—Chinese, of which Šumero-Akkadian is regarded by the Rev. C. J. Ball as an exceedingly ancient form.

The question of the origin of the Akkadians is one concerning which there has been and is still much uncertainty, and which presents many problems for the future. It has been remarked that the fact that there is no special ideograph for “river,” and the fact that “mountain” and “country” are represented by the same character, imply that the people with whom the cuneiform script originated came from a mountainous country—probably the tract to the east or the north-east. This assumption, however, is not wholly dependent on what is here stated, for it is a well-known and admitted fact that the ideograph generally used for “Akkad” stands also for other tracts that are largely mountainous, namely, Phœnicia and Ararat.

It may be of interest here to quote the passage referring to this.

The text in question is the exceedingly important syllabary designated by Prof. Fried. Delitzsch “Syllabary B.” The text is unfortunately defective in the British Museum copy, but a duplicate found at Babylon by the German explorers completes it as follows:—

Uri [Cuneiform] Akkadū Ari [Cuneiform] Amurrū Tilla [Cuneiform] Urṭū.

From this we see that the ideograph for Akkad not only stood for that country, but also for the land of the Amorites (Amurrū), and for Ararat (Urṭū), both of them being more or less mountainous districts. That the ancient home of the Akkadians was of the same nature is, therefore, more than probable.

That the Akkadians were a conquering race is indicated by the legend of the god Ura, generally called “the Dibbara Legend,” where the hero, “the warrior Ura,” is represented as speaking prophetically as follows—

“Tâmtu with Tâmtu, Subartu with Subartu, Assyrian with Assyrian, Elamite with Elamite, Kassite with Kassite, Sutite with Sutite, Qutite with Qutite, Lullubite with Lullubite, Country with country, house with house, man with man, Brother with brother, shall not agree: let them annihilate each other, And afterwards let the Akkadian come, and Let him overthrow them all, and let him cast down the whole of them.”

The Akkadians had dominion, at one time or another, over all the above nationalities, some of whom were permanently subjected. Tâmtu, the region of the Persian Gulf, was under their domination constantly, though the inhabitants were apparently rather turbulent, and unwilling subjects. The Assyrians were apparently for a time under Akkadian (Babylonian) rule, but threw it off at a very early period, and later on conquered Akkad itself. The Elamites, too, were for a while conquered by the inhabitants of Babylonia, and the Sutites (people of Sutî) are said to have been all transported by Kadašman-Muruš (he reigned about 1209 B.C., according to Hilprecht). It will thus be seen that they played an important part in the history of the plain of Shinar where they settled, and to all appearance introduced their civilization.

In the earliest ages known to us, the land of Akkad was a collection of small states resembling the Heptarchy. These states differed considerably in power, influence, and prosperity, and the passing centuries brought many changes with them. From time to time one of the kings or viceroys of these small states would find himself more powerful than his contemporaries, and would gradually overcome all the others. One of the earliest instances of this is the ruler Lugal-zag-gi-si, whose reign is placed by Hilprecht at about 4500 B.C. He was son of Ukuš (the reading is doubtful), viceroy (patesi) of a district which seems to be that of which Kis was capital. “He had conquered all Babylonia and established an empire extending from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea” (Hilprecht).

Whether he and his successors were able to maintain real dominion over all this extensive tract or not, we do not know, but a few hundred years later we find Sargon of Agadé (known as “Šargani king of the city”) subduing the land of the west in the 11th year of his reign, and placing the districts under one control, whilst his son, Naram-Sin, apparently added Elam to his dominions, and Uruwuš (whom Prof. Sayce suggests as the original of the Horus of Pliny), at a later date, led a warlike expedition thither, and brought away much spoil, some of which is still extant as a lasting testimony to the reality of this historical fact.

Among the states which existed in Akkad before the whole country was united under one king may be mentioned Isin or Karrak, Ur (the supposed Ur of the Chaldees), Kêš, Nippur (or Niffur), the modern Niffer, Lagaš, Êridu, Êrech, and Larsa (identified with Ellasar), with some others. Akkad and Babylon were always important centres, the former being supreme before the date of the dynasty of Babylon (about 2200 B.C.), and the latter afterwards.

Until about the time of the dynasty of Babylon, the language principally used was to all appearance the non-Semitic Babylonian or Akkadian—in any case, the numerous texts (mainly temple-accounts) of the period of Dungi, Bûr-Sin, Gimil-Sin, and Ibi-Sin are written in that tongue. Nevertheless, Akkadian seems to have been the official language of the country for a considerable time after, if we may judge from the contracts, and especially the historical dates of these documents, which are always written in Akkadian. The names, too, which were before this period wholly Akkadian, gradually become more and more Semitic (Assyro-Babylonian), and finally the Akkadian element only exists as a remnant of the non-Semitic tongue which prevailed before the Semitic Dynasty of Babylon—that to which Ḫammurabi or Amraphel belonged—made the Semitic tongue, spoken by Sargon of Agadé more than 1500 years before, the official language of the country.

Such, then, is the history of the ancient Akkadians, from whose intermingled stock the later Semitic Babylonians sprang, and who inherited, at the same time, their method of writing, their literature, their arts and sciences, and also, to a great extent, their manners, customs, and religion. It was to all appearance with the Semitic dynasty of Ḫammurabi that the change from non-Semitic to Semitic predominance took place. This change must have been slow enough, and in all probability it occurred without any national upheaval, and without any interruption of the national life. Semitic names gradually replaced the Akkadian ones, most of the religious works, incantations, national histories, bilingual lists, and syllabaries were supplied with Semitic translations, and legal precedents in Semitic Babylonian for the information of the judges of later times were drawn up, whilst the old Akkadian laws, though retained, were translated for the use of students who no longer learned Akkadian as their mother-tongue, and who committed them to memory at the same time as they learned the set phrases they would have to use when, their education completed, they should attain to the dignity of full-fledged ministers to the legal needs of the community. By this time, or somewhat later, the racial type must have become fixed, for the sculptures from the thirteenth century B.C. downwards no longer show the slim, elegant form of the Akkadians, but the thick-set, well-developed figure of the Semites, such as at least some of the native Christians of Baghdad and the neighbourhood show at the present day.

As has been already noticed, the Assyrians spoke the same language, and had practically the same religion and literature (including the ancient Akkadian classics) as the Babylonians, whom they resembled in manners, customs, and outward appearance. The old translation of the verse referring to Assyria, “Out of that land (Babylonia) went forth Assur,” is, in all probability, perfectly correct, whatever may be the arguments in favour of the rendering, “He (Nimrod) went out into Assyria,” for it is exceedingly likely that the Babylonian civilization of Assyria is wholly due to emigration of settlers from Babylonia. Moreover, as will be seen later on, the enigmatical Nimrod is none other than the well-known head of the Babylonian Pantheon, Merodach, who is actually stated to have built Babel (= the city Babylon), Erech, and Niffer (identified in Rabbinical tradition, which in this case is probably correct, with Calneh). The Babylonian tradition as to the foundation of the city of Akkad is still wanting, but that its origin was attributed to Merodach is more than probable. If, however, there had been any grounds for honouring Calah, Nineveh, and Resen with the same divine origin, the Assyrians would certainly not have allowed the tradition to go unrecorded. Properly speaking the “land of Nimrod” (Micah v. 6) is Babylon, notwithstanding all arguments to the contrary, for that was the land which he loved, the land whose great cities he was regarded as having founded and as still favouring, and the land where, if we may trust the language of his name (in Akkadian it means “the brightness of day”), he ruled when he was king upon earth—the land, in fact, which gave him birth.

At first governed by patesis, or viceroys (many Assyriologists call them priest-kings or pontiffs), this title was abandoned for that of šarru, “king,” between 1600 and 1800 B.C. The use of the title patesi (in Assyrian iššaku, “chief”) implies that the earlier rulers of Assur acknowledged some overlord, and in all probability this overlord was the paramount king of Babylonia at the time. If we regard Nimrod (Merodach) as the first king of Babylonia (or the first really great ruler of the country), then it is certain that it was not he who founded the great cities of Assyria, for they can have no pretensions to the same antiquity as the great cities of Babylonia, any more than Assyrian civilization can be of the same period. Of course it is probable that the cities of Assyria were founded at an exceedingly early date, perhaps many of them are as old as any Babylonian foundation, but their importance was nothing like so great as those of Babylonia until the latter had already been renowned many hundreds—perhaps many thousands—of years, and to attribute the origin of these unimportant places to Nimrod would bring him no honour, even if it were probable that he had founded them.

The founder of Nineveh, Calah, Rehoboth Ir, and Resen was either a Babylonian emigrant named Asshur, the first viceroy of the district, or else Asshur, in the tenth chapter of Genesis, stands for the Assyrian nation. It is noteworthy that, in the verse in question, there is no mention of the foundation of the old capital, the city of Aššur. This is probably to be explained by the fact that the book of Genesis was compiled at a time when the primæval capital had already fallen into the background, and Nineveh, the city first mentioned in the enumeration, had assumed the first place—indeed, the fact that it is mentioned first seems to prove this contention.

Being far away from the centre of civilization, and apparently mingling with barbarous races to the north—the people of Urarṭu (Ararat), Van, Ukka, Muṣaṣir, etc.—in all probability the ancient Assyrians lost what polish they had brought with them from Babylonia, and, like all pioneers, developed into hardy, fearless, and cruel warriors, constantly striving for the mastery over all the other tribes and nationalities around. Thus it came to pass that, having ascertained her strength, Assyria refused to acknowledge the overlordship of the kings of Babylonia, and the rulers of the country abandoned the title of patesi or iššaku for that of šarru or “king.” The country from which the Assyrians had sprung did not long remain secure from the attacks of her offspring, and the conquest of Babylonia by the Assyrians took place more than once. Brave, warlike, and cruel, the Assyrians at last possessed for a time not only Babylonia, with the overlordship of Elam, but also the whole of Western Asia as far as the Mediterranean and Cyprus, and a large part of Egypt. Notwithstanding the polish that they had attained during the last years of the empire, the nations around remembered against them all the cruelties that they had committed during the foregoing centuries, and when the time of weakness came, when the ruling mind that should have held the empire together, and turned the tide of disaster into the channel of success, was wanting, then came the chance of the nations that had known the Assyrian empire in former ages, and the end of the seventh century before Christ saw the last of the power that had dominated Western Asia so long and so successfully.

Yet Assyria was a most remarkable power, and produced a number of really great rulers and generals. The Assyrian kings retained for a long time their dominion over fairly distant tracts, and made themselves greatly feared by all the nations around. As is well known, they had made great advances in the art of sculpture, so much so that visitors to the British Museum, on seeing the wonderful hunting-scenes in the Assyrian side-gallery, have been heard to express the opinion that Greek artists must either have originated them, or influenced their production. Their literature was naturally influenced by that of Babylonia, but one has only to read the historical records of Tiglath-pileser I., who declaims his successes in forceful and elegant paragraphs; Sennacherib, with his wealth of words; or Assur-banî-âpli, who in moderate and elegant phrases tells of the successes of his soldiers and generals, to see that, when occasion arose, they could produce literary works as good as the best of ancient times.

It will probably be a matter of regret to many people, but the name of Nimrod, which we have been accustomed to associate with the pleasures and perils of the chase for so many hundred years, must now be relegated to the domain of words misunderstood or purposely changed for reasons that can without much difficulty be divined.

It is not Nimrod alone that comes under this category—Nibhaz (2 Kings xvii. 31), judging from the Greek, is in the same case, Nisroch (2 Kings xix. 37) is certainly so, and Abed-nego for Abed-nebo is a well-known instance.

But why, it will be asked, should these names have been intentionally changed? The answer is simple. All these names were, or contained, the names of heathen deities, and this offended the strongly monotheistic Hebrew scribe who, at a certain period, was copying the portions of the Hebrew Bible in which they occur, so he defaced them, adding or changing a letter, and thus making them unrecognizable, and in all probability ridiculous as well. A different punctuation (vowelling) completed the work, and the names were then in such a form that pious and orthodox lips could pronounce them without fear of defilement.

Nibhaz is probably for some such name as Aba-hazar, Nisroch is for Assur or Assuraku, and Nimrod is, by similar changes, for Amaruduk or Amarudu (original Akkadian), Maruduk or Marduk (Assyro-Babylonian). The change was brought about by making the root triliteral, and the ending uk (ak in Merodach-baladan) disappearing first, Marduk appeared as Marad. This was connected with the root Marad, “to be rebellious,” and the word was still further mutilated, or, rather, deformed by having a (ni) attached, assimilating it to a certain extent to the “niphal forms” of the Hebrew verbs, and making a change altogether in conformity with the genius of the Hebrew language. This alteration is also clearly visible in Nibhaz and Nisroch, which fully confirm the explanation here given.

From a linguistic point of view, therefore, the identification of Nimrod as a changed form of Merodach is fully justified.

But there is another and a potent reason for eliminating Nimrod from the list of Babylonian heroes, and that is, the fact that his name is nowhere found in the extensive literature which has come down to us. His identification with Gišdubar was destroyed when it was discovered that the true reading of that doubtful name was not, as it was expected that it would be, a Babylonian form of Nimrod, but something entirely different, namely, Gilgameš. Moreover, there is some doubt whether the personage represented on the cylinder-seals struggling with lions and bulls be really Gilgameš (Gišdubar)—his prowess in hunting does not seem to be emphasized in the legend recounting his exploits (see pp. 92-111)—he is in all probability the wild man of the woods who became his great friend and counsellor, the satyr-like figure who is represented as accompanying and imitating the hunter being simply one of those beings who, the Babylonians imagined, existed in wild and waste places, for that this creature is not, as was at first supposed, Êa-banî, the friend of Gilgameš, is not only proved by the fact that in the legend he is described as a man with hairy body and hair long like that of a woman, but also by the incontestable circumstance that this satyr-like creature is, on certain cylinders, represented more than once, and in such a way that the repetition cannot be attributed to the exigencies of the design. Moreover, he is sometimes represented in positions that seem to have no connection with the Gilgameš-legend at all.

It would seem therefore to be certain that Gilgameš is not Nimrod; that as he had little or no fame as a “great hunter before the Lord,” it cannot be he who is represented on the cylinder-seals; and that, in all probability, the hunter there represented is Êa-banî, who overcame the divine bull before Erech, and a lion after the defeat of Ḫumbaba, in both cases, however, assisted by his royal patron.

But, it may be asked, how is it that Nimrod, otherwise Merodach, is described as “the mighty hunter before the Lord”?

The explanation is very simple, and remarkably conclusive in its way. Merodach, in the legend of the Creation, there appears as the greatest hunter (using the word in the Hebrew sense of “entrapper”) that ever lived. For did he not, when Tiamtu, the great dragon of chaos and disorder, tried to usurp the dominion of the gods, and bring ruin on their fair work, chase and entrap her, thereby winning the throne of the kingdom of heaven, and laying the universe under an everlasting debt to him? With his net he caught and held her fast, and, standing on her body, slew her. This was the feat of a real gibbor ṣayid, a “hero in hunting,” or entrapping with a net, for ṣayid, “hunting,” is from the same root as Sidon, the name of the ancient “fishing town,” renowned of old, and still existing at the present day.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

The Tower Of Babel

There is no doubt that one of the most striking and attractive episodes of the sacred narrative of Genesis is the Tower of Babel. It has attracted the attention of all from its circumstantial details, and has, as an authoritative narrative, had the full belief of all the faithful for many thousand years. This being the case, it is needful to go rather carefully into the matter, not only to try to account for its origin, but also to satisfy the believer of to-day with regard to the story being a real historical fact.

“Of these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands,”—“These are the sons of Ham, after their families,”—“These are the sons of Shem, after their families,” says the author of Genesis in ch. x. 5, 20, and 31, and then he adds, in slightly varying words, “after their tongues, in their lands, in their nations.”

Yet, after this (ch. xi. 1) we have the statement, “And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.” Moreover, how was it possible that the whole of the nations of the earth there enumerated in the tenth chapter should have had their origin at Babel, the beginning of Nimrod’s (Merodach’s) kingdom, coeval with Erech, Akkad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar? The effect of such a statement as this would surely be to make the language of Nimrod the primitive language of the world, unless, indeed, all the languages of the earth resulting from the confusion of tongues were regarded as new, the primitive speech of man having been destroyed on that occasion. Then, again, as we know, the building of the city was not stopped, for it continued until it became the greatest and most important centre in the known world when it was at the height of its glory.

With the best will in the world, therefore, there seems to be no escape from regarding both the story of the Tower of Babel, and the reference to Nimrod and Asshur in the foregoing chapter as interpolations, giving statements from ancient and possibly fairly well-known records, recording what was commonly believed in the ancient East in those early ages. It is also noteworthy, that both extracts, referring as they do, to Babylonia, are probably on that account from a Babylonian source. May it not be possible, that they have been inserted in the sacred narrative as statements of what was the common opinion among the more well-informed inhabitants of Western Asia at the time, without any claim to an inspired authority being either stated or implied? This would seem to be the most reasonable way of looking at the matter, and would take away what might well be regarded as a great difficulty to the believer in good faith.

If this be conceded, we can with the greater ease analyze this portion of the eleventh chapter of Genesis, and estimate it at its true value.

In any case, there is great improbability that the statement that the whole earth was of one language and of one speech, was ever believed, by thinking men at the time as an actual historical fact. A better translation would be “the whole land,” that is, the whole tract of country from the mountains of Elam to the Mediterranean Sea, rather than “the whole earth.” The same word is used when the “land” of Israel is spoken of, and also when “the land of Egypt” is referred to. It will thus be seen that no violence whatever is done to the text if the restricted use of the word be accepted.

That this is, in a sense, provable as an historical fact, we shall see in the sequel.

Having thus in a measure cleared the way, the various points of the first nine verses of the eleventh chapter of Genesis may be taken in order.

“As they journeyed in the east” apparently refers to the remembrance of the migrations that many a nation, handing down its traditions from mouth to mouth, must have preserved in ancient times. Whilst thus engaged, “they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there”—a statement which would seem to point to the migrants having been wandering about in various districts, some of them mountainous—like Armenia on the north of Assyria, and Elam and other mountainous tracts on the east. This would seem to agree with the migration which, from the evidence of the monuments of Babylonia, the Akkadians apparently made before they settled in that country. And here it may be noted, in support of that fact, that the ideograph(14) for Akkad, Uri or Ura in Akkadian, and Akkadū in Semitic Babylonian, not only stood for Akkad, but also (often used in the Assyrian letters) for Ararat (Urṭū), and likewise (this in a syllabary only) for Amurrū, the land of the Amorites, or Phœnicia. Both these being districts more or less mountainous, it is only reasonable to suppose that the original home of the Akkadians was likewise of the same nature, and that they were not aborigines of the Babylonian plain. The Akkadians at least, therefore, “journeyed in the east.”

In the expression “they found a plain in the land of Shinar,” we have a reference to the old name of a district of Babylonia, generally regarded as the Šumer of the Babylonian inscriptions, called Kingi or Kengi “the country” par excellence in the native tongue of the inhabitants. The land of Shinar here spoken of, if this explanation be correct, not merely contained a plain—it was, in fact, itself a large plain, through which the rivers Tigris and Euphrates ran, and it was covered, when the land had been brought into a really good state of cultivation, by a network of canals connected with them. It must, when the ancient Akkadians first settled there, have been a land of remarkable fertility, and would be so still were it brought into the same efficient state of cultivation, with irrigation and drainage, such as the old inhabitants effected.

Here, having settled down, they built a city and a tower, using brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar—just as they are proved to have done from the remains of cities found in the country at the present day. That Babylon was the site of the first settlement of the nature of a city is conceivable, and it is very possible that the first tower in Babylonia, which in later times had many towers, as had also Assyria, was situated in that ancient city. Everything points, therefore, to the correctness of the statements made in this portion of the sacred narrative. According to native tradition, however (and this seems to be supported by the statements in ch. x. 10), there were other important cities on the Babylonian plain of almost equal antiquity, namely, Erech, Akkad, and Calneh, which last is identified with Niffer (see p. 126). Notwithstanding the extensive ruins, proof of the same remote date for Babylon will doubtless be difficult to obtain, on account of the country around and a large portion of the site of the city being so marshy. The result of this condition of things will in all probability be, that very few remains of a really ancient date will be discovered in a condition to render services to archæology. To this must also be added the fact, that the city, being the capital for some thousands of years, underwent many changes at the hands of its various kings, partly from the necessity of keeping in good repair the many comparatively perishable brick monuments that the city contained, and partly from a desire to add more to the glories of the city than any of their predecessors had done.

“And they said, Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, and its top (lit. head) shall be in the heavens.” To all appearance, this means simply that they would build a very high structure,—to many a student of the sacred text it has seemed that the writer only intended to say, that the tower (migdol) that they were about to build was to be very high. The mountains of Elam were not so very far off, and travellers from that part would have been able to assure them that the heavens would not be appreciably nearer on account of their being a few hundred cubits above the surface of the earth, even if traditions of their fathers’ wanderings had not assured them of the same thing. They wished simply to make them a name and a rallying-point, “lest,” as the sacred text has it, “we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”

And here a few remarks upon the temple-towers of the Babylonians might not be out of place.

As has already been stated, most of the principal towns of Babylonia each possessed one. That of Babylon (called Šu-ana in the list published in the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, vol. ii., pl. 50) was named Ê-temen-ana, “the temple of the foundation-stone of Heaven”; that of Borsippa, near to Babylon, was called Ê-ur-imina-ana, generally translated “the temple of the seven spheres of heaven,” on account of its being dedicated to the sun, moon, and planets. This was a high and massive tower in seven stages, each coloured with an emblematic tint indicating the heavenly body with which each stage was associated. At Niffer the tower seems to have had three names, or else there were three towers (which is unlikely), the principal one being Im-ur-sag. Agade, the Akkad of Gen. x. 10, had two of these temple-towers, Ê-Dadia, apparently meaning “the temple of the (divine) Presence,” and Ê-šu-gala or Ê-igi-ê-di, the latter apparently meaning “the temple of the wonder (of mankind),” which was dedicated to the god Tammuz. At Cuthah there was the temple of Nannara (Nan-naros); at Ur the temple Ê-šu-gan-du-du; at Erech Ê-gipara-imina, “the temple of the seven enclosures”; at Larsa Ê-dur-an-ki, “the Temple of the bond of heaven and earth.”

The only temple-tower that contains in its name a distinct reference to the seven stages of which it was composed, is that at Borsippa, though that at Erech may possibly have in its name “seven enclosures” a suggestion of something of the kind. As, however, the ruins of the towers at Dûr-Sargina (Khorsabad) in Assyria, Erech, Niffer, and elsewhere, show distinctly this form of architecture, there is every probability that they were all, or almost all, built on the same plan. In his description of the glories of Babylon, Herodotus gives details, in his usual minute way, of the temple of Belos (Ê-sagila) there. He describes it as having eight stages (the platform upon which the tower proper was built being counted as one), and judging from his description, this building must have differed somewhat from the others, the various platforms being connected by a gradually rising ascent, arranged spirally as it were, so that by constantly walking upwards, and turning at the corners of the edifice, one at last reached the top. About the middle of this long ascending pathway there was a stopping-place, with seats to rest upon. Having reached the top of the structure, the visitor came upon a cell, within which there was a couch and a golden table. Here it was supposed that the god descended from time to time to dwell. Below, he relates, there was another cell, wherein was a large statue of Zeus (Belos) sitting. This image was of gold, as were also the table in front of it, the god’s footstool, and his seat. It is probable that at the time to which the narrative in Genesis refers, the tower was neither so high, nor the workmanship so splendid and valuable, as in later times.

But was this the Tower of Babel? We do not know. The general opinion is that the great and celebrated temple-tower at Borsippa, extensive remains of which still exist, was that world-renowned erection. Its name, however, was Ê-zida, and it was not situated within Babylon. Notwithstanding the fact, therefore, that Borsippa, the town on the outskirts of the great city, was called “the second Babylon,” and that tradition associates the site of the Tower of Babel with that spot, it must still be held to be very doubtful whether that was really the place. Neither the renown of Ê-zida nor that of Ê-sagila prove that either of them must have been the place, for the populace is fickle-minded in this as in other matters, and holy fanes have the periods when they are in fashion, just like anything else.

This being the case, the question is, what was that Ê-temen-ana-kia which is apparently mentioned in the list of temple-towers quoted above? In many an inscription of Nebuchadnezzar, this temple-tower is referred to, though very shortly, as having been restored by him. Thus, in the great cylinder of Nebuchadnezzar, 85-4-30, I, the following occurs—

“I caused the fanes of Babylon and Borsippa to be rebuilt and endowed. Ê-temen-ana-kia, the temple-tower of Babylon; Ê-ur-imina-ana-kia, the temple-tower of Borsippa, all their structure with bitumen and brick I made, I completed.”

In the above Ê-temen-ana-kia takes the place of Ê-sagila, and Ê-ur-imina-ana-kia that of Ê-zida, implying that they respectively belonged to each other. The passage corresponding to the above in the India House Inscription is greatly expanded, and recounted with much detail. The portion referring to Ê-temen-ana-kia is as follows—

“The vessels of the temple Ê-sagila with massive gold— the bark Ma-kua (Merodach’s shrine) with electrum and stones— I made glorious like the stars of heaven. The fanes of Babylon I caused to be rebuilt and endowed. Of Ê-temen-ana-kia with brick and bright lapis stone I reared its head. To rebuild Ê-sagila my heart urged me— constantly did I set myself,” etc., etc.

According to the plan of Babylon drawn up by Weissbach, one of the German explorers, Ê-temen-ana-kia was situated to the north of Ê-sagila, which latter was evidently the temple connected with it. As both were dedicated to Merodach (Bel), they practically formed one centre of worship, and it is possibly on this account that the Tower is called “the Temple of Belus” in Herodotus. The description, from a Babylonian tablet probably in private hands, published by the late George Smith, agrees well with that given by Herodotus, but has some noteworthy differences—the great height of the lowest stage, the sloping (?) sides of the second stage, and the buildings grouped near it. Unfortunately, the baked brickwork of Ê-temen-ana-kia has been cleared away, practically destroying the remains.

Concerning the miracle of the confusion of tongues, there is, of course, no historical reference. The Babylonian inscriptions know nothing of it. Yet the stranger visiting Babylon could not have been otherwise than struck by the number of languages spoken there. There was the religious tongue, which is called by modern scholars Akkadian or Šumerian, and its dialect, together with the language known as Assyrian, or, more correctly, Semitic Babylonian. Besides this, there were various Aramaic dialects—Chaldee, Aramean (Syriac), and the language of the dockets on the trade-documents, which is also found in Assyria. In addition to these, the Elamite and Kassite conquerors of Babylonia brought with them large numbers of people, and each of these nations naturally introduced, in larger measure than before, the use of their respective languages. Speakers of other tongues long since dead must also have visited the city for the purposes of trade, and of this the so-called Hittite is in all probability an example (in the researches of Profs. Sayce and Jensen we shall, perhaps, see the beginnings of the recovery of this tongue), and a docket in an unknown script implies that yet another language heard there in later times has to be discovered, though this may simply be some other way of writing one of the tongues spoken there that is already known to scholars. With regard to the oneness of the language of the rest of the earth, in all probability this expression referred, as has been already remarked, to the tract enclosed between the mountains of Persia on the east, the Mediterranean on the west, Asia Minor and Armenia on the north, and Arabia on the south—a tract in which the lingua franca of diplomacy was, as is proved by the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, the tongue now called Assyrian, which could easily have been regarded as the proofs and the remains of the thing that had been.

To recapitulate: The story of the Tower of Babel is a break in the narrative of the genealogies, so striking that any thinking man must have been able to recognize it easily. It is a narrative that practically glorifies Babylonia, making it the centre of the human race, and the spot from which they all migrated after the dispersion caused by the confusion of tongues. It was probably given for, and recognized as, the legend current in Babylonia at the time, and must, therefore, have been recognized and valued by the people of the time at its true worth.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

The Patriarchs To Abraham

Little information is unfortunately to be obtained from Assyro-Babylonian sources concerning the patriarchs from Shem to Abraham. It is true that certain comparisons can be made in the matter of the names, but these, when more precise information comes to light, may be found to be more or less erroneous. As a matter of fact, with one or two exceptions, it is probable that we have nothing from Babylonian sources bearing on the patriarchs who preceded Abraham at all.

Nevertheless, there are one or two things that may be put forward in a more or less tentative way, and these may well be discussed with this reservation in this place.

As we have seen, it was the custom of the early Babylonians to deify the early rulers of their race, and as a well-known example of this, the case of the god Merodach will at once occur to the mind. As has been shown, this deity is none other than the long-known and enigmatical hero Nimrod, and it is probable that, if we had more and more complete sources of information, other instances would be found. This being the case, it may be permitted to the student to try to find similar instances of deification by the Babylonians of the men of old who were their ancestors in common with the Jews and other nations of the ancient East.

To begin with Shem, the name of the ancestor of the Semitic race. As a word, this means, in Hebrew, “name.” Now, the Assyro-Babylonian equivalent and cognate word is šumu, “name,” and this naturally leads one to ask whether Shem may not have been designated “He of the Name” par excellence, and deified under that appellation. If this be the case, we may perhaps see the word Shem in certain names of kings and others of the second dynasty of Babylon (that to which Ḫammurabi or Amraphel belonged, and which held the power from about 2230 to 1967 B.C.). Sumu-abi, the name of the first ruler of the dynasty, would then mean “Shem is my father,” Sumu-la-ili would mean “a name to his god,” with a punning allusion to the deified ancestor of the Semitic nations.

Other names, not royal, are Sumu-Upê, apparently, “Shem of Opis”; Sumu-Dagan, “Shem is Dagon,” or “Name of Dagon”; Sumu-ḫatnu, “Shem is a protection”; Sumu-atar, “Shem is great,” and the form Samu-la-ili for Sumu-la-ili leads one to ask whether Samia may not be for Sumia, “my Shem,” a pet name abbreviated from a longer one similar to those already quoted; Sumu-ya (= Sumia) also occurs. All these forms, being written with s, instead of š, like Samsu-iluna for Šamšu-iluna, betray foreign (so-called Arabic) influence, and are not native Babylonian. That the Babylonians had at this time names compounded with the native representative of Sumu is shown by the contracts of that time, where the name Šumum-libši, “let there be a name,” occurs. Many later instances of this are to be found.(15)

From other than Bible sources there is but little that can be gathered concerning the descendants of Shem, though in this, as in many other things, one lives in hopes of something coming to light later on. And such a record, as may readily be imagined, would be of the greatest interest and value. Shem, as one of those born before the Flood, must certainly on that account have been renowned (as we have just seen he was, if it be true that he was deified) among other nations of Semitic stock than the Hebrews. To all appearance, the lives of the patriarchs decreased greatly after the Flood, and are represented, in the Bible narrative, as gradually assuming the average duration of those who attain a hoary old age at the present day. It is noteworthy that his eldest son was born two years after the Flood, and if this have any ethnic meaning, it ought to point to the foundation of the settlement known as Arpachshad at about that period, though it could not have attained to the renown of a well-known and recognized community until some time after that date.

The theory that Arpachshad represents a community is rather supported by the fact that it is mentioned in Gen. x. 22, where it is accompanied by the names of Elam, Asshur, Lud, and Aram, which were later, as we know, names of nationalities. Indeed, the long lives of the patriarchs of this exceedingly early period are best explained if we suppose that they represent a people or community.

There is a considerable amount of difference of opinion as to the correct identification of the Arpachshad of Gen. ix. 10, though nearly every critic places the country it represents in the same tract. It has been identified with Arrapkha, or Arrapachitis, in Assyria. Schrader makes it to be for Arpa-cheshed, “the coast of the Chaldeans.” Prof. Hommel, who is always ready with a seductive and probable etymology, suggests that Arpachshad is an Egyptianized way of writing Ur of the Chaldees—Ar-pa-Cheshed, for Ur-pa-Cheshed.

This, it must be admitted, is a possible etymology, for Egyptianized words were really used in that district in ancient times. This is shown in the name of Merodach, Asari, which is apparently connected with the Egyptian Osiris, just as one of the names of the Sun-god Šamaš, Amna, is probably an Akkadianized form of the Egyptian Ammon, and even the Egyptian word for “year,” ronpet, made, probably by early Babylonian scribes, into a kind of pun, became, by the change of a vowel, ran pet, “name of heaven,” transcribed, by those same scribes, into mu-anna, which, in its ordinary signification, means likewise “name of heaven,” in Akkadian; the whole being used with the meaning of ronpet, i.e. “year.” It will thus be seen that there is but little that is unlikely in Prof. Hommel’s etymology of Arpachshad, and that the explanation which he gives may turn out to be correct.(16)

In any case, we may take it that the consensus of opinion favours the supposition that the name in question refers to Babylonia, and if this be the case, Abraham, the father of the Hebrew nation, as well as of other peoples, was really, as has been supposed, of Babylonian or Chaldean origin. This is also implied by the statement in Gen. xi. 28, that Ur of the Chaldees was the land of the nativity of Haran, Abraham’s brother, who died in the country of his birth before the family of Terah went to settle at Haran, on the way to Canaan. The theory of the identity of Arpachshad is moreover important, because it is contended that Ur of the Chaldees was not in Babylonia, but is to be identified with the site known as Urfa, in Mesopotamia.

Concerning the names of Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, and Nahor, there is not much that can be said. To all appearance they are not Babylonian names, or, rather, they receive little or no illustration from Babylonian sources. Nothing is recorded concerning these patriarchs except their ages at the time their eldest sons were born, and at what age they died. The question whether the Hebrews derived their name from their ancestor Eber is not set at rest by any passage in the Bible, nor is there any statement in secular literature which would enable this to be decided. To all appearance, it is needful to keep the name of Eber distinct from that of the Hebrews, notwithstanding that they are from the same root. If, however, the Hebrews were “the men from beyond,” then Eber may well have been “the man from beyond,” indicating for his time a migration similar to that of Abraham. In this way, if in no other, the names may be connected.

We have seen that in many cases the names of these “genealogical tables” are regarded as nationalities, and, indeed, there is sufficient justification for such a theory on account of many of the names appearing as those of well-known nations. This being conceded, it would probably not be too much to regard the names of the patriarchs from Shelah to Serug as indicating ethnical historical events. Thus Shelah might mean “extension,” indicating the time when the Semitic race began to go beyond its ancient borders. Treating the other names in the same way, Eber would mean the period when that race crossed some river into another district; Peleg would mean that, at the time referred to, that race, or a portion of it, was divided into small states, as Babylonia was at the period preceding that of the dynasty of Amraphel; whilst Reu would mean “friendliness,” denoting the time when those states were united under one head, and the old dissensions ceased. Serug would then mean something like “interweaving,” perhaps referring to the time when the various races (? of Babylonia) intermingled. These explanations of the names receive a certain amount of confirmation from the parallel list in Gen. x. 25, where to the name Peleg the note is added, “for in his days was the earth divided.”

With regard to Nahor and his son Terah the Jews had other traditions, and they speak thus concerning them—

“Terah, son of Nahor, was the chief officer of king Nimrod, and a great favourite with his royal master. And when his wife Amtheta, the daughter of Kar-Nebo, bare him a son, she called his name Abram, meaning ‘great father.’ And Terah was seventy years old when his son Abram was born.”

Here we have, in Amtheta, a doubtful Babylonian name, in Kar-Nebo a possible Babylonian name, and in the meaning of Abram a signification that does not militate against the indications given by the tablets of Babylonia and Assyria. This being the case, it would seem that there were trustworthy data to go upon for certain facts connected with Abraham’s ancestors, and that these facts were known to the Jews of earlier ages. The Talmudic account of the wonders seen at the birth of Abram, however, are not sufficiently worthy of credence to allow of repetition here, notwithstanding their reference to Terah and Abraham’s youth.

Eusebius quotes the following from Eupolemus concerning Abraham—

“He saith, moreover, that in the tenth generation in a city of Babylonia, called Camarina (which, by some, is called the city of Urie, and which signifyeth a city of the Chaldeans), there lived, the thirteenth in descent, (a man named) Abraham, a man of a noble race, and superior to all others in wisdom.

“Of him they relate that he was the inventor of astrology and the Chaldean magic, and that on account of his eminent piety he was esteemed by God. It is further said that under the directions of God he removed and lived in Phœnicia, and there taught the Phœnicians the motions of the sun and moon, and all other things; for which reason he was held in great reverence by their king” (Praep. Evan. 9).

Nicolas of Damascus, apparently wishing to glorify his own city, states that Abram was king of Damascus, and went there, with an army, from that part of the country which is situated above Babylon of the Chaldeans, afterwards transferring his dwelling to the land which was at that time called Canaan, but is now called Judea. Justin also states that Abraham lived at Damascus, from which city he traces the origin of the Jews.

According to the most trustworthy traditions, therefore, as well as from the Bible itself, Abraham was of Chaldean or Babylonian origin. If the city of Urie or Ur be, as he says, that which was also called Camarina, this would in all probability be the Aramean form of the Arabic qamar, “the moon,” and the name Camarina would be due to the fact that the Moon-god, Sin or Nannara, was worshipped there. It is also noteworthy that the city whither the family of Terah emigrated, Haran (in Assyro-Babylonian, Ḫarran), was likewise a centre of lunar worship, and some have sought to see in that a reason for choosing that settlement. In connection with this it may be remarked, that in the Talmud Terah, the father of Abraham, is represented as an idolater, reproved by his son Abraham for foolish and wicked superstition.

We see, therefore, from the eleventh chapter of Genesis, that Abraham was a Babylonian from Ur, now known as Mugheir (Muqayyar), or (better still) from that part of the country which lay north of Babylon, known by the non-Semitic inhabitants as Uri, and by the Semitic population as Akkad. As the family of Terah was a pastoral one, they must have pastured their flocks in this district until they heard of those more fruitful tracts in the west, and decided to emigrate thither. And here it may be noted that they did not, by thus quitting their fatherland, go to swear allegiance to another ruler, for the sway of the king of Babylon extended to the farthest limits of the patriarch’s wanderings, and wherever he went, Babylonian and Aramean or Chaldean would enable him to make himself understood. He was, therefore, always as it were in his own land, under the governors of the same king who ruled in the place of his birth.

The name of the patriarch, moreover, seems to betray the place of his origin. The first name that he bore was Abram, which has already been compared with the Abu-ramu, “honoured father,” of the Assyrian eponym-lists (in this place an official by whose name the year 677, the 5th year of Esarhaddon, was distinguished). At an earlier date than this the name has not been found, and the element ram, ramu, rame, etc., seems to be rare. Ranke’s list gives only Sumu-ramê, “the name is established,” or “Sumu (? Shem) is established,” or something similar, but ramê here is probably not connected with the second syllable of Abram’s name. The name of Sarah has been compared with the Assyro-Babylonian šarratu, “queen,” but seems not to occur in the inscriptions. Isaak is also absent, but Ishmael, under the form of Išme-îlu (meaning “(the) god has heard”) occurs, as well as others in which îlu is replaced by Êa, Sin, and Addu or Adad (Hadad).

When, however, it was revealed to Abram that he was to stay in the Promised Land, a change was made in his name—he was no longer known by the Assyro-Babylonian name Abram, “honoured father,” but, in view of the destiny appointed for him, he was to be called Abraham, “father of a multitude of nations.”

The first stratum of the Hebrew nation was, therefore to all appearance, Babylonian, the second stratum Aramean, probably a kindred stock, whilst the third was to all appearance Canaanitish. All these must have left their trace on the Hebrew character, and, like most mixed races, they showed at all times superior intelligence in many ways. They were good diplomates, brave warriors, divine lawgivers, and they excelled in literary skill. One great defect they had—among their many defects—they were stiffnecked to a fatal degree. Had their kings been less obstinate and better rulers, conciliating their subjects instead of exasperating them, the nation might have outlasted the power of Rome, and built upon its ruins in their land a kingdom dominating the Semitic world in the nearer East to the present day.

Of all the characters of early Bible history, there is hardly one which stands out with greater prominence than the patriarch Abraham. And not only is it his history and personality that is important—the historical facts touched upon in the course of his biography are equally so. Facts concerning the ancient East, from Babylonia on the east to Egypt on the west, face the reader as he goes through that attractive narrative, and make him wonder at the state of society, the political situation, and the beliefs of the people which should have made his migrations possible, brought about the monotheistic belief which characterizes his life and that of his descendants, and enabled him and his sons after him to attain such a goodly store of the riches of this world.

To begin with Babylonia, his native place. As is well known, that country had already been in existence as a collection of communities far advanced in arts, sciences, and literature, at an exceedingly early date, and many of the small kingdoms of which it consisted had become united under Ḫammurabi (Amraphel) into one single state, making it one of the greatest powers at the time. Of course, it is not by any means improbable that something similar to this had existed before, but if so, we have no record of the fact, though it is certain that different states had from time to time become predominant and powerful to an extent hardly conceivable. The influence, if not the sway, of Sargon of Agadé, who reigned about 3800 years before Christ, for example, extended from Elam on the east to the Mediterranean on the west—a vast tract of territory to acknowledge the suzerainty of so small a state.

Babylonia, therefore, with a long history behind it, was beginning to feel, to all appearance, a new national life. It had passed the days when the larger states boasted strength begotten of mere size, and when the smaller states sought mutual protection against the larger, finding in that alone, or in the acknowledgment of an overlord, the security upon which their existence as separate states depended. There is every probability that it was at this time that the legends which formed the basis of Babylonian national literature were collected and copied, thus assuring their preservation. It is also probable that the translations from Akkadian of the numerous inscriptions written in that language, and the bilingual lists, syllabaries, and other texts of a similar nature, belong to this period.

The social condition of Babylonia itself at this time is now fairly well known. The ancient Akkadian laws were still in force, but as they did not provide for all the possibilities that might arise, a large series of legal enactments was compiled, in which points were decided in a very common-sense and just manner. It is noteworthy that the number of tablets of a legal nature is very numerous, and arouses the suspicion that the Babylonians were exceedingly fond of litigation, due, no doubt, to the tendency they had to overreach each other. It is therefore very probable that this is the reason why we meet with that remarkable contract of the purchase of the field of Machpelah from the children of Heth. One would have imagined that the frequent protestations, made by the head of the tribe there located, to the effect that he gave the field and the cave to Abraham, would have been sufficient, especially at that solemn moment of the burial of Sarah, and that the matter could have been put upon a legal footing later on. But no, the patriarch was determined to have the matter placed beyond dispute there and then, and knowing how prone the Babylonians (with whom he had passed his youth) were to deny a contract, and try to get back again, by perjury, what they had already parted with for value, the matter was at once placed beyond the possibility of being disputed in any court of law.(17)

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

V. BABYLONIA AT THE TIME OF ABRAHAM

The first dynasty of Babylon—The extent of its dominion—The Amorites—Life in Babylonia at this time—The religious element—The king—The royal family—The people—Their manners and customs as revealed by the contract-tablets—Their laws.

Much has been learnt, but there is still much to learn, concerning the early history of Babylonia.

During the period immediately preceding that of the dynasty of Babylon—the dynasty to which Amraphel (Ḫammurabi) belonged—there is a gap in the list of the kings, which fresh excavations alone can fill up. Before this gap the records, as far as we know them, are in the Akkadian language. After this gap they are in the Semitic-Babylonian tongue. To all appearance, troublous times had come upon Babylonia. The native rulers had been swept away by the Elamites, who, in their turn, had been driven out by the Semitic kings of Babylonia, but those Semitic kings were not Babylonians by origin, notwithstanding that the native scribes, who drew up the lists of kings, describe them as being a Babylonian dynasty.

[Plate V.]

Envelope (Printed upside down on account of seal-impressions 2 to 4) of a contract-tablet recording a sale of land by Sin-êribam, Pî-sa-nunu, and Idis-Sin, three brothers, to Sin-ikîsam. Reign of Immerum, contemporary with Sumula-îlu, about 2100 B.C. Seal Impressions. 1. (Here reversed.) Two deities, one (in a flounced robe) holding a sceptre. On the left, a worshipper; on the right, a man overcoming a lion. This scene is repeated, less distinctly, on the left. 2. Left: Two deities, one holding a sceptre and a weapon; right: deity, divine attendant adoring, and worshipper (?). 3. Men overcoming lions; winged creature devouring a gazelle. 4. Figure on plinth, holding basket and cup; worshipper; deity, holding sword; lion (or dog); deity, holding weapon. Inscription: Aa (the moon-goddess), Samas (the sun-god). (Tablet 92,649 in the British Museum (Babylonian and Assyrian Room, Table-case A, No. 62). The edges have also some very fine impressions.)

The change may have been gradual, but it was great. Many of the small states which had existed at the time of Dungi, Bûr-Sin, Gimil-Sin, Ibi-Sin, and their predecessors had to all appearance passed away, and become part of the Babylonian Empire long before the dynasty of Babylon came to an end, though some at least were in existence in the time of the great conqueror Ḫammurabi. But the change was, as it would seem, not one of overlordship only—another change which had been gradually taking place was, by this, carried one step farther, namely, the Semiticizing of the country. Before the period of the dynasty of Babylon, the two races of Akkadians and Semitic Babylonians had been living side by side, the former (except in the kingdom of which Sippar was the capital) having the predominance, the records being written in the Akkadian language, and the kings bearing mainly Akkadian names, though there were, for the Semitic inhabitants, translations of those names. Translations of the inscriptions and legends, as well as the old Akkadian laws, probably did not (except in the Semitic kingdom of Agadé) exist.

How it came about is not known, but it is certain that, about 2200 years B.C., a purely Semitic dynasty occupied the throne of the chief ruler in Babylonia. The first king was Sumu-abi, who reigned 14 years. This monarch was followed by Sumu-la-ili and Zabû, 36 and 14 years respectively. Then come two rulers with Babylonian names—Abil-Sin and Sin-mubaliṭ, 18 years and 20 years. These are followed, in their turn, by Ḫammurabi (43), Samsu-iluna (38), Ebišum (25), Ammi-ṭitana (25), Ammi-zaduga (21), and Samsu-ṭitana (31 years). This dynasty, therefore, lasted about 285(18) years, and with two exceptions, Abil-Sin and Sin-mubaliṭ, the names, though Semitic, are not Babylonian.

Yet it was called by Babylonians “the dynasty of Babylon!”

And this, in all probability, is correct. The dynasty must, on account of the name given to it, have come from that city, but was, at the same time, of foreign origin, its kings being descended from another dynasty which came from some other part of the Semitic world of that time. This is indicated by the following facts.

Three of the tablets of which we shall learn something more farther on, and which are preserved in the British Museum, have invocations of a personage, apparently a king, named Anmanila. The name of this ruler naturally recalls the Anman of the dynasty following that of Babylon—namely, the dynasty of Uru-ku; but the style of the writing of these three documents is not that of the later period, but of the beginning of the dynasty of Babylon, and there is, on that account, every probability that Anmanila was one of the predecessors of Sumu-abi, the first king of the dynasty of Babylon. It is, of course, possible that this ruler was simply a co-regent with one of the kings already known, like Immerum, who lived at the time of Sumu-la-îla, or Buntaḫun-îla,(19) another associate with Sumu-la-îla on the throne, but there is a certain amount of improbability in this, as Anmanila is named alone, and not in connection with any other. Moreover, it is probable that, in the case of the two co-regents here mentioned, we have examples of sons associated with their father, and one replacing the other on account of the early death of his brother. Another ruler, probably of the period preceding that of the dynasty of Babylon, is Manamaltel, whose name is found on a tablet belonging to the Rev. Dr. J. P. Way, head-master of Rossall School, and it is noteworthy that one of the tablets bearing the name of Anmanila gives, among the witnesses, a certain Sumuentel,(20) a name having the same termination as Manamaltel, a component which seems to have been common at this early period, and rare or non-existent later. Most, if not all, the above are foreign names.

The next question that arises is, what was the nationality of these rulers, who, though belonging to what was called “the dynasty of Babylon,” were not really of Babylonian origin?

The key to the matter is probably furnished by the following inscription of Ammi-ṭitana, the ninth king of the dynasty—

“Ammi-ṭi(tana), his(?) ... the powerful king, (in) a seat of gladness king of Babylon, he has made him sit. king of Kiš, king of Šumer and (Akkad), king of the vast land of Amoria, am I; its wall. descendant Asari-lu-duga (Merodach) of Sumu-la-îli, has revealed him as his worshipper— eldest son(21) may his name be established of Abēšu’,(22) am I, in heaven and earth. Obedient(?) (to) Bel “(Inscription) of Bêl-ušallim, the seat(?)” son of ... -bi, the enchanter.”

In this inscription, Ammi-ṭitana calls himself not only “king of Babylon,” and other important places in Babylonia, but “king of Amoria” (if the coining of a word for the district be allowed) also. Now, as we know from the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, Amurrū is the name that the Babylonians used for “the west,” which Assyriologists formerly read (on account of the polyphony of the Babylonian system of writing) Aḫarrū. In reality, however, this word, Amurrū, stands for the land of the Amorites, and the probability is, that the land of the Amorites belonged to the Babylonian Empire because it formed part of the original domain of the rulers of Babylonia at this time, who, if not of Amorite descent, may at least have had Amorite connections.

In any case, there is but little doubt that the population of Babylonia was very mixed 2000 years before Christ. As we know from the tablets, Amorites were, during this period, numerous in Babylonia, and the god whose name is written with the characters MARTU (a common group for Amurrū)—the fact is revealed by one of the tablets of late date published by Reisner—are to be read Amurrū, and the best translation is “the Amorite god,” whose name and worship seem to have been introduced into the Babylonian Pantheon at a much earlier date, and was known to the Akkadians under the name of Martu. It is noteworthy that, in the text in question (Mitteilungen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen, Heft. x. pl. 139, 147-81), the Akkadian Martu and Babylonian Amurrū is called “lord of the mountain,” probably because the country of the Amorites, especially when compared with Babylonia, is mountainous.

In addition to the god Amurrū, other deities of western origin appear in the inscriptions (generally in the names) from time to time. Thus we have Abdu-Ištara, interesting as giving an early form of the name Astarte (Ashtoreth), before it received the feminine termination; Ụsur-Malik, probably “protect, O Malik” (Moloch), Nabu-Malik, probably “Nebo is Malik” (Moloch), or “Nebo is king”; Ibi-Šân, probably “speak, O Shân,” which reminds the reader of Beth-Shean, the modern Beisan; and there are also, in all probability, other Amorite deities whom we cannot identify, on account of their names not occurring in other ancient literatures than the Babylonian. Ibaru, found in the name Arad-Ibari, “servant of Ibari,” Abâ, in the name Arad (Abdi)-Abâ, Alla, in the name Ur-Alla, “man of Alla” (though this is possibly a Babylonian [Akkadian] name), etc., are probably non-Babylonian, but not Amorite.

Besides the names of west Semitic deities, however, the names of west Semites themselves occur, and show that there was a considerable immigration in those ancient days into the country. Thus the word Amurrū, “the Amorite,” is exceedingly common, and one is not surprised to learn that, in consequence of the Amorites being so numerous, there was an Amorite district in the neighbourhood of Sippar. Other names of men which are apparently from the country spoken of are, Sar-îli, probably “prince of God,” and the same as Israel; Karanatum (probably for Qaranatum), which would seem to mean “she of the horned deity” (compare Uttatum, “he of the sun,” Sinnatum, “he of the moon”), and reminds us of Ashteroth Karnaim, “Ashteroth of the two horns,” the well-known site in Palestine. Besides these, we meet more than once with such names as Ya’kub, Jacob, with its longer form, Ya’kub-îlu, Jacob-el; and in like manner the name of Joseph and its longer form Joseph-el occur—Yasup and Yasup-îlu. Êsâ, the father of a man named Siteyatum, reminds us of Esau; Abdi-îli, “servant of God,” is the same as Abdeel; and Ya’zar-îlu, “God has helped” (compare Azrael), Yantin-îlu, “God has given” (compare Nethanel), with many others similar, receive illustration. In all probability, too, many of the bearers of names compounded with Addu (Hadad), Amurrū, and other names of deities naturalized in Babylonia, as well as some of the bearers of true Babylonian names, were, in reality, pure west Semites. Further examples will be found in the texts translated farther on, and the more noteworthy will be pointed out when they occur.

It will thus be seen that the population of Babylonia 2000 years before Christ had a considerable admixture of west Semites, many of whom would come under the designation of Amorites; besides other nationalities, such as Armenians or people of Aram-Naharaim (Mesopotamia)—at least two tablets refer exclusively to transactions between members of this northern race—Sutites, and Gutites, who were low-class people seemingly light-haired, “fair Gutian slaves” being in one place spoken of.

Life in Babylonia at this early period must have been exceedingly primitive, and differed considerably, as the East does even now, from what we in Europe are accustomed to. The city of which we can get the best idea, Sippar, the Sippara of the Greeks, generally regarded (though probably wrongly) as the Sepharvaim of the Bible, now represented by the mounds known as Abu-habbah, whence most of the early contract-tablets revealing to us the daily life of these ancient Babylonians came, was situated on the Euphrates, “the life of the land.” The name of this river is written, when phonetically rendered, by the characters Purattu (probably really pronounced Phuraththu), in Akkadian Pura-nunu, “the great water-channel,” often expressed (and then, of course, not phonetically) with characters meaning “the river of Sippar,” showing in what estimation the ancient Babylonians held both river and city. The mound of Abu-habbah is four miles from the river Euphrates, and situated, in reality, on the canal called Nahr-Malka, “the royal river,” which runs through it; but the tablets of the period of which we are now speaking refer not only to the city itself, but to the district all round from the Tigris on the east to the Euphrates on the west.

The following paragraph from Mr. Rassam’s Asshur and the Land of Nimrod will give a fair idea of what this district is like:—

“It is most interesting to examine this canal (the Nahr-Malka) all the way between the Euphrates and the Tigris, as it shows the magnitude of the Babylonian agricultural industry in days gone by, when it irrigated hundreds of miles of rich alluvial soil. The remains of countless large and small watercourses, which intersect the country watered by those two branches(23) of Nahr-Malka, are plainly seen even now. Vestiges of prodigious basins are also visible, wherein a surplus supply must have been kept for any emergency, especially when the water of the Euphrates falls low in summer.”

The digging of canals, which was an exceedingly important work in those days, as indeed it is now, was evidently very systematically done, and the king often, to all appearance, made a bid for increased popularity by digging an important new canal for irrigation purposes, to which his name was attached. Thus we find the work of Sumu-la-ilu, Sin-mubaliṭ, Ḫammurabi, Samsu-iluna, and other kings recorded and chosen as the event of the year to date by. This, with the rebuilding or new decoration of the temples and shrines, endeared the king to the people and the priesthood, ensuring for him the faithful service of both, and willing submission to his rule. Indeed, there is but little doubt that the presence of foreign rulers in the country was often due to their having made friends of the priestly classes, and afterwards of the people, in this way.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

The Religious Element

As may be judged from the specimens of Babylonian names already given, the inhabitants of this part of the world were exceedingly religious. In every city of the land there were great temples, each of which made its claim on the people who formed the congregation—in other words, the whole population. In the district of which we are at present treating—the tract where the majority of early contract-tablets were found, namely, Sippar—the chief objects of worship were the Sun-god Šamaš; his consort, the Moon-goddess, Aa; Bunene, a deity of whom but little is known; Anunitum, a goddess identified with Ištar or Venus; Addu or Rammanu (Hadad or Rimmon), and, in later times at least, among others, “the divine Daughters of Ê-babbarra.(24)” All these deities were worshipped in the temple of the place, called Ê-babbarra, “the (divinely) brilliant house,” the earthly abode of the god Šamaš and his companions. In addition to this great and celebrated temple, of such renown in later times that even Egyptians, sun-devotees in their own country, attended the services and made gifts, temples were erected to the other gods of Babylon, notably Sin, the Moon-god; to Merodach, the chief deity of Babylon; and likewise in all probability to Merodach’s consort, Zer-panitum, who was worshipped along with him. There was probably hardly a town in ancient Babylonia and Assyria where one or more of these gods were not honoured—indeed, the sun had also another centre of worship, namely, Larsa, the Ellasar of Gen. xiv. 1, as well as less renowned shrines. Ištar was venerated at Erech along with Anu; Sin, the moon, under the name of Nannar, had a great and celebrated temple at Ur (generally regarded as Ur of the Chaldees), and also at Haran, the city of Abraham’s sojourning; Nebo was worshipped at Borsippa; Nergal at Cuthah; Gula, goddess of healing, at Babylon; Ê-girsu (“the lord of Girsu”) at the city of Girsu, apparently a part of Lagaš; Êa and Tammuz at Eridu, etc.

In the province of which Sippar was capital, however, the people were more than usually religious, or else more records of their piety have come down to us. Numerous persons, more especially women, are described as devotees, or perhaps priestesses, of the Sun-god there, and sometimes similar devotees of Merodach are mentioned. Though we have no certain information, it is very probable that there were all over the country people dedicated to the various deities, “the gods of the land,” for what was customary in the district of Sippar (Sippar-Amnanu and Sippar-Ya’ruru) was in all probability equally so in the other provinces of the empire. From the earliest times the temples acquired and held large tracts of land, which the priests let to various people, agriculturists and others, to cultivate, a certain proportion of the produce being paid to them, added to the revenues of the temples, and passed into the treasury of the god. To this lucrative business of land-letting was added that of money-lending, and interest in the weaving-industry of the place, both of which increased enormously in later times. That the temples received from time to time rich gifts from the king, goes without saying, for the colophon-dates record many instances of this. Sumu-abu, for instance, rebuilt or restored the temples of the Lady of Isin, and the temple Ê-maḫ of Nannar (the Moon-god); Sumu-la-îla made a throne of gold and silver for the great shrine of Merodach; Abil-Sin seems to have given a similar object to the temple of the Sun at Babylon; Ḫammurabi restored or gave thrones to the temples of Zer-panitum, Ištar of Babylon, Nannar (the moon), and built a great shrine for Bel. Samsu-iluna, likewise, was not negligent of the gods, for it is related of him that he dedicated a bright shining mace (?) of gold and silver, the glory of the temple, to Merodach, and made Ê-sagila (the great temple of Belus at Babylon) to shine like the stars of heaven. It is needless to say, that the long lists of the pious works of the rulers of Babylon would be much too long to enumerate here.

All this the kings did from motives of policy, to conciliate the priests, and, through them, the people. Sometimes, though, they had need of the priests, who were able to render them service, and then, naturally, they bought their good-will cheerfully. The service which the priests rendered in return was to pray to the gods for the king’s health and his success against his enemies, or in any undertaking in which he might be engaged, and to inquire of the gods for him whether he would be successful. Many, too, were the ceremonies and festivals in which king, priests, and people took part, and the king (who was himself a priest) and the priesthood thrived exceedingly.

Sometimes, too, it happened that a devotee or servant of another god than that which was the divinity of the place, struck with the neglect of the deities whom he worshipped, would decide to remedy that defect, and to this end he would found a small temple himself, and endow it. The following will show in what way this took place—

“Nûr-îli-šu has built for his god the temple of Šarru and Šullat. One šar (is the measure of) the temple of his god—he has dedicated it for his life. Pî-ša-Šamaš is the priest of the temple. Nûr-îli-šu shall not make a claim against the priesthood (i.e. demand the restitution of the property he has given). He is an enemy of Šamaš and Suma-îlu who brings an action.

“Before Bur-nunu, son of Ibubu (?); before Ibik-ištar, son of Ibubu; before Sin-rabu, son of Aba-Ellila-kime; before Idin-Sin, son of Ilu-malik; before Sin-idinnaššu, son of Lu-Ninsaḫ; before Aḫum-ḫibum, son of Aḫu-šina; before Sin-idinnaššu, son of Pi-ša-Nin-Karak,”

“The light of his god,” Nûr-îli-šu apparently wished to justify his name, and to show what a faithful servant he was, and he therefore dedicated the temple to the deity mentioned. This, according to the inscriptions, should be Merodach, one of whose titles was šarru, “the king.” It is to be noted, however, that in the district of Sippar the Sun-god was “king,” and if this be the case, the pious giver of the temple, instead of wishing to honour the patron god of another district, merely intended to honour the patron god of his own in another aspect, namely, as king in the heavens, along with his consort, here called Šullat, a name which, to all appearance, simply means “the bride.” That the Sun-god was intended seems to be indicated by the name of the priest, Pî-ša-Šamaš, “Word of the Sun-god,” though it was not by any means impossible for a man bearing the name of another god as part of his own to officiate in this capacity, especially in the case of Merodach, for the latter was, in many respects, a sun-god, and therefore identified with Šamaš. In any case, the new temple was under the protection of the Sun-god, as the statement (“he is an enemy of Šamaš and Šuma-ilu”) shows. It is noteworthy that, in the names of the witnesses, Šamaš does not occur as a component part in any case.

But a small foundation like this must have had but little influence beside the great temple of the Sun-god at Sippara, with its revenues from lands, dues on grain, tithes, free-will offerings, and gifts on special occasions. In addition to all that has been mentioned above, the temple of the Sun-god was the great court of justice, and the people resorted thither to settle their disputes, and in all probability gifts were made to the Sun-god on those occasions. The gates of the city, too, were favourite places for this, especially that of Šamaš, and there is every probability that gifts to the god had to be made there also. The power and influence of the places of worship on account of all these temporal and sacerdotal duties invested in them can be easily imagined.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

The King

Around the Babylonian king is hedged a certain amount of mystery, for we see him but dimly. What he did year by year we know, but what his general way of life was the tablets do not reveal to us. He lived in a “great house,” ê-gala in Akkadian, êkallu in Semitic Babylonian, and there is hardly any doubt that the people looked upon him as a great high-priest, and often as being himself divine. Indeed, some, if not many, of the Babylonian kings were regarded as gods, and had their worshippers, apparently whilst they were still inhabitants of this earth. The deification of the early Babylonian kings is made known to us by the scribes placing the usual divine prefix before their names, and with certain rulers this is seldom or never wanting. Thus we know that Dungi (about 2650 B.C.) was deified, as were also Bûr-Sin, Gimil-Sin, and Ibi-Sin. This custom seems to have been continued until later times, for Rim-Sin of Larsa, the opponent of Ḫammurabi or Amraphel, was thus honoured, and even Ḫammurabi himself, who never has this divine prefix before his name, was sometimes paid this exceptional tribute, as such names as Ḫammurabi-Šamši, “Hammurabi is my Sun,” or “my Sun-god,” show. The East was ever the home of flattery, which could hardly reach a higher point than that of deification.

[Plate VI A.]

The Adoration of a Deified King. Impression of a cylinder inscribed "Danatum, son of Sin-tâar, servant ( = worshipper) of Rîm-Sin" (see p. 164). Published by permission of the owner, Mr. J. Offord, and the Society of Biblical Archæology.

[Plate VI B.]

The Adoration of a God. Impression of a cylinder-seal inscribed with the name of Appâni-îl (see p. 555). (The figure on the left has been added by a later hand to obliterate part of the inscription.) Published by permission of the owner, Mr. J. Offord, and the Society of Biblical Archæology.

Yet the king does sometimes come forth from his shell, and then we see him in his two aspects—as king, giving his orders to the officials of his court and army, and as the chief citizen of the country over which he ruled. The former is illustrated by the despatches and letters in which his name occurs, and the latter by such references to him as we find in the contracts—and these are very few, as the colophon-dates and invocations of his name in the legal oaths do not count.

Many letters of Ḫammurabi have been found, and indicate how active he was as a ruler. These texts, which, as far as they are published, are generally in a very incomplete state, nevertheless show that this most successful king paid every attention to the welfare of his subjects, even those in distant parts of the country. Thus in one of these communications he gives instructions to Sin-idinnam (who was apparently military governor of Larsa or Ellasar) to pronounce judgment against a certain person who laid claim to a field. Another letter to the same person refers to grain taken by Awel-îli, concerning which the king says, “I have seen these reports. The grain of the recorder (?), which Awel-îli has taken, let him return to the recorder.” In another place he writes to his officer rather angrily because Inuḫ-samar, apparently Sin-idinnam’s lieutenant, had taken away from Sin-magir certain documents signed by the king. He asks Sin-idinnam why he had done this (placing the blame directly upon him), and concludes, “The documents, the property of Sin-magir ... with the impress of my seal, which thou hast taken, restore to him.” If Sin-idinnam had not been a very high-placed official, he would in all probability have been dismissed.

The following is a letter from king Ammi-ṭitana to his agent—

“To the agent of Sippar-Ya’rurum say thus: ‘It is Ammi-ṭitana. The wool-merchant has thus informed me: “I keep sending to the purveyor of Sippar-Ya’rurum concerning the wool ordered from him, to cause (it) to be sent to Babylon, but he has not caused the wool ordered from him to be sent.” Thus he informs me. Why hast thou not caused the wool ordered from thee to be sent to Babylon? As thou hast not feared to do this, when thou seest this tablet, cause the wool ordered from thee to be brought to Babylon.’ ”

It will thus be seen that the early kings of Babylonia identified themselves with the people of the country over which they ruled much more than the sovereigns of Europe have for many hundreds of years been accustomed to do. More than this—their families were accustomed to intermarry with the people, as did Elmešu—“Diamond” or “Crystal,” daughter of Ammi-ṭitana—

(“Tablet of) Elmešum, daughter of Ammi-ṭit[ana the king], whom Kizirtum, daughter of Ammi-ṭitana the king, by the consent of Šumum-libšî, her brother, Šamaš-lipir, son of Riš-Šamaš, and Taram-šullim (?), his wife, have married to Ibku-Annunitum, their son, as (his) consort. Four shekels of silver, the wedding-gift of Elmešu, daughter of Ammi-ṭitana, the king, Šumum-libšî, son of Ammi-ṭitana, the king, and Kizirtum, his sister, have received. If Ibku-Annunitum, son of Šamaš-lipir, say to Elmešum, his wife, ‘Thou art not my wife,’ he shall pay (1)[½] (?) mana of silver. If Elmešum say to Ibku-Annunitum, her husband, ‘Thou art not my husband,’ to.... Before Utul- ...; before ... -šemi, son of ... -um; before Ibni-Addu, son of ... -um; before Šumma-lum- ..., (son of) Ili-bani; before Addu-šarrum, son of Riš-Šamaš; before Baši-îlu (?), son of ... -mar; before Nabi-îlu (?), (son of) ... -be (?); before ... -pi- ....

“Month Sebat, day 2nd, year Ammi-ṭitana the king built (?) Kar- ... (and) the wall of....”

This is not only a curious document—it is also an interesting one, and shows under what conditions a woman of royal blood and race could in ancient Babylonia be wedded to a commoner. To all appearance the king himself, Elmešu’s father, had nothing to do with the transaction—perhaps he purposely held aloof—and this being the case, it is the bride’s brother and sister who have charge of the ceremony and contract; and, with the bridegroom’s father and mother, marry her as consort to Ibku-Annunitum. The wording differs from that used in ordinary cases, and is more elegant and select. A wedding-gift of four shekels of silver is hardly, perhaps, what one would expect to be made to a royal bride, but perhaps it was the customary amount in such cases. The penalty if the husband afterwards divorced his wife was, as usual, a money-payment, but the amount is doubtful, though it seems to be above the average. The penalty if Elmešu forsook her husband is unfortunately wanting by the mutilation of the document, but in ordinary cases it was generally death.

Naturally, the members of the king’s family were rich, and had a tendency to “add field to field,” for their own advantage. Or they would, like other people of means, hire land adjoining their own, in order to cultivate them both together, as did Iltani, daughter of king Abēšu’—

“1/3 gan, a field in the good tract, beside the field of the king’s daughter, its first end (i.e. front) the river (or canal) Pariktum, from Melulatum, sun-devotee, daughter of Ibku-ša, owner of the field, Iltani, the king’s daughter, has hired the field for cultivation, and for profit. At harvest-time, (upon) every gan, she will pay six gur of grain, the due of the Sun-god, in Kar-Sippar.

“Before Edi- ..., (son of) ...-te (?); before Abil (?)- ... (son of) ... -aqar; before Šumu-libšî, son of Pî-ša-Sin; before Addu-napišti-iddina, the scribe.

“Month Nisan, day 2nd, year Abēšu’, the king (made ?) an image (?) of (gold) and silver.”

Thirty years, or thereabouts later, Iltani (or a younger namesake, daughter of Ammi-zaduga) is found providing the wherewithal for agricultural operations—

“One gur of grain, the property of the Sun-god, for the reaper, which was from Iltani, sun-devotee, daughter of the king, Šeritum, son of Ibni-Amurrū, has received. At harvest-time, (in) the month Adar, he will come—(if) he come not, he shall be like a king’s thrall.

“Before Idin-Marduk, the officer, son of Idin-îli-šu; before Ina-lali-šu, son of Ibni-Marduk.

“Month Adar, day 25th, year Ammi-zaduga the king (made ?) a weapon (?) of gold.”

This contract is not quite clear without a little explanation. The grain advanced was, to all appearance, from the storehouse of the temple of the Sun-god at Sippara, and Iltani, as a sun-devotee, seems to have had it at her disposal for the benefit of the temple. In any case, the amount came from her, and was received by Šeritum, who seems to have been the reaper referred to. He promises to come to do the work in Adar, that very month, when the grain would have to be reaped, and the penalty for failing to fulfil his contract was apparently slavery. Evidently the work was urgent.

It is needless to say, that interesting as these texts are, they are very incomplete, and leave a great deal to the imagination, and still more altogether unrecorded. Nevertheless, they are very valuable as far as they go, and show us the royal family of Babylonia at the time working among the people as members of the community. Each one, however, evidently worked for his or her own interest, or for the interest of the religious community to which he or she belonged, and not for the people at large. It was only the king who worked for his people, and he did it, it is hardly going too far to say, because it was his interest to do so. Most people, however, acted for their own interest in those days, as now.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

The People

In all probability the Babylonians consisted of what may be called the original Semites of that tract, with the Akkadians, also aboriginal, with whom they lived and had already, at the time of the dynasty of Babylon, mingled to such an extent that they must have become a homogeneous people, notwithstanding the racial differences which were probably noticeable at certain points—for example, a more strongly-marked Semitic type at Sippar and in that neighbourhood, and a more strongly-marked Akkadian type in the State to which Lagaš belonged. Other invasions, however, seem to have taken place, the principal being that of the Amorites, to which allusion has already been made—an invasion which the tablets of this period indicate to have been sufficiently numerous, and which must have left its mark on the population, to all appearance increasing the Semitic preponderance, and emphasizing the type. The existence of an “Amorite tract” in the district of Sippar, and the fact that Sin-idinnam, Ḫammurabi’s general, is designated by the characters GAL-MAR-TU, in Semitic Babylonian Rab-Amurrî, “chief of the Amorite(s),” are in themselves sufficient testimony to this invasion. It is noteworthy, too, that the dynasty to which Ḫammurabi belonged is apparently that described by Berosus as “Arabic,” in which case we should have to recognize yet another invasion of Semites; but there is just the probability, that “Arabic” and “Amorite” were interchangeable terms, the Amorites being regarded as a collection of wandering hordes of whom a portion entered the country, and took possession of the government. In any case, they shared the fate of all invaders of the kind referred to, for they were speedily conquered by the superior civilization of the conquered, and became so naturalized that notwithstanding their western names, they were called by the Babylonians “the dynasty of Babylon.” This Amorite element was to all appearance a sufficiently large one, as the more easily recognizable names show. Thus we have Amurrū-bani, Karasumia, Asalia, Kuyatum, Bizizana, Izi-idrê, Sumu-raḳ, Betani, Sar-ili (Israel), Awel-Addî (“man of Hadad,” described an Amorite,) with many others, though the different nationalities cannot always be distinguished, as many Amorites bore Babylonian names, and vice versâ.

Naturally other nationalities than the Babylonians, Akkadians, Šumerians, and Amorites were represented in the country—Elamites from the invasions of earlier centuries, Kassites and Sutites who came, in all probability, to trade, Qutites or Gutians brought into the country as slaves, or possibly living there as freemen—all these and others helped to increase the confusion of tongues which existed in the land from remote ages, and reminded people of the legend of the Tower of Babel, when “the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth.”(25)

Documents of an earlier date than those now under our notice indicate that Babylonian civilization goes back no less than three thousand years before the period of the dynasty of Babylon, and this, in consideration of the date calculated for the foundation of Niffer (another three thousand years earlier), must be regarded as a moderate estimate. Babylonian civilization was already, at the time now treated of, exceedingly ancient. The early village settlement of primitive houses, clustered around an equally primitively-constructed temple, had grown into a large city, with many fanes therein. The scattered outlying smaller villages around this primitive settlement had gradually been incorporated with it, and formed its suburbs, each retaining its ancient name. Villages of more recent foundation were scattered all over the land, and the whole country was instinct with national life, due to the increase of importance which the comparatively recent union of several small states in a single large and therefore powerful kingdom had brought into existence.

Thus we find Babylonia at the period of the dynasty of Babylon. It could even then look back into a past stretching back into a remote and dim antiquity. Its laws, manners, customs, and religion were already old, and were our knowledge of this interesting period complete, we should probably find that there was much that was excellent in their laws, and interesting and instructive in the administration of those laws, as well as in their manners and customs with regard to legal matters in general.

Something of what the tablets of the period are able to inform us concerning the sacred person of the king and the position of his family has already been treated of, and we have now to turn to the next in the social scale—the people of the middle class. To this class belonged the priests, the leaders of the troops, the landowners, the employers of labour, the scribes, the physicians, the land-hirers, and the small farmers. In all probability artists and artisans also formed part of it, though their position may have been sometimes as bad as that of many who toiled in servitude, for the slaves seem, on the whole, to have been exceedingly well treated.

With regard to the scribes at least, the head and beard were shaven, they wore a simple garment like a toga thrown over the left shoulder, leaving the right arm free, and in all probability had on their feet no shoes, but sandals, though this point is doubtful.

A member of this upper class was polite in his address. When he wrote to a friend, whether on business or otherwise, he said, “to so and so, whom Merodach preserve,” and after saying who it was who was writing, added, “may the Sun-god and Merodach grant thee to live for length of days—mayest thou have peace, mayest thou have life, may the god thy protector preserve thy head (rêš-ka) for happiness. I have sent to ask after thy health,—may thy health before the Sun-god and Merodach be lasting.” Other forms of address are found, generally shorter, but this may be taken as a fair specimen of the general style, which, however, seems to have been regulated by established usage, the form quoted here being that used in addressing a personage named Epišu, and it is always the same, though the letters, four or five in number, all come from different persons.

The following letter from a son to his father will show the general style of these missives—

“Say to my father thus: ‘It is Elmešum.’(26)

“May Šamaš and Merodach cause my father to live enduring days. My father, mayest thou have health and life. The god protecting my father preserve my father’s happy head. I have sent (to ask) after my father’s health—may my father’s health before Šamaš and Merodach be lasting.

“From (the time) Sin and Amurrū recorded thy name, my father, and I humbly (?) answered, thou, my father, hast said thus: ‘As I am going to Dûr-Ammi-zaduga on the river Sarqu, one sheep with five mana of silver (?) I will cause to be brought for the young man (?).’ This, my father, thou saidst—my ear, my father, I made to attend—and thou hast not caused (these things) to be brought. And when thou, my father, sentest to the presence of Taribu, the queen, I caused a tablet to be brought to the presence of my father. My father, thou didst not (even) ask (concerning) the information of my tablet, when I caused the tablet of my father to be brought to the city, and he took it to my father for a shekel of silver. Like thy brother, thou hast not caused (the things) to be brought. Like Merodach (?) and Sin Amurrū who are gracious to my father, my ears are attentive. My father, cause (the things) to be brought, and my heart will not be downcast—Before Šamaš and Merodach for my father let me plead.”

Such is the way in which a son writes to his father, or to one who, from his age, might have stood in that relationship. It is one of the less difficult of a number of exceedingly difficult texts, and the translation is therefore given with all reserve. As, however, the words and phrases are for the most part fairly familiar, it is believed that the general drift of the whole is correctly indicated. Although it is a letter in which the writer seems to believe that he has just reason to find fault, the respectful and apparently reverent tone of the whole is very noteworthy.

In all probability the Babylonian household consisted of the man and his wife, children if he had any, and as many servants or slaves as he could afford. A second wife was taken if the man was rich enough to afford such an addition, though he seems to have sometimes married again for economic reasons, namely, the acquisition of a suitable attendant for his first wife without having to pay her wages.

The following is an example of the ordinary wedding contract—

“Ana-Aa-uzni is daughter of Salimatum. As Salimatum has set her free, she has given her in marriage to Bêl-šunu, son of Nemelum. Ana-Aa-uzni is a virgin—no one has anything against Ana-Aa-uzni. They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Merodach, and Šumu-la-îlu (the king). Whoever changes the words of this tablet (shall pay the penalty).

“Before Libit-Ištar; before Bûr-nunu; before Amurrū-bani; before Rammānu-rêmeni; before Nida-dum; before Šamaš-êmuki; before Imgurrum; before Sin-ikišam; before Belizunu; before Aa-šiti; before Lamazi; before Ḫunabia; before Betani; before Amat-Šamaš; before Nabritum; before Šad-Aa.”

Sometimes, however, the wedding contract contains severe penalties in case the newly-wedded wife should prove to be unfaithful, as in the following text—

“Aḫḫu-ayabi is daughter of Innabatum. Innabatum, her mother, has given her in marriage to Zukania. Should Zukania forsake her, he shall pay one mana of silver. Should Aḫḫu-ayabi deny him, he may throw her down from the tower. As long as Innabatum lives, Aḫḫu-ayabi shall support her, and Innabatum afterwards (shall have nothing?) against Aḫḫu-ayabi, ... (They have invoked the spirit of the Sun-god and Zabi)um (the king). Whoever changes the words of (th)is (tablet) (shall pay the penalty”).

Here follow the names of sixteen witnesses—seven males and nine females, one of the former being the priest of the devotees of the Sun-god.

When there were two wives, a marriage contract was given to each, and by a fortunate chance, the British Museum possesses two documents connected in this way, which have come together, though acquired at different times.(27) The following is the document drawn up for the principal wife—

“Arad-Šamaš has taken in marriage Taram-Sagila and Iltani, daughter of Sin-abu-šu. (If) Taram-Sagila and Iltani say to Arad-Šamaš, their husband, ‘Thou art not (our) husband,’ he may throw them down from the tower; and (if) Arad-Šamaš say to Taram-Sagila or Iltani, his wives, ‘Thou art not my wife,’ she shall depart from house and goods. And Iltani shall wash the feet of Taram-Sagila, shall carry her seat to the house of her god; Iltani shall put on Taram-Sagila’s ornaments, shall be well inclined towards her, shall not destroy her (marriage) contract, shall grind (?) her meal (?), and shall obey (?) her.”

Here follow the names of nine witnesses.

The marriage contract drawn up for Iltani, the second wife, is as follows—

“Iltani is sister of Taram-Sagila. Arad-Šamaš, son of Ili-ennam, has taken them in marriage from Uttatum, their father. Iltani, her sister, shall prepare her food, shall be well inclined towards her, (and) shall carry her seat to the temple of Merodach. The children, as many as have been born, and they shall bear, are their children. (If) Taram-Sagila say to Iltani, her sister, ‘Thou art not my sister,’ (then) ... (If Iltani say to Arad-Šamaš, her husband), ‘Thou (art not my husband),’ he may shave (her head), and sell her for silver. And (if) Arad-Šamaš say to his wives, ‘(Ye) are not my wives,’ he shall pay one mana of silver. And they, (if) they say to Arad-Šamaš, their husband, ‘Thou art not our husband,’ he may strangle (?) them, and throw them into the river.”

This document is attested by eleven witnesses.

To all appearance there was a kind of adoption of Iltani as daughter of Uttatum (she is called daughter of Sin-abu-šu in the first text), and having thus been raised in position so as to be somewhat the equal of Taram-Sagila in rank, she could become the second wife of Arad-Šamaš, to live with and wait upon her adopted sister.

The household itself, however, seldom or never meets our gaze in these texts, though we get glimpses of it from time to time. One of the best is in all probability the following for the insight it gives—

“... He has made him his adopted son. The field, plantation, goods, and furniture of his house, which Êtel-pî-Sin and Sin-nada, his wife, possess—Êtel-pî-Sin and Sin-nada have five sons—to Bêl-êzzu, their son, like a son, they will give. If Bêl-êzzu say to Êtel-pî-Sin, his father, and Sin-nada, his mother, ‘Thou art not my father—thou art not my mother,’ they may sell him for silver. And if Êtel-pî-Sin, and Sin-nada, his wife, say to Bêl-êzzu, their son, ‘Thou art not my son,’ field, plantation, and goods, his share, he may take, and may carry away. He (apparently Êtel-pî-Sin) has invoked the spirit of the king.”

“Before Lugal-gištug, the lord of the oracle; Lu-Dingira, the inspector(?) of the deep(?); Îlu-dakullu, do.; Nidnat-Sin, do.; Ṣili-Ê-kišnugal, do.; Mu-batuga, son of Azagga-Innanna; Zarriqu, son of Nannara-manšum; Aappâ, son of Sin-êribam; Nûr-îli-šu, the ...; Êrib-Sin, the scribe; ... -Ningal, the sword-bearer; ... -Sin, son of Zazia;”

“(The seal of) the contracting parties (has been impressed).”

(The remainder of the text, containing the date, is lost.)

The above tablet from Tel-Sifr gives a most complete statement of the circumstances attending the adoption of a son (a very common thing during this period in Babylonia), omitting only the reason for this step. It is to be noted, however, that five of the witnesses belong, apparently, to the priestly class, and this may, perhaps, have been the reason, their influence being, at this time, to all appearance, very great, and the necessity for appeasing them proportionately so.

The following is an example under different conditions, and presents other points of interest—

“Arad-Išḫara is son of Ibni-Šamaš. Ibni-Šamaš has taken him as his son. The day that Arad-Išḫara says to Ibni-Šamaš his father, ‘Thou art not my father,’ he may put him into fetters and sell him for silver. And (if) Ibni-Šamaš say to Arad-Išḫara, his son, ‘Thou art not my son,’ he shall depart from the house and the goods. And he may have sons, and with his sons he shall share.” (This last phrase is expressed clearer on the envelope of the tablet as follows: “And Ibni-Šamaš may beget sons, and Arad-Išḫara shall share like one.”)

The names of ten witnesses are attached to this document.

In this case the reason for the adoption of Arad-Išḫara probably was, that Ibni-Šamaš had no sons, though there was a possibility that he would have some later on.

The following refers to the adoption of a daughter, which was also a common custom—

“Karanatum is daughter of Nûr-Sin, with his sons and his daughters. No one has anything against Karanatum, daughter of Nûr-Sin. Damiqtum is sister of Karanatum. He (Nûr-Sin) will give her to a husband.”

Here follow the names of five witnesses.

Though the inscription is short, it is sufficient to suggest that Nûr-Sin adopted Karanatum for some special reason, though what that reason may have been is uncertain. Probably it was in order that she should accompany Damiqtum as second wife of a man who wished to marry two women, as in the case of Iltani and Taram-Sagila.

Tablets referring to adoption are, however, very numerous, and do not furnish much variety. Considerations of space also forbid any great multiplication of examples, so that it is needful to pass to the next stage, namely, the inscriptions referring to inheritance, which, though containing less information, are not without interest.

On the death of the father of the family, his children to all appearance met and divided his property as agreed upon, or in accordance with the will of their father. Thus we have the record of the three brothers Sin-ikišam, Ibni-Šamaš, and Urra-naṣir, who divided their inheritance after the death of their father—

1.

“1 ŠAR, a dwelling-house (and) domain, beside the house of Ibni-Šamaš, and beside the house of the street, its exit (being) to the street, is the share of Sin-ikišam, which he has shared with Ibni-Šamaš and Urra-naṣir. From the word to the gold the division of the property is completed. They shall not make claim against each other. They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Aa, and Sin-mubaliṭ (the king).

“Before Liširammu; before Sin-puṭram, son of Êa-balaṭi (?); before Sin-idinnam, son of Mannîa; before Arad-ili-šu, son of Nûr-Sin; before Ša-Išḫara, son of Ilâ; before Sin-magir, son of Etelum; before Arad-Amurri, before Sin-îlu, sons of Upîa; before Libur-nadi-šu, son of Uštašni-ili; before ... ; before ... ; before ... . Year of the river (canal) Tutu-ḫengal.”

2.

“1 ŠAR, a dwelling-place (and) domain, beside the house of Sin-ikišam, and beside the house of Ištar-umma-ša, the second exit to the street, is the share of Ibni-Šamaš, which he has shared with Sin-ikišam and Urra-naṣir. From the word to the gold they have shared the (property). They shall not make claim against each other. They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Aa, Marduk, and Sin-mubaliṭ.

“Before Sin-puṭram; before Sin-idinnam; before Liširram; before Arad-ili-šu; before Ša-Išḫara; before Sin-magir; before Arad-Amurri; before Sin-îlu; before Libur-nadi-šu. Year of the river Tutu-ḫengal.”

3.

“1 ŠAR, a dwelling-house and domain, beside the house of Ubarria, and beside the house of Puṭur-Sin, the second exit to the street, is the share of Urra-naṣir, which he has shared with Sin-ikišam and Ibni-Šamaš. From the word to the gold the division is completed. They shall not make claim against each other. They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Aa, Marduk, and Sin-mubaliṭ.

“Before Sin-puṭram; before Liširram; before Sin-magir; before Sin-idinnam; before Arad-ili-šu; before Ša-Išḫara; before Arad-Amurri; before Sin-îlu; before Libur-nadi-šu. Year of the river Tutu-ḫengal.”

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

That the first tablet translated above was that first written is proved by the fact that the fathers’ names of several of the witnesses are given, and by the blank spaces with the word “before,” showing that the scribe did not know exactly how many witnesses there would be. In the other two documents he had the right number, and did not therefore write the word in question too many times. In all probability the three brothers are mentioned in the first document in the order of their age, and it is naturally the title-deed of the eldest which is written first. All three documents are attested by the same witnesses.

The following tablet in the possession of Sir Cuthbert Peek, Bart., shows a division of property consisting of goods and chattels, as well as land—

“3 GAN, a field by the territory of Kudma-bani, with 1 GAN, a field which (was) the share of Aḫḫati-šunu, (situated) beside the field of Amat-Samaš, daughter of Libit-Ištar, and beside the field of Bêl-šunu, its first end (being) the river Euphrates, (and) its second end the common. 2/3 of a ŠAR (and) 5 ZU (of ground by) the temple of Sippara, 1-½ ŠAR (by) the temple of Kudma-bani, 1 ox, 1 young bull, 1 ’ikuše stone—all this is the share of Kubbutu, which, along with Ibku-Annunitum, Bêl-šunu, Bêl-bani, Il-šu-bani, Rêmum, and Marduk-naṣir, they have divided. The division is complete. They are satisfied. From the word to the gold they shall not at any future time bring claims against each other. They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Aa, Marduk, and Samsu-iluna the king.

“Before Dadu-ša, son of Aḫum; before Ṭaridum, the scribe; before Sin-idinnam, son of Ibku-Šala; before Anatum, son of Sin-âbu-šu; before Šamaš-naṣir-âbli.

“Month Iyyar, day 18th, second year after the completion (?) of the temple of Bêl.”

Where the division of the property and the drawing up of the tablets took place is uncertain, there being in the documents translated above no indication. In the case of the three brothers Urra-kaminiši, Riš-Urra, and Buria, the declaration of the division of the property which they inherited, and possibly the drawing up of their respective tablets as well, took place in the Beth-el (bêt îli) of the city, where legal matters were often transacted. Whether this Beth-el was the temple of the Sun and the Moon, where solemn contracts were also made, is uncertain, but not improbable.

It is noteworthy that there is sometimes a statement indicating that the inheritors chose their lots—

“1 ŠAR, a dwelling-house beside the house of Belaqu, and beside Awel-Nannara, is the share of Erištum, the sodomite, daughter of Ribam-îli, which she has shared with Amat-Šamaš, the priestess of the sun, her sister. The division is complete. From the word to the gold they shall not bring claim against each other. Choice of Amat-Šamaš, her sister. (The envelope has: Her choice—the place (which seems) good unto her she will give.) (They have invoked) the spirit of Šamaš, Merodach, Sin-mubaliṭ (the king), and the city of Sippar.”

Here follow the names of eighteen witnesses, all of them, apparently, men.

Another tablet, referring to the sharing of property, shows how brothers sometimes cared for their sister, all the property (at least in this case) being in their hands—

“Tablet (referring to) 1 GAN, a field in the karê, beside (the field of) Aḫi-daani (?) and Enkim-îlu, Kiš-nunu, Imgurrum, and Ilu-abi, her brothers, have given to Ḫudultum, daughter of Inib-nunu, as her share.

“Before Mašpirum (var. Mašparum), son of Ušlu-rum; before Bûr-ya, son of Munawirum; before Ḫayâbum, (before) Kiranum (?), sons of Sin-ennam; before Sin-naṣir.

“Year Sumulel the king built the wall of Sippar.”

Thus, in varying ways, did the ancient Babylonians live and wed, adopt children and inherit. Other incidents were there in their lives also, as when a man divorced his wife—an unpleasant experience for them both, in all probability—though often enough this must have taken place to the great joy of one or the other, or possibly of both, for it must have been a much less solemn thing with them than with us—the marriage tie. It is gratifying to know that documents referring to divorce are comparatively rare, though they are to be met with sometimes, as the following text shows—

“Šamaš-rabi has divorced Naramtum his wife. She has taken away her property (?) and received her portion (as a woman divorced). (If) Naramtum wed another, Šamaš-rabi shall not bring action against her. They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Aa, Marduk, and Sin-mubaliṭ.”

(Here follow the names of ten witnesses.)

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

“Year of Šamaš and Rimmon.”

Sometimes the even tenor of early Babylonian life was interrupted by a lawsuit on the part of a relative (often one who ought to have known better), and, though less of a family convulsion than a divorce, it must have been sufficiently annoying, especially when the plaintiff was one’s own father. The following gives details of such a case—

“(Tablet concerning) one slave, her maid, whom Ayatia, her mother, left to Ḫulaltum, her daughter, and Ḫulaltum (on that account) supported Ayatia, her mother. And Sin-naṣir (was) husband of Ayatia. Ayatia left to her (Ḫulaltum), in the 20th year, that which was in the city Buzu, but there was no tablet (?) (documentary evidence) concerning Ayatia’s property. After Ayatia died, Sin-naṣir brought an action against Ḫulaltum on account of the maidservant, and Išarlim, scribe of the city of Sippar and the court (?) of Sippar, caused them to receive judgment. He declared him (Sin-naṣir) to be in the wrong. He is not again to bring action in the matter. (They have invoked) the spirit of Šamaš, Merodach, and Ḫammurabi. Judgment of Išarlim; Awat-Šamaš, the merchant; Itti-Bêl-kinni; Bûr-Sin; Gimil-bani. Month Adar, year of the canal Tišida-Ellilla.”

Many documents of this kind exist, though people did not generally bring actions against their own (step-) daughters, as Sin-naṣir is recorded as having done. The ancient Babylonians were at all times, however, very keen in standing up for their own rights, and went to law on the slightest provocation. The following records a claim upon some property, and its issue, which was as unsuccessful as that translated above—

“Sin-êribam, son of Upê-rabi, laid claim to the house of Šumu-râḫ, which is beside the house of Nidnu-ša and beside the house (temple) of Allat; and they went before the judges, and the judges pronounced judgment. And as for Sin-êribam, they declared him to be in the wrong, and made him deliver a document which could not be proceeded against. He shall not bring action, and Sin-êribam shall not again lay claim to the house of Šumu-râḫ.

“They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Zabium (the king), and the city of Sippar.”

It is noteworthy that the name of the first of the twelve witnesses attached to the document is Ya’kub-ilu, or Jacob-el, which is supposed to be connected with the name of the patriarch Jacob.

As in these days, many a man in those ancient times, for the better conducting of his business, would enter into partnership. As usual, all would go well for a time, but at last, in consequence of disagreements or disputes or some unpleasantness, they would decide to part. Several texts of this class exist, of which the following is a typical example—

“Ṣili-Ištar and Iribam-Sin made partnership, and, to dissolve it, they had a judge, and they went down to the temple of Šamaš, and in the temple of Šamaš the judge caused them to receive judgment. They give back their capital, and receive back their shares, 1 male-slave Luštamar-Šamaš, with a chain (?), and 1 female-slave Lišlimam, the share of Iribam-Sin; 1 male-slave Ibšina-ilu, and 1 female-slave Am-anna-lamazi, the share of Ṣili-Ištar, they have received as their shares. In the temple of the Sun-god and the Moon-god they declared that they would treat each other well. One shall not bring action against the other, nor act hostilely towards him. There is no cause for action on the part of the one against the other. They have invoked the spirit of Nannara, Šamaš, Merodach, Lugal-ki-ušuna, and Ḫammurabi the king.

“Before Utuki-šemi, son of Awiatum; before Abil-Sin, son of Nannara-manšum; before Sin-êreš, the provost; before Ipuš-Êa, the du-gab; before Šamašmubaliṭ, the priest of Gula; before Nabi-Sin, son of Idin-Sin; before Sin-uzeli, son of Ṣili-Ištar; before Ubar-Sin, son of Sin-šemi; before Sin-gimlanni, the attendant of the judges.

“He has impressed the seal of the contracting parties.

“Month Adar, year Ḫammurabi the king made (images of) Ištar and Nanaa.”(28)

Iribam-Sin, however, seems not to have been satisfied that he had been fairly dealt with, for notwithstanding that they were not to act hostilely towards each other, he immediately brought an action to get possession of property belonging to Ṣili-Ištar and his brothers, the result of which was the following declaration on the part of the latter—

“Concerning 1 ŠAR, a dwelling-house, and 2 ŠAR, a large enclosure, which Ṣili-Išstar and Awel-ili, his brother, sons of Ili-sukkalu, bought from Sin-mubaliṭ and his brothers, sons of Pirḫum. In the temple of the Sun-god Ṣili-Ištar said thus: ‘I verily bought (it) with the money of my mother—it was not bought with the money that was ours in common. Iribam-Sin, son of Ubar-Sin, has no share in the house and large enclosure.’(29) He has invoked the spirit of the king.

“Before Utuki-šemi, son of Awiatum; before Abil-Sin, son of Nannara-manšum; before Sin-êreš, the provost; before Sin-uzelli, son of Nûr-îli; before Ipuš-Êa, the du-gab; before Nabi-Sin, son of Idin-Sin; before Ubar-Sin, son of Sin-šemi, his father; before Šamaš-mubaliṭ, the priest of Gula; before Singimlanni, the attendant of the judges. They have impressed the seal of the parties.

“Month Adar, year of the (images of) Ištar and Nanaa.”

The day of the month is not given, so that we are in doubt as to whether the second tablet preceded the first or followed it. In all probability the latter was the case, or else the two actions were simultaneous, and the fact that the witnesses and officials of the court are the same in both documents speaks in favour of this.

In Babylonia, as in all the ancient East, there was the great blot upon their civilization which has not even at the present time, the dawn of the twentieth century, disappeared from the earth, namely, that of slavery. Throughout the long ages over which Babylonian domestic literature extends, the student finds this to be always present, and one of the most striking examples is contained in the following document, which exhibits the blot with all its possible horrors—

“(Tablet of) Šamaš-nûri, daughter of Ibi-Šân. Bunini-âbi and Bêlisunu have bought her from Ibi-Šân, her father—for Bunini-âbi a wife—for Bêlisunu a servant. The day Šamaš-nûri says to Bêlisunu, her mistress, ‘Thou art not my mistress,’ they shall shave off her hair, and sell her for silver. As the complete price he has paid five shekels of silver. He has taken the key.(30) The affair is concluded. He is content. (At no future time) shall one bring a claim against the other. They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Aa, Marduk, and Ḫammurabi.”

(Here follow the names of seven witnesses.)

“Month Iyyar, day 3rd, year of the throne of Zērpanitum” (the 12th year of Ḫammurabi or Amraphel).

That a father should part with his daughter for money in order that that daughter should become the wife of a man already married, agreeing at the same time that the young woman should become the slave of the first wife, would seem to the ordinary Western mind at the present day most barbarous. That it was not the lowest depth, however, is implied by the condition attached to the contract, and containing a kind of penalty, namely, that if the new wife denied that the first wife was her mistress, she might be sold as a slave. In what her position differed from that of a thrall, however, does not appear.

Naturally the case of Hagar, the slave of Sarah, Abraham’s wife, will at once occur to the reader, though the two differ somewhat. Nevertheless, it is not improbable that the well-known Bible-story explains that of the tablet, in giving a reason for the purchase of Šamaš-nûri—namely, in order to give the purchaser, Bunini-âbi, a chance of having offspring, which, in all probability, his first wife Bêlisunu had not brought him. It is difficult to imagine that she would consent to the introduction of a rival for any other reason. Of course, the new wife may have been well treated, but a transaction of the kind here recorded naturally gave an opening to all possible abuses. Another case of the taking of a second wife, with the proviso that she is to be the servant of the first, is that of Iltani (see pp. 174-175), who, however, was not a slave, and had a regular marriage-deed. Moreover, she is described as the sister (âḫat), not the slave (âmat) of the first wife.

On the same plate of the British Museum publication from which the foregoing is taken, there is a more ordinary document referring to slavery, and in this case it is to all appearance the sale of a real slave-woman and her child—

“1 slave-woman, Bêlti-magirat by name, and her child, handmaid of Šarrum-Addu and Ḫammurabi-Šamši, Nabium-malik, son of Addu-naṣir, has bought from Šarrum-Addu, son of Addu-naṣir, and Ḫammurabi-Šamši, his wife. As the complete price he has paid 18-½ shekels of silver. At no future time shall they make claim against each other. They have invoked the spirit of Marduk and Ḫammurabi.”

(Here follow the names of eight witnesses, including two brothers of the contracting parties.)

“Month Tebet, day 21st, year Ḫammurabi the king destroyed, by command of Anu and Bêl, the fortification of Mair, and Malgia.”

Tablets referring to the sale and purchase of slaves are numerous, and do not present much variety, being nearly all written in accordance with the usual legal forms. In the hiring of slaves, however, there is a little more dissimilarity—

“Awel-Addi, son of Sililum, has hired Arad-îli-remeanni from Erišti-Šamaš, sun-devotee, daughter of Sin-bêl-âbli, for a year. The hire for a year, 5 shekels of silver, he will pay. A first instalment of the sum, 2 shekels of silver, she has received. He will be clothed by his hirer.

“He entered (upon his duties) on the 16th of Elul.

“Before Šamaš, Aa; before Taribatum; before Nûr-Marduk; before Laḫutum.

“Year Samsu-iluna (made) a throne of gold (shining like the stars, for Nin-gala”).

The following is a similar text with additional clauses—

“Asir-Addu, son of Libit-Urra, has hired Šamaš-bêl-ili from Aḫatani, sun-devotee, daughter of Šamaš-ḫazir, for his first year. As hire for his first year, he shall pay 3-½ shekels of silver. He shall clothe himself. He entered (on his duties) on the 4th of the month Dûr-Addi, in the month Mamitu he will complete (his term), and may leave.

“Before Asirum, son of Ea-rabi; before Nin-gira-âbi, son of Eribam; before Arad-Sin, son of Sin-idinnam.

“The year of Samsu-iluna, the king.”

(The accession-year of Amraphel’s successor.)

In the following the slave is hired for produce—

“Riš-Šamaš, son of Marduk-naṣir, has hired Nawir-nûr-šu from Šubtum for a year. He will pay 20 qa of oil as his hire for the year. He will clothe him. He entered in the month Elul, in the month Tirinu he may go forth.

“Before Rišutum; before Êrišti-Aa.

“Year the great fortification....”

When a man had no master—was his own master, in fact—he was hired “from himself”—

“Idin-Ittum has hired for wages Naram-ili-šu from himself, for six months. He will receive 2 shekels of silver as wages for the six months.

“Before Êtel-pî-Uraš, before Sin-îlu, before Aḫum, the scribe.

“Month Nisan, day 20th, year the throne ... was....”

Servants were not only hired from their masters and themselves, but also from their fathers, mothers, brothers, and whoever else might have charge of them. There are also lists of workmen hired for various purposes in batches. Those who went about doing reaping seem to have been of various nationalities, and interesting names are on that account found in the lists from time to time.

In all probability the towns at that early period resembled closely those of the Semitic East at the present day, the streets being as a rule narrow (from the necessity of obtaining protection from the excessive heat of the sun during the hot season) and exceedingly dirty. This is shown by the excavations at Niffer, where, at the earliest period, when the street in question was constructed, the houses were entered by going up a few steps. Later on, in consequence of the accumulations, the footpath became level with the floor of the house, and, at a later period still, a little staircase had to be built leading down into the building. As may easily be imagined, the conditions in which the ancient Babylonians lived were in the highest degree insanitary, and such as would probably not be tolerated for a day in Europe at the present time.

Judging from the remains of private houses which have been found, these buildings were not by any means large. In fact, they must have contained only a few small rooms. Where, however, there was space—as, for example, when the house was built in the middle of a field—the rooms were probably moderately large, and more numerous. They were of either unburnt or burnt brick, and the roofs were supported by beams. The floors seem to have been generally the bare earth.

Many lists of the furniture of these dwelling-places are extant, and allow us to estimate to a certain extent the amount of comfort which their inhabitants enjoyed. They reclined upon couches, and sometimes—perhaps often—it happened that the owner of the house possessed several of these articles of furniture. Apparently, too, it was their custom to sit upon chairs, and not upon the ground, as they do in the East at the present day, and have done for many centuries. Various vessels, of wood, earthenware, and copper, were also to be found there, together with measures of different kinds,(31) implements needed in the trade of the owner, and certain objects of stone. In some cases things of precious stone are referred to, a circumstance which points to a considerable amount of prosperity on the part of the owner of the house and its contents.

As will be seen farther on, when Babylonian life of a later period comes to be treated of, the leasehold system, with all its disadvantages, was in full force, and there is just the possibility that it was already in use during the time of the dynasty of Babylon. Even at this early date the question of party walls was an important one, as the tablet of Šamaš-în-mâtim and Êrišti-Aa, daughter of Zililum, shows. They were to set up the dividing wall (gušuru, apparently palings) aḫum mala aḫim, lit. “brother as much as brother,” i.e. one as much as the other. They managed things differently in ancient Babylonia, and if this was the usual arrangement, it must have given rise to endless disputes.

It is probable that, before the time of Ḫammurabi, the ancient Babylonians had no code of laws in the true sense of the term. All the legal decisions known seem to have been decided on their merits by the judges who tried the cases, and in such actions in which the judges could not come to a decision, the matter seems to have been referred to the king, whose word was, to all appearance, final. Naturally an enormous responsibility rested on the judges on account of this, but they were not entirely without help in the matter of deciding difficult and unusual questions. Lists of precedents were kept, and to these, in all probability, they constantly referred—indeed, the tablets of legal precedents were held in such high esteem, that copies of them were kept in the libraries of Assyria, and in Babylonia also, in all probability, until long after the destruction of the Assyrian power, notwithstanding that legal use and wont had by that time somewhat changed. One or two examples of these legal precedents may here be quoted to show their nature:—

“If a son say to his father, ‘Thou art not my father,’ they may shave him, put him in fetters, and sell him for silver.

“If a son say to his mother, ‘Thou art not my mother,’ they may shave off his hair, lead him round the city, and drive him forth from the house.

“If a wife hate her husband, and say to him, ‘Thou art not my husband,’ they may throw her into the river.

“If a husband say to his wife, ‘Thou art not my wife,’ he shall pay her half a mana of silver.

“If a man hire a slave, and he dies, is lost, runs away, gets locked up, or falls ill, he shall pay as his hire every day half a measure of grain.”

Thus did the ancient Babylonians punish those who offended against their laws, and protect property (for the slave-hirer was undoubtedly saddled with a heavy responsibility). Was it that the death of a hired slave was regarded as testifying to the severity of his temporary hirer? In all probability it was so, and in that case, one cannot help regarding the law as a wise one. To all appearance, also, illness was attributed to his employer’s cruelty. As to his running away, or falling into the hands of the police, these things would prove that his employer was not watchful enough with regard to him. A modern European lawyer would most likely not regard this particular law as being very exactly worded (there is no limit of time during which the slave’s wages were payable, and one can only guess that the term of his service with his hirer was understood), but there seems to be no doubt as to its intention—to safeguard the slave, and his owner at the same time, by making his hirer responsible for every mishap and accident which might happen to him whilst he was with his temporary master.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

VI. ABRAHAM

A short account of this period, with the story of Chedorlaomer, Amraphel, Arioch, and Tidal.

Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees, and afterwards Terah took Abram his son, Lot, his grandson, and Sarai, his son Abram’s wife, and they went forth from Ur of the Chaldees to go to Canaan. Arriving at Haran, they dwelt there until Terah died at an exceedingly advanced age.

There have been many discussions as to the position of Ur of the Chaldees. Some, on account of the distance from Canaan, apparently, have contended that Ur of the Chaldees is the same as the site known for many hundreds of years as Urfa, in Mesopotamia—the district in which the proto-martyr, St. Stephen (Acts vii. 2, 41), places it. Mesopotamia, however, is an appellation of wide extent, and altogether insufficiently precise to enable the exact locality to be determined. To all appearance, though, Urfa or Orfa, called by the Greeks Edessa, was known as Orrha at the time of Isidore of Charax (date about 150 B.C.). Pocock, in his Description of the East, states that it is the universal opinion of the Jews that Orfa or Edessa was the ancient Ur of the Chaldees, and this is supported by local tradition, the chief place of worship there being called “the Mosque of Abraham,” and the pond in which the sacred fish are kept being called Bahr Ibrahím el-Halíl, “the Lake of Abraham the Beloved.” The tradition in the Talmud and in certain early Arabian writers, that Ur of the Chaldees is Warka, the Ὀρχόη of the Greeks, and Ὀρέχ of the Septuagint, need not detain us, as this site is certainly the Erech of Gen. x. 10, and is excluded by that circumstance.

Two other possibilities remain, the one generally accepted by Assyriologists, the other tentatively put forward by myself some years ago. The former has a series of most interesting traditions to support it, the latter simply a slightly greater probability. The reader may adopt that which seems to him best to suit the circumstances of the case.

The identification generally accepted is, that Ur of the Chaldees is the series of mounds now called Mugheir, or, more in accordance with correct pronunciation, Muqayyar, “the pitchy,” from the noun qír, “pitch,” that material having been largely used in the construction of the buildings whose ruins occupy the site. The identification of these ruins with those of Ur-kasdim or Ur of the Chaldees was first proposed by Sir Henry Rawlinson in 1855, on the ground that the name of the city on the bricks found there, which he read Hur, resembled that of the name as given in Gen. xi. 28 and 31. As a matter of fact, the Semitic Babylonian form of the name approaches even nearer than the celebrated Assyriologist then thought, for it is given in the bilingual texts as Uru. The Akkadian form (which is most probably the more ancient of the two), on the other hand, is not so satisfactory, as it contains an additional syllable, the full form being Uriwa (the vowel before the w only is a little doubtful). This, with the absence of any addition corresponding to the Hebrew Kasdim, is the principal flaw in what would otherwise be a perfect philological comparison.

Ur or Uriwa, the modern Mugheir, is situated about 140 miles S.E. of Babylon, and about 560 miles S.E. of Ḫaran. In ancient days it was a place of considerable importance, and the site of a celebrated temple-tower called Ê-šu-gan-dudu, probably the Ê-giš-nu-gala(32) of other texts, the shrine of the god Nannara, also called Sin, the Moon-god, whose worship had gained considerable renown.

“Father Nannar, lord of Ur, prince of the gods, in heaven and earth he alone is supreme;

Father Nannar, lord of Ê-giš-nu-gala, prince of the gods, in heaven and earth he alone is supreme:

Father Nannar, lord, bright-shining diadem, prince of the gods, in heaven and earth he alone is supreme;

Father Nannar, whose dominion is greatly perfect, prince of the gods, in heaven and earth he alone is supreme;

Father Nannar, who in a princely garment is resplendent, prince of the gods, in heaven and earth he alone is supreme,” etc.

The above is the beginning of a long hymn written in the Sumerian dialect, in which an ancient Babylonian poet praises him, and in many another composition is his glory sung, and in adversity his name invoked—

“The temple of the Life of Heaven is destroyed—who, in the day of its glory, has cut off its glory? The everlasting temple, the building of Uriwa, The everlasting temple, the building of Ê-kiš-nu-gala. The city Uriwa is a house of darkness in the land— Ê-kiš-nu-gala (and) Nannara.”

“Let heaven rest with earth, heaven enclosed with earth. Father Nannar, lord of Uriwa, To the great lady, the lady of Ê-kiš-nu-gala, give thou rest. To heaven with earth, heaven and earth, (give thou rest). To the heaven of Uraš, at še-gu-nu, The god Enki, the goddess Ninki, the god Endu, the goddess Nindu, The god En-da-u-ma, the goddess Nin-da-u-ma, The god En-du-azaga, the goddess Nin-du-azaga, The god En-u-tila, the god En-me-šarra, The princess of the Life of Heaven, the lady of the mountain.”

“... he will restore the site of Ê-kiš-nu-gala.”(33)

Thus does the poet of ancient days, in a composition in the non-Semitic idiom of his time, lament the misfortunes which had come over the temple and city—how, whether by was by famine, or by some other mischance, we know not. It serves to show, however, not only the poetical spirit which animated the Akkadians at the time, but also the high esteem in which the temple and the deities venerated therein were held, and the power attributed to the Moon-god in the centre of his worship. The fact that Ur (Mugheir) was an important place for the worship of the Moon-god has been not seldom quoted in support of the identity of this city with Ur of the Chaldees, because Haran, the city to which Abram migrated with his father Terah, was also a centre of the worship of Sin. This, in itself, is not at all improbable, the Jewish tradition being, that Terah was an idolater.(34) That Terah should go 560 miles simply for this reason, when he might have found a suitable settlement nearer, seems to be in the highest degree unlikely, minor shrines of the Moon-god being, in all probability, far from rare in Babylonia.(35) He simply sojourned there because, in his journeyings, it suited him to stay there. If he were a devotee of the Moon-god, he was in all probability the more pleased to take up his abode there. But he may not have worshipped that divinity at all, or if he did do so, may not have honoured him more than the Sun-god, Anu, the god of the heavens, or the goddess Ištar.

Many legends concerning Abram—legends of sufficiently high antiquity—exist, but how far they are trustworthy must always be a matter of opinion. In any case, the writers had the advantage—if advantage it was—of living 2000 years nearer to Abraham’s time than we have. Thus Eupolemus (as has already been pointed out on p. 146) states, that in the tenth generation, in the city of Babylonia called Camarina (which by some is called Urie, and which signifies a city of the Chaldeans), there lived, the thirteenth in descent, Abraham, a man of a noble race, and superior to all others in wisdom. They relate of him that he was the inventor of astrology and Chaldean magic, and that on account of his eminent piety he was esteemed by God. It is said, moreover, that under the direction of God he departed and lived in Phœnicia, and there taught the Phœnicians the motions of the sun and moon, and all other things, and was on that account held in great reverence by their king.

All this, naturally, points to Babylonia and the city of Uru or Uriwa as the original dwelling-place of Abram, Camarina being connected with the Arabic qamar, “the moon,” which, as we have seen, was the deity worshipped there. It is noteworthy that the transcription of the Babylonian name of the city, Urie, contains traces of the Akkadian termination -iwa (Uriwa) which is absent in the Hebrew form Ur. This is important, as it shows that at a comparatively late date (Eupolemus lived just before the Christian era), the ending in question made itself felt in the transcription of the word, and that the form in Genesis, Ur, does not quite agree, as traces of that termination (two syllables in the Akkadian form) are altogether wanting in it. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the theory that Abram lived and passed his earlier years at the Ur which is now represented by the ruins of Mugheir, originated with the Jews during their captivity at Babylon and in the cities of Babylonia. Eupolemus, as a student of Jewish history, would naturally get his information from a Jewish source, and the Jews had, in common with most of the nations of the earth, a tendency to attribute to their own forefathers, whom they venerated so highly, the glory of being connected with any renowned city or great discovery of earlier ages. Thus it arises that Eupolemus, following his Jewish informant, makes Abraham to be the inventor of astrology and Chaldean magic; and to have dwelt at Ur. It must have been the Jewish captives exiled in Babylonia who first identified Ur with the renowned city Uru or Uriwa, quite forgetting that the form of the name could not have been Ur in Hebrew, and that there was another Ur, much more suitable as the dwelling-place of a nomad family like that of Terah and his sons, namely, the country of Akkad itself, called, in the non-Semitic idiom, Uri or Ura, a tract which included the whole of northern Babylonia.

In whatever part of Babylonia, however, the patriarch may have sojourned, of one thing there is no doubt, and that is, that if he dwelt there, the life which he saw around him, and in which he must have taken part, was that depicted by the tablets translated in the foregoing chapter. He saw the idolatry of the people, and the ceremonies and infamies which accompanied it; he saw the Babylonians as they were in his day, with all their faults, and all their virtues—their industry, their love of trade, their readiness to engage in litigation, and all the other interesting characteristics which distinguished them. He must have been acquainted with their legends of the Creation, the Flood, and all their gods and heroes, and the poetry for which the Hebrew race has always been renowned must have had its origin in the land of Nimrod, whence Abraham of old went forth free, and his descendants, a millennium and a half later, returned as captives.

How it came about (if it be really true) that Terah was an idolater, whilst his son Abram was a monotheist, will probably never be known. It is only reasonable to suppose, however, that among a people so intelligent as the Babylonians, there were at least some who, thinking over the nature of the world in which they lived and the destiny of mankind, saw that the different gods whom the people worshipped could not all be governors of the universe, but, if they existed at all, must be only manifestations of the Deity who held the supreme power. Indeed, it was, to all appearance, this doctrine which really prevailed, as is shown by the text translated on p. 58. Whether taught generally to the learned class (the scribes) or not, is not known, but it must have been very commonly known to those who could read, otherwise it is hardly likely that such a tablet would have been drawn up and written out again at a later date (the text we possess being but a copy of a lost original). As the divinity with whom the others are identified is Merodach, it is most likely that this special doctrine of the unity of the Deity became general some time after the commencement of the Dynasty of Babylon (that to which Ḫammurabi or Amraphel belonged), when the city of Babylon became the capital of the country. Abram’s monotheism would, therefore, naturally fit in with the new doctrine which apparently became the general belief of the learned class at this time.(36)

Concerning the journey of Abraham, there is naturally nothing to be said, the Bible narrative merely stating that Terah and his family migrated to Haran. The only thing worth noting is, that the distance they had to travel was sufficiently great—about 560 miles from Uriwa (Mugheir), and about 420 miles from Babylon, from the neighbourhood of which the family must have started if the Ur mentioned in Genesis be the Uri or Ura of the inscriptions, which was equivalent to the land of Akkad. The whole of this district was, in all probability, at this time, as later, under Babylonian rule, a state of things which must have contributed in some measure to the safe transit of the household to Haran, and also that of Abraham later on to Canaan, which, as we know from the inscriptions(37) and from Gen. xiv., acknowledged Babylonian overlordship.

With regard to Haran, it is very probable that this ancient city was, by turns, under the rule either of Babylonia or Assyria until the absorption of the former power into the great Persian Empire, when Haran likewise, in all probability, shared the same fate. Concerning the early history of the city very little is known, but it is not improbable that it was an ancient Babylonian foundation, the name being apparently the Babylonian word ḫarranu, meaning “road.” The name given to this “road-city” is explained as originating in the fact, that it lay at the junction of several trade-routes—an explanation which is very probable.

The city itself was, at the time of its greatest prosperity, a considerable place, as the remains now existing show. There are the ruins of a castle, with square columns 8 feet thick, supporting a roof of 30 feet high, together with some comparatively modern ruins. The ancient walls, though in a very dilapidated state, are said to be continuous throughout. No houses remain, but there are several ruins, one of great interest, and considerable extent, which Ainsworth considered to be a temple. A rudely sculptured lion, found outside the walls, is regarded as giving evidence of Assyrian occupation, which, however, is otherwise known to have been an historical fact.

In Abraham’s time the place had, in all probability, not attained its fullest development, and must have been a small city. The plain in which it is situated is described as very fertile, but not cultivated to its fullest extent, on account of half the land remaining fallow because not manured. This, at least, was the state of the tract 72 years ago, but it is very probable that, in the “changeless East,” the same description applies at the present day. That it was of old, as now, a fertile spot, may be gathered from the fact that the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser I. speaks of having taken or killed elephants in that district—

Ešrit pirê buḫali dannūti Ten powerful bull-elephants ina mât Ḫarrāni u šidi nâr in the land of Haran and on Ḫabur the banks of the Ḫabour lu-adûk; irbit pirê balṭūti I killed; four elephants alive lu-uṣabita. Maškani-šunu I took. Their skins, šinni-šunu itti pirê their teeth, with the living _balṭūti, ana âli-ia Aššur elephants, I brought to my ubla._ city Asshur.

If there were elephants in “the land of Haran” 1100 years before Christ, it is very probable that they were to be found in the neighbourhood a thousand years earlier, but notwithstanding any disadvantage which may have been felt from the presence of these enormous beasts, it was in all probability a sufficiently safe district for one possessing flocks and herds. There is no reason to suppose that the presence of elephants around Haran in any way influenced the patriarch to leave the place, for these animals were to be found (according to an inscription supposed to have been written for the same Assyrian king, Tiglath-pileser I.) in Lebanon, and therefore in the country where Abraham settled after quitting Haran.

As has already been noted, this was the centre of the worship of the Moon-god Sin or Nannaru,(38) and Terah and his family, in settling in this place, doubtless saw the same ceremonies in connection with the worship of this deity as they had been accustomed to see in Babylonia, slightly modified; and this would be the case whether Terah’s family came from Uriwa or not, the Moon-god being worshipped in more cities than one in Babylonia. Something of the importance of the shrine of Nannaru at Haran may be gathered from the fact, that the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (to all appearance) was crowned there. As the text recording this is very interesting, and reveals something of the beliefs of the Assyrians and the natives of Haran, I quote here the passage referring to the ceremony, restoring the wording where defective. The writer is apparently addressing Aššur-banî-âpli, “the great and noble Asnapper”—

“When the father of the king my lord went to Egypt, he was crowned (?) in the qanni of Haran, the temple (lit. ‘Bethel’) of cedar. The god Sin remained over the (sacred) standard, two crowns upon his head, (and) the god Nusku stood before him. The father of the king my lord entered, (and) he(39) placed (the crown?) upon his head, (saying) thus: ‘Thou shalt go and capture the lands in the midst.’ (He we)nt, he captured the land of Egypt. The rest of the lands not submitting (?) to Aššur and Sin, the king, the lord of kings, shall capture (them”).

[Here follow an invocation of the gods, and wishes for a long life for the king, the stability (?) of his throne, etc.]

In addition to the god Sin, the above extract refers to the deity known as Nusku, as being venerated there. That this was the case, is confirmed by several inscriptions of the time of Aššur-banî-âpli, who seems to have restored his temple. This fane, which the Assyrian king is said to have made to shine like the day, was called Ê-melam-anna, “the temple of the glory of heaven,” and the presence of its name in a list of the temples of Babylonia and Assyria testifies to its importance.

The temple of Sin or Nannaru, as we learn from the inscriptions of Nabonidus, was called Ê-ḫulḫul, “the temple of (great) joy.” The fane having been destroyed by the Medes, Nabonidus received, in a dream, command to rebuild it, and it is interesting to learn that, when the work was in progress, the records which Aššur-banî-âpli had placed there, according to custom, when restoring it, came to light. The letter of which an extract is given above was probably written to the Assyrian king upon this occasion.

So renowned was the place as a centre of heathen worship, that at a comparatively late date—running far into the Christian era, namely, the fifth century A.D.—the worship of heathen deities was still in full progress there, though the god Sin had fallen, to all appearance, somewhat into the background, and Bel-shamin, “the lord of the heavens,” i.e. the Sun-god, generally known as Shamash or Samas, and called later on by the Greek name of Helios, had taken his place. They also worshipped a goddess called Gadlat, generally identified with the Babylonian goddess Gula, and Atargatis, the feminine counterpart of Hadad, whose name is often found in Aramean inscriptions under the form of ’Atar-’ata.(40) This goddess is called Derketo(41) by Ktesias, and appears as Tar-’ata in Syriac and in the Talmud. According to Baethgen, Atargatis, or, better, Attargatis, was a double divinity, composed of Ištar and ’Ata or ’Atta (Attes). In consequence of the worship of the sun, the moon, and the planet Venus (’Atar = Ištar), a second centre of the worship denominated Sabean (which originated in south-west Arabia, the country of the Sabeans) was founded in Haran, where its devotees are said to have had a chapel dedicated to Abraham, whose renown had, to all appearance, brought to his memory the great honour of deification.

It was after a long sojourn at Haran that Abraham set out for his journey westwards, the patriarch being no less than seventy-five years old when he left that city. The next episode in his life was his journey, in obedience to the call which he had received, to Canaan, going first to Shechem, “unto the oak (terebinth) of Moreh,” afterwards to the mountain on the east of Bethel, and thence, later, towards the south. A famine caused him to continue his travels as far as Egypt, where the incident of Sarai being taken from him, in consequence of the deceit practised by him in describing her as his sister, took place.

This portion of the patriarch’s history is not one which can be very easily dealt with, the incident being told very shortly, and no Egyptian names being given—in fact, it is altogether destitute of “local colouring” necessarily so, from the brevity of the narrative.

At Haran, the patriarch and the members of his family probably saw people to a great extent of the type to which they had been accustomed in Babylonia, but in the land of Canaan they would notice some difference, though they all spoke a Semitic language, like themselves. Indeed, it is not at all improbable that wherever the ancestor of the Hebrews went, he found the Semitic Babylonian language at least understood, for as the Babylonian king claimed dominion over all this tract as far as the Mediterranean, the language of his country was fast becoming what it certainly was a few hundred years later, namely, the lingua franca of the whole tract as far as Egypt, where also, to all appearance, Abraham and his wife had no difficulty in making themselves understood.

According to Gen. x. 6, Canaan, into whose country Abraham journeyed with the object of settling, was the descendant of Cush, and the inhabitants ought therefore to have spoken a Hamitic language. Historically, however, this cannot be proved, but it is certain that if the Canaanites spoke a Hamitic language, they soon changed it for the speech which they seem to have used as far back as history can go, this speech being closely akin to Hebrew. In fact, there is very little doubt that Abraham and his descendants, forsaking their mother-tongue, the language of Babylonia, adopted the dialect of the Canaanitish language, which they afterwards spoke, and which is so well known at the present day as Hebrew. To all appearance Abraham’s relatives, who remained in Mesopotamia, in “the city of Nahor,” spoke a dialect of Aramaic, a language with which Abraham himself must have been acquainted, and which may have been spoken in Babylonia at that early date, as it certainly was, together with Chaldean, later on.

It is noteworthy, that the country to which Abraham migrated, and which is called by the Hebrew writers Canaan, is called by the same name in the Tel-el-Amarna letters, and the fact that the Babylonian king Burra-buriaš uses the same term shows that it was the usual name in that part of the world. Among the Babylonians, however, it was called mât Amurrî, “the land of Amoria,” the common expression, among the Babylonians and the Assyrians, for “the West.” In later times the Assyrians designated this district mât Ḫatti, “the land of Heth,” the home of the Hittites. The inference from this naturally is, that at the time when the Babylonians became acquainted with the country, the Amorites were the most powerful nationality there, whilst the Hittites had the dominion, and were in greater force later on, when the Assyrians first traded or warred there. These two linguistic usages show, that the two great races in the country, both of them Hamitic, according to Gen. x. 15, 16, were the Amorites (who spread as far as Babylonia, and even had settlements there), and the Hittites, whose capital was Ḫattu (Pterium, now Boghaz-keui) in Asia Minor, and whose rule extended south as far as Carchemish and Hamath.

In addition to the above indications from the historical inscriptions of Assyria, and the contract-tablets of Babylonia belonging to the first dynasty of Babylon (a number of which are translated in Chap. V.), we have also the indications furnished by the bilingual geographical lists.

As these lists are of great importance for the geography of the ancient Semitic East, with special reference to Western Asia, it may be of interest, and perhaps also serve a useful purpose, to give, in the form in which they occur on the tablets, such portions as may bear on the question of the knowledge of the Babylonians of the countries which lay around them.

The most important of these geographical documents is that published in the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, vol. ii. p. 50. This text begins, as would be expected from the hand of a patriotic scribe, with the towns and cities of his own land, in two columns, Akkadian, and the Semitic equivalent. This was followed, in the same way, by the provinces of his country, ending with the two principal, Kengi-Ura, translated by Šumer and Akkad. This is followed by the four Akkadian groups for the land of Subartum and Gutium, probably a part of Media.

To all appearance a new section begins here, the scribe introducing in this place the four Akkadian words or groups for “mountain.” The text then proceeds as follows—

KUR MAR-TU šad A-mur-ri-e Mountain of Amoria KI (the Amorite land). KUR TI-ID-NU-UM šad A-mur-ri-e Mountain of KI Amoria. KUR GIR-GIR šad A-mur-ri-e Mountain of KI Amoria. KUR SU-RU šad Su-bar-ti Mountain of KI Subarti. KUR NUM-MA šad Elamti Mountain of Elam. KI KUR Gu-ti-um šad Gu-ti-i Mountain of Gutû KI or Gutium. KURZAG Gu-ti-um šad pa-at Gu-ti-i Mountain of the KI border of Gutium. KUR ši-rum šad Si-ri-i [?] Mountain of Širû. KI KUR [GIŠ] ERI-NA šad E-ri-ni Mountain of Cedar. KI KUR MAR-ḪA-ŠI KI šad Pa-ra-ši-i Mountain of Parašû. KUR Šir-rum šad Bi-ta-lal Mountain of KI Bitala. (Kaštala is possible.) KUR Ê-AN-NA šad Bi-ta-lal Mountain of KI Bitala. KUR ḪE-A-NA šad Ḫa-ni-e Mountain of Ḫanû. KI KUR Lu-lu-bi šad Lu-lu-bi-e Mountain of KI Lulubû.

Here follows a list of adjectives combined with the word for country, forming descriptions such as “safe country,” “low-lying country,” etc.

In the above list of countries, the land of the Amorites holds the first place, and is repeated three times, there having, to all appearance, been three ways of writing its name in Akkadian. Why this was the case—whether in the older Akkadian literature the scribes distinguished three different districts or not, is not known, but is not at all improbable. The first of the three ways of designating the country is the usual one, and apparently means the land of the Amorites in general, the other two being less used, and possibly indicating the more mountainous parts. What the mountains of Suru or Subartu were is uncertain, but it may be supposed that, as this group is used in the late Babylonian inscriptions (as shown by the text containing the account of the downfall of Assyria) for the domain over which the kings of Assyria ruled, there is hardly any doubt that it stands for the Mesopotamian tract, extending from the boundaries of the Amorites to the frontiers of Babylonia. This would include not only Assyria, but also Aram-naharaim, or Syria, and is in all probability the original of this last word, which has given considerable trouble to students to explain.

In all probability, Siru, like Gutium and the border of Gutium, was a tract in the neighbourhood of Elam, which precedes. A comparison has been made between this Sirum and the Sirrum of the eleventh line of the extract, but as the spelling, and also, seemingly, the pronunciation, is different, it is in all likelihood a different place. The mountain of Cedar, however, is probably Lebanon, celebrated of old, and sufficiently wooded, in the time of Aššur-naṣir-âpli, to give cover to droves of elephants, which the Assyrian king hunted there. Marḫaši (Akk.) or Parašî (Assyr.) seems to have been a country celebrated for its dogs. Concerning Bitala or Kaštala nothing is known, but Ḫanê is supposed to have lain near Birejik on the Orontes.(42) Lulumu, which is apparently the same as Lulubū, was an adjoining state, which the Babylonians claim to have devastated about the twenty-eighth century before Christ, a fact which contributes to the confirmation of the antiquity of Babylonian geographical lore, and its trustworthiness, for the nation which invades another must be well aware of the position and physical features of territory invaded.

It is interesting to note, that one of the ordinary bilingual lists (W.A.I. II. pl. 48) gives what are apparently three mountainous districts, the first being Amurru, translating the Akkadian GIRGIR, which we are told to pronounce Tidnu (see above, pp. 122, 206, and below, p. 312), the second Urṭū (Ararat), which we are told to pronounce in Akkadian Tilla, and the third Qutû, in Akkadian Gišgala šu anna, “the district with the high barriers,” likewise a part of the Aramean mountains.

After returning from Egypt, Abraham went and dwelt in the south of Canaan, between Bethel and Ai, Lot quitting him in consequence of the quarrel which took place between their respective herdsmen. Concerning the Canaanite and the Perizzite, who were then in the land, the Babylonian inscriptions of this period, as far as they are known, say nothing, but there is hardly any doubt that these nationalities were known to them, this tract being within the boundaries of the Babylonian dominions. That these names do not yet occur, is not to be wondered at, for the Babylonians had been accustomed to call the tract Amurrū, and names which have been long attached to a country do not change at all easily. The next resting-place of the patriarch was by the oaks or terebinths of Mamre in Hebron, where he built an altar to the Lord.

At this point occurs Gen. ch. xiv., which contains the description of the conflict of the four kings against five—evidently one of the struggles of the Amorites and their allies to throw off the yoke of the Babylonians, who were in this case assisted by several confederate states.

Much has been written concerning this interesting chapter of the Bible. The earlier critics were of opinion that it was impossible that the power of the Elamites should have extended so far at such an early epoch. Later on, when it was shown that the Elamites really had power—and that even earlier than the time of Abraham—the objection of the critics was, that none of the names mentioned in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis really existed in the inscriptions. The history of Abraham was a romance, and the names of the Eastern kings with whom he came into contact equally so. It was true that there were Elamite names commencing with the element Kudur, the Chedor of the sacred text, but Chedorlaomer did not occur, Amraphel and Tidal were equally wanting, and that Arioch was the same as Eri-Aku or Rim-Aku could not be proved.

The first step in solving the riddle was that made by Prof. Eberhard Schrader, who suggested that Amraphel was none other than the well-known Babylonian king Ḫammurabi. This, naturally, was a theory which did not soon find acceptance—at least by all the Assyriologists. There were, however, two things in its favour—this king ruled sufficiently near to the time of Abraham, and he overcame a ruler named Rim-Sin or Rim-Aku, identified by the late George Smith with the Arioch of the chapter we are now considering. Concerning the latter ruler, Rim-Aku, there is still some doubt, but the difficulties which attended the identification of Ḫammurabi with Amraphel have now practically disappeared. The first step was the discovery of the form Ammurabi in one of the numerous contracts drawn up during his reign at Sippara, the city of the Sun-god. This form shows that the guttural was not the hard guttural kh, but the softer h. Yet another step nearer the Biblical form is that given by Ašaridu, who, in a letter to “the great and noble Asnapper,” writes as follows—

Ana šarri bêli-ia To the king, my lord, ârad-ka, (A)šaridu. thy servant Ašaridu. Nabû û Marduk ana Nebo and Merodach to šar mâtāti the king of the countries, bêli-ia likrubu. my lord, be favourable. Duppi ša šarru The tablet which the ippušu king makes ...-ṭu û ul-šalim. is bad(?) and incomplete. (A)dū duppi. Now a tablet, (la)biru ša Ammurapi an old one, of sarru. Ammurapi the king (e)pušu-ma alṭaru— I have made and written out— (la?) pani Ammurapi it is of the time šarru. (?) of Ammurapi the king. Kî ašpuru As I have sent (to inform the king), ultu Bâbîli from Babylon attašâ I will bring (it). Šarru nipisu The king (will be able to do) the work [ina] pitti at once.

[Here several lines are broken away.]

........................... ............................. ša A-................... which A-....................... qat ....................... the hand of.................... ulla ...................... then (?) ...................... anaku ..................... I ............................. likîpanni. may he trust me.

As this is a late reference to Ḫammurabi, it is noteworthy not only on account of the form the name (which agrees excellently with the Biblical Amraphel) had assumed at the time (the hard breathing or aspirate having to all appearance completely disappeared), but also as a testimony to the esteem in which he was held a millennium and a half after his death. How it is that the Hebrew form has l at the end is not known, but the presence of this letter has given rise to numerous theories. One of these is, that Amraphel is for Ḫammurabi îlu, “Ḫammurabi the god,” many of the old Babylonian kings having been deified after their death. Another (and perhaps more likely) explanation is, that this additional letter is due to the faulty reading of a variant writing of the name, with a polyphonous character having the value of pil as well as bi,—which form may, in fact, still be found. However the presence of the final (and apparently unauthorized) addition to the name be explained, the identification of Amraphel and Ḫammurabi is held to be beyond dispute.

Thanks to important chronological lists of colophon-dates and to a number of trade-documents from Tel-Sifr, Sippara, and elsewhere, which are inscribed with the same dates in a fuller form, the outline of the history of the reign of Ḫammurabi is fairly well known, though it can hardly be said that we have what would be at the present time regarded as an important event for each year, notwithstanding that they may have been to the ancient Babylonians of all-absorbing interest. The following is a list of the principal dates of his reign, as far as they can at present be made out—

1 Year of Ḫammurabi the king. 2 Year he performed justice in the land. 3 Year he constructed the throne of the exalted shrine of Nannar of Babylon. 4 Year he built the fortification of Malgia. 5 Year he constructed the ... of the god. 6 Year of the fortification of (the goddess) Laz. 7 Year of the fortification of Isinna. 8 Year of the ... of Emutbālum. 9 Year of the canal Ḫammurabi-ḫêgalla. 10 Year of the soldiers and people of Malgia. 11 Year of the cities Rabiqa and Šalibi. 12 Year of the throne of Zēr-panîtum. 13 Year (the city) Umu (?) set up a king in great rejoicing.(43) 14 Year of the throne of Ištar of Babylon. 15 Year of his 7 images.(44) 16 Year of the throne of Nebo. 17 Year of the images of Ištar and Addu (Hadad).... 18 Year of the exalted shrine for Ellila. 19 Year of the fortification Igi-ḫur-sagga. 20 Year of the throne of Merri (Rimmon or Hadad). 21 Year of the fortification of Baṣu. 22 Year of the image of Ḫammurabi king of righteousness. 23 Year of the ... of Sippar. 24 Year of the ... for Ellila. 25 Year of the fortification of Sippar. 26 Year a great flood (?).... 27 Year the supreme (?).... 28 Year of the temple of abundance.(45) 29 Year of the image of Šala (spouse of Rimmon or Hadad). 30 Year the army of Elam.... 31 Year of the land Emutbālu. 32 Year the army of.... 33 Year of the canal Ḫammurabi-nuḫuš-niši. 34 Year of Ištar and Nanaa. 35 Year of the fortification of.... 36 Lost. 37 Practically lost. 38 Year the great.... 39 Practically lost. 40 Lost. 41 Lost. 42 Practically lost. 43 Year dust (? ruin) overwhelmed Sippar and the city Ul-Šamaš.

In the gaps indicated by the words “lost,” and “practically lost,” the following entries ought, perhaps, to be inserted, though it is to be noted that some of them may be merely additions to, or other forms of, dates preserved by the list—

“Year he (i.e. the king) built the supreme shrine of Bêl.” [? the eighteenth year.]

“Year of the ... of the fortification of Sippar.” [? the 25th year.]

“Year he made supplication to the goddess Taš-mêtu.”

“Year of the river (canal) Tišida-Ellilla” (p. 182).

“Year the soldiers of Ešnunna were smitten by the sword.”

“Year Ḫammurabi the king, by command of Anu and Bêl, destroyed the wall of Mair and Malgia” (p. 187).

“Year Ḫammurabi the king renewed the temple Ê-me-temena-ursag, and raised the head of the temple-tower, the supreme seat of Zagaga, high like heaven.”

“Year Ḫammurabi the king raised the top of the great wall on the bank of the Tigris high like a mountain, and caused its name to be called the embankment of the Sun.”

Besides these, there are additions in the entries in the chronological list, some of which are of sufficiently great importance—

“Year 31: Year Ḫammurabi the king, by the command of Anu and Bêl, established his advantage (and) captured the land Yamutbālum and the king Rîm-Sin.”

“Year 34: Year Ḫammurabi the king made [images of] Ištar and Nanaa.”

Whether the following be another form of this date, or a different one altogether is uncertain:

“Year Ḫammurabi the king renewed E-tur-kalama for Anu, Ištar, and Nanaa.”

Year 38, which, in the chronological list, is called the year of the great ... is possibly to be completed, in accordance with the indications from the colophon-dates: “Year of Ḫammurabi the king (when) a great flood destroyed Ešnunna.”

With regard to the other undecided dates, it is practically certain that the three long ones—those which record the destruction of the wall of Mair and Malgia, the restoration of the temple Ê-me-temena-ursag and the temple tower dedicated to Zagaga, and the construction of the great dam of the Tigris—come into the gaps after the entry for the thirty-first year. The reason for this assumption is, that the thirty-first year of Ḫammurabi was the date of his conquest of Rîm-Sin, in whose dominions the town represented by the ruins of Tel-Sifr (the place whence the tablets came which bear these dates) lay. All the tablets from this place, bearing dates of the reign of Ḫammurabi, therefore belong to the thirty-first year of his reign and later.

In all probability there is one thing that will be considered as noteworthy, and that is, that as far as our records go, there is no reference whatever to any expedition to the West-land, and if that be due simply to the imperfection of the records which have come down to us, all that can be said is, that it is a noteworthy coincidence.(46) It must not be supposed, however, that it in any wise invalidates the trustworthiness of the narrative in the 14th chapter of Genesis—there is plenty of room in the mutilated list (of which I have given such a translation as is possible) for a date referring to this to have been recorded, though we must keep in mind the possibility, that if the Babylonian king considered that disaster had in any way overtaken his arms, he may not have recorded it at all. Then there is the fact, that the expedition was undertaken in conjunction with allies—Chedorlaomer, Tidal, and Arioch—for none of whom, in all probability, Ḫammurabi had any sympathy. The Elamite was a conqueror from a land over which the Babylonians of earlier ages had held sway, and Arioch had dominion over a neighbouring tract, to which Ḫammurabi himself laid claim, and over which, as the texts above translated show, he afterwards ruled. Ḫammurabi, moreover, claimed also the West-land—mât Amurrī, the land of Amurrū—as his hereditary possession, and he found himself obliged to aid Chedorlaomer, Tidal, and Arioch to subjugate it—indeed, it was Chedorlaomer whom the five kings had acknowledged for twelve years as their overlord, and against whom, in the thirteenth, they rebelled. It is, therefore, likely that Ḫammurabi regarded himself as having been forced by circumstances to aid Chedorlaomer to reconquer what really belonged to Babylonia, and the probability that he would cause it to be used as one of the events to date by, is on that account still less, even if the news of any success which he might have considered himself entitled to reached his own domain in time to be utilized for such a purpose.

It has been shown on p. 155 that Ammi-ṭitana, the third in succession from Ḫammurabi, claimed the sovereignty of the land of Amurrū, and from an inscription accompanying a portrait of Ḫammurabi discovered by Mr. Rassam, we learn that he, too, claimed sovereignty over it. Sargon of Agadé held sway over the tract centuries before, so that he probably reckoned that, by right of inheritance, it was his. It would therefore be natural that he should omit to mention as an event to be remembered, an expedition to a country which ought never to have thrown off his dominion.

Of course, one of the principal things confirming the identification of Ḫammurabi with Amraphel would naturally be the occurrence of one or more of the names recorded in Gen. xiv., in conjunction with his, or in such a way that a connection could be established. This, naturally, is difficult, principally on account of our having no continuous history of the period to which these rulers belong. Nevertheless, a close examination of the inscriptions suggests in what way confirmation of the events narrated with reference to Amraphel and his allies might be sought.

Reference has already been made to Rîm-Sin, king of Yamutbālu (or Emutbālu), who appears to have been defeated by Ḫammurabi in the thirty-first regnal year. From this time the dominions of Rîm-Sin evidently formed part of the Babylonian Empire, and were never again separated from it as long as it existed.

Notwithstanding the early identification of Rîm-Sin with Eri-Sin or Eri-Aku by the late George Smith, considerable doubt has been thrown on the identity of these two names by the fact, that in inscriptions containing the name of Kudur-mabuk, the father, the name of his son is written with Eri as the first element—not Rîm. This, it must be admitted, is a considerable difficulty. Winckler, however, in the Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, Band III., 1 Hälfte, pp. 88-89, publishes a text given by Lenormant, Textes Inédits, No. 70, in which the name of the son of Kudur-mabuk is written Ri-im-Sin, and if this be correctly copied, it would seem to settle the matter of their identity. It is to be noted that they are both called king of Uriwa, king of Larsa, and king of Šumer and Akkad. In the inscriptions Eri-Aku or Eri-Sin also calls himself adda Emutbala, “father of Yamutbālu,” and, as the colophon-date of the 31st year of Ḫammurabi shows, Rîm-Sin or Rîm-Aku was also king of that region.

In these circumstances, there is hardly any doubt that they were at least closely connected, if not (as has been supposed since the time of the Assyriologist George Smith) actually identical. It is therefore worthy of mention, that M. F. Thureau-Dangin, the well-known French Assyriologist, suggests that Eri-Aku and Rîm-Sin were brothers, sons of Kudur-mabuk, and successively kings of Larsa (Les Inscriptions de Šumer et d’Akkad, p. 300, n. 3). This would not only account for their having the same parentage, but also for their claiming the same titles. It can therefore not be said, that Ḫammurabi became the enemy of his old ally—it was against his brother that he fought.

The date quoted on p. 214 (year 31) seems to include Rîm-Sin in the capture of the land of Yamutbālum, but this is not confirmed by the new Chronicle, which states that Ḫammurabi, king of Babylon, gathered his soldiers and went against Rîm-Sin, king of Larsa. His hand captured Ur and Larsa, he carried off their goods to Babylon, and overthrew and carried away other things—what they were the mutilation of the record does not allow us even to guess. It is noteworthy also that the mention of Ur as one of the cities of Rîm-Sin shuts out that state from the tract which, from the 14th chapter of Genesis, would otherwise be included in Shinar, and seems also to explain why Ur is designated as being “of the Chaldees.”

If, however, the colophon-date be right, and Rîm-Sin was really made prisoner, he must either have escaped, or been set at liberty again, for Samsu-iluna, son of Ḫammurabi, when he became king, had apparently to resist another attack on the part of that ruler, who seems to have been captured, and “(? burnt) alive in his palace.”

With regard to the names Eri-Aku and Rîm-Sin, one Sumero-Akkadian, and the other Semitic, the former means, as was thought from the first, “Servant of the Moon-god,” whilst the sense of the latter, as is made clear by the variant spelling in the new Babylonian chronicle, is “Sin’s (the Moon-god’s) wild bull.” A similar name is that of Rîm-Anu, another king of Larsa—“Anu’s (the Heaven-god’s) wild bull.” These are paralleled by such names as Bûr-Sin, “Sin’s young steer,” in which the bearer is compared with a strong and willing animal of service. Possibly the substitution of the word for “wild bull” in Rîm-Sin and Rîm-Anu is symbolical of reckless courage.

Very little is known of the state of which Larsa (in Sumero-Akkadian Ararma) was the capital. It is interesting to note, however, that this city was a centre of the worship of the Sun-god Šamaš, as was also Sippar (now Abu-habbah). The temple in both cities bore the same name, Ê-bara (-para) or Ê-babbara (-barbara), “the house of brilliant light.” With the exception of Eri-Aku or Arioch, whose name is Sumero-Akkadian, all the rulers have Semitic names—Rîm-Anu, Nûr-Rammāni or Nûr-Addi, “light of Rimmon” or “of Hadad,” Sin-idinnam, “Sin has given,” and Rîm-Sin. If Eri-Aku was called, in the Semitic tongue, Arad-Sin, “Servant of Sin,” as is possible, this name must be added too, but in that case his identification with Arioch would be less probable. As he was of Elamite origin, his bearing a Sumero-Akkadian or a Semitic name was probably due to motives of policy, and one which, when written, could be read either way would give pleasure to both sections of the people, Sumero-Akkadian and Semitic.

The following inscriptions record architectural works of Kudur-mabuk, and his sons Eri-Aku and Rîm-Sin:—

Tablet Of Kudur-Mabuk Mentioning Eri-Aku.

(Dingir) Nannara To Nannara lugala-ni-r his king, Kudur-mabuk Kudur-mabuk, adda kura Martu father of Amoria, dumu Simti-šilḫak son of Simti-šilḫak. Ud (dingir) Nannara When Nannara arazu-ni his prayer mu-igi-ginnā received, ne-zila-maḫa ne-zila-maḫa (dingir) Nannara-kam for Nannara nam-tila-ni-šu for his life, u nam-ti and the life Eri-Aku dumu-ni of Eri-Aku, his son, lugal Ararma-šu king of Larsa, munanindu. he made.

“To Nannara, his king, Kudur-mabuk, father of the land of the Amorites, son of Simti-šilḫak. When Nannara received his prayer he made for Nannara ne-zila-maḫa for his life and the life of his son Arioch, king of Larsa.”

Tablet Of Eri-Aku Mentioning Kudur-Mabuk, His Father.

Eri-(dingir) Aku Eri-Aku uš kalagga powerful hero siba nig-zi everlasting shepherd ua Uri-(D. S.)-wa installed by Bêl (dingir) Ellilli nourisher of Uriwa garra lugal Arar-(D. king of Larsa S.)-ma lugal Kiengi-(D. king of Šumer (and) S.)-Uragi Akkad dumu Kudur-mabuk son of Kudur-mabuk Adda Emutbala-men father of Yamutbālu am I. Uriwa (D. S.) In Uriwa broad, dagal-e-ne mu maha dudune possessing an exalted name,

Col. II.

ušu-na-bi to the peerless (?) ugul-immangaga supplication I have made. (dingir) Nannara Nannara my king lugala-mu mušinše I have obeyed (?): bad gala ḫursag A great wall, high illa-dim šu-nu-tutu like a mountain, impregnable, im-bi dul ea inspiring (?) its fear, munadu have I made, uru-ni ḫimmira its city may it protect. bada-ba That wall (dingir) Nannara “Nannara the suḫuš mada gengen consolidator of the foundation of the land” is mu-bi-im its name.

“Arioch, the powerful hero, the everlasting shepherd installed by Bêl, the nourisher of Uriwa, the king of Larsa, the king of Šumer and Akkad, the son of Kudur-mabug, the father of Yamutbālu, am I. In broad Uriwa, possessing an exalted name, to the peerless one (?) have I made supplication, Nannara, my king, have I obeyed (?). The great wall, high like a mountain, impregnable, inspiring (?) its fear, have I built—may it protect its city. The name of that wall is ‘Nannara the consolidator of the foundation of the land.’ ”

[The above inscription is not without its difficulties, some of them formidable enough, but the general sense of the whole may be regarded as correctly made out.]

Tablet Of Rim-Sin.

(Dingir) Nin-saḫ To Ninsaḫ en galla abba age great lord, beloved father šaga-gu-sag-gi knowing the gala-zu supplication of the heart sukkala maḫa exalted messenger, ša-kušša dingira (giving) heart-rest, galla great god dugga-ni ši tul-du he who sends forth his hidden word lugal-a-ni-ir his king (dingir) Rim-Sin. Rim-(dingir) Sin

siba gu kalama Nipri shepherd of all the (D. S.) people of Nippur me giškin he who fulfils the Gurudug-(D. S.)-ga word of the vine of su-dudu Eridu ua Uri-(D. S.)-wa nourisher of Uriwa ê-ud-da-im-te-ga (and) Ê-udda-imtega lugal Arar-(D. king of Larsa S.)-ma

Col. II.

lugal Kengi-(D. king of Šumer and S.)-Ura-gi Akkad. Ud Ana (dingir) When Anu, Bêl, Ellila (dingir) En-ki (and) Ea, dingir-galgalene the great gods, Unuga (D. S.) uru du Erech, the ruined (?) city, šu-mu-šu into my hands manin-si-eša delivered (dingir) Ninsaḫ to Ninsaḫ, my king, lugala-mu-r gu-sagsaggi-da-mu-ta after my making supplication; ê-da-agga-šummu Ê-dagga-šummu, ki-dura ki-agga-ni his beloved resting-place, nam-ti-mu-šu for my life munadu. I built.

“To Ninsaḫ, the great lord, the beloved father, he who is aware of the supplication of the heart; the exalted messenger, (giving) rest to the heart, the great god who sendeth forth his hidden word—his king, Rim-Sin, shepherd of all the people of Niffer, who fulfilleth the word of the vine of Êridu, nourisher of Uriwa (and) Ê-udda-imtega, king of Larsa, king of Šumer and Akkad. When Anu, Bêl, and Ea, the great gods, delivered Erech, the ruined (?) city, into my hands, I built to Ninsaḫ, my king, after making supplication, Ê-dagga-šummu, his beloved seat, for (the saving of) my life.”

This last text was found in the mound of Mugheir (Uriwa), and is of great interest, as it is dedicated to Ninsaḫ, the great messenger of the gods, and not to the god Sin or Nannara, the chief patron-deity of the city. It has also an interesting reference to the vine of Êridu (see pp. 71 ff.), and apparently to his capture of the city of Erech, delivered into his hands by the gods Anu, Bêl, and Ea. That he should represent himself as taking possession of the city by the will of Anu, the chief god of the city, whose name he mentions before the other two divinities, sheds a certain light upon the character of the man, whilst his military exploits, both at home and in the west, must have made him, like Chedorlaomer his fellow-countryman, and Ḫammurabi his rival, one of the heroes of his time.

There now remain to be treated of Chedorlaomer and Tidal, the remaining two of the four allies who fought in that memorable conflict by the Dead Sea to bring into subjection their revolted vassals.

From the time of their first discovery it has been felt that the occurrence of names containing the element Kudur—Kudur-mabuk, Kudur-Nanḫundi, Kudur-Naḫḫunte, etc.—was, in itself, excellent testimony to the correctness of the narrative in the 14th chapter of Genesis, where an Elamite king having Chedor as the first element of his name, attacks and conquers, in alliance with certain kings of Babylonia, five petty rulers of a district on the shores of the Dead Sea. It was, however, naturally a matter of disappointment that the name of Chedorlaomer himself did not occur, for it was soon recognized that the identification, made by Sir Henry Rawlinson, of Kudur-mabuk (read Kudur-mapula) with Chedorlaomer could not be sustained. What was wanted, was some such name as Kudur-Lagamar or Kudur-Lagamal, the second element having been recognized in other texts as the name of the Elamite deity Lagamaru. It was to all appearance thought to be probable that the name of Tidal would be found.

Accordingly, when two tablets were referred to at the Congress of Orientalists held at Geneva in 1894 as containing the names Tudḫula, Êri-Eaku (Êri-Ekua), and another name read doubtfully as Kudur-laḫ(gu)mal, no publicly-expressed objection to their possible identification with Tidal, Arioch, and Chedorlaomer was made. The names were placed before the Semitic section of the Congress of Orientalists referred to, as recent discoveries, which were certain as far as they went, their identification being a matter of opinion.

None of these documents are in a state of completeness, though one of them, a kind of poem, contains no less than 76 lines, more or less well preserved. The other two are of the nature, apparently, of historical legends, though they may be true historical documents, and, though imperfect, are of great importance. Concerning the names which are contained in these texts there is but little or no doubt, though there may be doubt as to the way in which they ought to be read in consequence of the fanciful way in which they are written.

The first document is Sp. III. 2, and contains all three names—or, rather, the names Tudḫula (Tidal), Êri-Eaku’s son Durmaḫ-îlāni, and Kudur-laḫmal. The first portion of this text refers to the gods: “Šamaš, illuminator (of the earth),” “the lord of lords, Merodach, in the faithfulness of his heart,” aided (probably) his servant to subdue (?) some region, “all of it.” Then there is a reference to (soldiers) whom some ruler “caused to be slain,” and as the name of Durmaḫ-îlāni son of Êri-(E)aku follows, there is every probability that it was he who is referred to in the preceding lines. The carrying off of goods (?) is next spoken of, and waters which to all appearance came over Babylon and the great temple-tower called Ê-saggil (more usually written in earlier times Ê-sagila). The next line has an interesting reference to “the son (?)” of some one, who “slaughtered him like (?) a lamb with the weapon of his hands.” After this, we are told that “the elder and the child (were killed) with the sword.” To all appearance, another division of the subject begins with the next line, though the text goes on recording things of the same nature—“the child he cut off.” This is immediately followed by the words “Tudḫula the son of Gazza- ..,” or “Tidal son of Gazzā(ni?),” who, like Durmaḫ-îlāni (if we may form any opinion from the fact that the wording of the line following the mention of Tidal is the same as that following the name of the son of Êri-Eaku), carried off goods (?), and waters (he caused to flow?) over Babylon and Ê-saggil, the great temple of the city. The parallel between these two passages is still further emphasized by the words in the line immediately following, which says that “his son fell upon him with the weapon of his hand.” The next line is the last of the obverse, and speaks of (“the proclamation,” perhaps) of “his dominion before the temple of Annunit,” where we have the interesting archaism, An-nu-nit for D.P. (i.e. the determinative prefix indicating that the name of a deity follows) A-nu-nit.

The reverse begins with a reference to Elam, and some one (perhaps the king of that country) who “spoiled from the city Aḫḫê (?) to the land of Rabbātum.” Something was made, apparently by the same personage, into heaps of ruins, and the fortress of the land of Akkad, and “the whole of Borsippa(?)” are referred to. At this point comes the line mentioning Kudur-laḫmal, supposed to be Chedorlaomer. It reads as follows—

“Kudur-laḫmal, his son, pierced his heart with the steel sword of his girdle.”

After this there is a passage where the various kings mentioned seem to be referred to, and it is stated that Merodach, the king of the gods, was angry against them, and they were, to all appearance, made to suffer for what they had done. The scribe who had composed this record now speaks, in favourable words, of the king then reigning, and seems to refer to the restoration of the inscription to its place by the person (prince) who, in later days, should find it (as was the custom among the Babylonians and Assyrians). He ends with a pious wish that a sinful man might not exist, or something to that effect.

The second tablet, though in a more satisfactory state of preservation, is still sufficiently incomplete, none of the lines being altogether perfect.

After referring to Babylon, and to the property of that city, “small and great,” it is said that the gods (apparently)

“in their faithful counsel to Kudur-laḫgumal, king of the land of Elam ... said ‘Descend.’ The thing which unto them was good (he performed, and) he exercised sovereignty in Babylon, the city of Kar-Duniaš.”

It would therefore appear that this Elamite ruler, by the will of the gods (such was the way with conquerors in those days—they annexed other countries to their dominions by the will of the gods of the lands annexed), took possession of Babylon, capital (such seems to be the meaning of the phrase) of Kar-Duniaš. This is followed by a long passage in which animals and birds, apparently the favourites of the Elamite king, are referred to, and the idea which one gains by reading it is, that he attended to these rather than to the welfare of his realm. This being the case, it is natural that something about the remissness of the king should follow, and this seems to be, in fact, intended in the next line, where some one whose name is lost seems to ask: “What king of Elam is there who has (erected?) the chapel (?) (it was something made of wood, as the determinative prefix shows) of E-saggil?” It was the Babylonians, the text seems to say, who had done things of this kind. The speaker then seems to begin to talk of “their work,” when another gap destroys the remainder of the phrase. He then speaks about “(a let)ter (?) which thou hast written thus: ‘I am a king, the son of a king,’ ” but whether it is the same personage who says that he is “the son of the daughter of a king, who has sat on the throne of dominion,” is doubtful—it may be a similarly boasting reply to the statement put into the mouth of the first speaker. The line which follows has the name of Durmaḫ-îlāni, son of Êri-Ekua (Êri-Eaku of the other historical text), who seems to have carried away spoil, but whether it is he who is referred to in the next line as having sat on the throne of dominion is doubtful. This is followed by the expression of the wish that the king might come who from eternal days ... was proclaimed lord of Babylon. The closing lines of the obverse, which is here described, do not give any clear sense, but there is a reference to the months Kislev and Tammuz, probably in connection with festivals, also (apparently) to certain priests, and to the taking of spoil. The remains of the reverse are too scanty to gather what the text inscribed upon it really refers to.

It is naturally difficult to judge which of these two inscriptions came first. Both of them seem to have a kind of peroration at the end containing similar phrases referring to the city of Babylon and its well-being, and either might therefore be the last tablet of a series. To all appearance, the order of the two records turns upon the question whether Durmaḫ-îlāni is the one who is referred to as having written a certain communication, or whether it is about him that some one has written. As he seems to be referred to in the third person, the probability is that “Durmaḫ-îlāni, son of Êri-Eaku, who (carried away?) the spoil of ... ,” is not the person speaking, but the person spoken of. In this case he was not necessarily alive at the time, and the order of the two tablets as here printed may be the correct one.

How far the record which they contain may be true is with our present knowledge impossible to find out. The style of the writing with which they are inscribed is certainly very late—later, in all probability, than the Persian period, and the possibility that it is a compilation of that period has been already suggested. That it is altogether a fiction, however, is in the highest degree improbable. If we have in the three names which these two tablets contain the Babylonian prototypes of Tidal, Arioch, and Chedorlaomer, they must refer to the events which passed between the first and thirty-first years of the reign of Amraphel or Ḫammurabi, in which it would seem that both Durmaḫ-îlāni and Tudḫula attacked and spoiled Babylon, cutting the canals so that the town and the temple were both flooded. Both of these royal personages, who, be it noted, are not called kings, were apparently killed by their sons, and Kudur-laḫmal seems to have been a criminal of the same kind, if we may judge from the words “Kudur-laḫmal, his son, pier(ced?) his heart with the steel sword of his girdle.” That three royal personages, contemporaries, should all dispose of their fathers in the same way seems, however, in the highest degree improbable. It also seems to be in an equal degree impossible that (as has been suggested) the tablets in question should refer to Tidal, Arioch, and Chedorlaomer, but not the same Tidal, Arioch, and Chedorlaomer as is spoken of in Genesis, unless it be meant thereby that the Biblical personages of that name are the historical ones, whilst those of the two tablets belong to the realm of fiction. The greater probability is, that they are the same personages, but that the accounts handed down to us on these two tablets are largely legendary.

And that this is the case is made more probable by the third document, couched in poetical form, which I have entitled The Legend of Chedorlaomer. The following are extracts from this remarkable piece—

“... and they pressed on to the supreme gate. He threw down, removed, and cast down the door of Ištar in the holy places, He descended also, like Ura the unsparing, to Dû-maḫa; He stayed also in Dû-maḫa, looking at the temple; He opened his mouth, and spake with the children (of the place). To all his warriors (then) he hastened the message:— ‘Carry off the spoil of the temple, take also its goods, Destroy its barrier, cause its enclosures to be cut through.’ To the channel ... they pressed on....”

(Here comes a mutilated passage apparently referring to the destruction which he wrought.)

“He drove away the director’s overseer, he took away the vail. The enemy pressed on evilly to Ennun-dagalla. The god was clothed with light before him, He flashed like lightning, and shook the (holy) places. The enemy feared, he hid himself. There descended (?) also its chief man, and he spake to him a command. ... the god was clothed with light, (He flashed like lightning), and shook the (holy) places. ‘(Draw near unto?) Ennun-dagalla, remove his crowns! (Enter into?) his temple, seize his hand!’ ..., he did not fear, and he regarded not his life. ‘(He shall not approach?) Ennun-dagalla, he shall not remove his crowns.’ ”

(Here follows another mutilated passage, describing how “the Elamite, the wicked man,” proclaimed something to the lands, and how he dwelt and stayed in Dû-maḫa.)

(At this point is the end of the obverse, and there is a considerable gap before there are any further fairly complete passages.)

“When the guardian spoke peace (to the city) The guardian-bulls of Ê-šarra, [the temple of the host of the gods], departed. The enemy, the Elamite, multiplied evils, And Bêl allowed evil to be planned against Babylon.”

“When righteousness was absent (?), then was decided (?) also the destruction Of Ê-šarra, the temple of the host of the gods, the guardian-bulls departed. The enemy, the Elamite, took its goods— Bêl, dwelling upon it, had displeasure.”

“When the magicians repeated their evil words (?), Gullum(47) and the evil wind performed their evil (?). Then their gods departed—they departed like a torrent. Storm and evil wind went round in the heavens. Anu, their creator, had displeasure. He made pale their face, he made desolate his place, He destroyed the barrier in the shrine of Ê-anna, (He overthrew?) the temple, and the platform shook.”

“ .... he decreed destruction, ..... he had disfavour. The people (?) of Bêl of Ê-zida barred (?) the road to Šumer. Who is Kudurlaḫgu(mal), the doer of the evils? He has gathered also the Umman-man(da against?) the people (?) of Bêl— He has laid in ruin . . . by their side.”

“When (the enclosure) of Ê-zida (was broken down?), And Nebo was ruler of the host, there (came) down his (winged bulls). Down to Tiamtu he se(t his face). Ibi-Tutu, whom the Sun-god (?) hastened within Tiamtu, Entered Tiamtu, and founded a pseudo-capital. The enclosure of Ê-zida, the everlasting temple, was caused to be broken through.”

“(The enemy), the Elamite, caused his yoke of horses to be directed, (and) Set his face (to go) down to Borsippa. He traversed also the road of darkness, the road to Mesech. The tyrant (?) Elamite destroyed the palace (?), He subdued the princes of ... with the sword, He carried off the spoil of all the temples. He took their goods, and carried them away to Elam. .... ruler, he destroyed the ruler (?), .......... filled also the land.” (The remainder is wanting.)

Apparently this is a poetical reproduction of the tablets of which translations have already been given. The enemy entered Babylon, according to the nine lines of the earlier portion of the inscription which are preserved, and spoiled and ravaged the place. The mention of the channel (îku, irrigation-channel) suggests a comparison with the first of the two historical fragments, where waters over Babylon and Ê-sagila are referred to, and cause one to ask whether Durmaḫ-îlāni and Tudḫula were not the lieutenants of Kudur-laḫgumal.

The description of the conditions under which the entry into Babylon was effected, when the god (possibly Ennundagalla) was clothed with light, flashed like lightning and shook the holy places, suggests that a severe thunderstorm acted on the superstitious hopes of the Babylonians, and the equally superstitious fears of their foes, so much so, that the Elamite did not carry out his intention of carrying away the crowns of the statue of the god. He seems, however, to have taken and retained possession of the place, and to have continued to extend his operations.

The reverse apparently states why all these misfortunes came, and what further happened. It was because they accepted a foreign ruler (he spoke peace to the city, and thereby became its master); because there was denial of righteousness or justice (righteousness was absent?); because the magicians repeated evil words. Even in the temple of Anu at Erech (the shrine called Ê-anna, “the temple of heaven,” or “of Anu”) the god of heaven was displeased, and caused something very like an earthquake. Some, however, were found who were willing to try to bar the passage of the conqueror, who had gathered the Umman-manda (barbarian hordes), possibly his followers and those of Tudḫula or Tidal, against the people (?) of Bêl (the Babylonians), and laid everything in ruins.

When the enclosure of Ê-zida (the great temple-tower of Borsippa, identified with the tower of Babel by modern scholars) was broken down, Ibi-Tutu, apparently a Babylonian prince, fled to Tiamtu, the region of the Persian Gulf, and there founded a temporary capital. The invader thereupon seems to have proceeded to Borsippa, and to have taken the road to Mesech—that is to say, to the north—where he continued his ravages. That he intended to go so far as Mesech, however, is very unlikely, his object being to subdue the princes of the immediate neighbourhood of Babylon, and after collecting the spoil and goods of all the temples, he carried them away with him to Elam.

Cyrus, when he entered Babylon, spoke peace to the city, and promised peace to all the land. In later documents even than the time of Cyrus, “the enemy, the Elamite,” is spoken of, and there is every probability that the legend here recounted was popular with the Babylonians as long as any national feeling was left, hence these incomplete remains which have come down to us—due, perhaps, to some period when the old hostility was aroused by some inroad from the mountains on the east, where the Elamites held sway apparently to a comparatively late date.

Whether Êri-Eaku (or Eri-Aaku), Tudḫula, and Kudur-laḫgumal be Arioch, Tidal and Chedorlaomer respectively, I leave to the reader to decide for himself. The first of these will probably be regarded as sufficiently near to be exceedingly probable. With regard to the two others, it may be noted that Tidal was pronounced, in Hebrew, Tidghal, as the Greek Thargal (for Thadgal, d and r being so much alike in Hebrew as to be easily interchanged) shows, and Chedorlaomer was Chedorlaghomer, as the Greek Chodollogomar likewise indicates. Doubt concerning the reading can only be entertained with regard to this last name.(48)

Whatever may be thought about the interesting and remarkable inscriptions of which an account has just been given, of one thing there can be no doubt, and that is, that the Elamites and Babylonians were quite powerful enough, at the time of Abraham, to make an expedition of the magnitude described in Genesis xiv. Sargon of Agadé held sway over this district, and he reigned, according to Nabonidus’s indications, more than 1500 years earlier. His son, when he came to the throne, added Elam to his dominions as well. That the position should, at a considerably later period, be reversed, is easily conceivable, and it was to all appearance the Elamites who held sway in a part of Babylonia, of which country many of the states undoubtedly acknowledged Elamite overlordship, though with exceeding unwillingness. One point of the undoubted history is noteworthy. Kudur-mabuk, son of Simti-šilḫak, who ruled at Larsa, bears, like his father, an Elamite name. His son, Êri-Aku, has an Akkadian name—perhaps, as already suggested, from motives of policy, and likely enough from the same motive, he may have Semitizised it later on, making it Arad-Sin. Êri-Ekua (-Eaku) is likewise an Akkadian name, and must be a fanciful variant of that of Êri-Aku or Arioch. His son, however, bears the Semitic name of Durmaḫ-îlāni, “the bond with the gods.” This is apparently a case of carrying the policy of conciliation a step farther, for by doing this he not only bears a native name, but also claims to be the intermediary with the gods of his country.

After the retreat of the conquering army of Elamites and Babylonians with their booty, with Lot, Abraham’s nephew, as prisoner, and his goods as part of the spoil, comes the interesting account of the way in which Abraham rescued his relative and recovered his property, with a portion of that belonging to the king of Sodom. On his return with the spoil, Melchizedek king of Salem meets him, offering him bread and wine, and blessing him as Abraham of El-Elyon, “the most high god.” Certain supposed confirmatory statements in the correspondence of Abdi-ṭâba, ruler of Jerusalem, which was found among the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, has been the subject of much discussion, and it is apparently regarded as being of much importance, though there are various opinions concerning it. The prince in question, when writing to his suzerain, the reigning king of Egypt, makes the remarkable statement that it was not his father nor his mother who had set him in that place (i.e. Uru-salim or Jerusalem) as king, but “the mighty king”—

“Behold, this land of Jerusalem, neither my father nor my mother gave (it) to me—the hand (arm(49)) of the mighty king gave it to me.”—(Tablet, Berlin, 103.)

“Behold, I am not a prefect, I am an employé of the king my lord,—behold, I am an officer of the king, and one who brings the tribute of the king. Neither my father nor my mother, (but) the arm of the mighty king has set me in the house of my father.”—(Tablet B. 104.)

“Behold, I, neither my father nor my mother set me in this place. The arm of the mighty king caused me to enter into the house of my father.”—(Tablet B. 102.)

As Abdi-ṭâba then goes on to emphasize his faithfulness to the king of Egypt, apparently on account of his having been made ruler of Jerusalem by him, these passages merely resolve themselves, to all appearance, into a statement of the writer’s indebtedness to his royal master. It may be disappointing, but to all appearance the “mighty king” is the king of Egypt, and not the god of Uru-salim.

Nevertheless, the description of Melchizedek in Heb. vii. 3, “without father, without mother,” makes it a quite legitimate question to ask: may not Abdi-ṭâba, in what he said to his suzerain, have made some mental reservation when writing what he did? Or is it not possible that, when speaking about his independence of his father and his mother for the position that he occupied, he was unconsciously making use of words familiar to him, and recorded in some document of the archives of the city? We have yet to learn the history of the preceding period—we know not whether Abdi-ṭâba had really a right to the position which he occupied (he seems to have been placed as ruler of Jerusalem by the foreign power to which he refers), and until we get more information, there is no escape from the necessity of regarding him, from his own letters, as being in a different position from that which, in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, Melchizedek occupies.

In connection with the question as to what divinity was worshipped at Jerusalem, the tablet known as B. 105 is of importance. Line 14 of the letter in question reads: “The city of the land of Jerusalem, its name is Bît-Ninip, the city of the king, is lost—(it is) a place of the men of Kelti.” What was this “city of the king,” or “royal city”? The general opinion at first was, that the place meant was Jerusalem itself, for that must have been from the earliest times “a royal city” par excellence. Winckler, however, translates “A city of the land of Jerusalem,” which certainly seems a reasonable rendering. Properly speaking, however, the idiomatic Semitic Babylonian expression for “a city” would be išten âlu, “one city.” Though Winckler’s rendering is a perfectly reasonable one, therefore, the first translation is not excluded, and in any case there remains the clear statement that a city of the territory of Jerusalem—that is to say a city which owned the sway of her kings—possessed, as its patron-deity, the god whom the Babylonians and Assyrians called Ninip, and worshipped under many names. Among these may be mentioned Madanunu, explained as “the proclaimed (?), the renowned, the high”; En-banda, probably meaning “the distinguished lord,” a name which he bore as “Ninip, he who takes the decision of the gods.” Another of his names was Ḫalḫalla, “Ninip, protector of the decision, father of Bêl”; and, more interesting still, he was called Me-maḫa (“supreme word”), as “Ninip, guardian of the supreme commands.” The Assyrians worshipped him both under the name of Ninip and Apil-Êšarra, “son of the house (temple) of the host.” It is this deity whose name occurs in the Assyrian royal names Tukulti-Ninip and Tukulti-âpil-Ê-šarra, or Tiglath-pileser.

On these points, as on many others, we must wait for more light from the East.

In the matter of Sarai, Abraham’s wife, giving her handmaid Hagar to Abraham as a second or inferior wife, because she had no children herself, it is not improbable that we have a record of what was a common custom at the time. On p. 174 ff. translations of Babylonian tablets are given, which seem to have some analogies with what is stated in the Biblical narrative. In these inscriptions, however, the woman of inferior position, though she is expected to be the servant of the other, is raised, to all appearance, into a higher position, and described as the sister of the first wife, apparently by adoption, this supposition being based on the statement that Iltani was daughter of Sin-âbu-šu, though both Iltani and Taram-sagila were taken in marriage from Uttatum, their father. Apparently there was to be no difference in the status of the children of either of them, and it was apparently on account of the hope that Hagar’s son would be as her own, that the patriarch’s wife acted as she did.

With regard to the contract at Machpelah, that is, as has already been noticed more than once, evidently a legal document, or at least an abstract of such a document, and bears some likeness to the ancient contracts of Assyria and Babylonia, though the latter are generally composed in much shorter form, and with different phraseology. The descriptions of landed property given on pp. 167, 178 ff., and also such sales of land as the following give material for comparing the document in question—

“¼ of a gan, a field by the crossing, in the upper district of Tenu, beside (the property of) Qaranu the son of the palace, and beside (the property of) Ili-midi, its first end the road Aštaba(tum ?), its second end the property of the enclosure Tenunam, Il-šu-banî has bought from Nannara-manšum and Sin-banî, his brother, sons of Sin-âbû-šu, for its complete price. He has paid the money, he has passed the barrier, his transaction is complete—the silver, the price of their field, is complete, they are content. They shall not say ‘We have not received the money’—they have received it before the witnesses. At no future time shall Nannara-manšum and Sin-banî make claim upon the field. They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Merodach, and Zabium (the king).

“Claim of his brothers and his sisters [this would be better ‘their brothers and their sisters’], children of Sin-âbû-šu, Nannara-manšum and Sin-banî shall answer for.

“Before Ili-’adiwa, son of Amurru-banî; before Nannara-itti, son of Sin-naṣir; before Sin-rêmeni, son of Išmê-Sin; before Nannara-ki-aga (?), son of Sin-idinnam; before Munawirum; before Sin-bêl-ili; before Sin-ûblam; before Nannara-manšum; before Ubar-Ninip, the scribe, before Sin-êribam.”

In the following text the nature of the trees on the ground sold is specified—

“12 measures, a date-palm plantation, beside the plantation of Rîš-Šamaš, priest of the Sun-god, son of the woman Sâla, its first end (the property of) Girum, Aḫatāni, sun-devotee, daughter of Marum, has bought for its price in silver from Rîš-Šamaš, son of Sâla. She has paid the money, (and) is content—she has passed the barrier. The transaction is ended. At no future time shall they make claim against each other. (They have invoked) the spirit of Šamaš, Merodach, and Ḫammurabi (Amraphel).

“Before Amri-ili-šu, son of Naram-Êa; before Yati-îlu, son of Abil-Sin; before Ibi-Šamaš, before Êtil-šêp-Šamaš (?), sons of Buzia; before Izi-zarê; before Êrib-Sin, son of Sârabi; before Manum, son of Sin-idinnam; before Iṭur-âšdum, son of Ilu-ma-rabi (?); before Ili-âbû-Sin (?); before Êrib-Sin, son of Su-...; before Šamaš-binî-pî-ia; before Dimaḫum; before Rîš-Šamaš; before Ikunia, (son of?) ...-ninibu.”

A comparison of these inscriptions, which are types of hundreds of others known to Assyriologists, with the transaction between Abraham and the Hittite Ephron, shows noteworthy differences. The boundaries are usually stated in the Babylonian documents with sufficiently great precision; but, on the other hand, the nature of the land is generally not stated except if it be actually under cultivation, and any trees growing on it are apparently mentioned only on account of their commercial value—when, for instance, they are fruit-bearing trees, as in the reference to the date-palms in the second document here translated. In Babylonia, as in Palestine, contracts and transactions of a legal nature often took place in the open space by the gate of the city in or near which the contracting parties lived, and where witnesses to the transaction could easily be found among those who passed in and out, or who had business in the neighbourhood. In the record contained in the 23rd chapter of Genesis, the names of the witnesses are naturally not given, but it is expressly stated that the contract was made “in the presence of the children of Heth, before all that went in at the gate of his city.”

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

Salem

One of the most interesting points revealed by the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, is the fact that the name of Jerusalem occurs, and is not called simply Salem (as in Gen. xiv. 18), but Uru-salim, the Aramaic (Syriac) Uri-shalem, a form which confirms the translation given to it, namely, “city of peace,” though the writing of the word in the Tel-el-Amarna tablets suggests the suppression of the particle “of,” making “the city Peace” simply, which would, perhaps, be to a certain extent a counterpart to or an explanation of the form Salem, “Peace,” in Genesis.

There is no doubt that the name is an exceedingly interesting one. Prof. Sayce has suggested that there was a god named Salem, or “Peace,” and that the city was so called as being the abode of that deity. This, of course, is by no means improbable, but in no place where the name occurs—neither in the Tel-el-Amarna tablets nor in the historical inscriptions of Sennacherib—has the element salim (in Sennacherib’s texts salimmu) the divine prefix before it. That the divine prefix should be omitted in the inscriptions of Sennacherib is easily understood, as the name in question would be a foreign one to the Assyrian scribes of his time. To the writers of the letters from Jerusalem, however, it was a native name, and one would certainly expect the name of the city, in such documents, to be given fully at least once.

Nevertheless, that there was a god of peace among the Semites, is proved by the name of the Assyrian god Šulmanu or Shalman, a component part of the name Shalmaneser, the Assyrian Šulmanu-ašarid. It is noteworthy that there were no less than four Assyrian kings of this name, and that it means “the god Shalman is chief.” Šulmanu or Šalmanu nunu, “Shalman the fish,” also occurs, as the name of one of the gods of the city Tedi, or, as Prof. Sayce reads it, Dimmen-Silim (better Temmena-silima), but this latter reading would only be the correct one if the characters Tedi are to be read as an Akkadian group.

It is therefore very doubtful whether the element salim in the name of Jerusalem be the name of a god, notwithstanding the love that the peoples of the Semitic East naturally had for the blessings which the word implies. It formed part, as in Arabic at the present day, of many a greeting, and is one of the most noteworthy points of the Semitic languages. A poetic composition, apparently of the time of the dynasty of Babylon—probably contemporaneous with Abraham—seems to read as follows—

Mazzazam išu, It has the resting-place, Padanam išu— It has the roadway, Bab êkalli šalim; The gate of the palace is sound— Šulmu parku šakin. Perfect (?) soundness exists; Martum šalmât The gall is sound, Ubanum šalmât The peak is sound, Ḫašû (?) u libbu (?) Entrails and heart šalmu are sound— Sinšerit tiranu. 12 (are) the coverings (?).

Tertum immer izzim (If) the viscera (?) of a healthy sheep (?) Šalmât Be sound, Mimma la tanakkud. Naught shalt thou fear.

The above probably represents the signs which the extispices or “entrails-inspectors” looked for when working out their forecasts. A better translation than “peace” for salim would therefore probably be “safe and sound,” “intact,” or something similar (see the 13th edition of Gesenius’s Lexicon, edited by Prof. F. Buhl, with the collaboration of Socin and Zimmern, also Fried. Delitzsch, Assyrisches Handwörterbuch), but the old and more poetic expression “peace,” “to be at peace,” may be held to sufficiently express the meaning.

With regard to the first element of the name Jerusalem, Uru-salim in Assyrian, that is to all appearance the Sumero-Akkadian uru (from an older guru), “city,” in the dialect eri, from which the Hebrew ’ir, “city,” has to all appearance come. The vowel-change from u to e or i is shown in tu, dialectic te, “dove”; uru, dial. eri, “servant”; duga, dial. ṣiba, “good,” etc. As is usual with two nationalities dwelling at no great distance from each other, borrowings of words took place between the Semites on the one hand and the Sumero-Akkadians on the other, which have left traces on the vocabularies of both.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us