The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends Part 52

Yedoniah, the chief of the Jewish colony at Yeb and the writer of the longer doc.u.ment, 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 ident.i.ty.

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 doc.u.ment 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-G.o.d," whilst his son's name, in Persian, is possibly _Napao-yana_, "favour of the G.o.d Napao." 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 doc.u.ment, 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 doc.u.ment 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, Yeho?anan or John, the high-priest at Jerusalem, and the two sons of Sanaballa?,(332) the governor of Samaria in the time of Artaxerxes I. (Longima.n.u.s). The ruler of the Persian empire when these doc.u.ments 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 Yeho?anan, and Sachau points out as noteworthy that one of his brothers, named Mana.s.seh, was son-in-law of the governor of Samaria, Sanaballa?, 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 Yeho?anan 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 _Utanu or Utannu (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 t.i.tle "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 doc.u.ments 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 Mo?ammed 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 (a.s.syrian _?azaqi-yau_), Gemariah or Gemariahu (Jer. xxix. 3; x.x.xvi. 10, etc.). As is shown on p. 471, this termination was p.r.o.nounced _iawa_ by the Babylonian Jews, which raises the question whether the Yahu of these papyri may not have been p.r.o.nounced _Yawa_ also.

Dr. L. Belleli, of the Philological Section of the _Inst.i.tuto di Studi Superiori_ in Florence, doubts the genuineness of the papyri found at Elephantine on account of chronological difficulties. In the case of the doc.u.ments 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 aramaische Papyrusurkunden aus Elephantine_, Berlin, Konigliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1907. The doc.u.ments in question were discovered by Dr. Otto Rubensohn, and the collection included some papyri still in roll-form, and various fragments. The princ.i.p.al doc.u.ment 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 cl.u.s.tered 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 G.o.ds, 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 Lumai (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 _i??imtum_, the Heb. _'e?em_, Arab. _'adhm_. If the word be correctly read (the character _tum_ is doubtful), it is possibly connected with _e?imtum_, 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 G.o.ds.

P. 44. Other names of the G.o.ddess Aruru, who a.s.sisted Merodach in the creation of man, are "the lady potter," "the constructor of the world,"

"the constructor of the G.o.ds," "the constructor of mankind," "the constructor of the heart." Aruru was the G.o.ddess of progeny, and is one of the forty-one names by which "the lady of the G.o.ds" 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 G.o.ds') room," Jensen suggests, "for their redemption." That the fallen G.o.ds 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 Ae 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.ds published in the _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology_ for Dec., 1900, pp.

367-369. The explanation is unfortunately broken away, but it may be surmised that as the G.o.ddess of the watery wastes of the earth she was described as the abode of the G.o.ds 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-napitim, Ut-napitim 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 ??ed??a???, ??ed??es???, and ??e??des???. 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, _Decouvertes_, pl. 30 bis, No. 19). Compare Ablaa, "my son," p. 533, l. 12.

P. 90. For further information about the name Gilgame, see the _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology_ 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 Gilgame.) Dr. Meissner's discovery of a fragment of a new version of the Gilgame-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 Archaeology_ 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-bani (whose name, as this inscription indicates, should properly be read Enki-du or Ea(Ae, 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 G.o.ds 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-anabi), who asks him his name. Gilgame tells him who he is and whence he came, and asks to be shown Uta-naitim, 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 Gilgame was ea-du, (Aa-du, Ae-du, or Enki-du), not ea-bani; whilst Ur-anabi the boatman, was really called Sur-Sunabu (or Sur-anabi); and Pir-napitim, the Babylonian Noah, was Ut-napitim.

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 G.o.ds. 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 Archaeology_, 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 G.o.ds, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.ds were worshipped therefore had likewise their monotheistic system, in which all the other G.o.ds were identified with the patron-deity of the place, just as those Babylonians who worshipped Merodach identified all the other G.o.ds with him.