Introduction
When the supreme God, king of the Annunaki,(146) and Bel, lord of the heavens and the earth, who fixes the destinies of the land, had fixed for Merodach, the eldest son of Aê, the Divine Lordship over the multitude of the people, and had made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by its supreme name, caused it to be great among the countries (of the world), and caused to exist for him in its midst an everlasting kingdom, whose foundation is as firm as heaven and earth.
At that time Ḫammurabi, the noble prince—he who fears God—me—in order that justice might exist in the country, to destroy the evil and wicked, that the strong might not oppress the weak,—God and Bel, to gladden the flesh of the people, proclaimed my name as a Sungod(147) for the black-headed ones,(148) appearing and illuminating the land.
Ḫammurabi, the shepherd proclaimed of Bel am I—the perfecter of abundance and plenty, the completer of everything for Niffur (and) Dur-an-ki,(149) the glorious patron of Ê-kura;(150)
The powerful king who has restored the city Êridu to its first state, who has purified the service of Ê-apsû;(151)
The best of the four regions, who made great the name of Babylon, rejoicing the heart of Merodach, his lord, who daily stays (at service) in Ê-sagila;(152)
The kingly seed whom the god Sin has created, who endows with riches the city of Ur;(153) humble, devout, he who brings abundance to Ê-kiš-nu-gala;(154)
The king of wisdom, favourite of Šamaš, the powerful one, he who founded (again) the city of Sippar, who clothed with green the burial-places of Aa,(155) who made supreme the temple Ê-babbara,(156) which is like a throne (in) the heavens;
The warrior benefiting Larsa,(157) who renewed the temple Ê-babbara(158) for Šamaš his helper;
The lord who gave life to Erech, procuring waters in abundance for its people, he who has raised the head of the temple Ê-anna, completing the treasures for Anu and Innanna;(159)
The protector of the land, who has reassembled the scattered people of Nisin, who has made abundant the riches of the temple E-gal-maḫ;(160)
The unique one, king of the city, twin brother of the god Zagaga, he who founded the seat of the city of Kiš, who has caused the temple Ê-mete-ursag(161) to be surrounded with splendour, who has caused the great sanctuaries of the goddess Innanna to be increased;
Overseer of the temple of Ḫursag-kalama, the enemies’ temple-court, the help of which caused him to attain his desire;(162)
He who has enlarged the city of Cuthah, made great everything for the temple Meslam;(163)
The mighty steer who overthrows the enemy, the beloved of the god Tutu;(164)
He who causes the city of Borsippa to rejoice, the supreme one, he who is tireless for the temple Ê-zida;(165)
The divine king of the city, wise, alert, he who has extended the agriculture of Dilmu,(166) who has heaped up the (grain) receptacles for the powerful god Uraš;(167)
The lord (who is) the adornment of the sceptre and the crown, with which the wise goddess Mama has crowned him;
Who has defined the sanctuaries of Kêš, who has made plentiful the glorious feasts for the goddess Nin-tu;
The provident and careful one, who set pasturages and watering-places for Lagaš and Girsu, he who procured great offerings for Ê-ninnû;(168)
He who holds fast the enemy, the favourite of the divinity, he who fulfils the portents of the city Ḫallabu, he who has gladdened the heart of Ištar;(169)
The prince undefiled, whose prayer(170) Addu(171) has heard, he who gives rest to the heart of Addu, the warrior, in the city Muru;
He who set up the ornaments in the temple E-para-galgala, the king who gave life to the city of Adab;
He who directs the temple E-maḫ, the prince who is the city-king, the warrior who is without rival;
He who has given life to the city Maškan-šabri, who has caused abundance to arise for the temple Mešlam;
The wise, the active one, who has captured the robbers’ hiding-places, sheltered the people of Malkâ in (their) misfortune, caused their seats to be founded in abundance, (and) instituted pure offerings for Aê and Damgal-nunna, who have made his kingdom great for ever.
The prince who is city-king, who subjugated the settlements of the Euphrates, the boundary (of) Dagan, his creator, who spared the people of Mera and Tutul;
The supreme prince, who has made the face of the goddess Ištar to shine, set pure repasts for the divinity Nin-azu, who cared for his people in (their) need, fixing their dues within Babylon peacefully;
The shepherd of the people, whose deeds are good unto Ištar, who set Ištar in the temple Ê-ulmaš within Agadé of the (broad) streets; he who makes the faithful obedient, who guides the Race;(172)
Who returned its good genius to the city of Asshur, who caused (its) splendour (?) to shine forth;
The king who in Nineveh has caused the names of Ištar to be glorified in Ê-mešmeš;(173)
The supreme one, devoted in prayer to the great gods, descendant of Sumula-ilu, the mighty son of Sin-mubaliṭ, the eternal seed of royalty;
The powerful king, the Sun of Babylon, he who sends forth light for the land of Šumer and Akkad, the king causing the four regions to obey him, the beloved of the goddess Ištar, am I.
When Merodach chose me to govern the people, to rule and instruct the land, law and justice I set in the mouth of the land—in that day did I bring about the well-being of the people.
The Laws.
1. If a man ban a man, and cast a spell upon him, and has not justified it, he who has banned him shall be killed.
2. If a man has thrown a spell upon a man, and has not justified it, he upon whom the spell has been thrown shall go to the river,(174) (and) shall plunge into the river, and if the river take him, he who banned him may take his house. If the river show that man to be innocent, and save (him), he who threw the spell upon him shall be killed; he who plunged into the river may take possession of the house of him who banned him.
3. If a man in a lawsuit has come forward (to bear) false witness, and has not justified the word he has spoken, if that lawsuit be a lawsuit of life,(175) that man shall be killed.
4. If he has come forward (to bear) witness concerning wheat or silver, he shall bear the guilt of that lawsuit.
5. If a judge has given judgment, and decided a decision, and delivered a tablet (thereupon), and afterwards his judgment is found faulty, that judge, for the fault in the judgment he had judged, they shall summon, and the claim which is in question(176) he shall (re)pay twelvefold, and in the assembly they shall make him rise up from his judgment-seat, and he shall not return, and he shall not sit again with the judges in judgment.
6. If a man has stolen the property of a god, or of the palace, that man shall be killed; and he who has received the stolen thing from his hand shall be killed.
7. If a man has bought either silver, or gold, or a man-slave, or a woman-slave, or an ox, or a sheep, or an ass, or anything whatever, from the hands of the son of a man or the slave of a man, without witness or contract, or has received it on deposit, that man is a thief—he shall be killed.
8. If a man has stolen either an ox, or a sheep, or an ass, or a pig, or a ship—if it be from a god or from the palace, he shall (re)pay thirtyfold; if it be from a poor man, he shall restore tenfold. If the thief have not wherewith to (re)pay, he shall be killed.
9. If a man who has lost his property meet with his lost property in the hands of a man, (and) the man in whose hands the lost thing has been found say “a certain seller sold it—I bought it before certain witnesses,” and the owner of the lost object say “Let me bring witnesses who will recognize my lost object,” the buyer shall bring forward the seller who sold it, and the witnesses before whom he bought (it), and the owner of the lost object shall bring forward the witnesses who will recognize his lost object. The judge shall see what they have to say, and the witnesses before whom the purchase was made, and the witnesses knowing the object lost shall speak before God,(177) and (if) the seller is the thief, he shall be killed. The owner of the lost object shall take (back) his lost object; the buyer shall receive (back) from the house of the seller the silver which he has paid.
10. If the buyer has not brought forward the seller who sold it to him and the witnesses before whom he bought (it), (and) the owner of the lost object has brought forward witnesses recognizing his lost object, the buyer is a thief—he shall be killed; the owner of the object lost shall take (back) the lost object.
11. If the owner of the lost object has not brought forward witnesses recognizing his lost object, he is a rogue, (and) has made a false accusation—he shall be killed.
12. If the seller has gone to his fate, the buyer shall receive from the house of the seller the claims of that judgment fivefold.
13. If that man have not his witnesses at hand, the judge shall grant him a delay of six months,(178) and if he have not procured his witnesses in six months,(179) that man is a rogue—he shall bear the guilt of that judgment.
14. If a man has stolen the young son of a man, he shall be killed.
15. If a man has caused to go forth from the gate either a slave of the palace, or a handmaid of the palace, or the slave of a poor man, or the handmaid of a poor man, he shall be killed.
16. If a man has sheltered the escaped male or female slave of the palace or of a poor man in his house, and at the request of the steward has not sent him forth, the master of that house shall be killed.
17. If a man has met the escaped male or female slave in the fields, and has taken him back to his master, the master of the slave shall give him two shekels of silver.
18. If that slave will not name his master, he shall take him to the palace, his intention shall be inquired into, and they shall return him to his master.
19. If he has shut up that slave in his house, and afterwards the slave has been found in his hands, that man shall be killed.
20. If a slave escape from the hands of the man who has found him, that man shall call God to witness(180) unto the master of the slave, and shall be held blameless.
21. If a man has made a breach in a house, in front of that breach they shall kill him and bury him.
22. If a man has exercised brigandage, and has been taken, that man shall be killed.
23. If the brigand has not been captured, the man who has been robbed shall take the thing which he has lost before God, and the city and the authorities within whose territory and boundaries the brigandage has been exercised shall make up to him what he has lost.
24. If (it be a question of) a life, the city and authorities shall pay one mana of silver to his people.
25. If the house of a man has been set on fire,(181) and a man who went to extinguish it has raised his eyes to the property of the owner of the house, and taken the property of the owner of the house, that man shall be thrown into that same fire.
26. If an army-leader or a soldier, who has been commanded to go his way on a royal expedition, does not go, and has hired a mercenary, and his substitute is taken, that army-leader or soldier shall be killed, he who changed with him shall take his house.
27. If an army-leader or a soldier, who by the king’s misfortune is kept prisoner, afterwards they have given his field and plantation to another, and he has carried on its administration; if (the original owner) then return and reach his city, they shall return to him his field and plantation, and he himself shall carry on its administration.
28. If the son of an army-leader or a soldier, who is kept prisoner by the king’s misfortune, is able to carry on the administration, they shall give to him the field and plantation, and he shall carry on the administration for his father.
29. If his son is young, and is unable to carry on the administration for his father, the third part of the field and plantation shall be given to his mother, and his mother shall bring him up.
30. If an army-leader or a soldier neglect his field, his plantation, and his house on account of the burden, and leave it waste, (and) another after him has taken his field, his plantation, and his house, and has carried on its administration for three years, if he return and wish to cultivate his field, his plantation, and his house, it shall not be given to him—he who took and has carried on its administration shall continue to administer.
31. If for one year (only) he has let (them) lie waste, and has returned, his field, his plantation, and his house they shall give to him, and he shall carry on his administration himself.
32. If a merchant has redeemed an army-leader or a soldier who has been kept prisoner upon a royal expedition, and has caused him to regain his city—if in his house there be (the wherewithal) for his redemption, he shall then redeem himself. If in his house there be not (the wherewithal) for his redemption, in the house of his city’s god he shall be redeemed. If in the house of his city’s god there be not (the wherewithal) for his redemption, the palace shall redeem him. His field, his plantation, and his house shall not be given for his redemption.
33. If a governor or a prefect have a substitute,(182) or for a royal expedition accept a mercenary as substitute and incorporate (him), that governor or prefect shall be killed.
34. If a governor or a prefect take the property of an army-officer, ruin an army-officer, lend an army-officer for hire, grant an army-officer in a lawsuit to a magnate, take the gift which the king has given to an army-officer, that governor or prefect shall be killed.
35. If a man purchase from the hands of an army-officer the cattle and sheep which the king has given to the army-officer, he shall forfeit his money.
36. Field, plantation, and house of an army-officer, soldier, and tax-payer he(183) shall not sell for silver.
37. If a man buy the field, plantation, or house of an army-officer, soldier, or tax-payer, his contract shall be broken, and he shall forfeit his money. The field, plantation, or house shall return to its owner.
38. Army-officer, soldier, or tax-payer shall not leave to his wife or his daughter (anything) from the field, plantation, and house of his administration, and shall not give them for his indebtedness.
39. He may leave to his wife and his daughter (any part) of the field, plantation, or house which he has bought and owns, and may give it for his indebtedness.
40. But to an agent or other official, he may give his field, his plantation, or his house for silver, (and) the purchaser shall carry on the administration of the field, plantation, and house which he has bought.
41. If a man has enclosed the field, plantation, or house of an army-officer, soldier, or tax-payer, and given substitutes, the army-officer, soldier, or tax-payer may return to his field, plantation, or house, and take the substitutes which have been given to him.
42. If a man has hired a field for cultivation, and has not caused wheat to be in that field, they shall summon him for not having done work in the field, and he shall give to the owner of the field wheat like his neighbour.
43. If he has not planted the field, and has let it lie, he shall give to the owner of the field wheat like his neighbour, and the field which he has let lie he shall break up for cultivation, shall enclose (it) and return (it) to the owner of the field.
44. If a man has hired an uncultivated field for cultivation(184) for three years, and he has been idle and has not cultivated the field, in the fourth year he shall break up the field for cultivation, shall hoe (it), and shall enclose (it) and return (it) to the owner of the field, and for every 10 gan he shall measure (to him) 10 gur of wheat.
45. If a man has given his field for rent to a planter, and has received the rent of his field, and afterwards a storm(185) has inundated the field, or has (otherwise) destroyed the produce, the loss belongs to the planter.
46. If he have not received the rent of his field, and has let the field for a half or a third (of the produce), the planter and the owner of the field shall share the wheat which has been produced in the field proportionately.
47. If the planter, because his husbandry did not yield profit(186) in the first year, direct the field to be cultivated (by another), the owner of the field shall not object. The planter then shall cultivate his field, and shall take the wheat at harvest-time, according to his contract.
48. If there be interest (upon a loan) against a man, and a storm(187) inundate his field, or has (otherwise) destroyed the produce, or by want of water there is no wheat in the field, that year he shall not return any wheat to the creditor.(188) He shall damp his tablet (? to alter it), and shall not pay interest(189) for that year.
49. If a man has borrowed money from an agent, and has given to the agent a field laboured for wheat or sesame, (and) has said to him: “Plant the field, and gather and take the wheat or the sesame which will be produced;” if the planter has caused wheat or sesame to be in the field, at harvest-time the owner of the field may take the wheat or sesame which has been produced in the field, and shall give to the agent wheat for his silver and his interest(190) which he received from the agent, and (for) the cost of the cultivation.
50. If he has given (as security) a planted field, or a field planted with sesame, the owner of the field shall take the wheat or sesame which is produced in the field, and shall return the silver and its interest to the agent.
51. If there be no silver (wherewith) to repay, he shall give to the agent sesame at their market-price for his silver and his interest, which he received from the agent, according to the tariff of the king.
52. If the planter has not caused wheat or sesame to be in the field, it does not annul his contract.
53. If a man has neglected to stren[gth]en his [dyke], and has not streng[thened his] dyke, [and] a breach has o[pened] in [his] dyke, and water has inundated the enclosure, the man in whose dyke the breach has been opened shall make good the wheat which it has destroyed.
54. If the wheat does not suffice to make good (the damage), they shall sell that (man) and his goods for silver, and the people(191) of the enclosure, whose wheat the water carried away, shall share together.
55. If a man has opened his irrigation-channel to water, (and) has been negligent, and the water has flooded the field of his neighbour, he shall measure (to him) wheat like(192) (that of) his neighbour.
56. If a man has opened the water, and the water flood the work of the field of his neighbour, he shall measure (to him) 10 gur of wheat for each 10 gan.
57. If a shepherd has not agreed with the owner of a field for grass to pasture his sheep, and without the owner of the field has pastured sheep (in) the field, the owner shall reap his fields; the shepherd who, without the owner of the field, pastured sheep (in) the field, shall pay to the owner of the field 20 gur of wheat for every 10 gan besides.
58. If, after the sheep have left the enclosure, (and) the whole flock has passed through the gate, the shepherd place the sheep (again) in the field, and cause the sheep to pasture (in) the field, the shepherd shall keep the field (where) he has pastured them, and shall measure to the owner of the field, at harvest-time, 60 gur of wheat for every 10 gan.
59. If a man, without (the permission of) the owner of a plantation, has cut down a tree in the plantation of a man, he shall pay half a mana of silver.
60. If a man has given a field to a gardener to plant as a plantation, (and) the gardener has planted the plantation, he shall tend the plantation for four years. In the fifth year the owner of the plantation and the gardener shall share equally; (thereafter) the owner of the plantation shall apportion and take his share.
61. If a gardener has not completed the plantation of a field, and has left an uncultivated place, they shall set for him the uncultivated place in his share.
62. If he has not planted the field which has been given him for a plantation, if (it be) grain, the gardener shall measure to the owner of the field the produce of the field, for the years during which it has been neglected, like his neighbour; and he shall do the work of the field, and return (it) to the owner of the field.
63. If the field (was) waste land, he shall do the work of the field, and return (it) to the owner of the field, and he shall measure for every year 10 gur of wheat for each 10 gan.
64. If a man has given his plantation to a gardener to cultivate, the gardener, as long as he holds the plantation, shall give two-thirds of the produce of the plantation to the owner of the plantation, (and) shall take a third himself.
65. If the gardener has not cultivated the plantation, and has diminished the produce, the gardener [shall measure to the owner of the field] produce (like) his neighbour.
(Five columns have here been erased, apparently by the Elamite king who intended to inscribe his name upon the monument. Prof. Scheil estimates that this contained about 35 sections of the laws, containing the remaining sections referring to the cultivation of plantations or orchards, the letting of houses, and the laws relating to commercial transactions, of which a portion is preserved after the gap. As pointed out by Prof. Scheil, the following sections, from fragments of tablets found at Nineveh by Hormuzd Rassam and the late Geo. Smith, probably came in here.)
[If a man has borrowed silver from an agent, and has given] to the agent [a date-orchard, and] has said to him: “Take for thy money the dates, [as much as] will be produced in [my] orchard, for thy money;” (if) that agent be not in agreement, the owner of the orchard shall take the dates which are produced in the orchard, and return to the agent the silver and its interest, according to his tablet; and the owner of the orchard may ta[ke] the surplus dates which have been produced in the orchard.
[If a man has hired a house, and] the man has paid to the owner of [the house] the complete money for his rent for a year, [and] the owner of the house, before the days are full, command the ten[ant] to go [forth],—the owner of the house, [as] he sends the tenant [forth] from his house before the time,(193) [shall return to the tenant a proportionate sum, for having gone forth from his house], from the money which the tenant has pai[d to him].
[If a man] owe (?) wheat (or) silver, and has not wheat or silver [wherewith] to [pay], but possess (other) goods, whatever is in his hands he shall gi[ve] to the agent, before witnesses, as profit, [and] the agent shall not f[ind fault], and shall ac[cept it].
(Portions of other laws are also preserved, but they are too fragmentary to enable the sense to be gathered.)
100. [If an agent has advanced silver to a commissioner, and he has had good fortune in the place to which he went], he shall write down the profits of his silver, as much as he has received, and the day when they make up their accounts he shall pay (it) to his agent.
101. If he found no profit where he went, he shall make up the silver which he took, and the commissioner shall repay it to the agent.(194)
102. If an agent has advanced silver to a commissioner for profit, and he found loss where he went, he shall return the capital of the silver to the agent.
103. If, whilst going on his way, an enemy caused him to lose what he was carrying, the commissioner shall call God to witness(195) and shall go free.
104. If an agent has given to a commissioner grain, wool, oil, or any other goods for trading, the commissioner shall write down the silver (received), and shall return it to the agent. The commissioner shall take a sealed document of the silver which he gives to the agent.(196)
105. If the commissioner has been negligent, and has not taken a sealed document of the silver which he has given to the agent, the silver not certified shall not be placed in the business.(197)
106. If a commissioner has taken silver from an agent, and dispute (withhold it from) his agent, that agent shall summon the commissioner before God and the witnesses concerning the money taken; the commissioner shall repay to the agent the silver, as much as he has taken, threefold.
107. If an agent act unjustly to a commissioner, and the commissioner has returned to the agent everything which the agent had given to him, (and) the agent dispute with the commissioner (concerning) anything which the commissioner has repaid to him, that commissioner shall summon the agent before God and the witnesses, and the agent, for having disputed (with) his commissioner, anything which he has received he shall repay to the commissioner sixfold.
108. If a wine-woman has not accepted wheat as the price of drink, (but) has accepted silver by the large stone, or has set the tariff of the drink below the tariff of the wheat, they shall summon that wine-woman, and shall throw her into the water.
109. If a wine-woman, (when) riotous fellows are assembled at her house, does not seize those riotous fellows and take them to the palace, that wine-woman shall be killed.
110. If a devotee who dwells not in a cloister open a wine-house, or enter a wine-house for drink, that female they shall burn.
111. If a wine-woman has given 60 qa of second (?) quality drink, for thirst, she shall take 50 qa of corn at harvest-time.
112. If a man is travelling,(198) and has given to (another) man silver, gold, (precious) stones, and his other property(199) and has caused him to take them for delivery, (and) that man has not delivered what he was to transmit at the place to which he was to transmit (it), and has taken it away, the owner of the consignment shall summon that man for anything which he took and did not deliver, and that man shall give (back) to the owner of the consignment fivefold anything which had been given to him.
113. If a man have (an account of) wheat or silver against a man, and without the owner of the wheat has taken wheat from the barn or the depository, they shall summon that man, for having taking wheat, without the owner of the wheat, from the barn or depository, and he shall return the wheat, as much as he took, and he shall forfeit whatever it may be, as much as he lent.(200)
114. If a man have no (account of) wheat or silver against a man, and make his distraint, for every distraint he shall pay one-third of a mana of silver.
115. If a man have (an account of) wheat or silver against a man, and make his distraint, and the person distrained(201) die, by his fate, in the house of the distrainer, that lawsuit has no claim.
116. If the person distrained die in the house of the distrainer by blows or by ill-treatment, the owner of the person distrained shall summon his agent;(202) and if (the person distrained) was the son of the man, they shall kill his (the distrainer’s) son; if he was the servant (slave) of the man, he shall pay one-third of a mana of silver; and he shall forfeit whatever it may be, as much as he lent.
117. If a man has contracted a debt, and has given his wife, his son, (or) his daughter for the money, or has let (them) out for service, three years they shall serve the house of their purchaser or master, in the fourth year he shall grant their freedom.
118. If he let out a male or female slave for service, (and) the agent pass (them) on (and) give them for silver, there is no claim.
119. If a man has contracted a debt, and has sold his female-slave who has borne him children, the owner of the slave may (re)pay the silver which the agent has paid, and redeem his slave.
120. If a man has delivered his grain for storage in the house of a man, and a deficiency appears in the granary, or the master of the house has opened the storehouse and taken the grain, or he has disputed as to the total of the grain which was delivered at his house, the owner of the grain shall claim his grain before God, and the master of the house shall cause the grain which he has taken to be made up, and shall give (it) to the owner of the grain.
121. If a man has delivered grain (for storage) at the house of a man, he shall pay yearly 5 qa of grain for every gur (as) the price of the storage.
122. If a man give silver, gold, or anything else, to a man on deposit, he shall show the witnesses everything, whatever he gives; he shall make contracts, and (then) give (it) on deposit.
123. If he has given it on deposit without witnesses and contracts, and they dispute (this) to him where he gave it, that lawsuit has no claim.
124. If a man has given silver, gold, or anything else, to a man, before witnesses, on deposit, and (the man) dispute with him, he shall summon that man, and whatever he has disputed, he shall make up and give (back).
125. If a man has given his property on deposit, and where he gave (it), his property disappeared, with the property of the owner of the house, either through a breaking in or through a trespass, the master of the house which was in fault shall compensate for his property which he gave him on deposit and (which) was lost, and he shall make (it) up to the owner of the property. The master of the house shall seek his lost property, and take it from the thief.
126. If a man, his property not being lost, say that his property is lost, he shall bring forward his deficiency. As his property has not been lost, he shall state his deficiency before God, and whatever he has claimed they shall cause him to make up, and he shall give (it) to (make up) his deficiency.
127. If a man has caused the finger to be raised against a devotee or the wife of a man, and has not justified it, they shall set that man before the judges, and mark his forehead.
128. If a man has taken a wife, and has not made her contract,(203) that woman is not a wife.
129. If the wife of a man is taken in adultery with another male, they shall tie them together, and throw them into the water. If the owner of the wife spare his wife, and the king spare his servant....
130. If a man force the wife of a man who has not yet known a male, and (who) dwells in the house of her father, and has lain in her bosom, and they have found him, that man shall be killed, the woman shall be allowed to go.
131. If the wife of a man has been accused by her husband,(204) and he has not found her on the couch with another male, she shall swear by God,(205) and return to her house.
132. If, on account of another male, the finger has been pointed at the wife of a man, and she has not been found with another male on the couch, she shall plunge into the river for her husband(’s sake).
133. If a man has been made captive, and there is in his house the wherewithal to eat, (and) his [wife] has [gone] forth [from] her [house], [and afterwards?] has [en]tered into another house, [as] that woman has not guarded her homestead, and has entered another house, they shall summon that woman, and throw her into the water.
134. If a man has been made captive, and there is not in the house the wherewithal to eat, his wife may enter another house; that woman is not in fault.
135. If a man has been made captive, and there is not in his house the wherewithal to eat,(206) (and) his wife has entered another house, and has borne children, (and) afterwards her husband return, and reach his city, that woman shall(207) return to her husband; the children shall go to their father.
136. If a man has abandoned his city and fled, (and) afterwards(208) his wife has entered another house, if that man return, and (wish to) take his wife, as he hated his city and fled, the wife of the deserter shall(209) not return to her husband.
137. If a man set his face to repudiate a concubine who has borne him children, or a wife who has caused him to have children, he shall return to that woman her (marriage) gift, and shall give to her the usufruct of field, plantation, and goods, and she shall bring up her children. After she has brought up her children, they shall give to her, from the property which has been given to her children, (a share of) the produce like (that of) one son, and she may marry the husband of her choice.(210)
138. If a man (wish to) repudiate his spouse, who has not borne him children, he shall give to her silver, as much as was her dower, and he shall restore to her the wedding-gift which she brought from the house of her father, and shall repudiate her.
139. If there be no dower, he shall give her one mana of silver for the repudiation.
140. If (he be) a poor man, he shall give her one-third of a mana of silver.
141. If the wife of a man, who dwells in the house of the man, set her face to go forth, commit foolishness (?), ruin her house, despise her husband, they shall summon her, and if her husband say: “I have divorced her,” he shall let her go her way. (As for) her repudiation(-gift), nothing shall be given to her. If her husband say: “I have not repudiated her,” her husband may marry(211) another woman; that woman shall dwell in her husband’s house like a servant.
142. If a woman hate her husband, and say: “Thou shalt not possess me,” her reason for that which she lacks shall be examined, and if she has been continent, and have no fault, and her husband go out, and neglect her greatly, that woman has no defect; she shall take her wedding-gift, and shall go to the house of her father.
143. If she has not been continent, and has gone about, she has ruined her house, (and) despised her husband; they shall throw that woman into the water.
144. If a man has married a wife, and that wife has given a maid-servant to her husband, and she has had children, (if) that man set his face to take a concubine, they shall not allow that man—he shall not take a concubine.
145. If a man has married a wife, and she has not caused him to have children, and he set his face to take a concubine, that man may take a concubine, (and) may introduce her into his house, (but) he shall not make that concubine equal with (his) wife.
146. If a man has married a wife, and she has given a maid-servant to her husband, and (the maid-servant) has borne children, (if) afterwards that maid-servant make herself equal with her mistress, as she has borne children, her mistress shall not sell her for silver; she shall place a mark(212) upon her, and count her with the maid-servants.
147. If she has not borne children, her mistress may sell her for silver.
148. If a man has married a wife, and a malady has seized her, (and) he has set his face to marry a second, he may marry. He shall not divorce the wife whom the malady has seized; she may stay in the house he has made, and he shall support her as long as she lives.
149. If that woman is not content to dwell in the house of her husband, he shall deliver to her her marriage-gift, which she brought from the house of her father, and she shall go her way.
150. If a man has presented to his wife a field, a plantation, a house, and property, (and) has left her a sealed tablet, after her husband(’s death) her sons shall make no claim against her. The mother may give her property(213) to the son whom she loves,—to the brother she need not give.
151. If a woman who dwells in the house of a man contract with her husband, and cause (him) to deliver a tablet, so that a creditor(214) of her husband may not seize her, if that man have interest of money against him before he marries that woman, his creditor shall not seize his wife, and if that woman have interest of money against her before she enter the house of the man, her creditor shall not seize her husband.
152. If interest accrue against them after that woman has entered the house of the man, they shall both be responsible to the agent.
153. If the wife of a man cause her husband to be killed on account of another male, they shall impale that woman.(215)
154. If a man has known his daughter, they shall expel that man from the city.
155. If a man has chosen a bride for his son, and his son has known her, (and if) he (himself) then afterwards has lain in her bosom, and they have found him, they shall bind that man, and cast her into the water.(216)
156. If a man has chosen a bride for his son, and his son has not known her, and he (himself) has lain in her bosom, he shall pay her half a mana of silver, and shall restore to her whatever she brought from the house of her father, and she shall marry the husband of her choice.
157. If a man, after his father, has lain in the bosom of his mother, they shall burn them both.
158. If a man, after his father, be found in the bosom of her who brought him up, (and) who has brought forth children, that man shall be turned out of (his) father’s house.
159. If a man, who has brought to his father-in-law’s house furniture(217) (and) has given a dower, pay attention to another woman, and say to his father-in-law: “I will not marry thy daughter,” the father of the girl shall take the property which has been brought to him.
160. If a man has brought furniture to the house of his father-in-law, (and) given a dower, and the father of the girl say: “I will not give thee my daughter,” the property, as much as has been brought to him, he shall cause to be equal,(218) and shall return.
161. If a man has brought furniture to the house of his father-in-law, (and) given a dower, and his friend slander him, (and) his father-in-law say to the husband of the wife:(219) “Thou shalt not marry my daughter,” he shall cause to be equal the property, as much as has been brought to him, and return (it), and his friend shall not marry his wife.
162. If a man has married a wife, (and) she has borne him children, and that woman has gone to (her) fate, her father shall have no claim upon her marriage-gift—her marriage-gift belongs to her sons.
163. If a man has married a wife, and she has not caused him to have children, (and) that woman has gone to (her) fate, if his father-in-law has returned to him the dower which that man took to the house of his father-in-law, her husband shall have no claim upon the marriage-gift of that woman—her marriage-gift belongs to the house of her father.
164. If his father-in-law has not returned to him the dower, he shall deduct from her marriage-gift all her dower, and return (the balance of) her marriage-gift to her father’s house.
165. If a man has presented to his son, who is foremost in his eyes, a field, a plantation, and a house, (and) has written for him a tablet, (and) afterwards the father has gone to (his) fate, when the brothers share together, he shall take the gift which the father gave him, and they shall share equally in the property of the house of the father besides.
166. If a man has taken wives for the sons which he has had, (and) has not taken a wife for his youngest son, (and) afterwards the father has gone to (his) fate, when the brothers share together, they shall set aside the money of a dower for their youngest brother, who has not taken a wife, from the property of the father’s house, besides his (lawful) share, and shall cause him to take a wife.
167. If a man has married a wife, and she has borne him sons, (and) that woman has gone to (her) fate, (and) after her he has married another woman, and she has brought forth sons, (and) afterwards the father has gone to (his) fate, the sons shall not share according to the mothers. They shall take the marriage-gifts of their mothers, and the property of the father’s house they shall share equally.
168. If a man set his face to discard his son, he shall say to the judge: “I discard my son;” the judge shall inquire into his reasons. If the son has not committed a grave fault which cuts him off from sonhood, the father shall not cut off his son from sonhood.(220)
169. If he has committed against his father a grave fault which cuts him off from sonhood, the first time (the father) shall refrain. If he has committed a grave fault a second time, the father shall cut his son off from the sonhood.
170. If a man’s wife has borne him children, and his maid-servant has borne him children, (and) the father in his lifetime say to the children whom the maid-servant has borne to him: “My children,” he has reckoned them with the children of the wife. After the father has gone to (his) fate, the children of the wife and the children of the maid-servant shall share in the property of the father’s house equally; the son (who is) the child of the wife shall choose and take at the sharing.
171. And if the father, during his lifetime, has not said to the children whom the maid-servant has borne to him: “My children,” after the father has gone to (his) fate, the children of the maid-servant shall not share in the property of the father’s house with the children of the wife. (If) he has set free the maid-servant and her children, the children of the wife shall not claim the children of the maid-servant for service. The wife shall take her marriage-gift and the dowry which her husband gave her (and) recorded upon a tablet, and she shall sit in the seat of her husband; as long as she lives, she shall enjoy (them)—she shall not sell them for money—they belong to her children after her.
172. If her husband has not given her a dowry, they shall make up to her her marriage-gift, and she shall take, from the property of her husband’s house, a share like (that of) one son. If her sons afflict her, to send her forth from the house, the judge shall inquire into her reasons, and (if) he set the fault upon the children, that woman shall not go forth from her husband’s house. If that woman set her face to go forth, she shall leave to her children the dowry which her husband gave her. She shall take the marriage-gift of her father’s house, and the husband of her choice shall marry her.
173. If that woman, in the place where she has entered, has borne to her second husband children, after that woman has died, the former and latter children shall share her marriage-gift.
174. If she has not borne children to her second husband, then the children of her (first) spouse shall take her marriage-gift.
175. If a slave of the palace or the slave of a poor man has married the daughter of a (free) man, and has borne children, the owner of the slave shall not make a claim upon the children of a (free) man’s daughter for servitude.
176a. And if a slave of the palace or a slave of a poor man has married a (free) man’s daughter, and when he has married her, she has entered the house of the slave of the palace or the slave of the poor man with a wedding-gift from the house of her father, and after they have been established, they have built a house and have property, (if) afterwards the slave of the palace or the slave of the poor man has gone to (his) fate, the daughter of the (free) man shall take her marriage-gift, and they shall divide the property, which her husband and she had after they were established, into two parts, and the owner of the slave shall take half, (and) the daughter of the (free) man shall take half for her children.
176b. If the daughter of the (free) man had no marriage-gift, the property which her husband and she possessed after they were established they shall divide into two parts, and the master of the slave shall take half, the daughter of the (free) man shall take half for her children.
177. If a widow whose children are young set her face to enter another house,(221) she shall not enter without the judge. When she enters another house, the judge shall inquire concerning what remains of her first husband’s house, and they shall entrust the first husband’s house to the second husband and to that woman, and shall cause them to deliver a tablet. They shall keep that house and bring up the young (children). They shall not sell (any) utensil for silver. The buyer who buys a utensil of the children of a widow shall forfeit his money; the property shall return to its owner.
178. If a devotee, or a public woman, to whom her father has presented a gift, (and) has written for her a tablet, (and) on the tablet which he has written for her has not written for her (concerning) the giving of what she should leave to whomsoever she pleased, and has not let her follow the desire of her heart, after the father has gone to (his) fate, her brothers shall take her field and her plantation, and according to the amount of her share shall give to her food, oil, and clothing, and shall satisfy her heart. If her brothers have not given her food, oil, and clothing according to the amount of her share, and have not satisfied her heart, she may give her field and plantation to the farmer who may seem good to her, and her farmer shall support her. Field, plantation, and property, which her father gave her, she shall enjoy as long as she lives—she shall not give (them) for silver, nor shall she be answerable (to) another (therewith)—her share as daughter belongs to her brothers.(222)
179. If a devotee or a public woman, to whom her father has presented a gift, (and) has written for her a sealed tablet, (and) on the tablet which he has written for her has written for her (concerning) the giving of what she should leave to whomsoever she pleased, and has let her follow the desire of her heart, after the father has gone to (his) fate, she shall give what she leaves to whomsoever she pleases—her brothers have no claim upon her.
180. If a father has not presented a gift(223) to his daughter, who is a recluse or a public woman, after the father has gone to (his) fate, she shall take a share in the property of the father’s house like a son, and enjoy (it) as long as she lives. What she leaves belongs to her brothers.
181. If a father has brought to a god a hierodule or a virgin, and has not presented to her a gift,(224) after the father has gone to (his) fate, she shall share in the property of the father’s house a third (as) her inheritance, and she shall enjoy (it) as long as she lives. What she leaves belongs to her brothers.
182. If a father has not presented a gift to his daughter, priestess of Merodach of Babylon, (and) has not written for her a sealed tablet, after the father has gone to (his) fate, she shall share, with her brothers, in the property of the father’s house a third part (as) her inheritance, and she shall not carry on its administration. The priestess of Merodach may give what she leaves to whomsoever she pleases.
183. If a father has presented a marriage-gift to his concubine-daughter, given her to a husband, (and) written for her a sealed tablet, after the father has gone to (his) fate, she shall not share in the property of the father’s house.(225)
184. If a man has not presented to his concubine-daughter a marriage-gift, (and) has not given her to a husband, after the father has gone to (his) fate, her brothers shall give her a wedding-gift according to the amount (of the property) of the father’s house, and shall give her to a husband.
185. If a man has adopted(226) a child by its name,(227) and has brought it up, that foster-child cannot be claimed back.
186. If a man has adopted a child, and when he had adopted him, he rebelled against his (foster-)father and his (foster-)mother, that foster-child shall return to his father’s house.
187. The son of a favourite attending the palace, and the son of a public woman, cannot be claimed back.(228)
188. If an artizan(229) has taken a child to bring up,(230) and has taught him his handicraft, he cannot be claimed back.
189. If he has not taught him his handicraft, that foster-child(231) may return to his father’s house.
190. If a man has not reckoned with his sons a young child which he has adopted and brought up, that foster-child may return to the house of his father.
191. If a man who has adopted a child and brought him up, has built a dwelling, (and) after he has children (of his own) set his face to cut off the foster-child, that child shall not go his way. His foster-father shall give him one-third of his property as his inheritance and (then) he shall go. He shall give him nothing of the field, plantation, and house.
192. If the son of a favourite or the son of a public woman say to his foster-father and his foster-mother, “Thou art not my father, thou art not my mother,” they shall cut out his tongue.(232)
193. If the child of a favourite or the child of a public woman come to know his father’s house, and despise his foster-father and his foster-mother, and go to his father’s house, they shall tear out his eyes.(233)
194. If a man has given his child to a nurse, and that child has died in the hands of the nurse, and the nurse, without [his] father and his mother, rear another child, they shall summon her, and as she has rear[ed] another child without [his] father and mother, they shall cut off her breasts.
195. If a son smite his father, they shall cut off his hands.
196. If a man has destroyed the eye of the son of a man, they shall destroy his eye.
197. If he has broken the limb of a man, they shall break his limb.
198. If he has destroyed the eye of a poor man, or broken the limb of a poor man, he shall pay one mana of silver.
199. If he has destroyed the eye of a man’s slave, or broken the limb of a man’s slave, he shall pay half his value.(234)
200. If a man has knocked out the teeth of a man of his rank, they shall knock out his teeth.
201. If he has knocked out the teeth of a poor man, he shall pay one-third of a mana of silver.
202. If a man has struck the head(235) of a man who is greater than he, he shall be struck in the assembly sixty times with an ox-hide whip.
203. If the son of a man(236) has struck the head of the son of a man who is like himself, he shall pay one mana of silver.
204. If a poor man has struck the head of a poor man, he shall pay ten shekels of silver.
205. If the slave of a man has struck the head of the son of a man, they shall cut off his ear.
206. If a man has struck a man in a quarrel, and do him hurt, that man shall swear: “I did not strike him knowingly,” and he shall be responsible for the physician.
207. If he die of his blows, he shall swear (the same). If (it was) the son of a man, he shall pay one-half a mana of silver.
208. If it was the son of a poor man, he shall pay one-third of a mana of silver.
209. If a man has struck the daughter of a man, and caused what was within her to fall from her, he shall pay ten shekels of silver for what was within her.
210. If that woman die, they shall kill his daughter.
211. If by blows he has made what was within the daughter of a poor man to fall from her, he shall pay five shekels of silver.
212. If that woman die, he shall pay one-half a mana of silver.
213. If he has struck a man’s slave-woman and made that which was within her fall from her, he shall pay two shekels of silver.
214. If that slave-woman die, he shall pay one-third of a mana of silver.
215. If a physician has treated a man for a grave injury with a bronze lancet, and cured the man, or opened the cataract of a man with a bronze lancet, and cured the eye of the man, he shall receive ten shekels of silver.
216. If it was the son of a poor man, he shall receive five shekels of silver.
217. If it was a man’s slave, the owner of the slave shall pay to the physician two shekels of silver.
218. If a physician has treated a man for a grave injury with a bronze lancet, and caused the man to die, or opened the cataract of a man with a bronze lancet, and destroyed the eye of a man, they shall cut off his hands.
219. If a physician has treated a poor man’s slave for a grave injury with a bronze lancet, and has caused (him) to die, he shall make good slave for slave.(237)
220. If he has opened his cataract with a bronze lancet, and destroyed his eye, he shall pay half his value in silver.(238)
221. If a physician has made sound the broken limb of a man, or saved a diseased part, the patient(239) shall pay to the physician five shekels of silver.
222. If it be the son of a poor man, he shall pay three shekels of silver.
223. If it was a man’s slave, the owner of the slave shall pay to the physician two shekels of silver.
224. If an ox-doctor or an ass-doctor has treated an ox or an ass for a grave injury, and has saved (it), the owner of the ox or the ass shall pay to the physician one-sixth (of a shekel) of silver (as) his hire.
225. If he has treated the ox or the ass for a grave injury, and caused (it) to die, he shall give to the owner of the ox or the ass a quarter of its price.
226. If a barber, without the (knowledge of the) owner of a slave, has marked an inalienable slave with a mark, they shall cut off the hands of that barber.(240)
227. If a man has deceived a barber, and he has marked an inalienable slave with a mark, they shall kill that man, and bury him in his house; the barber shall swear: “I did not mark knowingly,” and shall go free.
228. If a builder has made a house for a man, and has finished it (well), for a house of one šar, he shall give him two shekels of silver as his pay.
229. If a builder has made a house for a man, and has not done his work strongly, and the house he has made has fallen down, and killed the owner of the house, that builder shall be killed.
230. If it cause the son of the owner of the house to die, they shall kill the son of that builder.
231. If it cause the slave of the owner of the house to die, he shall give to the owner of the house a slave like (his) slave.
232. If it has destroyed the property, whatever it has destroyed, he shall make good. And as he did not make strong the house he constructed, and it fell, from his own property he shall rebuild the house which fell.
233. If a builder has made a house for a man, and has not caused his work to be firm, and the wall has fallen over, that builder shall strengthen that wall with his own money.
234. If a boatman has calked a vessel of 60 gur (burthen) for a man, he shall give him two shekels of silver as his pay.
235. If a boatman has calked a vessel for a man, and has not perfected his work, and in that (same) year that vessel sail, (if) it have a defect, the boatman shall alter that vessel, and repair (it) with his own capital, and give the repaired vessel to the owner of the vessel.(241)
236. If a man has given his vessel to a boatman for hire, and the boatman has been neglectful, and sunk or lost the vessel, the boatman shall replace the vessel to the owner of the vessel.
237. If a man has hired a boatman and a vessel, and has freighted it with wheat, wool, oil, dates, and any other kind of freight; (if) that boatman be neglectful, and sink the vessel, and lose what is within (it), the boatman shall replace the vessel which he has sunk, and whatever he lost, which was within it.
238. If a boatman has sunk a man’s vessel, and refloated it, he shall pay half its value(242) in silver.
239. If a man [has hired] a boatman, he shall give him 6 gur of wheat yearly.
240. If a down-stream vessel collide with an up-stream vessel, and sink (it), the owner of the sunken vessel shall declare before God whatever has been lost in his vessel, and (he) of the down-stream vessel which sank the up-stream vessel shall replace for him his vessel and whatever was lost.
241. If a man has driven the ox (of another) to work, he shall pay one-third of a mana of silver.
242 and 243. If a man has hired for a year, (as) hire of a draught-ox he shall pay to its owner 4 gur of wheat. (As) hire of a carrier(?)-ox, 3 gur of wheat.
244. If a man has hired an ox (or) an ass, and a lion kill it in the field, (the loss) is its owner’s.
245. If a man has hired an ox, and cause it to die by negligence or by blows, to the ox’s owner he shall make up ox for ox.(243)
246. If a man has hired an ox, and has broken its foot or cut its nape,(244) to the ox’s owner he shall make up ox for ox.
247. If a man has hired an ox, and has poked out its eye, he shall pay to the ox’s owner half its value in silver.
248. If a man has hired an ox, and has broken its horn, cut off its tail, or pierced(245) its nostril, he shall pay a quarter of its value in silver.
249. If a man has hired an ox, and God has stricken it and it has died, the man who hired the ox shall swear by God,(246) and shall go free.
250. If a mad bull, in its onset, has gored a man, and caused (him) to die, that case has no claim.(247)
251. If a man’s ox—goring for goring—has made known to him its vice,(248) and he has not sawn off its horns, (if) he has not shut up his ox, and that ox has gored the son of a man, and caused him to die, he shall pay half a mana of silver.
252. [If] it be a man’s servant, he shall give one-third of a mana of silver.
253. If a man has hired a man to stay upon his field, and [ha]nded to him the produce (?), confided to him the oxen, [and] contracted with him [to] cultivate the field, if that man has stolen the wheat or the vegetables, and it is found in his hands, they shall cut off his hands.
254. If he has taken away the produce and deprived(249) the oxen, he shall replace the amount of the wheat which he has wasted (?).
255. If he has let out(250) the oxen of a man for hire, or stolen the wheat, and not made (it) to grow in the field, they shall summon that man, and for every 10 bur-gan he shall measure 60 gur of wheat.
256. If his borough cannot respond for him, they shall leave him in that field with the oxen.
257. If a man has hired a field-labourer, he shall give him 8 gur of wheat yearly.
258. If a man has hired an ox-herd (?), he shall give him 6 gur of wheat yearly.
259. If a man has stolen a watering-machine from the enclosure, he shall give to the owner of the watering-machine five shekels of silver.
260. If he has stolen a shadoof or a plough, he shall give three shekels of silver.
261. If a man has hired a herdsman to pasture oxen and sheep, he shall give him 8 gur of wheat yearly.
262. If a man an ox or sheep for....
263. ... If he has lost [an ox] or a sheep which has been given to [him], he shall restore to [their] owner, ox for [ox], sheep for [sheep].
264. If a [herdsman], to whom oxen or sheep have been given to pasture, has received his wages, everything (?) as agreed (?), and is satisfied,(251) has reduced the oxen, (or) reduced the sheep, (or) lessened (their) young, he shall give (back) young and increase according to his contracts.
265. If a herdsman, to whom oxen and sheep have been given to pasture, has acted wrongly, and changed the natural increase,(252) and has given (it) for silver, they shall summon him, and ten times what he has stolen, oxen and sheep, he shall make good to their owner.
266. If in the fold an act of God has taken place, or a lion has killed, the herdsman shall declare his innocence before God, and the owner of the fold shall meet the destruction of the fold.
267. If the herdsman has been in fault, and has caused damage in the fold, the herdsman shall make up the loss caused by(253) the damage which he has brought about in the fold, (both) oxen and sheep, and shall give (them) to their owner.
268. If a man has hired an ox for treading out (the corn), 20 qa of wheat is his hire.
269. If he has hired an ass for treading out (the corn), 10 qa of wheat is his hire.
270. If he has hired a young animal for treading out (the corn), 1 qa of wheat is his hire.
271. If a man has hired oxen, a cart, and its driver, he shall give 180 qa of wheat daily.
272. If a man has hired the cart by itself, he shall give 40 qa of wheat daily.
273. If a man has hired a workman, from the beginning of the year to the fifth month he shall give six grains(254) of silver daily; from the sixth month to the end of the year, he shall give five grains of silver daily.
274. If a man hire an artizan, (as) wages of a ... five [grains] of silver; (as) wages of a brickmaker (?)(255) five grains of silver; (as) wages of a linen-weaver(256) five grains of silver; (as) wages of a stone-worker(?)(257) ... grains of silver; (as) wages of a milkman (?) ... [grains] of silver; (as) [wages] of a ... ... [grains] of silver; (as) [wages] of a carpenter four grains of silver; (as) wages of a ... four grains of silver; (as) [wages] of a house-superintendent (?) ... grains of silver; (as) [wages] of a builder (?), ... grains of silver. [dai]ly [he shall g]ive.
275. [If] a man has hired a small boat (?), three grains of silver is its hire daily.
276. If he has hired a down-stream (vessel), he shall give two grains and a half of silver (as) its hire daily.
277. If a man has hired a vessel of 60 gur, he shall give one-sixth (of a shekel) of silver daily (as) its hire.
278. If a man has bought a male or female slave, and before he has fulfilled his month an infirmity has fallen upon him, he shall return him to his seller, and the buyer shall receive back the silver he has paid.
279. If a man has bought a male or female slave, and he is liable to be reclaimed,(258) his seller shall respond to the claim.(259)
280. If a man, in a foreign country, has bought a male (or) female slave of a man, (and) when they have arrived in the midst of the land, a (former) owner of the male or female slave recognize his male or female slave, if their male and female slave are children of the land, he shall set them free without payment.(260)
281. If they are children of another land, the buyer shall declare before God the money(261) he has paid, and the (former) owner of the male or female slave shall give to the agent the money he has paid, and shall recover his male or female slave.
282. If a slave has said to his master: “Thou art not my master,” he shall summon him as his slave, and his master shall cut off his ear.
Decrees of equity, which Ḫammurabi, the able king, has established, and has procured (for) the country lasting security and a happy rule. Ḫammurabi, the accomplished king, am I. For the head-dark (ones),(262) whom Bel assigned, (and whose) shepherding Merodach has given, I have not been neglectful, I have not relaxed—peaceful localities have I found for them,(263) I have opened the narrow defiles, light have I caused to go forth to them. With the powerful weapon which Zagaga and Ištar have conferred upon me, with the acuteness which Aê has bestowed, with the might which Merodach has bestowed, I have rooted out the enemy above and below.(264) I have dominated the depths,(265) I have made happy the flesh of the land, the people of the dwellings (therein) have I caused to lie down in security—fear caused I not to possess them. The great gods have elected(266) me, and I am the shepherd giving peace, whose sceptre is just, setting up my good shadow in my city. I have pressed the people of the land of Šumer and Akkad in my bosom; by my protective spirit fraternally (?) have I guided them in peace; in my wisdom have I protected them. For the strong not to oppress the weak, to direct the fatherless (and) the widow, I have raised its(267) head in Babylon, the city of God and Bel. In Ê-sagila, the house whose foundations are firm like heaven and earth, I have written on my monument my most precious words to judge the justice of the land, to decide the decisions of the land, to direct the ignorant; and I have placed (them) before my image as king of righteousness.
The king who is great among the city-king(s) am I; my words are renowned, my power has no equal; by the command of Šamaš, the great judge of heaven and earth, may righteousness have power in the land;(268) by the word of Merodach, my lord, may my bas-reliefs not have a destroyer; in Ê-sagila, which I love, may my name be commemorated in happiness for ever. The ignorant man, who has a complaint,(269) let him come before my image (as) king of righteousness, and let him read my inscribed monument and let him hear my precious words, and my monument explain to him the matter. Let him see his judgment, let his heart expand, (saying): “Ḫammurabi is a lord who is like a father, a parent to the people; he has caused the word of Merodach, his lord, to be reverenced, and has gained the victory for Merodach above and below. He has rejoiced the heart of Merodach, his lord, and fixed for the people happiness(270) for ever, and (well) has he governed the land.” Let him pronounce (it) aloud, and with his heart perfect, let him pray before Merodach, my lord, (and) Zērpanitum, my lady. May the winged bull, (and) the protecting spirit, the gods of the entrance of Ê-sagila, (and) the wall of Ê-sagila, daily further (his) desires(271) in the presence of Merodach, my lord, and Zērpanitum, my lady.
For the future, the course(272) of days for all time: May the king who is in the land protect the words of righteousness which I have written on my monument. Let him not change the law of the land which I have adjudged, the decisions of the country which I have decided; let him not cause my bas-relief to be destroyed. If that man have intelligence, and wish to govern his country well, let him pay attention to the words which I have written on my monument, and may this monument show him the path, the direction, the law of the land which I have pronounced, the decisions of the land which I have decided. And let him rule his people,(273) let him pronounce justice for them, let him decide their decision. Let him remove the evil and the wicked from his land, let him rejoice the flesh of his people.
Ḫammurabi, the king of righteousness, to whom Šamaš has given (these) enactments,(274) am I. My words are noble, my works have no equal—they have brought forth the proud (?) to humility (?) the humble (?) to wisdom (?) (and) to renown. If that man(275) is attentive to my words, which I have written on my monument, and set not aside my law, change not my word, alter not my bas-relief—that man like me, the king of righteousness, may the god Šamaš make his sceptre to endure, may he guide his people in righteousness. If that man regard not my words, which I have written on my monument, and despise my curse, and fear not the curse of God, and do away the law which I have ordained—(if) he change my word, alter my bas-relief, destroy my written name, and write his (own) name, (or) on account of these curses cause another to do so,(276) that man, whether king, or lord, or viceroy, or personage who has been elected,(277) may the great God, the father of the gods, proclaimer of my reign, take back from him the glory of my kingdom, break his sceptre, curse his destiny. May Bel, the lord who determines the destinies, whose command is unchangeable, he who has magnified my kingdom, rouse against him revolts which his hand cannot suppress, causing (?) his destruction upon his seat.(278) A reign of sighing, days (but) few, years of want, darkness without light, death the vision of (his) eyes, may they set for him as (his) destiny. May he decree with his grave lips the destruction of his city, the dispersion of his people, the taking away of his royalty, the annihilation of his name and his record in the land. May Beltis, the great mother whose command is supreme(279) in E-kura, the lady who makes my thoughts propitious, instead of judgment and decision, make his word evil before Bel, may she accomplish the ruin of his country, the loss of his people, the pouring out of his life like water by the command of Bel the king. May Aê, the great prince, whose decisions have the precedence,(280) the sage of the gods, he who knows everything, who lengthens the days of my life, take back from him understanding(281) and wisdom, bring him back into forgetfulness.(282) May he dam up his rivers at (their) sources, (and) cause grain, the life of the people, not to exist in his land. May Šamaš, the great judge of heaven and earth, he who rules living things, the lord my trust, destroy his dominion; may he not pronounce his judgment, may he confuse his path, may he annihilate the course of his army. May he place for him, in his oracles,(283) an evil design to snatch away the foundation of his dominion and to destroy his country. May Šamaš’s word of misfortune speedily attack him; may he snatch him from the living on high, beneath in the earth may he deprive his spirit(284) of water. May Sin, lord of the heavens, the god my creator, whose brightness(285) shines resplendent among the gods, withdraw from him crown and throne of dominion. May he fix upon him a grave misdeed, his great fault, which will not disappear from his body, and may he cause the days, the months, the years of his reign to end in sighing and tears. May he increase for him the burthen of his dominion, may he fix for him as (his) fate a life which is comparable(286) with death. May Hadad, lord of fertility, dominator of heaven and earth, my helper, withhold from him the rains in the heavens, the flood in the springs. May he destroy his country with want and famine, may he angrily rage over his city, and turn his country to mounds of the flood.(287) May Zagaga, the great warrior, the eldest son of (the temple) Ê-kura, he who goes at my right hand, break his weapons on the battle-field. May he turn for him day into night, and may he set his enemy over him. May Ištar, lady of war and battle, who lets loose my weapons, my propitious genius, lover of my reign, in her angry heart, in her great wrath, curse his dominion, his favours into evils may she turn, may she turn.(288) In the place of war and battles may she break his weapons, may she make for him confusion and revolt, may she cast down his warriors, may she cause the earth to drink their blood, may she cast down in the plain a heap of corpses of his warriors, may she not cause his soldiers to have [burial?]. As for him, may she deliver him into the hand of his enemy, and bring him as a captive to the land which is hostile to him. May Nergal, the strong one among the gods, unrivalled battle,(289) he who causes me to attain my victory, in his great might burn(290) his people like a tiny bundle of reeds. With his strong weapon may he subjugate him, and may he crush his members like an image of clay. May Nintu, the supreme lady of the lands, the mother my creator, withhold from him his son, and cause him to have no name, in the midst of his people may she not produce a human seed. May Nin-Karrak, daughter of Anu, she who announces my happiness, let forth from Ê-kura upon his members a grave sickness, an evil pestilence, a grievous injury, which they cannot cure, whose nature the physician does not know, which he cannot ease with a bandage, (and which), like the bite of death, cannot be removed. Until she take possession of his life, may he groan for his manliness.(291)
May the great gods of heaven and earth, the Anunna(292) in their assembly, the divine bull of the house,(293) the bricks of Ê-babbara,(294) curse that (man), his reign, his country, his army, his people, and his nation, with a deadly curse—with powerful curses may Bel, by his word which cannot be changed, curse him, and speedily may they overtake him.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
These laws, as being the oldest known, have attracted considerable attention, and much has been said concerning their connection with the Mosaic Code. Whatever connection there may be between them, however, it must be kept well in mind, that they have been formulated and compiled from totally different standpoints. Notwithstanding the references in the Code of Ḫammurabi to religious things, there is no doubt that the laws given therein are purely civil, and compiled either by the king as temporal ruler of the land, or by his advisers, or by the judges who “decided the decisions of the land.” Charitable enactments were therefore as far from the intention of the compilers of the Babylonian code as such things are from the intention of the legislation of this or any other modern civilized community or nationality. The Law of Moses, on the other hand, has long been recognized as a Priestly Code, into which all kinds of provisions for the poor, the fatherless, the necessitous, were likely to enter, and have, in fact, entered. From this point of view, Moses’ code is immeasurably superior to that of the Babylonian law-giver, and can hardly, on that account, be compared with it.
From existing duplicates of this inscription, we know that it bore a title which, in accordance with the usual custom in ancient times, was taken from the first few words of the inscription, in this case Ninu îlu ṣîrum, “When the supreme God.” In the Ninevite duplicate in the British Museum, however, a kind of title in the modern sense of the word is given, namely, Dinani Ḫammurabi, “The Laws of Ḫammurabi,” the first word being from the common Semitic root which appears, in Semitic Babylonian, under the form of dânu, “to judge.” As far as our information goes, it would seem that, whilst the Hebrew tôrah was both judicial, ceremonial, and moral, the Babylonian dînu was judicial only. Ceremonial enactments are entirely foreign to it, and morality, in the modern sense of the word, though represented, does not hold a very high place, though it must not be forgotten that five columns of the text are wanting.
That there should be, therefore, but few parallels between the Codes of Moses and of Ḫammurabi was to be expected, though naturally likenesses and parallelisms are to be found, the Hebrews being practically of the same stock as the Babylonians, and also, as has been shown, under the influence of the same civilization. It will be noticed, in reading through the code, that not only are there no laws against sorcery, worshipping other than the national god or gods, and prostitution, but there are actually enactments referring to the first and the last, showing that they were recognized. Moral, religious, ceremonial, and philanthropic enactments are, in fact, entirely absent.
3-4. With the enactments concerning false witness, cp. Ex. xx. 16; Deut. v. 20, etc. More especially, however, are the directions in Deut. xix. 16 ff. noteworthy. Here the direction is, to do to the false witness “as he had thought to do to his brother.” In this case, too, the logical penalty would be death, in a matter involving the life of a man.
7 (liability to be regarded as a thief on account of the purchase or receiving of things without witnesses or a contract) is to a certain extent paralleled by Lev. vi. 2 ff., where, however, the penalty for wrongful possession is not death, but the restoration of the object detained, with a fifth part of the value added thereto.
8 (theft of live-stock) is illustrated by Ex. xxii. 1, where it is ordered that the thief restore five oxen for a stolen ox, and four sheep for a stolen sheep. All laws dealing with theft seem to have been more severe among the Babylonians than among the Hebrews, and inability to make the object good, with the penalties attached thereto, was visited with death (6-11, 14, 15, etc.).
14. This enactment is exactly parallel with Ex. xxi. 16: “He that stealeth a man ... shall surely be put to death.”
21 (housebreaking). Ex. xxii. 2-4, justifies the killing of a burglar caught in the act before sunrise, but not otherwise.
57. In the case of unlawful pasturing, it is probable that Ex. xxii. 5 may furnish the key to the obscurities of this Babylonian enactment. According to the Mosaic law, the owner of the cattle had to make the damage good with the best of his field or vineyard. To ensure getting the best, and his due share, the most satisfactory way would be to reap the offender’s field, if he had one.
110. The opening (seemingly in the English sense) of a wine-house by a temple-devotee, or her merely entering such a place, was in all probability equivalent to prostituting herself, and if so, this law may be compared with Lev. xxi. 9, in which the daughter of a priest, if she profaned herself (and her father) by playing the whore, was to be put to death by burning.
117. As is shown by the preceding enactments, the person of a man might be seized for debt, but this shows that he might allow his wife, his son, or his daughter to be taken to work it off, and in that case they were to be set free in the fourth year. In Hebrew law (Ex. xxi. 2) an ordinary purchased slave was free after six years’ service, but if a man sold his daughter (v. 7), she did not “go out as the men-servants do.”(295)
125. The theft of things on deposit entailed only restitution if the person with whom they were deposited were not in fault. In Ex. xxii. 7-9 the person condemned had to pay or restore double the value of the things stolen.
129. In this law the conditional clause at the end is incomplete, but it may be supposed that liberty was accorded therein to the king and to the injured husband to exercise mercy, and commute the death-penalty in any way they thought fit, attaching thereto any other penalty which might seem good to them. According to Lev. xx. 10, the adulterer and the adulteress were to be put to death, but in what manner is not stated. To all appearance no mercy was given.
130. As this is a case of a married woman living in her father’s house, Ex. xxii. 16 is not an exact parallel. The woman being unbetrothed, the man who had violated her had to endow and marry her.
155. Incest of the nature referred to here is practically a complete parallel with Lev. xx. 12, where, however, the nature of the death-penalty is not stated. If the correction of the code of Ḫammurabi suggested in the footnote (“they shall bind that man, and cast him into the water”) be the true one, the man would seem to have been regarded as the chief sinner, and the woman was probably left to be dealt with by the son’s family. The mere binding of the man, as in the text, would be no adequate punishment, and the correction: “They shall bind them, and cast them into the water,” pre-supposes a very serious mistake on the part of the scribe.
157. This is a parallel with Lev. xviii. 8, and xx. 11, and the penalty is death in both codes. The word “mother” in the Babylonian Code probably includes “step-mother” as well.
195. This is parallel with Ex. xxi. 15, where, however, the smiting of the mother is included, and the more severe penalty of death is prescribed, instead of merely cutting off the offending members as a punishment.
196, 197, 200, 210. These illustrate the dictum: “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for tooth” (Ex. xxi. 24, 25; Lev. xxiv. 20; Deut. xix. 21; Matt. v. 38). They were naturally the common punishments of the period when the penalty of imprisonment could not be imposed.
199. The destruction of the eye of a man’s slave, or the fracture of his limb, was apparently held to entail the diminution of his value by one-half, which the person who inflicted the injury had to pay. Nothing is said, however, concerning injury to a slave by his master, and this law, therefore, has no parallel in the Mosaic ordinance given in Ex. xxi. 26, 27, where the master is spoken of as the possible aggressor, and had to set his slave free on account of the injury he had received.(296)
206. The law regarding injuries inflicted upon a man in a quarrel is parallel with Ex. xxi. 18, 19, except that the latter decrees that the person inflicting the injury, in addition to causing the injured man to be completely healed, has also to pay for his loss of time. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that, in the Code of Ḫammurabi, he who committed the injury had to swear that he did not do it knowingly—that is, with the intention of injuring the man, otherwise he probably came under the law of retaliation, Nos. 196, 197, and 200.
209. This is parallel with Ex. xxi. 22, but whereas the penalty for the injury to the woman was fixed at ten shekels of silver, the law of Moses allowed the husband to estimate the compensation, which was certified and probably revised by the judges.
210. It was not only “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” but also “a daughter for a daughter,” even when a mortal injury may not have been intended. This is practically the same as Ex. xxi. 23: “And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.”
241. As this law stands, it refers to the unlawful working of another man’s ox, and not to an ox taken in pledge, for the working of which there could be no remedy, any more than there was for taking a man’s wife, child, or slave, in pledge to work out a debt.
244 (loss of an animal through attack by a wild beast). Compare Ex. xxii. 13: “If it (an animal delivered into the care of another) be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn.” Apparently there was no obligation to place the animal in a safe place. Cf. Gen. xxxi. 39 (Jacob’s reproof to Laban): “That which was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bare the loss of it.”
245 ff. These are to a certain extent illustrated by Ex. xxii. 14, 15, in which passage, if the owner of the injured animal was not present, the borrower had to make good any loss. If, however, the owner was there to protect it, there was no penalty, as he could in all probability have prevented the injury from being inflicted, and in any case might be supposed to have control over the animal.
250. The owner of a furious bull was protected from loss, even though the result was fatal, if he did not know that the animal was vicious. In Ex. xxi. 28, though the owner of the offending ox was to go free, the animal itself was to be stoned to death, and its flesh not eaten. There is no doubt that this was hard on the owner, but it must have had an excellent effect, and ensured the proper enclosing of all doubtful animals.
251. Even when the master knew that his ox was vicious, the Babylonians were more lenient than the Hebrews, who, in such a case, besides the destruction of the ox, decreed the death of the owner as a punishment for his negligence (Ex. xxi. 29). As will be seen from verse 30, however, he might be spared by paying such ransom as might be imposed upon him.
252. One-third of a mana of silver is equivalent to 20 shekels, so that the sum here indicated as compensation for the death of a slave who has been gored by a bull differs from that awarded in Ex. xxi. 32, by ten shekels—one-sixth of a mana more.
266. This is in part covered by 244 (destruction of cattle by a lion), and is parallel with Ex. xxii. 10, 11, where, also, an oath had to be sworn between the parties, and the herdsman in whose care the cattle were, went free of all obligation. The accident causing the loss, however, is not there described as “an act of God.”
267. The wording of this law clearly indicates that it would apply if the herdsman were in fault, and suggests that the same condition must be read into Ex. xxii. 12, where, if the cattle were stolen from him, he had to make the loss good.
Besides the enactments in the Code of Moses, however, we find, in the interesting and important monument translated above, and in the legal documents of the period to which it belongs, noteworthy parallels to other parts of the Old Testament. Reference has already been made (pp. 174, 175, and 185, 186) to the contracts of the period of Ḫammurabi’s dynasty which illustrate the matter of Sarah giving Hagar to Abraham because she herself was childless (Gen. xvi. 1, 2). That this was the custom in Babylonia is now confirmed by law 144, which also furnishes the reason why it was the wife who chose her partner in the husband’s affections. It was because the first wife preferred to choose herself the woman who was to replace her, and in doing this, she chose one who would be her subordinate, not one who might become a really serious rival. A parallel case is that of Bilhah (Gen. xxx. 4). Hagar’s despising her mistress (Gen. xvi. 4) is illustrated by law No. 146, which allows the mistress to reduce her to the position of a slave again, which was agreed to by the patriarch, the result being that Hagar fled (v. 6).
The determination to have the possession of the cave of Machpelah placed upon a thoroughly legal footing (Gen. xxiii. 14-20) may, perhaps, be illustrated by law No. 7, though there is not much parallelism between the two instances, a field with a cave and trees being a difficult thing to steal. There is hardly any doubt, however, that the patriarch desired that no accusation should be brought against him or his descendants for unlawfully using it, as is suggested by the fact that when Ephron offered to give it, he said that he did so “in the presence of the sons of my people” only, but when the transaction was completed as Abraham wished, it was done not only in the presence of the children of Heth, but before all who went in at the gate of his city (Gen. xxiii. 18), and naturally included strangers as well.
Abraham’s seeking a wife for his son (Gen. xxiv. 4) is in conformity with laws 155, 156, and 166; gifts are given (Gen. xxiv. 53 and laws No. 159, 160, etc.); seemingly the father-in-law retained the presents given by his son-in-law, if he could get possession of them (Gen. xxxi. 15 and laws 159-161), and these belonged to the wife (wives) and the children (xxxi. 16 and laws 162, 167, 171, ff.).
Whether the theft of her father’s teraphim by Rachel (Gen. xxxi. 19) could be construed as sacrilege or not is doubtful, but this may well have been the penalty thought of by Jacob when Laban accused some of his household of theft (Gen. xxxi. 32 and law No. 6), though theft, if there were no restitution, was in Babylonian law always punishable with death.
The punishment of death by burning, which Judah decreed for his daughter-in-law Tamar (Gen. xxxviii. 24), is parallel with that meted out to a devotee opening or entering a wine-house (probably a place of ill-repute), but the parallel ends there—there is no law in the code of Ḫammurabi, as at present preserved, decreeing death by burning for a widow who became a harlot.
Theft from a palace (law No. 6) is parallel with Gen. xliv. 9, where the sons of Jacob admit the justice of a death-penalty if Joseph’s cup were found in the possession of any of them. Whether the purchase of the Egyptians and their land for bread by Joseph had any analogy in Western Asia or not, is uncertain, though law No. 115, as well as those which precede it, refer to something similar, but in these cases the servitude was terminable, which does not appear from Gen. xlvii. 19 ff. Thereafter the Egyptian ruler took from these farmer-thralls a fifth part of the produce, which compares well with the half or third exacted by the owner of a field in Babylonia from the hirer (law 46). Finally, the clauses of the laws of Ḫammurabi referring to adoption (No. 185) might be quoted in illustration of the adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh by their grandfather Jacob (Gen. xlviii. 5), especially when read in connection with the inscriptions translated on pp. 176 and 177, where the sharing of the adopted son “like a son” is expressly referred to.
In the New Testament, Gal. iv. 30: “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman,” finds illustration in law 171 of Ḫammurabi’s code, and the parable of the talents (Matt. xxv. 14 ff.) reminds one of the agent sending forth commissioners to get gain for him by trafficking, as in laws 100-102. 103-107 do not bear directly upon this parallel, but are worth noting in connection with it.
It will be long ere all that can be said about this noteworthy inscription finds expression. There is much needing comment, and much to study therein, and the precise rendering of many a word has still to be found out.
Babylon And The Bible.
A great deal has been written concerning the two lectures which the renowned Assyriologist, Friedrich Delitzsch, delivered some time ago before the German Emperor, under the title of Babel und Bibel. These lectures have now been published, and from their style and contents, one can easily judge how great was the interest which they aroused. Those who were privileged to hear them must have enjoyed a true archæological feast, all the more exquisite in that the subject was that which throws more light upon the Old Testament than any other known.
His lectures deal, for the most part, with the things which are touched upon at greater length in this book—the early records of Babylonia and Assyria, the history, the literature, the arts, and the sciences of those countries, and of the great cities of which they were so proud. Beginning with “the great mercantile firm of Murašû and Sons in the time of Artaxerxes,” about 450 B.C., and the Hebrew names found therein, he speaks of Ur of the Chaldees, Carchemish, Sargon of Agadé, Ḫammurabi, the Bronze Gates of Shalmaneser II., Sargon of Assyria, Sennacherib, Assurbanipal (Aššur-banî-âpli or Sardanapalus), the Laws of Ḫammurabi (translated in full in this volume), the processions of gods,(297) the blessing of Aaron,(298) the advanced civilization of Babylonia 2250 years B.C., and many other things. To touch upon all his points would be to repeat much that has been treated of in this book, and that being the case, all the most important of them are referred to in the following pages under special headings:—
Canaan.
That he is right in calling Canaan at the time of the Exodus “A domain of Babylonian culture” is indicated by the testimony of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, and is fully shown in the present work, Chapters V.-VII. In the notes appended to the first lecture he refers to the fact that there existed, in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, a town called Bît (or Beth) Ninip, after the Babylonian god—“even though there may not have been in Jerusalem itself a bît Ninip, a temple of the god Ninip.”
The Sabbath.
In the present work, the Sabbath is referred to on pl. II., where photographs of two fragments (duplicates) explaining the word are given. Prof. Delitzsch calls attention, in the notes to his first lecture, to this text, together with the British Museum syllabary 82-9-18, 4159, col. I., l. 24, where ud (weakened to û), meaning “day,” is explained by šabattum, “Sabbath,” as “the day” par excellence, and from other passages he reasons that the old rendering of the word as “day of rest,” ûm nûḫ libbi, “day of rest of the heart”—cf. pl. II.—is the correct one.
The following list of Sumerian and Babylonian days of the month will serve to show exactly how the matter stands:—
Sumerian. Semitic Translation. Babylonian. U ûmu day. U-maš-am [mišil] ûmu half a day. U-gi-kam [ûmu] kal first day (Sum.), the whole day (Sem.). U-mina-kam ši-na [ûmu] second day. U-eši-kam šela[štu ûmu] third day. U-lama-kam irbit fourth (day). U-ia-kam ḫamil[tu] fifth (day). U-âša-kam šeš[šitu] sixth (day). U-imina-kam sib[itu] seventh (day). U-ussa-kam saman[atu] eighth (day). U-ilima-kam tilti do. ninth day. U-ḫu-kam êširti do. tenth day. U-ḫuia-kam šapatti fifteenth day (Sum.), Sabbath (Sem.). U-mana-gi-lal-kam ibbû twentieth day less 1 (Sum.), the wrathful (Sem.). U-mana-kam êšrû twentieth day. U-mana-ia-kam ârḫu bat[tu] twenty-fifth day (Sum.), festival month (Sem.). U-eša-kam šelašâ thirtieth day. U-na-am bubbulum rest-day (Sum.), (day of) desire (Sem.). U-ḫul-gala u-ḫulgallum evil day. U-ḫul-gala ûmu lim[nu] evil day. U-šu-tua ûmu rimku libation-day. U-elene ûmu têliltum purification-day.
From the above it will be seen, that the šapattum or Sabbath was the 15th day of the month, and that only. That it was a day of rest, is shown by the etymology, the word being derived from the Sumerian ša-bat, “heart-rest,” which probably has, therefore, no connection with the Semitic root šabātu, which, as far as at present known, is a synonym of gamāru, “to complete.” It was the day of rest of the heart, but being the 15th, it was also the day when the moon reached the full in the heart or middle of the month, and its name may, therefore, contain a play upon the two ideas which the word libbu contains. In accordance with the general rule, the consonants of words borrowed from the Sumerian were often sharpened when transferred to Semitic Babylonian, hence the form šapattum instead of šabattum, though the latter is also found.
The nearest approach to the Sabbath, in the Jewish sense, among the Babylonians, is the û-ḫulgala or ûmu limnu, “the evil day,” which, as we know from the Hemerologies, was the 7th, 14th, 21st, 28th, and 19th day of each month, the last so called because it was a week of weeks from the 1st day of the foregoing month. It is this, therefore, which contains the germ of the idea of the Jewish Sabbath, but it was not that Sabbath in the true sense of the term, for if the months had 30 days, the week following the 28th had 9 days instead of 7, and weeks of 8 and 9 days therefore probably occurred twelve times each year. The nature of this original of the Sabbath is shown by the Hemerologies, which describe how it was to be kept in the following words:—
(The Duties Of The 7th Day).
“The 7th day is a fast of Merodach and Zēr-panitum, a fortunate day, an evil day. The shepherd of the great peoples shall not eat flesh cooked by fire, salted (savoury) food, he shall not change the dress of his body, he shall not put on white, he shall not make an offering. The king shall not ride in his chariot, he shall not talk as ruler; a seer shall not do a thing in a secret place; a physician shall not lay his hand on a sick man;(299) (the day) is unsuitable for making a wish. The king shall set his oblation in the night before Merodach and Ištar, he shall make an offering, (and) his prayer(300) is acceptable with god.”
For the 14th, 21st, 28th, and 19th, the names of the deities differ, and on the last-named the shepherd of the great peoples is forbidden to eat “anything which the fire has touched.” Otherwise the directions are the same, and though generally described as a lucky or happy day, it was certainly an evil day for work, or for doing the things referred to. It is to be noted, however, that there is no direction that the day was to be observed by the common people.
Was The Flood A “Sin-Flood”?
That the Flood was a “sin-flood” (“dass die Sintflut eine Sündflut(301) war”) among the Babylonians as among the Hebrews has already been stated (p. 112—cf. p. 107, I, II ff.), and with this Prof. Delitzsch, answering the criticisms of Oettli, agrees. Replying to König, he energetically repudiates the idea that “the Babylonian hero saves his dead and living property, but in both Biblical accounts there appears, instead of that, the higher point of view of the preservation of the animal-world.” He then cites Berosus, according to whom Xisuthros received the command to take into the ark winged and four-footed animals, and quotes the line translated on p. 103: “I caused to go up into the midst of the ship ... the beasts of the field and the animals of the field—all of them I sent up.”
The Dragon And The Serpent-Tempter.
Prof. Delitzsch’s notes upon the Dragon of Chaos are exceedingly interesting, as is also the picture which he gives, from a little seal in the form of a long bead, of the god Merodach “clothed in his majestic glory, with powerful arm, and broad eye and ear, the symbols of his intelligence, and at the feet of the god the captive Dragon of the primæval waters.” From our point of view the deity does not look very majestic, but it is an exceedingly interesting representation, the more especially as he bears in his left hand (in the drawing) the circle and staff of Šamaš, the sun, showing the correctness of the theory which made Merodach likewise a sun-god. It is noteworthy, however, that a similar object found by the German expedition to Babylonia shows a figure of Hadad, the wind-god, as the Babylonians conceived him, and accompanying him are a winged dragon and another creature—indeed, each deity seems to have had his own special attendant of this nature. Are we, therefore, to understand that each deity overcame a dragon or other animal? or may it not be, that Merodach had a kind of dragon as his attendant, and the one depicted sitting by his side, close to his feet, is the creature devoted to him, and not the Dragon of Chaos at all?
The Dragon of Chaos, Tiamtu or Tiawthu, appears in the inscriptions as the representative of the Hebrew tehôm, which is the same word without the feminine ending. It is also regarded, however, as being represented in the Old Testament by liwyāthān (leviathan), tannîn, and rahab, explained as “the winding one,” “the dragon,” and “the monster” respectively. As far as our knowledge at present goes, none of these names occur in the Babylonian inscriptions, but there is sufficient analogy between the Biblical passages which contain them and the story of Tiamtu to establish an identity between the two sources.
In the passage “Awake, awake,” etc. (Is. li. 9), the cutting of Rahab in pieces, and the piercing of the dragon, are made into similes typifying the drying up of the Red Sea, so that the Israelites might pass over, and on this account the words standing for these creatures seem to have become an allegorical way of referring to Egypt, caught, like Tiamtu, in a net (Ezek. xxxii. 2, 3). In Job ix. 13 the “helpers of Rahab” are mentioned, recalling the gods who aided Tiamtu, and in xxvi. 12 “he smiteth through Rahab” is a reminiscence of the piercing of the head of Merodach’s opponent.
In Job xli. 3 the words “Lay thine hand upon him; remember the battle, and do so no more,” evidently refer to leviathan in v. 1, here typical of Tiamtu, the battle being that which Merodach fought with her. “Shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?” in verse 9, recalls the dreadful appearance of Tiamtu and her helpers, whose aspect filled the gods of the Babylonians with fear. Still another parallel is to be found in the verse “Their (the enemies’) wine is the poison of dragons (tanninim),” Deut. xxxii. 33, reminding us of the monsters created by Tiamtu, whose bodies were filled with poison like blood.
All these passages naturally prove that the legend was well known to the Hebrews, and must also have been current among their neighbours. Though they identified her with the sea (tehom), they did not, to all appearance, use that word to indicate the Dragon of Chaos, as did the Babylonians—she was a serpent, a dragon, or a monster. Though she may be the type of the serpent-tempter (the difference of sex makes a little difficulty), the compiler of the first two chapters of Genesis rigorously excluded her from the Hebrew Creation-story. The story of leviathan, the dragon, or the monster, was a legend current among the people, and used by the Hebrew sacred writers as a useful simile, but it seems to have formed no part of orthodox Hebrew religious belief.
Prof. Delitzsch has boldly reproduced, on p. 36 of his Babel und Bibel (German edition), what has been regarded in England as the driving of the evil spirit from the temple built at Calah by Aššur-naṣir-âpli (885 B.C.), but he calls it “Fight with the Dragon.” The evil spirit represented is certainly a kind of dragon, but on the original slab in the British Museum the creature is a male, and not a female, as in the Babylonian Creation-story. Identification with the Dragon of Chaos is therefore in the highest degree improbable, and as it would seem from his answer to Jensen, Delitzsch does not regard it as having anything to do with the Creation-story, but a representation of “a fight between the power of light and the power of darkness in general.” This seems exceedingly probable, as is also his statement that in such a conception as that of Tiamtu, it may easily be imagined that plenty of room for fancy existed.
The serpent-tempter in Gen. iii. 1 is an ordinary serpent, naḫas, the type of the evil one. He had no part in the creation, and was to all appearance one of the beasts of the field created by God. Tiamtu, his Babylonian parallel, on the other hand, does not seem to have been in any sense a tempter—she simply tried to overcome the gods of heaven, aided by her followers and offspring, among whom were some of the divine beings created by the gods. That in consequence of this, she may have been regarded as having tempted those of her followers who were the offspring of the gods of heaven, is not only possible, but probable, and if provable, we should have here the identification of the Dragon of Chaos with the serpent-tempter.
And this leads him to the question as to whether the celebrated cylinder-seal referred to on p. 79 is really intended to be a picture of the circumstance of the fall of man. Delitzsch points out, that the clothed condition of the figures prevents him from recognizing in the tree the tree “of knowledge of good and evil”—perhaps there glimmers through the Biblical account in Gen. ii. and iii. another and older form of the story, in which only one tree, the tree of life, appeared. The words in ii. 9: “and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” seem, as it were, patched on, and the narrator completely forgets this newly-introduced “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” to the extent, that he even, by oversight, makes God allow man, in contradiction to iii. 22, to eat of the Tree of Life (ii. 16). All this seems very plausible, but may it not be, that man, before eating of the tree of knowledge, was permitted to eat of the tree of life, which was denied to him after the Fall? If this be the case, there was probably no forgetfulness on the part of the narrator, and the story hangs excellently together. And here it is to be noted that both the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, were in the midst of the garden (ii. 9), that the woman seems to be aware of the existence of one tree only (iii. 3), and there is no statement that the man knew the nature of the fruit which his wife handed to him (6), though it may be surmised that, with the prohibition with regard to one of them in his mind, he ought to have inquired. The heaviest punishment therefore falls upon the tempter, the woman coming next, and the man having the lightest though even his is sufficiently severe.
In the design on the cylinder Delitzsch sees a male and a female figure, with a serpent, and in this both Hommel and Jensen agree. Delitzsch, moreover, says: “The distinguishing of the one figure by horns, which was, in Babylonia, as in Israel, equally the common symbol of strength and victoriousness, I regard as a very delicate device of the artist to introduce into the two clothed human figures the sex-distinction in an unmistakable manner.” He is of opinion that nothing very decisive can as yet be pronounced concerning the serpent, but one might connect therewith the appearance of Tiamtu, who also, like leviathan in Job iii. 8 and “the old serpent” in the Apocalypse, may be assumed to have been still existing. (Compare p. 32 of the present work, lines 112 and 113.)
He points out that in a list of rivers, etc., there is one called “the river of the Serpent-god destroying(302) the abode of life” (Id-Sir-tindir-duba), which is also a confirmation of the theory that the Babylonians possessed the legend of the serpent-tempter. Noteworthy also is the following text, which he refers to “by the way,” with a slight indication of the contents:—
“... sin, fixing the command. ... of the ordinance, the man of lamentation. ... the maid, has eaten the evil thing— ... Ama-namtagga has done what is evil The fate of Ama-namtagga is hard(303)— Her fate is hard, her face is troubled with a tear. She has sat on a glorious throne, She has lain on a glorious couch, She has learned to love aright, She has learned to kiss.”
The mutilation of this inscription renders the true interpretation doubtful, but it would seem to be exceedingly probable that there is in it some reference to the fate of our first mother, inherited by all her daughters to the end of time.
Ama-namtagga means “The Mother of Sin,” and her having eaten and done what is evil makes an interesting parallel with the case of Eve.(304)
The Cherubim.
Concerning the Cherubs something has been said in this book, pp. 80-82, and to this Prof. Delitzsch adds a few more instances. As others have done, he regards the cherubim of the Babylonians and Assyrians as being the winged bulls, with heads of men. As an angel he gives a picture of a winged female figure holding a necklace(305); the demons he depicts are from the slabs in the Assyrian Saloon of the British Museum, where two of these beings are fighting with each other; and devils he regards as being typified by a small but mutilated statuette of a creature with an animal’s head, long erect ears, and open mouth with threatening teeth. For the existence of guardian-angels he quotes the letter of Ablâ to the queen-mother: “Bel and Nebo’s messenger of grace (âbil šipri ša dunqi ša Bêl u Nabû) will go with the king of the countries, my lord.” Of especial interest, however, is his reference to the inscription of Nabopolassar, in which that founder of the latest of the Babylonian empires states that Merodach “called him to rule over the land and the people, caused a guardian-god (cherub) to go by his side, and caused all the work which he undertook to succeed.” Besides the cherubs or guardian-angels, the Babylonians believed in numerous evil gods and devils, besides Tiamtu and the serpent-tempter of mankind.
Babylonian Monotheism.
The question of Babylonian monotheism, and of the antiquity of the name Yahweh (Jehovah) attracted a considerable amount of attention, and has been supplemented by Delitzsch very fully in the notes to his first lecture. Upon this point something was said in the present volume (pp. 47 and 58-61), and the author is practically at one with Prof. Delitzsch. As the inscription translated on p. 58 shows, the Babylonians were monotheists, and yet they were not. They believed in all their various gods, and at the same time identified those gods with Merodach. Just as, in the beliefs of India, each soul may be regarded as emanating from, and returning to, the Creator, and forming one with Him at the final death of the body, so the gods of the Babylonians were apparently regarded as parts of, and emanations from, Merodach, the chief of the gods, who, when they conferred upon him their names, conferred upon him in like manner their being. It is in this way alone that Merodach, the last-born of the great gods, can be regarded as the father and begetter of the gods (see pp. 45, 46).
Prof. Delitzsch has therefore done a service in bringing more prominently to the notice of students and scholars the text of which the obverse is printed on p. 58, and mentioning the paper where it first appeared.(306) The study of the religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians has been greatly furthered thereby.
With regard to the question, whether besides this tablet, there be other indications that the Babylonians—or a section of them—believed in one god, Delitzsch quotes, as did also the present author, many names supporting this idea. Thus he gives the following:—
Ilu-ittîa, “God is with me.” Ilu-amtaḫar, “I called upon God.” Ilu-âbi, “God is my father.”(307) Ilu-milki, “God is my counsel.” Yarbi-îlu, “God is great.” Yamlik-îlu, “God rules.” Ibšî-ina-ili, “He existed through God.”(308) Awel-ili, “Man of God.”(309) Mut(um)-ili, “Man of God.” Ilûma-le’i, “God is mighty.” Ilûma-âbi, “God is my father.” Ilûma-ilu, “God is God.” Šumma-îlu-lâ-îlîa, “If God were not my god?”
And if more be wanted, to these may be added Ya’kub-îlu, Yasup-îlu, Abdi-îlu, Ya’zar-îlu, and Yantin-îlu, on p. 157; Ili-bandi, “God is my creator,” p. 166; Sar-îli, “Prince of God,” p. 170; Uštašni-îli, “My God has made to increase twofold,” p. 178; Nûr-ili, “Light of God,” p. 184; Arad-îli-rêmeanni, “The servant of God, (who) had mercy on me,” p. 187; Yabnik-îlu, “God has been gracious (?),” p. 243; and many others. Remarks upon some of these names will be found on pp. 244, 245. Similar names occurring during the time of the later Babylonian empire will be found on pp. 434, 463 (Aqabi-îlu), 435, 436 (Adi’-ilu and Yadi’îlu), 458 (Baruḫi-ilu, probably a Jew, and Idiḫi-îlu). It will therefore be seen that names of a monotheistic nature were common in Babylonia at all periods, but as they are greatly outnumbered by the polytheistic ones,(310) their exact value as testimony to monotheism, or to a tendency to it, is doubtful. In certain cases, the deity intended by the word îlu is the family god, but in the above examples, names implying this have been as far as possible avoided.
“Of what kind and of what value this monothesis was, our present sources of knowledge do not allow us to state, but we can best conclude from the later development of Jahvism.” (Delitzsch.)
Jahweh (Jehovah).
Most important of all, however, from the point of view of the history of the religion of the Jews, is what Delitzsch states concerning the name Jahweh (Jehovah). On p. 46 of his first lecture (German edition) he gives half-tone reproductions of three tablets preserved in the British Museum, which, according to him, contain three forms of the personal name meaning “Jahwe is God”—Ya’we-îlu, Yawe-îlu, and Yaum-îlu. The last of these names we may dismiss at once, the form being clearly not that of Yahweh, but of Yah, the Jah of Ps. civ. 35 and several other passages. The other two, however, are not so lightly dealt with, notwithstanding the objections of other Assyriologists and Orientalists. It is true that Ya’pi-îlu and Yapi-îlu are possible readings, but Delitzsch’s objections to them are soundly based, and can hardly be set aside. The principal argument against the identification of Ya’we or Yawe with Yahwah is, that we should have here, about 2000 years before Christ, a form of the word which is really later than that used by the Jewish captives at Babylon 500 years before Christ, when it was to all appearance pronounced Ya(’)awa or Yâwa (see pp. 458, 465, 470, 471). If, however, we may read the name Ya’wa (Ya’awa) or Yâwa, as is possible, then there is nothing against the identification proposed by Delitzsch. That [Cuneiform] was used with the value of wa is proved by such words as warka, “after,” where the reading wearka seems to be impossible, and the necessary distinction between ma and wa (the former was written with a different character) would be maintained. It is worthy of note that Ya’wa must have been more of a name than Yau, which was a primitive Babylonian word for “God,” it is doubtful whether it could always be written without the divine prefix. As, however, the divine name Ae or Ea, with others, is often written so unprovided, such an objection as this could not be held to invalidate Delitzsch’s contention.
The probability therefore is, that Delitzsch is right in transcribing the name as he has done, if we may change the final e to a, and he is also probably right in his identification. Nevertheless, we require more information from the records of ancient Babylonia before we can say, with certainty, that the first component of the name Ya’wa-îlu is the Yahweh of the Hebrews, though we are bound to admit that the identification is in the highest degree probable. Delitzsch speaks of the possibility of ya’ve being a verbal form (it would be parallel to names like Yabnik-îlu), only to reject it, as a name meaning “God exists” (Hommel and Zimmern) is certainly not what one would expect to find. On the other hand, Zimmern admits the possibility that Yaum may be the name of a god, and possibly the name Yahu, Yahve may be present in it. As he is against Delitzsch on the whole, this is an important admission.
Additional Notes To Ḫammurabi’s Laws.
P. 492, §. 8. The “poor man” who is mentioned here and in several other places, is referred to under a Sumerian term translated by the Semitic muškinu, Arabic miskīn, from which the French mesquin is derived (through the Spanish mezquino). With the Babylonians, however, the “poor man,” as expressed by this term, was only one who was comparatively wanting in this world’s goods. That he was able to pay a fine, presupposes that he was the possessor of property, and this is confirmed by a bilingual explanatory list, which reads as follows:
Giš šar kirû Plantation. giš šar êgal kirû êkalli plantation of the palace. giš šar lugal kirû šarri plantation of the king. giš šar mašdu kirû muškini plantation of a poor man.
Muškinu is rendered by Winckler “freedman.”
P. 493, § 26 ff. It is difficult to find a satisfactory rendering for the words translated “army-leader” and “soldier.” Winckler translates “soldier” and “slinger.” Perhaps the latter should be rendered “scout.”
P. 495, §§ 43 and 44. The word translated “shall enclose (it)” is in accordance with the meaning given for the root šakāku in Delitzsch’s Handwörterbuch. If, however, the rendering “plough” in § 260 (p. 513), first proposed by Scheil, be correct, then in all probability the translation in the two sections should be “shall plough (it).”
P. 498, l. 12. Literally, “the man the tenancy, the silver of his rent complete for a year, to the lord of the house has given.”
P. 499, § 108. The “large stone” was seemingly large only by comparison with the “small stone” which weighed 1/3 of a shekel.
P. 500, § 116, etc. “The son of a man” Winckler translates as “a free-born person.”
P. 501, § 126. Or “As (in the case of) his property (which) has not been lost, he shall state his deficiency before God.”
P. 510, §§ 215, 218, 220. Instead of “cataract” Winckler translates “tumour,” but thinks “lachrymal fistula” still better, though “cataract” is possible.
P. 513, § 257. Here, as in other places, the character for field-labourer is the archaic form of [Cuneiform] ikkaru or îrrišu.
APPENDIX TO THE THIRD EDITION
The Hittites.
In consequence of the very important discoveries of the German explorers at Boghaz-Köi, the site of the ancient Hittite capital Ḫattu,(311) much light will be thrown on the ancient history, religion, manners, and customs of that portion of Western Asia, and Syria as well, together with the relations of the empire of the Hittites with Egypt. As far as can at present be judged, the language of the Hittites was Aryan, and the similar terminations in such Kassite(312) words as are known point to its being of the same family, and the same may, perhaps, be said of Mitannian.(313) The excavations at Boghaz-Köi began where fragments of tablets had already been found, namely, on the slope of the hill at Böyük-kale, the documents becoming more complete as the explorers went higher. Another mass of records was found at the foot of the hill, by the ruins of the temple. It was in the upper find that the Babylonian version of the treaty between Rameses II. and the Hittite king Ḫattušil was found. The founder of the dynasty was Šubbiluliuma, the name read Sapalulu in the Egyptian version of the treaty. He was evidently a warrior-king, whose overlordship the state of Mitanni acknowledged, and seems to have been succeeded by his son Arandaš. The next ruler was Muršil, the Maurasar of Egyptologists, who appears to have been a great conqueror. Muršil’s successor was his brother Mutallu (Mautenel), who, however, was apparently killed in a revolt, whereupon the renowned Ḫattušil (the Khetasir of Egyptologists) mounted the throne. His queen was Pudu-ḫipa, and they had a son Dudḫalia, whose name recalls the Tidal (Tid’al) of the 14th chapter of Genesis, and the Tudḫula (or Tudḫul) of the tablets which apparently refer to Chedorlaomer and his allies.(314) In the Babylonian version of the treaty of Ḫattušil with Rameses II., we learn that the titles of the Egyptian king were Wašmua-ria šatepuaria Ria-mašeša mâi Amana mâr Mim-mua-Ria binbin Min-paḫirita-Ria, i.e. User-maat-ra Ra-messu Mery Amen, son of Men-maat-ra (Seti I.), grandson of Men-peḫti-ra (Rameses I.).(315)
The Ḫabiri.
Dr. Hugo Winckler, the explorer of Boghaz-Köi, who has published many interesting details of the result of his researches, states that parallel passages prove the identity of the Sa-gas (see pp. 291, 292) of the Tel-al-Amarna tablets with the Ḫabiri, and that not only the Sa-gas people, but also the Sa-gas gods are referred to. For these latter, he says, compare the image of the “valley of the ’oberim” (translated “them that pass”) in Ezekiel (xxxix. 11), in which further justification of the comparison of ḫabiri and ’eber (Eber, regarded as the ancestor of the ’Ibrim or Hebrews) results. One would like to have further details of the learned explorer’s opinions upon this point. To all appearance the connection of ’oberim with ’eber would involve a change in the vocalization. For the author, the difficulty of connecting ḫabiri with ’Ibrim (Hebrews) still continues to exist. The connection of ḫabiri with ’Ibri (Hebrew) requires that the ain should have been pronounced as ghain, and the Septuagint generally gives gh when it was so pronounced.(316) In ’Ibrim, however, this is not the case, and Prof. Swete has only the soft breathing in his edition.
A Letter Apparently From Prince Belshazzar (see pp. 446-451).
This is evidently one of the documents obtained by Mr. Hormuzd Rassam at Sippar (Abu-habbah), as the reference to Bunene, one of the deities of the city, shows. Unfortunately, it is very defective, there being only eight lines (five of them incomplete) on the obverse, and the remains of the last three lines of the communication on the reverse. What makes it probable that the Belshazzar who sent the letter is the son of Nabonidus, and the hero of the fall of Babylon, is, that no honorific expressions are used with reference to the person to whom it is addressed—he does not call Mušêzib-Marduk his lord, or father, or brother, as was the custom in private correspondence. As far as it is preserved, the following is a rendering of this document, which is of interest mainly on account of the personality of its assumed writer—
“Letter of Bêl-šarra-uṣur to Mušêzib-Marduk. May the gods grant thee prosperity. Behold, I have sent Bêl-šunu and ... the (two) mašmašē, to.... Send the requirements for the robes (?) of the deity Bunene....
(Several lines are wanting here.)
... I have caused ... to be ... the threshold ... may all....”
The documents referring to Belshazzar’s residence at Sippar, are mentioned on pp. 414, 449, 450.
The Aramaic Papyri From Elephantine.
These noteworthy documents, which have attracted considerable attention, were found in the ruins of the city which lie at the southern point of the island. Almost all the brick-built private houses of Elephantine are in a ruinous state, partly due to the ravages of time, but principally to the Fellahin, who have for many years dug there for garden-mould. To the south of the place where Mr. Mond’s Aramaic papyri(317) are said to have been found, Greek papyri were discovered, but proceeding north of that point, the German explorers soon came upon the Aramaic fragments. Those first found are said to have been in earthen vessels, but the most important of them (the texts translated below) were buried, without any protective covering, close to the eastern and southern walls of the room in which they lay. To all appearance these last had escaped the notice of the earlier excavators, who had thrown them away with the rubbish cast aside as containing nothing more worth carrying off.
The text of the most perfect of them reads as follows—
“To our lord Bagohi, governor of Judea, thy servants Yedoniah and his companions, the priests in the fortress of Yeb, salutation! May our Lord, the God of heaven, grant (thee) prosperity at all times, and set thee in favour before Darius the king, and the sons of the (royal) house a thousandfold more than now, and may He give thee long life. Be at all times joyful and firm. Now speak thy servants Yedoniah and his companions as follows—
“In the month Tammuz in the 14th year of Darius the king, when Arsâm (Asames) had marched forth and gone to the king, the priests of the god Khnub, who are in Yeb, the fortress, [made] with Waidrang, who is the governor here, a secret union of the following nature—
“ ‘The temple of Yahû, the god who is in Yeb, the fortress, shall be removed(318) from that place.’
“Thereupon that Waidrang, the laḫya,(319) sent letters to Nephayan, his son, who was commander-in-chief in Syene, the fortress, saying—
“ ‘The temple which is in Yeb, the fortress, they shall destroy.’
“Thereupon Nephayan brought in Egyptians, together with other warriors; they came to the fortress of Yeb together with their tali,(320) penetrated into that temple, destroyed it down to the ground. And they shattered the stone columns which were there. It also happened, (that) they shattered the seven stone doors,(321) built out of a hewn block of stone, which were in that temple, and their heads, they ...(322) and their hinges which were in the marble, those were of brass,(323) and the roofing, consisting wholly of cedar beams, together with the plaster pavement (?) of the forecourt (?) and other (things) which were there—all this have they burned with fire. And the sacrificial dishes of gold and silver, and the things which were in that temple, all have they taken and have used as their own. And since the days of the kings of Egypt have our fathers built that temple in Yeb, the fortress. And when Cambyses came up to Egypt, he found that temple (already) built, but they pulled all the temples of the gods of Egypt down. In that temple, on the contrary, no one had destroyed anything.
“And after they had done this, we, with our wives and children, wore mourning-garments, fasted, and prayed to Yahû, the lord of heaven, who had given us warning concerning that Waidrang, the kalbya.(324) They have taken the chains(325) away from his feet, and all the treasures, which he had acquired, have gone to ruin. And all the men who wished evil to that temple, have all been killed, and we have been witnesses thereof.
“Also before this, at the time when this evil was committed upon us, did we send a letter to our lord, and to Yehoḥanan, the high-priest, and his companions, the priests who were in Jerusalem, and to Ostan (Ostanes), his brother, that is, ’Anani,(326) and the free ones (princes) of the Jews. They have not sent us one letter (in reply).
“Also since the days of Tammuz of the 14th year of Darius the king, and until this day, we wear mourning-garments and fast, our wives have been made as a widow, we have not anointed (ourselves with) oil nor drunk wine. Also since then and until (this) day of the 17th year of Darius the king they have not made food-offerings, incense-offerings, and burnt-offerings in that temple.
“Moreover, thy servants, Yedoniah and his companions, and the Jews, all citizens of Yeb, speak as follows—
“ ‘If it be good to our lord, mayest thou consider upon that temple, for its rebuilding, as they do not allow us to rebuild it. Look to the receivers of thy benefits and favours, who are here in Egypt. Let a letter be sent from thee to them with regard to the temple of the god Yahû, to rebuild it in Yeb, the fortress, even as it was heretofore built. And they shall offer food-offerings and incense-offerings and burnt-offerings upon the altar of the god Yahû in thy name. And we will pray for thee at every time—we and our wives and our children and all the Jews who are here, if they(327) have then worked until that temple is rebuilt.
“ ‘And a share shall be thine before Yahû the god of heaven from the man who offers to him a burnt-offering and a sacrifice, a value equal to the worth of a silver (shekel) for (every) 1000 talents.(328) And with regard to the gold, concerning that we have sent and given instruction. We have also sent everything in a letter in our name to Delaiah and Shelemiah, sons of Sanaballat, governor of Samaria. Also Arsames had no knowledge of all that which has been done unto us.’
“On the 20th of Marcheswan in the year 17 of Darius the king.”
A fragment of a duplicate gives some instructive variants of this exceedingly interesting document, from which it would appear that gold and treasure was given to Waidrang to induce him to act against the temple of Yahû at Yeb.
To this plea on the part of Yedoniah and the Jewish congregation at Yeb a favourable answer was given, as the following document shows—
“Memorandum of what Bagohi and Delaiah said to me—Memorandum as follows—
“ ‘Thou shalt speak in Egypt before Arsames concerning the temple of the sacrificial altar of the God of Heaven which is in Yeb, the fortress, before our time, before Cambyses, which Waidrang, that lahia,(329) destroyed in the 14th year of Darius the king, to rebuild it in its place, as it was formerly. And they shall offer food-offerings and incense upon that altar, even as was wont to be done formerly.’ ”
Nothing could be more satisfactory than this little episode of the Jewish colony at Yeb—it needs but the discovery of the record of the rebuilding and the inauguration of the temple to round it off.
Bagohi governor of Judea is the Bagoas or Bagoses of Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, xi. 7. The high-priest Johannes or John (the Yoḫanan mentioned on p. 539) had slain his brother Jesus in the temple, because the latter, supported by Bagoas, sought to dispute with him the High-priesthood. Notwithstanding the protests of the Jews, Bagoas penetrated into the temple, and imposed upon it a fine of 50 drachmas for every lamb sacrificed therein. It will thus be seen, that in offering to him a percentage of the sacrifices in return for his support in rebuilding the temple at Yeb, Yedoniah and his companions were acting in accordance with what was known to be his character. The reference to Yohanan’s refraining from helping them, it is reasonable to suppose, also occurred to them as likely to further their desires.
Yedoniah, the chief of the Jewish colony at Yeb and the writer of the longer document, is probably likewise named in the Oxford papyri—he was either Yedoniah ben Hosea or Yedoniah ben Meshullam, but could not have been identified with a third of the name, Yedoniah ben Nathan, as this last is stated to have been an Aramean of Syene. We have to await further light upon his identity.
Arsames, who is mentioned in the second paragraph (p. 537), is probably, as Sachau points out, the Arsanes of Ktesias, who was governor of Egypt when Darius II. mounted the throne. He left Egypt and went to the court of Darius, and the priests of Chnum(330) in Elephantine profited by his absence to destroy the Jewish temple there. In this they were supported by Waidrang, who, in the absence of Arsames, seems to have exercised the office of governor. To all appearance he had been commander-in-chief of the army in Egypt, a post held, at the time this document was written, by Nephyan his son. There is some doubt as to the reading and vocalization of the name Waidrang, and consequently, also, as to its true form, but it is regarded as certainly Persian. It is thought that its Persian prototype may have been Vayu-darengha,(331) “companion of the wind-god,” whilst his son’s name, in Persian, is possibly Napâo-yâna, “favour of the god Napâo.” Should these identifications be found correct, they will have, as Sachau remarks, considerable value in ascertaining the principle upon which names in Persian were given.
To all appearance Arsames returned to Egypt, and a reaction followed which ended in the disgrace of Waidrang and his followers, who were deprived of the spoils which they had stolen from the temple at Yeb, and the Jews also became, in the end, witnesses of the death of all their persecutors. It seems probable that the central government was greatly displeased at the action of Waidrang and the priests of Chnub, for the Persians seem always to have been well-disposed towards the Jews—moreover, cupidity, and not the good of the state, was at the bottom of Waidrang’s action. The destruction wrought, however, was not immediately made good, hence this document, which throws such a vivid light upon the state of Egypt and the Jews in those days. It is but just to the Persians of that period to say, that notwithstanding their seemingly Persian names, Waidrang and his son were apparently not Persians, but possibly Semites, as the (probably gentilic) adjectives applied to the former seem to show.
The date of this document is regarded as not admitting of any doubt, as may be gathered by the references to the regnal years of Darius in conjunction with the names of historical personages—Bagohi (Bagoas or Bagoses of Josephus), governor of Judea, Yehoḥanan or John, the high-priest at Jerusalem, and the two sons of Sanaballaṭ,(332) the governor of Samaria in the time of Artaxerxes I. (Longimanus). The ruler of the Persian empire when these documents were written, must therefore have been Darius II. (Nothus), who reigned for 19 years, namely, 424-405 B.C. The 14th year of Darius II.—the date of the destruction of the temple at Yeb—was 410 B.C., and his 17th year—the date when the appeal was sent to Bagohi—corresponds with 407 B.C. This fixes, among others, the date of Yehoḥanan, and Sachau points out as noteworthy that one of his brothers, named Manasseh, was son-in-law of the governor of Samaria, Sanaballaṭ, as related in Nehemiah xiii. 28. Another brother of the high-priest was the one whom he killed in the temple (Jesus). In this record, however, a third brother, Ostan or Ostanes, appears. To all appearance this last bore also another name, to wit, ’Ahani, which would be his true Hebrew appellation. If, however, the Babylonian construction has been followed here, this Ostan or Ostanes would be brother of ’Ahani, a personage of importance in Jerusalem, but not otherwise known. Adopting the rendering given in the translation, however, it is noteworthy that two brothers named Yehoḥanan and ’Ahani are mentioned in 1 Chronicles iii. 24. These, however, were descendants of David, whereas the brothers mentioned in the papyrus must have been descendants of Aaron.
A high Persian official named Uštanu or Uštannu (Ostanu or Ostan) occurs on two Babylonian tablets in the British Museum, and also on one in the possession of Lord Amherst of Hackney. He bears the title “governor of Babylon and across the river,” possibly meaning all the tract west of the Euphrates. This man, however, can hardly at the same time have been governor of Egypt, and the texts in which he is mentioned seem, moreover, to belong to the time of Darius Hystaspis, in which case he lived at a much too early date.
The Egyptians called the island of Elephantine Yeb, and its capital bore the same name as the island. It is transcribed Ab by those who follow the old system of reading Egyptian, so that the present documents seem to support the philological views of the Berlin school. A common ideograph for the name of the island is an elephant with an upturned trunk, showing that Yeb really means “elephant-island,” and that Elephantine is simply the Greek translation of the native name. The temple of Khnum (Khnumba, Khnub), whose priests are referred to in the papyri, was destroyed by Moḥammed Ali in 1822.
The Hebrew divine name is written Yahu, which is apparently the longer form of the biblical Jah, seen in such names as Hezekiah (Assyrian Ḫazaqi-yau), Gemariah or Gemariahu (Jer. xxix. 3; xxxvi. 10, etc.). As is shown on p. 471, this termination was pronounced iāwa by the Babylonian Jews, which raises the question whether the Yahu of these papyri may not have been pronounced Yāwa also.
Dr. L. Belleli, of the Philological Section of the Instituto di Studi Superiori in Florence, doubts the genuineness of the papyri found at Elephantine on account of chronological difficulties. In the case of the documents here translated, however, no such difficulties can be said to exist, and the forger of such things would have to be not only a splendid Aramaic scholar acquainted with the Berlin scheme of transcribing Egyptian, but also a historian and the possessor of an exceedingly lively imagination.
The above description is based upon Eduard Sachau’s noteworthy monograph, Drei aramäische Papyrusurkunden aus Elephantine, Berlin, Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1907. The documents in question were discovered by Dr. Otto Rubensohn, and the collection included some papyri still in roll-form, and various fragments. The principal document translated above belonged to the former category, and was successfully unrolled by Herr Ibscher, the keeper of the Royal Museum. The reproduction shows it as a large sheet of papyrus, folded in two, and certain damaged portions, on the left, imply that it was rolled upon itself about six times.
NOTES AND ADDITIONS
P. 11. It is needful to state, as has been pointed out to the writer, that “our English translation would make all (the Biblical Creation-story) appear English.” In other words, the test of language is not an unfailing one.
Pp. 14-15. To the names of translators of the Babylonian Creation-stories must be added P. Jensen, and W. L. King, who has published important additions to the text.
P. 21, l. 4. Alternative rendering: “He beheld Tiamtu’s snarling” (see the note to p. 24).
P. 22. With the first paragraph on this page the contents of the third tablet, and with the last paragraph those of the fourth, begin.
P. 24. Instead of “they clustered around him,” Jensen translates (doubtfully), “they ran round about him,” and King, “they beheld him.” Something may be said in favour of each, but the rendering of the text seems more probable. Also, instead of “Examining the lair,” I am inclined to return to my earlier rendering, “Noting the snarling of Kingu, her consort.” The four succeeding lines read:—
“He looks, and his advance(333) becomes confused, His understanding is destroyed, and his action fails (?), And the gods, his helpers, going by his side, Saw the [con]fusion (??) of their leader, (and) their sight was troubled (too).”
King attributes this fear and confusion not to Merodach, but to Kingu and his followers, which would seem to be more consistent, but the difficulty is, that the original gives no indication that this was the case. Further discoveries may throw light upon the point.
P. 27. The Lumaši (l. 2), according to Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, vol. III., pl. 57, were seven constellations, and seem to have been included in the thirty-six stars or constellations mentioned two lines lower down. A list of these will be found in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1900, pp. 573-575.
P. 28, l. 29. The translation of this line is based on that of Mr. L. W. King, who first published the text. The word for “bone” is iṣṣimtum, the Heb. ’eṣem, Arab. ’adhm. If the word be correctly read (the character tum is doubtful), it is possibly connected with êṣimtum, which translates the Sumerian character standing for a weapon or a long straight object.
Pp. 29-31. Tutu and other names given to Merodach in this section are referred to on pp. 45-46. By “the people” in line 15 (p. 30) are apparently to be understood the gods.
P. 44. Other names of the goddess Aruru, who assisted Merodach in the creation of man, are “the lady potter,” “the constructor of the world,” “the constructor of the gods,” “the constructor of mankind,” “the constructor of the heart.” Aruru was the goddess of progeny, and is one of the forty-one names by which “the lady of the gods” was known. An interesting Sumerian (dialectic) hymn to her exists in the Brussels Museum.
P. 47, ll. 29-32. Instead of “in their (the fallen gods’) room,” Jensen suggests, “for their redemption.” That the fallen gods were to be redeemed (lit.: “spared”) by the merits of the race of men which Merodach created is a new idea, which further information may confirm.(334)
P. 59, l. 13. Ea is the Aê of the preceding pages, the Oannes of Damascius. There is reason to believe that the name was also read Aa, which would account for the Greek form which he employs, and likewise for the identification of this god with the Aa of l. 4 and the following paragraph.
P. 63, l. 27. Perhaps the most interesting of recent discoveries is the identification (by Prof. Zimmern) of Euedoreschos with the Enweduranki of the tablet described on p. 77. The original Greek form must have been Euedoranchos (see the note to the page mentioned). Euedocus (l. 21) is probably the Sumero-Akkadian En-me-duga.
P. 67. For further notes in connection with Tiamat, see the discussion of Delitzsch’s Babel und Bibel at the end, pp. 529-532. It is noteworthy that this name heads the list of abodes of the gods published in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology for Dec., 1900, pp. 367-369. The explanation is unfortunately broken away, but it may be surmised that as the goddess of the watery wastes of the earth she was described as the abode of the gods who were regarded as her followers.
P. 72. The description of Tammuz as “the peerless mother of heaven” is probably to be explained by the fact, that ama-gala, “great mother,” is one of the Sumerian words for “forest,” and Tammuz was identified with the forest of Eridu, the divine abode where he dwelt.
P. 73. For Pir-napištim, Ut-napištim is a possible reading (see below, note to p. 99).
For further notes upon the trees of Paradise, see pp. 531.
P. 77. Euedoranchos. The forms of this name, as handed down, are Εὐεδωραχος, Εὐεδωρεσχος, and Εὐερωδεσχος. Eusebius’s Chronicle, however, gives the best form, namely, Edoranchus.
P. 78, l. 20. Perhaps it would be better to say that the Hebrew accounts of the Creation “probably came from Babylonia”—they may not have originated there.
Pp. 80-82. For further remarks upon the cherubin, see p. 533. In “the kurub of Anu, Bel,” etc., which also occurs, we probably have a variant form.
P. 83, ll. 1-5. It is noteworthy that Ablum (“Son”) as a personal name actually occurs (De Sarzec, Découvertes, pl. 30 bis, No. 19). Compare Ablaa, “my son,” p. 533, l. 12.
P. 90. For further information about the name Gilgameš, see the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology for 1903, pp. 198-199. Prof. Hommel has pointed out that an inscription exists stating that he built the fortress of Erech, thus bringing him almost within the domain of history.
P. 99. (The Legend of Gilgameš.) Dr. Meissner’s discovery of a fragment of a new version of the Gilgameš-legend(335) is a most welcome addition to our knowledge. A description of this text will be found in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology for March and May, 1903, where a comparison of the two versions is also given. It speaks of his visit to the land of darkness in quest of his friend Ea-banî (whose name, as this inscription indicates, should properly be read Enki-du or Ea(Aê, Aa)-du). In the second column it details his conversation with Siduri (“the Sabitu”), in which he refers to the death of his beloved companion, since whose departure he had not sought to live, but having seen her face, he expresses the hope that he will now not see death. The Sabitu, however, answers him to the effect that he would not find the life which he sought—death was the lot which the gods had set for mankind. Eat, therefore, make festival, rejoice day and night, put on fine apparel, take pleasure in child and wife—such was her advice. In the last column of this version the hero meets with Sur-Sunabu (Ur-Šanabi), who asks him his name. Gilgameš tells him who he is and whence he came, and asks to be shown Uta-naištim, the remote, as the Babylonian Noah seems to be called in this version of the legend. About one-third of the tablet, giving the lower parts of columns 1 and 2, and the upper parts of columns 3 and 4, is the amount preserved.
The above seems to show, that the name of the friend of Gilgameš was Êa-du, (Aa-du, Aê-du, or Enki-du), not Êa-banî; whilst Ur-Šanabi the boatman, was really called Sur-Sunabu (or Sur-Šanabi); and Pir-napištim, the Babylonian Noah, was Ut-napištim.
P. 104, ll. 1 and 6. Jensen suggests, for muir kukki, the translation “rulers of darkness(?)”:—
“(If) the rulers of darkness cause to rain down one evening a rain of dirt (?),
Enter into the ship, and shut thy door!”
That period arrived;
“The rulers of darkness rain down one evening a rain of dirt (?).”
Muir, however, seems to be singular, not plural. Another meaning of the word is “messenger.”
P. 108, l. 35. If this translation be correct, the throwing down of a part of the food recalls the casting of meal on the ground as an offering to the gods. It is not unlikely that the preparation of the food, and setting it by his head, was accompanied by some prayer or incantation to secure his recovery, as in the inscription translated in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology, May, 1901, pp. 193 and 205-210. Sleeping with a cruse of water near the head (1 Sam. xxvi. 11-12) was probably simply a provision against thirst, with no special meaning. On p. 111, there is just the possibility that “The leavings of the dish” were what was allowed to remain therein for the gods, and “the rejected of the food” may have been that which was thrown on the ground as an offering.
P. 113, ll. 19 ff. A number of the deities identified with the god Ea or Aa are given in the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, vol. II., pl. 58, and form a parallel with the inscription printed on p. 58. Deities seem also to have been identified with Nebo. The centres where these gods were worshipped therefore had likewise their monotheistic system, in which all the other gods were identified with the patron-deity of the place, just as those Babylonians who worshipped Merodach identified all the other gods with him.
P. 119. There has been a great deal of discussion as to the way in which Šumer could be connected with Shinar, the chief reasons against their identification being that the latter must have come from a Babylonian form, of whose existence there is no evidence, and that it stood for the whole country (except, possibly, Larsa), whereas Šumer was the name of the southern part only. Hommel derives the Biblical Shinar from Ki-Imgir, through the intermediate forms Shingar, Shumir (Šumer) and Shimir. This is based upon the tendency which k had to change into š, whilst the substitution of m for an older g or ng can be proved. As, however, Shinar corresponds practically with the whole of Babylonia, a modification of Prof. Hommel’s etymology may, perhaps, best meet the case. The whole of the country was called by the Sumerians Kingi (or Kengi) Ura, and the expression mâda Kingi-Ura is rendered, in the lists, mât Šumeri u Akkadī, “the land of Sumer and Akkad.” It is therefore clear, that Kingi-Ura corresponds with the whole tract, and is practically synonymous with the Biblical Shinar. The change from k to š (sh) being provable, it is possible that Kingi-Ura, pronounced Shingi-Ura, may have originated the Hebrew form Shinar (better Shin’ar), through the intermediate forms Shingura and Shingar.
The statement that Elam was the firstborn of Shem (Gen. x. 22) receives illustration from the fact, that many inscriptions have been found showing that Semitic Babylonian was not only well known, but also used in that country. From the order in which the names occur in Genesis, it ought to be the earliest of the Semitic settlements, coming before Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram. If, however, Arpachshad stand, as is generally thought, for Babylonia, it is quite clear that there is no indication of chronological order in this, for Assyria was certainly younger, as a Semitic settlement, than Babylonia, and it would seem that Elam was colonized with Semites from the last-named country. This would make Elam to be simply the first Semitic colony, as Prof. Scheil has already suggested.
A good example of the slim racial type is shown on pl. V., second seal-impression. For a long time after the Sumerians had become one nation with the Semitic Babylonians, the type of the figures represented on the cylinder-seals and sculptures remained unchanged, and it is on this account that Ḫammurabi is portrayed, on the slab reproduced as pl. I., in the old non-Semitic costume. The early Semitic type is shown on pl. III., no. 1 (no. 2 shows the late Assyrian type). In pl. VI. the Sumerian style is there, but the type is rather thick. This, however, may be partly due to the sliding of the cylinder when the impression was taken.
P. 124. Sargon of Agadé’s conquests, according to the omens referring to his reign, were as follows:—(paragraph 1) Elam, (2) the land of the Amorites, (4 and 5) the land of the Amorites (twice), (6) doubtful, (7) he crossed the sea of the rising of the sun, and the reference to three years in that district seems to refer to the time he stayed there, (8) apparently no expedition, (9) he ravaged the land of Kazalla, (10) he put down a revolt in his own country, (11) he fought against Suri or Sumaštu.
P. 125, l. 27. The old Sumerian or Akkadian laws are only known to us from a few specimens preserved in the tablets of grammatical paradigms (the series Ana itti-šu), and will be found on pp. 190-191. It is probable that they were made use of in compiling the Code of Ḫammurabi.
P. 127, l. 21 ff. But perhaps it was the city of Aššur which came forth from Babylonia (i.e. was a Babylonian colony), and its ever-increasing inhabitants who founded the other cities mentioned.
P. 130 (the derivation of Nimrod). Another suggestion is, that Nimrod may be the name of Merodach, as “Lord of Marad” (Nin-Marad). As far as I have been able to see, however, this name of Merodach does not occur, and moreover, it was Nergal, and not Merodach, who was lord of Marad—Merodach’s city was Babylon. Prof. Hommel’s acute suggestion, that Namra-ṣit may be a Babylonian form of Nimrod, would seem to be doubtful.
P. 131 (Merodach’s net). The bow of Merodach, after his fight with Tiamtu, was placed in the heavens, and seemingly became one of the constellations, but we do not hear of any similar honour having been conferred on his net, notwithstanding the great service which it had rendered him. In Habakkuk i. 15-17 there is a curious passage in which “the Chaldean” is described as catching men with his angle and his net, as fishes are caught, and making sacrifice to his net and his drag on account of his success with them. Heuzey, the well-known French Assyriologist and antiquarian, makes a comparison between this passage and the Vulture-stele, on which an ancient Babylonian prince is represented as having placed his conquered foes in a great net. This, however, does not explain the statement that the Chaldean sacrificed and offered incense to his net and his drag, and it is doubtful whether the Prophet had either that or any similar sculpture or picture in his mind. There is, nevertheless, just the possibility that the Babylonians were accustomed to pay divine honours to the net of Merodach, and this may have given rise to the statement in the passage quoted. Whether the relief on the Vulture-stele be derived from the legend of Merodach or not, is doubtful—in all probability it merely expresses a simile derived from catching wild animals with a net, as exhibited by the sculptures of Aššur-banî-âpli in the Assyrian Saloon of the British Museum.
Pp. 132-133. With regard to the statements on these pages, the Rev. John Tuckwell writes: “Gen. xi. 1 must in all fairness be regarded as going back prior to ch. x, in order to tell the history of Babylon from its foundation. Again:—Why contradict Genesis? We do not know who ‘began’ to build Babylon—Sayce suggests ‘Etana.’ It is quite possible that ‘they left off to build the city,’ and resumed the work under Nimrod. There is no need to regard any of the statements as ‘interpolations’ if thus read. If all mankind perished by the Flood, as both stories appear to teach, there must surely have been a time when ‘the whole earth was of one language.’ ”
P. 134. For the derivation of Shinar, see the note to p. 119.
P. 136. The Mohammedan legend of the Tower of Babel, as told in the Persian work, Rauzat-us-Safa,(336) may be interesting. It is as follows:—
“When Nimrud had witnessed the extinction of the pile of fire, and had beheld the roses produced therein by the benign Creator, he aspired to ascend to heaven.... Nimrud ... spent many years in erecting a tower, which was so high that the bird of imagination could not reach its summit. When it was completed, he ascended to the pinnacle of the spire, but the aspect of the heavens remained precisely the same as from the surface of the earth. This astonished and perplexed him. The next day the tower fell, and such a fearful noise struck the ears of the inhabitants of Babel that most of them fainted from the effects thereof; and when they had recovered their senses they forgot their own language, so that every tribe spoke a different idiom, and seventy-two tongues became current among them.”
P. 136, l. 3 from below. Nannara was the moon-god, the same as Sin. L. 6 from below, read Ê-bar-igi-ê-di.
P. 144, l. 9 from below. The Rev. C. H. W. Johns, in his Assyrian deeds and documents, has pointed out the likeness of the names Naḫiri and Naḫarau (or Naḫarâu) to Nahor, referred to by Kittel in his little book upon Delitzsch’s Babel und Bibel.(337) Naḫiru, however, is the common Assyro-Babylonian word for “nostril,” and is also the name of a creature of the sea supposed to be the dolphin. Naḫarâu it may be noted, notwithstanding the absence of the prefix of divinity, bears every appearance of being a name like Bêl-Yau on p. 59, the initial y or i being omitted as in the case of Au-Aa seven lines lower down. Judging from analogy, Naharâu should mean “Naḫar is Jah,” but whether this has anything to do with the name Nahor or not is doubtful—as Assyrian equivalent we should rather expect Naḫuru.
P. 145, l. 11 from below. The name of a Babylonian district called Pulug occurs in a Babylonian geographical list, and may be the same as Peleg. Though the ideogram is different, this is possibly the same as the Pulukku of the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, vol. II., pl. 52, l. 53, where it is explained as Bît ḫarê, “the house of the cutting,” or “excavation.” The Babylonians would therefore seem to have regarded Pulug or Pulukku as referring to the division of the land of Babylon by the cutting of the irrigation-channels which gave it its fertility.
P. 146, l. 4. There is no great probability that the name Terah has anything to do with Tarḫu, which occurs in certain names found in Assyrian contracts (Johns, Assyrian Deeds, pp. 127, 458, etc.).
P. 147, l. 4 from below. The family of Terah may, however, have become pastoral on leaving Ur of the Chaldees.
P. 148 (Abram). According to Prof. Breasted (American Journal of Semitic Studies, Oct. 1904) mention is made in the geographical list of Shishak at Karnak of “the field of Abram,” and if this identification be correct, it is the earliest reference to the great ancestor of the Hebrews and the nations associated with them, though it cannot be said that the date (time of Jeroboam and Rehoboam) is a very remote one. Owing to the same Egyptian character being used for both r and l, Maspéro read the word as the plural of ’abel, “meadow.”
P. 150, l. 23. Illustrations of the old Akkadian (or Sumerian) laws will be found in the contracts of adoption of Bêl-êzzu and Arad-Išḫara on pp. 176 and 177. The laws themselves are given on p. 190.
P. 152, second paragraph. It is needful to state that a few Semitic Babylonian inscriptions of an exceedingly early date (seemingly before 3000 B.C.) exist, likewise a few Sumero-Akkadian texts after 2300 B.C., and the periods of the two languages therefore overlap. Judging from the inscriptions, however, Sumero-Akkadian goes back to a date much earlier than the earliest Semitic, but it was to all appearance hardly used after the period of the dynasty of Ḫammurabi.
P. 158, l. 11. The Gutites were probably Medes.
P. 161, l. 11. It is not improbable that Sippar-Amnanu means simply “Amonite Sippar,” the second word of the compound being apparently from Amna,(338) which is possibly the Babylonian form of the name of the Egyptian sun-god, Amon. Ya’ruru is seemingly the old form of Aruru, one of the names of Ištar, who was also worshipped there.
P. 166. The wedding-gift was to all appearance the price paid by the bridegroom for the bride, in this case handed to the bride’s brother and sister. For the laws concerning this payment, see Ḫammurabi’s Code, sections 163 and 164 (p. 505). It was generally handed to the bride’s father (upon a dish, according to Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, vol. v., pl. 24, ll. 48-51_cd_).(339) Instead of “Ammi-ṭitana the king,” Dr. Schor reads Ammi-ṭitana-šarrum, i.e. as the name of a man, meaning “Ammi-ṭitana is king.” If this be correct, the document is not a record of the marriage of a princess.
P. 168. The grain given to Šeritum was probably of the nature of a deposit—according to Ḫammurabi’s Code, sect. 257, the wages of a reaper were not one gur of grain, but eight.
P. 173-174. Upon the question of adoption, see Ḫammurabi’s Code, sections 185-193. As there is no indication, in these enactments, that female children were included, it is doubtful whether Ana-Aa-uzni and Aḫḫ-ayabi had any remedy in case of repudiation, or refusal to perform all the conditions. Calling the gods to witness was probably regarded as being a sufficient safeguard. Nevertheless, the usage of the language was such that “daughtership” could be included in “sonship.”
Pp. 174 ff. It is noteworthy that, in this contract, there is no indication of the second wife having been taken to vex the first (Lev. xviii. 18, A.V.), and as the second was to be subordinate to the first, rivalling (as the R.V. translates) was as far as possible prevented. As the children already born are referred to (p. 175, l. 20), the second marriage could not have been due to the absence of offspring, and it may therefore be supposed that the second wife was taken on account of the ill-health of the first (Ḫammurabi’s Code, sect. 148). This is supported by the clauses referring to the services which Iltani was to perform for her “sister.”
P. 176. The adoption of Bêl-êzzu illustrates section 191 of Ḫammurabi’s Code. Both are based upon the Sumerian laws translated on pp. 190 and 191. The word translated “deep” (line 19) is one generally used for the ocean, the abode of Ea (Aa), god of the waters. It may have been something similar to “the brazen sea” in the temple at Jerusalem.
P. 177. Arad-Išḫara was evidently adopted under the same law and enactment as the foregoing. The declaration of the foster-father of his right to have children is interesting.
Upon the adoption of Karanatum, compare pp. 173 and 174, with the note thereon.
Pp. 178 and 179. The three tablets giving equal portions to each of the three brothers, illustrate sections 165 and 167 of the Code, which enacts that all brothers shall share equally. Any gift or share in the property left by the mother would probably be recorded on another document.
P. 180. Laws 178 ff. of Ḫammurabi’s Code show that votaries and priestesses had special privileges in the matter of inheriting property, and it would seem from the tablet of Erištum, the sodomite or public woman, that her station did not allow her the choice, that being the right of her sister, Amat-Šamaš, priestess of the sun.
P. 181. Naramtum apparently had no children, and seems to have been divorced in accordance with section 138 of Ḫammurabi’s Code.
P. 185. The case of Šamaš-nûri is illustrated by sections 144-146 of Ḫammurabi’s Code.
Pp. 187 and 188. The conditions of the hiring of a slave were probably those of the old Sumerian law translated on p. 191.
P. 199, l. 26. Elamite overlordship was naturally coextensive with that of Babylon as long as the latter power acknowledged Elamite supremacy.
P. 201, l. 5 from below. Qanni is probably one of the Assyro-Babylonian words for “sanctuary.”
P. 203. In addition to the deities mentioned, Aššur-banî-âpli (Assurbanipal) speaks of the goddess Nin-gala, the “great lady” or “queen,” as having a temple called Ê-gipara at Haran. She is mentioned with Nusku (p. 202) and is called “the mother of the gods,” Šamaš, the sungod, being described as her firstborn. To all appearance she was the consort of the Moongod, Nannar.
P. 208, last line. “Yoke of the Elamites” would probably have been the better term. (See the note to p. 199.)
P. 209, l. 8 from below. Oppert always refused to accept the identification of Amraphel with Ḫammurabi.
P. 222, l. 4 from below. It would appear from the Babylonian lists that Tudḫula may be read simply Tudḫul, notwithstanding the final a at the end.
P. 243, ll. 25 ff. The name Aqabi-îlu (p. 463, l. 15) is similarly formed to that of Ya’kubi-îlu, and from the same root, but it is not identical with it. There is no probability that Egibi (p. 439, l. 2, etc.) has any connection with the name Jacob, as has been suggested. Its connection with the (? Assyrian) name Ḫakkubu seems to be still more unlikely. Upon these and similar names, see Hommel, “Ancient Hebrew Tradition,”(340) p. 112.
P. 246, l. 5. If my memory serves me, the name Gadu-ṭâbu, “the fortune is good,” occurs on a contract-tablet in the British Museum. (I unfortunately forgot to make note of it at the time, hence my inability to give the reference.)
P. 249, after the first paragraph. Jacob’s wrestling with “a man” (Gen. xxxii. 24 ff.) brings out the interesting name Peniel or Penuel (vv. 30 and 31), explained as “the face of God,” so called because he had there “seen God face to face.” A similar name to this is the Babylonian Ana-pâni-îli, “to the face of God,” sometimes shortened to Appâni-îli. The documents bearing the latter are of the time of Samsu-iluna, and are therefore rather earlier than the time of Jacob. Besides the meaning given above, other renderings are possible, and the question arises, whether Ana-pâni-îli means “(let me go) to the presence” or “before the face of God,” or that its bearer was asked for by his father “at the presence of God.” Many other possible renderings will also, in all probability, occur to the reader, but it is noteworthy, that in this case, the Biblical narrative may, by chance, serve to explain this Babylonian compound, for as “the man” with whom Jacob wrestled was the representative of the Almighty, so pâni in the Babylonian name may be interpreted in the same way, and the person bearing it may have been offered or dedicated to the face, or presence (that is, the representative) of God. It is to be noted that the owner of the name on Mr. Offord’s cylinder (pl. vi. no. 2) was a worshipper of the god Hadad or Rimmon, and was not, therefore, a monotheist.
P. 273, l. 8. The date of Amenophis II., according to Petrie, was about 1449 to 1423.
P. 278. The non-Semitic pronunciation of Ninip was possibly Nirig, and the Semitic reading En-mašti (so Prof. A. T. Clay). An earlier reading of the Aramaic character regarded as m was n, which would give Ênu-rêštū, “the primæval lord,” or the like, a title of Ninip and of other gods. For other suggestions, see Hrozný in the Revue Sémitique, July 1908.
P. 279, l. 2. The name Bidina may also be read Kaština, apparently a variant of the Babylonian Bidinnam or Kaštinnam.
L. 12 ff. The mention of Dumu-zi, i.e. Tammuz or Adonis, goes back to about 3500 B.C., or earlier. Hymns to Tammuz in the dialect of the Sumerian language exist, dating from about 2000 years before Christ, the most noteworthy of these compositions at present known being that preserved in the Manchester Museum.
L. 27. Mutzu’u. It is doubtful whether this name is complete on the tablet where it occurs. Possibly Mutzuata, a name occurring on the Bronze Gates found by Mr. Rassam at Balawat, furnishes an indication as to the way in which it should be completed. (Knudtzon reads Mut-baḫlu, written for Mut-ba’la, possibly meaning “the man of his lord.”)
L. 31. Yabitiri. The inscription referring to his early life is translated on pp. 284-285.
L. 37. For Addu-nirari, read Adad-nirari, the Assyrian form.
P. 280, line 4 and note. Nin-Urmuru (?) Knudtzon reads as Bêlit(= Ba’lat)-Ur-Maḫ-Meš. In Assyro-Babylonian this would probably be read Bêlit-nêši, a name meaning “the lady of the lions.”
P. 286, note 1. For the name Mut-zu’u, compare the note to p. 279, l. 27, above. Knudtzon’s new translation differs somewhat from that given here.
P. 293, l. 26. Another Zimrêda (to all appearance) is mentioned in an inscription in the British Museum. This text comes from Babylonia, and is possibly of an earlier date. It apparently refers to the affairs of the Babylonian principality of Suḫu and Maër.
P. 319, l. 14. Suḫi and Maër are mentioned together in the document referred to above, note to p. 293, and in the inscription of Šamaš-rêš-uṣur, governor of that district, published by Dr. Weissbach in his Babylonische Miscellen. This district lay, according to that scholar, somewhere near the point where the Habûr runs into the Euphrates. As the western boundary of this state is entirely unknown, the full value of Tiglath-pileser I.’s boast cannot be estimated, but the district ravaged must have been a considerable stretch of country.
P. 325. The inscription referring to Gazzāni probably forms part of one of those in which the ruler asks the gods (generally Šamaš and Hadad) for success against the countries which he intended to invade. Sargon of Assyria, Esarhaddon, and Aššur-banî-âpli (Assurbanipal) all had similar inscriptions composed for them. From the manner in which the text is written, however, it is probable that it antedates these.
P. 329, l. 4 from below. Instead of “advanced,” another possible translation is “rose up.”
P. 330, l. 3. Instead of Gilzau, Kirzau and several other readings are possible.
The “battle of Qarqara,” as it is generally called, is illustrated by strip I (old mark C) of the Bronze Gates of Shalmaneser II.(341) The scenes only represent the capture of the cities Pargâ, Adâ, and Qarqara of Urḫilêni (= Irḫulêni) of the land of the Hamathites, there being no reference either to Ahab, or to his allies. The city of Qarqara was later on taken by Sargon (see p. 363).
P. 341, l. 4. Instead of Persia, read Pahlav as the identification of Parsua (Hommel).
P. 343, l. 22. As the character translated “lady” means also “sister,” it may in reality indicate the relationship of Sammu-ramat to Bêl-tarṣi-îli-ma.
P. 346, l. 22. Tiglath-pileser “III.,” or “IV.”
P. 347, l. 25. Sardurri of Ararat is the Sardaris (II.) of the Armenian cuneiform texts.
P. 349, l. 6. Ḫatarikka is also spelled with one k, as on pp. 344 and 345.
P. 374, l. 20. In Kammusu-nadbi we have an instance of the occurrence of the name of Chemosh, the national god of the Moabites. This name is also found in that of Kamušu-šarra-uṣur, apparently a Babylonian, perhaps of Moabite origin (see the note to p. 466).
P. 376, l. 21. Urbi occurs as the name of a city or district in a Babylonian geographical list, from which we learn also that there was an “upper” and a “lower” Urbi. It is immediately followed by Pulug (see the note to p. 145).
L. 8. from below. Kallima-Sin is now read Kadašman-Ḫarbe (or Muruš).
P. 381, foot-note. According to Prof. W. Max Müller, Orientalische Literaturzeitung, Nov., 1902, Mer-en-Ptah and “the great sorcerer and high-priest of Memphis” were brothers, and the incident of the vision took place before Mer-en-Ptah’s battle with the Libyans, when, as he himself states, he saw in a dream a figure like that of Ptah, who said to him “Take,” giving him the sword, and “Put away from thee thy faintheartedness.” Max Müller attributes the chronological error neither to Herodotus nor to the Egyptian scribes who supplied him with information, but to Hecataeus of Miletus, whose work Herodotus used—“an Egyptian would not have made such a chronological blunder.” This, naturally, much diminishes the value of the extract as a parallel to the account of the destruction of Sennacherib’s army before Jerusalem.
P. 384, l. 1 ff. The following is Nabonidus’s account of the murder of Sennacherib and the events which led up to it, from the inscription published by the Rev. V. Scheil in the Recueil des Travaux relatifs à la Philologie et à l’Archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes, vol. XVIII., pp. 1 ff.:—
“He (this must be Sennacherib) went to Babylon, he laid its sanctuaries in ruin, he destroyed the reliefs,(342) the statues he overthrew. He took the hands of the prince, Merodach, and caused him to enter within Aššur(343)—according to the anger of the god then he treated the land. The prince, Merodach, did not cease from his wrath—for 21 years he set up his seat within Aššur. (In) later days a time arrived, the anger of the king of the gods, the lords, was then appeased. He remembered E-sagila and Babylon, the seat of his dominion. The king of Mesopotamia,(344) who during the anger of Merodach had accomplished the ruin of the land, the son born of his body slew him with the sword.”
For the Babylonians, the Assyrian king was the instrument of Merodach’s wrath.
P. 385. The British Museum “black stone” mentions Esarhaddon’s elder brothers: “I, Esarhaddon, whom thou (O Merodach) hast called, in the assembly of my elder brothers, to restore those buildings” (i.e. the temples, etc., damaged by floods).
P. 393. Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, in an inscription found by the German expedition, and published by Dr. Weissbach in his Babylonische Miscellen, refers to the downfall of Assyria in the following words:—
“The Assyrian, who from remote days ruled all people, and with his heavy yoke oppressed the people of the land,(345) I, the weak, the humble, the worshipper of the lord of lords, by the mighty force of Nebo and Merodach, my lords, cut off their feet from the land of Akkad, and caused their yoke to be thrown off.”
As the text is not of any great length, Nabopolassar could not give details, but notwithstanding his humility, it is noteworthy that he takes all the credit to himself. The inscription is written on four cylinders from Ê-ḫatta-tila, the temple of Ninip in Šu-anna.
P. 399, l. 8. The spelling of the name of Nebuchadnezzar differs somewhat in the various inscriptions, but the meaning is always practically the same—“Nebo, protect the boundary” or “my boundary,” according as the second component ends in a or i. In Nabium (p. 398, l. 7 from below) we have an old form fully spelt out.
[Plate XVI.]
Emblems used by Esarhaddon, and carved on the upper surface of the black stone presented to the British Museum by Lord Aberdeen. It represents a divine tiara upon an altar, a priest, the sacred tree of the Assyrians, a bull, a mountain (?), a plough, a date-palm, and a rectangular object—perhaps the walls of a town. The same emblems, arranged in a circle, are found on the cylinders from Babylon inscribed with his architectural works in that city.
P. 400, l. 25. The name of at least one Nabû-zer-iddina (son of Ab[laa?], descendant of Irani) occurs in the contracts of the time of Nebuchadnezzar. This man, however, was a scribe, and there is no indication that he had ever been captain of the guard.
P. 403, ll. 7 ff. The penalty of death by fire, inflicted on Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, receives illustration from the notes to p. 480.
P. 405, l. 21. The German excavations at Babylon have revealed the appearance of the gate of Ištar as a plain opening in a wall of the city, covered with glazed brickwork, ornamented with bulls and dragons alternately, arranged in vertical rows, a decoration which is repeated in the thickness of the wall and in the inner recesses. (See Delitzsch’s Im Lande des einstigen Paradieses, figures 25 and 26.) For the position of the gate, see the note to pp. 471, 472.
P. 406, ll. 2 and 3 from below. “The House of the Foundation of Heaven and earth” is the Ê-temen-ana-kia of p. 138.
P. 413, above. As an example of the sending of the statues of deities temporarily away from their shrines, see p. 278, where mention is made of the image of Ištar of Nineveh, sent to Egypt by king Dušratta.
P. 415, l. 23, and four following pages. Ugbaru and Gubaru are generally regarded as two forms of the name Gobryas, and though this seems certain, there is just the possibility, that they are the names of two different persons.
P. 425, l. 10 from below. The tablet mentioning Zēru-Bâbîli son of Mutêriṣu exists in two examples, one being in the British Museum, and the other (which has an Aramaic docket) in the possession of Mr. Joseph Offord. It is translated in the Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund, July, 1900, pp. 264 ff.
P. 439, l. 26. The raqundu was probably a weaver’s or embroiderer’s tool, returned in exchange for that lent.
P. 446, ll. 8 ff. from below. The inscription referred to is published in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology, Dec. 1895, pp. 278, 279.
P. 453, ll. 6-8. Prof. Campbell Thompson translates: “I send this as a trouble to my brothers”—i.e. “I am sorry to trouble you, but I hope you will do what is right.”
P. 457, l. 19. Arad-Mede may also be read Arad-Gula. In the next line Šubabu-sara’ may be Šumabu-sara’.
P. 466 (the sale of an Egyptian slave). Another text of the same nature, dated in the same year, is in the De Clercq collection. It refers to the sale of an Egyptian slave-woman named Tamūnu (“she of Amon”). The text is published, with a translation by Prof. J. Oppert, in the second vol. of the Catalogue.(346) The slave in question belonged to Itti-Nabû-balaṭu, son of Kamušu-šarra-uṣur, “Chemosh, protect the king”—probably indicating that the bearer of the name was of Moabite origin, or the introduction of the god of the Moabites into Babylonia.
Pp. 471-472. The German excavations have already settled many doubtful points concerning the topography of Babylon, and it is certain that, after the destruction of the city, exaggerated accounts of its enormous extent obtained credence. According to Delitzsch, it was not larger than Munich or Dresden, though even that is a good size for an Oriental city. The principal ruins are on the right bank of the river, and included Babil (“Probably a palace”), to protect which the city-wall makes a considerable angle on the north. From this point the wall continues its course in a south-easterly direction for a considerable distance, and turning at a right angle at its farthest point from the river, runs back in a south-westerly direction to meet it again. About a mile south of Babil the visitor comes upon the great ruin known as the Kasr, where stood Nebuchadnezzar’s second palace. On the eastern side of this is the “procession-street” of the god Merodach, from which came some very fine reliefs of “the Lion of Babylon,” beautifully wrought in coloured and enamelled brick. The temple of the goddess Nin-maḫ lay to the south-east of the southern end of the street, and between the two was situated the celebrated Gate of Ištar, adorned with lions and strangely-formed dragons, already referred to (p. 551). Proceeding to the south-west from the temple of Nin-maḫ, we reach Nebuchadnezzar’s earlier palace, a very extensive structure, with a spacious court-yard and a large hall used as a throne-room, on the south side of which the recess for the throne is still visible. The palace of his father Nabopolassar, which adjoined it on the west, has not yet been excavated. About half-a-mile to the south of these palaces lie the ruins of the great temple of Belus, in the mound now known as Amran-ibn-Ali (see pp. 137 ff., 476, 480, ff.). The German excavations have thus confirmed the identification of the site, as indicated in the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, vol. I., pl. 48, no. 9 (published in 1861). This text, which is a brick-inscription of Esarhaddon, reads as follows:—
“Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, king of Babylon, has caused the brickwork of Ê-saggil, Ê-temen-ana-kia, to be built anew for Merodach his lord.”
According to the German plan, the portion of the city on the west of the river was of exceedingly small extent.
Artists will soon be able to depict the scenery of Babylon as a background for pictures of this world-renowned city with considerable accuracy.
P. 478, l. 24. An alternative rendering instead of “sculptor,” is “seal-engraver.”
P. 480. On account of the Greek words, I give here a transcription of the late Babylonian text of the extract printed on this page:—
An(tiukkusu) šarru ina âlāni ša mât Meluḫḫa šalṭaniš itta-luku-ma ... (amēlu) puliṭê puppê u êpšētam ša kima uṣurtu (amēlu) Yāwannu....
Uṣurtu may be translated “bas-relief” instead of “shrine,” but the rendering would not be materially changed thereby.
The remainder of the inscription, which is exceedingly interesting, is rather mutilated, and a trustworthy translation of it is at present exceedingly difficult. Certain thieves (šarraqa), however, seem to be mentioned, and had to all appearance stripped (iqlubū) the image of Uru-gala and another, “a deity whose name was called Ammani’ita.” On the 10th of Marcheswan these thieves were captured and imprisoned, and on the 13th to all appearance judged and condemned. Ûmu šuati ina išati qalû, “That day they were burnt in the fire”—such is the end of the story.
This seems not to be in accordance with the laws of sacrilegious theft, as stated in sections 6 and 8 of Ḫammurabi’s code. Perhaps the law had changed in the 1800 years which had elapsed since the time of that ruler; or stripping a sacred image was a much more heinous crime than mere theft from a temple, which, in the first degree, was punishable with death.
It is noteworthy that refusal to worship the image set up by Nebuchadnezzar was visited, in Dan. iii, with the same penalty, probably as showing contempt for the divinity.
P. 484, l. 13. The river Ṣilḫu is probably the Sellas in Messinia, where one of the numerous cities named Apameia (Apam’(i)a) lay.
Pp. 489-491. Not the least interesting of this long list of temples and cities are Aššur and Nineveh, of which we have here the earliest mention.