Notes And Additions.
P. [11]. It is needful to state, as has been pointed out to the writer, that “our English translation would make all (the Biblical Creation-story) appear English.” In other words, the test of language is not an unfailing one.
Pp. [14-15]. To the names of translators of the Babylonian Creation-stories must be added P. Jensen, and W. L. King, who has published important additions to the text.
P. [21], l. 4. Alternative rendering: “He beheld Tiamtu's snarling” (see the note to p. [24]).
P. [22]. With the first paragraph on this page the contents of the third tablet, and with the last paragraph those of the fourth, begin.
P. [24]. Instead of “they clustered around him,” Jensen translates (doubtfully), “they ran round about him,” and King, “they beheld him.” Something may be said in favour of each, but the rendering of the text seems more probable. Also, instead of “Examining the lair,” I am inclined to return to my earlier rendering, “Noting the snarling of Kingu, her consort.” The four succeeding lines read:—
“He looks, and his advance[333] becomes confused,
His understanding is destroyed, and his action fails (?),
And the gods, his helpers, going by his side,
Saw the [con]fusion (??) of their leader, (and) their sight was troubled (too).”
King attributes this fear and confusion not to Merodach, but to Kingu and his followers, which would seem to be more consistent, but the difficulty is, that the original gives no indication that this was the case. Further discoveries may throw light upon the point.
P. [27]. The Lumaši (l. 2), according to Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, vol. III., pl. 57, were seven constellations, and seem to have been included in the thirty-six stars or constellations mentioned two lines lower down. A list of these will [pg 546] be found in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1900, pp. 573-575.
P. [28], l. 29. The translation of this line is based on that of Mr. L. W. King, who first published the text. The word for “bone” is iṣṣimtum, the Heb. 'eṣem, Arab. 'adhm. If the word be correctly read (the character tum is doubtful), it is possibly connected with êṣimtum, which translates the Sumerian character standing for a weapon or a long straight object.
Pp. [29-31]. Tutu and other names given to Merodach in this section are referred to on pp. [45-46]. By “the people” in line 15 (p. [30]) are apparently to be understood the gods.
P. [44]. Other names of the goddess Aruru, who assisted Merodach in the creation of man, are “the lady potter,” “the constructor of the world,” “the constructor of the gods,” “the constructor of mankind,” “the constructor of the heart.” Aruru was the goddess of progeny, and is one of the forty-one names by which “the lady of the gods” was known. An interesting Sumerian (dialectic) hymn to her exists in the Brussels Museum.
P. [47], ll. 29-32. Instead of “in their (the fallen gods') room,” Jensen suggests, “for their redemption.” That the fallen gods were to be redeemed (lit.: “spared”) by the merits of the race of men which Merodach created is a new idea, which further information may confirm.[334]
P. [59], l. 13. Ea is the Aê of the preceding pages, the Oannes of Damascius. There is reason to believe that the name was also read Aa, which would account for the Greek form which he employs, and likewise for the identification of this god with the Aa of l. 4 and the following paragraph.
P. [63], l. 27. Perhaps the most interesting of recent discoveries is the identification (by Prof. Zimmern) of Euedoreschos with the Enweduranki of the tablet described on p. [77]. The original Greek form must have been Euedoranchos (see the note to the page mentioned). Euedocus (l. 21) is probably the Sumero-Akkadian En-me-duga.
P. [67]. For further notes in connection with Tiamat, see the discussion of Delitzsch's Babel und Bibel at the end, pp. [529-532]. It is noteworthy that this name heads the list of abodes of the gods published in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology for Dec., 1900, pp. 367-369. The explanation is unfortunately broken away, but it may be surmised that as the goddess of the watery wastes of the earth she was described as the abode of the gods who were regarded as her followers.
P. [72]. The description of Tammuz as “the peerless mother of heaven” is probably to be explained by the fact, that ama-gala, “great mother,” is one of the Sumerian words for “forest,” and Tammuz was identified with the forest of Eridu, the divine abode where he dwelt.
P. [73]. For Pir-napištim, Ut-napištim is a possible reading (see below, note to p. [99]).
For further notes upon the trees of Paradise, see pp. [531].
P. [77]. Euedoranchos. The forms of this name, as handed down, are Εὐεδωραχος, Εὐεδωρεσχος, and Εὐερωδεσχος. Eusebius's Chronicle, however, gives the best form, namely, Edoranchus.
P. [78], l. 20. Perhaps it would be better to say that the Hebrew accounts of the Creation “probably came from Babylonia”—they may not have originated there.
Pp. [80-82]. For further remarks upon the cherubin, see p. [533]. In “the kurub of Anu, Bel,” etc., which also occurs, we probably have a variant form.
P. [83], ll. 1-5. It is noteworthy that Ablum (“Son”) as a personal name actually occurs (De Sarzec, Découvertes, pl. 30 bis, No. 19). Compare Ablaa, “my son,” p. 533, l. 12.
P. [90]. For further information about the name Gilgameš, see the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology for 1903, pp. 198-199. Prof. Hommel has pointed out that an inscription exists stating that he built the fortress of Erech, thus bringing him almost within the domain of history.
P. [99]. (The Legend of Gilgameš.) Dr. Meissner's discovery of a fragment of a new version of the Gilgameš-legend[335] is a most welcome addition to our knowledge. A description of this text will be found in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology for March and May, 1903, where a comparison of the two versions is also given. It speaks of his visit to the land of darkness in quest of his friend Ea-banî (whose name, as this inscription indicates, should properly be read Enki-du or Ea(Aê, Aa)-du). In the second column it details his conversation with Siduri (“the Sabitu”), in which he refers to the death of his beloved companion, since whose departure he had not sought to live, but having seen her face, he expresses the hope that he will now not see death. The Sabitu, however, answers him to the effect that he would not find the life which he sought—death was the lot which the gods had set for mankind. Eat, therefore, make festival, rejoice day and night, put on fine apparel, take pleasure in child and wife—such was her advice. In the last [pg 548] column of this version the hero meets with Sur-Sunabu (Ur-Šanabi), who asks him his name. Gilgameš tells him who he is and whence he came, and asks to be shown Uta-naištim, the remote, as the Babylonian Noah seems to be called in this version of the legend. About one-third of the tablet, giving the lower parts of columns 1 and 2, and the upper parts of columns 3 and 4, is the amount preserved.
The above seems to show, that the name of the friend of Gilgameš was Êa-du, (Aa-du, Aê-du, or Enki-du), not Êa-banî; whilst Ur-Šanabi the boatman, was really called Sur-Sunabu (or Sur-Šanabi); and Pir-napištim, the Babylonian Noah, was Ut-napištim.
P. [104], ll. 1 and 6. Jensen suggests, for muir kukki, the translation “rulers of darkness(?)”:—
“(If) the rulers of darkness cause to rain down one evening a rain of dirt (?),
Enter into the ship, and shut thy door!”
That period arrived;
“The rulers of darkness rain down one evening a rain of dirt (?).”
Muir, however, seems to be singular, not plural. Another meaning of the word is “messenger.”
P. [108], l. 35. If this translation be correct, the throwing down of a part of the food recalls the casting of meal on the ground as an offering to the gods. It is not unlikely that the preparation of the food, and setting it by his head, was accompanied by some prayer or incantation to secure his recovery, as in the inscription translated in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology, May, 1901, pp. 193 and 205-210. Sleeping with a cruse of water near the head (1 Sam. xxvi. 11-12) was probably simply a provision against thirst, with no special meaning. On p. [111], there is just the possibility that “The leavings of the dish” were what was allowed to remain therein for the gods, and “the rejected of the food” may have been that which was thrown on the ground as an offering.
P. [113], ll. 19 ff. A number of the deities identified with the god Ea or Aa are given in the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, vol. II., pl. 58, and form a parallel with the inscription printed on p. [58]. Deities seem also to have been identified with Nebo. The centres where these gods were worshipped therefore had likewise their monotheistic system, in which all the other gods were identified with the patron-deity of the place, just as those Babylonians who worshipped Merodach identified all the other gods with him.
P. [119]. There has been a great deal of discussion as to the way in which Šumer could be connected with Shinar, the chief [pg 549] reasons against their identification being that the latter must have come from a Babylonian form, of whose existence there is no evidence, and that it stood for the whole country (except, possibly, Larsa), whereas Šumer was the name of the southern part only. Hommel derives the Biblical Shinar from Ki-Imgir, through the intermediate forms Shingar, Shumir (Šumer) and Shimir. This is based upon the tendency which k had to change into š, whilst the substitution of m for an older g or ng can be proved. As, however, Shinar corresponds practically with the whole of Babylonia, a modification of Prof. Hommel's etymology may, perhaps, best meet the case. The whole of the country was called by the Sumerians Kingi (or Kengi) Ura, and the expression mâda Kingi-Ura is rendered, in the lists, mât Šumeri u Akkadī, “the land of Sumer and Akkad.” It is therefore clear, that Kingi-Ura corresponds with the whole tract, and is practically synonymous with the Biblical Shinar. The change from k to š (sh) being provable, it is possible that Kingi-Ura, pronounced Shingi-Ura, may have originated the Hebrew form Shinar (better Shin'ar), through the intermediate forms Shingura and Shingar.
The statement that Elam was the firstborn of Shem (Gen. x. 22) receives illustration from the fact, that many inscriptions have been found showing that Semitic Babylonian was not only well known, but also used in that country. From the order in which the names occur in Genesis, it ought to be the earliest of the Semitic settlements, coming before Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram. If, however, Arpachshad stand, as is generally thought, for Babylonia, it is quite clear that there is no indication of chronological order in this, for Assyria was certainly younger, as a Semitic settlement, than Babylonia, and it would seem that Elam was colonized with Semites from the last-named country. This would make Elam to be simply the first Semitic colony, as Prof. Scheil has already suggested.
A good example of the slim racial type is shown on pl. [V.], second seal-impression. For a long time after the Sumerians had become one nation with the Semitic Babylonians, the type of the figures represented on the cylinder-seals and sculptures remained unchanged, and it is on this account that Ḫammurabi is portrayed, on the slab reproduced as pl. [I.], in the old non-Semitic costume. The early Semitic type is shown on pl. [III.], no. 1 (no. 2 shows the late Assyrian type). In pl. [VI.] the Sumerian style is there, but the type is rather thick. This, however, may be partly due to the sliding of the cylinder when the impression was taken.
P. [124]. Sargon of Agadé's conquests, according to the omens [pg 550] referring to his reign, were as follows:—(paragraph 1) Elam, (2) the land of the Amorites, (4 and 5) the land of the Amorites (twice), (6) doubtful, (7) he crossed the sea of the rising of the sun, and the reference to three years in that district seems to refer to the time he stayed there, (8) apparently no expedition, (9) he ravaged the land of Kazalla, (10) he put down a revolt in his own country, (11) he fought against Suri or Sumaštu.
P. [125], l. 27. The old Sumerian or Akkadian laws are only known to us from a few specimens preserved in the tablets of grammatical paradigms (the series Ana itti-šu), and will be found on pp. [190-191]. It is probable that they were made use of in compiling the Code of Ḫammurabi.
P. [127], l. 21 ff. But perhaps it was the city of Aššur which came forth from Babylonia (i.e. was a Babylonian colony), and its ever-increasing inhabitants who founded the other cities mentioned.
P. [130] (the derivation of Nimrod). Another suggestion is, that Nimrod may be the name of Merodach, as “Lord of Marad” (Nin-Marad). As far as I have been able to see, however, this name of Merodach does not occur, and moreover, it was Nergal, and not Merodach, who was lord of Marad—Merodach's city was Babylon. Prof. Hommel's acute suggestion, that Namra-ṣit may be a Babylonian form of Nimrod, would seem to be doubtful.
P. [131] (Merodach's net). The bow of Merodach, after his fight with Tiamtu, was placed in the heavens, and seemingly became one of the constellations, but we do not hear of any similar honour having been conferred on his net, notwithstanding the great service which it had rendered him. In Habakkuk i. 15-17 there is a curious passage in which “the Chaldean” is described as catching men with his angle and his net, as fishes are caught, and making sacrifice to his net and his drag on account of his success with them. Heuzey, the well-known French Assyriologist and antiquarian, makes a comparison between this passage and the Vulture-stele, on which an ancient Babylonian prince is represented as having placed his conquered foes in a great net. This, however, does not explain the statement that the Chaldean sacrificed and offered incense to his net and his drag, and it is doubtful whether the Prophet had either that or any similar sculpture or picture in his mind. There is, nevertheless, just the possibility that the Babylonians were accustomed to pay divine honours to the net of Merodach, and this may have given rise to the statement in the passage quoted. Whether the relief on the Vulture-stele be derived from the legend of Merodach or not, is doubtful—in all probability it [pg 551] merely expresses a simile derived from catching wild animals with a net, as exhibited by the sculptures of Aššur-banî-âpli in the Assyrian Saloon of the British Museum.
Pp. [132-133]. With regard to the statements on these pages, the Rev. John Tuckwell writes: “Gen. xi. 1 must in all fairness be regarded as going back prior to ch. x, in order to tell the history of Babylon from its foundation. Again:—Why contradict Genesis? We do not know who ‘began’ to build Babylon—Sayce suggests ‘Etana.’ It is quite possible that ‘they left off to build the city,’ and resumed the work under Nimrod. There is no need to regard any of the statements as ‘interpolations’ if thus read. If all mankind perished by the Flood, as both stories appear to teach, there must surely have been a time when ‘the whole earth was of one language.’ ”
P. [134]. For the derivation of Shinar, see the note to p. [119].
P. [136]. The Mohammedan legend of the Tower of Babel, as told in the Persian work, Rauzat-us-Safa,[336] may be interesting. It is as follows:—
“When Nimrud had witnessed the extinction of the pile of fire, and had beheld the roses produced therein by the benign Creator, he aspired to ascend to heaven.... Nimrud ... spent many years in erecting a tower, which was so high that the bird of imagination could not reach its summit. When it was completed, he ascended to the pinnacle of the spire, but the aspect of the heavens remained precisely the same as from the surface of the earth. This astonished and perplexed him. The next day the tower fell, and such a fearful noise struck the ears of the inhabitants of Babel that most of them fainted from the effects thereof; and when they had recovered their senses they forgot their own language, so that every tribe spoke a different idiom, and seventy-two tongues became current among them.”
P. [136], l. 3 from below. Nannara was the moon-god, the same as Sin. L. 6 from below, read Ê-bar-igi-ê-di.
P. [144], l. 9 from below. The Rev. C. H. W. Johns, in his Assyrian deeds and documents, has pointed out the likeness of the names Naḫiri and Naḫarau (or Naḫarâu) to Nahor, referred to by Kittel in his little book upon Delitzsch's Babel und Bibel.[337] Naḫiru, however, is the common Assyro-Babylonian word for “nostril,” and is also the name of a creature of the sea supposed to be the dolphin. Naḫarâu it may be noted, notwithstanding [pg 552] the absence of the prefix of divinity, bears every appearance of being a name like Bêl-Yau on p. [59], the initial y or i being omitted as in the case of Au-Aa seven lines lower down. Judging from analogy, Naharâu should mean “Naḫar is Jah,” but whether this has anything to do with the name Nahor or not is doubtful—as Assyrian equivalent we should rather expect Naḫuru.
P. [145], l. 11 from below. The name of a Babylonian district called Pulug occurs in a Babylonian geographical list, and may be the same as Peleg. Though the ideogram is different, this is possibly the same as the Pulukku of the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, vol. II., pl. 52, l. 53, where it is explained as Bît ḫarê, “the house of the cutting,” or “excavation.” The Babylonians would therefore seem to have regarded Pulug or Pulukku as referring to the division of the land of Babylon by the cutting of the irrigation-channels which gave it its fertility.
P. [146], l. 4. There is no great probability that the name Terah has anything to do with Tarḫu, which occurs in certain names found in Assyrian contracts (Johns, Assyrian Deeds, pp. 127, 458, etc.).
P. [147], l. 4 from below. The family of Terah may, however, have become pastoral on leaving Ur of the Chaldees.
P. [148] (Abram). According to Prof. Breasted (American Journal of Semitic Studies, Oct. 1904) mention is made in the geographical list of Shishak at Karnak of “the field of Abram,” and if this identification be correct, it is the earliest reference to the great ancestor of the Hebrews and the nations associated with them, though it cannot be said that the date (time of Jeroboam and Rehoboam) is a very remote one. Owing to the same Egyptian character being used for both r and l, Maspéro read the word as the plural of 'abel, “meadow.”
P. [150], l. 23. Illustrations of the old Akkadian (or Sumerian) laws will be found in the contracts of adoption of Bêl-êzzu and Arad-Išḫara on pp. [176] and [177]. The laws themselves are given on p. [190].
P. [152], second paragraph. It is needful to state that a few Semitic Babylonian inscriptions of an exceedingly early date (seemingly before 3000 b.c.) exist, likewise a few Sumero-Akkadian texts after 2300 b.c., and the periods of the two languages therefore overlap. Judging from the inscriptions, however, Sumero-Akkadian goes back to a date much earlier than the earliest Semitic, but it was to all appearance hardly used after the period of the dynasty of Ḫammurabi.
P. [158], l. 11. The Gutites were probably Medes.
P. [161], l. 11. It is not improbable that Sippar-Amnanu means simply “Amonite Sippar,” the second word of the compound [pg 553] being apparently from Amna,[338] which is possibly the Babylonian form of the name of the Egyptian sun-god, Amon. Ya'ruru is seemingly the old form of Aruru, one of the names of Ištar, who was also worshipped there.
P. [166]. The wedding-gift was to all appearance the price paid by the bridegroom for the bride, in this case handed to the bride's brother and sister. For the laws concerning this payment, see Ḫammurabi's Code, sections 163 and 164 (p. [505]). It was generally handed to the bride's father (upon a dish, according to Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, vol. v., pl. 24, ll. 48-51cd).[339] Instead of “Ammi-ṭitana the king,” Dr. Schor reads Ammi-ṭitana-šarrum, i.e. as the name of a man, meaning “Ammi-ṭitana is king.” If this be correct, the document is not a record of the marriage of a princess.
P. [168]. The grain given to Šeritum was probably of the nature of a deposit—according to Ḫammurabi's Code, sect. 257, the wages of a reaper were not one gur of grain, but eight.
P. [173-174]. Upon the question of adoption, see Ḫammurabi's Code, sections 185-193. As there is no indication, in these enactments, that female children were included, it is doubtful whether Ana-Aa-uzni and Aḫḫ-ayabi had any remedy in case of repudiation, or refusal to perform all the conditions. Calling the gods to witness was probably regarded as being a sufficient safeguard. Nevertheless, the usage of the language was such that “daughtership” could be included in “sonship.”
Pp. [174] ff. It is noteworthy that, in this contract, there is no indication of the second wife having been taken to vex the first (Lev. xviii. 18, A.V.), and as the second was to be subordinate to the first, rivalling (as the R.V. translates) was as far as possible prevented. As the children already born are referred to (p. [175], l. 20), the second marriage could not have been due to the absence of offspring, and it may therefore be supposed that the second wife was taken on account of the ill-health of the first (Ḫammurabi's Code, sect. 148). This is supported by the clauses referring to the services which Iltani was to perform for her “sister.”
P. [176]. The adoption of Bêl-êzzu illustrates section 191 of Ḫammurabi's Code. Both are based upon the Sumerian laws translated on pp. [190] and [191]. The word translated “deep” (line 19) is one generally used for the ocean, the abode of Ea (Aa), god of the waters. It may have been something similar to “the brazen sea” in the temple at Jerusalem.
P. [177]. Arad-Išḫara was evidently adopted under the same law and enactment as the foregoing. The declaration of the foster-father of his right to have children is interesting.
Upon the adoption of Karanatum, compare pp. [173] and [174], with the note thereon.
Pp. [178] and [179]. The three tablets giving equal portions to each of the three brothers, illustrate sections 165 and 167 of the Code, which enacts that all brothers shall share equally. Any gift or share in the property left by the mother would probably be recorded on another document.
P. [180]. Laws 178 ff. of Ḫammurabi's Code show that votaries and priestesses had special privileges in the matter of inheriting property, and it would seem from the tablet of Erištum, the sodomite or public woman, that her station did not allow her the choice, that being the right of her sister, Amat-Šamaš, priestess of the sun.
P. [181]. Naramtum apparently had no children, and seems to have been divorced in accordance with section 138 of Ḫammurabi's Code.
P. [185]. The case of Šamaš-nûri is illustrated by sections 144-146 of Ḫammurabi's Code.
Pp. [187] and [188]. The conditions of the hiring of a slave were probably those of the old Sumerian law translated on p. [191].
P. [199], l. 26. Elamite overlordship was naturally coextensive with that of Babylon as long as the latter power acknowledged Elamite supremacy.
P. [201], l. 5 from below. Qanni is probably one of the Assyro-Babylonian words for “sanctuary.”
P. [203]. In addition to the deities mentioned, Aššur-banî-âpli (Assurbanipal) speaks of the goddess Nin-gala, the “great lady” or “queen,” as having a temple called Ê-gipara at Haran. She is mentioned with Nusku (p. [202]) and is called “the mother of the gods,” Šamaš, the sungod, being described as her firstborn. To all appearance she was the consort of the Moongod, Nannar.
P. [208], last line. “Yoke of the Elamites” would probably have been the better term. (See the note to p. [199].)
P. [209], l. 8 from below. Oppert always refused to accept the identification of Amraphel with Ḫammurabi.
P. [222], l. 4 from below. It would appear from the Babylonian lists that Tudḫula may be read simply Tudḫul, notwithstanding the final a at the end.
P. [243], ll. 25 ff. The name Aqabi-îlu (p. [463], l. 15) is similarly formed to that of Ya'kubi-îlu, and from the same root, but it is not identical with it. There is no probability that Egibi (p. [439], l. 2, etc.) has any connection with the name Jacob, as has been suggested. Its connection with the (? Assyrian) name [pg 555] Ḫakkubu seems to be still more unlikely. Upon these and similar names, see Hommel, “Ancient Hebrew Tradition,”[340] p. 112.
P. [246], l. 5. If my memory serves me, the name Gadu-ṭâbu, “the fortune is good,” occurs on a contract-tablet in the British Museum. (I unfortunately forgot to make note of it at the time, hence my inability to give the reference.)
P. [249], after the first paragraph. Jacob's wrestling with “a man” (Gen. xxxii. 24 ff.) brings out the interesting name Peniel or Penuel (vv. 30 and 31), explained as “the face of God,” so called because he had there “seen God face to face.” A similar name to this is the Babylonian Ana-pâni-îli, “to the face of God,” sometimes shortened to Appâni-îli. The documents bearing the latter are of the time of Samsu-iluna, and are therefore rather earlier than the time of Jacob. Besides the meaning given above, other renderings are possible, and the question arises, whether Ana-pâni-îli means “(let me go) to the presence” or “before the face of God,” or that its bearer was asked for by his father “at the presence of God.” Many other possible renderings will also, in all probability, occur to the reader, but it is noteworthy, that in this case, the Biblical narrative may, by chance, serve to explain this Babylonian compound, for as “the man” with whom Jacob wrestled was the representative of the Almighty, so pâni in the Babylonian name may be interpreted in the same way, and the person bearing it may have been offered or dedicated to the face, or presence (that is, the representative) of God. It is to be noted that the owner of the name on Mr. Offord's cylinder (pl. vi. no. 2) was a worshipper of the god Hadad or Rimmon, and was not, therefore, a monotheist.
P. [273], l. 8. The date of Amenophis II., according to Petrie, was about 1449 to 1423.
P. [278]. The non-Semitic pronunciation of Ninip was possibly Nirig, and the Semitic reading En-mašti (so Prof. A. T. Clay). An earlier reading of the Aramaic character regarded as m was n, which would give Ênu-rêštū, “the primæval lord,” or the like, a title of Ninip and of other gods. For other suggestions, see Hrozný in the Revue Sémitique, July 1908.
P. [279], l. 2. The name Bidina may also be read Kaština, apparently a variant of the Babylonian Bidinnam or Kaštinnam.
L. 12 ff. The mention of Dumu-zi, i.e. Tammuz or Adonis, goes back to about 3500 b.c., or earlier. Hymns to Tammuz in the dialect of the Sumerian language exist, dating from about 2000 years before Christ, the most noteworthy of these compositions [pg 556] at present known being that preserved in the Manchester Museum.
L. 27. Mutzu'u. It is doubtful whether this name is complete on the tablet where it occurs. Possibly Mutzuata, a name occurring on the Bronze Gates found by Mr. Rassam at Balawat, furnishes an indication as to the way in which it should be completed. (Knudtzon reads Mut-baḫlu, written for Mut-ba'la, possibly meaning “the man of his lord.”)
L. 31. Yabitiri. The inscription referring to his early life is translated on pp. [284-285].
L. 37. For Addu-nirari, read Adad-nirari, the Assyrian form.
P. [280], line 4 and note. Nin-Urmuru (?) Knudtzon reads as Bêlit(= Ba'lat)-Ur-Maḫ-Meš. In Assyro-Babylonian this would probably be read Bêlit-nêši, a name meaning “the lady of the lions.”
P. [286], note 1. For the name Mut-zu'u, compare the note to p. [279], l. 27, above. Knudtzon's new translation differs somewhat from that given here.
P. [293], l. 26. Another Zimrêda (to all appearance) is mentioned in an inscription in the British Museum. This text comes from Babylonia, and is possibly of an earlier date. It apparently refers to the affairs of the Babylonian principality of Suḫu and Maër.
P. [319], l. 14. Suḫi and Maër are mentioned together in the document referred to above, note to p. [293], and in the inscription of Šamaš-rêš-uṣur, governor of that district, published by Dr. Weissbach in his Babylonische Miscellen. This district lay, according to that scholar, somewhere near the point where the Habûr runs into the Euphrates. As the western boundary of this state is entirely unknown, the full value of Tiglath-pileser I.'s boast cannot be estimated, but the district ravaged must have been a considerable stretch of country.
P. [325]. The inscription referring to Gazzāni probably forms part of one of those in which the ruler asks the gods (generally Šamaš and Hadad) for success against the countries which he intended to invade. Sargon of Assyria, Esarhaddon, and Aššur-banî-âpli (Assurbanipal) all had similar inscriptions composed for them. From the manner in which the text is written, however, it is probable that it antedates these.
P. [329], l. 4 from below. Instead of “advanced,” another possible translation is “rose up.”
P. [330], l. 3. Instead of Gilzau, Kirzau and several other readings are possible.
The “battle of Qarqara,” as it is generally called, is illustrated by strip I (old mark C) of the Bronze Gates of Shalmaneser [pg 557] II.[341] The scenes only represent the capture of the cities Pargâ, Adâ, and Qarqara of Urḫilêni (= Irḫulêni) of the land of the Hamathites, there being no reference either to Ahab, or to his allies. The city of Qarqara was later on taken by Sargon (see p. [363]).
P. [341], l. 4. Instead of Persia, read Pahlav as the identification of Parsua (Hommel).
P. [343], l. 22. As the character translated “lady” means also “sister,” it may in reality indicate the relationship of Sammu-ramat to Bêl-tarṣi-îli-ma.
P. [346], l. 22. Tiglath-pileser “III.,” or “IV.”
P. [347], l. 25. Sardurri of Ararat is the Sardaris (II.) of the Armenian cuneiform texts.
P. [349], l. 6. Ḫatarikka is also spelled with one k, as on pp. [344] and [345].
P. [374], l. 20. In Kammusu-nadbi we have an instance of the occurrence of the name of Chemosh, the national god of the Moabites. This name is also found in that of Kamušu-šarra-uṣur, apparently a Babylonian, perhaps of Moabite origin (see the note to p. [466]).
P. [376], l. 21. Urbi occurs as the name of a city or district in a Babylonian geographical list, from which we learn also that there was an “upper” and a “lower” Urbi. It is immediately followed by Pulug (see the note to p. [145]).
L. 8. from below. Kallima-Sin is now read Kadašman-Ḫarbe (or Muruš).
P. [381], foot-note. According to Prof. W. Max Müller, Orientalische Literaturzeitung, Nov., 1902, Mer-en-Ptah and “the great sorcerer and high-priest of Memphis” were brothers, and the incident of the vision took place before Mer-en-Ptah's battle with the Libyans, when, as he himself states, he saw in a dream a figure like that of Ptah, who said to him “Take,” giving him the sword, and “Put away from thee thy faintheartedness.” Max Müller attributes the chronological error neither to Herodotus nor to the Egyptian scribes who supplied him with information, but to Hecataeus of Miletus, whose work Herodotus used—“an Egyptian would not have made such a chronological blunder.” This, naturally, much diminishes the value of the extract as a parallel to the account of the destruction of Sennacherib's army before Jerusalem.
P. [384], l. 1 ff. The following is Nabonidus's account of the murder of Sennacherib and the events which led up to it, from [pg 558] the inscription published by the Rev. V. Scheil in the Recueil des Travaux relatifs à la Philologie et à l'Archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes, vol. XVIII., pp. 1 ff.:—
“He (this must be Sennacherib) went to Babylon, he laid its sanctuaries in ruin, he destroyed the reliefs,[342] the statues he overthrew. He took the hands of the prince, Merodach, and caused him to enter within Aššur[343]—according to the anger of the god then he treated the land. The prince, Merodach, did not cease from his wrath—for 21 years he set up his seat within Aššur. (In) later days a time arrived, the anger of the king of the gods, the lords, was then appeased. He remembered E-sagila and Babylon, the seat of his dominion. The king of Mesopotamia,[344] who during the anger of Merodach had accomplished the ruin of the land, the son born of his body slew him with the sword.”
For the Babylonians, the Assyrian king was the instrument of Merodach's wrath.
P. [385]. The British Museum “black stone” mentions Esarhaddon's elder brothers: “I, Esarhaddon, whom thou (O Merodach) hast called, in the assembly of my elder brothers, to restore those buildings” (i.e. the temples, etc., damaged by floods).
P. [393]. Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, in an inscription found by the German expedition, and published by Dr. Weissbach in his Babylonische Miscellen, refers to the downfall of Assyria in the following words:—
“The Assyrian, who from remote days ruled all people, and with his heavy yoke oppressed the people of the land,[345] I, the weak, the humble, the worshipper of the lord of lords, by the mighty force of Nebo and Merodach, my lords, cut off their feet from the land of Akkad, and caused their yoke to be thrown off.”
As the text is not of any great length, Nabopolassar could not give details, but notwithstanding his humility, it is noteworthy that he takes all the credit to himself. The inscription is written on four cylinders from Ê-ḫatta-tila, the temple of Ninip in Šu-anna.
P. [399], l. 8. The spelling of the name of Nebuchadnezzar differs somewhat in the various inscriptions, but the meaning is always practically the same—“Nebo, protect the boundary” or “my boundary,” according as the second component ends in a or i. In Nabium (p. [398], l. 7 from below) we have an old form fully spelt out.
Emblems used by Esarhaddon, and carved on the upper surface of the black stone presented to the British Museum by Lord Aberdeen. It represents a divine tiara upon an altar, a priest, the sacred tree of the Assyrians, a bull, a mountain (?), a plough, a date-palm, and a rectangular object—perhaps the walls of a town. The same emblems, arranged in a circle, are found on the cylinders from Babylon inscribed with his architectural works in that city.
P. [400], l. 25. The name of at least one Nabû-zer-iddina (son [pg 559] of Ab[laa?], descendant of Irani) occurs in the contracts of the time of Nebuchadnezzar. This man, however, was a scribe, and there is no indication that he had ever been captain of the guard.
P. [403], ll. 7 ff. The penalty of death by fire, inflicted on Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, receives illustration from the notes to p. [480].
P. [405], l. 21. The German excavations at Babylon have revealed the appearance of the gate of Ištar as a plain opening in a wall of the city, covered with glazed brickwork, ornamented with bulls and dragons alternately, arranged in vertical rows, a decoration which is repeated in the thickness of the wall and in the inner recesses. (See Delitzsch's Im Lande des einstigen Paradieses, figures 25 and 26.) For the position of the gate, see the note to pp. [471], [472].
P. [406], ll. 2 and 3 from below. “The House of the Foundation of Heaven and earth” is the Ê-temen-ana-kia of p. [138].
P. [413], above. As an example of the sending of the statues of deities temporarily away from their shrines, see p. [278], where mention is made of the image of Ištar of Nineveh, sent to Egypt by king Dušratta.
P. [415], l. 23, and four following pages. Ugbaru and Gubaru are generally regarded as two forms of the name Gobryas, and though this seems certain, there is just the possibility, that they are the names of two different persons.
P. [425], l. 10 from below. The tablet mentioning Zēru-Bâbîli son of Mutêriṣu exists in two examples, one being in the British Museum, and the other (which has an Aramaic docket) in the possession of Mr. Joseph Offord. It is translated in the Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund, July, 1900, pp. 264 ff.
P. [439], l. 26. The raqundu was probably a weaver's or embroiderer's tool, returned in exchange for that lent.
P. [446], ll. 8 ff. from below. The inscription referred to is published in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology, Dec. 1895, pp. 278, 279.
P. [453], ll. 6-8. Prof. Campbell Thompson translates: “I send this as a trouble to my brothers”—i.e. “I am sorry to trouble you, but I hope you will do what is right.”
P. [457], l. 19. Arad-Mede may also be read Arad-Gula. In the next line Šubabu-sara' may be Šumabu-sara'.
P. [466] (the sale of an Egyptian slave). Another text of the same nature, dated in the same year, is in the De Clercq collection. It refers to the sale of an Egyptian slave-woman named Tamūnu (“she of Amon”). The text is published, with a translation by Prof. J. Oppert, in the second vol. of the [pg 560] Catalogue.[346] The slave in question belonged to Itti-Nabû-balaṭu, son of Kamušu-šarra-uṣur, “Chemosh, protect the king”—probably indicating that the bearer of the name was of Moabite origin, or the introduction of the god of the Moabites into Babylonia.
Pp. [471-472]. The German excavations have already settled many doubtful points concerning the topography of Babylon, and it is certain that, after the destruction of the city, exaggerated accounts of its enormous extent obtained credence. According to Delitzsch, it was not larger than Munich or Dresden, though even that is a good size for an Oriental city. The principal ruins are on the right bank of the river, and included Babil (“Probably a palace”), to protect which the city-wall makes a considerable angle on the north. From this point the wall continues its course in a south-easterly direction for a considerable distance, and turning at a right angle at its farthest point from the river, runs back in a south-westerly direction to meet it again. About a mile south of Babil the visitor comes upon the great ruin known as the Kasr, where stood Nebuchadnezzar's second palace. On the eastern side of this is the “procession-street” of the god Merodach, from which came some very fine reliefs of “the Lion of Babylon,” beautifully wrought in coloured and enamelled brick. The temple of the goddess Nin-maḫ lay to the south-east of the southern end of the street, and between the two was situated the celebrated Gate of Ištar, adorned with lions and strangely-formed dragons, already referred to (p. [551]). Proceeding to the south-west from the temple of Nin-maḫ, we reach Nebuchadnezzar's earlier palace, a very extensive structure, with a spacious court-yard and a large hall used as a throne-room, on the south side of which the recess for the throne is still visible. The palace of his father Nabopolassar, which adjoined it on the west, has not yet been excavated. About half-a-mile to the south of these palaces lie the ruins of the great temple of Belus, in the mound now known as Amran-ibn-Ali (see pp. [137] ff., [476], [480], ff.). The German excavations have thus confirmed the identification of the site, as indicated in the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, vol. I., pl. 48, no. 9 (published in 1861). This text, which is a brick-inscription of Esarhaddon, reads as follows:—
“Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, king of Babylon, has caused the brickwork of Ê-saggil, Ê-temen-ana-kia, to be built anew for Merodach his lord.”
According to the German plan, the portion of the city on the west of the river was of exceedingly small extent.
Artists will soon be able to depict the scenery of Babylon as a background for pictures of this world-renowned city with considerable accuracy.
P. [478], l. 24. An alternative rendering instead of “sculptor,” is “seal-engraver.”
P. [480]. On account of the Greek words, I give here a transcription of the late Babylonian text of the extract printed on this page:—
An(tiukkusu) šarru ina âlāni ša mât Meluḫḫa šalṭaniš itta-luku-ma ... (amēlu) puliṭê puppê u êpšētam ša kima uṣurtu (amēlu) Yāwannu....
Uṣurtu may be translated “bas-relief” instead of “shrine,” but the rendering would not be materially changed thereby.
The remainder of the inscription, which is exceedingly interesting, is rather mutilated, and a trustworthy translation of it is at present exceedingly difficult. Certain thieves (šarraqa), however, seem to be mentioned, and had to all appearance stripped (iqlubū) the image of Uru-gala and another, “a deity whose name was called Ammani'ita.” On the 10th of Marcheswan these thieves were captured and imprisoned, and on the 13th to all appearance judged and condemned. Ûmu šuati ina išati qalû, “That day they were burnt in the fire”—such is the end of the story.
This seems not to be in accordance with the laws of sacrilegious theft, as stated in sections 6 and 8 of Ḫammurabi's code. Perhaps the law had changed in the 1800 years which had elapsed since the time of that ruler; or stripping a sacred image was a much more heinous crime than mere theft from a temple, which, in the first degree, was punishable with death.
It is noteworthy that refusal to worship the image set up by Nebuchadnezzar was visited, in Dan. iii, with the same penalty, probably as showing contempt for the divinity.
P. [484], l. 13. The river Ṣilḫu is probably the Sellas in Messinia, where one of the numerous cities named Apameia (Apam'(i)a) lay.
Pp. [489-491]. Not the least interesting of this long list of temples and cities are Aššur and Nineveh, of which we have here the earliest mention.