The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends Part 53

P. 119. There has been a great deal of discussion as to the way in which umer 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 umer was the name of the southern part only. Hommel derives the Biblical Shinar from Ki-Imgir, through the intermediate forms Shingar, Shumir (umer) and Shimir. This is based upon the tendency which _k_ had to change into __, whilst the subst.i.tution 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 _mada Kingi-Ura_ is rendered, in the lists, _mat umeri u Akkadi_, "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 _ (sh)_ being provable, it is possible that Kingi-Ura, p.r.o.nounced 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 ill.u.s.tration 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 a.s.shur, 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 a.s.syria 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 ?ammurabi 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 a.s.syrian 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 Agade'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 Sumatu.

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-u_), and will be found on pp. 190-191. It is probable that they were made use of in compiling the Code of ?ammurabi.

P. 127, l. 21 ff. But perhaps it was the city of Aur 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-?it 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 pa.s.sage 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 a.s.syriologist and antiquarian, makes a comparison between this pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage 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 Aur-bani-apli in the a.s.syrian 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-G.o.d, the same as Sin. L. 6 from below, read _e-bar-igi-e-di_.

P. 144, l. 9 from below. The Rev. C. H. W. Johns, in his a.s.syrian deeds and doc.u.ments, has pointed out the likeness of the names _Na?iri_ and _Na?arau_ (or _Na?arau_) to Nahor, referred to by Kittel in his little book upon Delitzsch's _Babel und Bibel_.(337) _Na?iru_, however, is the common a.s.syro-Babylonian word for "nostril," and is also the name of a creature of the sea supposed to be the dolphin. _Na?arau_ it may be noted, notwithstanding the absence of the prefix of divinity, bears every appearance of being a name like _Bel-Yau_ on p. 59, the initial _y_ or _i_ being omitted as in the case of _Au-Aa_ seven lines lower down. Judging from a.n.a.logy, _Naharau_ should mean "Na?ar is Jah," but whether this has anything to do with the name Nahor or not is doubtful-as a.s.syrian equivalent we should rather expect _Na?uru_.

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 _Bit ?are_, "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 _Tar?u_, which occurs in certain names found in a.s.syrian contracts (Johns, _a.s.syrian 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 a.s.sociated 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_, Maspero read the word as the plural of _'abel_, "meadow."

P. 150, l. 23. Ill.u.s.trations of the old Akkadian (or Sumerian) laws will be found in the contracts of adoption of Bel-ezzu and Arad-I?ara 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 ?ammurabi.

P. 158, l. 11. The Gut.i.tes 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-G.o.d, Amon. _Ya'ruru_ is seemingly the old form of Aruru, one of the names of Itar, 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 ?ammurabi'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-?itana the king," Dr. Schor reads Ammi-?itana-arrum, _i.e._ as the name of a man, meaning "Ammi-?itana is king." If this be correct, the doc.u.ment is not a record of the marriage of a princess.

P. 168. The grain given to eritum was probably of the nature of a deposit-according to ?ammurabi'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 ?ammurabi'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 A??-ayabi had any remedy in case of repudiation, or refusal to perform all the conditions. Calling the G.o.ds 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 (?ammurabi'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 Bel-ezzu ill.u.s.trates section 191 of ?ammurabi'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), G.o.d of the waters. It may have been something similar to "the brazen sea" in the temple at Jerusalem.

P. 177. Arad-I?ara 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, ill.u.s.trate 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 doc.u.ment.

P. 180. Laws 178 ff. of ?ammurabi's Code show that votaries and priestesses had special privileges in the matter of inheriting property, and it would seem from the tablet of Eritum, the sodomite or public woman, that her station did not allow her the choice, that being the right of her sister, Amat-ama, priestess of the sun.

P. 181. Naramtum apparently had no children, and seems to have been divorced in accordance with section 138 of ?ammurabi's Code.

P. 185. The case of ama-nuri is ill.u.s.trated by sections 144-146 of ?ammurabi'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 a.s.syro-Babylonian words for "sanctuary."

P. 203. In addition to the deities mentioned, Aur-bani-apli (a.s.surbanipal) speaks of the G.o.ddess Nin-gala, the "great lady" or "queen," as having a temple called e-gipara at Haran. She is mentioned with Nusku (p. 202) and is called "the mother of the G.o.ds," ama, the sunG.o.d, being described as her firstborn. To all appearance she was the consort of the MoonG.o.d, 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 ?ammurabi.

P. 222, l. 4 from below. It would appear from the Babylonian lists that Tud?ula may be read simply Tud?ul, notwithstanding the final _a_ at the end.

P. 243, ll. 25 ff. The name Aqabi-ilu (p. 463, l. 15) is similarly formed to that of Ya'kubi-ilu, 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 (? a.s.syrian) name ?akkubu 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-?abu, "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.

x.x.xii. 24 ff.) brings out the interesting name Peniel or Penuel (vv. 30 and 31), explained as "the face of G.o.d," so called because he had there "seen G.o.d face to face." A similar name to this is the Babylonian _Ana-pani-ili_, "to the face of G.o.d," sometimes shortened to _Appani-ili_.

The doc.u.ments 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-pani-ili_ means "(let me go) to the presence" or "before the face of G.o.d," or that its bearer was asked for by his father "at the presence of G.o.d." 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 _pani_ 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 G.o.d. 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 G.o.d 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 p.r.o.nunciation of _Ninip_ was possibly _Nirig_, and the Semitic reading _En-mati_ (so Prof. A. T. Clay). An earlier reading of the Aramaic character regarded as _m_ was _n_, which would give _enu-retu_, "the primaeval lord," or the like, a t.i.tle of Ninip and of other G.o.ds. For other suggestions, see Hrozn in the _Revue Semitique_, July 1908.

P. 279, l. 2. The name Bidina may also be read Katina, apparently a variant of the Babylonian Bidinnam or Katinnam.