Chapter VI. Abraham.
A short account of this period, with the story of Chedorlaomer, Amraphel, Arioch, and Tidal.
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-gala[32] of other texts, the shrine of the god Nannara, also called Sin, the Moon-god, whose worship had gained considerable renown.
“Father Nannar, lord of Ur, prince of the gods, in heaven and earth he alone is supreme;
Father Nannar, lord of Ê-giš-nu-gala, prince of the gods, in heaven and earth he alone is supreme:
Father Nannar, lord, bright-shining diadem, prince of the gods, in heaven and earth he alone is supreme;
Father Nannar, whose dominion is greatly perfect, prince of the gods, in heaven and earth he alone is supreme;
Father Nannar, who in a princely garment is resplendent, prince of the gods, in heaven and earth he alone is supreme,” etc.
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—
“The temple of the Life of Heaven is destroyed—who, in the day of its glory, has cut off its glory?
The everlasting temple, the building of Uriwa,
The everlasting temple, the building of Ê-kiš-nu-gala.
The city Uriwa is a house of darkness in the land—
Ê-kiš-nu-gala (and) Nannara.”
“Let heaven rest with earth, heaven enclosed with earth.
Father Nannar, lord of Uriwa,
To the great lady, the lady of Ê-kiš-nu-gala, give thou rest.
To heaven with earth, heaven and earth, (give thou rest).
To the heaven of Uraš, at še-gu-nu,
The god Enki, the goddess Ninki, the god Endu, the goddess Nindu,
The god En-da-u-ma, the goddess Nin-da-u-ma,
The god En-du-azaga, the goddess Nin-du-azaga,
The god En-u-tila, the god En-me-šarra,
The princess of the Life of Heaven, the lady of the mountain.”
“... he will restore the site of Ê-kiš-nu-gala.”[33]
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 inscriptions[37] 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—
| Ešrit pirê buḫali dannūti | Ten powerful bull-elephants |
| ina mât Ḫarrāni u šidi nâr | in the land of Haran and on |
| Ḫabur | the banks of the Ḫabour |
| lu-adûk; irbit pirê balṭūti | I killed; four elephants alive |
| lu-uṣabita. Maškani-šunu | I took. Their skins, |
| šinni-šunu itti pirê | their teeth, with the living |
| balṭūti, ana âli-ia Aššur ubla. | elephants, I brought to my city Asshur. |
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) he[39] 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 Derketo[41] 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—
| KUR MAR-TU KI | šad A-mur-ri-e | Mountain of Amoria (the Amorite land). |
| KUR TI-ID-NU-UM KI | šad A-mur-ri-e | Mountain of Amoria. |
| KUR GIR-GIR KI | šad A-mur-ri-e | Mountain of Amoria. |
| KUR SU-RU KI | šad Su-bar-ti | Mountain of Subarti. |
| KUR NUM-MA KI | šad Elamti | Mountain of Elam. |
| KUR Gu-ti-um KI | šad Gu-ti-i | Mountain of Gutû or Gutium. |
| KURZAG Gu-ti-um KI | šad pa-at Gu-ti-i | Mountain of the border of Gutium. |
| KUR ši-rum KI | šad Si-ri-i [?] | Mountain of Širû. |
| KUR [GIŠ] ERI-NA KI | šad E-ri-ni | Mountain of Cedar. |
| KUR MAR-ḪA-ŠI KI | šad Pa-ra-ši-i | Mountain of Parašû. |
| KUR Šir-rum KI | šad Bi-ta-lal | Mountain of Bitala. (Kaštala is possible.) |
| KUR Ê-AN-NA KI | šad Bi-ta-lal | Mountain of Bitala. |
| KUR ḪE-A-NA KI | šad Ḫa-ni-e | Mountain of Ḫanû. |
| KUR Lu-lu-bi KI | šad Lu-lu-bi-e | Mountain of Lulubû. |
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—
| Ana šarri bêli-ia | To the king, my lord, |
| ârad-ka, (A)šaridu. | thy servant Ašaridu. |
| Nabû û Marduk ana šar mâtāti | Nebo and Merodach to the king of the countries, |
| bêli-ia likrubu. | my lord, be favourable. |
| Duppi ša šarru ippušu | The tablet which the king makes |
| ...-ṭu û ul-šalim. | is bad(?) and incomplete. |
| (A)dū duppi. | Now a tablet, |
| (la)biru ša Ammurapi sarru. | an old one, of Ammurapi the king |
| (e)pušu-ma alṭaru— | I have made and written out— |
| (la?) pani Ammurapi šarru. | it is of the time (?) of Ammurapi the king. |
| Kî ašpuru | As I have sent (to inform the king), |
| ultu Bâbîli | from Babylon |
| attašâ | I will bring (it). |
| Šarru nipisu | The king (will be able to do) the work |
| [ina] pitti | at once. |
[Here several lines are broken away.]
| ........................... | ............................. |
| ša A-................... | which A-....................... |
| qat ....................... | the hand of.................... |
| ulla ...................... | then (?) ...................... |
| anaku ..................... | I ............................. |
| likîpanni. | may he trust me. |
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—
1 Year of Ḫammurabi the king.
2 Year he performed justice in the land.
3 Year he constructed the throne of the exalted shrine of Nannar of Babylon.
4 Year he built the fortification of Malgia.
5 Year he constructed the ... of the god.
6 Year of the fortification of (the goddess) Laz.
7 Year of the fortification of Isinna.
8 Year of the ... of Emutbālum.
9 Year of the canal Ḫammurabi-ḫêgalla.
10 Year of the soldiers and people of Malgia.
11 Year of the cities Rabiqa and Šalibi.
12 Year of the throne of Zēr-panîtum.
13 Year (the city) Umu (?) set up a king in great rejoicing.[43]
14 Year of the throne of Ištar of Babylon.
15 Year of his 7 images.[44]
16 Year of the throne of Nebo.
17 Year of the images of Ištar and Addu (Hadad)....
18 Year of the exalted shrine for Ellila.
19 Year of the fortification Igi-ḫur-sagga.
20 Year of the throne of Merri (Rimmon or Hadad).
21 Year of the fortification of Baṣu.
22 Year of the image of Ḫammurabi king of righteousness.
23 Year of the ... of Sippar.
24 Year of the ... for Ellila.
25 Year of the fortification of Sippar.
26 Year a great flood (?)....
27 Year the supreme (?)....
28 Year of the temple of abundance.[45]
29 Year of the image of Šala (spouse of Rimmon or Hadad).
30 Year the army of Elam....
31 Year of the land Emutbālu.
32 Year the army of....
33 Year of the canal Ḫammurabi-nuḫuš-niši.
34 Year of Ištar and Nanaa.
35 Year of the fortification of....
36 Lost.
37 Practically lost.
38 Year the great....
39 Practically lost.
40 Lost.
41 Lost.
42 Practically lost.
43 Year dust (? ruin) overwhelmed Sippar and the city Ul-Šamaš.
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—
“Year he (i.e. the king) built the supreme shrine of Bêl.” [? the eighteenth year.]
“Year of the ... of the fortification of Sippar.”[? the 25th year.]
“Year he made supplication to the goddess Taš-mêtu.”
“Year of the river (canal) Tišida-Ellilla” (p. [182]).
“Year the soldiers of Ešnunna were smitten by the sword.”
“Year Ḫammurabi the king, by command of Anu and Bêl, destroyed the wall of Mair and Malgia”(p. [187]).
“Year Ḫammurabi the king renewed the temple Ê-me-temena-ursag, and raised the head of the temple-tower, the supreme seat of Zagaga, high like heaven.”
“Year Ḫammurabi the king raised the top of the great wall on the bank of the Tigris high like a mountain, and caused its name to be called the embankment of the Sun.”
Besides these, there are additions in the entries in the chronological list, some of which are of sufficiently great importance—
“Year 31: Year Ḫammurabi the king, by the command of Anu and Bêl, established his advantage (and) captured the land Yamutbālum and the king Rîm-Sin.”
“Year 34: Year Ḫammurabi the king made [images of] Ištar and Nanaa.”
Whether the following be another form of this date, or a different one altogether is uncertain:
“Year Ḫammurabi the king renewed E-tur-kalama for Anu, Ištar, and Nanaa.”
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:—
Tablet Of Kudur-Mabuk Mentioning Eri-Aku.
| (Dingir) Nannara | To Nannara |
| lugala-ni-r | his king, |
| Kudur-mabuk | Kudur-mabuk, |
| adda kura Martu | father of Amoria, |
| dumu Simti-šilḫak | son of Simti-šilḫak. |
| Ud (dingir) Nannara | When Nannara |
| arazu-ni | his prayer |
| mu-igi-ginnā | received, |
| ne-zila-maḫa | ne-zila-maḫa |
| (dingir) Nannara-kam | for Nannara |
| nam-tila-ni-šu | for his life, |
| u nam-ti | and the life |
| Eri-Aku dumu-ni | of Eri-Aku, his son, |
| lugal Ararma-šu | king of Larsa, |
| munanindu. | he made. |
“To Nannara, his king, Kudur-mabuk, father of the land of the Amorites, son of Simti-šilḫak. When Nannara received his prayer he made for Nannara ne-zila-maḫa for his life and the life of his son Arioch, king of Larsa.”
Tablet Of Eri-Aku Mentioning Kudur-Mabuk, His Father.
| Eri-(dingir) Aku | Eri-Aku |
| uš kalagga | powerful hero |
| siba nig-zi | everlasting shepherd |
| ua Uri-(D. S.)-wa | installed by Bêl |
| (dingir) Ellilli garra | nourisher of Uriwa |
| lugal Arar-(D. S.)-ma | king of Larsa |
| lugal Kiengi-(D. S.)-Uragi | king of Šumer (and) Akkad |
| dumu Kudur-mabuk | son of Kudur-mabuk |
| Adda Emutbala-men | father of Yamutbālu am I. |
| Uriwa (D. S.) dagal-e-ne | In Uriwa broad, |
| mu maha dudune | possessing an exalted name, |
Col. II.
| ušu-na-bi | to the peerless (?) |
| ugul-immangaga | supplication I have made. |
| (dingir) Nannara lugala-mu | Nannara my king |
| mušinše | I have obeyed (?): |
| bad gala ḫursag illa-dim šu-nu-tutu | A great wall, high like a mountain, impregnable, |
| im-bi dul ea | inspiring (?) its fear, |
| munadu | have I made, |
| uru-ni ḫimmira | its city may it protect. |
| bada-ba | That wall |
| (dingir) Nannara suḫuš mada gengen | “Nannara the consolidator of the foundation of the land” is |
| mu-bi-im | its name. |
“Arioch, the powerful hero, the everlasting shepherd installed by Bêl, the nourisher of Uriwa, the king of Larsa, the king of Šumer and Akkad, the son of Kudur-mabug, the father of Yamutbālu, am I. In broad Uriwa, possessing an exalted name, to the peerless one (?) have I made supplication, Nannara, my king, have I obeyed (?). The great wall, high like a mountain, impregnable, inspiring (?) its fear, have I built—may it protect its city. The name of that wall is ‘Nannara the consolidator of the foundation of the land.’ ”
[The above inscription is not without its difficulties, some of them formidable enough, but the general sense of the whole may be regarded as correctly made out.]
Tablet Of Rim-Sin.
| (Dingir) Nin-saḫ | To Ninsaḫ |
| en galla abba age | great lord, beloved father |
| šaga-gu-sag-gi gala-zu | knowing the supplication of the heart |
| sukkala maḫa ša-kušša dingira galla | exalted messenger, (giving) heart-rest, great god |
| dugga-ni ši tul-du | he who sends forth his hidden word |
| lugal-a-ni-ir | his king |
| (dingir) Rim-(dingir) Sin | Rim-Sin. |
| siba gu kalama Nipri (D. S.) | shepherd of all the people of Nippur |
| me giškin Gurudug-(D. S.)-ga su-dudu | he who fulfils the word of the vine of Eridu |
| ua Uri-(D. S.)-wa | nourisher of Uriwa |
| ê-ud-da-im-te-ga | (and) Ê-udda-imtega |
| lugal Arar-(D. S.)-ma | king of Larsa |
Col. II.
| lugal Kengi-(D. S.)-Ura-gi | king of Šumer and Akkad. |
| Ud Ana (dingir) Ellila | When Anu, Bêl, |
| (dingir) En-ki | (and) Ea, |
| dingir-galgalene | the great gods, |
| Unuga (D. S.) uru du | Erech, the ruined (?) city, |
| šu-mu-šu manin-si-eša | into my hands delivered |
| (dingir) Ninsaḫ lugala-mu-r | to Ninsaḫ, my king, |
| gu-sagsaggi-da-mu-ta | after my making supplication; |
| ê-da-agga-šummu | Ê-dagga-šummu, |
| ki-dura ki-agga-ni | his beloved resting-place, |
| nam-ti-mu-šu | for my life |
| munadu. | I built. |
“To Ninsaḫ, the great lord, the beloved father, he who is aware of the supplication of the heart; the exalted messenger, (giving) rest to the heart, the great god who sendeth forth his hidden word—his king, Rim-Sin, shepherd of all the people of Niffer, who fulfilleth the word of the vine of Êridu, nourisher of Uriwa (and) Ê-udda-imtega, king of Larsa, king of Šumer and Akkad. When Anu, Bêl, and Ea, the great gods, delivered Erech, the ruined (?) city, into my hands, I built to Ninsaḫ, my king, after making supplication, Ê-dagga-šummu, his beloved seat, for (the saving of) my life.”
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)
“in their faithful counsel to Kudur-laḫgumal, king of the land of Elam ... said ‘Descend.’The thing which unto them was good (he performed, and) he exercised sovereignty in Babylon, the city of Kar-Duniaš.”
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—
“... and they pressed on to the supreme gate.
He threw down, removed, and cast down the door of Ištar in the holy places,
He descended also, like Ura the unsparing, to Dû-maḫa;
He stayed also in Dû-maḫa, looking at the temple;
He opened his mouth, and spake with the children (of the place).
To all his warriors (then) he hastened the message:—
‘Carry off the spoil of the temple, take also its goods,
Destroy its barrier, cause its enclosures to be cut through.’
To the channel ... they pressed on....”
(Here comes a mutilated passage apparently referring to the destruction which he wrought.)
“He drove away the director's overseer, he took away the vail.
The enemy pressed on evilly to Ennun-dagalla.
The god was clothed with light before him,
He flashed like lightning, and shook the (holy) places.
The enemy feared, he hid himself.
There descended (?) also its chief man, and he spake to him a command.
... the god was clothed with light,
(He flashed like lightning), and shook the (holy) places.
‘(Draw near unto?) Ennun-dagalla, remove his crowns!
(Enter into?) his temple, seize his hand!’
..., he did not fear, and he regarded not his life.
‘(He shall not approach?) Ennun-dagalla, he shall not remove his crowns.’ ”
(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.)
“When the guardian spoke peace (to the city)
The guardian-bulls of Ê-šarra, [the temple of the host of the gods], departed.
The enemy, the Elamite, multiplied evils,
And Bêl allowed evil to be planned against Babylon.”
“When righteousness was absent (?), then was decided (?) also the destruction
Of Ê-šarra, the temple of the host of the gods, the guardian-bulls departed.
The enemy, the Elamite, took its goods—
Bêl, dwelling upon it, had displeasure.”
“When the magicians repeated their evil words (?),
Gullum[47] and the evil wind performed their evil (?).
Then their gods departed—they departed like a torrent.
Storm and evil wind went round in the heavens.
Anu, their creator, had displeasure.
He made pale their face, he made desolate his place,
He destroyed the barrier in the shrine of Ê-anna,
(He overthrew?) the temple, and the platform shook.”
“ .... he decreed destruction,
..... he had disfavour.
The people (?) of Bêl of Ê-zida barred (?) the road to Šumer.
Who is Kudurlaḫgu(mal), the doer of the evils?
He has gathered also the Umman-man(da against?) the people (?) of Bêl—
He has laid in ruin . . . by their side.”
“When (the enclosure) of Ê-zida (was broken down?),
And Nebo was ruler of the host, there (came) down his (winged bulls).
Down to Tiamtu he se(t his face).
Ibi-Tutu, whom the Sun-god (?) hastened within Tiamtu,
Entered Tiamtu, and founded a pseudo-capital.
The enclosure of Ê-zida, the everlasting temple, was caused to be broken through.”
“(The enemy), the Elamite, caused his yoke of horses to be directed, (and)
Set his face (to go) down to Borsippa.
He traversed also the road of darkness, the road to Mesech.
The tyrant (?) Elamite destroyed the palace (?),
He subdued the princes of ... with the sword,
He carried off the spoil of all the temples.
He took their goods, and carried them away to Elam.
.... ruler, he destroyed the ruler (?),
.......... filled also the land.”
(The remainder is wanting.)
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 (arm[49]) 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.”