The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends Part 14

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

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

This, it must be admitted, is a possible etymology, for Egyptianized words were really used in that district in ancient times. This is shown in the name of Merodach, Asari, which is apparently connected with the Egyptian Osiris, just as one of the names of the Sun-G.o.d ama, Amna, is probably an Akkadianized form of the Egyptian Ammon, and even the Egyptian word for "year," _ronpet_, made, probably by early Babylonian scribes, into a kind of pun, became, by the change of a vowel, _ran pet_, "name of heaven,"

transcribed, by those same scribes, into _mu-anna_, which, in its ordinary signification, means likewise "name of heaven," in Akkadian; the whole being used with the meaning of _ronpet_, _i.e._ "year." It will thus be seen that there is but little that is unlikely in Prof. Hommel's etymology of Arpachshad, and that the explanation which he gives may turn out to be correct.(16)

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

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

We have seen that in many cases the names of these "genealogical tables"

are regarded as nationalities, and, indeed, there is sufficient justification for such a theory on account of many of the names appearing as those of well-known nations. This being conceded, it would probably not be too much to regard the names of the patriarchs from Shelah to Serug as indicating ethnical historical events. Thus Shelah might mean "extension,"

indicating the time when the Semitic race began to go beyond its ancient borders. Treating the other names in the same way, Eber would mean the period when that race crossed some river into another district; Peleg would mean that, at the time referred to, that race, or a portion of it, was divided into small states, as Babylonia was at the period preceding that of the dynasty of Amraphel; whilst Reu would mean "friendliness,"

denoting the time when those states were united under one head, and the old dissensions ceased. Serug would then mean something like "interweaving," perhaps referring to the time when the various races (? of Babylonia) intermingled. These explanations of the names receive a certain amount of confirmation from the parallel list in Gen. x. 25, where to the name Peleg the note is added, "for in his days was the earth divided."

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

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

Here we have, in Amtheta, a doubtful Babylonian name, in Kar-Nebo a possible Babylonian name, and in the meaning of Abram a signification that does not militate against the indications given by the tablets of Babylonia and a.s.syria. This being the case, it would seem that there were trustworthy data to go upon for certain facts connected with Abraham's ancestors, and that these facts were known to the Jews of earlier ages.

The Talmudic account of the wonders seen at the birth of Abram, however, are not sufficiently worthy of credence to allow of repet.i.tion here, notwithstanding their reference to Terah and Abraham's youth.

Eusebius quotes the following from Eupolemus concerning Abraham-

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

"Of him they relate that he was the inventor of astrology and the Chaldean magic, and that on account of his eminent piety he was esteemed by G.o.d. It is further said that under the directions of G.o.d he removed and lived in Phnicia, and there taught the Phnicians the motions of the sun and moon, and all other things; for which reason he was held in great reverence by their king" (_Praep. Evan._ 9).

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

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

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

The name of the patriarch, moreover, seems to betray the place of his origin. The first name that he bore was Abram, which has already been compared with the Abu-ramu, "honoured father," of the a.s.syrian eponym-lists (in this place an official by whose name the year 677, the 5th year of Esarhaddon, was distinguished). At an earlier date than this the name has not been found, and the element _ram_, _ramu_, _rame_, etc., seems to be rare. Ranke's list gives only _Sumu-rame_, "the name is established," or "Sumu (? Shem) is established," or something similar, but _rame_ here is probably not connected with the second syllable of Abram's name. The name of Sarah has been compared with the a.s.syro-Babylonian _arratu_, "queen," but seems not to occur in the inscriptions. Isaak is also absent, but Ishmael, under the form of _Ime-ilu_ (meaning "(the) G.o.d has heard") occurs, as well as others in which _ilu_ is replaced by ea, Sin, and Addu or Adad (Hadad).

When, however, it was revealed to Abram that he was to stay in the Promised Land, a change was made in his name-he was no longer known by the a.s.syro-Babylonian name Abram, "honoured father," but, in view of the destiny appointed for him, he was to be called Abraham, "father of a mult.i.tude of nations."

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER V. BABYLONIA AT THE TIME OF ABRAHAM.

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

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

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

[Plate V.]

Envelope (Printed upside down on account of seal-impressions 2 to 4) of a contract-tablet recording a sale of land by Sin-eribam, Pi-sa-nunu, and Idis-Sin, three brothers, to Sin-ikisam. Reign of Immerum, contemporary with Sumula-ilu, about 2100 B.C. Seal Impressions. 1. (Here reversed.) Two deities, one (in a flounced robe) holding a sceptre. On the left, a worshipper; on the right, a man overcoming a lion. This scene is repeated, less distinctly, on the left. 2. Left: Two deities, one holding a sceptre and a weapon; right: deity, divine attendant adoring, and worshipper (?).

3. Men overcoming lions; winged creature devouring a gazelle. 4. Figure on plinth, holding basket and cup; worshipper; deity, holding sword; lion (or dog); deity, holding weapon. Inscription: Aa (the moon-G.o.ddess), Samas (the sun-G.o.d). (Tablet 92,649 in the British Museum (Babylonian and a.s.syrian Room, Table-case A, No. 62). The edges have also some very fine impressions.)

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

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

Yet it was called by Babylonians "the dynasty of Babylon!"

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

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

The next question that arises is, what was the nationality of these rulers, who, though belonging to what was called "the dynasty of Babylon,"

were not really of Babylonian origin?

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

"Ammi-?i(tana), his(?) ...

the powerful king, (in) a seat of gladness king of Babylon, he has made him sit.

king of Ki, king of umer and (Akkad), king of the vast land of Amoria, am I; its wall.

descendant Asari-lu-duga (Merodach) of Sumu-la-ili, has revealed him as his worshipper- eldest son(21) may his name be established of Abeu',(22) am I, in heaven and earth.

Obedient(?) (to) Bel "(Inscription) of Bel-uallim, the seat(?)" son of ... -bi, the enchanter."

In this inscription, Ammi-?itana calls himself not only "king of Babylon,"

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

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

In addition to the G.o.d Amurru, other deities of western origin appear in the inscriptions (generally in the names) from time to time. Thus we have Abdu-Itara, interesting as giving an early form of the name Astarte (Ashtoreth), before it received the feminine termination; ?sur-Malik, probably "protect, O Malik" (Moloch), Nabu-Malik, probably "Nebo is Malik"

(Moloch), or "Nebo is king"; Ibi-an, probably "speak, O Shan," which reminds the reader of Beth-Shean, the modern Beisan; and there are also, in all probability, other Amorite deities whom we cannot identify, on account of their names not occurring in other ancient literatures than the Babylonian. Ibaru, found in the name Arad-Ibari, "servant of Ibari," Aba, in the name Arad (Abdi)-Aba, Alla, in the name Ur-Alla, "man of Alla"

(though this is possibly a Babylonian [Akkadian] name), etc., are probably non-Babylonian, but not Amorite.