Bas-relief and inscription of Hammurabi, generally regarded as the Biblical Amraphel (Gen. xiv. 1), apparently dedicated for the saving of his life. In this he bears the title (incomplete) of “King of Amoria” (the Amorites), lugal Mar[tu], Semitic Babylonian sar mât Amurrî (see page 315).

“There is a charm in finding ourselves, our common humanity, our puzzles, our cares, our joys, in the writings of men severed from us by race, religion, speech, and half the gulf of historical time, which no other literary pleasure can equal.”—Andrew Lang.

Foreword

The present work, being merely a record of things for the most part well known to students and others, cannot, on that account, contain much that is new. All that has been aimed at is, to bring together as many of the old discoveries as possible in a new dress.

It has been thought well to let the records tell their story as far as possible in their own way, by the introduction of translations, thus breaking the monotony of the narrative, and also infusing into it an element of local colour calculated to bring the reader into touch, as it were, with the thoughts and feelings of the nations with whom the records originated. Bearing, as it does, upon the life, history, and legends of the ancient nations of which it treats, controversial matter has been avoided, and the higher criticism left altogether aside.

Assyriology (as the study of the literature and antiquities of the Babylonians and Assyrians is called) being a study still in the course of development, improvements in the renderings of the inscriptions will doubtless from time to time be made, and before many months have passed, things now obscure may have new light thrown upon them, necessitating the revision of such portions as may be affected thereby. It is intended to utilize in future editions any new discoveries which may come to light, and every effort will be made to keep the book up to date.

For shortcomings, whether in the text or in the translations, the author craves the indulgence of the reader, merely pleading the difficult and exacting nature of the study, and the lengthy chronological period to which the book refers.

A little explanation is probably needful upon the question of pronunciation. The vowels in Assyro-Babylonian should [pg iv] be uttered as in Italian or German. Ḫ is a strong guttural like the Scotch ch in “loch”; m had sometimes the pronunciation of w, as in Tiamtu (= Tiawthu), so that the spelling of some of the words containing that letter may later have to be modified. The pronunciation of s and š is doubtful, but Assyriologists generally (and probably wrongly) give the sound of s to the former and sh to the latter. T was often pronounced as th, and probably always had that sound in the feminine endings -tu, -ti, -ta, or at, so that Tiamtu, for instance, may be pronounced Tiawthu, Tukulti-âpil-Êšarra (Tiglath-pileser), Tukulthi-âpil-Êšarra, etc., etc., and in such words as qâtâ, “the hands,” šumāti, “names,” and many others, this was probably always the case. In the names Âbil-Addu-nathanu and Nathanu-yâwa this transcription has been adopted, and may be regarded as correct. P was likewise often aspirated, assuming the sound of ph or f, and k assumed, at least in later times, a sound similar to ḫ (kh), whilst b seems sometimes to have been pronounced as v. G was, to all appearance, never soft, as in gem, but may sometimes have been aspirated. Each member of the group ph is pronounced separately. Ṭ is an emphatic t, stronger than in the word “time.” A terminal m represents the mimmation, which, in later times, though written, was not pronounced.

Theophilus G. Pinches.

Chapter I. The Early Traditions Of The Creation.

To find out how the world was made, or rather, to give forth a theory accounting for its origin and continued existence, is one of the subjects that has attracted the attention of thinking minds among all nations having any pretension to civilization. It was, therefore, to be expected that the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians, far advanced in civilization as they were at an exceedingly early date, should have formed opinions thereupon, and placed them on record as soon as those opinions were matured, and the art of writing had been perfected sufficiently to enable a serviceable account to be composed.

This, naturally, did not take place all at once. We may take it for granted that the history of the Creation grew piece by piece, as different minds thought over and elaborated it. The first theories we should expect to find more or less improbable—wild stories of serpents and gods, emblematic of the conflicting powers of good and evil, which, with them, had their origin before the advent of mankind upon the earth.

But all men would not have the same opinion of the way in which the universe came into existence, [pg 010] and this would give rise, as really happened in Babylonia, to conflicting accounts or theories, the later ones less improbable than, and therefore superior to, the earlier. The earlier Creation-legend, being a sort of heroic poem, would remain popular with the common people, who always love stories of heroes and mighty conflicts, such as those in which the Babylonians and Assyrians to the latest times delighted, and of which the Semitic Babylonian Creation-story consists.

As the ages passed by, and the newer theories grew up, the older popular ones would be elaborated, and new ideas from the later theories of the Creation would be incorporated, whilst, at the same time, mystical meanings would be given to the events recorded in the earlier legends to make them fit in with the newer ones. This having been done, the scribes could appeal at the same time to both ignorant and learned, explaining how the crude legends of the past were but a type of the doctrines put forward by the philosophers of later and more enlightened days, bringing within the range of the intellect of the unlearned all those things in which the more thoughtful spirits also believed. By this means an enlightened monotheism and the grossest polytheism could, and did, exist side by side, as well as clever and reasonable cosmologies along with the strangest and wildest legends.

Thus it is that we have from the literature of two closely allied peoples, the Babylonians and the Hebrews, accounts of the Creation of the world so widely differing, and, at the same time, possessing, here and there, certain ideas in common—ideas darkly veiled in the old Babylonian story, but clearly expressed in the comparatively late Hebrew account.

It must not be thought, however, that the above theory as to the origin of the Hebrew Creation-story interferes in any way with the doctrine of its inspiration. We are not bound to accept the opinion so [pg 011] generally held by theologians, that the days of creation referred to in Genesis i. probably indicate that each act of creation—each day—was revealed in seven successive dreams, in order, to the inspired writer of the book. The opinion held by other theologians, that “inspiration” simply means that the writer was moved by the Spirit of God to choose from documents already existing such portions as would serve for our enlightenment and instruction, adding, at the same time, such additions of his own as he was led to think to be needful, may be held to be a satisfactory definition of the term in question.

Without, therefore, binding ourselves down to any hard and fast line as to date, we may regard, for the purposes of this inquiry, the Hebrew account of the Creation as one of the traditions handed down in the thought of many minds extending over many centuries, and as having been chosen and elaborated by the inspired writer of Genesis for the purpose of his narrative, the object of which was to set forth the origin of man and the Hebrew nation, to which he belonged, and whose history he was about to narrate in detail.

The Hebrew story of the Creation, as detailed in Genesis i., may be regarded as one of the most remarkable documents ever produced. It must not be forgotten, however, that it is a document that is essentially Hebrew. For the author of this book the language of God and of the first man was Hebrew—a literary language, showing much phonetic decay. The retention of this matter (its omission not being essential at the period of the composition of the book) is probably due, in part, to the natural patriotism of the writer, overruling what ought to have been his inspired common-sense. How this is to be explained it is not the intention of the writer of this book to inquire, the account of the Creation and its parallels being the subject in hand at present.

The question of language apart, the account of the [pg 012] Creation in Genesis is in the highest degree a common-sense one. The creation of (1) the heaven, and (2) the earth; the darkness—not upon the face of the earth, but upon the face of the deep. Then the expansion dividing the waters above from the waters below on the earth. In the midst of this waste of waters dry land afterwards appears, followed by the growth of vegetation. But the sun and the moon had not yet been appointed, nor the stars, all of which come into being at this point. Last of all are introduced the living things of the earth—fish, and bird, and creeping thing, followed by the animals, and, finally, by man.

It is noteworthy and interesting that, in this account, the acts of creation are divided into seven periods, each of which is called a “day,” and begins, like the natural day in the time-reckoning of the Semitic nations, with the evening—“and it was evening, and it was morning, day one.” It describes what the heavenly bodies were for—they were not only to give light upon the earth—they were also for signs, for seasons, for days, and for years.

And then, concerning man, a very circumstantial account is given. He was to have dominion over everything upon the earth—the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air, the cattle, and every creeping thing. All was given to him, and he, like the creatures made before him, was told to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” It is with this crowning work of creation that the first chapter of the Book of Genesis ends.

The second chapter refers to the seventh day—the day of rest, and is followed by further details of the creation, the central figure of which is the last thing created, namely, man. This chapter reads, in part, like a recapitulation of the first, but contains many additional details. “No plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb ... had sprung up: for the Lord [pg 013] God had not caused it to rain ..., and there was not a man to till the ground.” A mist, therefore, went up from the earth, and watered all the face of the ground. Then, to till the earth, man was formed from the dust of the ground, and the Lord God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.”

The newly-created man was, at this time, innocent, and was therefore to be placed by his Creator in a garden of delight, named Eden, and this garden he was to dress and keep. A hidden danger, however, lay in this pleasant retreat—the tree of knowledge of good and evil, of which he was forbidden to eat, but which was to form for him a constant temptation, for ever testing his obedience. All might have been well, to all appearance, but for the creation of woman, who, giving way to the blandishments of the tempter, in her turn tempted the man, and he fell. Death in the course of nature was the penalty, the earthly paradise was lost, and all chance of eating of the tree of life, and living for ever, disappeared on man's expulsion from his first abode of delight.

In the course of this narrative interesting details are given—the four rivers, the country through which they flowed, and their precious mineral products; the naming of the various animals by the man; the forming of woman from one of his ribs; the institution of marriage, etc.

Such is, in short, the story of the Creation as told in the Bible, and it is this that we have to compare with the now well-known parallel accounts current among the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians. And here may be noted at the outset that, though we shall find some parallels, we shall, in the course of our comparison, find a far greater number of differences, for not only were they produced in a different land, by a different people, but they were also produced under different conditions. Thus, Babylonian polytheism takes the place of the severe and uncompromising [pg 014] monotheism of the Hebrew account in Genesis; Eden was, to the Babylonians, their own native land, not a country situated at a remote distance; and, lastly, but not least, their language, thoughts, and feelings differed widely from those of the dwellers in the Holy Land.

The Babylonian story of the Creation is a narrative of great interest to all who occupy themselves with the study of ancient legends and folklore. It introduces us not only to exceedingly ancient beliefs concerning the origin of the world on which we live, but it tells us also of the religion, or, rather, the religious beliefs, of the Babylonians, and enables us to see something of the changes which those beliefs underwent before adopting the form in which we find them at the time this record was composed.

A great deal has been written about the Babylonian story of the Creation. As is well known, the first translation of these documents was by him who first discovered their nature, the late George Smith, who gave them to the world in his well-known book, The Chaldean Account of Genesis, in 1875. Since that time numerous other translations have appeared, not only in England, but also on the Continent. Among those who have taken part in the work of studying and translating these texts may be named Profs. Sayce, Oppert, Hommel, and Delitzsch, the last-named having both edited the first edition of Smith's book (the first issued on this subject on the Continent), and published one of the last and most complete editions of the whole legend yet placed before the public. To Prof. Sayce, as well as to Prof. Hommel, belongs the honour of many brilliant suggestions as to the tendency of the texts of the creation as a whole: Prof. Oppert was the first to point out that the last tablet of the series was not, as Smith thought, an “Address to primitive man,” but an address to the god Merodach as the restorer of order out of chaos; [pg 015] whilst Delitzsch has perhaps (being almost the last to write upon it) improved the translation more than many of his predecessors in the work.

Before proceeding to deal with the legend itself, a few remarks upon the tablets and the text that they bear will probably not be considered out of place. There are, in all likelihood, but few who have not seen in the British Museum or elsewhere those yellow baked terra-cotta tablets of various sizes and shapes, upon which the Babylonians and Assyrians were accustomed to write their records. And well it is for the science of Assyriology that they used this exceedingly durable material. I have said that the tablets are yellow in colour, and this is generally the case, but the tint varies greatly, and may approach dark grey or black, and even appear as a very good sage-green. The smaller tablets are often cushion-shaped, but, with some few exceptions, they are rectangular, like those of larger size. The writing varies so considerably that the hand of the various scribes can sometimes be distinguished. In the best class of tablets every tenth line is often numbered—a proof that the Assyrians and Babylonians were very careful with the documents with which they had to deal. The Babylonian tablets closely resemble the Assyrian, but the style of the writing differs somewhat, and it is, in general, more difficult to read than the Assyrian. None of the tablets of the Creation-series are, unfortunately, perfect, and many of the fragments are mere scraps, but as more than one copy of each anciently existed, and has survived, the wanting parts of one text can often be supplied from another copy. That copies come from Babylon as well as from Nineveh is a very fortunate circumstance, as our records are rendered more complete thereby.

Of the obverse of the first tablet very little, unfortunately, remains, but what there is extant is of the highest interest. Luckily, we have the beginning of [pg 016] this remarkable legend, which runs, according to the latest and best commentaries, as follows—

“When on high the heavens were unnamed,

Beneath the earth bore not a name:

The primæval ocean was their producer;

Mummu Tiamtu was she who begot the whole of them.

Their waters in one united themselves, and

The plains were not outlined, marshes were not to be seen.

When none of the gods had come forth,

They bore no name, the fates [had not been determined].

There were produced the gods [all of them?]:

Laḫmu and Laḫamu went forth [as the first?]:

The ages were great, [the times were long?].

Anšar and Kišar were produced and over th[em]....

Long grew the days; there came forth (?)...

The god Anu, their son.....

Anšar, the god Anu......”

Such is the tenor of the opening lines of the Babylonian story of the Creation, and the differences between the two accounts are striking enough. Before proceeding, however, to examine and compare them, a few words upon the Babylonian version may not be without value.

First we must note that the above introduction to the legend has been excellently explained and commented upon by the Syrian writer Damascius. The following is his explanation of the Babylonian teaching concerning the creation of the world—

“But the Babylonians, like the rest of the Barbarians, pass over in silence the one principle of the Universe, and they constitute two, Tauthé and Apason, [pg 017] making Apason the husband of Tauthé, and denominating her the mother of the gods. And from these proceeds an only-begotten son, Moumis, which, I conceive, is no other than the intelligible world proceeding from the two principles. From them, also, another progeny is derived, Daché and Dachos; and again a third, Kissaré and Assoros, from which last three others proceed, Anos, and Illinos, and Aos. And of Aos and Dauké is born a son called Belos, who, they say, is the fabricator of the world, the Creator.”

The likeness of the names given in this extract from Damascius will be noticed, and will probably also be recognized as a valuable verification of the certainty now attained by Assyriologists in the reading of the proper names. In Tiamtu, or, rather, Tiawthu, will be easily recognized the Tauthé of Damascius, whose son, as appears from a later fragment, was called Mummu (= Moumis). Apason he gives as the husband of Tauthé, but of this we know nothing from the Babylonian tablet, which, however, speaks of this Apason (apsû, “the abyss”), which corresponds with the “primæval ocean” of the Babylonian tablet.

In Daché and Dachos it is easy to see that there has been a confusion between Greek Λ and Δ, which so closely resemble each other. Daché and Dachos should, therefore, be corrected into Laché and Lachos, the Laḫmu and Laḫamu (better Laḫwu and Laḫawu) of the Babylonian text. They were the male and female personifications of the heavens. Anšar and Kišar are the Greek author's Assoros and Kisaré, the “Host of Heaven” and the “Host of Earth” respectively. The three proceeding from them, Anos, Illinos, and Aos, are the well-known Anu, the god of the heavens; Illil, for En-lila, the Sumerian god of the earth and the Underworld; and Aa or Ea, the god of the waters, who seems to have been [pg 018] identified by some with Yau or Jah. Aa or Ea was the husband of Damkina, or Dawkina, the Dauké of Damascius, from whom, as he says, Belos, i.e. Bel-Merodach, was born, and if he did not “fabricate the world,” at least he ordered it anew, after his great fight with the Dragon of Chaos, as we shall see when we come to the third tablet of the series.

After the lines printed above the text is rather defective, but it would seem that the god Nudimmud (Ae or Ea), “the wise and open of ear,” next came into existence. A comparison is then apparently made between these deities on the one hand, and Tiamtu, Apsû, and Mummu on the other—to the disadvantage of the latter. On Apsû complaining that he had no peace by day nor rest by night on account of the ways of the gods, their sons, it was at last determined to make war upon them.

“They have become hostile, and at the side of Tiamtu they advance,

Storming, planning, not resting night and day,

They make ready for battle, wrathful (and) raging.

They assemble themselves together, and make ready (for) the strife.

Ummu Ḫubur, she who created everything,

Added irresistible weapons, produced giant serpents,

Sharp of tooth, unsparing (their) stings (?)

She caused poison to fill their bodies like blood.

Raging dragons clothed she with terrors,

She endowed (them) with brilliance, she made (them) like the high ones (?)

‘Whoever sees them may fright overwhelm,

May their bodies rear on high, and may (none) turn aside their breast.’

[pg 019]

She set up the viper, the pithon, and the Laḫamu,

Great monsters, raging dogs, scorpion-men,

Driving demons, fish-men, and mountain-rams,

Bearing unsparing weapons, not fearing battle;

Powerful are (her) commands, and irresistible,

She made altogether eleven like that,

Among the gods her firstborn, he who had made for her a host,

Kingu, she raised among them, him she made chief.

Those going in front before the army, those leading the host,

Raising weapons, attacking, who rise up (for) the fray,

The leadership of the conflict

She delivered into his hand, and caused him to sit in state (?).

‘I have set firm thy word, in the assembly of the gods I have made thee great,

The rule of the gods, all of them, have I delivered into thy hand,

Only be thou great—thou, my only husband—

Let them exalt thy name over all the heavenly ones (?)’

She gave him then the tablets of fate, she placed them in his bosom:

‘As for thee, thy command shall not be changed, may thy utterances stand firm!’

Now Kingu is exalted, he has taken to him the godhood of Anu,

Among the gods her sons he determines the fates.

‘Open your mouths, let the Firegod be at rest.

Be ye fearful in the fight, let resistance be laid low (?).’ ”

[pg 020]

Such are the last verses of the first tablet of the so-called story of the Creation as known to the Babylonians, and though it would be better named if called the Story of Bêl and the Dragon, the references to the creation of the world that are made therein prevent the name from being absolutely incorrect, and it may, therefore, serve, along with the more correct one, to designate it still. As will be gathered from the above, the whole story centres in the wish of the goddess of the powers of evil to get creation—the production of all that is in the world—into her own hands. In this she is aided by certain gods, over whom she sets one, Kingu, her husband, as chief. In the preparations that she makes she exercises her creative powers to produce all kinds of dreadful monsters to help her against the gods whom she wishes to overthrow, and the full and vigorous description of her defenders, created by her own hands, adds much to the charm of the narrative, and shows well what the Babylonian scribes were capable of in this class of record.

The first tablet breaks off after the speech of Tiamtu to her husband Kingu. The second one begins by stating how Aa or Ea heard of the plot of Tiamtu and her followers against the gods of heaven. When his first wrath on account of this had somewhat abated, he went and related the whole, in practically the same words as the story is given on the two foregoing pages, to Anšar, his father, who in his turn became filled with rage, biting his lips, and uttering cries of deepest grief. In the mutilated lines which follow Apsû's subjugation seems to be referred to. After this is another considerable gap, and then comes the statement that Anšar applied to his son Anu, “the mighty and brave, whose power is great, whose attack irresistible,” saying that if he will only speak to her, the great Dragon's anger will be calmed and her rage disappear.

[pg 021]

“(Anu heard) the words of his father Anšar,

(Took the ro)ad towards her, and descended by her path,

Anu (went),—he examined Tiamtu's lair, and

(Not having power to resist her?), turned back.”

How the god excused himself to his father Anšar on account of his ignominious flight we do not know, the record being again defective at this point. With the same want of success the god Anšar then, as we learn from another part of the narrative, applied to the god Nudimmud, a deity who is explained in the inscriptions as being the same as the god Aa or Ea, but whom Professor Delitzsch is rather inclined to regard as one of the forms of Bêl.

In the end the god Merodach, the son of Aa, was asked to be the champion of the gods against the great emblem of the powers of evil, the Dragon of Chaos. To become, by this means, the saviour of the universe, was apparently just what the patron-god of the city of Babylon desired, for he seems immediately to have accepted the task of destroying the hated Dragon—

“The lord rejoiced at his father's word,

His heart was glad, and he saith to his father:

‘O lord of the gods, fate of the great gods!

If then I be your avenger,

(If) I bind Tiamtu and save you,

Assemble together, cause to be great, (and) proclaim ye, my lot.

In Upšukenaku assembled, come ye joyfully together,

Having opened my mouth, like you also, let me the fates decide,

That naught be changed that I do, (even) I.

May the word of my lips neither fail nor altered be!’ ”

[pg 022]

Anšar, without delay, calls his messenger Gaga, and directs him to summon all the gods to a festival, where with appetite they may sit down to a feast, to eat the divine bread and drink the divine wine, and there let Merodach “decide the fates,” as the one chosen to be their avenger. Then comes the message that Gaga was to deliver to Laḫmu and Laḫamu, in which the rebellion of Tiamtu is related in practically the same words as the writer used at the beginning of the narrative to describe Tiamtu's revolt. Merodach's proposal and request are then stated, and the message ends with the following words—

“Hasten, and quickly decide for him your fate—

Let him go, let him meet your mighty foe!”

Laḫmu and Laḫamu having heard all the words of Anšar's message, which his messenger Gaga faithfully repeated to them, they, with the Igigi, or gods of the heavens, broke out in bitter lamentation, saying that they could not understand Tiamtu's acts.

Then all the great gods, who “decided the fates,” hastened to go to the feast, where they ate and drank, and, apparently with loud acclaim, “decided the fate” for Merodach their avenger.

Here follow the honours conferred on Merodach on account of the mighty deed that he had undertaken to do. They erected for him princely chambers, wherein he sat as the great judge “in the presence of his fathers,” and they praised him as the highest honoured among the great gods, incomparable as to his ordinances, changeless as to the word of his mouth, uncontravenable as to his utterances. None of them would go against the authority that was to be henceforth his domain.

[pg 023]

“Merodach, thou art he who is our avenger,

(Over) the whole universe have we given thee the kingdom.”

His weapons were never to be defeated, his foes were to be smitten down, but as for those who trusted in him, the gods prayed him that he would grant them life, “pouring out,” on the other hand, the life of the god who had begun the evil against which Merodach was about to fight.

Then, so that he should see that they had indeed given him the power to which they referred, they laid in their midst a garment, and in accordance with their directions, Merodach spoke, and the garment vanished,—he spoke, and it reappeared—

“ ‘Open thy mouth, may the garment be destroyed,

Speak to it once more, and let it be restored again!’

He spoke with his mouth, and the garment was destroyed,

He spoke to it again, and the garment was reproduced.”

Then all the gods called out, “Merodach is king!” and they gave him sceptre, throne, and insignia of royalty, and also an irresistible weapon, which should shatter his enemies.

“ ‘Now, go, and cut off the life of Tiamtu,

Let the winds bear away her blood to hidden places!’

(Thus) did the gods, his fathers, fix the fate of Bel.

A path of peace and goodwill they set for him as his road.”

Then the god armed himself for the fight, taking spear (or dart), bow, and quiver. To these he added [pg 024] lightning flashing before him, flaming fire filling his body; the net which his father Anu had given him wherewith to capture “kirbiš Tiamtu” or “Tiamtu who is in the midst,” he set north and south, east and west, in order that nothing of her might escape. In addition to all this, he created various winds—the evil wind, the storm, the hurricane, “wind four and seven,” the harmful, the uncontrollable (?), and these seven winds he sent forth, to confuse kirbiš Tiamtu, and they followed after him.

Next he took his great weapon called âbubu, and mounted his dreadful, irresistible chariot, to which four steeds were yoked—steeds unsparing, rushing forward, flying along, their teeth full of venom, foam-covered, experienced (?) in galloping, schooled for overthrowing. Merodach being now ready for the fray, he fared forth to meet the Dragon.

“Then, they clustered around him, the gods clustered around him,

The gods his fathers clustered around him, the gods clustered around him.

And the lord advanced, Tiamtu's retreat regarding

Examining the lair of Kingu her consort.”

The sight of the enemy was so menacing, that even the great Merodach began to falter and lose courage, whereat the gods, his helpers, who accompanied him, were greatly disturbed in their minds, fearing approaching disaster. The king of the gods soon recovered himself, however, and uttered to the demon a longish challenge, on hearing which she became as one possessed, and cried aloud. Muttering then incantations and charms, she called the gods of battle to arms, and the great fight for the rule of the universe began.

“The lord spread wide his net, made it enclose her.

The evil wind following behind, he sent on before.

[pg 025]

Tiamtu opened her mouth as much as she could.

He caused the evil wind to enter so that she could not close her lips,

The angry winds filled out her body,

Her heart was overpowered, wide opened she her mouth.”

Being now at the mercy of the conqueror, the divine victor soon made an end of the enemy of the gods, upon whose mutilated body, when dead, he stood triumphantly. Great fear now overwhelmed the gods who had gone over to her side, and fought against the heavenly powers, and they fled to save their lives. Powerless to escape, however, they were captured, and their weapons broken to pieces. Notwithstanding their cries, which filled the vast region, they had to bear the punishment which was their due, and were shut up in prison. The creatures whom Tiamtu had created to help her and strike terror into the hearts of the gods, were also brought into subjection, along with Kingu, her husband, from whom the tablets of fate were taken by the conqueror as things unmeet for Tiamtu's spouse to own. It is probable that we have here the true explanation of the origin of this remarkable legend, for the tablets of fate were evidently things which the king of heaven alone might possess, and Merodach, as soon as he had overcome his foe, pressed his own seal upon them, and placed them in his breast.

He had now conquered the enemy, the proud opposer of the gods of heaven, and having placed her defeated followers in safe custody, he was able to return to the dead and defeated Dragon of Chaos. He split open her skull with his unsparing weapon, hewed asunder the channels of her blood, and caused the north wind to carry it away to hidden places. His fathers saw this, and rejoiced with shouting, and brought him gifts and offerings.

[pg 026]

And there, as he rested from the strife, Merodach looked upon her who had wrought such evil in the fair world as created by the gods, and as he looked, he thought out clever plans. Hewing asunder the corpse of the great Dragon that lay lifeless before him, he made with one half a covering for the heavens, keeping it in its place by means of a bolt, and setting there a watchman to keep guard. He also arranged this portion of the Dragon of Chaos in such a way, that “her waters could not come forth,” and this circumstance suggests a comparison with “the waters above the firmament” of the Biblical story in Genesis.

Passing then through the heavens, he beheld that wide domain, and opposite the abyss, he built an abode for the god Nudimmud, that is, for his father Aa as the creator.

“Then measured the lord the abyss's extent,

A palace in its likeness he founded:—Êšarra;

The palace Êšarra, which he made, (is) the heavens,

(For) Anu, Bêl, and Aa he founded their strongholds.”

With these words, which are practically a description of the creation or building, by Merodach, of the heavens, the fourth tablet of the Babylonian legend of the Creation comes to an end. It is difficult to find a parallel to this part of the story in the Hebrew account in Genesis.

---

Plate II. Fragments of tablets (duplicates), giving the words for the different fasts, festivals, etc., of the Babylonians and Assyrians. Line 4 of the small piece, and 16 of the large one, have the words ûm nûh libbi, "day of rest of the heart," explained by sapattum (from the Sumerian sa-bat, "heart-rest"), generally regarded as the original of the Hebrew Sabbath. Sapattum, however, was the 15th day of the month. The nearest approaches to Sabbaths were the 7th, 14th, 21st, 28th, and 19th, which were called u-hul-gallu or ûmu limnu, "the evil day" (the 19th being a week of weeks, from the 1st day of the preceding month), because it was unlawful to do certain things on those days.

The fifth tablet of the Babylonian story of the Creation is a mere fragment, but is of considerable interest and importance. It describes, in poetical language, in the style with which the reader has now become fairly familiar, the creation and ordering, by Merodach, of the heavenly bodies, as the ancient Babylonians conceived them to have taken place. The text of the first few stanzas is as follows—

[pg 027]

“He built firmly the stations of the great gods—

Stars their likeness—he set up the Lumaši,

He designated the year, he outlined the (heavenly) forms.

He set for the twelve months three stars each.

From the day when the year begins, ... for signs.

He founded the station of Nîbiru, to make known their limits,

That none might err, nor go astray.

The station of Bêl and Aa he placed with himself,

Then he opened the great gates on both sides,

Bolts he fixed on the left and on the right,

In its centre (?) then he set the zenith (?).

Nannaru (the moon) he caused to shine, ruling the night,

So he set him as a creature of the night, to make known the days,

Monthly, without failing, he provided him with a crown,

At the beginning of the month then, dawning in the land,

The horns shine forth to make known the seasons (?),

On the 7th day crown (perfect)ing (?).

The [Sa]bbath shalt thou then fall in with, half-monthly,

When the sun (is) in the base of the heavens, at thy [approach?].

...... hath caused to be cut off and

... nearing the path of the sun.

[The ...]th [day] shalt thou then fall in with, the sun shall change (?)...

...... the sign seeking its path.

... cause to approach and give the judgment.

........................ to injure (?)

........................... one.”

The final lines of this portion seem to refer to the moon on the 7th and other days of the month, and [pg 028] would in that case indicate the quarters. “Sabbath” is doubtful on account of the mutilation of the first character, but in view of the forms given on pl. II. and p. 527 (šapattum, šapatti) the restoration as šapattu seems possible. It is described on p. 527 as the 15th of the month, but must have indicated also the 14th, according to the length of the month.

An exceedingly imperfect fragment of what is supposed to be part of the fifth tablet exists. It speaks of the bow with which Merodach overcame the Dragon of Chaos, which the god Anu, to all appearance, set in the heavens as one of the constellations. After this comes, apparently, a fragment that may be regarded as recording the creation of the earth, and the cities and renowned shrines upon it, the houses of the great gods, and the cities Nippuru (Niffer) and Asshur being mentioned. Everything, however, is very disconnected and doubtful.

The sixth tablet, judging from the fragment recognized by Mr. L. W. King, must have been one of special interest, as it to all appearance contained a description of the creation of man. Unfortunately, only the beginning of the text is preserved, and is as follows:—

“Merodach, on hearing the word of the gods,

His heart urged him, and he made [cunning plans].

He opened his mouth and [said] to the god Aê—

[What] he thought out in his heart he communicates ...:

‘Let me gather my blood and let me ... bone,

Let me set up a man, and let the man ....

Let me make then men dwelling ....

May the service of the gods be established, and as for them, let ....

Let me alter the ways of the gods, let me chan[ge their paths]—

As one let them be honoured, as two let them be ....’

Aê answered him, and the word he spake.”

[pg 029]

Here come the remains of ten very imperfect lines, which probably related the consent of the other gods to the proposal, and must have been followed by a description of the way in which it was carried out. All this, however, is unfortunately not preserved. That the whole of Merodach's work received the approval of “the gods his fathers” is shown by the remains of lines with which the sixth tablet closes:—

“They rejoiced ....................

In Upšukenaku they caused .............

Of the son, the hero, who brought back [benefit for them]

‘As for us, whom, succouring, he ...........’

They sat down, and in their assembly they proclaimed

... they all announced ...............”

What they proclaimed and announced was apparently his glorious names, as detailed in the seventh and last tablet of the series, which was regarded by George Smith as containing an address to primitive man, but which proves to be really an address to the god Merodach praising him on account of the great work that he had done in overcoming the Dragon, and in thereafter ordering the world anew. As this portion forms a good specimen of Babylonian poetry at its best, the full text of the tablet, with the exception of some short remains of lines, is here presented in as careful a translation as is at present possible.

The Seventh Tablet Of The Creation-Series, Also Known As The Tablet Of The Fifty-One Names.

1 Asari, bestower of planting, establisher of irrigation.

2 Creator of grain and herbs, he who causes verdure to grow.

[pg 030]

3 Asari-alim, he who is honoured in the house of counsel, [who increases counsel?].

4 The gods bow down to him, fear [possesses them?].

5 Asari-alim-nunna, the mighty one, light of the father his begetter.

6 He who directs the oracles of Anu, Bel, [and Aa].

7 He is their nourisher, who has ordained....

8 He whose provision is fertility, sendeth forth....

9 Tutu, the creator of their renewal, [is he?].

10 Let him purify their desires, (as for) them, let them [be appeased].

11 Let him then make his incantation, let the gods [be at rest].

12 Angrily did he arise, may he lay low [their breast].

13 Exalted was he then in the assembly of the gods....

14 None among the gods shall [forsake him].

15 Tutu.1 “Zi-ukenna,” “life of the people”

16 “He who fixed for the gods the glorious heavens;”

17 Their paths they took, they set

18 May the deeds (that he performed) not be forgotten among men.

19 Tutu. “Zi-azaga,” thirdly, he called (him),—“he who effects purification,”

20 “God of the good wind,” “Lord of hearing and obedience,”

21 “Creator of fulness and plenty,” “Institutor of abundance,”

22 “He who changes what is small to great,”

23 In our dire need we scented his sweet breath.

24 Let them speak, let them glorify, let them render him obedience.

25 Tutu. “Aga-azaga,” fourthly, May he make the crowns glorious,

26 “The lord of the glorious incantation bringing the dead to life,”

27 “He who had mercy on the gods who had been overpowered,”

[pg 031]

28 “He who made heavy the yoke that he had laid on the gods who were his enemies,

29 (And) for their despite (?), created mankind.”

30 “The merciful one,” “He with whom is lifegiving,”

31 May his word be established, and not forgotten,

32 In the mouth of the black-headed ones (mankind) whom his hands have made.

33 Tutu. “Mu-azaga,” fifthly, May their mouth make known his glorious incantation,

34 “He who with his glorious charm rooteth out all the evil ones,”

35 “Sa-zu,” “He who knoweth the heart of the gods,” “He who looketh at the inward parts,”

36 “He who alloweth not evil-doers to go forth against him,”

37 “He who assembleth the gods,” appeasing their hearts,

38 “He who subdueth the disobedient,”...

39 “He who ruleth in truth (and justice”), ...

40 “He who setteth aside injustice,” ...

41 Tutu. “Zi-si” (“He who bringeth about silence”), ...

42 “He who sendeth forth stillness.” ...

43 Tutu. “Suḫ-kur,” “Annihilator of the enemy,” ...

44 “Dissolver of their agreements,” ...

45 “Annihilator of everything evil.” ...

About 40 lines, mostly very imperfect, occur here, and some 20 others are totally lost. The text after this continues:—

107 “Then he seized the back part (?) of the head,which he pierced (?),

108 And as Kirbiš-Tiamtu he circumvented restlessly,

109 His name shall be Nibiru, he who seized Kirbišu (Tiamtu).

[pg 032]

110 Let him direct the paths of the stars of heaven,

111 Like sheep let him pasture the gods, the whole of them.

112 May he confine Tiamtu, may he bring her life into pain and anguish,

113 In man's remote ages, in lateness of days,

114 Let him arise, and he shall not cease, may he continue into the remote future

115 As he made the (heavenly) place, and formed the firm (ground),

116 Father Bêl called him (by) his own name, “Lord of the World,”

117 The appellation (by) which the Igigi have themselves (always) called him.

118 Aa heard, and he rejoiced in his heart:

119 Thus (he spake): “He, whose renowned name his fathers have so glorified,

120 He shall be like me, and Aa shall be his name!

121 The total of my commands, all of them, let him possess, and

122 The whole of my pronouncements he, (even) he, shall make known.”

123 By the appellation “fifty” the great gods

124 His fifty names proclaimed, and they caused his career to be great (beyond all).

---

125 May they be accepted, and may the primæval one make (them) known,

126 May the wise and understanding altogether well consider (them),

127 May the father repeat and teach to the son,

128 May they open the ears of the shepherd and leader.

129 May they rejoice for the lord of the gods, Merodach,

130 May his land bear in plenty; as for him, may he have peace.

[pg 033]

131 His word standeth firm; his command changeth not—

132 No god hath yet made to fail that which cometh forth from his mouth.

133 If he frown down in displeasure, he turneth not his neck,

134 In his anger, there is no god who can withstand his wrath.

135 Broad is his heart, vast is the kindness (?) of (his) ...

136 The sinner and evildoer before him are (ashamed?).”

The remains of some further lines exist, but they are very uncertain, the beginnings and ends being broken away. All that can be said is, that the poem concluded in the same strain as the last twelve lines preserved.

In the foregoing pages the reader has had placed before him all the principal details of the Babylonian story of the Creation, and we may now proceed to examine the whole in greater detail.

If we may take the explanation of Damascius as representing fairly the opinion of the Babylonians concerning the creation of the world, it seems clear that they regarded the matter of which it was formed as existing in the beginning under the two forms of Tiamtu (the sea) and Apsû (the deep), and from these, being wedded, proceeded “an only begotten son,” Mummu (Moumis), conceived by Damascius to be “no other that the intelligible world proceeding from the two principles,” i.e. from Tiamtu and Apsû. From these come forth, in successive generations, the other gods, ending with Marduk or Merodach, also named Bêl (Bêl-Merodach), the son of Aa (Ea) and his consort Damkina (the Aos and Dauké of Damascius).

Judging from the material that we have, the Babylonians seemed to have believed in a kind of evolution, for they evidently regarded the first creative [pg 034] powers (the watery waste and the abyss) as the rude and barbaric beginnings of things, the divine powers produced from these first principles (Laḫmu and Laḫamu, Anšar and Kišar, Anu, Ellila, and Aa, and finally Marduk), being successive stages in the upward path towards perfection, with which the first rude elements of creation were ultimately bound to come into conflict; for Tiamtu, the chief of the two rude and primitive principles of creation, was, notwithstanding this, ambitious, and desired still to be the creatress of the gods and other inferior beings that were yet to be produced. All the divinities descending from Tiamtu were, to judge from the inscriptions, creators, and as they advanced towards perfection, so also did the things that they created advance, until, by contrast, the works of Tiamtu became as those of the Evil Principle, and when she rebelled against the gods who personified all that was good, it became a battle between them of life and death, which only the latest-born of the gods, elected in consequence of the perfection of his power, to be king and ruler over “the gods his fathers,” was found worthy to wage. The glorious victory gained, and the Dragon of Evil subdued and relegated to those places where her exuberant producing power, which, to all appearance, she still possessed, would be of use, Merodach, in the fulness of his power as king of the gods, perfected and ordered the universe anew, and created his crowning work, Mankind. Many details are, to all appearance, wanting on account of the incompleteness of the series, but those which remain seem to indicate that the motive of the whole story was as outlined here.

In Genesis, however, we have an entirely different account, based, apparently, upon a widely different conception of the origin of the Universe, for one principle only appears throughout the whole narrative, be it Elohistic, Jehovistic, or priestly. “In the beginning [pg 035] God created the heavens and the earth,” and from the first verse to the last it is He, and He alone, who is Creator and Maker and Ruler of the Universe. The only passage containing any indication that more than one person took part in the creation of the world and all that therein is, is in verse 26, where God is referred to as saying, “Let us make man,” but that this is simply the plural of majesty, and nothing more, seems to be proved by the very next verse, where the wording is, “and God made man in his own image,” etc. There is, therefore, no trace of polytheistic influence in the whole narrative.

Let us glance awhile at the other differences.

To begin with, the whole Babylonian narrative is not only based upon an entirely different theory of the beginning of all things, but upon an entirely different conception of what took place ere man appeared upon the earth. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” implies the conception of a time when the heavens and the earth existed not. Not so, seemingly, with the Babylonian account. There the heavens and the earth are represented as existing, though in a chaotic form, from the first. Moreover, it is not the external will and influence of the Almighty that originates and produces the forms of the first creatures inhabiting the world, but the productive power residing in the watery waste and the deep:

“The primæval ocean (apsû rêstū) was their producer (lit. seeder);

Mummu Tiamtu was she who brought forth the whole of them.”

It is question here of “seeding” (zaru) and “bearing” (âlādu), not of creating.

The legend is too defective to enable us to find out anything as to the Babylonian idea concerning the formation of the dry land. Testimony as to its non-existence [pg 036] at the earliest period is all that is vouchsafed to us. At that time none of the gods had come forth, seemingly because (if the restoration be correct) “the fates had not been determined.” There is no clue, however, as to who was then the determiner of the fates.

Then, gradually, and in the course of long-extended ages, the gods Laḫmu and Laḫamu, Anšar and Kišar, with the others, came into existence, as already related, after which the record, which is mutilated, goes on to speak of Tiamtu, Apsū, and Mummu.

These deities of the Abyss were evidently greatly disquieted on account of the existence and the work of the gods of heaven. They therefore took counsel together, and Apsū complained that he could not rest either night or day on account of them. Naturally the mutilated state of the text makes the true reason of the conflict somewhat uncertain. Fried. Delitzsch regarded it as due to the desire, on the part of Merodach, to have possession of the “Tablets of Fate,” which the powers of good and the powers of evil both wished to obtain. These documents, when they are first spoken of, are in the hands of Tiamtu (see p. 19), and she, on giving the power of changeless command to Kingu, her husband, handed them to him. In the great fight, when Merodach overcame his foes, he seized these precious records, and placed them in his breast—

“And Kingu, who had become great over (?) them—

He bound him, and with Ugga (the god of death) ... he counted him;

From him then he took the Fate-tablets, which were not his,

With his ring he pressed them, and took them to his breast.”

To all appearance, Tiamtu and Kingu were in unlawful possession of these documents, and the king [pg 037] of the gods, Merodach, when he seized them, only took possession of what, in reality, was his own. What power the “Tablets of Fate” conferred on their possessor, we do not know, but in all probability the god in whose hands they were, became, by the very fact, creator and ruler of the universe for ever and ever.

This creative power the king of the gods at once proceeded to exercise. Passing through the heavens, he surveyed them, and built a palace called Ê-šarra, “The house of the host,” for the gods who, with himself, might be regarded as the chief in his heavenly kingdom. Next in order he arranged the heavenly bodies, forming the constellations, marking off the year; the moon, and probably the sun also, being, as stated in Genesis, “for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years,” though all this is detailed, in the Babylonian account, at much greater length. Indeed, had we the whole legend complete, we should probably find ourselves in possession of a detailed description of the Babylonian idea of the heavens which they studied so constantly, and of the world on which they lived, in relation to the celestial phenomena which they saw around them.

Fragments of tablets have been spoken of that seem to belong to the fifth and sixth of the series, and one of them speaks of the building of certain ancient cities, including that now represented by the mounds known by the name of Niffer, which must, therefore, apart from any considerations of paleographic progression in the case of inscriptions found there, or evidence based on the depth of rubbish-accumulations, be one of the oldest known. It is probably on account of this that the Talmudic writers identified the site with the Calneh of Gen. x. 10, which, notwithstanding the absence of native confirmation, may very easily be correct, for the Jews of those days were undoubtedly in a better position to know than we are, after a lapse of two thousand years. The same text, strangely [pg 038] enough, also refers to the city of Aššur, though this city (which did not, apparently, belong to Nimrod's kingdom) can hardly have been a primæval city in the same sense as “Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh.”

The text of the Semitic Creation-story is here so mutilated as to be useless for comparative purposes, and in these circumstances the bilingual story of the Creation, published by me in 1891, practically covering, as it does, the same ground, may be held, in a measure, to supply its place. Instead, therefore, of devoting to this version a separate section, I insert a translation of it here, together with a description of the tablet upon which it is written.

This second version of the Creation-story is inscribed on a large fragment (about four and a half inches high) of a tablet found by Mr. Rassam at Sippar (Abu Habbah) in 1882. The text is very neatly written in the Babylonian character, and is given twice over, that is, in the original (dialectic) Akkadian, with a Semitic (Babylonian) translation. As it was the custom of the Babylonian and Assyrian scribes, for the sake of giving a nice appearance to what they wrote, to spread out the characters in such a way that the page (as it were) was “justified,” and the ends of the lines ranged, like a page of print, it often happens that, when a line is not a full one, there is a wide space, in the middle, without writing. In the Akkadian text of the bilingual Creation-story, however, a gap is left in every line, sufficiently large to accommodate, in slightly smaller characters, the whole Semitic Babylonian translation. The tablet therefore seems to be written in three columns, the first being the first half of the Akkadian version, the second (a broad one) the Semitic translation, and the third the last half of the Akkadian original text, separated from the first part to allow of the Semitic version being inserted between.

[pg 039]

The reason of the writing of the version already translated and in part commented upon is not difficult to find—it was to give an account of the origin of the world and the gods whom they worshipped. The reason of the writing of the bilingual story of the Creation, however, is not so easy to decide, the account there given being the introduction to one of those bilingual incantations for purification, in which, however, by the mutilation of the tablet, the connecting-link is unfortunately lost. But whatever the reason of its being prefixed to this incantation, the value and importance of the version presented by this new document is incontestable, not only for the legend itself, but also for the linguistic material which a bilingual text nearly always offers.

The following is a translation of this document—

“Incantation: The glorious house, the house of the gods, in a glorious place had not been made,

A plant had not grown up, a tree had not been created,

A brick had not been laid, a beam had not been shaped,

A house had not been built, a city had not been constructed,

A city had not been made, no community had been established,

Niffer had not been built, Ê-kura had not been constructed,

Erech had not been built, Ê-ana had not been constructed,

The Abyss had not been made, Êridu had not been constructed,

(As for) the glorious house, the house of the gods, its seat had not been made—

The whole of the lands were sea.

When within the sea there was a stream,

[pg 040]

In that day Eridu was made, Ê-sagila was constructed—

Ê-sagila, which the god Lugal-du-azaga founded within the Abyss.

Babylon he built, Ê-sagila was completed.

He made the gods (and) the Anunnaki together,

The glorious city, the seat of the joy of their hearts, supremely he proclaimed.

Merodach bound together a foundation before the waters,

He made dust, and poured (it) out beside the foundation,

That the gods might sit in a pleasant place.

He made mankind—

Aruru made the seed of mankind with him.

He made the beasts of the field and the living creatures of the desert,

He made the Tigris and the Euphrates, and set (them) in (their) place—

Well proclaimed he their name.

Grass, the marsh-plant, the reed and the forest, he made,

He made the verdure of the plain,

The lands, the marsh, the thicket also,

The wild cow (and) her young the steer; the ewe (and) her young—the sheep of the fold,

Plantations and forests also.

The goat and the wild goat multiplied for him (?).

Lord Merodach on the sea-shore made a bank,

... (which) at first he made not,

... he caused to be.

(He caused the plant to be brought forth), he made the tree,

(Everything?) he made in (its) place.

(He laid the brick), he made the beams,

(He constructed the house), he built the city,

(He built the city), the community exercised power,

[pg 041]

(He built the city Niffer), he built Ê-kura, the temple,

(He built the city Erech, he built Ê-a)na, the temple,”

---

Here the obverse breaks off, and the end of the bilingual story of the Creation-story is lost. How many more lines were devoted to it we do not know, nor do we know how the incantation proper, which followed it, and to which it formed the introduction, began. Where the text (about half-way down on the reverse) again becomes legible, it reads as follows—

---

“Thy supreme messenger, Pap-sukal, the wise one, counsellor of the gods.

Nin-aḫa-kudu, daughter of Aa,

May she make thee glorious with a glorious lustration (?),

May she make thee pure with pure fire,

With the glorious pure fountain of the abyss purify thou thy pathway,

By the incantation of Merodach, king of the universe of heaven and earth,

May the abundance of the land enter into thy midst,

May thy command be fulfilled for ever.

O Ê-zida, seat supreme, the beloved of Anu and Ištar art thou,

Mayest thou shine like heaven; mayest thou be glorious like the earth; mayest thou shine like the midst of heaven;

May the malevolent curse dwell outside of thee.

Incantation making (the purification of the temple).

Incantation: The star ... the long chariot of the heavens.”

The last line but one is apparently the title, and is followed by the first line of the next tablet. From [pg 042] this we see that this text belonged to a series of at least two tablets, and that the tablet following the above had an introduction of an astronomical or astrological nature.

It will be noticed that this text not only contains an account of the creation of gods and men, and flora and fauna, but also of the great and renowned sites and shrines of the country where it originated. It is in this respect that it bears a likeness to the fragmentary portions of the intermediate tablets of the Semitic Babylonian story of the Creation, or Bêl and the Dragon, and this slight agreement may be held to justify, in some measure, its introduction here. The bilingual version, however, differs very much in style from that in Semitic only, and seems to lack the poetical form which characterizes the latter. This, indeed, was to be expected, for poetical form in a translation which follows the original closely is an impossibility, though the poetry of words and ideas which it contains naturally remains. It is not unlikely that the original Sumerian text is in poetical form, as is suggested by the cesura, and the recurring words.

In the bilingual account of the Creation one seems to get a glimpse of the pride that the ancient Babylonians felt in the ancient and renowned cities of their country. The writer's conception of the wasteness and voidness of the earth in the beginning seems to have been that the ancient cities Babel, Niffer, Erech and Eridu had not yet come into existence. For him, those sites were as much creations as the vegetation and animal life of the earth. Being, for him, sacred sites, they must have had a sacred, a divine foundation, and he therefore attributes their origin to the greatest of the gods, Merodach, who built them, brick, and beam, and house, himself. Their renowned temples, too, had their origin at the hands of the Divine Architect of the Universe.

A few words are necessary in elucidation of what [pg 043] follows the line, “When within the sea there was a stream.” “In that day,” it says, “Êridu was made, Ê-sagila was constructed—Ê-sagila which the god Lugal-du-azaga founded within the Abyss. Babylon he built, Ê-sagila was completed.” The connection of Ê-sagila, “the temple of the lofty head,” which was within the Abyss, with Êridu, shows, with little or no doubt, that the Êridu there referred to was not the earthly city of that name, but a city conceived as lying also “within the Abyss.” This Êridu, as we shall see farther on, was the “blessed city,” or Paradise, wherein was the tree of life, and which was watered by the twin stream of the Tigris and the Euphrates.

But there was another Ê-sagila than that founded by the god Lugal-du-azaga within the Abyss, namely the Ê-sagila at Babylon, and it is this fane that is spoken of in the phrase following that mentioning the temple so called within the Abyss. To the Babylonian, therefore, the capital of the country was, in that respect, a counterpart of the divine city that he regarded as the abode of bliss, where dwelt Nammu, the river-god, and the sun-god Dumuzi-Abzu, or “Tammuz of the Abyss.” Like Sippar too, Babylon was situated in what was called the plain, the edina, of which Babylonia mainly consisted, and which is apparently the original of the Garden of Eden.

The present text differs from that of the longer (Semitic) story of the Creation, in that it makes Merodach to be the creator of the gods, as well as of mankind, and all living things. This, of course, implies that it was composed at a comparatively late date, when the god Merodach had become fully recognized as the chief divinity, and the fact that Aa was his father had been lost sight of, and practically forgotten. The goddess Aruru is apparently introduced into the narrative out of consideration for the [pg 044] city Sippar-Aruru, of which she was patron. In another text she is called “Lady of the gods of Sippar and Aruru.” There is also a goddess (perhaps identical with her) called Gala-aruru, “Great Aruru,” or “the great one (of) Aruru,” who is explained as “Ištar the star,” on the tablet K. 2109.

After the account of the creation of the beasts of the field, the Tigris and the Euphrates, vegetation, lands, marshes, thickets, plantations and forests, which are named, to all appearance, without any attempt at any kind of order, “The lord Merodach” is represented as creating those things which, at first, he had not made, namely, the great and ancient shrines in whose antiquity and glorious memories the Babylonian—and the Assyrian too—took such delight. The list, however, is a short one, and it is to be supposed that, in the lines that are broken away, further cities of the kingdom of Babylon were mentioned. That this was the case is implied by the reverse, which deals mainly—perhaps exclusively—with the great shrine of Borsippa called Ê-zida, and identified by many with the Tower of Babel. How it was brought in, however, we have no means of finding out, and must wait patiently for the completion of the text that will, in all probability, ultimately be discovered.

The reverse has only the end of the text, which, as far as it is preserved, is in the form of an “incantation of Êridu,” and mentions “the glorious fountain of the Abyss,” which to was to “purify” or “make glorious” the pathway of the personified fane referred to. As it was the god Merodach, “the merciful one,” “he who raises the dead to life,” “the lord of the glorious incantation,” who was regarded by the Babylonians as revealing to mankind the “incantation of Êridu,” which he, in his turn, obtained from his father Aa, we may see in this final part of the legend not only a glorification of the chief deity of the Babylonians, but also a further testimony of the fact that the composition [pg 045] must belong to the comparatively late period in the history of Babylonian religion, when the worship of Merodach had taken the place of that of his father Aa.

Of course, it must not be supposed that the longer account of the Creation was told so shortly as the bilingual narrative that we have introduced here to supply the missing parts of the longer version. Everything was probably recounted at much greater length, and in confirmation of this there is the testimony of the small fragment of the longer account, translated on p. 28. This simply contains the announcement that Merodach had made cunning plans, and decided to create man from his own blood, and [to form?] his bones, but there must have been, in the long gap which then ensues, a detailed account of the actual creation of the human race, probably with some reference to the formation of animals. One cannot base much upon this mutilated fragment, but, as the first translator has pointed out, the object in creating man was seemingly to ensure the performance of the service (or worship) of the gods, and the building of their shrines, prayer and sacrifice, with the fear of God, being duties from which there was no escape.

In the last tablet of the series—that recording the praises of Merodach and his fifty new names,—there are a few points that are worthy of examination. In the first place, the arrangement of the first part is noteworthy. The principal name that was given to him seems not to have been Merodach, as one would expect from the popularity of the name in later days, but Tutu, which occurs in the margin, at the head of six of the sections, and was probably prefixed to at least three more. This name Tutu is evidently an Akkadian reduplicate word, from the root tu, “to beget,” and corresponds with the explanation of the word given by the list of Babylonian gods, K. 2107; muâllid îlāni, mûddiš îlāni, “begetter of the gods, renewer [pg 046] of the gods”—a name probably given to him on account of his identification with his father, Aa, for, according to the legend, Merodach was rather the youngest than the oldest of the gods, who are even called, as will be remembered, “his fathers.” In the lost portion at the beginning of the final tablet he was also called, according to the tablet here quoted, Gugu = muttakkil îlāni, “nourisher of the gods”; Mumu = mušpiš îlāni, “increaser (?) of the gods”; Dugan = banî kala îlāni, “maker of all the gods”; Dudu = muttarrû îlāni, “saviour (?) of the gods”; Šar-azaga = ša šipat-su êllit, “he whose incantation is glorious”; and Mu-azaga = ša tû-šu êllit, “he whose charm is glorious” (cf. p. 31, l. 33). After this we have Ša-zu or Ša-sud = mûdê libbi īlāni or libbi rûḳu, “he who knoweth the heart of the gods,” or “the remote of heart” (p. 31, l. 35); Zi-uḳenna = napšat napḫar îlāni, “the life of the whole of the gods” (p. 30, l. 15); Zi-si = nasiḫ šabuti, “he who bringeth about silence” (p. 31, l. 41); Suḫ-kur = muballû aabi, “annihilator of the enemy” (p. 31, l. 43); and other names meaning muballû napḫar aabi, nasiḫ raggi, “annihilator of the whole of the enemy, rooter out of evil,” nasiḫ napḫar raggi, “rooter out of the whole of the evil,” êšû raggi, “troubler of the evil (ones),” and êšû napḫar raggi, “troubler of the whole of the evil (ones).” All these last names were probably enumerated on the lost part of the tablet between where the obverse breaks off and the reverse resumes the narrative, and the whole of the fifty names conferred upon him, which were enumerated in their old Akkadian forms and translated into Semitic Babylonian in this final tablet of the Creation, were evidently repeated in the form of a list of gods, on the tablet in tabular form from which the above renderings are taken.

Hailed then as the vanquisher of Kirbiš-Tiamtu, the great Dragon of Chaos, he is called by the name of Nibiru, “the ferry,” a name of the planet Jupiter as [pg 047] the traverser of the heavens (one of the points of contact between Babylonian and Greek mythology), the stars of which he was regarded as directing, and keeping (lit. pasturing) like sheep. (Gods and stars may here be regarded as convertible terms.) His future is then spoken of, and “father Bêl” gives him his own name, “lord of the world.” Rejoicing in the honours showered on his son, and not to be outdone in generosity, Aa decrees that henceforth Merodach shall be like him, and that he shall be called Aa, possessing all his commands, and all his pronouncements—i.e. all the wisdom which he, as god of deep wisdom, possessed. Thus was Merodach endowed with all the names, and all the attributes, of the gods of the Babylonians—“the fifty renowned names of the great gods.”

This was, to all intents and purposes, symbolic of a great struggle, in early days, between polytheism and monotheism—for the masses the former, for the more learned and thoughtful the latter. Of this we shall have further proof farther on, when discussing the name of Merodach. For the present be it simply noted, that this is not the only text identifying Merodach with the other gods.

The reference to the creation of mankind in line 29 of the obverse (p. 31) is noteworthy, notwithstanding that the translation of one of the words—and that a very important one—is very doubtful. Apparently man was created to the despite of the rebellious gods, but there is also just the possibility that there exists here an idiomatic phrase meaning “in their room.” If the latter be the true rendering, this part of the legend would be in striking accord with Bishop Avitus of Vienne, with the old English poet Caedmon, and with Milton in his Paradise Lost. In connection with this, too, the statement in the reverse, lines 113 and 114, where “man's remote ages” is referred to, naturally leads one to ask, Have we here [pg 048] traces of a belief that, in ages to come (“in lateness of days”), Merodach was to return and live among men into the remote future? The return of a divinity or a hero of much-cherished memory is such a usual thing among popular beliefs, that this may well have been the case likewise among the Babylonians.

The comparison of the two accounts of the Creation—that of the Hebrews and that of the Babylonians, that have been presented to the reader—will probably have brought prominently before him the fact, that the Babylonian account, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, differs so much from the Biblical account, that they are, to all intents and purposes, two distinct narratives. That there are certain ideas in common, cannot be denied, but most of them are ideas that are inseparable from two accounts of the same event, notwithstanding that they have been composed from two totally different standpoints. In writing an account of the Creation, statements as to what are the things created must of necessity be inserted. There is, therefore, no proof of a connection between two accounts of the Creation in the fact that they both speak of the formation of dry land, or because they both state that plants, animals, and man were created. Connection may be inferred from such statements that the waters were the first abode of life, or that an expansion was created dividing the waters above from those below. With reference to such points of contact as these just mentioned, however, the question naturally arises, Are these points of similarity sufficient to justify the belief that two so widely divergent accounts as those of the Bible and of the Babylonian tablets have one and the same origin? In the mind of the present writer there seems to be but one answer, and that is, that the two accounts are practically distinct, and are the production of people having entirely different ideas upon the subject, though they may have influenced each other [pg 049] in regard to certain points, such as the two mentioned above. For the rest, the fact that there is—

No direct statement of the creation of the heavens and the earth;

No systematic division of the things created into groups and classes, such as is found in Genesis;

No reference to the Days of Creation;

No appearance of the Deity as the first and only cause of the existence of things—

must be held as a sufficient series of prime reasons why the Babylonian and the Hebrew versions of the Creation-story must have had different origins.

As additional arguments may also be quoted the polytheism of the Babylonian account; the fact that it appears to be merely the setting to the legend of Bêl and the Dragon, and that, as such, it is simply the glorification of Merodach, the patron divinity of the Babylonians, over the other gods of the Assyro-Babylonian Pantheon.

Chapter II. The History, As Given In The Bible, From The Creation To The Flood.

“And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed.” There also He made every pleasant and good tree to grow, including the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. A river came out of Eden to water the garden, and this river was afterwards divided into four smaller streams, the Pishon, flowing round “the Hawilah,” a land of gold (which was good) and bdellium and onyx stone; the Gihon, flowing round the whole land of Cush; the Hiddekel or Tigris, and the Euphrates.

It is to be noted that it was not the garden itself that was called Eden, but the district in which it lay. The river too seems to have risen in the same tract, and was divided at some indeterminate point, either in the land of Eden or on its borders.

The whereabouts of the Garden of Eden and its rivers has been so many times discussed, and so many diverse opinions prevail concerning them, that there is no need at present to add to these theories yet another, more or less probable. Indeed, in the present work, theories will be kept in the background [pg 070] as much as possible, and prominence given to such facts as recent discoveries have revealed to us.

It had long been known that one of the Akkadian names for “plain” was edina, and that that word had been borrowed by the Babylonians under the form of êdinnu, but it was Prof. Delitzsch, the well-known Assyriologist, who first pointed out to a disbelieving world that this must be the Eden of Genesis. The present writer thought this identification worthless until he had the privilege of examining the tablets acquired by Dr. Hayes Ward in Babylonia on the occasion of his conducting the Wolfe expedition. Among the fragments of tablets that he then brought back was a list of cities in the Akkadian language (the Semitic Babylonian column was unfortunately broken away) which gave the following—

Here at last was the word Eden used as a geographical name, showing that the explanation of Delitzsch was not only plausible, but also, in all probability, true in substance and in fact. Less satisfactory, however, were the learned Professor's identifications of the rivers of Eden, for he regards the Pishon and the Gihon as canals—the former being the Pallacopas (the Pallukatu of the Babylonian inscriptions), and the latter the Guḫandê (also called the Araḫtu, now identified with a large canal running through Babylon). He conjectured that it might be the waterway known as the Shatt en-Nîl. Whatever doubt, however, attaches to his identifications of the rivers, he seems certainly to be right with regard to the Biblical Eden, and this is a decided gain, for it locates the position of that district beyond a doubt.

To Prof. Sayce belongs the honour of identifying the Babylonian story of the nature and position of Paradise as they conceived it, and here we have another example of the important details that the incantation-tablets may contain concerning beliefs not otherwise preserved to us, for the text in question, like the bilingual story of the Creation, is simply an introduction to a text of that nature. This interesting record, to which I have been able to add a few additional words since Prof. Sayce first gave his translation of it to the world, is as follows—

The lines which follow show how this plant, which was a miraculous remedy, was to be used in the cure of a sick man. It was to be placed upon his head, and beneficent spirits would then come and stay with him, whilst the evil ones would stand aside.

From the introductory lines above translated, we see that Êridu, “the good city,” which Sir Henry Rawlinson recognized many years ago as a type of paradise, was, to the Babylonians, as a garden of Eden, wherein grew a glorious tree, to all appearance a vine, for the adjective “dark” may very reasonably be regarded as referring to its fruit. Strange must [pg 072] have been its appearance, for it is described as resembling “white lapis-lazuli,” that is, the beautiful stone of that kind mottled blue and white. The probability that it was conceived by the Babylonians as a garden is strengthened by the fact that the god Aê, and his path, i.e. the rivers, filled the place with fertility, and it was, moreover, the abode of the river-god Nammu, whose streams, the Tigris and Euphrates, flowed on both sides. There, too, dwelt the Sun, making the garden fruitful with his ever-vivifying beams, whilst “the peerless mother of heaven,” as Tammuz seems to be called, added, by fructifying showers, to the fertility that the two great rivers brought down from the mountains from which they flowed. To complete still further the parallel with the Biblical Eden, it was represented as a place to which access was forbidden, for “no man entered its midst,” as in the case of the Garden of Eden after the fall.

Though one cannot be dogmatic in the presence of the imperfect records that we possess, it is worthy of note that Eden does not occur as the name of the earthly paradise in any of the texts referring to the Creation that have come down to us; and though it is to be found in the bilingual story of the Creation, it there occurs simply as the equivalent of the Semitic word ṣêrim in the phrase “he (Merodach) made the verdure of the plain.” That we shall ultimately find other instances of Eden as a geographical name, occurring by itself, and not in composition with another word (as in the expression Sipar Edina), and even a reference to gannat Edinni, “the Garden of Eden,” is to be expected.

Schrader5 has pointed out that whilst in Eden the river bears no name, it is only after it has left the sacred region that it is divided, and then each separate branch received a name. So, also, in the Babylonian [pg 073] description of the Eridu, the rivers were unnamed, though one guesses that the Tigris and the Euphrates are meant. The expression, “the mouth of the rivers [that are on] both sides” (pî nârãti ... kilallan), recalls to the mind the fact, that it was to “a remote place at the mouth of the rivers” that the Babylonian Noah (Pir-napištim) was translated after the Flood, when the gods conferred upon him the gift of immortality. To all appearance, therefore, Gilgameš, the ancient Babylonian hero who visited the immortal sage, entered into the tract regarded by the Babylonians of old times as being set apart for the abode of the blessed after their journeyings on this world should cease.

The connection of the stream which was “the path of Ae” with Eridu, seems to have been very close, for in the bilingual story of the Creation the flowing of the stream is made to be the immediate precursor of the building of Êridu and Êsagila, “the lofty-headed temple” within it—

In this Babylonian Creation-story it is a question of a stream and two rivers. In Genesis it is a question of a river and four branches. The parallelism is sufficiently close to be noteworthy and to show, beyond a doubt, that the Babylonians had the same accounts of the Creation and descriptions of the circumstances concerning it, as the Hebrews, though told in a different way, and in a different connection.

Two trees are mentioned in the Biblical account of the Creation, “the tree of life” and “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” By the eating of the former, a man would live for ever, and the latter would confer upon him that knowledge which God [pg 074] alone was supposed to possess, namely, of good and evil, carrying with it, however, the disadvantage of the loss of that innocence which he formerly possessed. Like the Hebrews, the Babylonians and Assyrians also had their sacred trees, but whether they attached to them the same deep significance as the Hebrews did to theirs we do not know. Certain, however, it is, that they had beliefs concerning them that were analogous.

The most familiar form of the sacred tree is that employed by the Assyrians, to a certain extent as a decorative ornament, on the sculptured slabs that adorned the walls of the royal palaces. This was the curious conglomeration of knots and leaves which various figures—winged genii with horned hats emblematic of divinity, eagle-headed figures, etc.—worship, and to which they make offerings, and touch with a conical object resembling the fruit of the fir or pine. An ingenious suggestion has been made to the effect that the genius with the pine-cone is represented in the act of fructifying the tree with the pollen (in an idealized form) from the flowers of another tree, just as it is necessary to fructify the date-palm from the pollen of the flowers growing on the “male” tree. This, however, can hardly be the true explanation of the mystic act represented, as similar genii are shown on other slabs not only holding out the conical object as if to touch therewith the figure of the king, but also doing the same thing to the effigies of the great winged bulls. Of course, the fructification of the king would be not only a possible representation to carve in alabaster, but one that we might even expect to find among the royal sculptures. The fructification of a winged bull, however, is quite a different thing, and in the highest degree improbable, unless the divine bull were a kind of representation of the king, which, though possible, is at present unprovable.

This symbolic scene, therefore, remains still a [pg 075] mystery for scholars to explain when they obtain the material to do so. It seems to be a peculiarly Assyrian design, for the offering of a pine-cone or similarly-shaped object to the sacred tree has not yet been found in Babylonian art. The Babylonian sacred tree is, moreover, a much more natural-looking object than the curious combination of knots and honeysuckle-shaped flowers found in the sculptures of Assyria. As in the case of the tree shown in the picture of the Temptation, described below, the sacred tree of the Babylonians often takes the form of a palm-tree, or something very like one. (See pl. III.)

As has been already remarked, the tree of Paradise of the Babylonians was, to all appearance, a vine, described as being in colour like blue and white mottled lapis-lazuli, and apparently bearing fruit (grapes) of a dark colour. That the Babylonian tree of life was a vine is supported by the fact that the ideograms composing the word for “wine” are geš-tin (for kaš-tin), “drink of life,” and “the vine,” giš geš-tin, “tree of the drink of life.” In the text describing the Babylonian Paradise and its divine tree, the name of the latter is given as kiškanû in Semitic, and giš-kin or giš-kan in Akkadian, a word mentioned in the bilingual lists among plants of the vine species. Whether the Hebrews regarded the tree of life as having been a vine or not, cannot at present be decided, but it is very probable that they had the same ideas as the Babylonians in the matter.

It is noteworthy, in this connection, that the Babylonians also believed that there still existed in the world a plant (they do not seem to have regarded it as a tree) which “would make an old man young again.” Judging from the statements concerning it, one would imagine that it was a kind of thorn-bush. As we shall see later, when treating of the story of the Flood, it was this plant which the Chaldean Noah gave the hero Gilgameš instructions how to find—for [pg 076] the desire to become young again had seized him—and he seems to have succeeded in possessing himself of it, only to lose it again almost immediately, for a lion, coming that way at a time when Gilgameš was otherwise occupied, carried it off—to his own benefit, as the hero remarks, for he naturally supposed that the lion who had seized the plant would have his life renewed, and prey all the longer upon the people.

The title of a lost legend, “When the kiškanû (? vine, see above) grew in the land” (referring, perhaps, to the tree of life which grew in Êridu), leads one to ask whether “The legend of Nisaba (the corn-deity) and the date-palm,” and “The legend of the luluppu-tree” may not also refer to sacred trees, bearing upon the question of the tree of knowledge referred to in Gen. ii. As, however, the titles (generally a portion of the first line only) are all that are at present preserved, there is nothing to be done but wait patiently until it pleases Providence to make them further known to us.

The kiškanû was of three kinds, white (piṣu), black (ṣalmi), as in the description of the tree of Paradise, and grey or blue (sâmi). In view of there being these three colours, it would seem that they refer rather to the fruit of the tree than to the tree itself. Now the only plant growing in the country and having these three colours of fruit, is the vine. Of course, this raises the question whether (1) the kiškanû is a synonym of gištin or karanu, or (2) the word gištin, which is generally rendered “vine,” is, in reality, correctly translated. Whatever be the true explanation, one thing is certain, namely, that in the description of Paradise, the word black or dark (ṣalmu), applied to the tree there mentioned, cannot refer to the tree itself, for that is described as being like “white lapis” (uknū êbbu), a beautiful stone mottled blue and white.

Babylonian Mythological Composition. Impression of a cylinder-seal showing a male figure on the right and a bull-man on the left, holding erect bulls by the horns and tails. In the centre is a form of the sacred tree on a hill. Date about 2500 b.c. British Museum.

Babylonian Mythological Composition. Impression of a cylinder-seal showing Istar, goddess of love and of war as archeress, standing on the back of a lion, which turns its head to caress her feet. Before her is a worshipper (priest) and two goats (reversed to form a symmetrical design), leaping. Behind her is a date-palm. Date about 650 b.c. British Museum.

Among other trees of a sacred nature is “the cedar [pg 077] beloved of the great gods,” mentioned in an inscription of a religious or ceremonial nature, though exactly in what connection the imperfectness of the document does not enable us to see. It would seem, however, that there were certain priests or seers to whom was confided the “tablet of the gods,” containing the secret of the heavens and earth (probably the “tablet of fate,” which Merodach took from the husband of Tiamat after his fight with her for the dominion of the universe). These persons, who seem to have been the descendants of En-we-dur-an-ki (the Euedoranchos of Berosus), king of Sippar, were those to whom was confided “the cedar beloved of the great gods”—perhaps a kind of sceptre. They had, however, not only to be of noble race, but also perfect physically and free from every defect and disease. Moreover, one who did not keep the command of Šamaš and Addu (Hadad) could not approach the place of Ae, Šamaš, Marduk, and Nin-edina, nor the number of the brothers who were to enter the seership; they were not to reveal to him the word of the oracle, and “the cedar beloved of the great gods” was not to be delivered into his hands.

There is hardly any doubt, then, that we have here the long-sought parallel to the Biblical “tree of knowledge,” for that, too, was in the domain of “the lord of knowledge,” the god Ae, and also in the land which might be described as that of “the lord of Eden,” the “hidden place of heaven and earth” for all the sons of Adam, who are no longer allowed to enter into that earthly Paradise wherein their first parents gained, at such a cost, the knowledge, imperfect as it must have been, and evidently undesirable, which they handed down to their successors.

Adam.

The name of the first man, Adam, is one that has tried the learning of the most noted Hebraists to [pg 078] explain satisfactorily. It was formerly regarded as being derived from the root ādam, “to be red,” but this explanation has been given up in favour of the root ādam, “to make, produce,” man being conceived as “the created one.” This etymology is that put forward by the Assyriologist Fried. Delitzsch, who quotes the Assyrian âdmu, “young bird,” and âdmi summāti, “young doves,” literally, “the young of doves,” though he does not seem to refer the Assyrian udumu, “monkey,” to the same root. He also quotes, apparently from memory, the evidence of a fragment of a bilingual list found by Mr. Rassam, in which Adam is explained by the usual Babylonian word for “man,” amēlu.

The writer of Genesis has given to the first man the name of Adam, thus personifying in him the human race, which was to descend from him. In all probability, the Babylonians had the same legends, but, if so, no fragment of them has as yet come to light. That the Hebrew stories of the Creation had their origin in Babylonia, will probably be conceded by most people as probable, if not actually proven, and the fact that the word a-dam occurs, as Delitzsch has pointed out, in a bilingual list would, supposing the text to which he refers to be actually bilingual, be a matter of peculiar significance, for it would show that this word, which does not occur in Semitic Babylonian as the word for “man,” occurred in the old Akkadian language with that meaning.

And the proof that Delitzsch was right in his recollection of the tablet of which he speaks, is shown by the bilingual Babylonian story of the Creation. There, in lines 9, 10, we read as follows—

Akkadian (dialectic): Uru nu-dim, a-dam nu-mun-ia.

Babylonian: Âlu ûl êpuš, nammaššu ûl šakin.

“A city had not been made, the community had not been established.”

[pg 079]

Here we have the non-Semitic adam translated by the Babylonian nammaššu, which seems to mean a number of men, in this passage something like community, for that is the idea which best fits the context. But besides this Semitic rendering, the word also has the meanings of tenišētu, “mankind,” amelūtu, “human beings.”

The word adam, meaning “man,” is found also in Phœnician, Sabean, and apparently in Arabic, under the form of atam, a collective meaning “creatures.”

The possibility that the Babylonians had an account of the Fall similar to that of the Hebrews, is not only suggested by the legends treated of above, but also by the cylinder-seal in the British Museum with what seems to be the representation of the Temptation engraved upon it. We have there presented to us the picture of a tree—a palm—bearing fruit, and on each side of it a seated figure, that on the right being to all appearance the man, and that on the left the woman, though there is not much difference between them, and, as far as the form of either goes, the sexes might easily be reversed. That, however, which seems to be intended for the man has the horned hat emblematic of divinity, or, probably, of divine origin, whilst from the figure which seems to be that of the woman this head-dress is absent. Behind her, moreover, with wavy body standing erect on his tail, is shown the serpent, towering just above her head, as if ready to speak with her. Both figures are stretching out a hand (the man the right, the woman the left) as if to pluck the fruit growing on the tree. Notwithstanding the doubts that have been thrown on the explanation here given of this celebrated and exceedingly interesting cylinder, the subject and its arrangement are so suggestive, that one can hardly regard it as being other than what it seems to be, namely, a Babylonian representation of the Temptation, according to records [pg 080] that the Babylonians possessed. The date of this object may be set down as being from about 2750 to 2000 b.c.

Future excavations in Babylonia and Assyria will, no doubt, furnish us with the legends current in those countries concerning the Temptation, the Fall, and the sequel thereto. Great interest would naturally attach to the Babylonian rendering of the details and development of the story, more particularly to the terms of the penalty, the expulsion, and the nature of the beings—the cherubim—placed at the east of the garden, and “the flaming sword turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”

Though the Babylonian version of this Biblical story has not yet come to light, the inscriptions in the wedge-writing give us a few details bearing upon the word “cherub.”

The Hebrews understood these celestial beings as having the form which we attribute to angels—a glorified human appearance, but with the addition of wings. They are spoken of as bearing the throne of the Almighty through the clouds (“He rode upon a cherub, and did fly”), and in Psalm xviii. 11 he is also represented as sitting upon them. In Ezekiel i. and x. they are said to be of a very composite form, combining with the human shape the face of a cherub (whatever that may have been), a man, an ox, a lion, and an eagle. It has been supposed that Ezekiel was indebted to Assyro-Babylonian imagery for the details of the cherubic creatures that he describes, but it may safely be said that, though the sculptures furnish us with images of divine creatures in the form of a man with the face of an eagle, or having a modification of a lion's head, and bulls and lions with the faces of men, there has never yet been found a figure provided with a wheel for the purpose of locomotion, and having four heads, like those of which the prophet speaks. We may, therefore, safely conclude, that [pg 081] Ezekiel applied the word kerûb (cherub) to the creatures that he saw in his vision, because that was the most suitable word he could find, not because it was the term usually applied to things of that kind. It is hardly likely that the guardians of the entrance into the earthly Paradise and the creatures that bore up the throne of the Almighty were conceived as being of so complicated a form as the cherubim of Ezekiel.

Whatever doubt may exist as to the original form of this celestial being, the discussion of the origin of the Hebrew word kerûb may now be regarded as finally settled by the discovery of the Assyro-Babylonian records. It is undoubtedly borrowed from the Babylonian kirubu, a word meaning simply “spirit,” and conceived as one who was always in the presence (ina kirib) of God, and formed from the root qarābu, “to be near.” The change from q (qoph) to k (kaph) is very common in Babylonian, and occurs more frequently before e and i, hence the form in Hebrew, kerûb (cherub—the translators intended that ch should be pronounced as k) for qerûb (which the translators would have transcribed as kerub).

Originally the Assyro-Babylonian word kirubu seems to have meant something like “intimate friend,” or “familiar,” as in the expression kirub šarri, “familiar of the king,” mentioned between “daughter of the king,” and “the beloved woman of the king.” An illustration of its extended meaning of “spirit,” however, occurs in the following lines from “the tablet of Good Wishes”—

“In thy mouth may there be perfection of speech

(lû asim dababu);

In thine eye may there be brightness of sight

(lû namir niṭlu);

In thine ear may there be a spirit of hearing”

(lû kirub nišmû, lit. ‘a cherub of hearing’).”

[pg 082]

The cherubim were therefore the good spirits who performed the will of God, and, in the minds of the Assyrians and Babylonians, watched over and guarded the man who was the “son of his God,” i.e. the pious man.

The cherub upon which the Almighty rode, and upon whom he sat, corresponds more to the guzalū or “throne-bearer” of Assyro-Babylonian mythology. They were apparently beings who bore up the thrones of the gods, and are frequently to be seen in Babylonian sculptures thus employed, at rest, and waiting patiently, to all appearance, until their divine master, seated on the throne which rests on their shoulders, should again give them word, or make known that it was now his will to start and journey forth once more.

The story of Cain and Abel, and the first tragedy that occurred in the world after the creation of man, has always attracted the attention of the pious on that account, and because the first recorded murder was that of a brother. This is a story to which the discovery of a Babylonian parallel was least likely to be found, and, as a matter of fact, none has as yet come to light. Notwithstanding this, a few remarks upon such remote parallels which exist, and such few illustrations of the event that can be found, may be cited in this place.

These are contained in the story of Tammuz or Adonis, who, though not supposed to have been slain by his brother, was nevertheless killed by the cold of Winter, who might easily have been regarded as his brother, for Tammuz typified the season of Summer, the Brother-season, so to say, of Winter. As is well known, the name Tammuz is Akkadian, and occurs in that language under the form of Dumu-zi, or, more fully, Dumu-zida, meaning “the everlasting son,” in Semitic Babylonian âblu kênu. It is very noteworthy that Prof. J. Oppert has suggested that the name of Abel, in Hebrew Habel, is, in reality, none other than [pg 083] the Babylonian ablu, “son,” and the question naturally arises, May not the story of Cain and Abel have given rise to the legend of Tammuz, or Ablu kênu, as his name would be if translated into Semitic Babylonian?

Unless by a folk-etymology, however, the Semitic Babylonian translation of the name of Tammuz can hardly be a composition of Abel and Cain, because the first letter is q (qoph) and not k (kaph), the transcription Cain for Kain or Kayin being faulty in the A.V. Still, we feel bound to recognize that there is a possibility, though naturally a remote one, that the legend of Tammuz is connected with that of Cain and Abel, just as the division of the Dragon (in the Babylonian story of the Creation) by the god Merodach into two halves, with one of which he covered the heavens, leaving the other below upon the earth, typifies the division of the waters above the earth from those below in the Biblical story of the same event.

There is a legend, named by me (for want of a more precise title) “The Lament of the Daughter of the god Sin,” in which the carrying off (by death?) of “her fair son” is referred to. Here we have another possible Babylonian parallel to the story of the death of Abel, in which the driving forth of her who makes the lament from her city and from her palace might well typify the expulsion of Eve from Paradise, and her delivery into the power of her enemy, who is, to all appearance, the king of terrors, into whose hands she and her husband were, for their disobedience, consigned. In this really beautiful Babylonian poem her “enemy” seems to reproach her, telling her how it was she, and she alone, who had ruined herself.

Though there may be something in the comparisons with the story of Cain and Abel which are quoted here, more probably (as has been already remarked) there is nothing, and the real parallels have yet to be found. In any case, they are instances of the popularity among the Babylonians and Assyrians of those stories of one, greatly beloved and in the bloom of [pg 084] youth, coming, like Abel, to an untimely end through the perversity of fate, and by no fault of his own. Though neither may be the original of the Biblical story nor yet derived from it, they are of interest and value as beautiful legends of old time, possibly throwing light on the Biblical story.

As yet the Babylonian and Assyrian records shed but little light on the question of the patriarchs of the early ages succeeding Adam, the details that are given concerning them, and their long lives. Upon this last point there is only one remark to be made, and that is, that the prehistoric kings of Babylonia likewise lived and reigned for abnormally long ages, according to the records that have come down to us. Unfortunately, there is nothing complete in the important original of the Canon of Berosus first published by the late G. Smith, and the beginning is especially mutilated.

The likeness between Enoch and the Akkadian name of the city of Erech, Unug, has already been pointed out, and it has been suggested that the two words are identical. This, however, can hardly be the case, for the Hebrew form of Enoch is Ḫanôḳ, the initial letter being the guttural ḫeth, which, notwithstanding the parallel ease of Hiddekel, the Akkadian Idigna (the Tigris), weakens the comparison. The principal argument against the identification, however, is the fact that, in the bilingual story of the Creation, the god Merodach is said to have built the city, and such was evidently the Babylonian belief.6

The name of Enoch's great-grandson, Methusael, finds, as has many times been pointed out, its counterpart in the Babylonian Mut-îli, with the same meaning (“man of God”).

Lower part of the obverse of a terra-cotta tablet from Nineveh, inscribed with the names of Babylonian kings in Sumerian and Semitic Babylonian. The 13th line (that running across two columns) has the statement, "These are the kings who were after the Flood. They are not written in their proper order." The names of Sargina (Sargon of Agadé) and Hammurabi (Amraphel) also occur. Found by Sir A. H. Layard and Hormuzd Rassam.

Chapter III. The Flood.

Noah, son of Lamech, had reached the age of five hundred years, and had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japhet; and at this time men had begun to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them; then “the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them wives of all that they chose.”

The question naturally arises, “Who were these sons of God?” According to Job xxxviii. 7, where we have the statement that “The morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy,” it would seem to be the angels that are intended by these words, and this is apparently the opinion generally held by scholars and divines on the subject. This view seems to be favoured by the Second Epistle of Peter (ii. 1), though, as the words do not actually agree with those of the text of Genesis quoted above, nothing very positive can be maintained concerning the apostle's dictum—in fact, his words in the passage referred to, “for if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains and darkness, to be reserved unto [pg 086] judgment,” can much more reasonably be regarded as referring, and therefore giving authority to, the story of the fall of the angels, as indicated in Avitus, Caedmon, and Milton, a legend of which the germs are found in the Babylonian account of the Creation, referred to in Chapter I. The other passages of Job where this expression occurs (i. 6, and ii. 2) are not conclusive as to the meaning “angels,” for the expressions “sons of God,” in those passages, who are said to have come before the Almighty, may very well have been merely men.

However the matter may stand, for the passages in Job, there is every probability that it is not the angels that are intended in the description we are examining as to the reasons of the coming of the Flood. As the late George Bertin was the first to point out, the Babylonians often used the phrase “a son of his god,” apparently to designate “a just man,” or something similar. The connection in which this expression occurs is as follows—

In this passage the phrase in question is (in Akkadian) gišgallu dumu dingirana, and (in Assyrian) amēlu mâr îli-šu. It is a frequent expression in documents of this class, and always occurs in a similar connection. In some cases, instead of “the man, the son of his god,” the variation “the king, the [pg 087] son of his god” occurs, and is apparently to be paraphrased in the same way, and understood as “the pious king.”

May it not be, then, that “the sons of God,” who saw that the daughters of men were fair (lit. good), and took of them as many wives as they wanted, were those who were regarded as the pious men of the time? For who among the angels would at any time have thought of allying himself with an earthly and mortal spouse, and begetting children—offspring who should turn out to be “mighty men which were of old, men of renown,” as verse 4 has it? In this case, the “daughters of men” would be children of common people, not possessing any special piety or other virtue to recommend them, the only thing being that their daughters were fair, and good enough, in the opinion of those “sons of God,” to have as their wives.

It is apparently given as the result of these unions between the pious men and the daughters of the people that wickedness became rife in the earth, and man's imagination continually evil; and this was so to such an extent that the Almighty repented of having created man, and decided to destroy the wicked generation—both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air—dwelling upon the earth—all except Noah, who found favour in the eyes of Yahwah.

Having decided to destroy the life of the world by means of a flood, God communicated His intention and the reason thereof to the patriarch, and instructed him to build an ark in which he was to save both himself and his family from the impending destruction. The vessel is to be built of gopher-wood, to have rooms in it, and to be pitched within and without with pitch. The dimensions also are specified. Its length was to be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. He was to [pg 088] make the ark “with light” (צהר or רהצ), that is, with windows, and their length or height, apparently, was to be a cubit. The vessel was to have a door, and to be built with three stories, lower, second, and third. In accordance with God's covenant with the patriarch, he, his sons, and his sons' wives were to be saved, along with every living thing, male and female of each kind. For all this great multitude a sufficiency of food was directed to be provided.

Then comes the command (the ark having been duly built, and all the directions followed) to enter into the vessel, and further instructions are given with regard to the creatures that are to be saved, with a slight modification in the numbers, for the clean beasts are to be taken in “by sevens,” and all the rest, “the unclean,” by pairs. God then announces that in seven days' time He will cause rain to come upon the earth for forty days and forty nights. “All the fountains of the great deep” were broken up, and the Lord shut up those upon whom He had favour in the ark.

Then, as the rain continued, the waters “prevailed exceedingly” upon the earth, and the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered, the depth of the waters being “fifteen cubits and upwards.” Everything was destroyed, “Noah alone remained alive, and those who were with him in the ark.”

“And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.”

The “fountains of the deep” and “the windows of heaven” having been stopped, and the “rain from heaven” restrained, the waters abated, leaving the ark high and dry upon the mountains of Ararat; and after the tops of the mountains were seen, Noah looked out of the window that he had made. He then sent forth a raven and a dove, and the latter, not finding a resting-place, returned to him, to be sent forth again at the end of another week. The dove [pg 089] again returned bearing in her beak an olive-leaf. Seven days more passed, and the dove, having been sent out a third time, returned to him no more. Recognizing that the waters were now all returned into their old channels, and that the land was dry enough for him and his, Noah removed the covering of the vessel, and saw that his supposition was correct, and having received the command to come forth from the ark, which had been his abiding-place for so long, and to send forth the living creatures that were with him, the patriarch obeyed, and, when on dry land, built an altar to Yahwah, and offered burnt offerings thereon of every clean beast and every clean fowl.

“And the Lord smelled a sweet savour (lit. a savour of rest); and the Lord said in His heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth.... While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.”

Then comes, in the ninth chapter, the blessing of God, with a charge concerning the shedding of blood. He makes also a covenant with Noah, by the sign of the rainbow, declaring that a like calamity shall never again come upon the earth to destroy all life that is upon it.

Such is, in short, the Bible story of the great flood that destroyed, at a remote age of the world, all life upon the earth. It is a narrative circumstantially told, with day, month, and year all indicated, and it forms a good subject for comparison with the Babylonian account, with which it agrees so closely in all the main points, and from which it differs so much in many essential details.

As in the case of the Babylonian story of the Creation, it has been thought well not only to give a fairly full translation of the Babylonian story of the Flood, but also to indicate under what circumstances [pg 090] that story appears in the series of tablets in which it is found.

The first to detect the nature of the series of tablets giving the story of the Flood was the late George Smith, who had unrivalled opportunities of making himself thoroughly acquainted with the treasures of the British Museum in the matter of Assyrian records. As the story runs, it was whilst searching for the fragments of the Creation-series that he came across a fragment of a tablet mentioning that “the ship rested on the mountain of Niṣir,” and this at once suggested to him that this was a reference to the Flood, as, in fact, it turned out to be. Continued and unremitting research among the treasures of the Department in which he was employed enabled him to bring together a large number of other fragments of the series, leaving, in fact, very little indeed for any future student to do in the way of collecting together texts from the fragments that he had an opportunity of examining. The Daily Telegraph expedition to Assyria, which was conducted by Mr. Smith himself, enabled him to add many other fragments to those which he had already recognized in the Oriental Department of the British Museum, and Mr. Rassam's very successful excavations in the same place have since very considerably increased the list of additions.

The story of the Flood, as known to the Babylonians and Assyrians, is one chapter or book of a legend consisting of twelve similar divisions, the first line of the series beginning with the words Ša naqba imûru, “He who saw everything,” and to this is added in the colophons, “the legend of Gilgameš.” The number of fragments extant is large, but the individual tablets are very imperfect, that giving the account of the Flood being by far the most complete, though even that has very regrettable lacunæ. Incomplete as the legend is as a whole, an attempt will nevertheless be made here to give some sort of a connected story, [pg 091] which may be regarded as accurate in all its main details.

The first tablet begins with the words that have been quoted above, “He who saw everything, [who] ... the land.” This is followed, it would seem, by a description of the hero, who, apparently, knew “the wisdom of the whole (of the lands?),” and “saw secret and hidden things.... He brought news of before the flood, went a distant road, and (suffered) dire fatigue (?).” All his journeyings and toils were, apparently, inscribed on tablets of stone, and records thus left for future ages.

Gilgameš, as we learn in the course of the narrative, was lord or king of Uruk supuri, or “Erech the walled,” and at the time when the story begins, the fortifications were in a ruinous state, and the treasury (?) of the sanctuary Ê-anna, the temple of the goddess Ištar, which is mentioned in the legend immediately after, was, we may suppose, empty. Other details of the desolation of the temple are given, and the ruinous state of the walls of the city are spoken of, together with the decay of their foundations.

No other fragment of Col. I. of the first tablet of the Legend of Gilgameš seems to have been recognized, so that the further references to the city are lost. An interesting piece that Mr. G. Smith thought to be part of the third column of this text refers to some misfortune that came upon the city when the people moaned like calves, and the maidens grieved like doves.

The city was, on this occasion, besieged for three years, until at last the god Bêl and the goddess Ištar interested themselves in the state of things. As to [pg 092] who the enemy was who brought the people into such distress, there is no means at present of finding out, but Mr. G. Smith suggested, with at least some show of probability, that they were the Elamites under Ḫumbaba, who appears later as the opponent of our hero. The indifference of the gods and the divine bulls that were supposed to protect the city is well expressed in the statement that they respectively turned into flies and mice, buzzing about and active, but doing no good whatever.

After the reference to the state of Erech, the text is exceedingly mutilated, and the sense difficult to gather, but it would seem to have contained a further description of the hero, who, according to Jensen's translation, is described as “two parts god and the third part man.” To all appearance there was none in all his realm like him, and also no consort suitable for him, though he collected to him all the young men and maidens in the land. This was a matter for grief, which the (divine powers ?) heard, and they called upon the goddess Aruru to make another in his likeness. This being was Êa-banî,7 the mighty one, to all appearance made to be the rival of Gilgameš, but if this be the case, he did not fulfil his destiny, for his delight was to remain with the beasts of the field. All his body was covered with hair, and he had long tresses on his head, like those of a woman (recalling Samson's luxuriant locks). Far, too, from being the rival of Gilgameš, he became his most devoted friend and companion.

Apparently he did not like being watched so long by the hunter, and becoming suspicious of his intentions, showed resentment, and tried to drive him away. It may be noted by the way, that this description of Êa-banî would answer excellently to the state attributed for a time to Nebuchadnezzar in the Book of Daniel.

The hunter has a conversation with his father, who [pg 094] was with him, and the upshot of it is that they decide to communicate to Gilgameš an account of the terrible man whom they had seen. It was therefore decided to try to catch or, rather, entice him to Erech by means of a female named Samḫat. In accordance with the instructions received, therefore, the hunter took with him the woman who was intrusted to him, and they awaited Êa-banî in the same place, by the side of the water. After watching for him for two days, they got into communication with him, and the woman asked him why he dwelt with the wild animals, depicting at the same time all the glory of Erech the walled and the nobility of Gilgameš, so that he soon allowed himself to be persuaded, and, in the end, went and took up his abode there.

Various things are then narrated, the most important of them being the episode of the Elamite Ḫumbaba, the same name, though not the same person, as the Kombabos of the Greeks.

Gilgameš seems to have gone to a place where there was a forest of cedar-trees, accompanied by Êa-banî. Near this place, apparently, there was a splendid palace, the abode (?) of a great queen. Judging from what remains of the text, they ask their way of her, and she it is who seems to tell them how to reach the dominions of the potentate whom they seek.

Evidently, from the extent of the record in this place, many adventures befell them, but the fragmentary [pg 095] lines and the numerous lacunæ make a connected narrative absolutely impossible, and it is not until we reach the first column of what Mr. G. Smith regarded as the fifth tablet that we get something more satisfactory than this. The hero has apparently come within measurable distance of his goal—

They had still a long way to go, however, and many things, seemingly, to overcome, before they should reach the abode of the dreaded Elamite ruler, but unfortunately, the details of their adventures are so very fragmentary that no connected sense whatever is to be made out. The last line of the tablet referring to this section, mentioning, as it does, the head of Ḫumbaba, leads the reader to guess the conclusion of the story, whatever the details may have been.

It is with the sixth tablet that we meet, for the first time, almost, with something really satisfactory in the matter of completeness, though even here one is sometimes pulled up sharp by a defective or doubtful passage.

Apparently, Gilgameš had become, at the time to which this tablet refers, very prosperous, and that, combined with his other attractions, evidently drew upon him the attention of the goddess Ištar—

At his entering, the people were to kiss his feet, and kings, lords, and princes do him homage, and lastly, he was to have no rival upon the earth.

In the mutilated passage that follows, Gilgameš answers the goddess, reproaching her with her treatment of her former lovers or husbands, which seems to have been far from satisfactory. Reference to a “wall of stone,” and to “the land of the enemy,” seem to point to imprisonment and expulsion, and the words “Who is the bridegroom (whom thou hast kept?) for ever?” indicate clearly the opinion in which the hero held the goddess. From generalities, however, he proceeds to more specific charges—

Ištar being angry at these reproaches and accusations of the Babylonian hero, immediately ascended to heaven and complained to her father Anu and her mother Anatum that Gilgameš had reproached her with her enchantments and witcheries, and after a long conversation, a divine bull is sent against the hero and his friend. The heavenly animal is overcome, principally by the activity of Êa-banî, who after [pg 098] its death, when the goddess Ištar was lamenting its overthrow, cut off a portion of the body, and threw it at her. Great were the rejoicings at Erech the walled at the triumph of the hero and his counsellor, and after the feast that was held, they all lay down to sleep. Êa-banî also lay down with the rest, and during the night he saw a dream, of the details of which nothing is known, though, from the words with which it seems to be introduced, “My friend, on account of what do the gods take counsel,” it may be supposed that the defiance and opposition which these mortals had offered to the goddess Ištar was engaging the attention of the heavenly powers with a view to some action being taken. As it is with these words that Êa-banî begins to tell his dream to Gilgameš, there is no doubt that the Babylonians regarded the former as having been admitted, whilst asleep (as in the case of the Babylonian Noah), into the councils of the gods. The solitary line that is quoted above is the first of the seventh tablet.

The details of the legend now again become obscure, but thus much can be gathered, namely, that Gilgameš in his turn had a dream, and that, all appearance, Êa-banî interpreted it. Later on, Êa-banî falls ill, and lies without moving for twelve days. Though unwilling to regard his friend as dead, Gilgameš mourns for him bitterly, and decides to make a journey, apparently with the object of finding out about his friend Êa-banî, and ascertaining whether there were any means of bringing him back to earth again.

He sets out, and comes to the place where the “scorpion-men,” with their heads reaching to heaven, and their breasts on a level with Hades, guarded the place of the rising and the setting sun. The horror of their appearance, which was death to behold, is forcibly described on the tablet. The hero was struck with terror on seeing them, but as he was of [pg 099] divine origin (“his body is of the flesh of the gods,” as the scorpion-man says to his female), death has no power over him on account of them. He seems to describe to them his journey, and the object he had in view. Pir-napištim, the Babylonian Noah, is mentioned in the course of the conversation, and it may be supposed that it is on account of his desire to visit him that he asks these monsters for advice. He afterwards comes into contact with the goddess Siduri, “who sits upon the throne of the sea,” and she, on seeing him, shuts her gate. He speaks to her of this, and threatens to break it open. Having gained admission, he apparently tells the goddess the reason of his journey, and she, in return, describes to him the way that he would have to take, the sea that he would have to cross, and of the deep waters of death that bar the way to the abode of the Babylonian Noah, who had attained unto everlasting life, and whose pilot or boatman, Ur-Šanabi, was to take the Erechite hero to his presence.

After a long conversation with Ur-Šanabi, concerning the road that they will take, they start together, and after passing through a forest, they embark in a ship, and reach, at the end of a month and ten days, the “waters of death.” There Gilgameš does something a number of times, and afterwards sees afar off Pir-napištim, the Babylonian Noah, who apparently communes with himself concerning the visitor who has come to his shores. The conversation which follows is very mutilated, but in the course of his explanation of the reason of his visit, Gilgameš relates all his adventures—how he had traversed all the countries, and crossed difficult mountains, his visit to Siduri, and her refusal to open the door to him, with many other things. The conversation apparently, after a time, becomes of a philosophical nature, for, in the course of it, Pir-napištim says—

He then discourses, apparently among other things, of death, and says—

With these words the tenth tablet of the Gilgameš series comes to an end.

Chapter IV. Assyria, Babylonia, And The Hebrews, With Reference To The So-Called Genealogical Table.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Large additions have of late years been made to the number of ancient remains from Babylonia, and most of these are of a very early period. We are thus in a position to compare not only the different types of that early period with each other, but also with the sculptures of later date. The cylinder-seals show us a comparatively slim race, long-bearded, erect and dignified, and these characteristics are also recognizable among the various types revealed to us by the still earlier sculptures. The representations of kings and deities are often heavily bearded, but, on the other hand, high officials and others are generally clean shaven. These peculiarities, with the difference of costume, especially the thick-brimmed hats, [pg 120] would seem to imply distinct foreign influence, or, rather, in combination with the differences of racial type exhibited, considerable foreign admixture. Perhaps, however, the true explanation is, that the plain of Shinar represents the meeting-point of two different races—one Cushite and the other Semitic.

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

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

Both from the ethnographical and the linguistic side, therefore, ample testimony to the existence of a [pg 121] non-Semitic race (or non-Semitic races) in the plain of Shinar in ancient times is at hand. As to the language intended in the expression “Two Šumerian incantations” (spoken of above) there can be no doubt, the original idiom in question being the non-Semitic tongue already referred to—that tongue which was like the tongue of Akkad, of which it was apparently a more decayed form. The title given cannot refer to the translation into Assyro-Babylonian which accompanies it, as this is undoubtedly of later date than the composition itself.

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

The question of the origin of the Akkadians is one concerning which there has been and is still much uncertainty, and which presents many problems for the future. It has been remarked that the fact that there is no special ideograph for “river,” and the fact that “mountain” and “country” are represented by the [pg 122] same character, imply that the people with whom the cuneiform script originated came from a mountainous country—probably the tract to the east or the north-east. This assumption, however, is not wholly dependent on what is here stated, for it is a well-known and admitted fact that the ideograph generally used for “Akkad” stands also for other tracts that are largely mountainous, namely, Phœnicia and Ararat.

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

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

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

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

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

In the earliest ages known to us, the land of Akkad was a collection of small states resembling the Heptarchy. These states differed considerably in power, influence, and prosperity, and the passing centuries brought many changes with them. From time to time one of the kings or viceroys of these small states would find himself more powerful than his contemporaries, and would gradually overcome all the others. One of the earliest instances of this is the ruler Lugal-zag-gi-si, whose reign is placed by Hilprecht [pg 124] at about 4500 b.c. He was son of Ukuš (the reading is doubtful), viceroy (patesi) of a district which seems to be that of which Kis was capital. “He had conquered all Babylonia and established an empire extending from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea” (Hilprecht).

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

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

Until about the time of the dynasty of Babylon, the language principally used was to all appearance the non-Semitic Babylonian or Akkadian—in any case, the numerous texts (mainly temple-accounts) of the period of Dungi, Bûr-Sin, Gimil-Sin, and Ibi-Sin are written in that tongue. Nevertheless, Akkadian seems to have been the official language of the country for a considerable time after, if we may judge from the contracts, and especially the historical dates of these documents, which are always written in Akkadian. [pg 125] The names, too, which were before this period wholly Akkadian, gradually become more and more Semitic (Assyro-Babylonian), and finally the Akkadian element only exists as a remnant of the non-Semitic tongue which prevailed before the Semitic Dynasty of Babylon—that to which Ḫammurabi or Amraphel belonged—made the Semitic tongue, spoken by Sargon of Agadé more than 1500 years before, the official language of the country.

Such, then, is the history of the ancient Akkadians, from whose intermingled stock the later Semitic Babylonians sprang, and who inherited, at the same time, their method of writing, their literature, their arts and sciences, and also, to a great extent, their manners, customs, and religion. It was to all appearance with the Semitic dynasty of Ḫammurabi that the change from non-Semitic to Semitic predominance took place. This change must have been slow enough, and in all probability it occurred without any national upheaval, and without any interruption of the national life. Semitic names gradually replaced the Akkadian ones, most of the religious works, incantations, national histories, bilingual lists, and syllabaries were supplied with Semitic translations, and legal precedents in Semitic Babylonian for the information of the judges of later times were drawn up, whilst the old Akkadian laws, though retained, were translated for the use of students who no longer learned Akkadian as their mother-tongue, and who committed them to memory at the same time as they learned the set phrases they would have to use when, their education completed, they should attain to the dignity of full-fledged ministers to the legal needs of the community. By this time, or somewhat later, the racial type must have become fixed, for the sculptures from the thirteenth century b.c. downwards no longer show the slim, elegant form of the Akkadians, but the thick-set, well-developed figure of the Semites, such as at [pg 126] least some of the native Christians of Baghdad and the neighbourhood show at the present day.

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

At first governed by patesis, or viceroys (many Assyriologists call them priest-kings or pontiffs), this title was abandoned for that of šarru, “king,” between [pg 127] 1600 and 1800 b.c. The use of the title patesi (in Assyrian iššaku, “chief”) implies that the earlier rulers of Assur acknowledged some overlord, and in all probability this overlord was the paramount king of Babylonia at the time. If we regard Nimrod (Merodach) as the first king of Babylonia (or the first really great ruler of the country), then it is certain that it was not he who founded the great cities of Assyria, for they can have no pretensions to the same antiquity as the great cities of Babylonia, any more than Assyrian civilization can be of the same period. Of course it is probable that the cities of Assyria were founded at an exceedingly early date, perhaps many of them are as old as any Babylonian foundation, but their importance was nothing like so great as those of Babylonia until the latter had already been renowned many hundreds—perhaps many thousands—of years, and to attribute the origin of these unimportant places to Nimrod would bring him no honour, even if it were probable that he had founded them.

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

Being far away from the centre of civilization, and apparently mingling with barbarous races to the north—the people of Urarṭu (Ararat), Van, Ukka, Muṣaṣir, etc.—in all probability the ancient Assyrians lost what polish they had brought with them from Babylonia, [pg 128] and, like all pioneers, developed into hardy, fearless, and cruel warriors, constantly striving for the mastery over all the other tribes and nationalities around. Thus it came to pass that, having ascertained her strength, Assyria refused to acknowledge the overlordship of the kings of Babylonia, and the rulers of the country abandoned the title of patesi or iššaku for that of šarru or “king.” The country from which the Assyrians had sprung did not long remain secure from the attacks of her offspring, and the conquest of Babylonia by the Assyrians took place more than once. Brave, warlike, and cruel, the Assyrians at last possessed for a time not only Babylonia, with the overlordship of Elam, but also the whole of Western Asia as far as the Mediterranean and Cyprus, and a large part of Egypt. Notwithstanding the polish that they had attained during the last years of the empire, the nations around remembered against them all the cruelties that they had committed during the foregoing centuries, and when the time of weakness came, when the ruling mind that should have held the empire together, and turned the tide of disaster into the channel of success, was wanting, then came the chance of the nations that had known the Assyrian empire in former ages, and the end of the seventh century before Christ saw the last of the power that had dominated Western Asia so long and so successfully.

Yet Assyria was a most remarkable power, and produced a number of really great rulers and generals. The Assyrian kings retained for a long time their dominion over fairly distant tracts, and made themselves greatly feared by all the nations around. As is well known, they had made great advances in the art of sculpture, so much so that visitors to the British Museum, on seeing the wonderful hunting-scenes in the Assyrian side-gallery, have been heard to express the opinion that Greek artists must either have originated them, or influenced their production. Their [pg 129] literature was naturally influenced by that of Babylonia, but one has only to read the historical records of Tiglath-pileser I., who declaims his successes in forceful and elegant paragraphs; Sennacherib, with his wealth of words; or Assur-banî-âpli, who in moderate and elegant phrases tells of the successes of his soldiers and generals, to see that, when occasion arose, they could produce literary works as good as the best of ancient times.

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

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

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

Nibhaz is probably for some such name as Aba-hazar, Nisroch is for Assur or Assuraku, and Nimrod is, by similar changes, for Amaruduk or Amarudu (original Akkadian), Maruduk or Marduk (Assyro-Babylonian). The change was brought about by making the root triliteral, and the ending uk (ak in [pg 130] Merodach-baladan) disappearing first, Marduk appeared as Marad. This was connected with the root Marad, “to be rebellious,” and the word was still further mutilated, or, rather, deformed by having a (ni) attached, assimilating it to a certain extent to the “niphal forms” of the Hebrew verbs, and making a change altogether in conformity with the genius of the Hebrew language. This alteration is also clearly visible in Nibhaz and Nisroch, which fully confirm the explanation here given.

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

But there is another and a potent reason for eliminating Nimrod from the list of Babylonian heroes, and that is, the fact that his name is nowhere found in the extensive literature which has come down to us. His identification with Gišdubar was destroyed when it was discovered that the true reading of that doubtful name was not, as it was expected that it would be, a Babylonian form of Nimrod, but something entirely different, namely, Gilgameš. Moreover, there is some doubt whether the personage represented on the cylinder-seals struggling with lions and bulls be really Gilgameš (Gišdubar)—his prowess in hunting does not seem to be emphasized in the legend recounting his exploits (see pp. 92-111)—he is in all probability the wild man of the woods who became his great friend and counsellor, the satyr-like figure who is represented as accompanying and imitating the hunter being simply one of those beings who, the Babylonians imagined, existed in wild and waste places, for that this creature is not, as was at first supposed, Êa-banî, the friend of Gilgameš, is not only proved by the fact that in the legend he is described as a man with hairy body and hair long like that of a woman, but also by the incontestable circumstance that this satyr-like creature is, on certain cylinders, [pg 131] represented more than once, and in such a way that the repetition cannot be attributed to the exigencies of the design. Moreover, he is sometimes represented in positions that seem to have no connection with the Gilgameš-legend at all.

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

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

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

Chapter V. Babylonia At The Time Of Abraham.

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

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

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

The change may have been gradual, but it was great. Many of the small states which had existed at the time of Dungi, Bûr-Sin, Gimil-Sin, Ibi-Sin, and their predecessors had to all appearance passed away, and become part of the Babylonian Empire long before the dynasty of Babylon came to [pg 153] an end, though some at least were in existence in the time of the great conqueror Ḫammurabi. But the change was, as it would seem, not one of overlordship only—another change which had been gradually taking place was, by this, carried one step farther, namely, the Semiticizing of the country. Before the period of the dynasty of Babylon, the two races of Akkadians and Semitic Babylonians had been living side by side, the former (except in the kingdom of which Sippar was the capital) having the predominance, the records being written in the Akkadian language, and the kings bearing mainly Akkadian names, though there were, for the Semitic inhabitants, translations of those names. Translations of the inscriptions and legends, as well as the old Akkadian laws, probably did not (except in the Semitic kingdom of Agadé) exist.

How it came about is not known, but it is certain that, about 2200 years b.c., a purely Semitic dynasty occupied the throne of the chief ruler in Babylonia. The first king was Sumu-abi, who reigned 14 years. This monarch was followed by Sumu-la-ili and Zabû, 36 and 14 years respectively. Then come two rulers with Babylonian names—Abil-Sin and Sin-mubaliṭ, 18 years and 20 years. These are followed, in their turn, by Ḫammurabi (43), Samsu-iluna (38), Ebišum (25), Ammi-ṭitana (25), Ammi-zaduga (21), and Samsu-ṭitana (31 years). This dynasty, therefore, lasted about 28518 years, and with two exceptions, Abil-Sin and Sin-mubaliṭ, the names, though Semitic, are not Babylonian.

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

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

Three of the tablets of which we shall learn something more farther on, and which are preserved in the British Museum, have invocations of a personage, apparently a king, named Anmanila. The name of this ruler naturally recalls the Anman of the dynasty following that of Babylon—namely, the dynasty of Uru-ku; but the style of the writing of these three documents is not that of the later period, but of the beginning of the dynasty of Babylon, and there is, on that account, every probability that Anmanila was one of the predecessors of Sumu-abi, the first king of the dynasty of Babylon. It is, of course, possible that this ruler was simply a co-regent with one of the kings already known, like Immerum, who lived at the time of Sumu-la-îla, or Buntaḫun-îla,19 another associate with Sumu-la-îla on the throne, but there is a certain amount of improbability in this, as Anmanila is named alone, and not in connection with any other. Moreover, it is probable that, in the case of the two co-regents here mentioned, we have examples of sons associated with their father, and one replacing the other on account of the early death of his brother. Another ruler, probably of the period preceding that of the dynasty of Babylon, is Manamaltel, whose name [pg 155] is found on a tablet belonging to the Rev. Dr. J. P. Way, head-master of Rossall School, and it is noteworthy that one of the tablets bearing the name of Anmanila gives, among the witnesses, a certain Sumuentel,20 a name having the same termination as Manamaltel, a component which seems to have been common at this early period, and rare or non-existent later. Most, if not all, the above are foreign names.

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

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

In this inscription, Ammi-ṭitana calls himself not only “king of Babylon,” and other important places in Babylonia, but “king of Amoria” (if the coining of a word for the district be allowed) also. Now, as we know from the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, Amurrū is [pg 156] the name that the Babylonians used for “the west,” which Assyriologists formerly read (on account of the polyphony of the Babylonian system of writing) Aḫarrū. In reality, however, this word, Amurrū, stands for the land of the Amorites, and the probability is, that the land of the Amorites belonged to the Babylonian Empire because it formed part of the original domain of the rulers of Babylonia at this time, who, if not of Amorite descent, may at least have had Amorite connections.

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

In addition to the god Amurrū, other deities of western origin appear in the inscriptions (generally in the names) from time to time. Thus we have Abdu-Ištara, interesting as giving an early form of the name Astarte (Ashtoreth), before it received the feminine termination; Ụsur-Malik, probably “protect, O Malik” (Moloch), Nabu-Malik, probably “Nebo is Malik” (Moloch), or “Nebo is king”; Ibi-Šân, probably “speak, O Shân,” which reminds the reader of Beth-Shean, the modern Beisan; and there are [pg 157] also, in all probability, other Amorite deities whom we cannot identify, on account of their names not occurring in other ancient literatures than the Babylonian. Ibaru, found in the name Arad-Ibari, “servant of Ibari,” Abâ, in the name Arad (Abdi)-Abâ, Alla, in the name Ur-Alla, “man of Alla” (though this is possibly a Babylonian [Akkadian] name), etc., are probably non-Babylonian, but not Amorite.

Besides the names of west Semitic deities, however, the names of west Semites themselves occur, and show that there was a considerable immigration in those ancient days into the country. Thus the word Amurrū, “the Amorite,” is exceedingly common, and one is not surprised to learn that, in consequence of the Amorites being so numerous, there was an Amorite district in the neighbourhood of Sippar. Other names of men which are apparently from the country spoken of are, Sar-îli, probably “prince of God,” and the same as Israel; Karanatum (probably for Qaranatum), which would seem to mean “she of the horned deity” (compare Uttatum, “he of the sun,” Sinnatum, “he of the moon”), and reminds us of Ashteroth Karnaim, “Ashteroth of the two horns,” the well-known site in Palestine. Besides these, we meet more than once with such names as Ya'kub, Jacob, with its longer form, Ya'kub-îlu, Jacob-el; and in like manner the name of Joseph and its longer form Joseph-el occur—Yasup and Yasup-îlu. Êsâ, the father of a man named Siteyatum, reminds us of Esau; Abdi-îli, “servant of God,” is the same as Abdeel; and Ya'zar-îlu, “God has helped” (compare Azrael), Yantin-îlu, “God has given” (compare Nethanel), with many others similar, receive illustration. In all probability, too, many of the bearers of names compounded with Addu (Hadad), Amurrū, and other names of deities naturalized in Babylonia, as well as some of the bearers of true Babylonian names, were, in reality, [pg 158] pure west Semites. Further examples will be found in the texts translated farther on, and the more noteworthy will be pointed out when they occur.

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

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

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

“It is most interesting to examine this canal (the Nahr-Malka) all the way between the Euphrates and the Tigris, as it shows the magnitude of the Babylonian agricultural industry in days gone by, when it irrigated hundreds of miles of rich alluvial soil. The remains of countless large and small watercourses, which intersect the country watered by those two branches23 of Nahr-Malka, are plainly seen even now. Vestiges of prodigious basins are also visible, wherein a surplus supply must have been kept for any emergency, especially when the water of the Euphrates falls low in summer.”

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

The King.

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

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

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

Yet the king does sometimes come forth from his shell, and then we see him in his two aspects—as king, giving his orders to the officials of his court and army, and as the chief citizen of the country over which he ruled. The former is illustrated by the despatches and letters in which his name occurs, [pg 165] and the latter by such references to him as we find in the contracts—and these are very few, as the colophon-dates and invocations of his name in the legal oaths do not count.

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

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

“To the agent of Sippar-Ya'rurum say thus: ‘It is Ammi-ṭitana. The wool-merchant has thus informed me: “I keep sending to the purveyor of Sippar-Ya'rurum concerning the wool ordered from him, to cause (it) to be sent to Babylon, but he has not caused the wool ordered from him to be sent.” Thus he informs me. Why hast thou not caused the wool [pg 166] ordered from thee to be sent to Babylon? As thou hast not feared to do this, when thou seest this tablet, cause the wool ordered from thee to be brought to Babylon.’ ”

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

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

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

This is not only a curious document—it is also an interesting one, and shows under what conditions a woman of royal blood and race could in ancient Babylonia be wedded to a commoner. To all appearance the king himself, Elmešu's father, had nothing [pg 167] to do with the transaction—perhaps he purposely held aloof—and this being the case, it is the bride's brother and sister who have charge of the ceremony and contract; and, with the bridegroom's father and mother, marry her as consort to Ibku-Annunitum. The wording differs from that used in ordinary cases, and is more elegant and select. A wedding-gift of four shekels of silver is hardly, perhaps, what one would expect to be made to a royal bride, but perhaps it was the customary amount in such cases. The penalty if the husband afterwards divorced his wife was, as usual, a money-payment, but the amount is doubtful, though it seems to be above the average. The penalty if Elmešu forsook her husband is unfortunately wanting by the mutilation of the document, but in ordinary cases it was generally death.

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

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

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

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

Thirty years, or thereabouts later, Iltani (or a younger namesake, daughter of Ammi-zaduga) is [pg 168] found providing the wherewithal for agricultural operations—

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter VI. Abraham.

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

There have been many discussions as to the position of Ur of the Chaldees. Some, on account of the distance from Canaan, apparently, have contended that Ur of the Chaldees is the same as the site known for many hundreds of years as Urfa, in Mesopotamia—the district in which the proto-martyr, St. Stephen (Acts vii. 2, 41), places it. Mesopotamia, however, is an appellation of wide extent, and altogether insufficiently precise to enable the exact locality to be determined. To all appearance, though, Urfa or Orfa, called by the Greeks Edessa, was known as Orrha at the time of Isidore of Charax (date about 150 b.c.). Pocock, in his Description of the East, states that it is the universal opinion of the Jews that Orfa or Edessa was the ancient Ur of the Chaldees, and this is supported by local tradition, the chief place of worship there being called “the Mosque of Abraham,” and the pond in which the sacred fish are [pg 193] kept being called Bahr Ibrahím el-Halíl, “the Lake of Abraham the Beloved.” The tradition in the Talmud and in certain early Arabian writers, that Ur of the Chaldees is Warka, the Ὀρχόη of the Greeks, and Ὀρέχ of the Septuagint, need not detain us, as this site is certainly the Erech of Gen. x. 10, and is excluded by that circumstance.

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

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

Ur or Uriwa, the modern Mugheir, is situated [pg 194] about 140 miles S.E. of Babylon, and about 560 miles S.E. of Ḫaran. In ancient days it was a place of considerable importance, and the site of a celebrated temple-tower called Ê-šu-gan-dudu, probably the Ê-giš-nu-gala32 of other texts, the shrine of the god Nannara, also called Sin, the Moon-god, whose worship had gained considerable renown.

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

Thus does the poet of ancient days, in a composition in the non-Semitic idiom of his time, lament the misfortunes which had come over the temple and city—how, whether by was by famine, or by some other mischance, we know not. It serves to show, however, not only the poetical spirit which animated the Akkadians at the time, but also the high esteem in which the temple and the deities venerated therein were held, and the power attributed to the Moon-god in the centre of his worship. The fact that Ur (Mugheir) was an important place for the worship of the Moon-god has been not seldom quoted in support of the identity of this city with Ur of the Chaldees, because Haran, the city to which Abram migrated with his father Terah, was also a centre of the worship of Sin. This, in itself, is not at all improbable, the Jewish tradition being, that Terah was an idolater.34 [pg 196] That Terah should go 560 miles simply for this reason, when he might have found a suitable settlement nearer, seems to be in the highest degree unlikely, minor shrines of the Moon-god being, in all probability, far from rare in Babylonia.35 He simply sojourned there because, in his journeyings, it suited him to stay there. If he were a devotee of the Moon-god, he was in all probability the more pleased to take up his abode there. But he may not have worshipped that divinity at all, or if he did do so, may not have honoured him more than the Sun-god, Anu, the god of the heavens, or the goddess Ištar.

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

All this, naturally, points to Babylonia and the city of Uru or Uriwa as the original dwelling-place of [pg 197] Abram, Camarina being connected with the Arabic qamar, “the moon,” which, as we have seen, was the deity worshipped there. It is noteworthy that the transcription of the Babylonian name of the city, Urie, contains traces of the Akkadian termination -iwa (Uriwa) which is absent in the Hebrew form Ur. This is important, as it shows that at a comparatively late date (Eupolemus lived just before the Christian era), the ending in question made itself felt in the transcription of the word, and that the form in Genesis, Ur, does not quite agree, as traces of that termination (two syllables in the Akkadian form) are altogether wanting in it. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the theory that Abram lived and passed his earlier years at the Ur which is now represented by the ruins of Mugheir, originated with the Jews during their captivity at Babylon and in the cities of Babylonia. Eupolemus, as a student of Jewish history, would naturally get his information from a Jewish source, and the Jews had, in common with most of the nations of the earth, a tendency to attribute to their own forefathers, whom they venerated so highly, the glory of being connected with any renowned city or great discovery of earlier ages. Thus it arises that Eupolemus, following his Jewish informant, makes Abraham to be the inventor of astrology and Chaldean magic; and to have dwelt at Ur. It must have been the Jewish captives exiled in Babylonia who first identified Ur with the renowned city Uru or Uriwa, quite forgetting that the form of the name could not have been Ur in Hebrew, and that there was another Ur, much more suitable as the dwelling-place of a nomad family like that of Terah and his sons, namely, the country of Akkad itself, called, in the non-Semitic idiom, Uri or Ura, a tract which included the whole of northern Babylonia.

In whatever part of Babylonia, however, the [pg 198] patriarch may have sojourned, of one thing there is no doubt, and that is, that if he dwelt there, the life which he saw around him, and in which he must have taken part, was that depicted by the tablets translated in the foregoing chapter. He saw the idolatry of the people, and the ceremonies and infamies which accompanied it; he saw the Babylonians as they were in his day, with all their faults, and all their virtues—their industry, their love of trade, their readiness to engage in litigation, and all the other interesting characteristics which distinguished them. He must have been acquainted with their legends of the Creation, the Flood, and all their gods and heroes, and the poetry for which the Hebrew race has always been renowned must have had its origin in the land of Nimrod, whence Abraham of old went forth free, and his descendants, a millennium and a half later, returned as captives.

How it came about (if it be really true) that Terah was an idolater, whilst his son Abram was a monotheist, will probably never be known. It is only reasonable to suppose, however, that among a people so intelligent as the Babylonians, there were at least some who, thinking over the nature of the world in which they lived and the destiny of mankind, saw that the different gods whom the people worshipped could not all be governors of the universe, but, if they existed at all, must be only manifestations of the Deity who held the supreme power. Indeed, it was, to all appearance, this doctrine which really prevailed, as is shown by the text translated on p. 58. Whether taught generally to the learned class (the scribes) or not, is not known, but it must have been very commonly known to those who could read, otherwise it is hardly likely that such a tablet would have been drawn up and written out again at a later date (the text we possess being but a copy of a lost original). As the divinity with whom the [pg 199] others are identified is Merodach, it is most likely that this special doctrine of the unity of the Deity became general some time after the commencement of the Dynasty of Babylon (that to which Ḫammurabi or Amraphel belonged), when the city of Babylon became the capital of the country. Abram's monotheism would, therefore, naturally fit in with the new doctrine which apparently became the general belief of the learned class at this time.36

Concerning the journey of Abraham, there is naturally nothing to be said, the Bible narrative merely stating that Terah and his family migrated to Haran. The only thing worth noting is, that the distance they had to travel was sufficiently great—about 560 miles from Uriwa (Mugheir), and about 420 miles from Babylon, from the neighbourhood of which the family must have started if the Ur mentioned in Genesis be the Uri or Ura of the inscriptions, which was equivalent to the land of Akkad. The whole of this district was, in all probability, at this time, as later, under Babylonian rule, a state of things which must have contributed in some measure to the safe transit of the household to Haran, and also that of Abraham later on to Canaan, which, as we know from the inscriptions37 and from Gen. xiv., acknowledged Babylonian overlordship.

With regard to Haran, it is very probable that this ancient city was, by turns, under the rule either of Babylonia or Assyria until the absorption of the former power into the great Persian Empire, when Haran likewise, in all probability, shared the same fate. Concerning the early history of the city very little is known, but it is not improbable that it was [pg 200] an ancient Babylonian foundation, the name being apparently the Babylonian word ḫarranu, meaning “road.” The name given to this “road-city” is explained as originating in the fact, that it lay at the junction of several trade-routes—an explanation which is very probable.

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

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

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

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

“When the father of the king my lord went to Egypt, he was crowned (?) in the qanni of Haran, the temple (lit. ‘Bethel’) of cedar. The god Sin remained over the (sacred) standard, two crowns upon [pg 202] his head, (and) the god Nusku stood before him. The father of the king my lord entered, (and) he39 placed (the crown?) upon his head, (saying) thus: ‘Thou shalt go and capture the lands in the midst.’ (He we)nt, he captured the land of Egypt. The rest of the lands not submitting (?) to Aššur and Sin, the king, the lord of kings, shall capture (them”).

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

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

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

So renowned was the place as a centre of heathen worship, that at a comparatively late date—running far into the Christian era, namely, the fifth century a.d.—the worship of heathen deities was still in full progress there, though the god Sin had fallen, to all appearance, somewhat into the background, and [pg 203] Bel-shamin, “the lord of the heavens,” i.e. the Sun-god, generally known as Shamash or Samas, and called later on by the Greek name of Helios, had taken his place. They also worshipped a goddess called Gadlat, generally identified with the Babylonian goddess Gula, and Atargatis, the feminine counterpart of Hadad, whose name is often found in Aramean inscriptions under the form of 'Atar-'ata.40 This goddess is called Derketo41 by Ktesias, and appears as Tar-'ata in Syriac and in the Talmud. According to Baethgen, Atargatis, or, better, Attargatis, was a double divinity, composed of Ištar and 'Ata or 'Atta (Attes). In consequence of the worship of the sun, the moon, and the planet Venus ('Atar = Ištar), a second centre of the worship denominated Sabean (which originated in south-west Arabia, the country of the Sabeans) was founded in Haran, where its devotees are said to have had a chapel dedicated to Abraham, whose renown had, to all appearance, brought to his memory the great honour of deification.

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

This portion of the patriarch's history is not one which can be very easily dealt with, the incident being [pg 204] told very shortly, and no Egyptian names being given—in fact, it is altogether destitute of “local colouring” necessarily so, from the brevity of the narrative.

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

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

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

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

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

The most important of these geographical documents [pg 206] is that published in the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, vol. ii. p. 50. This text begins, as would be expected from the hand of a patriotic scribe, with the towns and cities of his own land, in two columns, Akkadian, and the Semitic equivalent. This was followed, in the same way, by the provinces of his country, ending with the two principal, Kengi-Ura, translated by Šumer and Akkad. This is followed by the four Akkadian groups for the land of Subartum and Gutium, probably a part of Media.

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

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

In the above list of countries, the land of the Amorites holds the first place, and is repeated three times, there having, to all appearance, been three ways of writing its name in Akkadian. Why this was the case—whether [pg 207] in the older Akkadian literature the scribes distinguished three different districts or not, is not known, but is not at all improbable. The first of the three ways of designating the country is the usual one, and apparently means the land of the Amorites in general, the other two being less used, and possibly indicating the more mountainous parts. What the mountains of Suru or Subartu were is uncertain, but it may be supposed that, as this group is used in the late Babylonian inscriptions (as shown by the text containing the account of the downfall of Assyria) for the domain over which the kings of Assyria ruled, there is hardly any doubt that it stands for the Mesopotamian tract, extending from the boundaries of the Amorites to the frontiers of Babylonia. This would include not only Assyria, but also Aram-naharaim, or Syria, and is in all probability the original of this last word, which has given considerable trouble to students to explain.

In all probability, Siru, like Gutium and the border of Gutium, was a tract in the neighbourhood of Elam, which precedes. A comparison has been made between this Sirum and the Sirrum of the eleventh line of the extract, but as the spelling, and also, seemingly, the pronunciation, is different, it is in all likelihood a different place. The mountain of Cedar, however, is probably Lebanon, celebrated of old, and sufficiently wooded, in the time of Aššur-naṣir-âpli, to give cover to droves of elephants, which the Assyrian king hunted there. Marḫaši (Akk.) or Parašî (Assyr.) seems to have been a country celebrated for its dogs. Concerning Bitala or Kaštala nothing is known, but Ḫanê is supposed to have lain near Birejik on the Orontes.42 Lulumu, which is apparently the same as [pg 208] Lulubū, was an adjoining state, which the Babylonians claim to have devastated about the twenty-eighth century before Christ, a fact which contributes to the confirmation of the antiquity of Babylonian geographical lore, and its trustworthiness, for the nation which invades another must be well aware of the position and physical features of territory invaded.

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

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

At this point occurs Gen. ch. xiv., which contains the description of the conflict of the four kings against five—evidently one of the struggles of the Amorites and their allies to throw off the yoke of the Babylonians, [pg 209] who were in this case assisted by several confederate states.

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

The first step in solving the riddle was that made by Prof. Eberhard Schrader, who suggested that Amraphel was none other than the well-known Babylonian king Ḫammurabi. This, naturally, was a theory which did not soon find acceptance—at least by all the Assyriologists. There were, however, two things in its favour—this king ruled sufficiently near to the time of Abraham, and he overcame a ruler named Rim-Sin or Rim-Aku, identified by the late George Smith with the Arioch of the chapter we are now considering. Concerning the latter ruler, Rim-Aku, there is still some doubt, but the difficulties which attended the identification of Ḫammurabi with Amraphel have now practically disappeared. The first step was the discovery of the form Ammurabi in one of the numerous contracts drawn up during his reign at Sippara, the city of the Sun-god. This form shows that the guttural was not the hard guttural kh, but the softer h. Yet another step [pg 210] nearer the Biblical form is that given by Ašaridu, who, in a letter to “the great and noble Asnapper,” writes as follows—

As this is a late reference to Ḫammurabi, it is noteworthy not only on account of the form the name (which agrees excellently with the Biblical Amraphel) had assumed at the time (the hard breathing or aspirate having to all appearance completely disappeared), but also as a testimony to the esteem in which he was held a millennium and a half after his death. How it is that the Hebrew form has l at the [pg 211] end is not known, but the presence of this letter has given rise to numerous theories. One of these is, that Amraphel is for Ḫammurabi îlu, “Ḫammurabi the god,” many of the old Babylonian kings having been deified after their death. Another (and perhaps more likely) explanation is, that this additional letter is due to the faulty reading of a variant writing of the name, with a polyphonous character having the value of pil as well as bi,—which form may, in fact, still be found. However the presence of the final (and apparently unauthorized) addition to the name be explained, the identification of Amraphel and Ḫammurabi is held to be beyond dispute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In all probability there is one thing that will be considered as noteworthy, and that is, that as far as our records go, there is no reference whatever to any expedition to the West-land, and if that be due simply to the imperfection of the records which have come down to us, all that can be said is, that it is a noteworthy coincidence.46 It must not be supposed, however, that it in any wise invalidates the trustworthiness [pg 215] of the narrative in the 14th chapter of Genesis—there is plenty of room in the mutilated list (of which I have given such a translation as is possible) for a date referring to this to have been recorded, though we must keep in mind the possibility, that if the Babylonian king considered that disaster had in any way overtaken his arms, he may not have recorded it at all. Then there is the fact, that the expedition was undertaken in conjunction with allies—Chedorlaomer, Tidal, and Arioch—for none of whom, in all probability, Ḫammurabi had any sympathy. The Elamite was a conqueror from a land over which the Babylonians of earlier ages had held sway, and Arioch had dominion over a neighbouring tract, to which Ḫammurabi himself laid claim, and over which, as the texts above translated show, he afterwards ruled. Ḫammurabi, moreover, claimed also the West-land—mât Amurrī, the land of Amurrū—as his hereditary possession, and he found himself obliged to aid Chedorlaomer, Tidal, and Arioch to subjugate it—indeed, it was Chedorlaomer whom the five kings had acknowledged for twelve years as their overlord, and against whom, in the thirteenth, they rebelled. It is, therefore, likely that Ḫammurabi regarded himself as having been forced by circumstances to aid Chedorlaomer to reconquer what really belonged to Babylonia, and the probability that he would cause it to be used as one of the events to date by, is on that account still less, even if the news of any success which he might have considered himself entitled to reached his own domain in time to be utilized for such a purpose.

It has been shown on p. 155 that Ammi-ṭitana, the third in succession from Ḫammurabi, claimed the sovereignty of the land of Amurrū, and from an inscription accompanying a portrait of Ḫammurabi discovered by Mr. Rassam, we learn that he, too, claimed sovereignty over it. Sargon of Agadé held [pg 216] sway over the tract centuries before, so that he probably reckoned that, by right of inheritance, it was his. It would therefore be natural that he should omit to mention as an event to be remembered, an expedition to a country which ought never to have thrown off his dominion.

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

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

Notwithstanding the early identification of Rîm-Sin with Eri-Sin or Eri-Aku by the late George Smith, considerable doubt has been thrown on the identity of these two names by the fact, that in inscriptions containing the name of Kudur-mabuk, the father, the name of his son is written with Eri as the first element—not Rîm. This, it must be admitted, is a considerable difficulty. Winckler, however, in the Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, Band III., 1 Hälfte, pp. 88-89, publishes a text given by Lenormant, Textes Inédits, No. 70, in which the name of the son of Kudur-mabuk is written Ri-im-Sin, and if this be correctly copied, it would seem to settle the matter of their identity. It is to be noted that they are both called [pg 217] king of Uriwa, king of Larsa, and king of Šumer and Akkad. In the inscriptions Eri-Aku or Eri-Sin also calls himself adda Emutbala, “father of Yamutbālu,” and, as the colophon-date of the 31st year of Ḫammurabi shows, Rîm-Sin or Rîm-Aku was also king of that region.

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

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

If, however, the colophon-date be right, and Rîm-Sin was really made prisoner, he must either have escaped, or been set at liberty again, for Samsu-iluna, son of Ḫammurabi, when he became king, had apparently [pg 218] to resist another attack on the part of that ruler, who seems to have been captured, and “(? burnt) alive in his palace.”

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

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

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

This last text was found in the mound of Mugheir (Uriwa), and is of great interest, as it is dedicated to Ninsaḫ, the great messenger of the gods, and not to the god Sin or Nannara, the chief patron-deity of the city. It has also an interesting reference to the vine of Êridu (see pp. 71 ff.), and apparently to his capture of the city of Erech, delivered into his hands by the gods Anu, Bêl, and Ea. That he should represent [pg 222] himself as taking possession of the city by the will of Anu, the chief god of the city, whose name he mentions before the other two divinities, sheds a certain light upon the character of the man, whilst his military exploits, both at home and in the west, must have made him, like Chedorlaomer his fellow-countryman, and Ḫammurabi his rival, one of the heroes of his time.

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

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

Accordingly, when two tablets were referred to at the Congress of Orientalists held at Geneva in 1894 as containing the names Tudḫula, Êri-Eaku (Êri-Ekua), and another name read doubtfully as Kudur-laḫ(gu)mal, no publicly-expressed objection to their possible identification with Tidal, Arioch, and Chedorlaomer [pg 223] was made. The names were placed before the Semitic section of the Congress of Orientalists referred to, as recent discoveries, which were certain as far as they went, their identification being a matter of opinion.

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

The first document is Sp. III. 2, and contains all three names—or, rather, the names Tudḫula (Tidal), Êri-Eaku's son Durmaḫ-îlāni, and Kudur-laḫmal. The first portion of this text refers to the gods: “Šamaš, illuminator (of the earth),” “the lord of lords, Merodach, in the faithfulness of his heart,” aided (probably) his servant to subdue (?) some region, “all of it.” Then there is a reference to (soldiers) whom some ruler “caused to be slain,” and as the name of Durmaḫ-îlāni son of Êri-(E)aku follows, there is every probability that it was he who is referred to in the preceding lines. The carrying off of goods (?) is next spoken of, and waters which to all appearance came over Babylon and the great temple-tower called Ê-saggil (more usually written in earlier times Ê-sagila). The next line has an interesting reference to “the son (?)” of some one, who “slaughtered him like (?) a lamb with the weapon of his hands.” After this, we are told that “the elder and the child (were killed) with the sword.” To all appearance, another division of the subject begins with the next line, though the text goes on recording things of the same nature—“the [pg 224] child he cut off.” This is immediately followed by the words “Tudḫula the son of Gazza- ..,” or “Tidal son of Gazzā(ni?),” who, like Durmaḫ-îlāni (if we may form any opinion from the fact that the wording of the line following the mention of Tidal is the same as that following the name of the son of Êri-Eaku), carried off goods (?), and waters (he caused to flow?) over Babylon and Ê-saggil, the great temple of the city. The parallel between these two passages is still further emphasized by the words in the line immediately following, which says that “his son fell upon him with the weapon of his hand.” The next line is the last of the obverse, and speaks of (“the proclamation,” perhaps) of “his dominion before the temple of Annunit,” where we have the interesting archaism, An-nu-nit for D.P. (i.e. the determinative prefix indicating that the name of a deity follows) A-nu-nit.

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

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

After this there is a passage where the various kings mentioned seem to be referred to, and it is stated that Merodach, the king of the gods, was angry against them, and they were, to all appearance, made to suffer for what they had done. The scribe who had composed this record now speaks, in favourable words, of the king then reigning, and seems to refer to the restoration of the inscription to its place by the person (prince) who, in later days, should find it (as was the [pg 225] custom among the Babylonians and Assyrians). He ends with a pious wish that a sinful man might not exist, or something to that effect.

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

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

It would therefore appear that this Elamite ruler, by the will of the gods (such was the way with conquerors in those days—they annexed other countries to their dominions by the will of the gods of the lands annexed), took possession of Babylon, capital (such seems to be the meaning of the phrase) of Kar-Duniaš. This is followed by a long passage in which animals and birds, apparently the favourites of the Elamite king, are referred to, and the idea which one gains by reading it is, that he attended to these rather than to the welfare of his realm. This being the case, it is natural that something about the remissness of the king should follow, and this seems to be, in fact, intended in the next line, where some one whose name is lost seems to ask: “What king of Elam is there who has (erected?) the chapel (?) (it was something made of wood, as the determinative prefix shows) of E-saggil?” It was the Babylonians, the text seems to say, who had done things of this kind. The speaker then seems to begin to talk of “their work,” when another gap destroys the remainder of the phrase. He then speaks about “(a let)ter (?) which thou hast written thus: ‘I [pg 226] am a king, the son of a king,’ ” but whether it is the same personage who says that he is “the son of the daughter of a king, who has sat on the throne of dominion,” is doubtful—it may be a similarly boasting reply to the statement put into the mouth of the first speaker. The line which follows has the name of Durmaḫ-îlāni, son of Êri-Ekua (Êri-Eaku of the other historical text), who seems to have carried away spoil, but whether it is he who is referred to in the next line as having sat on the throne of dominion is doubtful. This is followed by the expression of the wish that the king might come who from eternal days ... was proclaimed lord of Babylon. The closing lines of the obverse, which is here described, do not give any clear sense, but there is a reference to the months Kislev and Tammuz, probably in connection with festivals, also (apparently) to certain priests, and to the taking of spoil. The remains of the reverse are too scanty to gather what the text inscribed upon it really refers to.

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

How far the record which they contain may be [pg 227] true is with our present knowledge impossible to find out. The style of the writing with which they are inscribed is certainly very late—later, in all probability, than the Persian period, and the possibility that it is a compilation of that period has been already suggested. That it is altogether a fiction, however, is in the highest degree improbable. If we have in the three names which these two tablets contain the Babylonian prototypes of Tidal, Arioch, and Chedorlaomer, they must refer to the events which passed between the first and thirty-first years of the reign of Amraphel or Ḫammurabi, in which it would seem that both Durmaḫ-îlāni and Tudḫula attacked and spoiled Babylon, cutting the canals so that the town and the temple were both flooded. Both of these royal personages, who, be it noted, are not called kings, were apparently killed by their sons, and Kudur-laḫmal seems to have been a criminal of the same kind, if we may judge from the words “Kudur-laḫmal, his son, pier(ced?) his heart with the steel sword of his girdle.” That three royal personages, contemporaries, should all dispose of their fathers in the same way seems, however, in the highest degree improbable. It also seems to be in an equal degree impossible that (as has been suggested) the tablets in question should refer to Tidal, Arioch, and Chedorlaomer, but not the same Tidal, Arioch, and Chedorlaomer as is spoken of in Genesis, unless it be meant thereby that the Biblical personages of that name are the historical ones, whilst those of the two tablets belong to the realm of fiction. The greater probability is, that they are the same personages, but that the accounts handed down to us on these two tablets are largely legendary.

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

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

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

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

Apparently this is a poetical reproduction of the tablets of which translations have already been given. The enemy entered Babylon, according to the nine lines of the earlier portion of the inscription which are preserved, and spoiled and ravaged the place. The mention of the channel (îku, irrigation-channel) suggests a comparison with the first of the two historical fragments, where waters over Babylon and [pg 231] Ê-sagila are referred to, and cause one to ask whether Durmaḫ-îlāni and Tudḫula were not the lieutenants of Kudur-laḫgumal.

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

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

When the enclosure of Ê-zida (the great temple-tower of Borsippa, identified with the tower of Babel by modern scholars) was broken down, Ibi-Tutu, apparently a Babylonian prince, fled to Tiamtu, the region of the Persian Gulf, and there founded a temporary capital. The invader thereupon seems to have proceeded to Borsippa, and to have taken the road to Mesech—that is to say, to the north—where he continued his ravages. That he intended to go so [pg 232] far as Mesech, however, is very unlikely, his object being to subdue the princes of the immediate neighbourhood of Babylon, and after collecting the spoil and goods of all the temples, he carried them away with him to Elam.

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

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

Whatever may be thought about the interesting and remarkable inscriptions of which an account has just been given, of one thing there can be no doubt, and that is, that the Elamites and Babylonians were quite powerful enough, at the time of Abraham, to make an expedition of the magnitude described in [pg 233] Genesis xiv. Sargon of Agadé held sway over this district, and he reigned, according to Nabonidus's indications, more than 1500 years earlier. His son, when he came to the throne, added Elam to his dominions as well. That the position should, at a considerably later period, be reversed, is easily conceivable, and it was to all appearance the Elamites who held sway in a part of Babylonia, of which country many of the states undoubtedly acknowledged Elamite overlordship, though with exceeding unwillingness. One point of the undoubted history is noteworthy. Kudur-mabuk, son of Simti-šilḫak, who ruled at Larsa, bears, like his father, an Elamite name. His son, Êri-Aku, has an Akkadian name—perhaps, as already suggested, from motives of policy, and likely enough from the same motive, he may have Semitizised it later on, making it Arad-Sin. Êri-Ekua (-Eaku) is likewise an Akkadian name, and must be a fanciful variant of that of Êri-Aku or Arioch. His son, however, bears the Semitic name of Durmaḫ-îlāni, “the bond with the gods.” This is apparently a case of carrying the policy of conciliation a step farther, for by doing this he not only bears a native name, but also claims to be the intermediary with the gods of his country.

After the retreat of the conquering army of Elamites and Babylonians with their booty, with Lot, Abraham's nephew, as prisoner, and his goods as part of the spoil, comes the interesting account of the way in which Abraham rescued his relative and recovered his property, with a portion of that belonging to the king of Sodom. On his return with the spoil, Melchizedek king of Salem meets him, offering him bread and wine, and blessing him as Abraham of El-Elyon, “the most high god.” Certain supposed confirmatory statements in the correspondence of Abdi-ṭâba, ruler of Jerusalem, which was found among the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, has been the subject of much discussion, and [pg 234] it is apparently regarded as being of much importance, though there are various opinions concerning it. The prince in question, when writing to his suzerain, the reigning king of Egypt, makes the remarkable statement that it was not his father nor his mother who had set him in that place (i.e. Uru-salim or Jerusalem) as king, but “the mighty king”—

“Behold, this land of Jerusalem, neither my father nor my mother gave (it) to me—the hand (arm49) of the mighty king gave it to me.”—(Tablet, Berlin, 103.)

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

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

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

Nevertheless, the description of Melchizedek in Heb. vii. 3, “without father, without mother,” makes it a quite legitimate question to ask: may not Abdi-ṭâba, in what he said to his suzerain, have made some mental reservation when writing what he did? Or is [pg 235] it not possible that, when speaking about his independence of his father and his mother for the position that he occupied, he was unconsciously making use of words familiar to him, and recorded in some document of the archives of the city? We have yet to learn the history of the preceding period—we know not whether Abdi-ṭâba had really a right to the position which he occupied (he seems to have been placed as ruler of Jerusalem by the foreign power to which he refers), and until we get more information, there is no escape from the necessity of regarding him, from his own letters, as being in a different position from that which, in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, Melchizedek occupies.

In connection with the question as to what divinity was worshipped at Jerusalem, the tablet known as B. 105 is of importance. Line 14 of the letter in question reads: “The city of the land of Jerusalem, its name is Bît-Ninip, the city of the king, is lost—(it is) a place of the men of Kelti.” What was this “city of the king,” or “royal city”? The general opinion at first was, that the place meant was Jerusalem itself, for that must have been from the earliest times “a royal city” par excellence. Winckler, however, translates “A city of the land of Jerusalem,” which certainly seems a reasonable rendering. Properly speaking, however, the idiomatic Semitic Babylonian expression for “a city” would be išten âlu, “one city.” Though Winckler's rendering is a perfectly reasonable one, therefore, the first translation is not excluded, and in any case there remains the clear statement that a city of the territory of Jerusalem—that is to say a city which owned the sway of her kings—possessed, as its patron-deity, the god whom the Babylonians and Assyrians called Ninip, and worshipped under many names. Among these may be mentioned Madanunu, explained as “the proclaimed (?), the renowned, the high”; En-banda, probably meaning [pg 236] “the distinguished lord,” a name which he bore as “Ninip, he who takes the decision of the gods.” Another of his names was Ḫalḫalla, “Ninip, protector of the decision, father of Bêl”; and, more interesting still, he was called Me-maḫa (“supreme word”), as “Ninip, guardian of the supreme commands.” The Assyrians worshipped him both under the name of Ninip and Apil-Êšarra, “son of the house (temple) of the host.” It is this deity whose name occurs in the Assyrian royal names Tukulti-Ninip and Tukulti-âpil-Ê-šarra, or Tiglath-pileser.

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

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

With regard to the contract at Machpelah, that is, as has already been noticed more than once, evidently a legal document, or at least an abstract of such a document, and bears some likeness to the ancient contracts of Assyria and Babylonia, though the latter are generally composed in much shorter form, and [pg 237] with different phraseology. The descriptions of landed property given on pp. 167, 178 ff., and also such sales of land as the following give material for comparing the document in question—

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

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

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

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

“12 measures, a date-palm plantation, beside the plantation of Rîš-Šamaš, priest of the Sun-god, son of the woman Sâla, its first end (the property of) Girum, Aḫatāni, sun-devotee, daughter of Marum, has bought for its price in silver from Rîš-Šamaš, son of Sâla. She has paid the money, (and) is content—she has passed the barrier. The transaction is ended. At no [pg 238] future time shall they make claim against each other. (They have invoked) the spirit of Šamaš, Merodach, and Ḫammurabi (Amraphel).

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

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

Chapter VII. Isaac, Jacob, And Joseph.

With the disappearance of Abraham from the scene of his earthly wanderings, a prominent figure connecting Babylonia with Palestine vanishes from history. His son Isaac and his grandson Jacob retain, however, their connection with those of the family who resided at Haran, taking their wives from among their relatives there—Isaac because his father wished it, Jacob because the souls of his father and mother were vexed on account of the daughters of Heth whom Esau, Jacob's brother, had married. In this primitive story of three generations of a primitive family there is much to interest the student of ancient west Semitic manners and customs—the love of Isaac for Esau, because Isaac loved the savoury venison which the former provided for him; how Jacob, “the supplanter,” obtained his brother's birthright and the blessing which he ought to have had; Laban's covetousness and duplicity—all these things furnish material for the student of manners and customs and of human nature, but very little for the comparative archæologist who wishes to find connections between Abraham's descendants and the country which gave their father (or their grandfather) birth. Nevertheless there are points which deserve illustration.

To all appearance the manners and customs of the families of the patriarchs had not changed since they came out of Babylonia. There is the same pastoral life, the same dislike (and probably mistrust) of strangers and foreigners, the same freedom on the part of the men, even the most honoured among them, with regard to the marriage-tie, the same tendency to add to this world's goods, and to become great and mighty chiefs in the land (would that Jacob had done this otherwise), as at first. The Babylonian spirit of commerce and the desire for “supplanting” was well developed in the father of the twelve tribes, and may be regarded as adding, as far as it goes, to the confirmation of the theory (but the question is more one of fact than of theory) that Abraham was of Babylonian race.

Exceedingly interesting are all the names borne by the patriarchs, and the reasons why they were given to them. Indeed, the punning references to circumstances concerning their birth are similar in their character to those of the patriarchs before the Flood. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that many of the names found in this part of the sacred narrative are not by any means unique. Thus the name of Jacob occurs many times in the tablets of the period of the first dynasty of Babylon under the forms of Yakubu, Yakubi, etc., and there are also forms with the word îlu attached—Ya'kubi-îlu, Yakub-îlu, etc. In like wise we find what is apparently the same name as that of Joseph, namely, Yašupum with its longer form Yašup-îlu, types of many others, such as Yakudum, Yakunam, etc., Yabnik-îlu, Yagab-îlu son of Yakub-îlu, etc. As far as I have at present been able to find out, however, none of the names of this class, except Yakub-îlu and Yašup-îlu, have as yet been discovered in both forms (i.e. with and without the element îlu), which may turn out to be of importance, or may be simply a remarkable coincidence.

This, naturally, leads to the question: What are the meanings of these names? According to Genesis, Jacob means supplanter, or, rather, “he has supplanted,” and the further query then arises: What does the name mean when îlu is added to it? The meaning in this case ought to be “God has supplanted,” which clearly will not fit.

The best explanation probably is, that the name of Jacob was never Ya´kub-ilu, but Ya´kub simply, meaning, “he has supplanted,” and referring, naturally, to the person who bore the name. As the name “Supplanter” is not one which a man would be proud to bear, in all probability it was seen that it would be taken for the usual abbreviation for Ya´kub-îlu, with the probable meaning of “God hath restrained” (another signification of the root ´aqab), and thus it may be that there is no record of any one having reproached him on account of it, except the members of his own family, who knew why it was given to him, and recognized in his character as a man something which corresponded with the name given to him because of what was said to have happened at his birth.

Notwithstanding the two etymologies of the name of Joseph which are given (Gen. xxx. 23, 24), “He (God) hath taken away,” and “He (God) hath added,” there is but little doubt that the latter rendering is the correct one, agreeing, as it does, better with the root yāsaph, from which it is derived, the other rendering, from the root āsaph, “to take away,” being due to a kind of pun. (The former rendering is explained as being from the Elohist narrative, the other from that of the Jehovist, but it seems not at all improbable that a woman, even a Canaanitess of those primitive ages, should have made a joke sometimes—they seem always to have been given to making strange comparisons with regard to words, and even the ancient Babylonians were not free from that failing, as at least one of the bilingual tablets shows.) The meaning of the [pg 245] name Joseph is therefore “He (God) hath added,” corresponding with that of the Yašup-îlu, “God hath added,” of the tablets of the time of the dynasty of Babylon. The use of š for s must be due to the fact that Yašup-îlu was, for the Babylonians, a foreign name, and that, in Assyro-Babylonian, šin was pronounced like samech and samech like šin, as a general rule.

Besides the names of the patriarchs Jacob and Joseph, the name Sar-îli, “prince of God,” suggests a comparison with Israel, which is written Sir´ilâa, “Israelites,” in the time of Shalmaneser II. The meaning attributed to this name would seem to be somewhat strained, as it would signify rather “God hath striven,” than “he hath striven with God.” That word-play exists also here, and that the name was a changed form of Sar-îli, “prince of God,” is possible, and is at least justified as a suggestion by the form recorded by Shalmaneser II. already referred to.

The name of his brother Esau may possibly exist in the Babylonian Esê, found on a tablet dated in the reign of Samsu-iluna. Laban does not occur, except as the name of a god in a list of deities worshipped in the city of Aššur. With regard to Bethuel, one cannot help thinking that it must be the same as the place-name Bethel, the terminal u of the nominative being retained in the name of Abraham's nephew. If this be the case, he may have been so named after the “Bethel of cedar” (see p. 201), though there is just the possibility that, as Gesenius suggests, Bethuel may be for Methuel, the Babylonian Mut-îli, “man of god.” That the Bethel of Haran was a heathen place of worship, however, can hardly be regarded as any objection to one of the family to which Abraham and his descendants belonged bearing such a name. If the Hebrew text be correct, therefore, it is probably an abbreviation, forming part of a name similar to [pg 246] Ê-sagila-zērâ-êpuš, “Ê-sagila (the temple of Belus at Babylon) has created a name,” and others like it. It is also to be noted, that the name given by Leah to the son which Zilpah her handmaid bore to Jacob after she herself left off bearing was Gad, rendered in the Hebrew itself by “Fortunate,” and probably the name of a west Semitic deity, Gad, the god of good fortune.

But the heathenism of the portion of the family living at or near Haran is clearly proved by the matter of the teraphim, which Rachel stole from her father Laban. It is true that they are generally regarded as figures used for the purpose of magic, but as Laban himself calls them his “gods,” there is every probability that they were worshipped as such. It is to be regarded as simply an indication of the difficulty which most dwellers in the midst of polytheism in those days must have found in dissociating themselves from the practices of those with whom they came daily into contact. They may have had all the tendencies possible towards monotheism, but how were they to embrace it in all its perfection in the midst of a population recounting from time to time the many wonderful things which their gods and protecting genii did for them, and which the hearer had no opportunity of probing to the bottom and estimating at their true value? As these people were, to all appearance, but simple shepherds (though sufficiently wealthy), it is hardly to be expected of them that they would go deeply into philosophical considerations concerning the Deity, especially when we remember that the family of Laban was in close contact with the idolatry of Haran.

With regard to the teraphim which Rachel took with her when Jacob fled from her father, there is not much that can be said. Figures so called were in common use among the Jews and other nations for purposes of magic, and to all appearance they were [pg 247] statues of deities (as indicated in the passage now under consideration) which were consulted by some means when anything of importance was about to be undertaken. To all appearance they were the household gods, like the Lares and Penates of the Romans, though they were also used when on expeditions, as when Nebuchadnezzar is represented (Ezekiel xxi. 21-26 in the Heb.) standing at the parting of the ways to use divination, shaking arrows to and fro, consulting the teraphim, and looking at a liver to decide what his success in the operations which he was about to undertake against Jerusalem would be. In Zechariah x. 2 also, there is a reference to the teraphim, which, as oracles, had “spoken vanity,” and the diviners had “seen a lie.” Little doubt exists, therefore, as to what these things were used for. With regard to their form, it is supposed that they were similar to the small figures found in the ruins of the ancient palaces of Assyria, generally under the pavement, in all probability images of the gods of Assyria who, by their effigies, were supposed to protect the palace and its inhabitants. Some of these are four-winged figures similar to those found on the bas-reliefs, whilst others are representations of a deity, probably the god Êa or Aê, the god of the sea, who is represented clothed with a fish's skin, etc. The size of these teraphim must have differed greatly; that which was placed in David's bed by Michal, his wife, to deceive Saul's messengers, must necessarily have been of considerable height—probably not much under that of a man. Those hidden by Rachel when her father came to look for them, however, must have been comparatively small, and the figures found in the foundations of the Assyrian palaces rarely measure more than six inches in height.

In the light of what this incident of the teraphim reveals, it is not to be wondered at that Jacob, when about to go up to Bethel from Shechem, after the [pg 248] treacherous spoiling of the city by his sons, should have said, “Put away the strange gods that are among you,” and it shows also a considerable amount of tolerance on the part of the patriarch. Did he, too, believe that the gods which his relatives and dependents worshipped were in any sense divine beings? In any case, it is to be noted that, after they were given to him, he did not destroy them, but hid them, with the trinkets which they possessed—in all probability in many cases heathen emblems—under the terebinth-tree which was by Shechem.

To all appearance they were allowed to keep these strange gods and heathen emblems until they set out on the journey to make the commanded sacrifices to the God who had revealed Himself to Jacob at Bethel.

It was after this sacrifice at Bethel that God again revealed Himself as El-shaddai, His name in the text of “the priestly narrator” (Gen. xvii. 1), and in many other passages. The word Shaddai here is generally connected with the root shadād, “to act powerfully,” and the translation “God Almighty” is based on this. As the word is a very difficult one, however, there have been many attempts to find a more satisfactory etymology. It is to be noted, therefore, that there is in Semitic Babylonian a word šadû, often applied to deities, and expressed, in the old language of Akkad, by means of the same ideograph (KURA) as is used for mountain (šadû or šaddû in Semitic Babylonian). This word šadû, applied to divinities, Prof. Fried. Delitzsch regards as being distinct from the word for mountain, notwithstanding that they are both expressed by the same word in Akkadian, and renders it by the words “lord,” “commander.”

Have we, in this word, an Assyro-Babylonian form of the Hebrew Shaddai? We do not know, but the likeness between the two is worth referring to. The god Bêl, for example, is called šadû rabû, “the great [pg 249] mighty one,” and Sin, with other deities, bears a similar title, found in such names as Sin-šadûnu, “the Moon-god is our lord.” That the idea of almightiness should be expressed by means of the borrowed Akkadian idiomatic use of the word KURA, “mountain,” as that which towers up commandingly, a mighty mass, would seem to offer an acceptable explanation of what has long been felt as a difficulty. “But God knows best.”

After a long and noteworthy account of Esau and his descendants, the interest of the narrative shifts, and is transferred to Joseph, the youngest but one of Jacob's twelve sons, though the narrative is for a time interrupted by the story of Judah.

With the transfer of the interest of the narrative to Joseph, Egypt, the country into which he was sold as a slave, becomes the scene of the action. Here a vast and interesting store of material meets the student, which, unfortunately, we can only very imperfectly touch upon, partly from considerations of space, and partly because the present work is intended to be more the story of the Hebrews in connection with Babylonia and Assyria. It is necessary, however, to speak of Egypt not only on account of the continuity of the narrative, but also as an introduction to the chapter in which the Tel-el-Amarna tablets are examined—documents found in Egypt, and addressed to an Egyptian king.

There is no doubt, that in the story of Joseph there exists a considerable amount of what is known as “local colour.” This is shown by the freedom which the women of Egypt evidently enjoyed (as exhibited in the story of Potiphar's wife), the matter of Joseph shaving himself before going to see Pharaoh, the many undoubtedly Egyptian names, etc. These, of course, are undeniable points in favour of the authenticity of the narrative, which, perfect as it is, omits one important thing, namely, the name of [pg 250] the Pharaoh who ruled at the time. That there should be such an omission in the comparatively unimportant references to the visits of Abraham and Isaac to Egypt is, perhaps, not so very strange, but that there should be no clue to the identity of the Egyptian ruler under whom Joseph entered Egypt, nor to the persecutor of the Israelites under whose reign they went forth from what had become to them practically a hostile land, is noteworthy, and a matter for great regret. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at that scholars have arisen who doubt the whole story, for the least flaw in a narrative in the present day, when unbelief and the desire for scientific proof meet one on every hand, will cause a thinking man to doubt anything and everything.

The degree of civilization to which Egypt had attained at this period, and probably thousands of years earlier, is so remarkable that it is difficult for us at this distance of time to realize it. Whether the country was in reality more civilized than Babylonia is a matter of doubt—possibly we regard their civilization as superior on account of the monuments being so much better preserved, and because, in consequence of the nature of the climate (which is such as to preserve even perishable things), an untold wealth of material exists. This was not the case with Babylonia, in which country the annual rains have caused almost all woodwork to decay, and only objects of stone and clay, and much more rarely metal, remain, even these being in many instances more or less damaged and therefore defective as really useful historical documents.

Egyptian antiquities testify to the civilization of the Egyptians, as has already been remarked, from remote ages, and the inscriptions show that the kingdom was well organized, and governed by rulers whose sway was popular and in accordance with the wishes of the priesthood. This state of things lasted, according to Prof. Flinders Petrie, until about 2098 [pg 251] b.c., when suddenly this exceedingly conservative nation, possessing as great a dislike for foreigners as do the Chinese at the present time, found itself attacked and invaded by barbarian hordes from Western Asia. From what district these people came is not known. According to Josephus, they were regarded by some as Arabians, but Josephus himself regarded them as being of his own race, i.e. Jewish. Quoting from Manetho, he shows that, under a ruler called Timaios, these people from the east, “men of an ignoble race,” invaded the land, and easily made themselves master of it without a battle. When the rulers of Egypt fell into their hands, they burned the cities, destroyed the temples of the gods, and inflicted every kind of indignity upon the inhabitants. At last they raised one of themselves named Salatis (a name evidently derived from the Semitic root šālaṭ, “to rule”) to the throne. This king made Memphis his capital, both Upper and Lower Egypt become tributary to him, and he stationed garrisons in those places which were most suitable for the purpose. One interesting point is, that he directed his attention especially to the security of the eastern frontier, because he feared the Assyrians, who, he foresaw, would one day undertake an invasion of his kingdom. This, to all appearance, refers to the Babylonian dominion, which, as we have seen (see pp. 124 and 155) extended to the Mediterranean. As far as our historical knowledge extends, his fears were groundless, as no serious attempt (and certainly no successful attempt) to conquer Egypt was made until long after the time of Salatis, when Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, succeeded in subjugating the country, which remained under Assyrian overlordship until the reign of his son Aššur-banî-âpli.

Salatis ruled 19 years, and was succeeded by a king named Beon or Bnōn, who reigned 44 years. The next ruler of this race bears the Egyptian-sounding [pg 252] name of Apakhnas, and ruled for 37 years and 7 months. Next came Apophis, the Apepi of modern scholars, who occupied the throne no less than 61 years, Ianias, who ruled for 50 years and 1 month, having also a very long reign. After all these ruled Assis, 49 years and 2 months. These six, says Manetho, were the first of their rulers, and constantly strove to exterminate the Egyptians by making war upon them. Hyksos, or Shepherd kings, and their successors, he goes on to say, retained possession of Egypt 511 years.

In the end the kings of Thebais, and of other provinces of Egypt, arose against the Shepherds, and a long and mighty war was carried on between them, until the Shepherds were overcome by a king whose name was Misphragmouthosis, who, having expelled them from other parts of Egypt, shut them up in Avaris, a tract consisting of about 10,000 acres. All this tract the Shepherds fortified with great strength, whilst Thummosis, son of Misphragmouthosis, tried to force them to surrender by a siege, and surrounded them with an army of 480,000 men. He was beginning to despair of being able to reduce them, when they agreed to capitulate, stipulating that they should be permitted to leave Egypt, and go with all their families whithersoever they pleased. This was agreed to, and they bent their way through the desert towards Syria. Fearing the Assyrians (Babylonians), however, who then had dominion over Asia, they built a city in the country called Judea, of sufficient size to contain them all (they numbered not less than 240,000), and named it Jerusalem.

From this it would appear that, taking advantage of the disorganized state of Egypt about 2100 years before Christ, these Shepherd kings invaded the country, and gradually consolidated their power there. In process of time they had the whole of the country in their possession, and such rulers as remained [pg 253] were allowed to retain their provinces only as vassals, being really princes only in name. It is also very probable that if, as really appears, they were barbarians on entering Egypt, they became civilized by intercourse with the nation which they had conquered. This having been done, the monarchy which they established conformed more and more with that of the native Egyptian kings, so that their court and manner of administration were, to all intents and purposes, Egyptian; native administrators being appointed to many important posts in order to obtain the willing obedience of the people.

As the rule of these Shepherd kings began about 2100 b.c., and finished about 1587 b.c. (Petrie), it is clear that the visits of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph, including Jacob and his family, all fall within this period. As will easily be understood, such a synchronism is not without its value, especially when considering the historical authority of the Pentateuch. That it was during the dominion of the above-named rulers that Joseph entered Egypt is or has been the opinion of all the best students of Egyptian history—Birch, Brugsch, Maspero, Naville, Wiedemann, and many others—and there can be but little doubt of its correctness. It is remarkable that there is no native record of Joseph's administration, but this is, after all, hardly to be wondered at, especially when we consider the disturbed state of the country at a later date, when many records, especially those of the hated conquerors, must have been destroyed, and in any case there is the ever-present chance of some untoward fate overtaking them, by which such documents, if they really existed, may have become lost to the world for ever.

The strange thing about the foreign rulers who held possession of Egypt so long is, as has already been pointed out by Prof. Petrie, that they remained throughout to all intents and purposes a distinct [pg 254] nationality. Intermarriage between the two races, even when they were on the most friendly terms, must have been comparatively rare, and it is on this account that the native princes succeeded at last in ridding the land of the “impure,” as the native recorder has it. From this same record we get the information that one of the Shepherd kings was 'Apop'i (Apepy), the Apophis of the Greeks, and that he ruled at Hawar, a town which is identified with Avaris. The only god which this ruler served was Sutekh, identified with Râ or Rê (in earlier times also, to all appearance, pronounced Ria), the Egyptian Sun-god. According to the Sallier papyrus, from which the above details are taken, it would seem that Râ-'Apop'i, as he is there called, sent to Seqnen-Rê, “king of the South,” proposing that the latter should clear away all the hippopotamuses on the canals of the country, in order that Râ-'Apop'i might sleep. If the king of the South did not succeed in doing this, then he was to embrace the worship of Sutekh, but if he did succeed, then Râ-'Apop'i promised not to bow down before any other god of Egypt except Amon-Râ, the king of the gods.

This, of course, was a distinction without a difference, and is evidently put forward by the writer as such, for the worship of Sutekh in all probability meant the renouncing of the worship of all the other gods of Egypt, a thing which no Egyptian was likely to consent to. On the other hand, the worship of Amon-Râ by the Hyksos king would have been no great hardship, as it would in all probability not have involved any change in his faith, seeing that it was generally recognized that this deity and Sutekh were identical.

The end of this story is lost, so that there is no means of finding out how matters were brought to a head, and the flame of revolt kindled which ended in the expulsion of Egypt's Semitic invaders. What the [pg 255] historical value of the fragment may be is uncertain, as it reads more like a romance than a true history. In all probability, however, its greatest importance will be found to lie in its local colour.50

Joseph, on arriving in Egypt, therefore, found himself, to all intents and purposes, among friends. The man to whom the Ishmaelites sold him was, as stated in the sacred narrative, Potiphar, “an officer of Pharaoh's, captain of the guard, an Egyptian.” The writer of the narrative evidently wished to convey the idea that a man in the service of the king of Egypt, and bearing an Egyptian name, was not necessarily a native of the country. One in the favour of the [pg 256] Semitic ruler of the country, and enjoying his confidence, would naturally be favourably disposed towards a person of Semitic race falling into his hands, and this was actually the case with the Hebrew youth, who “found grace in his sight,” and became overseer of all his house. Indeed, it is possibly on account of this kindly disposition towards him (though also, and perhaps chiefly, on account of his being of the same race as the then ruler of Egypt), that Joseph was not at once put to death by his enraged master on hearing his wife's lying accusation against him, for no man, in those days, would have looked leniently upon such a crime as that with which Joseph was charged. In connection with this, it is noteworthy that he is said to have been consigned to “the prison, the place where the king's prisoners were bound.” Here, being of Semitic race, and helped by his God, he obtained the favour of the keeper of the prison, whose trusted deputy he became. Later on, after interpreting to the king's imprisoned chief butler his dream, he asks this official, when he should again be restored to his place, to make mention of him to Pharaoh, stating that he had been stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews, and had also done nothing to merit being detained a prisoner in that place. To all appearance he firmly believed that his nationality would favour him.

In accordance with his wish, so it turned out, for after two years mention was made of him by the chief butler to Pharaoh, and he is careful to state that Joseph was “an Hebrew.” When called, by the ruler of Egypt, in accordance with the custom of the country, Joseph shaved himself, and put on other clothes, before entering the royal presence. The sympathy of the king towards him was manifested immediately after his interpretation of his dreams, and he was at once, with Oriental promptitude, made governor of all the land of Egypt, receiving from the [pg 257] king his ring in token of the authority conferred upon him. The hero's complete Egyptianizing is to all appearance terminated by his receiving an Egyptian name, Zaphnath-paaneah, and marrying an Egyptian wife, Asenath, daughter of Poti-phera, priest of On.

There are a great many points for consideration in these few statements.

As has been remarked, it was doubtless due to the custom of Egyptian etiquette that Joseph shaved himself, setting aside his Semitic prejudices to the fashion, for it is supposed that Semites abhorred such a ceremony. Surely, it might be objected, the Semitic ruler of Egypt would have liked Joseph none the worse if he had retained his hair, and thus proclaimed his nationality, as it were, on this occasion. And such an objection would possess a certain amount of force. There is hardly any doubt, however, that Semitic abhorrence to the practice has been greatly exaggerated, for it was the custom for high-placed personages in Babylonia, in Joseph's time, to do this, and it remained the custom in that country until a very late date. This was, in all probability, a sacred duty with certain classes of people, such as priests and those dedicated to a divinity. A Hebrew at that time would probably have had no objection, therefore, to adopting the practice, especially in such a climate as that of Egypt, where the necessity of keeping as cool as possible would probably be recognized.

That it should be desired that the new viceroy should try to assimilate himself as much as possible with the natives of the country was probably the reason of Joseph's assuming an Egyptian name and taking an Egyptian wife. A great deal of uncertainty exists, however, as to the true Egyptian form and meaning of the name Zaphnath-paaneah (better Zaphenath-pa'eneakh). Many conjectures have been made as to its true Egyptian form and meaning, but that of Steindorff, “(God), the living one, has spoken,” [pg 258] is undoubtedly the best of all.51 The meaning generally given to the name of Asenath, his wife, is “Belonging to (the goddess) Neith,” but a certain amount of doubt is attached to this rendering. As for the name of Poti-phera, her father, of that there is but little doubt: it is the Egyptian Pa-ti-pe-Ra', “the gift of Ra,” or “of the Sun,” and was naturally a very appropriate name for the priest of On, or Heliopolis, the centre of the worship of the Sun-god. Potiphar, the name of the Egyptian who bought Joseph from the Ishmaelites, is regarded as being a shortened form of this same name.

Another point, and that a very interesting one, is the question of the derivation of the word abrech, which the criers were ordered to call out before the newly-chosen viceroy. Professor Sayce compares this expression, with a great amount of probability, with the Babylonian abriqqu, from the Akkadian abrig, the meaning which he attributes to it being “seer.” He also refers to another word, namely, abarakku (fem. abarakkatu). Of these two, the latter etymology, on account of the consonants, is the more preferable, though the former one would probably suit better in the matter of vowels. But which is the right word?—they cannot both have been the original of abrech. The meaning of abriqqu is “wise one,” and that of abarakku “seer,” a high official of the Assyrian (and probably also the Babylonian) court. The Tel-el-Amarna tablets show that Assyro-Babylonian literature was known and studied in Egypt, and this would account for the word being introduced into Egyptian. It must be confessed, however, that seductive though these comparisons may be, the forms hardly fit, otherwise nothing would seem to be more appropriate than that a crier should be sent to precede Joseph during [pg 259] his triumphal progress through the streets of On or Avaris, announcing that this was the new grand vizier, or the great seer, who had successfully interpreted the king's dream. One would like to have, moreover, at least one instance of the occurrence of the word in Egyptian literature.

Naturally the Jews of later days were very much exercised in their minds that one of the favourites and primitive heroes of their race should have married a heathen woman, daughter of the priest of the Sun at On, and legends seem to have been invented to account for this undesirable circumstance and explain it away. It is regarded as being due to this that there exists a Christian legend, preserved in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Latin, purporting to give the history of Asenath. She is represented as the proud and beautiful daughter of Pentephres (Poti-phera), of Heliopolis, who lived in magnificent exclusion, and despised all men. Her parents wished her to marry Joseph, the great prime minister, but this she would not do. In the course of his visits to collect corn, Asenath sees him, and at once falls in love with him. Joseph, however, will have nothing to do with her because she worships idols. Shutting herself up for seven days in sackcloth and ashes, she threw her idols out of the window, and performed a strict penance. An angel in the form of Joseph then visits her, and blesses her, giving her to eat a mystic honeycomb, signed with the sign of the cross. Asenath, thus accepted, arrays herself in beautiful garments, and goes forth to meet Joseph. He had returned to the house in her parents' absence, but notwithstanding this, the betrothal at once takes place, and afterwards their marriage in the Pharaoh's presence. Her subsequent adventures include an attempt to carry her off on the part of Pharaoh's first-born, aided by Dan and Gad, and in this attempt the heir to the throne loses his life. The original legend made Asenath a Jewess by birth. (See Smith's Dictionary [pg 260]of Christian Biography, and Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible, sub voc.)

To what has already been said about the points tending to show that Joseph was viceroy in Egypt under one or more of the Hyksos or Shepherd kings, may be added the fact that, when his father and brethren came to settle in the land, they were instructed to say that they were shepherds, though it is at once added that “shepherds were an abomination to the Egyptians.” The only thing, to all appearance, that can be argued from this is, that however the native Egyptians might be inclined to look upon the new-comers, the ruler of the land (who is also represented as being pleased that Joseph's brethren had come) had no objection to them on that account. In support of the contention that the period of Joseph was the Hyksos period, it must also be pointed out that this new viceroy introduced at least one measure which might be regarded as somewhat harsh. He appropriated the surplus produce of the seven years of plenty, and when the years of famine came, he compelled the Egyptians to buy back, “even to their own impoverishment,”52 what they had themselves previously parted with for nothing. The reason for this, however, seems to be clear. The Pharaoh upon the throne was of the same race as himself, and he and all Semitic foreigners in the land, including his father and brethren, were dependent on the same state of things continuing. What he then did would have the effect of placing the native Egyptians still more in the power of their ruler, consolidating the dynasty of Semites to which he belonged, and going far, therefore, to ensure the permanency of its rule. In acting as he did, Joseph was only doing what any other man in his position and of his race would have done.

As has been frequently pointed out, famines occurred from time to time in Egypt, and records [pg 261] of them are in existence. Even before the time of the Hyksos kings, a failure of the waters of the Nile to rise to their ordinary height would bring great want and distress. At such times the governors of the various provinces of the kingdom gloried, as Ebers says, in helping their subjects, and saving them from distress. Thus Ameni or Amen-em-ha, whose tomb is at Benihasan, praises himself in the following words—

“I cultivated the entire nome of Maḫ with many workpeople, I troubled no child and oppressed no widow, neither did I keep a fisherman from his fishing, or a herdsman from his herd. There was no head of the village whose people I had taken away for compulsory labour, and there was no one unhappy in my days or hungry in my time. When, however, a famine arose, I tilled all the fields in the nome of Maḫ, from its southern to its northern boundary, and gave nourishment and life to its inhabitants. So there was no one in the nome who died of hunger. To the widow I allowed as much as to the wife of a man, and in all that I did I never preferred the great man to the small one. When the Nile rose again, and everything flourished—fields, trees, and all else—I cut off nothing from the fields.”—Ebers in Bædeker's Upper Egypt, 1892, p. 15.

Amen-em-ha departed this life in the 43rd year of Usertesen I., or about 2714 b.c.

More interesting still, however, is the famine which occurred in the time of Baba, or Beby, as his name is also written. This functionary actually lived during the period of the dominion of the later Hyksos kings, and therefore very close to the time of Joseph. According to Brugsch, Baba lived and worked under the native king Ra-seqenen or Seqenen-Rê III., at the city now represented by the ruins of El-Kâb. Though the famine of which he speaks lasted [pg 262] “many years,” and notwithstanding that the ruler whom he served was a contemporary of 'Apop'i, the Apophis of Josephus, in whose reign, according to this Jewish historian, Joseph lived, it is thought that there is no reason to regard the calamity here referred to as being the famine of which so full an account is given in Genesis—such a supposition is “entirely gratuitous,” according to the writer in Bædeker's Upper Egypt. However this may be, there is no doubt that it is a very important parallel, and would imply that two disastrous famines took place in Egypt in close succession.

The following is Brugsch's translation of this text—

“The chief of the table of princes, Baba, the risen again, speaks thus: ‘I loved my father, I honoured my mother; my brother and my sisters loved me. I stepped out of the door of my house with a benevolent heart; I stood there with refreshing hand, and splendid were the preparations of what I collected for the feast-day. Mild was my heart, free from noisy angers. The god bestowed upon me a rich fortune on earth. The city wished me health and a life full of freshness. I punished the evildoers. The children who stood opposite me in the town during the days which I have fulfilled were, small as well as great, 60; there were prepared for them as many beds, chairs (?) as many, tables (?) as many. They all consumed 120 ephas of durra, the milk of three cows, 52 goats, and nine she-asses, of balsam a hin, and of oil two jars.

“ ‘My speech may appear a joke to some opponent. But I call as witness the god Month that my speech is true. I had all this prepared in my house; in addition I gave cream in the pantry and beer in the cellar in a more than sufficient number of hin measures.

“ ‘I collected the harvest, a friend of the harvest-god. I was watchful at the time of sowing. And now, [pg 263] when a famine arose, lasting many years, I issued corn to the city at each famine.’ ”53

As, in Hebrew, “seven” is often a round number, equivalent to the English “several,” the parallel is noteworthy. An additional remark upon the subject of the Pharaoh of Joseph by Ebers (Smith's Dict. of the Bible, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 1729) is sufficiently striking. He says that the Byzantine chronographer who is known under the name of Syncelles (he held the office of Syncellus or suffragan in his monastery), like Josephus and others, calls the Pharaoh of Joseph Apophis. Now Arab tradition, “in which little or no reliance can be placed,” says that he was an Amalekite of the name of Raian ibn el-Walid, and Naville, when excavating for the Egypt Exploration Fund, at Bubastis, found a block with the name of Apophis, and near it the lower part of a statue of black granite with the name of Ian-Ra or Ra-ian, in hieroglyphics. In consequence of this, Dr. Rieu and Mr. Cope Whithouse maintain that this Arab tradition was founded on fact. “We must therefore leave it uncertain,” adds Prof. Ebers, “whether Joseph came down into Egypt in the reign of Apophis, or in the reign of the hitherto unknown Raian.” Perhaps both are right, and Joseph was in Egypt during the reigns of two or more Egyptian kings. Traditions are sometimes strangely correct, in certain points, though grossly untrustworthy in others.

In Ebers's article to which reference has already been made, the writer is of opinion that Joseph met the king of Egypt on the occasion of the interpretation of the latter's dream, either at Tanis, the Zoan of the English translation (better Ṣo'an), the Arab. Ṣân, borrowed to all appearance from the Coptic Dzhane (Dzhani, Dzhaane, Dzhaani), from the Egyptian Dzha'an, or at Bubastis, the Egyptian Pi-Bast, the Pi-Beseth of Ezekiel xxx. 17, or at Memphis, the Egyptian [pg 264] Men-nofr, the Biblical Moph or Noph. Of these three sites the first (Tanis) is considered the most probable. It is situated at the north-east of the Delta, and was founded, according to Numbers xiii. 22, seven years after Hebron. From this statement, one would think that there must be some connection between these two places, or else some historical fact is to be associated with it. One thing is certain, and that is, that Tanis was the residence of the Hyksos kings, who held court there for a considerable period, as did also many who preceded and followed them. The ruins are extensive, and the place is noted for its Hyksos sphinxes, in whose faces “the coarse Hyksos type” is strongly marked. The officers under the Pharaoh of the Exodus speak, in their letters, of the life there as being sweet, and praise the neighbourhood for its fertility and the abundance of the food it produced (Ebers).

Nevertheless, Bubastis (the modern Tel-Basta) may have been the place where Joseph saw Pharaoh for the first time, as it was a place of great importance, and had a celebrated temple dedicated to the goddess Bast. Memphis, too, may be regarded as having claims, on account of its being situated so near to On, the abode of Joseph's father-in-law.

On, where Potiphera (“dedicated to the Sun”) was priest, was the celebrated city of the Sun-god in Egypt, whose foundation went back to an exceedingly remote antiquity. Besides Râ, Tum or Tmu (the evening sun), Râ-Harmachis (the morning sun), his companion Thoth, Sehu and Tefnut, children of Tum, and Osiris, who was venerated there as the soul of Râ, were among the deities of the place. To these must be added Horus, son of Osiris and Isis, god of the upper world or region of light. His mother Isis was worshipped at On under the name of Isis-Hathor, corresponding with Venus Urania. Besides these deities, various animals were held in honour, among them [pg 265] being two lions, perhaps representing Sehu and Tefnut, who were worshipped under the form of these animals; the bull Mnevis, sacred to Râ or Rê; and the Phœnix, called by the Egyptians Bennu, the bird of Râ, which was supposed to bring the ashes of its father to On once every 500 years, after the latter had been consumed by fire. Other sacred animals in this city were cats and a white sow. No wonder the Israelites of old winced at the thought that their hero Joseph, so perfect in character, wedded the daughter of a priest of this idolatrous city.

The shrine here was immensely wealthy. The staff of priests, officials, and subordinates connected with the temple is said to have numbered no less than 12,913. As the embodiment of the god Râ on earth, the king of the land naturally gave this shrine predominance, and increased its wealth by his gifts. This, added to the fact that the place had the honour of giving him a title (“Lord of On”) of which he, in his turn, was naturally proud, added greatly to the renown of the city. Besides the great temples, it is said to have been also “full of obelisks,” which were dedicated to the Sun-god in consequence of their being emblematic of his rays. “Cleopatra's Needle” on the Embankment, the obelisk bearing the same name at Cairo, the Flaminian obelisk at Rome, and probably many others, all came from this city. According to Herodotus, the priests of Heliopolis or On were renowned above all others in Egypt for learning.

The Hyksos who held rule in Egypt for so many centuries are regarded as having been wandering hordes of Bedouin Asiatics, called by the Egyptians “the impure,” though they also spoke of them under their name of Amu, regarded as being a word derived from the Semitic 'Am, from the root 'amam, meaning “people.” How early they entered the country is not exactly known, but Petrie's estimate, 2097 b.c., may be taken as the nearest at present possible. In [pg 266] connection with this it may be noted that, at the modern fishing-village of Sân, the present representative of the ancient Tanis, which was the city of the Hyksos kings described above, the faces and figures of the inhabitants are strange and unlike those of the remainder of Egypt. They call themselves Melakiyin, i.e. Melekites or “Royalists,” a name applied in the Christian period to a sect of the orthodox Church. They were anciently known as Pi-shemer, corrupted to Bashmurites, and also as Pi-Amu, corrupted to Biamites. There is, therefore, hardly any doubt that these people, the descendants of the wild and turbulent Bashmurites and Biamites who gave so much trouble to the khalifs Merwân II. (744-750) and Mamun (813-822), may claim for their ancestors either such of the followers of the Hyksos kings who, on the expulsion of the latter, decided to remain in the country, or else of those Semites whom the Hyksos found in Egypt when they conquered the country, and who helped them to consolidate their dominion, partly from sympathy and partly from interest.

Notwithstanding Joseph's long residence in Egypt, it is noteworthy that, like the Hyksos rulers of the land, he did not, to all appearance, become in any sense Egyptianized, but retained his Semitic nationality to the last, as is shown by his command to his Hebrew fellow-subjects to carry his remains away with them when they, in the fulness of time, should leave the country. This being the case, Kalisch has asked, very naturally, “Why did not Joseph, like Jacob, order his body to be conveyed at once to Canaan?” In all probability the explanation is, that the Apophis referred to by the Greek writers was, as has been suggested, a contemporary of Seqnen-Rê III., and therefore quite close to the end of the Hyksos period. Joseph must, then, have passed at least part of his life under native Egyptian rule, and at this time national [pg 267] feeling must have been more violently anti-Semitic than ever. It may therefore be supposed that it would not have been by any means politic for him to proclaim his nationality in this way, for this might have the effect of endangering the lives and prospects of his surviving countrymen, who were all related to him, by attracting to them the attention of the hostile populace and court—a thing which would, and did, happen soon enough.

A still more difficult question to answer would be, “Why did not the Hebrews go out of Egypt with the Hyksos?” The answer probably is, that Joseph was, to all appearance, still known and honoured by the native Pharaoh, when he came to the throne, for what he had done for the country. It was seemingly not until after Joseph's death that a Pharaoh arose who knew him not. It may therefore be supposed that, until that time, the Hebrews lived unmolested in the land which they had so long made their home.

Chapter VIII. The Tel-El-Amarna Tablets And The Exodus.

“Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we. Come, let us deal with them wisely, lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they also join themselves unto our enemies, and fight against us: and get them out of the land.”

Such are the words which the new king who knew not Joseph, when he came to the throne, spoke to his people with regard to the alien population which had been allowed during a former reign to settle in the land of Goshen, a fruitful district on the north-east of Egypt, east of Bubastis (Zakāzik). It is the speech of one who feared that, if nothing were done to prevent them from becoming too powerful, they would be a source of danger to the state, as they might join, with every chance of success, in any attack which might be made on the kingdom over which he ruled. It was, in all probability, the presence of a similar foreign (Semitic) population in or near this district, about 2100 years b.c., which had contributed—or perhaps even made—the success of the Hyksos invaders, [pg 269] through which Egypt had been ruled by an alien dynasty for five hundred years. The repetition of such a catastrophe was at all hazards to be prevented. It would seem, therefore, that the persecution of the Hebrews was not undertaken altogether wantonly, but with the object of turning aside a possible misfortune.

As the historical nature of the Exodus has not as yet been absolutely disproved, it is here taken to be a matter of history, and this being the case, it is necessary to try to identify, or, rather, to state what are the most probable opinions, as to the rulers of Egypt at the time of the Oppression and the Exodus. Ramses II. of the nineteenth dynasty is generally held to be the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and Meneptah, his son and successor, the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Lieblein, however, would regard this latter event as having occurred during the reign either of Amenophis III., or his son, Amenophis IV., of the eighteenth dynasty. This latter theory is based on the Tel-el-Amarna letters, which speak of the Ḫabiri, roving bodies of men which went about Palestine stirring up the people, and even compelling them by force to renounce Egyptian rule (which extended in those days over the whole of this district). It will be part of the scope of the present work to examine into this question.

After the death of Seqnen-Rê in battle (see p. 255), he was buried in the usual way at Thebes, implying, as Petrie points out, that the Egyptians had pushed their frontier some way to the north, “so that ceremonials at Thebes were uninterrupted.” Further advance, he thinks, was made in the reign of Kames, “the valiant prince,” as he calls himself, because Aah-mes was able to besiege the stronghold of the Hyksos down in the Delta at the beginning of his reign, about 1585 b.c. It is to be noted that two names come, to all appearance, between those of [pg 270] Kames and Aah-mes, but these are probably not those of important kings, though a part of the honour of the progress made ought to be accredited to them. To all appearance it was the efforts of the Thebans, who had been pushing their way northwards during these last three years, which prepared the way for the successes of Aah-mes—successes which placed him on the throne of Egypt, thus making him the founder of the eighteenth dynasty.

Before he became Pharaoh, he succeeded, within four or five years, not only in getting rid of the overlordship of the Hyksos kings, but also in driving them out of the Nile valley, taking possession of Avaris, and pursuing them into Palestine. Here, in the fifth year, he was able to capture Sharhana or Sharuhen, some miles south of Lachish. He then went on to Zahi (Phœnicia), and later defeated the Mentiu of Setet (the Bedouin of the hill-country), attacking afterwards the Anu Khenti. On his return to Egypt, he found that he had to deal with two outbreaks on the part of those of the Hyksos (probably half-breeds) who remained, and these having been reduced to subjection, there was apparently no further trouble from the Asiatics remaining in the country. So popular was this founder of a new dynasty in Egypt, that both he and his queen had divine honours paid to them beyond those rendered to any other Egyptian ruler. His son Amen-hotep I. shared largely in these testimonies of popular esteem.

After this the power of Egypt increased. The venerable captain of marines, Aah-mes, relates that 'Aa-kheper-ka-Rê (Thothmes I.) went against the Rutennu (Syrians) for the purpose of taking satisfaction, and marched as far as Naharaina (Upper Mesopotamia), where he found that an enemy had plotted conspiracy. On this occasion Thothmes gained many victories and took many captives. Another official mentioning the Syrian campaigns of this ruler is Pen-nekheb, who [pg 271] accompanied him to Naharaina. Thothmes III. also refers to his grandfather's conquest in Syria, stating that he placed another inscription where the tablet of his father 'Aa-kheper-ka-Rê was, and adds that “his majesty came to the city of Niy on his return. Then his majesty set up his tablet in Naharaina to enlarge the frontiers of Kemi,” i.e. Egypt. Niy was in the region of Aleppo, on the Euphrates.

Thothmes II. (1516-1503, Petrie) retained those portions of Syria which his father had conquered. An expedition thither is also mentioned by Pen-nekheb, who says: “I followed the king 'A-kheper-en-Rê (Thothmes II.), the blessed one. I brought away from the land of the Shasu (Bedouin, apparently the same tribes as those to which the Hyksos or hak shasu belonged) very many prisoners—I cannot reckon them.... The king 'A-kheper-en-Rê gave me two gold bracelets, six collars, three bracelets of lapis-lazuli, and a silver war-ax.”

Thothmes III. (1505-1449), son of Thothmes II., had one of the longest and most glorious reigns in all Egyptian history. He was born at Thebes, and crowned when about nine years old. On the death of Hatshepsut, the queen regent, his father's first wife, who, however, was not his own mother, his warlike expeditions began, and he assembled an army on the frontier of Zalu, preparatory to an expedition against the chiefs of Southern Syria, who had rebelled. This was his twenty-second year. Next year, on his coronation-day, he found himself, after a long march, at Gaza, on the way to Carmel and Megiddo, where he defeated the assembled Syrian chiefs, and utterly routed them on the plain of Esdraelon. The allies then took refuge in the town, which was besieged, and they were obliged to capitulate. Enormous spoils from this place, as well as from the other cities of Syria, was the result. This expedition was repeated in the two following years.

In his twenty-ninth year he made his fifth expedition to the Syrian hill-country, Tunep, Arvad, and Phœnicia, from which latter district much spoil was obtained. The two following years found him in the same region. In his thirty-third year he set up a tablet on the boundaries of Naharaina. The next year he made a campaign to, and received tribute from Syria, Phœnicia, and Cyprus. In his thirty-fifth year he went to Phœnicia, and received tribute from Naharaina. The year following this he received tribute from Cyprus. After this he again went to Phœnicia, and he is supposed to have received tribute from Cyprus, Syria, and the Hittites in the fortieth and forty-first years of his reign. In his forty-second year there was an expedition to Tunep, Kadesh, etc. Besides the above, he either made himself, or dispatched, under his generals, during his long reign (fifty-four years) many expeditions into other lands than those mentioned above, and also took part in numerous works and public functions in his own country.

The expeditions in Syria made by this king are told very graphically and at great length. The march to Megiddo, the council of war, and the dispositions for the attack, are given in full, and the king claims to have himself protected his army when going through a narrow defile in which all might have been lost had the enemy against whom they were marching made an onslaught. Representations of the spoil taken accompany the lists enumerating the amount, and show that the ancient Syrians had attained to a skill, in the arts as then known, equal, if not superior, to that of the Egyptians. Among the places mentioned are Arvad, Kadesh, Gaza, Yemma, etc. Besides Thothmes III.'s own annals, there is an inscription of one of his officers, Amen-em-heb, who gives his version, which, however, is not divided into different years. This text mentions the Negeb, where he took some captives; Carchemish, from which place he obtained [pg 273] spoil, and other places. He speaks also of Thothmes III. having hunted elephants in the land of Niy, one hundred and twenty in number, for their tusks. This agrees with what has been stated from the Assyrian inscriptions (pp. 200, 201) concerning the existence of these animals in the Lebanon and around Haran.

Thothmes III. was succeeded by Amenophis II., a warlike and vigorous ruler, who followed in his father's footsteps, and by so doing maintained the power and influence of his country. Petrie (History, ii. p. 154) argues with great probability that he was not of age when he came to the throne, and that he was apparently not the eldest of his father's sons. His first expedition, which was a raid in Asia “to establish his renown,” was probably, as Prof. Petrie says, in the first or second year of his reign. “His majesty had success (in Shemesh-atuma of South Galilee), his majesty himself made captives there.... Account of what his majesty himself took in this day: living prisoners Satiu 18, oxen 19.” Later on he had some further success, and took spoil from the Satiu with whom he fought.

In his second year, six months after the above expedition, he seems to have made a promenade in force as far as the frontiers of the Egyptian domains in Asia, in order to assert his power, and as a check to any disaffection which might exist. After this there was a triumphal return to Egypt, where he held a festival on the occasion of the laying of the foundation-stone of the temple of Amadeh. Among the captives sent to Egypt were seven chiefs of the territory of Takhsi, near Aleppo, who were hung up by the feet on the fore-part of the king's barque. Of these six were afterwards hung up on the wall of Thebes in the same manner, a circumstance which suggests that the Egyptians were upon about the same level as the Assyrians with regard to their barbarous customs in [pg 274] war, notwithstanding their civilization and polish in other things.

He claims as his own nearly all the lands which his father had conquered—the South land, the Oases, the Lybians, Nubians, Semites, Kefto (according to W. Max Müller, Cilicia), and the Upper Rutennu, or district of Megiddo.

Amenophis II. died in 1423 b.c., and was succeeded by his son, Thothmes IV. His earlier years seem to have been occupied in asserting his power in Syria, and his later years were devoted to Nubia. Naharaina and the Kheta or Hittites occur in inscriptions referring to the former period. According to Manetho, he reigned nine years and eight months. He was succeeded by his son, Amenophis III. (1414-1379, according to Petrie).

At this time Syria was completely in the hands of the Egyptians. Constant intercourse went on between the princes of the two countries, who in Syria seem to have been contented with their subordinate position. It is during this reign that the now celebrated Tel-el-Amarna tablets come to our aid, and show how this was brought about. Alliance between the two countries by marriage had taken place, and the royal and various princely families were therefore related. Besides this, there was naturally reluctance on the part of a prince of Syria to take up a hostile attitude with regard to the king who had taken his daughter in marriage, as he would always be in fear of endangering his daughter's safety, and for the same cause he would naturally try to restrain the petty rulers of his own district, including those of his neighbours who were more of the nature of equals. In addition to this, the sons of the Syrian chiefs were sent to be educated in Egypt, and as the Egyptian ruler at the time had married Syrian princesses, it is probable, as Petrie says, that the sons of Syrian chiefs, educated in Egypt, were married to Egyptians at the close of their [pg 275] education. As it was only stipulated that they should be restored to their native country to succeed their fathers, they may, it is thought, have lived in Egypt until middle life. This being so, the rulers of Syria would naturally become imbued with the thoughts and ways of the Egyptians, and undesirous, therefore, of throwing off the yoke. If, however, things were all really as thus depicted, there is one thing which is strange, namely, that the correspondence which was carried on between the two districts was not in Egyptian (which the princes of Syria ought to have known sufficiently well to write), but in Assyro-Babylonian, which was a foreign tongue to them all, especially the king of Mitanni, whose native language was not even Semitic. That the kings of Babylonia should correspond with the king of Egypt in Babylonian was to be expected, but if the kings of Syria, or their sons, were educated in Egypt, it is remarkable that we find so many letters in the Babylonian language.

Apparently, therefore, everything pointed to a continuance of the state of things which existed at the time of the king's accession to the throne. It was evidently his desire that nothing should occur to change the cordial relations which existed between himself and the Egyptian dependencies, hence the mild suzerainty exercised. There was an Ethiopian campaign in his fifth year, after which, to all appearance, no warlike expeditions were undertaken—in fact, it was considered that there was no need for them.

The first wife of Amenophis III. was Teie, as the Tel-el-Amarna tablets call her, the Teyi of the Egyptian monuments. She was daughter of Yewea and Tewa, and was to all appearance of Asiatic nationality. Prof. Petrie thinks that she may have been of Syrian race, and as a matter of fact, her portrait shows her with a pleasant face of Semitic type and a pointed [pg 276] chin. To all appearance, she was a personage of great importance in the land, and when negotiations with the princes of the north were being carried on, she was one of those who were taken into consideration by the outlanders.

Colossal statue of Hadad, dedicated by Bar-Rekub, King of Sam'allu, to Hadad. El, Rekub-el, Shamash, and the gods of Yadî, in memory of his father, Panammû, about 730 B.C. The horned cap which the god wears probably shows Assyro-Babylonian influence. Gerchin N.E. of Zenjirli. From Mittheilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen, Part XI., by permission of the publishing-house of Georg Reimer, Berlin.

In one of the tablets from Tel-el-Amarna, it would appear that, besides Teie, Amenophis III. had married a sister of Dušratta, king of Mitanni, named Gilu-ḫêpa, for news of whom Dušratta wrote to the Pharaoh, sending presents to him, as well as to his sister. Later on, the Egyptian king asks Dušratta for one of his daughters, sending a messenger named Manê with a tablet to that effect. As Dušratta in his letter to the Pharaoh Nimmuaria (Neb-mut-Ra,54 Amenophis III.) refers to her as the (future) mistress of Egypt, it is clear that she was intended as the consort of his son, Amenophis IV. From other letters which passed between them, it would seem that the princess in question was named Tâdu-ḫêpa, called, in Egyptian, Nefer-titi (perhaps a translation of her Mitannian name). It was to all appearance the custom in those days, as at the present time, for the kings of the various states to ally themselves by marriage with other royal houses; and at a time when kings, at least, were allowed more wives than one, it was possible for them to take pledges for the preservation of peace by making use of the privilege. Quite in accordance with this are the statements contained in other texts concerning intermarriages of this kind, both Amenophis III. and IV. having likewise espoused Babylonian princesses, daughters of Kallima-Sin and Burra-buriaš, the son of the latter being at the same time betrothed to Amenophis IV.'s daughter. They were also constantly making presents to each other, each trying to get as much as he possibly could of the things which were [pg 277] not common in his own land—gold, much gold, being the commodity that the king of Egypt was expected to supply. The other kings sent him, in return, various stones (lapis-lazuli being often mentioned), chariots, horses, and other things, both natural and manufactured products. The women by whose means these friendly relations had been established, made use of the messengers sent to their fatherland to transmit messages to their relatives and ask after their health.

From these tablets we obtain certain details as to the state of the Holy Land and the surrounding country before the entry of the Israelites. Besides the kingdom of Mitanni mentioned above, there were the states of Alašia (supposed to be Cyprus), Ziri-bašani (plain of Bashan), Hazor, Askelon, Lachish, Gaza, Qatna (west of Damascus), Accho, Simyra, Tyre, Sidon, the Amorites, the Hittites, Dunip (Tenneb), Jerusalem, etc., etc. Many of them were small states with the cities after which they are named as capital, and naturally were obliged to enter into a league for their common protection, or else accept the suzerainty of some more powerful state, falling, if its protector went under, into the power of the common invader. It must have been in consequence of this state of things in the east Mediterranean littoral that Egypt was able to extend her power so far, and subdue this large district.

From these tablets we learn something of their religion. To all appearance one of the gods most worshipped in the extreme west of Asia was Rimmon, the Rammānu (“thunderer”) of the Assyrians and Babylonians, the Addu or Hadad of the Semitic nations of this district (the name Addu afterwards became general as the appellation of the god in Babylonia and Assyria), and the Tešupa or Tešub of Mitanni (Aram-Naharaim) and district to the north (Armenia). At Tyre they seem to have worshipped [pg 278] a personage or deity called Šalmayātu, whilst the Phœnician Astarte is commemorated in âl Aštarti, “the city of Aštartu,” perhaps Ashtaroth, 29 miles east of Tiberias (Petrie). As the word Ashtoreth is evidently a lengthening of the name of the Assyro-Babylonian goddess Ištar, it is not to be wondered at that this goddess should be mentioned by the king of Mitanni, Dušratta, who refers to a statue of Ištar of Nineveh, which had been sent to Egypt, and requests that it may be returned to him soon. The name of Nergal, also, was evidently familiar to the king of Alašia, for he speaks of the hand of that god as having killed all his people, when wishing to refer to the prevalence of a pestilence there, Nergal being the Assyro-Babylonian god of disease and death. In the same way Dušratta speaks of Šamaš, the Assyro-Babylonian Sun-god, but he refers to him more as the luminary which men love than as a god, though there is every probability that he was worshipped in Mitanni.55 Another Assyro-Babylonian deity whose name occurs is Ninip, once in the name of Abdi-Ninip, “servant of Ninip,” apparently a Gebalite, and again in âl Bêth-Ninip, “(city of) the temple of Ninip,” in a district which Abdi-Aširta called upon to unite against Gebal—perhaps the Beth-Ninip in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. In the name of Abdi-Aširta it is to be noted that we have here, to all appearance, the name of the asherah or “grove” of the Authorised Version, the “token” of the goddess Ištar,56 with the ideogram for which the word once interchanges. The Egyptian god Amāna (Amon) is mentioned several times, invoked apparently as a god in whom the writer believed, though he was the special god of the Egyptians and the Egyptian king. [pg 279] In addition to the above deities, the names of men reveal Uraš, the god of Dailem near Babylon, Bidina, another Babylonian deity, and Merodach, the principal god of the Babylonians. Among west Semitic deities may be mentioned Dagan (Dagon), Milku (Melech, Moloch), and others.

Notwithstanding a considerable period of Egyptian rule, therefore, Babylonian influence, which had been predominant in the tract for many centuries, still held the upper hand. Merodach was to all appearance venerated, Nergal was worshipped as the god of death and disease, Ištar was held in high esteem. It must have been during those centuries of Babylonian rule that the worship of Tammuz or Adonis got into the country, becoming one of the stumbling-blocks of the Israelites in later days, when Hebrew women lamented for him, hidden in the realm of darkness where dwelt Persephone (Ereš-ki-gala, “the lady of the great domain” of the Babylonians), into whose realm, at great risk, Ištar, his spouse, descended to seek him, but only escaped from the rival's clutches by the intervention of the gods.

Exceedingly interesting are the various forms of government in Western Asia at this period. Among hereditary chiefs may be mentioned Etakama of Gidši (Kadesh), Šum-addu, who is probably the same as Šamu-Addu, prince of Šamḫuna, Mut-zu'u (see p. 286), and Azru, though this last is doubtful, as in one of the letters he calls himself a governor installed by the king of Egypt. The best example of an elected chief, however, is in all probability Yabitiri, governor of Gaza and Jaffa, who, when young, went down to Egypt and served in the Egyptian army, being afterwards appointed to the posts which he held later. The power of the Egyptian kings of a period somewhat preceding this is well exemplified by the fact, that Addu-nirari of Assyria attributes to an Egyptian ruler the appointment of his grandfather and father as [pg 280] kings of Nuḫašše, on account of which all three rulers seem to have acknowledged Egyptian overlordship. An interesting instance of female rule is that of Nin-Urmuru (?),57 who, in her letters, mentions Ajalon and Sarḫa (identified with Zorah), probably lying in her district.

Most interesting of all, however, is the case of Jerusalem, whose ruler, as will be seen from the letters quoted later on, was apparently elected by some of the magnates of the district which acknowledged his sway, and who were probably the members of a religious community. Nothing, however, is known of the electorate or the system of election employed—all that can be said is, that the ruler was not placed there by virtue of his father or his mother, but by the “mighty king.”

The matter of the government of Dunip, one of the most important towns of ancient Palestine, is also of importance, as it does not seem to have possessed an autocratic head of any kind, and may have been a kind of republic. Its government was probably similar to that of Irqata, which was ruled over by its elders, acknowledging the overlordship of the Egyptian king. A similar state of things seems to have prevailed in Babylonia, where, however, the king of Babylon was naturally recognized as lord of the country. In all probability the towns governed by their elders were regarded as royal cities of Egypt, whilst the others were semi-independent states.

The relations of the Egyptian king with foreign states is well illustrated by the following—

Letter From The Babylonian King Burra-Buriaš (Burna-Buriaš) To Amenophis IV. King Of Egypt.

“(To) Napḫu'ruria the king of Egypt, my brother, say also thus: ‘It is Burra-buriaš, king of the land of Karu-duniaš, thy brother. My health is good. To thee, thy country, thine house, thy wives, thy sons, thy great men, thine horses, thy chariots, may there be very good health.

“I and my brother have spoken friendship with each other, and we said as follows: ‘As our fathers were with each other, let us be friendly.’ Now my merchants, who went with Aḫi-ṭâbu, remained in the land of Kinaḫḫi (Canaan) for trade. After Aḫi-ṭâbu proceeded to my brother,58 in the city Ḫinnatunu of the land of Kinaḫḫi (Canaan), when Šum-adda, son of Malummê, (and) Šutadna, son of Šarâtum, of the city of Akka (Accho), sent their people, they killed my merchants, and took their money away. When I have sent (Azzu (?)) to thy presence, ask him, and let him tell thee.”

(Reverse)

“(Ki)naḫḫi is thy land, and (its) king(s are thy servants). In thy land have I been ill-treated—res(train them): make (up) the money which they have taken away; and kill the people who have killed my subjects, and avenge them. And if thou kill not these people, they will return, and both kill my caravans and thy messengers, and the messenger will be broken off between us, and if (this happen), they will fall away from thee. One man (of) mine, when Šum-adda had cut off his feet,59 he held him prisoner; and [pg 282] another man, when Šutadna, the Akkaite (Acchoite), had caused him to be placed with the servants, became a servant before him.60 Let (them take) those men to thee, and see thou to (it). And mayest thou know how I fare. I have caused to be brought to thee 1 mana of lapis-stone (as a gi)ft. (Let) my (messe)nger (come back) quickly. Let me know how my brother fares. Do not de(tain) my (mess)enger—let him come (back) quickly.”

It is clear from this, and from other inscriptions of the series, that a kind of international law existed among the nations of the ancient East, by which they were expected to protect the caravans passing through each other's territory, and, in fact, see that no harm came to any of each other's subjects. They were expected to punish all persons who may have attacked and ill-treated or murdered them, and make restitution of property stolen. The law (probably an unwritten one) was evidently much the same as prevails among civilized nations at the present day. That these ancient rulers always obtained from their “brothers” the redress which they demanded, is more than doubtful. Burra-buriaš's entreaty that his messenger might be returned to him quickly points to vexatious delays on former occasions, and probable failure to obtain any justice or redress whatever.

The relations of Egypt with Assyria were similar to those with Babylonia, except that the Assyrian king, as has been shown, was, in some respects, a vassal.

Letter From The Assyrian King Ašur-Uballiṭ To Amenophis IV. King Of Egypt.

(Divided into paragraphs in accordance with the indications of the original text.)

“To Napḫurî, (the great king?), the king of Egypt, [pg 283] my brother, (say) thus: ‘It is Ašur-uballiṭ, king of Aššur, the great king, thy brother.’

“To thee, to thy house and thy country, may there be peace.

“When I saw thy messengers, I rejoiced greatly. Thy messengers are staying with me for a time.

“I have caused to be brought to thee as thy gift a fine royal chariot of my y(ok)e, and 2 white horses of m(y y)oke, and one chariot without yoke, and 1 seal of fine lapis-lazuli.

“The great king's return-gift may be thus: Gold in thy land is (as) dust—they gather it up. Why should it go round into thine eyes? I have undertaken to build a new palace. Cause gold, as much as its over-laying and its need (requires), to be sent.

“When Ašur-nadin-âḫi, my father, sent to the land of Egypt, they caused to be sent to him 20 talents of gold.

“When the Ḫanigalbatian king sent to Egypt to thy father, he caused 20 talents of go(ld) to be brought to him.

“(Behold), thou hast caused to be brought ... gold to the Ḫani(gal)ba(tian) king ... and to me, (but f)or the going and returning it suffices (?) not for wages for my messengers.

“If friendship be desirable unto thee, cause much gold to be brought; and as it will be thy house, send, and let them take what thou desirest.

“We are distant countries—in this wise let our messengers go about.

“Those who delayed thy messengers were the Sutites, their persecutors; dead (was I) until I had sent, and they had taken the persecuting Sutites. Their bands (?) shall verily not delay my messengers.

“As for messengers abroad, why should they be detained and die there? If they stay abroad, the king will have the advantage, so let him stay and let him die abroad—let the king then have the advantage. And if not, why should the messengers whom we [pg 284] send die abroad? ... attack the messengers and cause them to die abroad.”

The last paragraph is difficult to understand on account of its being so mutilated, but the sense of the whole seems now to be fairly clear. Ašur-uballiṭ desires to be on friendly terms with Egypt, but he is anxious to get, above all, the precious metal which was said to be so plentiful there, and for which all the rulers of Western Asia seem to have hungered. And this leads to the interesting statement in the fifth paragraph, in which gold in Egypt is said to have been as dust; and there is the question, “Why should it go round into thine eyes?” (Amminî ina ênē-ka isaḫḫur?) implying that, being dust, it behaved as dust, and was in that respect undesirable, and therefore to be got rid of. He would like to have some for the decoration of his palace—his father, and the king of Ḫanigalbat had been favoured in this way. Let it not be as little (apparently), as that sent to the Ḫanigalbatian king, for that would not suffice to pay his messengers. The interchange of things needed as presents made good friends. It was a lawless band of Sutites who had detained the Egyptian king's messengers, and he was as one dead until his people had stopped their depredations. It was useful to a king that his ambassadors lived and died abroad, but not that they should be attacked and killed there.

The relations of Egypt with another class of ruler is well illustrated by the following letter from a prince or governor brought up in Egypt—

Yabitiri Asserts His Faithfulness, And Touches Upon His Early Life.

“To the king my lord, my gods, my Sun-gods, say also thus: ‘(it is) Yabitiri thy servant, the dust of thy feet. At the feet of the king my lord, my gods, my Sun-gods, seven times, and twice seven times I fall. [pg 285] Furthermore, behold, I am a faithful servant61 of the king my lord. I look here, and I look there,62 and it is not clear; then I look upon the king my lord, and it is clear. And the brick-foundation may give way from beneath its wall, but I will not give way from beneath the feet of the king my lord. And the king my lord may ask Yanḫama, his official, (concerning) when I was young, and they sent me down to Egypt, where I served the king my lord, and stood in the city-gate of the king my lord. And the king my lord may ask his official when I guard the city-gate of Azzati (Gaza) and the city-gate of Yapu (Jaffa). And I am with the hired troops of the king my lord, where they go, I am with them, and I am also, therefore, with them now. The yoke of the king my lord is on my neck, and I bear it.’ ”

Apparently there had been spread abroad some statement reflecting on the faithfulness of the writer, who seeks to justify himself by appealing to his former services to the Egyptian king. His letter has a ring of sincerity in it which is wanting in many of the communications of this nature.

Reference has already been made to the caravans which passed through the territory of the various rulers, and the protection which those rulers were supposed to extend to them. Burra-buriaš, in his letter translated above, complains that Babylonian caravans had been attacked in the land of Canaan, and asks for the punishment of the persons involved. To all appearance the protection of the caravans was entrusted to certain chiefs, owing allegiance to the Egyptian king, who always held themselves ready to perform this duty. The following translation shows how one of the chiefs or governors of a Canaanitish district looked after the caravans, as his father did before him—

Letter From Mut-Zu'u To The King Of Egypt.

“To the king, my lord and my sun, say thus: ‘It is Mut-zu'u63 thy servant, the dust of thy feet, the earth for thee to tread upon. Seven times, twice seven times, I fall down at the feet of the king my lord.’

“The king my lord has sent by Ḫâya to speak of the Ḫana-galbat64 caravan. This I have dispatched and have directed it. Who am I, that I should not dispatch the caravans of the king my lord? Behold, (Lab)'aya, my father, (who was faithful) to the king his lord, used to send (a caravan, and give directions concerning it. The cara)vans (which) the king (di)rected to the land of Ḫana-galbat (and) to the land of Kara-duniaš let the king my lord send. (As to) the caravan, I will bring it so that it is safe.”

As will be seen from this, Mut-zu'u was one of the humble vassals of “the king his lord,” who at that time—evidently the peaceful days of Amenophis III.—was the happy possessor of many such. As examples of the relations between the smaller rulers and their suzerain, may be quoted two of the numerous letters of Yidia of Askelon, who provided the necessaries for the Egyptian army in Palestine.

Yidia, The Askelonite, Concerning The King's Representative.

“To the king, my lord, my Sun, the Sun who (cometh) from the heavens, (say also) thus: ‘(It is) Yidia, the Askelonite, thy servant, the dust of thy [pg 287] feet, thy charioteer.65 I fall down before the feet of the king my lord seven times and twice seven times, back and breast.’

“Now (for) my (lord), (for) the gods of the king my lord, my god, my Sun, I guard this city, and again ... let me protect all his land.

“I have heard the words of the king my lord to his representative, when he is not able to protect the country of the king my lord. So now the king my lord has appointed Rianappa, the representative of the king my lord, to whom66 I will bring (?) good fortune for the king.

“Whatever cometh out of the mouth of the king my lord, lo, that will I keep day and night.”

Yidia Concerning The Commissariat.

“To the king my lord, my Sun, my god, the Sun who (cometh) from the heavens, (say also) thus: ‘(it is) Yidia thy servant, the dust of thy feet, thy charioteer. I fall down at the feet of the king my lord seven times and twice seven times, back and breast. Behold, I am keeping the commands of the king my lord, the son of the Sun, and behold, I have provided the food, drink, oil, grain, oxen, (and) sheep, for the soldiers of the king my lord—provisions, every kind, for the soldiers of the king my lord. Who would be a vassal, and not obey the words of the king my lord, the son of the Sun?’ ”

Letters similar to the above are numerous, and show that Egyptian rule was not regarded as burthensome—indeed, it may have been even welcome, tending in all [pg 288] probability to the preservation of peace. It must have been difficult, however, for the Egyptian king to hold the scales of justice always even, for among the governors were always men who professed faithfulness, but who aimed at throwing off the Egyptian yoke, light as it was.

In all probability the trouble began in the north, that district being farthest from the Egyptian marches, and what was going on there was on that account longer in reaching the knowledge of the king. Judging from a letter from Ili-rabiḫ, written from Gebal, Etakama, of Kinza and Kadesh, smote the whole of the lands of Amki, “the territory of the king.” “And now,” the inscription continues, “he has sent his people to seize the lands of Amki and the places. Further, the king of the land of Ḫatta (Heth), and the king of the land of Narima (Naharaim), have been unsuccessful (?), and” (here the writer breaks off the narrative).

Another account of this affair is as follows—

Bêri (Or Bieri) To The King About The Attack On Amki.

“To the king, my lord, (my god, my sungod), say then thus: ‘It is Bêri, (thy servant), the Ḫašabite.’ Down to the dust of the feet of the king my lord 7 (times) and 7 (times) I fall. Behold, we occupy, in Amki, the cities of the king, my lord, and Edagama, the Kinzite, has gone to meet the soldiers of Ḫatta (Heth), and set (the cities) of the king my lord on fire. And may the king my lord know, and may the king (my) lord give field-soldiers. And we will occupy the cities of the king my lord, and we will dwell in the cities of the king my lord, my god, my sungod.”

This and two other accounts, one of which is from “Ilu-dâya, the Ḫazite,” all agree, and show that three [pg 289] officials were occupying cities in the territory known as Amki (identified with 'Amq, a plain by Antioch, or 'Amqa, N.E. of Akka), when Edagama (whose name also appears as Etagama, Etakkama, Itatkama, Itakama, Aiṭugama, and Aidaggama) joined the Hittite troops who were hostile to Egypt. It was in consequence of this, in all probability, that the three officials decided to write to the king of Egypt to let him know how things were going, and this they did in identical terms, with the same expressions, and the same peculiarities of spelling, pointing to the probability that the same scribe wrote all three communications. In the letter of Ili-rabiḫ, from which a quotation is given on p. 288, Amki is called “the king's territory,” implying that it was a tract acknowledging Egyptian supremacy, which Etagama was trying to wrest from the Pharaoh's grasp. It was the king's friends who were occupying the king's cities (as Bêri, Ilu-dâya, and the unknown writer call them), because they desired to hold them against this active enemy. With help from the Egyptian king, they thought that they would be able to do this without difficulty. There seems to be (as far as can at present be judged) no reason to suppose that the beginning of the expulsion of the Egyptians from Palestine was due to the over-zeal of the supporters of Egyptian rule in that country, who, striving to extend the influence and the dominions of their suzerain, drew down upon him, and upon themselves, the hostility of all the independent states of Western Asia, as well as of those which wished to throw off the Egyptian yoke. The Egyptian kings would surely have warned their vassals in Palestine against the danger of such action on their part.

As an additional light upon the events here referred to, the following extract from a letter from Akizzi of Qaṭna to Amenophis III. may be of interest:—

“O lord, Teu(w)atti of the city L(apa)n(a) and Arzauia of the city Ruḫizzu are setting themselves [pg 290] with Aiṭugama (Etagama) and the land of (U)be. He is burning the territory of my lord with fire.

“O lord, as I love the king my lord, and likewise the king of the land Nuḫašše, the king of the land of Nî, the king of the land of Zinzar, and the king of the land of Tunanat; and all these kings are for the king my lord serviceable.

“If the king my lord will, then he will go forth. (But they say) thus: ‘The king my lord will not go forth.’ Then let my lord send out field-troops, and let them come, since this land, as also, my lord, these kings, is well disposed towards him. (They are) my lord's great ones, and whatever their gifts (contributions), let him speak, and they will give (them).

“O lord, if this land is to be off the mind of my lord, then let my lord send forth field-troops, and let them come. The messengers of my lord have arrived.

“O lord, if Arzauia of the city of Ruḫizzu and Teuwatti of the city Lapana remain in the land of Ube, and Daša remain in the land of Amki, then may my lord know concerning them, that the land of Ube is not my lord's. They send to Aiṭugama every day saying thus: ‘Come and take the land of Ube completely.’

“O lord, as the city Timašgi in the land of Ube is at thy feet, so also is the city Qaṭna at thy feet. And, my lord, with regard to my messenger, I ask for life, (and a)s I do not fear with regard to the field-troops of my lord, that the field-troops of my lord will come, as he will send (them) forth to me, I shall re(tire) into the city Qaṭna.”

Thus the trouble spread, and the Hittites and their allies took possession of the territories south of the tracts referred to, trying, at the same time, to win over to their side the governors who were faithful. All this time posing as a friend of the Pharaoh, Etagama complained of the others, particularly Namya-waza, one of Egypt's most trustworthy allies, who, in a [pg 291] letter couched in the usual humble style of the period, announces his readiness to serve “with his horses and chariots, and with his brothers, and with his SA-GAS, and with his Sutites, along with the hired soldiers, whithersoever the king his lord should command him.”

Now in this letter there is one noteworthy fact, and that is, that the SA-GAS and the Sutites are mentioned together as the allies of an important vassal of the Egyptian king, the latter being apparently wandering hordes of plunderers (see above, p. 283), whom Kadašman-Muruš, king of Babylonia, sent from east to west “until there were no more.” This took place at a somewhat later date, so that they still roamed about the eastern portion of the country, between Palestine and Babylonia, apparently giving their services to any power which might desire to make use of them.

The question of the identification of the troops or bands of warriors designated by the Akkadian compound SA-GAS is, however, of still greater importance. Most Assyriologists regard them as being identical with the Ḫabiri, mentioned in the letters of Abdi-tâbu or Ebed-tob. This, of course, is possible, but it is unfortunate that no direct confirmation of this identification exists. In the bilingual lists of Babylonia and Assyria, the expression SA-GAS, duly provided with the determinative prefix indicating a man or a class of men, occurs, and is always translated by the word ḳabbatu, the probable meaning of which is “robber,” from the root ḫabātu, “to plunder”. It is also noteworthy that there is a star called SA-GAS, and this is likewise rendered by the same word, namely, ḫabbatu. The fact that it is once provided with the determinative ki (“place”) does not help us, for this may be simply an oversight or a mannerism of the scribe. Moreover, the difficulty of identifying the SA-GAS with the Ḫabiri of the inscriptions of Abdi-ṭâba is increased [pg 292] by the word occurring in these texts (Winckler's No. 216, l. 11), followed by the explanation (amēlūti ḫabati), an arrangement which we find in others of these letters, when an ideograph has to be explained; and when they are, as here, Akkadian ideographs and Babylonian words, the second is always the pronunciation of the first—never the alternative reading. Indeed, in the present case, such an explanation would be misleading instead of helpful (were the word SA-GAS to be read Ḫabiri), for the scribe tells you to read it ḫabati—the same word as is given in the bilingual lists, but spelled with one b instead of two.

In all probability, therefore, the ḫabati were wandering hordes differing from the Sutites in not having any special nationality, and being composed of the offscourings of many peoples of the ancient East. They were probably included in the ḫabiri, together with the nations with which they were afterwards associated. The ḫabiri were not the Hebrews, neither the word nor the date being what we should expect for that nationality, who were still in Egypt. The best identification as yet published is that of Jastrow, who connects it with the Hebrew Heber, the patronymic of various persons. Better still, however, would be the Heb. ḥaber, pl. haberim, “companions,” also used of tribes joined together to form a nation. Whether an advance guard of the Hebrews is to be included in this term or not, must be left to the judgment of the student.

The gradual loss of the districts south of Damascus in all probability followed. A letter from Mut-Addu (the only one from him) to Yanḫamu speaks of the cities of the land of Garu (identified—though the identification is not quite satisfactory—with the Heb. Gur), namely Udumu (identified by Petrie with Adamah, though the form does not agree so well as might be wished, and Udumu is the usual way of rendering the word Edom, which is referred to in the [pg 293] cuneiform inscriptions both as a land and a city), Aduri (Petrie: et-Tireh), Araru (Petrie: Arareh), Meštu (Petrie: Mushtah), Magdali (Magdala), Ḫini-anabi (Ain-anab, if rightly identified—there is a certain difficulty in the word possessing a guttural at the beginning and not likewise as the first letter of the second component—probably 'Anab, south-west of Hebron, the Anab of Josh. xi. 21), and Sarki. At this time, according to the tablet, Hawani and Yabiši (Jabesh) had been captured. It is probably on account of the occupation of the country by so many hostile tribes that the protest of Burra-buriaš of Babylonia (see p. 281) was sent, but it was in all probability exceedingly difficult for the Egyptian king to afford any protection whatever to the caravans which passed through the disaffected area.

One of the things which the Tel-el-Amarna letters show very clearly is, that it must have been very difficult for the Pharaoh to know who were his friends and who were his enemies among the rulers of the Philistines. The Amorite Abdi-Aširta and his allies were from the first desirous to throw off the Egyptian yoke, but this prince at the same time constantly sent letters to Amenophis IV. protesting his fidelity. Other chiefs who were hostile to Egypt are Etakama, the sons of Lab'aya, Milkîli, Yapa-Addu, Zimrêda of Sidon, Aziru, and others. On the king's side were Namyawaza, who held Kumidi (Petrie: Kamid-el-Lauz), Rib-Addi, whose chief cities were Gebal, Beyrout, and Simyra, Zimrêda of Lachish, and Abdi-ṭâba of Jerusalem. Numbers of chiefs, at first faithful, went over to the enemy when they saw the success of the league against the foreign power.

It is impossible to suppose that the letters now known (about three hundred in number) represent all the correspondence which passed between Palestine and Egypt concerning the state of the country during the reigns of Amenophis III. and IV., and from the [pg 294] time the troubles there commenced, complaints and applications for help must have claimed the attention of the Egyptian translator literally in shoals. One of the most remarkable of these is the letter from the people of Dunip, who say that, in consequence of the state of things in Palestine, they belong no longer to the king of Egypt, to whom they had been sending for twenty years, but their messengers had been retained. Their prince (to all appearance) had been taken back to Egypt by the king's orders, after he had allowed him to return to his country, so that they had not seen him again. “And now Dunip, thy city, weeps, and its tears flow, and there is no one to take our hands (i.e. help us). We have sent to the king, the lord, the king of Egypt, and not a single word from our lord hath reached us.”

Were they really sorry to be no longer under Egyptian rule? or were they merely desirous that their prince should be restored to them?

During this period, naturally enough, recriminations were going on on every side. Those who were faithful very properly made complaints and uttered warnings concerning those who were unfaithful. The waverers, the unfaithful, and the hostile, on the other hand, were continually asserting their fidelity, and accusing those who were really well-disposed towards Egypt of all kinds of hostile acts against the supreme power. This is evident from the correspondence of Abdi-ṭâba of Jerusalem, who, in one of his letters, writes as follows—

“(T)o the king my lord say also thus: ‘It is Abdi-ṭâba, thy servant. At the feet of my lord the king twice seven times and twice seven times I fall. What have I done against the king my lord? They back-bite—they slander67 me before the king my lord, (saying): “Abdi-ṭâba has fallen away from the king [pg 295] his lord.” Behold, (as for) me, neither my father nor my mother set me in this place—the arm of the mighty king caused me to enter into the house of my father. Why should I commit a sin against the king my lord? As the king my lord lives, I said to the commissioner of the king (my) lord: “Why love ye the Ḫabiri and hate the gover(nors)? it is on account of this that they utter slander before the king my lord.” Then he said: “The countries of the king my lord have rebelled, therefore they utter slander to the king my lord.” ’ ”

The ruler of Jerusalem then seems to say, that the king had placed a garrison in some city or other, but it had been taken, apparently by Yanḫamu—there was no longer a garrison (in that place). The king's cities under Ili-milku had revolted, the whole of the land of the king was lost, so let the king have care for his land. He would like to go to the king, to urge him to take action, but the people in his district were too mighty for him, and he could not leave it. As long as the king lived, and as long as he sent a commissioner, he would continue to give warning. If troops were sent that year, things would be saved, otherwise the king's lands would be lost. Abdi-ṭâba ends with an appeal to the scribe to place the matter clearly before the king.

Another very important letter from Abdi-ṭâba is as follows—

“(T)o the king my lord, (my) Sun, (say also) thus: ‘It is Abdi-ṭâba, thy servant. Twice seven times and twice seven times I fall down before the feet of the king my lord. Behold, the king my lord has set his name to the rising of the sun and the setting of the sun. The slandering which they slander against me! Behold, I am not a governor, the king my lord's magnate. Behold, I am an officer of the king, and have brought the tribute of the king. (As for) me, it was not my father nor my mother—it was the arm of the [pg 296] mighty king who set me in the house of my father. (When so and so),68 the commissioner of the king, returned to me, 13 prisoners (?) (and a certain number69) of slaves I gave. Šûta, the commissioner of the king, came (back t)o me; 21 girls (and) 2070 (?) prisoners I gave (in)to the hand of Šûta (as) a gift for the king my lord. Let the king take counsel with regard to his land—the land of the king, all of it, has revolted, it has set itself against me.71 Behold, (as for) the lands of Šêri (Seir) as far as Guti-kirmil (Gath-Carmel), the governors have allied themselves72 and there is hostility against me. Even though one be a seer, one wishes not to see the tears of the king my lord, when enmity exists against me. As long as ships were in the midst of the sea, the power of the mighty king took Naḫrima (Naharaim) and the land of Kašsi,73 but now the Ḫabiru have taken the cities of the king. There is not one governor for the king my lord—all have rebelled. Behold, Turbazu has been killed at the gate of the city Zilû, (and) the king (?) remained inactive. Behold, (as for) Zimrêda of the city of Lakisu (Lachish), (his) servants lay in wait for him (?), they took (him) to kill (?) (him). Yapti'-Addu has been killed (at) the gate of the city of Zilû, (and) the king remained inactive ... ask (?) him ... (let) the kin(g have care for his land, and let) the king give attention ... (let him send) troops to the land of (the city of Jerusalem, (?), and) if there are not troops this year, the whole of the lands of the king my lord are lost. They do not tell the king my lord (this). When the country of the king my lord is lost, then are lost (also) all the governors. If there be not troops this year, let the [pg 297] king direct his commissioner and let him take me—(send him) to me with my brothers, and we will die with the king my lord.’ (To the) scribe of the king my lord (say also thus): ‘It is Abdi-ṭâba, (thy) servant. (I fall down) at (thy) feet. Cause (my) words to enter (pl)ainly to the king (my lord). I am thy (faith)ful servant.’ ”

The final phrase resembles that of an English letter.

According to Petrie, Sêri is Shaaraim (Josh. xv. 36), now Khurbet es-Sairah. If the character read as gu in Guti-Kirmil (Winckler, Gin(?)ti-Kirmil) be correctly drawn in the official published copy, there is considerable doubt as to the reading of the first syllable of this interesting name. Zilû, where Turbazu and Yapti'-Addu were killed, is identified by Petrie with Zelah, north of Jerusalem. This letter gives an excellent illustration of the state of the country at the time.

In another letter Abdi-ṭâba explains how all the lands had concluded a bond of hostility against him, and the districts of Gezer, Askelon, and Lachish had supplied these people with food. After this comes the usual request for troops, and the indication that, if troops be sent “this year,” the situation would be saved—next year there would be neither countries nor governors for the king (in Palestine). “Behold, this land of the city of Jerusalem, neither my father nor my mother gave it to me—the power of the mighty king gave it to me, (even) to me.” “See,” he continues, “this deed is the deed of Milki-îli, and the deed of the sons of Lab'aya, who have given the land of the king to the Ḫabiri.” He then goes on to speak of the Kaši, who seem to have supported the confederates with food, oil, and clothes. Next follows what Paura, the king's commissioner, had told him about the disaffection of Adaya. Caravans had been robbed in the field of the city of Yaluna (Ajalon), but [pg 298] Abdi-ṭâba could not prevent this: “(I mention this) in order to inform thee.” “Behold, the king has placed his name in the land of Jerusalem for ever, and the forsaking of the lands of Jerusalem is not possible.” After this comes the usual note to the scribe in Egypt, followed by a postscript referring to the people of Kâsi, disclaiming some evil deed which had been done to them. “Do not kill a worthy servant (on that account”).

Yet another letter refers to Milki-îli and Lab'aya: “Behold, has not Milki-îli fallen away from the sons of Lab'aya and from the sons of Arzawa to ask the land of the king for them?74 A governor, who has done this deed, why has the king not called him to account for this?” The narrative breaks off where Abdi-ṭâba begins to relate something further concerning Milki-îli and another named Tagi. When the text again becomes legible, Abdi-ṭâba is again referring to the fact that there is no garrison of the king in some place whose name is lost. “Therefore—as the king lives—Puuru (= Pauru) has entered it—he has departed from my presence, (and) is in the city of Gaza. So let the king indicate to him (the necessity) of a garrison to protect the country. All the land of the king has rebelled. Send Ya'enḫamu (Yanḫamu), and let him become acquainted with (lit. let him know) the country of the king (i.e. the true state of affairs”). Here follows a note to the scribe in Egypt similar to that translated above.

One of the most interesting and instructive of the letters of Abdi-ṭâba is that which Petrie regards as the latest of the series; and on account of its importance, it is given in full here—

“(To) the king, my lord, (s)ay also thus: ‘It is [pg 299] (Abdi)-ṭâba thy servant. At the feet of the (ki)ng my lord twice seven times and twice seven times I fall down. (Behold, the deed) which Milki-îli and Šu-ardatum have done to the land of the king my lord has been successful (?). The men of the city of Gazri (Gezer), the men of the city of Gimti (Gath), and the men of the city of Kîlti (Keilah) have been captured. The land of the city of Rubute has revolted. The land of the king (belongs to) the Ḫabiri. And now, moreover, a city of the land of Jerusalem, the city Beth-Ninip (“House” or “Temple of Ninip”)—(this is) its name—has revolted to the people of Kîlti. Let the king hearken to Abdi-ṭâba thy servant, and let him send hired soldiers, and let me bring back the land of the king to the king. And if there be no hired soldiers, the land of the king will go over to the men, the Ḫabiri. This deed (is the deed of) Šu-ardatum (and) Milki-îli ... city ... and let the king care for his land.’ ”

Whether the fall of Jerusalem followed or not is doubtful; nor is it certain that the Egyptians were ultimately driven out. Other letters seem to show how the influence of those whom Abdi-ṭâba calls the Ḫabiri, and others the Ḫabati—the “confederates” and the “plunderers”—spread still farther southward. Naturally more information is required to enable it to be known in what manner the Egyptians tried to retrieve their position, and how it was that Amenophis IV. delayed so long the sending of troops. All the governors who were in the least degree faithful to Egypt united in repeatedly warning him as to what was taking place, and urging him to send troops. Had the rebellion or invasion—whichever it was—been nipped in the bud, Palestine would have remained a faithful Egyptian province. All the king did, however, was to send his commissioner, and, occasionally, exhorting and even threatening letters, which had in all probability little or no effect, except [pg 300] to excite a little mild amusement on account of their erratic spelling. A very noteworthy communication of this class is the following—

The King Of Egypt Rebukes The Prince Of The Amorites.

“(To) the Amorite say then thus, (‘It is the king’). The king thy lord (hath hear)d thus: ‘The Gebalite whose brother drove him from the gate (hath spoke)n to thee thus: “Take me and cause me to enter into my city, (and a reward) then let me give thee—yea, however much, (though) it be not with me.” Thus did he speak to thee.’

“Writest thou (no)t to the king thy lord (th)us: ‘I am thy servant like all the former governors who (were each) in the midst of his city’? But thou doest wrong to receive a governor whose brother hath driven him from his gate out of his city.

“And (whilst) dwelling in Sidon, thou deliveredst him to the governors as was thy will. Knewest thou not the hatred of the people?

“If thou be in truth a servant of the king, why hast thou not made possible his transmission to the presence of the king thy lord, (saying) thus: ‘This governor sent to me thus: “Take me to thee, and cause me to enter into my city” ’?

“And if thou hast done according to right, then all the matters are not true concerning which thou wrotest: ‘They are trustworthy,’ for the king thought thus: ‘All that thou hast said is not correct.’

“And behold, the king hath heard thus: Thou art in agreement with the man of Kidša (Kadesh), food and drink together have ye supplied. And be it true, why doest thou thus? why art thou in agreement with a man with whom the king is on bad terms? And if thou hast done according to right, and hast regard to thy opinion, then his opinion [pg 301] existeth not. Thou hast no care for the things which thou hast done from the first. What hath been done to thee among them (the disaffected ones), that thou art not with the king thy lord?

“Behold, those who attract(?) thee to themselves seek to throw thee into the fire; and it is kindled, and thou findest everything very satisfactory.

“And if thou do homage to the king thy lord, what is there which the king would not do for thee? If on account of anything thou wish to work evil, and if thou set evil, and words of hate, in thine heart, then by the king's ax shalt thou die, together with all thy family.

“So do homage to the king thy lord, and thou shalt live. And thou knowest, even thou, that the king desireth not to attack the land of Kinaḫḫi (Canaan), the whole of it.

“And as thou hast sent thus: ‘Let the king leave me this year, and let me come in the second year before the king, my lord—my son is not here to ...;’ behold, then, the king thy lord will grant thee this year, according as thou hast said. Come thou (or if thy son, send), and thou shalt see the king at the sight of whom all the lands live. And say not thus: ‘Let him leave me this year in addition.’ If it be not possible to go into the presence of the king thy lord, direct thy son to the king thy lord instead. He (need) not (stay with thee), let him come.

“And, behold, the king thy lord hath heard that thou hast written to the king thus: ‘Let the king my lord allow Ḫanni, the king's messenger, to come a second time and let me cause the enemies of the king to be taken back by his hand.’ Behold, he hath come to thee, as thou hast said, and leave not one of them behind. Behold, the king thy lord causeth to be brought to thee the names of the enemies of the king in this letter at the hands of Ḫanni, the king's messenger, so cause them to be brought to the [pg 302] king thy lord, and do not leave one of them (behind). And brazen bonds shall be placed on their feet. Behold, the men whom thou shalt cause to be sent to the king thy lord (are):

“ ‘And mayest thou know: well is the king, like the Sun in Heaven; his soldiers and chariots are many. From the upper country as far as the lower country, (from) sunrise as far as sunset (i.e. from the extreme east to the extreme west), great is the prosperity.’ ”

To all appearance Amenophis IV. trusted too much to his own prestige, and that of the country over which he ruled. He was “the son of the Sun,” “like unto the Sun in Heaven,” “the king at the sight of whom all the lands live,” and naturally took it for granted that he was everywhere looked upon with the same veneration as in his own country.

As may easily be imagined, the expulsion of the Egyptians from Palestine left the country in a very disturbed state, and marauding bands, having no longer anything to do in the way of wresting territory from the Egyptians, must have given considerable trouble to the native princes and governors, now once more independent in their own territories.

The loss of Palestine, on the other hand, probably brought with it a certain amount of loss of prestige [pg 303] to Egypt, which must have endured for some time. In any case, the Egyptian kings who succeeded Amenophis IV. seem to have made no attempt to regain the lost provinces.

Ankh-kheperu-Ra, the king who succeeded the ruler just named, lived for a while at Tel-el-Amarna, during which time, in all probability, the tomb of his predecessor's six daughters was finished. Several rings of this king exist, on two of which he calls himself “beloved of Nefer-kheperu-Ra” (or, in accordance with the indications of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets: Nafar-khoperu-Ria) and “beloved of Ua-en-Ra,” names of Amenophis IV. During his reign the worship of the sun's disc (Aten, or, if the derivation from the Semitic Adon, “lord,” be correct, Aton) began to give way to that of the national gods of Egypt. He reigned thirteen years (1365-1353 b.c.), and was succeeded by Ra-kheperu-neb (1353-1344). The paintings in the tomb of Hui at Thebes show that tribute was still received from the Syrians (Rutennu), as well as from the people of Kush in the Soudan. Evidently the road was being paved for the conquest of the lost provinces of Syria.

After this came a ruler who seems to have held the throne only on account of his wife being of royal blood. According to Petrie, he was “divine father Ay,” and his wife's name was Ty. He reigned thirteen years (1344-1332 b.c.). During his reign a complete reversion to the old worship took place.

Ay's successor, Ra-ser-kheperu (Hor-em-heb), 1332-1328 b.c., was apparently also a commoner, and is identified (Petrie) with the Hor-em-heb who was general in an earlier reign. He is represented being adored by negroes and Asiatics.

One or two other obscure names occur, and then begins the reign of king Rameses I., who came to the throne about 1300 b.c. This reign was short enough, but there is hardly any doubt that in it the [pg 304] prosperity of Egypt was renewed. From the treaty of the Khita with Rameses II., the grandson of Rameses I., we learn that the latter had a war with the Khita, and from the fact that he founded a storehouse for the temple of his divine father Hor-khem, and filled it with captive men-servants and maid-servants, we may conclude that he was fairly successful in his warlike expeditions.

With his son, Seti (Sethos) I., or Meneptah (“beloved of Ptah”), we attain firmer ground. In the very first year of his reign he warred in the east, among the Shasu Bedouin, “from the fortress of Khetam (Heb. Etham) in the land of Zalu, as far as Kan'ana (Canaan).” Kadesh, at that time a city of the Kheta (it had apparently fallen into the hands of the Hittites during the reign of Amenophis IV.), was conquered by him. Not only the Hittites, however, but also Naharain (Naharaim), the country of which Dušratta of old had been king, upper and lower Rutennu (Canaan and North Syria), Sinjar, the island of Cyprus, and Cappadocia, felt the force of his arms. His son, Rameses II., was associated with him on the throne, and afterwards succeeded him. This took place about 1300 b.c. It is to this ruler that the glory of the name of Rameses is principally due, and his grandfather, the first who bore it, shines mainly with a reflected light.

It is impossible here to do more than touch upon such of the details of his career as are essential in the present work. In all probability he is best known on account of his expedition into Syria, and the conquest of the Hittites, who, as recorded in the celebrated heroic poem of Pentaur, were allied with a number of other tribes, including the people of Naharaim, Aleppo, Gauzanitis, the Girgashites (?), Carchemish, etc. The result was success for the Egyptian arms, and the Hittites, on the whole, submitted, though some of the towns acknowledging [pg 305] Hittite rule, notably Tunep, refused to accept Egyptian suzerainty, necessitating another expedition, the result of which was, that the Egyptians found no more opposition to their overlordship. In his eighth and succeeding years he fought against the Canaanites, and in his descriptions of his operations there, many familiar names are to be found—names of great interest to all students of ancient Oriental history. It was in his eighth year, according to the texts in the Ramesseum, that he conquered Shalam (Salamis W. of Capernaum, according to Prof. Flinders Petrie), Marom (Merom), the spring of Anamimi (identified with Anamim), Dapur (identified with Tabor by Brugsch), and many other places.

Rameses II. is generally regarded as the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and one of the tasks placed upon the oppressed Israelites was the building of his store-cities, Pithom (Pi-tum, discovered by M. Naville when excavating for the Egypt Exploration Fund) and Raamses, the Pi-Ramessu of the inscriptions, concerning which there is a very interesting letter by an Egyptian named Panbesa, who visited it. As Brugsch says: “We may suppose that many a Hebrew, perhaps Moses himself, jostled the Egyptian scribe in his wandering through the gaily-dressed streets of the temple-city.”

The successor of Rameses, Meneptah II., is hardly the son which one would expect to follow such a father. According to Brugsch, he does not rank with those Pharaohs who transmitted their remembrance to posterity by grand buildings and the construction of new temples. And the monolith found by Petrie in 1896 seems to imply that his lists of conquests were not always so trustworthy as could be wished. Nevertheless, the reign of Meneptah is one of the greatest importance, for it was he, to all appearance, who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, as seems also to be proved by the same document. As this is a [pg 306] text of the very first importance, a translation of the concluding lines is given here—

“Kheta (the land of the Hittites) is in peace, captive is Canaan and full of misery, Askelon is carried away, Gezer is taken, Yennuamma is non-existent, Israel is lost, his seed is not,75 Syria is like the widows of Egypt. The totality of all the lands is at peace, for whoever rebelled was chastised by king Meneptah.”

Now the statement concerning Israel has given rise to a considerable amount of discussion. Naville regards the reference to the condition in which the Israelites were as indicating that they had left Egypt, and were wandering, “lost” in the desert. There is also some probability that the expression, “his seed is not,” may be a reference to the decree of the king, who commanded the destruction of the male children of the Hebrews, which command, he may have imagined, had been finally carried out. The question also naturally arises, whether the last phrase, “whoever rebelled was chastised by king Meneptah,” may not have a reference to the Israelites, who, from their own showing, were sufficiently peremptory in their demands to be allowed to proceed into the wilderness to sacrifice to their god, to bring down upon themselves any amount of resentment.

Exceedingly noteworthy, and in many respects startling, however, are the researches and statements of Dr. Edouard Mahler. Following Spiegelberg as to the meaning of the phrase containing the name of the Israelites, “Jenoam has been brought to naught; Israel, the horde, destroyed his crops”—a statement which hardly seems worthy of the honour of being inscribed on the memorial stele of a king of Egypt—is the rendering he suggests. The translation of the word feket (which is rendered by other Egyptologists as “annihilated, lost,” or in some similar way) by [pg 307] “horde,” allows the learned chronologist to suggest, that the ideographs accompanying the word Israelites indicate that they had already entered the Holy Land, and were trying to obtain a foothold there.

Having made these statements, he proceeds to examine the whole question. He asserts the correctness of the view, that Amosis, the founder of the eighteenth dynasty, was the prince who knew not Joseph. The first king of this new dynasty, he calculates, came to the throne two years after Joseph's death. With regard to the reign of Rameses II., he refers to the festival of the Sothis period which was celebrated in the thirtieth year of his reign. Starting from this period,76 which, according to Oppolzer, was renewed in the year 1318 b.c., he calculates that the first year of Rameses II. was 1347 b.c., and that the Exodus took place in his thirteenth year, i.e. 1335 b.c.

According to the Pirke di Rabbi Elieser, Dr. Mahler says, the departure of the Israelites is said to have taken place on a Thursday. “This view is also held in the Talmud (cf. Sabbath 87B), and the Shulchan-Aroch also maintains that the 15th Nisan, the day of the Exodus, was a Thursday. This all agrees with the year b.c. 1335, for in that year the 15th Nisan fell on a Thursday, and indeed on Thursday the 27th of March (Julian calendar).”

If we accept the theory that Rameses II. was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and that the Exodus took place in 1335 b.c., then Moses, who was eighty years old at the time of the Exodus, must have been born in the year 1415 b.c., i.e. the fifteenth year of Amenophis III. Now the chief wife of this ruler was queen Teie (see p. 275), a woman who was certainly [pg 308] of foreign, probably Asiatic, race. In all probability, therefore, Teie, being an alien and of a different religion from the Egyptians, was not by any means in favour with the Egyptian priesthood, however much the Pharaoh may have delighted in her. The daughter of such a woman, as will easily be understood, would find little or no opposition to the adoption by her of a child of one of the Hebrews, an Asiatic like her mother. This, of course, would explain excellently how it was that Moses came to be adopted and educated by an Egyptian princess at her father's court, and that he had no real sympathy with the people among whom he lived, though it raises somewhat of a difficulty, for it is hard to understand how the Egyptian king, sympathizing, as we may expect him to have done, with Asiatics, should have ordered the destruction of their children. Nevertheless, circumstances may easily have arisen to cause such a decree to be issued. Another difficulty is, to explain who the people hostile to Moses were, who in the thirteenth year of Rameses II. died (Exod. iv. 19). This has generally been understood to be the king and one or more of his advisers, though this objection, like the other, really presents no difficulty worthy of the name, as there was no indication that the king was included.

Of course there is no statement to the effect that Pharaoh was killed with his army by the returning flood after the Israelites crossed the Red Sea (in Ps. cxxxvi. 15 he must be regarded as having been overwhelmed therein in the persons of his warriors, who suffered the fate which ought to have stricken also the king), so that little or no difficulty exists in this portion of the narrative.77 On the other hand, a difficulty is got rid of if we suppose that the Exodus [pg 309] took place in the time of Rameses II. Dr. Mahler points out, that Meneptah was succeeded by his son and heir, User-kheperu-Ra', who did not die, but reigned thirty-three years. The eldest sons of Rameses II., on the other hand, all died during their father's lifetime, and it was the fourteenth of his numerous progeny who ultimately came to the throne.

Dr. Mahler clinches the matter by making the plague of darkness to have been a solar eclipse.

Whatever may be the defects of Dr. Mahler's seductive theory, it must be admitted that it presents fewer difficulties than any other that has yet been put forward, and on that account deserves special attention.

Chapter IX. The Nations With Whom The Israelites Came Into Contact.

Chapter X. Contact Of The Hebrews With The Assyrians.

The Hebrew commonwealth had come into being, and given place to a monarchy, which, passing through many vicissitudes, reached its highest pitch of glory in the time of David and Solomon, to suffer, after the death of the latter, diminution by the falling away of the ten tribes. Thus weakened, the two parts of what had been erstwhile a powerful whole became tempting morsels to any power whose ruler was ambitious of conquest. It was probably more from unwillingness to attack with but little chance of success than inability from inherent weakness which caused the Assyrians to refrain whilst the nation was united. Generally, the kings of Assyria preferred making conquests nearer home, and Tukulti-Ninip I., who reigned in the 13th century b.c., annexed Babylonia and ruled there for seven years, Assyrian predominance in that land coming to an end on his death, which was due to a revolt, in which his son, Aššur-naṣir-âpli, took part. Though this was a check to Assyrian ambition in that quarter, its kings returned from time to time to the attack, but with very varying success, which probably caused them to turn their attention to other districts as the field of their warlike zeal. Tukulti-Ninip II. (891-885 b.c.) and his son, Aššur-naṣir-âpli II., therefore aimed at the conquest of the north and [pg 328] west, and though the latter came into conflict with Babylonia, no permanent accession of territory resulted therefrom.

It seems not to have been until somewhat late in his reign that he reached, in his numerous expeditions, the Mediterranean Sea, “the great western sea,” or “the great sea of the land of Amurrū,”86 as he calls it. Here, after performing ceremonies to the gods of Assyria, he received the tribute of the kings of the sea-coast—“of the land of the Tyrians, the land of the Sidonians, the land of the Gebalites, the land of the Maḫallatites, the land of the Maizites, the land of the Kaizites, the land of the Amorites, (and) the city of Arvad, which is amid the sea.” This is followed by a list of the objects received, and the statement that they (the rulers) paid him homage. Having thus spied out the nakedness of the land, and ascertained the willingness of the rulers to give tribute, the Assyrian king proceeded to the mountains of Ḫamanu (Amanus), and cut beams of cedar, cypress, and other wood for the temple Ê-šarra, for his house or temple (apparently that in which he worshipped), “a house of rejoicing, (and) for the temple of the moon and the sun, the glorious gods.”

Shalmaneser II., son of Aššur-naṣir-âpli, during the first six years of his reign, warred, like his father, on the north and west, his object being to complete what his father had begun, namely, the subjugation of the territory of Aḫuni, son of Adini, king of Til-barsip. This having been successfully accomplished, he was free to turn his attention to the more southern regions of the old land of the Amorites. In the year 854 b.c., therefore, he marched against Giammu, a ruler whose land lay on the river Belichus. To all appearance this chief wished to resist, but his people feared the power of the Assyrian king, and put Giammu to death. Taking possession of the [pg 329] district, he then proceeded to further successes, and after crossing the Euphrates again in boats of skins, he received the tribute of the kings on the farther side—Sangara of Carchemish, Kundašpu of Commagene, Aramu the son of Gusu, Lallu the Milidian, Ḫaianu the son of Gabaru, Kalparuda of the Patinians, and Kalparuda of the Gurgumians, “(at) the city Aššur-uttir-aṣbat, of the farther side of the Euphrates, which is upon the river Sajur, which the men of the Hittites call the city Pitru” (Pethor). Having reached Aleppo, he received also tribute there, and offered sacrifices before Hadad of Aleppo.

Next came the turn of Irḫulêni of Hamath (Amatâa), whose cities Adennu, Pargâ, and Arganâ were captured and spoiled, and his palaces set in flames.

“From Arganâ I departed, to Qarqara I drew near: Qarqara, his royal city, I ravaged, destroyed, (and) burnt with fire. One thousand two hundred chariots, 1200 yoke of horses, 20,000 trained soldiers of Adad-'idri (= Bin-Adad-idri = Ben-Hadad) of Ša-imērišu (= the province of Damascus); 700 chariots, 700 yoke of horses, (and) 10,000 soldiers of Irḫulêni of the land of the Hamathites; 2000 chariots (and) 10,000 men of Aḫabbu (regarded as Ahab) of the land of the Sir'ilites (regarded as the Israelites); 500 men of the Guites; 1000 men of the Musrites; 10 chariots (and) 10,000 men of the Irqanatites; 200 men of Matinu-ba'ali of the city of the Arvadites; 200 men of the land of the Usanatites; 30 chariots (and) 10,000 men of Adunu-ba'ali of the land of the Šianians;87 1000 camels of Gindibu'u of the Arbâa (regarded as the Arabians); ... 00 men of Ba'asa son of Ruḫubu of the land of the Amanians (Ammonites)—these 1288 kings he took to aid him, (and) to make war and battle they advanced against me. With the supreme powers which Aššur, the lord, has given; with the mighty weapons which ura-gala [pg 330] (Nergal89) going before me, has presented (me), I fought with them. From the city Qarqara as far as the city Gilzau90 I made an end of them. Fourteen thousand of their warriors I caused to be slain with the sword. Like Hadad I caused a torrent to rain down upon them....”

Such is the account of the first recorded contact of the Assyrians with the Jews—that is, if Sir'ilâa be rightly rendered “Israelites”; as to Ahab, there may have been more than one of the name, just as there were two Kalparudas, he of the Patinians, and he of the Gurgumians. Nevertheless, the probability that it really is Ahab of Israel is great, and this theory is held by most Assyriologists.

In truth, however, the Hebrew and the Assyrian histories of this period are not altogether easy to reconcile. Ben-Hadad II., the son and successor of Ben-Hadad I., was in almost continual conflict with the Israelites. The story is told in 1 Kings xx., according to which Ben-Hadad entered into an alliance with thirty-two other kings, who, with their armies, horses, and chariots, besieged Samaria. Too full of confidence, he sent to Ahab of Israel, who was in the besieged city, demanding his surrender, the second time with terms more than usually humiliating. In consequence of the words of a prophet who is unnamed, the rejection of these terms was followed by a sortie of the inhabitants, who seem to have taken the besiegers unawares, whilst they were feasting and drinking in their over-confidence. The result was the raising of the siege, and the complete defeat of the allied forces.

The next attack of Ben-Hadad upon Ahab was at Aphek, he hoping to obtain a victory over the Israelites because he considered their God to be a god [pg 331] of the mountains, and that they would not be under his protection in the plains. Here, too, the Israelites were victorious, and Ben-Hadad submitted, and agreed to restore cities taken by his father (xx. 34), and to allow the Israelites to build streets at Damascus (probably as a quarter for Jewish merchants).

Admitting the correctness of the general opinions of Assyriologists concerning Aḫabbu mât Sir'ilâa, it must have been between this period and his death that he joined the Syrian league against Shalmaneser II. of Assyria, with a force only half that of Ben-Hadad, though his chariots were nearly twice as many. Notwithstanding this, however, the Israelitish troops were sufficiently numerous, and the defeat of such a large army as that of the allies of the Syrian league, and the slaughter of a total of 14,000 men among them (another account says 20,500), many of them in all probability Israelites, finds no place, strange to say, in the sacred record, notwithstanding that the Hebrew writers do not, as a rule, in the least object to mentioning national defeat, and in this case it would have been a most important thing to refer to, the danger which threatened them and their allies being such as promised to overthrow their national existence altogether. Perhaps the compiler of the sacred record, however, did not realize to the full what the Assyrian invasion meant; or he may not have desired to justify Ahab's policy (which, in view of the danger which threatened, was a sound one), and so discredit with the people the fanatical behaviour and tragic warning of the prophet who reproached the king so mercilessly because he had made friends with Ben-Hadad instead of pressing on against him in hostility, even to the death.

The Rev. Joseph Horner (Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology, 1898, p. 244), besides bringing in the chronological difficulty, which is very real, in spite of Prof. Oppert's Noli me tangere (P.S.B.A., [pg 332] 1898, pp. 24-47), notes (pp. 237, 238) the difficulty of the name. This is the only place where Israel is called in the Assyrian inscriptions Sir´ilâa—in all other passages it is bît Ḫumrî, “the house of Omri,” or mât bît Ḫumrî, “the land of the house of Omri,” and he regards it as incredible that a name never used before, and never afterwards found, should be employed. Elsewhere, when speaking of Jehu, Shalmaneser calls him “son” or “descendant of Omri,” apparently intending thereby to indicate his nationality, for, as is well known, the relationship expressed is not correct.

Nevertheless, allowance must be made for the uncertainty attending the introduction into the literature of a country of a name with which the people, including the scribes, are unfamiliar. Ḫumrî or Omri may have been, to the scribe who composed the account given by the Black Obelisk, very much easier to remember than the comparatively unfamiliar Sir´ilâa, and it may have been felt that the form used was not by any means certain—Isra´ilâa would, in fact, have been much better. The scribe of the monolith, however, may have inserted what he felt to be the Assyro-Babylonian form of the name, for something very similar to Sir´ilâa (or Ser´ilâa) exists in the Sar-îli of a contract tablet of the reign of Ammi-zaduga, translated in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1897, pp. 594-595 (cf. p. 157).

But, as before remarked, the chronological difficulty still remains, the date, from Hebrew sources, being, according to Prof. Oppert, before 900 b.c. (the last year of Ahab), whilst, according to Assyrian chronology, it should be 853 b.c. (cf. Sayce in Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i. p. 272).

The importance of the city of Hamath is well indicated not only by the above extract, but also by the numerous other passages where Irḫulēni (or Urḫilēni) of Hamath is referred to. The Guites [pg 333] were regarded by the late Geo. Smith as the Biblical Goim—a rather doubtful identification. As for the Musrites, the same scholar thought them to be the Egyptians, Muṣrâa, “Muṣrites,” coming apparently from Muṣur, the name of Egypt in the Assyrian inscriptions. Others regard them as being a people of the north, and this is more probable, though it would perhaps be better to regard the name as unidentified. The mention of “camels” in connection with Gindibu'u of the Arbâa is regarded as stamping the nationality referred to as being Arabic, and this is very probable. In Ba'asa son of Ruḫubu of the Ammonites we have the comparatively familiar Biblical names Baasha and Rehob in their Assyrian forms. It will therefore be seen that the extract translated above is of considerable interest quite independently of its historical bearings, which are of great importance, whatever may be the ultimate opinion concerning them.

During the next three years Shalmaneser was occupied on the west and north-west and in Babylonia, so that it was not until 850 b.c. that he was again able to turn his attention to the neighbourhood of Palestine.

The clemency of Ahab towards Ben-Hadad had apparently ended, as has been seen, in an alliance between the two nationalities, but that alliance did not, to all appearance, last very long. There is every probability that it was an unwilling one on the part of Ben-Hadad, and in all probability he took advantage of the death of Ahab to repudiate it. In any case, Ben-Hadad is represented in 2 Kings vi. 24 ff., as again besieging Samaria, but with disastrous results. What interval there was between his raising the siege of Samaria and his death, the sacred narrative does not say, but according to Assyrian chronology, there should be from four to six years at least (850-846 b.c.).

In the tenth year of his reign Shalmaneser II. of Assyria crossed the Euphrates for the eighth time, and advanced against Sangara of Carchemish, whose cities he destroyed, made waste, and burned in the flames. After this came the turn of Arame, whose capital city, with one hundred other places around it, was laid in ruins. Adad-idri of Damascus (Imēri-šu), however, set himself, with Irḫulēni of Hamath, and twelve of the kings of Syria, to resist the Assyrian king. Shalmaneser claims to have defeated them, put them to flight, and captured their chariots, horses, and war-material.

There is hardly any doubt, however, that his success was not by any means what he desired and expected, for he found himself obliged to march again to the same region in his eleventh year, when he crossed the Euphrates for the ninth time. On this occasion he says that he destroyed ninety-seven cities of Sangara of Carchemish and one hundred cities of Arame. Having reached the edge of the Ḫamanu (Amanus) range of mountains, he traversed the portion named Yaraqu, and descended to the land of the Hamathites, where he captured the city Aštamaku and ninety-nine other places, defeating their armies with great slaughter. Again he met Adad-idri, with Irḫulēni of Hamath and the twelve “kings of the sea-coast.” In the battle which follows he claims to have defeated them and killed 10,000 of their fighting-men with the sword. He also states that he took their chariots, horses, and war-material. On his way back he again turned his attention to Arame, capturing his capital Apparazu. At that time he likewise received the tribute of Kalparundu of the Patinians, consisting of silver, lead, gold, horses, oxen, sheep, and textile fabrics. Ascending again into the Amanus mountains, he brought away a further supply of cedar-wood for his palaces.

In the two following years (648 and 647 b.c., [pg 335] according to Assyrian reckoning), Shalmaneser was not to all appearance engaged in any expeditions of importance, or at least their importance is unknown. In his fourteenth year, 846 b.c., however, he crossed the Euphrates again, and met Ben-Hadad for the last time. As before, the latter was in alliance with Irḫulēni of Hamath and the “twelve kings of the sea-coast above and below.” Again the Assyrian king fought with them and defeated them, destroying their chariots and teams, and capturing, as before, their war-material, and “to save their lives, they fled.”

Naturally all these historical details are of great interest and value. The question naturally arises whether, being so much alike in wording and results, they may not all refer to the same expedition, which the Assyrian king repeated to fill up his annals? As a rule, however, the annals of the Assyrian rulers are exceedingly correct, and there is consequently but little reason to doubt the accuracy of Shalmaneser's statements. It is noteworthy that, in all these descriptions of expeditions to the west, twelve kings are mentioned, whilst in the first instance eleven only are enumerated, and in the other two the twelve are spoken of as if in addition to Adad-idri and Irḫulēni of Hamath. Ought we, therefore, to translate “the twelve kings,” meaning the eleven which are referred to along with and including Aḫabbu of the Sir'ilâa, or are the twelve kings referred to in the account of the second and third encounters with Ben-Hadad merely an indefinite number, meaning “a dozen,” i.e.“twelve more or less”? As it is impossible that Ahab of Israel should have been one of the Syrian league all this time, the latter must be held to be the more probable explanation—“In those days Adad-idri of the land of Imēri-šu (and) Irḫulēni of the land of Hamath with a dozen kings of the sea-coast trusted each other's might, and came against me to make war and battle.”

Notwithstanding all his efforts, however, as detailed in his annals, Shalmaneser II. was still very far from the subjugation of the “sea-coast,” as he calls Palestine and Syria, and realizing that he had a hard task before him, he returned to his own country and occupied himself in the two following years in Mesopotamia, Ararat, and Namri, south-east of Assyria. The following year, 843 b.c., for the first time during his reign, he was at peace, superintending the felling of trees in the Amanus mountains for use in the palaces of Assyria. This period of rest was in all probability necessary to enable the army to be reorganized for further campaigns in that part of the world which he seems to have set his heart upon subjugating.

This being the case, he set out, in his eighteenth year (842 b.c.), and crossed the Euphrates for the sixteenth time. This expedition, however, was not against his old foe, Ben-Hadad or Adad-idri, but against Ḫaza'-îlu, the Hazael of 2 Kings viii. 8, etc., who had treacherously murdered his master, as related in this passage, and seized the throne. Hearing of the advance of the Assyrian army, he prepared for resistance, as is related in the following narrative.

Plates of Chased Bronze, which covered the Doors of an Enclosure at Balawat. (Left-hand portions, from right-hand leaf.) (Found by Mr. H. Rassam, in 1878, and now in British Museum, Assyrian Saloon.) Ia.—The expedition of Shalmaneser II. to the land of Nairi (Mesopotamia). Sacrificing to the gods by throwing meat-offerings into the lake. March of the army over the mountains. Ib.—Siege and capture of the city Suguni, in Ararat. IIa.—Bringing to Shalmaneser "the tribute of the ships of Tyre and Sidon." IIb.—March against the city Hazizi. Procession of prisoners. IIIa. and IIIb.—Crossing the tributaries of the Euphrates by pontoon bridges. Receiving tribute from Adinu, son of Dakaru, of Enzudu. (Page 337.)

“In my 18th year I crossed the Euphrates for the 16th time. Ḫaza-'îlu of the land of Imēri-šu trusted to the might of his troops, and called his troops together in great number. Saniru, the peak of a mountain which is before Lebanon, he made his stronghold. I fought with him, I accomplished his defeat: 16,000 of his fighting-men I slew with the sword: 1121 of his chariots, 470 of his horses, with his camp, I captured. He fled to save his life—I set out after him. I besieged him in Dimašqu (Damascus), his royal city. I cut down his orchards; I went to the mountains of the land of Ḫauranu (the Hauran), cities without number I destroyed, wasted, and burned in the flames. Untold spoil I carried away. I went [pg 337] to the mountains of Ba'ali-ra'asi” (Aramaic: “lord of the promontory”), “which is a headland” (lit., “head of the sea”)—“I set up an image of my majesty therein. In those days I received the tribute of the Tyrians, Sidonians, (and) of Yaua, son of Ḫumrî.”

The description of this campaign given by the Black Obelisk is as follows—

“In my 18th year I crossed the Euphrates for the 16th time. Ḫaza'-îlu of the land of Imēri-šu came forth to battle: 1121 of his chariots, 470 of his horses, with his camp, I took away from him.”

These two documents, as will easily be seen, are in perfect accord, and the story they have to tell agrees in its turn with that of the preceding years of Shalmaneser's reign. Indeed, this text may be regarded as confirming the opinions hitherto held concerning the identity of Aḫabbu mât Sir'ilâa with Ahab of Israel, and Adad-idri with Ben-Hadad of Damascus. This, be it noted, is due to the fact that, like Ben-Hadad, Adad-idri was succeeded by Hazael, who, in both the Bible narrative and the annals of Shalmaneser, is a contemporary of Jehu (Yaua, son of Ḫumrî or Omri). The Black Obelisk, probably for the sake of economizing space, does not refer to the receipt of tribute from Jehu when speaking of the battle with Hazael, on account of the bas-relief thereon referring to that event. The following is the translation of the epigraph in question which I gave in 188691—

“The tribute of Yaua, son of Ḫumrî: silver, gold, a golden cup, golden vases, golden vessels, golden buckets, lead, a staff for the hand of the king (and) sceptres, I received.”

The account of the conflict with Hazael indicates that certain changes had taken place in the Mediterranean [pg 338] coast-lands since Shalmaneser's former campaigns thither. It was no longer against the kings of Damascus and Hamath with “a dozen kings” in alliance with them, but against Hazael alone. Had they broken with Ben-Hadad? or did they hold aloof because they had no sympathy with his murderer? In any case, it would seem to be certain that they no longer feared the Assyrian king, who, they must have felt, had his hands full. In Israel, too, there had been changes, Ahab having been succeeded by Ahaziah, who, after a reign of one year, was succeeded by Jehoram. The latter tried to reduce Mesha king of Moab again to subjection, but without success. Ben-Hadad's attempt to capture Samaria was made during his reign, and the non-success of the Syrian king was probably the cause of Jehoram's attempt to recover Ramoth-gilead, where Ahab had found his fate some years before. The king of Israel did not fall on the field of battle, but received there a wound which obliged him to return to Jezreel. His death at the hands of Jehu in Naboth's vineyard is one of the most dramatic incidents of Israelitish history.

Jehu's payment of tribute to the Assyrian king in 842 b.c. was probably due to a question of policy, and in the main it may be considered as a cheap way of avoiding misfortune, for he might easily have been worsted in an encounter with Shalmaneser. What Tyre and Sidon thought fit to do, could hardly but be recognized as policy for Israel as well. It was important for Jehu that he should consolidate his power, hence this submission, though, to say the truth, he could not have been certain that he would be attacked. Was it that he felt strong enough to resist the Assyrian king which made him withhold the payment of tribute when, in 839 b.c., Shalmaneser again marched against Hazael? It would seem so. On this occasion four towns of the king of Damascus [pg 339] were captured, and tribute again received from Tyre and Sidon, Gebal likewise buying peace in the same way.

That Jehu, who destroyed the house of Omri, should be called “son of Omri” in the inscriptions of Shalmaneser II. of Assyria, is strange, and needs explanation. Perhaps the successor of a king could loosely be spoken of as his son, as occupying the place of such a relative; and, as is well known, Belshazzar, in the book of Daniel, is called son of Nebuchadnezzar, which, according to the Babylonian inscriptions, he certainly was not. That Jehu may have been in some way related with Jehoram, and therefore a descendant of Omri, is possible and even probable. That he was not descended from him in a direct line is certain.

It is noteworthy that the Assyrian form of the name, Yaua, shows that the unpronounced aleph at the end was at that time sounded, so that the Hebrews must have called him Yahua (Jehua). Omri was likewise pronounced in accordance with the older system, before the ghain became ayin. Ḫumrî shows that they said at that time Ghomrî.

After the rebellion which embittered the closing years of Shalmaneser's life, the great Assyrian king died, and his crown went to his younger son Šamši-Adad III. (825-812 b.c.). The first work of the new ruler was the pacification of his country, and this having been successfully done, he tried to restore Assyrian influence beyond the borders of his kingdom. During his reign of about thirteen years, he warred on the N., N.E., N.W. and S. (Babylonia), but never came nearer to Syria than Kar-Shalmaneser on the Euphrates, near Carchemish.

His son, Adad-nirari, who reigned from 812 to 783 b.c., followed in his footsteps, and began by making conquests on the east. The north and north-west, however, also felt the force of his arms. The [pg 340] only campaign of which details are given is one against Syria, the date of which, however, is not known. G. Smith thought that this could not have taken place earlier than 797 b.c., during the time of Amaziah king of Judah and Joash king of Israel—a conjecture which is based, to all appearance, upon the comparison of Mansuate with Manasseh. As the Assyrian form of this name is Minsē or Minasē, such an identification is impossible, and this being the case, it is more probable that the expeditions to the Holy Land and Syria took place either in 806, when he went to Arpad, 805, when he was at Ḫaza, or 804, when he marched against Ba'ali, the name, apparently, of a Phœnician city. The next year he went to the sea-coast, but whether this was the Mediterranean or not is not indicated, though it may be regarded as very probable, and if so, 803 b.c. must be added to the dates already named, or the operations to which he refers in his slab-inscription may have extended over one or more of the years here referred to.

So, when he was young and enthusiastic, King Adad-nirari III. of Assyria had the inscription carved of which the following is a translation, as far as it is at present known—

“Palace of Adad-nirari, the great king, the powerful king, king of the world, king of the land of Aššur; the king who, in his youth, Aššur, king of the Igigi, called, and delivered into his hand a kingdom without equal; his shepherding he (Aššur) made good as pasture for the people of the land of Aššur, and caused his throne to be firm; the glorious priest, patron of Ê-šarra, he who ceaseth not to uphold the command of Ê-kura, who continually walketh in the service of Aššur, his lord, and hath caused the princes of the four regions to submit to his feet. He who hath conquered from the land of Siluna of the rising of the sun, the mountains (?) of the land [pg 341] of Ellipu, the land of Ḫarḫar, the land of Araziaš, the land of Mesu, the land of the Medes, the land of Gizil-bunda, to its whole extent, the land of Munna, the land of Parsua (Persia), the land of Allapria, the land of Abdadana, the land of Na'iru (Mesopotamia), to the border of the whole of it, the land of Andiu, whose situation is remote, the range (?) of the mountains, to its whole border, as far as the great sea of the rising of the sun (the Persian Gulf); from the river Euphrates, the land of Ḫatti (Heth, the Hittites), the land of Amurri (Amoria, the Amorites), to its whole extent, the land of Tyre, the land of Sidon, the land of Ḫumrî (Omri, Israel), the land of Edom, the land of Palastu (Philistia) as far as the great sea of the setting of the sun (the Mediterranean), I caused to submit to my feet. I fixed tax and tribute upon them. I went to the land of Ša-imēri-šu (Syria of Damascus); Mari'u, king of Ša-imēri-šu, I shut up in Dimašqu (Damascus), his royal city. The fear and terror of Aššur, his lord, struck him, and he took my feet, performed homage. Two thousand three hundred talents of silver, 20 talents of gold, 3000 talents of bronze, 5000 talents of iron, cloth, variegated stuffs, linen, a couch of ivory, an inlaid litter of ivory, (with) cushions (?), his goods, his property, to a countless amount I received in Damascus, his royal city, in the midst of his palace. All the kings of the land of Kaldu (the Chaldean tribes in Babylonia) performed homage, tax and tribute for future days I fixed upon them. Babylon, Borsippa, Cuthah, brought the overplus (of the treasures) of Bêl, Nebo, (and) Nergal, (made) pure offerings....”

(The remainder of the inscription is said to be still at Calah, not yet uncovered.)

Schrader, in his Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, makes the campaign against Syria to have taken place in 803 b.c., and sees in Adad-nirari the [pg 342] deliverer sent by Yahwah in answer to the prayers of Jehoahaz. According to 2 Kings xiii. 3, the Israelites were subject to Hazael and Ben-Hadad, his son, all their days. There is every probability that the successor of the latter was the Mari'u mentioned in the translation given above, and the same inscription would seem to indicate that the Israelites submitted to the Assyrian king, and paid him tribute in order to secure his intervention, which, judging from the enormous amount of spoil which he secured, he did not regret. The saviour having come, and the tribute paid, “Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime” (2 Kings xiii. 5). Verses 22-25 are to all appearance a recapitulation, probably extracted from another source. They show that Joash, son of Jehoahaz, rebelled, and took from Ben-Hadad the cities which the last-named had captured from Israel, and defeated him three times (see ver. 19). Apparently “all their days” in ver. 3 is not to be taken literally, as the war of the Israelites against Syria took place before the death of Ben-Hadad III. It may also be conjectured that the reason of there being no more than three defeats of the Syrians was due to the death of Ben-Hadad, and his sceptre passing into younger and more vigorous hands, so that “a saviour” was still needed, and found in the person of the Assyrian king, as suggested by Schrader. The Syrian forces not being in a condition, after their defeats by the Israelites, to offer battle to Adad-nirari, apparently submitted without fighting, and after such a visit the country had too much need for peace to allow of reprisals being made against the Israelites.

The fame of Adad-nirari was great, and his queen seems to have shared in it. She was named Sammu-ramat, “(the goddess) Sammu loveth (her),” a name which is generally regarded as the original of the somewhat mythical Semiramis of Herodotus. That she [pg 343] was looked up to by the subjects of her royal spouse, however, is proved by the two statues in the British Museum (there were in all four of them, erected at Calah). According to the inscription on them, they were made and dedicated for one of the chief officers of the kingdom, Bêl-tarṣi-îli-ma (“a lord before God”), who furnished them with the following dedication—

“To Nebo, mighty, exalted, son of Ê-saggil,92 the wise one, high-towering, the mighty prince, son of Nudimmud, whose word is supreme; prince of intelligence, director of the universe of heaven and earth, he who knoweth everything, the wide of ear, he who holdeth the tablet-reed (and) hath the stilus; the merciful one, he who decideth, with whom is (the power of) raising and abasing; the beloved of Ea, lord of lords, whose power hath no equal, without whom there would be no counsel in heaven; the gracious one, pitiful, whose sympathy is good; he who dwelleth in E-zida, which is within Calah—the great lord, his lord—for the life of Adad-nirari, king of the land of Aššur, his lord, and the life of Sammu-ramat, she of the palace, his lady, Bêl-tarṣi-îli-ma, ruler of the city of Calah, the land of Ḫamedu, the land of Sudgana, the land of Temeni, the land of Yaluna, for the saving of his life, the lengthening of his days, the adding of days to his years, the peace of his house and his people (not the one evil to him), he has caused (this statue) to be made as a gift. Whoever (cometh) after: Trust to Nebo—trust not another god.”

It is rare that an Assyrian queen is mentioned in the inscriptions, especially on almost equal terms with the king, and additional interest is added by the fact, that she bears a name commonly regarded as the [pg 344] same as that of Semiramis. In Assyrian and Babylonian history, it is always the king who is the ruler, whatever influence his spouse may have had in determining his policy as such being always unmentioned, and therefore unknown to the world at large. The present inscription, however, seems to testify that Sammu-ramat was known outside the walls of the palace, and that one of the greatest in the kingdom thought fit to do her honour by associating her with the king in the dedication to Nebo which he made for the preservation of the lives of the king, the queen, and himself. Whether the history of Sammu-ramat, queen of Assyria, was laid under contribution to furnish details for the legend of Semiramis, will probably never be known; but it is nevertheless unfortunate that the slab recounting the warlike exploits of Adad-nirari, king of Assyria, her husband, should break off in the middle of his account of his successes in Babylonia.

Adad-nirari reigned 29 years, and was succeeded by Shalmaneser III. in 783 b.c. The expeditions of this king were principally against Armenia and Itu'u, a region on the Euphrates. In the year 775 b.c. he went to the cedar-country, but whether the mountain region of the Amanus, Lebanon, or of a district called Ḫašur be intended, is unknown. The necessity of expeditions against Syria, however, still continued, for in 773 b.c. we find Shalmaneser at Damascus, probably to bring the king then ruling there again into subjection.

Although doubt is now expressed as to whether Ḫatarika, whither Shalmaneser III. marched in 772 b.c., the last year of his reign, be really Hadrach (Zech. ix. 1) or not (the consonants do not agree so well as they ought to do), in all probability it was a district not far from Damascus to which he went.

Aššur-dan, his successor, ascended the throne in the following year, and at once began warring in [pg 345] Babylonia and on the east. In 765 b.c. he marched to Ḫatarika. Signs of revolt seem at this time to have broken out in Assyria, probably on account of the pestilence with which the land was afflicted, and it must have been for this reason that no expedition was undertaken in the year 764 b.c. Next year the rising, which was evidently expected, took place in the city of Aššur, and there was an eclipse of the sun in the month Sivan, an important astronomical occurrence which has been identified with an eclipse which passed over Assyria on the 15th of June, 763 b.c., and was supposed by Mr. Bosanquet to be referred to in Amos viii. 9, “I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and will darken the earth in the clear day.”

To all appearance this eclipse, taken in conjunction with the presence of pestilence and rebellion, was regarded as an evil omen. This revolt lasted into the next year, and spread, in 761 b.c., into Arrapḫa, where it continued three years. In 759 the revolt reached Gozan, and there was a recrudescence of the plague. There is no reference to the stamping out of the revolt in Assyria, but it seems very probable that the king and his supporters were active to that end, as he was able to march in the year 758 b.c., to Gozan, after which there is the entry, “Peace in the land.” Two years were to all appearance occupied in reorganizing the country and providing against a repetition of such risings, unless it be that Aššur-dan was too ill to take the field, for according to the received chronology, he died in 755 b.c. when Aššur-nirari II. ascended the throne.

This new ruler is represented to have made two expeditions, one in the year of his accession, to Ḫatarika, and the other, in 754 b.c., to Arpad. What the additional statement, “Return from the city of Aššur,” really refers to, is exceedingly doubtful—perhaps troops had been stationed there during the [pg 346] whole period since the breaking out of the revolt there in 763 b.c.

For four years no expeditions were made, pointing to a continued ferment of discontent in Assyria. In 749 and 748 b.c., however, Aššur-nirari made expeditions to Namri, south-west of Media. It is significant, however, that the Canon has, for the next year (747 b.c.), the usual words (“In the land”) when no expedition took place, the reason probably being the unsettled state of the country. The entry for the next year is “Revolt in Calah,” which, as has already been seen, was one of the principal cities of the kingdom. After this is the usual division-line, indicating the end of a reign, followed by the words “(Eponymy of Nabû-bêl-uṣur, governor of) Arrapḫa. In the month Aaru (Iyyar), day 13, Tiglath-pileser sat upon the throne. In the month Tisritu (Tisri) he made an expedition to (the district) between the rivers.” This corresponds with 745 b.c.

Thus is ushered in, in the Eponym Canon, one of the most important reigns in Assyrian history. By what right Tiglath-pileser III. took the throne is not known. To all appearance, he was not in any way related to his predecessor, Aššur-nirari, and it is therefore supposed that he was one of the generals of that king, who, taking advantage of the rising in Aššur (of which he may, indeed, have been the instigator), made away with his sovereign, and set himself in his place. Further light, however, is needed upon this period, before anything can be said as to the circumstances attending Tiglath-pileser's accession to the throne.

Tiglath-pileser III. in His Chariot. British Museum, Nimroud Central Saloon.

Though all Tiglath-pileser's inscriptions are imperfect, and most of them very fragmentary, they nevertheless contain enough to show of what enormous value they are. Their incompleteness and the absence of dates consequent thereon is fortunately compensated somewhat by the fact that the Eponym Canon is perfect in the part which refers to this king, [pg 347] and that we are therefore able to locate with certainty all the events of his reign.

As the entry translated above shows, his first campaign was “between the rivers,” that is, to Babylonia, the land lying between the Tigris and the Euphrates. His object in leading his forces thither was to break the power of the Aramean tribes, with the Arabs and others who were in alliance with them. Going first south-east, he subjugated the Chaldean tribes, including the Pekodites; turning afterwards west, he went against the Arameans, capturing Sippar, Dûr-Kuri-galzu, and other Babylonian cities, and it is supposed that it was on this occasion that he assumed the title “king of Šumer and Akkad.” To all appearance, however, he was not recognized by the Babylonians themselves as king, Nabonassar being then on the throne. There is hardly any doubt, however, that Babylonia acknowledged Assyrian overlordship on this occasion, thus giving Tiglath-pileser some justification for assuming the title.

Having arranged things to his satisfaction in Babylonia, Tiglath-pileser turned his attention to the East (Namri, 744), Ararat (743), and Arpad (same year), the last being his objective up to and including the year 740 b.c. Sardurri of Ararat, however, saw his influence threatened by this move, for he, too, was a conqueror, and had had such success, that he felt justified in calling himself “king of Suri,” or North Syria. How matters fell out is not known, but it may be supposed that the Assyrian king went and besieged Arpad, was attacked whilst doing so by Sardurri and his allies, and compelled to raise the siege. A pursuit of the Armenian forces by the Assyrians was the result of this attack, the end being, in all probability, a decisive victory for Tiglath-pileser. This, according to Rost, would seem to be the most reasonable supposition, for the Assyrian king was able to besiege Arpad again next year without any hindrance. [pg 348] The capture of the city in the third year brought the rulers of the district in which it stood to the feet of the Assyrian king—all except one, Tutamû king of Unqu, who was defeated and captured, and his territories annexed to Assyria.

During the campaigns in the north at the end of 739 b.c., risings took place in Syria and North Phœnicia, and this gave Tiglath-pileser the wished-for opportunity to bring these districts again under his sway. The Eponym Canon gives for this year the simple entry, “He captured the city of Kullanû,” which Rost supposes to have been in the neighbourhood of Hamath, and if so, must be the Calne of Isaiah x. 9, which is there mentioned with Hamath, Carchemish, Arpad, Samaria, and Damascus as having been subdued by Assyria. The mention of Kullanû as the object of the expedition is probably due to its having been one of the chief factors in the disturbances which took place. It would also seem that Azariah of Judah took part in the attempt to get rid of Assyrian influence, and though this was fully recognized by Tiglath-pileser, the Assyrian king to all appearance did not come into direct contact with his country.

Azriau or Izriau (Azariah—Rost's collation of the squeezes shows that both spellings of the name were used) of Judah is mentioned at least four times. The earlier references, however, are so very fragmentary that nothing certain can be said concerning their connection—in one of the passages containing his name the wording leads one to imagine that he was captured by the Assyrian king, though, as Rost has shown, this may simply mean that certain sympathizers of his had taken his part. But whatever may have taken place in Judah, Azariah's sympathizers did not get on so well as their leader. No less than nineteen places were captured by the Assyrian king, including “Usnû, Siannu, Ṣimirra (Simyra), Rašpûna, on the sea-coast, together with [pg 349] the cities of the Sauê-mountains (mountains which are in Lebanon), Ba'ali-ṣapuna (Baal-zephon) as far as Ammana (Amanus, or according to Winckler, the anti-Lebanon), the mountain of urkarinu-wood, the whole of the land of Sau, the province of Kar-Adad (fortress of Hadad), the city of Ḫatarikka, the province of Nuqudina, Ḫasu with the cities which are around it, the cities of Arâ, and the cities which are on each side of it, with the cities (= villages) which are around them, the mountain Sarbûa to its whole extent, the city Ašḫanu, the city Yadabu, the mountain Yaraqu to its whole extent, the city ... -ri, the city Elli-tarbi, the city Zitānu as far as the city Atinnu, the city ... (and) the city Bumamu—XIX. districts of the city of Hamath, with the cities which were around them, of the sea-coast of the setting of the sun, which in sin and wickedness had taken to Azriau, I added to the boundary of Assyria. I set my commander-in-chief as governor over them, 30,300 people I removed from the midst of their cities and caused the province of the city of Ku- ... to take them.”

Notwithstanding that there is no reference to the above in the Old Testament, there is no reason to doubt that it is substantially correct. Its omission is in all probability due to the fact, that neither Judah nor Israel were menaced by the forces of the Assyrian king. Notwithstanding this, the expedition and the success of Tiglath-pileser had its effect, the result being that all the princes of middle and north Syria showed their submission to the Assyrian king by paying tribute, thus ensuring the safety of their territory, at least for a time. This took place after the defeat of Kišî, the Aramean, and his forces, together with several other districts, and the transportation of the inhabitants from their homes to districts in other principalities, a proceeding calculated to destroy national feeling and thus contribute to the safety of [pg 350] the empire by rendering rebellion more unlikely. The following is the list of the princes who secured immunity from attack by paying tribute:—

“Kuštašpu of the city of the Comagenians; Raṣunnu (Rezon) of the land of the Sa-Imērišuites (Syria); Meniḫimme (Menahem) of the city of the Samarians; Ḫirummu (Hirom) of the city of the Tyrians; Sibitti-bi'ili of the city of the Gebalites; Urikku of the Kûites; Pisiris of the Carchemishites; Êni-îlu of the city of the Ḫammatites; Panammû of the city of the Sam'allites; Tarḫulara of the land of the Gurgumites; Sulumal of the land of the Melidites; Dadi-îlu of the land of the Kaskites; Uassurme of the land of the Tabalites; Ušḫitti of the land of the Tunites; Urballâ of the land of the Tuḫanites; Tuḫamme of the city of the Ištundites; Urimme of the city of the Ḫušimnites; Zabibê, queen of the land of Arabia. Gold, silver, lead, iron, elephant-skins, ivory, variegated cloth, linen, violet stuff, crimson stuff, terebinth-wood, oak (?), everything costly, the treasure of a kingdom, fat lambs whose fleeces were coloured crimson, winged birds of heaven, whose feathers were coloured violet, horses, mules, oxen and sheep, male camels and female camels with their young, I received.”

It was a rich booty, and was probably held to be a sufficient return for all the expense, and trials, and hardships of the campaign. Though the kingdom of Judah seems not to have suffered (we must not be too hasty to assume that this was the case, as the Assyrian records are exceedingly defective), Israel, as is mentioned above, paid tribute. It does not appear from the Assyrian account that Tiglath-pileser went against Samaria, but notwithstanding this, 2 Kings xv. 19 has the following—

“There came against the land Pul the king of Assyria; and Menahem gave Pul 1000 talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to confirm the [pg 351] kingdom in his hand. And Menahem exacted the money of Israel, even of all the mighty men of wealth, of each man fifty shekels of silver, to give to the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria turned back, and stayed not there in the land.”

It is to be noted that there is here nothing about buying the Assyrian king off—the money was paid him to confirm the kingdom in Menahem's hand. The writer apparently assumed that the Assyrian king might not altogether be hostilely inclined, notwithstanding that “he came against the land.” Perhaps by “land” we are to understand “district.” In any case, the two accounts can hardly be said to disagree. He did not war there, but he received Menahem's tribute—it was therefore needless to mention his visit, if such it was. Many a ruler in this district must have done the same thing on this occasion, and there could have been no reason to mention one more than the other—hence, probably, the absence of references to any threatening approach to the borders of Israel and other states on the part of the Assyrian king.

But whilst absent in the west, rebellion was rife nearer home, and was put down with vigour by the governors of the provinces of Lullumû and Na'iru (Mesopotamia). This led to further transportations of the inhabitants, who were sent west to Ṣimirra (Simyra), Arka, Usnu, Siannu, Tu'immu, and other places in Syria. Next year Tiglath-pileser himself marched to Madâa (the Medes), where he had a very successful campaign. As some of the places mentioned have the element Kingi as part of the name, it has been suggested that in all probability the Sumerians, whose Babylonian home was called Kingi, had their original seat in Media.

Campaigns against the district of the mountains of Nal and Ararat, the former as a preparation for the latter, follow, after which comes, according to the [pg 352] Eponym Canon, an expedition to the land Pilišta. This is set down as the event of 734 b.c. There is, it is needless to say, some uncertainty in this expression, as the question naturally arises, What is really included in the term? Assuming, with Rost, that the statements in the Canon indicate the point intended to be reached, and not the farthest point attained, it is very probable that Israel did not come into the sphere of the Assyrian king's operations, and this is all the more probable in that Rost's collation of one of the squeezes in the British Museum shows that instead of the Assyrian form of Abel-Beth-Maachah, we have to read Abil-akka, to which is added, however, the description “on the boundary of Israel (Bît-Ḫumria).” It will be seen, therefore, that though he may not have entered the country, or, at least, made any warlike operations there, he approached well within striking distance of its borders. On this occasion it would seem that he found it necessary to install six new governors so as to ensure the due obedience of the inhabitants. After this, Tiglath-pileser goes on to speak of Hanon of Gaza, who on seeing the approach of the Assyrians fled to Egypt, leaving his capital at the mercy of the invader. Having captured the city, Tiglath-pileser entered Hanon's royal palace, taking possession of all his property, and setting therein his royal couch. He speaks of having delivered something to the gods of the land, and of having laid upon its inhabitants (the payment of tribute and gifts). Further mutilated lines follow, referring to the spoil taken, and there is a reference to the land of Israel (mât Bît-Ḫumria). After this comes the words, “the whole of his people, (with their property) I sent to Assyria.” The gap between the reference to Israel and this line, however, makes it doubtful to what it really refers. The record immediately goes on, however, to speak of the death of Pekah.

In the Eponym Canon the entries for the two years following the campaign to Pilišta (i.e. 733-732 b.c.) are, “to the land of Dimašqa.” It would therefore seem that, having assured himself of the submission of his north-Phœnician vassals, Tiglath-pileser attacked the northern district of Israel, taking Ijon, Abel-beth-maachah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, Galilee, and all the land of Naphtali (2 Kings xv. 29). No account of this, however, occurs in the Assyrian inscriptions,93 which, as already pointed out, are very mutilated for this period. It is possible that the reference to Israel, in the mutilated passage quoted above, relates to this invasion, and possibly also to the payment of tribute by Pekah in order to secure himself against further attacks.

Whether before or after the above is not known, but possibly on the departure of the Assyrians, Rezin (Rezon), king of Syria, made alliance with Pekah, and their combined forces invaded Judah. Ahaz, who was at this time king of Judah, was apparently besieged in Jerusalem, and the king of Syria took advantage of this opportunity to recover possession of Elath, which never fell into the hands of the Jews again (2 Kings xvi. 6).

There is no doubt that Ahaz was hard pressed, and hearing, to all appearance, that the Assyrians were again in the neighbourhood, he sent to Tiglath-pileser a humble message: “I am thy servant, and thy son; come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me.” This would in all probability have had but little effect, had it not been accompanied by a goodly amount of gold and silver, taken not only from his own treasury, but also from that of the Temple at Jerusalem. The result was, that Tiglath-pileser [pg 354] went up against Damascus. The Syrian king, however, decided to resist, and a battle was fought in which he was defeated, and obliged to seek safety in flight. With a grim, not to say barbarous, humour, Tiglath-pileser describes his flight and the treatment of his supporters—

“... (like) a mouse he entered the great gate of his city. His chiefs (I took) alive with my hands, (and) I caused them to be raised up and to view his land (on) stakes: 45 camps of soldiers I collected (in the provin)ce of his city, and shut him up like a bird in a cage. His plantations, (fields, orchards (?), and) woods, which were without number, I cut down, and did not leave one ... (the city) Ḫādara, the house (= dwelling-place) of the father of Raṣunnu (Rezon) of the land of the Ša-imērišuites, (the place where) he was born, I besieged, I captured: 800 people with their possessions, ... their oxen, their sheep, I carried off: 750 prisoners of the city Kurussa, ... (prisoners) of the city of the Irmaites, 550 prisoners of the city Metuna, I carried off: 591 cities ... of 16 districts of the land of Ša-imērišu I destroyed like flood-mounds.”94

This is immediately followed by an account of the operations against Samsi, queen of Arabia, and the tribes connected with that over which she held sway. After this he states that he set Idi-bi'ilu as governor over the land of Musru. All these passages, however, are exceedingly incomplete, as is also that referring to Samaria, which follows. The shorter account of the expeditions of Tiglath-pileser gives in this place lines of which the following is a translation—

“They overthrew Paqaḫa (Pekah), their king, and I set Ausi'a (Hosea) (upon the throne) over them. [pg 355] Ten talents of gold, ... talents of silver, ... their (tribute), I received, and (brought) them (to the land of Assyria).”

The longer account, from which most of the above extracts have been made, may therefore be completed, with Rost, provisionally, as follows—

“(Pekah, all of whose) cities (I had captured) in my earlier campaigns, and had given over (as a prey, and whose spoi)l I had carried off, abandoned the city of Samerina (Samaria) alone. (Pekah), their king, (they overthrew, and like) a hurricane (I ravaged the land).”

As will be seen, the above agrees closely with the statement in 2 Kings xv. 30—

“And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the 20th year of Jotham the son of Uzziah.”

Mutilated details concerning other cities captured by Tiglath-pileser follow the above extract from his annals, after which the narrative continues—

“(Mitinti, of the land) of the Askelonites, (sinned) against (my) agreement, (and revolted against me). He saw (the overthrow of Ra)ṣunnu (Rezon), and failure (of understanding (?) fell upon him (?), and Rûkipti, the son of Mitinti), sat upon the throne....”

In the account of the flight and death of Pekah, the Assyrian king suggests that the abandonment of the king of Israel of his capital was due to the fear of capture at his hands. One may also suppose that he wished it to be understood that Pekah incurred the displeasure of his subjects by his flight, and that they pursued after him, and having overtaken him, put him to death. As a matter of fact, Pekah must really have fled on account of the rebellion led by Hoshea, who, on learning of his flight, in all probability pursued after him, and thus encompassed his death. Hoshea then, by a payment of tribute to Tiglath-pileser, [pg 356] secured from the Assyrian king his recognition as king of Israel, and at the same time assured himself against attack at his hands.

Imitating Hoshea, Rûkipti, the new king of Askelon, also paid tribute, and thus secured his recognition. As to Rezon, the Assyrian text does not enable us to see what was his ultimate fate, but as it was such, apparently, as to terrify Mitinti of Askelon into madness, it may be supposed that it was death at the orders of the Assyrian king, as recorded in 2 Kings xvi. 9.

Tiglath-pileser was now complete master of the land of Ša-imēri-šu or Syria, and all the princes of the west acknowledged his overlordship. This being the case, it is only natural that Ahaz of Judah should visit and pay him homage at Damascus, the capital of the new province, as related in 2 Kings xvi. 10, and probably it was to that city that many of the other subject princes went for that purpose, and to offer him their tribute. The further result of the visit of Ahaz is detailed in the succeeding verses of the passage in 2 Kings referred to.

Thus ended Tiglath-pileser's successful expedition to Pilišta and Damascus, and there is no record that he ever went westward again. The Chaldeans, in combination with the Arameans, had made use of his absence to engage in new advances against Babylon. Nabonassar, the king of that country, had died, and been succeeded by his son, Nabû-nadin-zēri, who, however, only reigned two years, and gave place to Nabû-šum-ukîn, who murdered him. This last, however, only held the throne for somewhat more than two months, and Ukîn-zēr, chief of the Chaldean tribe Bît-Amukkāni, took possession of the throne, and ruled for three years—much against the inclination of the Babylonians, who, to all appearance, had no love for the Chaldean tribes inhabiting certain tracts of the country. The interference of Tiglath-pileser was therefore looked on with favour by the Babylonians, [pg 357] who welcomed him as a deliverer. Ukîn-zēr (the Chinzēros of Ptolemy) was besieged in his capital, Sapîa, though that city was not taken until the year 729 b.c. The result of this was, the submission of all the Chaldean tribes, including that of which Merodach-baladan (then only a young man) was the chief. Entering Babylon, Tiglath-pileser, in accordance with the custom, “took the hand of Bêl,” an expression apparently meaning that he performed the usual ceremonies, and was accepted by the god—and the priesthood—as king. This also took place again next year, from which it may be supposed that one acknowledged as king of Babylon had to perform the ceremony yearly in order to fulfil the conditions imposed upon all who held the reins of power. An entry in the Canon for this year suggests that there was a rebellion (?) in a city of which only the first character is preserved—possibly to be completed Dir, and perhaps situated in Babylonia. Operations against this place, in all probability, were taken in hand next year (727 b.c.), but whilst they were in progress, Tiglath-pileser died, and Shalmaneser IV. mounted the throne.

How it is that Tiglath-pileser III. of Assyria was called Pûlu is not known. The name only occurs, in native documents, in the Babylonian Canon of kings—to all appearance that from which the Canon of Ptolemy was copied. It is therefore practically certain that he only bore this name officially in Babylonia. Probably the most likely explanation is, that it was his original name, though it may have been given him by the compiler of the canon (supposing that he was a man who had no great admiration for the Assyrian conqueror) as a scornful expression, bûlu (which may also be read pûlu) meaning “the wild animal.” It occurs, however, as a personal name in the inscriptions of Assyria at least twice, the bearer of it being in one case a charioteer, one of nine officials of “the Ḫuḫamite.”

The fact that the name Pûlu (in the Canon of Ptolemy Poros), applied to Tiglath-pileser, occurs only in a Babylonian document, suggests that the reference to the Assyrian conqueror in 2 Kings xv. 19 and 1 Chron. v. 26 are due to a Babylonian source, though, as it is the name by which he is at first called by the writer of the 2nd Book of Kings, this is a confirmation of the explanation that it was his original name. The glory attached to the name Tiglath-pileser in Assyrian history probably accounts for his having ultimately adopted the latter.

“On the 25th day of Tebet Šulmanu-ašarid (Shalmaneser) sat on the throne in Assyria. He destroyed Šabara'in.” (Babylonian Chronicle.)

These two extracts give practically all that is known of the important reign of Shalmaneser IV. from native sources. The first is from the Babylonian Chronicle, and its brevity in all likelihood indicates the amount of sympathy that the Babylonians had for this king. Short as it is, however, it is probably of as much value historically as the Assyrian Eponym Canon in its present state, even including the restorations from that without historical notices. The completion of this important document from additional fragments and duplicates is greatly to be wished.

It is therefore from the Old Testament and Josephus that we get the fullest history of the reign of this king. How it is that no records have been found is not known. They may have been destroyed, or nothing very extensive may have been written. That at least something of the kind existed is indicated by the fact that the late George Smith refers to at least one document, the whereabouts of which at present is not known.

What may have been the relationship of Shalmaneser IV. of Assyria to Tiglath-pileser does not appear. There is every probability that, like his great predecessor, he was an adventurer who, taking advantage of his popularity with the army, and the failing powers of his royal master, seized the throne. As will be seen from the Eponym Canon, an expedition was in progress when he assumed the reins of power, so that he may have taken advantage of the absence of Tiglath-pileser to carry out his design. Tebet being the tenth month of the Assyro-Babylonian year, the time of his accession corresponds with the winter of 727 b.c., a period at which warlike operations were impossible. In the year 726 b.c. also he remained at home, as was to be expected, consolidating his power.

His first campaign must therefore have taken place in 725 b.c., when, as recorded in 2 Kings xvii. 3, he went against Hoshea, who paid him homage and became tributary. Hearing that the king of Israel had sent privately to So,95 king of Egypt, asking for his help against the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser threw Hoshea into prison, and advancing against Samaria, called upon the city to surrender. Submission being refused, he laid siege against it, and although Josephus relates that he ultimately took it, this must be due simply to an inference, as there is no statement to [pg 360] that effect in the Book of Kings, the words recording the event being simply “the king of Assyria took Samaria,” and, as we know from the inscriptions, it is Sargon, successor of Shalmaneser, who claims the honour of capturing the city (see below, p. 363).96

During the siege, however, the Assyrian king busied himself with the subjugation of all the surrounding district. It was probably in the same year (725 b.c.) that he sent his army against Elulaeus, king of Tyre, whose king had just been very successful in subjugating the Cittaeans (people of Cyprus). According to Josephus (or, rather, Menander, whom he quotes), Phœnicia submitted (Menander tells the story from the native point of view, and states that “he soon made peace with them all”), but Sidon, Accho, and Old Tyre (Palaetyrus) revolted (this probably means “joined the Assyrians”), and several other cities yielded to the king of Assyria. Finding that the Tyrians97 would not submit, the Assyrian king returned against them (this must have been in the year 724 b.c.), and attacked them again, being aided on this occasion by the Phœnicians, who furnished him with threescore ships, and 800 men to row them. The attack of the Assyrian allies, however, must have been a very half-hearted one, for the Tyrians advanced against them with only twelve ships, and dispersed those of the enemy, taking 500 men prisoners.

The reputation—and also the confidence—of the citizens of Tyre being thus greatly increased, they continued their resistance, and Shalmaneser found himself obliged, in consequence of the inefficiency of his allies, to content himself with a mere blockade of the city, and the placing of guards over the water supply, so as to reduce the inhabitants of Tyre by [pg 361] thirst. The latter, however, dug wells, and were thus enabled to continue their resistance, which Meander states lasted all the time of the siege, namely, five years—i.e. until two years after the death of Shalmaneser.

To all appearance the Sabara'in of the Babylonian Chronicle is the place which should be supplied in the historical Eponym Canon, but, if so, the form is a strange one. One would rather expect mât Bît-Ḫumrî, “the land of Beth-Omri,” Pilišta, “Philistia,” or âl Ṣurri, “the city of Tyre.” There is also the possibility that one of these names may have appeared in each of the three lines which require completing, indicating three different stages of his conquests. Samerina, “Samaria,” may also have been the word, or one of the words, to be restored. In this last case, Delitzsch's suggestion that Sabara'in ought to be read Samara'in, and regarded as the Babylonian form of the Heb. Shomeron, “Samaria,” is worthy of note. The Babylonians do not state that he captured Sabara'in or Samara'in, but only that he destroyed (perhaps the word means “ravaged”) it, and the city may not have really fallen into the hands of the Assyrians until Sargon was actually on the throne.

“In the 5th year Šulmanu-ašarid died in the month Tebet. Šulmanu-ašarid had ruled the kingdom of Akkad and Aššur for five years. In the month Tebet, the 12th day, Sargon sat on the throne in Aššur, and in the month Nisan Marduk-âbla-iddina (Merodach-baladan) sat on the throne in Babylon.”

Thus does the Babylonian Chronicle record the change of rulers, which was to have wide-reaching results for both countries.

What the verse in Hoshea, “All thy fortresses shall be spoiled, as Shalman spoiled Beth-arbel in the day of battle,” refers to, is not known. There is every probability that Shalman stands for Shalmaneser IV., but which is the Beth-arbel which is spoken of? There were two places of the name in Palestine, one [pg 362] west of the Sea of Galilee, and the other at the extreme north of Gilead. Both are now called Irbid. If it be one of these, the verse probably refers to some incident of Shalmaneser's invasion. George Smith, however, thought that the reference may have been due to some domestic strife in Assyria at the close of the reign of Shalmaneser, in which the Assyrian city of Arbela was involved. That it was one of the two places in Palestine, however, is more probable.

The month which, five years earlier, had seen the death of Tiglath-pileser, saw the departure of Shalmaneser IV. of Assyria to the abode of his god, and in Sargon, who succeeded him, the kingdom to all appearance accepted for the third time a ruler who might be described as an adventurer. Whether he, too, changed his name, in order to shine in borrowed plumes before the people, is unknown, but this is certain, that “Sargon the Later,” as he called himself, by assuming that style and title, challenged comparison with an old Babylonian king of great renown, who made the little state which was his original principality the centre of a wide-spreading domain.

Strange as it may seem, until the discovery of the Assyrian inscriptions and their decipherment, nothing was known of this ruler outside of the Old Testament, his name being regarded as another name of Shalmaneser in the passage (Isa. xx. 1) where it occurs. Scholars did not realize that the Arkeanos of Ptolemy was the king here mentioned, and that the change in the form of his name was simply due to the change of the initial s into a breathing, according to a rule which is common in Greek etymology.

On assuming the government of the country, Sargon threw himself with energy into the Syrian war, though in his slab-inscription found at Nimroud, and in his annals, he makes his campaign against Ḫumbanigaš of Elam to precede his operations in the west. The following is the text of his “State-Inscription”—

“From the beginning of my reign to the 15th of my regnal-years, I accomplished the overthrow of Ḫumbanigaš the Elamite in the suburbs of Dêru. I besieged and captured Samerina (Samaria): 27,290 people dwelling in the midst of it I carried off. Fifty chariots I collected among them, and allowed them to have the rest of their goods. My commander-in-chief I placed over them, and imposed upon them the tribute of the former king.

“Ḫanunu (Hanon), king of Ḫazitu (Gaza), advanced against me with Sib'e, the Field-marshal of the land of Muṣuru (Egypt), to make war and battle in Rapiḫu (Raphia). I defeated them.98 Sib'e feared the sound of my weapons and fled, and his place was not found. Ḫanunu of Ḫazitu I took with my hands. I received the tribute of Pir'u, king of the land of Muṣuru, Samsê, queen of the land of Aribu (Arabia), (and) It'amara, of the land of the Saba'aa (Sabeans)—gold, the produce of the mountains, horses, (and) camels.”

“Yau-bi'idi of the land of the Amatâa (Hamathites), a loose fellow, a usurper, a frivolous, evil man, set his heart on the dominion of the land of Amattu (Hamath), and caused Arpadda (Arpad), Ṣimirra (Simyra), Dimašqa (Damascus), (and) Samerina (Samaria) to revolt against me, and caused them to agree together, and they assembled for battle. I collected the powerful troops of the god Aššur, and besieged (and) captured him in Qarqaru, his own city, with his warriors. I burned Qarqaru with fire. As for him, I flayed him. I slew the sinners in the midst of their (own) cities, and brought about peace. I embodied 200 chariots (and) 600 cavalry among the people of the land of Amattu, and added to the force of my kingdom.”

The general opinion of Assyriologists is, that Shalmaneser did not succeed in making himself master of Samaria, the capture of the city falling to the honour [pg 364] of Sargon, and this, as a matter of fact, is what the latter claims. As will be seen from the above extract, he states that he carried captive no less than 27,290 of the inhabitants of the city, but whither he transported them he does not say. According to 2 Kings xvii. 6, he placed them in Halah (probably the Ḫalaḫḫa of the inscriptions, near Haran), and by the river Habor (the Chaboras) in Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes. It is needless to say that these long journeys must in many cases have entailed much suffering.

According to the Babylonian Chronicle, the conflict with Ḫumbanigaš took place in the second year of Merodach-baladan of Babylonia, which was the second year of Sargon as well. It is therefore difficult to understand why Sargon, in his record, places this event first. The reason why he dismisses the account of his conflict with the Elamite king in so few words is supposed to be, that he was in reality, as the Babylonian Chronicle says, defeated on that occasion. Though he might have wished to keep it in the background, his successes were so many, that there was no need for him to change the chronological order of his campaigns.

Sargon was naturally unable to be present at the siege and occupation of Samaria, which occurred too close to the date of his assuming power to allow him to reach the place. Besides that, his presence was needed nearer home, lest conspiracies should deprive him of his newly-acquired regal dignity. That he considered the successes of his troops in the west as a most important circumstance, however, is proved by the fact, that he devotes so much space in his annals to the account of it—and, indeed, the capture of 27,290 people is a thing of which any ruler might boast. There can be no doubt that the Assyrian kings, like the Babylonians before them, always desired to possess the dominion of the Mediterranean provinces, where were marts for the products both of [pg 365] their lands and their people, and entry to the ports, for then, as now, all good rulers tried to further the interests of their subjects in distant lands, and were probably firmly of opinion, that “trade followed the standard.”99

In addition to this, there was the rivalry of Egypt, the country which had held these provinces in the past, and would have liked to regain them. Whether the rulers of the Mediterranean states realized this or not, is uncertain, but in any case, like the Israelites, they had no objection to making use of Egypt, “bruised reed” as she was by some considered. Seeing that there was danger from the Assyrians, Hanon of Gaza followed the example of Hoshea, in whom Shalmaneser had “found conspiracy,” and made overtures with Sib'e, the So of 2 Kings xvii. 4 (the word ought really to be pointed so as to read Seve, which was apparently the pronunciation of the Assyrian form, the aspirate having the effect of changing b into bh or v). This ruler is called “king of Egypt” in the passage cited, but Sargon says that he was “Tartan,” or commander-in-chief of the Egyptian army. This would imply that he was acting for another, a Pharaoh unnamed, and at present unknown. The general opinion is, that So or Sib'e is the same as Sabaco, and is called “king” by anticipation in 2 Kings xvii.100

The result was one exceedingly gratifying to the Assyrian king, for in the battle at Raphia, which followed, Sib'e fled in fear, whilst Hanon of Gaza was made prisoner. The defeat and flight of the Egyptian army does not seem to redound to the credit of its leader, who must have returned bitterly disappointed to his native land.

Immediately after, however, there is a reference to [pg 366] the receipt of tribute from “Pir'u, king of the land of Muṣuru.” This would be a natural result of the success of the Assyrians (so it seemed to the earlier Assyriologists), for surely Pir'u is Pharaoh, and Muṣuru is the Muṣur of other inscriptions, and stands for Egypt (the Heb. Misraim101). This however, is now denied, and Pir'u is said to be the name of a chief of an Arab tribe called Muṣuru. It reminds one of the Eri-Eaku of Larsa who is not Arioch of Elassar, contemporary of Kudur-laḫgumal of Elam who is not Chedorlaomer of Elam, and Tudḫula who is admittedly the same in name as Tidal, all of them ruling at or near the same period, but not those referred to in Gen. xiv. as contemporaries. In Assyriology, more than in any other study whatever, things are not what they seem, and must always be identified with something else.

According to the annals, it would seem that Yau-bi'idi, who is there called Ilu-bi'idi, acted in concert with Sib'e of Egypt and Hanon of Gaza, the operations against him preceding those against the other two. The order of the translation given above would seem to be preferable, as it must have been in consequence of the flight of Sib'e “like a shepherd whose sheep had been lost,” that Yau-bi'idi and Hanon of Gaza were so easily defeated. The former appears to have made Qarqaru the centre from which he intended to press his claim to the throne of Hamath, and he managed so well, that he got Arpad, Simyra, Damascus, and Samaria to join him. The Assyrian king, however, soon disposed of the pretensions of this prince, whom he describes as “a loose (?) fellow, a usurper, a frivolous (?), evil man” (ṣab ḫubši, lâ-bêl-kussī, amēlu patû limnu). After this it is not surprising that he thought he was justified in flaying him alive.

To all appearance the state of affairs in Syria was satisfactory. The great victory of the Assyrians at Raphia had convinced the leaders of the various states of the uselessness of continuing to struggle against the power of the Assyrian king, who had nothing further to fear from Egypt, and was therefore free to occupy himself with other conquests. In 719, therefore, he turned his attention to the region of the north, the kingdoms of Van and Urarṭu or Ararat, the result of the operations against the latter being, that the people were transported to Syria, or, as the original has it, “into Heth of the Amorites.” The operations in 718 b.c. were against Kiakki of Sinuḫtu, a city in Tabal.

The next year, 717 b.c., came the turn of Pisîris of Carchemish, who had tried to get Mitâ king of Musku to join him in a rebellion against Assyria. Assyrians were after this settled there, and Carchemish became an integral part of the Assyrian empire. The next entry in the Annals of Sargon is a reference to the Pâpites and the Lalluknites, “dogs brought up in his palace,” who planned treacherously against the land of Kakmê, though the full extent of their crime is not stated. These people were removed from their places, and sent down to the midst of Damascus of Amoria (Syria). In this year Ḫumbanigaš of Elam died, and was succeeded by Šutur-Nanḫundi, a man of a more peaceful character than his predecessor.

Extensive operations, chiefly in Ararat, are recorded for 716 b.c., in which year also Bêl-šarra-uṣur, the city-chief of Kišešim, a Median province, was deposed, and his territory added to the boundaries of Assyria, together with several other west-Median districts. Among these was Ḫarḫar, whose city-chief was driven away by the Assyrian king. This city was re-peopled with prisoners of war, and its name having been changed to Kar-Šarru-ukîn, made the capital of the province. The war against Ararat continued during the next year, resulting in the submission of Yanzû king of [pg 368] Na'iri or Mesopotamia. On the east, a rebellion in Ḫarḫar was put down, and the city fortified as a defence against Media. In this year people of Tumadu, Ibâdidu, Marsimanu, Ḫayapâ, and the remote Arbâa (Arabs?), an unlettered tribe which had never paid tribute to an Assyrian king, were overthrown, and the survivors transported to Samaria. The receipt of tribute from Pir'u king of Muṣuru, Samsi queen of Aribbu (Arabia), It'amra of the land of the Sabâa (Sabeans), kings of the sea-coast and the desert, consisting of “gold, the produce of the mountain, precious stones, ivory, seeds of the ûšû-tree, all kinds of spices, horses and camels,”102 is recorded.

To all appearance, Pir'u of Muṣuru is regarded as one of the kings of the sea-coast and the desert, but whether this is evidence against his being Pharaoh of Egypt or not, may be doubted. Egypt is as much a country of the sea-coast as any part of Palestine, but it is naturally on the south shore of the Mediterranean, and not on the east.

714 b.c. saw the continuance of the war with Ararat and its allies, and seems to have resulted in its becoming an Assyrian province. In 713 expeditions were made, among other places, to west Media and Cilicia. In 712 b.c. he found himself obliged to proceed against Tarḫunazi of Meliddu, who, driven from his capital by the Assyrians, shut himself up in Tilgarimme, which had been identified with the Biblical Togarmah. This city, having been conquered, was repeopled with the nomad Sutî103 and placed under Assyrian rule.

At this time, as Sargon says, he received the treasure (?) of the land of Heth (the high-lands of Syria), among the things sent being copper, iron, lead or tin, white marble from the Amanus mountains, royal garments of the colour of uknû-stone (lapis-lazuli), [pg 369] something which came from the mountain Ba'il-ṣapuna (Baal-zephon), “a great mountain,” and silver, which, in consequence of the large consignments received at Dûr-Sargina (Khorsabad), became in value like copper. The next year (711 b.c.) an expedition against Muttallu, son of Tarḫulara, one of the kings of “the land of Heth,” took place. The son had killed his father and mounted the throne, hence the necessity for this campaign.

A similar expedition also took place to Ashdod. It happened that Azuri, king of the district of which Ashdod was the capital, had withheld the tribute agreed upon, and Sargon had therefore deposed him, and set his brother Aḫi-miti in his place. The following is Sargon's own account of this, and the sequel—

“Azuri, king of Asdudu, planned in his heart not to send tribute, and sent to the kings around hostile expressions (towards) the land of Aššur, and on account of the evil he had done, I changed his dominion over the people of his land. Aḫi-miti, his brother next in order, I appointed to the kingdom over them. Men of Ḫattî,104 speaking treachery, hated his dominion, and raised up over them Yaana, a usurper, who like themselves knew no reverence for the dominion. In the anger of my heart I went hastily with the chariot of my feet and my cavalry, which for security quit not my side, to the city Asdudu, the city of his dominion, and the city Asdudu, the city Gimtu, (and) the city Asdudimma I besieged (and) captured. The gods dwelling in the midst of them, himself, with the people of his land, gold, silver, (and) the property of his palace, I counted as spoil. Their cities I rebuilt,105 and settled therein the people of the lands captured by my hands. I placed my commander-in-chief as governor over them, and counted [pg 370] them with the people of my land, and they bore my yoke.”

Another inscription calls Yaana by the name of Yawani, and states that, hearing from far of the advance of the Assyrian army, he fled to the border of Muṣuru, which lies on the boundary of Meluḫḫa, and there hid himself. The king of Meluḫḫa seems thereupon to have feared for his own land, and placing Yatna in chains, sent him to Assyria. A third text referring to this campaign adds the following details—

“(People) of the land of Pilište (Philistia), the land of Yaudu (Judah), the land of Udumu (Edom), the land of Ma'abi (Moab), dwellers by the sea, bringers of the tribute and the gift of Aššur my lord, (for) sedition-mongering without measure, and evil, which was against me to cause hostility, unto Pir'u, king of the land of Muṣri, a prince who could not save them, they brought their homage-offering, and asked him for aid. I, Sargina, the true prince, fearing the oath of Lag-gi (= Nebo) and Merodach, keeper of the commands of the god Aššur, caused (my troops) to cross the Tigris and the Euphrates at high water, the fulness of the flood, as on dry land. And he, Yawani, their king, who trusted to his own power, and had not submitted to my dominion, heard from afar of the march of my expedition, and the glory of Aššur, my lord, overthrew him, and ... of the region of the river ... depth of the waters ... possession (?) of his land ... afar ... he fled ... Asdudu....”

In this, too, there is a reference to Pir'u, here called king of Muṣrí, either Egypt, or that mysterious and otherwise unknown kingdom to whose help so many trusted.

The years 710 and 709 b.c. were devoted to the operations against Merodach-baladan, the Chaldean prince who had made himself master of Babylonia. This is the Merodach-baladan who is referred to in 2 Kings xx. 12, but as his embassy really belongs to [pg 371] a somewhat later date, reference will be made to it in its place. Suffice it here to say that he was a usurper on the Babylonian throne, head of the Chaldean tribe called Bît-Yakîn, and one of the most influential chieftains of the district. To all appearance, the Babylonians themselves (as in earlier days when they tried to seize the throne) preferred the Assyrians to the semi-barbarous Chaldeans and Arameans, with whom they were, in fact, in too close connection to have any great respect for. It is needless to say that this entirely fell in with the ambition of the kings of Assyria, who, from the time of Tukulti-Ninip, if not earlier, had desired, and sometimes obtained, dominion over Babylonia. Sargon, the successor of two kings of Assyria who were acknowledged to be at the same time kings of Babylonia, naturally regarded himself as inheriting that crown in virtue of his being king of Assyria, whilst the Babylonians themselves were probably not displeased with the idea that they formed part of the world-renowned and powerful Assyrian empire, whose kings spoke the same language as themselves, and with whose religion they were in sympathy. Thus it happened, therefore, that in the course of the operations against Merodach-baladan, success frequently crowned the arms of the Assyrians, and the inhabitants of Babylon, sending to Dûr-Ladinna, where Sargon was staying, brought him in solemn possession to Babylon, where he made the prescribed offerings to the gods, took up his abode in Merodach-baladan's palace, and received the tribute of the Babylonian tribes which he had subjugated. He still continued, however, his operations against Merodach-baladan, who was by no means willing to give up the struggle, to which there could be one end only, namely, the overthrow of the Chaldean king, which took place in 709 b.c.

Whilst Sargon was busy in Babylonia, the governor of Quê invaded Musku (Mesech) and brought the [pg 372] country to subjection. The seven kings of Cyprus also sent gifts, and a stele of Sargon was set up in the island, which, though mutilated, is of considerable importance, and is now preserved in the Berlin Museum. Kummuḫ (Comagene) was also added to the Assyrian empire (708 b.c.), and probably in the same year, a new king (in consequence of a dispute concerning the succession) set up in the land of Ellipu. In this reign also, the Elamites were generally against the Assyrians in their conflicts in Babylonia and on the eastern borders.

Concerning his death there is much uncertainty. The supposition is, that he was assassinated by one of his soldiers, as is indicated by the entry in an eponym-list with historical references—

Reception by Sennachereb of Prisoners and Spoil. British Museum, Nineveh Gallery, No. 57.

That he died a violent death seems to be nearly certain, and how many others of the overbearing rulers of Assyria had come to an end in the same way is not known. The fate of his son, to which reference will be made in its place, is a historical fact.