The Tower Of Babel.
There is no doubt that one of the most striking and attractive episodes of the sacred narrative of Genesis is the Tower of Babel. It has attracted the attention of all from its circumstantial details, and has, as an authoritative narrative, had the full belief of all the faithful for many thousand years. This being the case, it is needful to go rather carefully into the matter, not only to try to account for its origin, but also to satisfy the believer of to-day with regard to the story being a real historical fact.
“Of these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands,”—“These are the sons of Ham, after their families,”—“These are the sons of Shem, after their families,” says the author of Genesis in ch. x. 5, 20, and 31, and then he adds, in slightly varying words, “after their tongues, in their lands, in their nations.”
Yet, after this (ch. xi. 1) we have the statement, “And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.” Moreover, how was it possible that the whole of the nations of the earth there enumerated in the tenth chapter should have had their origin at Babel, the beginning of Nimrod's (Merodach's) kingdom, coeval with Erech, Akkad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar? The effect of such a statement as this would surely be to make the language of Nimrod the primitive language of the world, unless, indeed, all the languages of the earth resulting from the confusion of tongues were regarded as new, the primitive speech of man having been destroyed on that occasion. Then, again, as we know, the building of the city was not stopped, for it continued until it became the greatest and most important centre in the known world when it was at the height of its glory.
With the best will in the world, therefore, there [pg 133] seems to be no escape from regarding both the story of the Tower of Babel, and the reference to Nimrod and Asshur in the foregoing chapter as interpolations, giving statements from ancient and possibly fairly well-known records, recording what was commonly believed in the ancient East in those early ages. It is also noteworthy, that both extracts, referring as they do, to Babylonia, are probably on that account from a Babylonian source. May it not be possible, that they have been inserted in the sacred narrative as statements of what was the common opinion among the more well-informed inhabitants of Western Asia at the time, without any claim to an inspired authority being either stated or implied? This would seem to be the most reasonable way of looking at the matter, and would take away what might well be regarded as a great difficulty to the believer in good faith.
If this be conceded, we can with the greater ease analyze this portion of the eleventh chapter of Genesis, and estimate it at its true value.
In any case, there is great improbability that the statement that the whole earth was of one language and of one speech, was ever believed, by thinking men at the time as an actual historical fact. A better translation would be “the whole land,” that is, the whole tract of country from the mountains of Elam to the Mediterranean Sea, rather than “the whole earth.” The same word is used when the “land” of Israel is spoken of, and also when “the land of Egypt” is referred to. It will thus be seen that no violence whatever is done to the text if the restricted use of the word be accepted.
That this is, in a sense, provable as an historical fact, we shall see in the sequel.
Having thus in a measure cleared the way, the various points of the first nine verses of the eleventh chapter of Genesis may be taken in order.
“As they journeyed in the east” apparently refers [pg 134] to the remembrance of the migrations that many a nation, handing down its traditions from mouth to mouth, must have preserved in ancient times. Whilst thus engaged, “they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there”—a statement which would seem to point to the migrants having been wandering about in various districts, some of them mountainous—like Armenia on the north of Assyria, and Elam and other mountainous tracts on the east. This would seem to agree with the migration which, from the evidence of the monuments of Babylonia, the Akkadians apparently made before they settled in that country. And here it may be noted, in support of that fact, that the ideograph[14] for Akkad, Uri or Ura in Akkadian, and Akkadū in Semitic Babylonian, not only stood for Akkad, but also (often used in the Assyrian letters) for Ararat (Urṭū), and likewise (this in a syllabary only) for Amurrū, the land of the Amorites, or Phœnicia. Both these being districts more or less mountainous, it is only reasonable to suppose that the original home of the Akkadians was likewise of the same nature, and that they were not aborigines of the Babylonian plain. The Akkadians at least, therefore, “journeyed in the east.”
In the expression “they found a plain in the land of Shinar,” we have a reference to the old name of a district of Babylonia, generally regarded as the Šumer of the Babylonian inscriptions, called Kingi or Kengi “the country” par excellence in the native tongue of the inhabitants. The land of Shinar here spoken of, if this explanation be correct, not merely contained a plain—it was, in fact, itself a large plain, through which the rivers Tigris and Euphrates ran, and it was covered, when the land had been brought into a really good state of cultivation, by a network of canals connected with them. It must, when the ancient Akkadians first settled there, have been a land of remarkable [pg 135] fertility, and would be so still were it brought into the same efficient state of cultivation, with irrigation and drainage, such as the old inhabitants effected.
Here, having settled down, they built a city and a tower, using brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar—just as they are proved to have done from the remains of cities found in the country at the present day. That Babylon was the site of the first settlement of the nature of a city is conceivable, and it is very possible that the first tower in Babylonia, which in later times had many towers, as had also Assyria, was situated in that ancient city. Everything points, therefore, to the correctness of the statements made in this portion of the sacred narrative. According to native tradition, however (and this seems to be supported by the statements in ch. x. 10), there were other important cities on the Babylonian plain of almost equal antiquity, namely, Erech, Akkad, and Calneh, which last is identified with Niffer (see p. [126]). Notwithstanding the extensive ruins, proof of the same remote date for Babylon will doubtless be difficult to obtain, on account of the country around and a large portion of the site of the city being so marshy. The result of this condition of things will in all probability be, that very few remains of a really ancient date will be discovered in a condition to render services to archæology. To this must also be added the fact, that the city, being the capital for some thousands of years, underwent many changes at the hands of its various kings, partly from the necessity of keeping in good repair the many comparatively perishable brick monuments that the city contained, and partly from a desire to add more to the glories of the city than any of their predecessors had done.
“And they said, Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, and its top (lit. head) shall be in the heavens.” To all appearance, this means simply that they would [pg 136] build a very high structure,—to many a student of the sacred text it has seemed that the writer only intended to say, that the tower (migdol) that they were about to build was to be very high. The mountains of Elam were not so very far off, and travellers from that part would have been able to assure them that the heavens would not be appreciably nearer on account of their being a few hundred cubits above the surface of the earth, even if traditions of their fathers' wanderings had not assured them of the same thing. They wished simply to make them a name and a rallying-point, “lest,” as the sacred text has it, “we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”
And here a few remarks upon the temple-towers of the Babylonians might not be out of place.
As has already been stated, most of the principal towns of Babylonia each possessed one. That of Babylon (called Šu-ana in the list published in the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, vol. ii., pl. 50) was named Ê-temen-ana, “the temple of the foundation-stone of Heaven”; that of Borsippa, near to Babylon, was called Ê-ur-imina-ana, generally translated “the temple of the seven spheres of heaven,” on account of its being dedicated to the sun, moon, and planets. This was a high and massive tower in seven stages, each coloured with an emblematic tint indicating the heavenly body with which each stage was associated. At Niffer the tower seems to have had three names, or else there were three towers (which is unlikely), the principal one being Im-ur-sag. Agade, the Akkad of Gen. x. 10, had two of these temple-towers, Ê-Dadia, apparently meaning “the temple of the (divine) Presence,” and Ê-šu-gala or Ê-igi-ê-di, the latter apparently meaning “the temple of the wonder (of mankind),” which was dedicated to the god Tammuz. At Cuthah there was the temple of Nannara (Nan-naros); at Ur the temple Ê-šu-gan-du-du; at Erech Ê-gipara-imina, “the temple of the seven enclosures”; [pg 137] at Larsa Ê-dur-an-ki, “the Temple of the bond of heaven and earth.”
The only temple-tower that contains in its name a distinct reference to the seven stages of which it was composed, is that at Borsippa, though that at Erech may possibly have in its name “seven enclosures” a suggestion of something of the kind. As, however, the ruins of the towers at Dûr-Sargina (Khorsabad) in Assyria, Erech, Niffer, and elsewhere, show distinctly this form of architecture, there is every probability that they were all, or almost all, built on the same plan. In his description of the glories of Babylon, Herodotus gives details, in his usual minute way, of the temple of Belos (Ê-sagila) there. He describes it as having eight stages (the platform upon which the tower proper was built being counted as one), and judging from his description, this building must have differed somewhat from the others, the various platforms being connected by a gradually rising ascent, arranged spirally as it were, so that by constantly walking upwards, and turning at the corners of the edifice, one at last reached the top. About the middle of this long ascending pathway there was a stopping-place, with seats to rest upon. Having reached the top of the structure, the visitor came upon a cell, within which there was a couch and a golden table. Here it was supposed that the god descended from time to time to dwell. Below, he relates, there was another cell, wherein was a large statue of Zeus (Belos) sitting. This image was of gold, as were also the table in front of it, the god's footstool, and his seat. It is probable that at the time to which the narrative in Genesis refers, the tower was neither so high, nor the workmanship so splendid and valuable, as in later times.
But was this the Tower of Babel? We do not know. The general opinion is that the great and celebrated temple-tower at Borsippa, extensive remains [pg 138] of which still exist, was that world-renowned erection. Its name, however, was Ê-zida, and it was not situated within Babylon. Notwithstanding the fact, therefore, that Borsippa, the town on the outskirts of the great city, was called “the second Babylon,” and that tradition associates the site of the Tower of Babel with that spot, it must still be held to be very doubtful whether that was really the place. Neither the renown of Ê-zida nor that of Ê-sagila prove that either of them must have been the place, for the populace is fickle-minded in this as in other matters, and holy fanes have the periods when they are in fashion, just like anything else.
This being the case, the question is, what was that Ê-temen-ana-kia which is apparently mentioned in the list of temple-towers quoted above? In many an inscription of Nebuchadnezzar, this temple-tower is referred to, though very shortly, as having been restored by him. Thus, in the great cylinder of Nebuchadnezzar, 85-4-30, i, the following occurs—
“I caused the fanes of Babylon and Borsippa to be rebuilt and endowed.
Ê-temen-ana-kia, the temple-tower of Babylon;
Ê-ur-imina-ana-kia, the temple-tower of Borsippa, all their structure with bitumen and brick
I made, I completed.”
In the above Ê-temen-ana-kia takes the place of Ê-sagila, and Ê-ur-imina-ana-kia that of Ê-zida, implying that they respectively belonged to each other. The passage corresponding to the above in the India House Inscription is greatly expanded, and recounted with much detail. The portion referring to Ê-temen-ana-kia is as follows—
“The vessels of the temple Ê-sagila with massive gold—
the bark Ma-kua (Merodach's shrine) with electrum and stones—
I made glorious
like the stars of heaven.
The fanes of Babylon
I caused to be rebuilt and endowed.
Of Ê-temen-ana-kia
with brick and bright lapis stone
I reared its head.
To rebuild Ê-sagila
my heart urged me—
constantly did I set myself,” etc., etc.
According to the plan of Babylon drawn up by Weissbach, one of the German explorers, Ê-temen-ana-kia was situated to the north of Ê-sagila, which latter was evidently the temple connected with it. As both were dedicated to Merodach (Bel), they practically formed one centre of worship, and it is possibly on this account that the Tower is called “the Temple of Belus” in Herodotus. The description, from a Babylonian tablet probably in private hands, published by the late George Smith, agrees well with that given by Herodotus, but has some noteworthy differences—the great height of the lowest stage, the sloping (?) sides of the second stage, and the buildings grouped near it. Unfortunately, the baked brickwork of Ê-temen-ana-kia has been cleared away, practically destroying the remains.
Concerning the miracle of the confusion of tongues, there is, of course, no historical reference. The Babylonian inscriptions know nothing of it. Yet the stranger visiting Babylon could not have been otherwise than struck by the number of languages spoken there. There was the religious tongue, which is called by modern scholars Akkadian or Šumerian, and its dialect, together with the language known as Assyrian, or, more correctly, Semitic Babylonian. [pg 140] Besides this, there were various Aramaic dialects—Chaldee, Aramean (Syriac), and the language of the dockets on the trade-documents, which is also found in Assyria. In addition to these, the Elamite and Kassite conquerors of Babylonia brought with them large numbers of people, and each of these nations naturally introduced, in larger measure than before, the use of their respective languages. Speakers of other tongues long since dead must also have visited the city for the purposes of trade, and of this the so-called Hittite is in all probability an example (in the researches of Profs. Sayce and Jensen we shall, perhaps, see the beginnings of the recovery of this tongue), and a docket in an unknown script implies that yet another language heard there in later times has to be discovered, though this may simply be some other way of writing one of the tongues spoken there that is already known to scholars. With regard to the oneness of the language of the rest of the earth, in all probability this expression referred, as has been already remarked, to the tract enclosed between the mountains of Persia on the east, the Mediterranean on the west, Asia Minor and Armenia on the north, and Arabia on the south—a tract in which the lingua franca of diplomacy was, as is proved by the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, the tongue now called Assyrian, which could easily have been regarded as the proofs and the remains of the thing that had been.
To recapitulate: The story of the Tower of Babel is a break in the narrative of the genealogies, so striking that any thinking man must have been able to recognize it easily. It is a narrative that practically glorifies Babylonia, making it the centre of the human race, and the spot from which they all migrated after the dispersion caused by the confusion of tongues. It was probably given for, and recognized as, the legend current in Babylonia at the time, and must, [pg 141] therefore, have been recognized and valued by the people of the time at its true worth.
The Patriarchs To Abraham.
Little information is unfortunately to be obtained from Assyro-Babylonian sources concerning the patriarchs from Shem to Abraham. It is true that certain comparisons can be made in the matter of the names, but these, when more precise information comes to light, may be found to be more or less erroneous. As a matter of fact, with one or two exceptions, it is probable that we have nothing from Babylonian sources bearing on the patriarchs who preceded Abraham at all.
Nevertheless, there are one or two things that may be put forward in a more or less tentative way, and these may well be discussed with this reservation in this place.
As we have seen, it was the custom of the early Babylonians to deify the early rulers of their race, and as a well-known example of this, the case of the god Merodach will at once occur to the mind. As has been shown, this deity is none other than the long-known and enigmatical hero Nimrod, and it is probable that, if we had more and more complete sources of information, other instances would be found. This being the case, it may be permitted to the student to try to find similar instances of deification by the Babylonians of the men of old who were their ancestors in common with the Jews and other nations of the ancient East.
To begin with Shem, the name of the ancestor of the Semitic race. As a word, this means, in Hebrew, “name.” Now, the Assyro-Babylonian equivalent and cognate word is šumu, “name,” and this naturally leads one to ask whether Shem may not have been designated “He of the Name” par excellence, and [pg 142] deified under that appellation. If this be the case, we may perhaps see the word Shem in certain names of kings and others of the second dynasty of Babylon (that to which Ḫammurabi or Amraphel belonged, and which held the power from about 2230 to 1967 b.c.). Sumu-abi, the name of the first ruler of the dynasty, would then mean “Shem is my father,” Sumu-la-ili would mean “a name to his god,” with a punning allusion to the deified ancestor of the Semitic nations.
Other names, not royal, are Sumu-Upê, apparently, “Shem of Opis”; Sumu-Dagan, “Shem is Dagon,” or “Name of Dagon”; Sumu-ḫatnu, “Shem is a protection”; Sumu-atar, “Shem is great,” and the form Samu-la-ili for Sumu-la-ili leads one to ask whether Samia may not be for Sumia, “my Shem,” a pet name abbreviated from a longer one similar to those already quoted; Sumu-ya (= Sumia) also occurs. All these forms, being written with s, instead of š, like Samsu-iluna for Šamšu-iluna, betray foreign (so-called Arabic) influence, and are not native Babylonian. That the Babylonians had at this time names compounded with the native representative of Sumu is shown by the contracts of that time, where the name Šumum-libši, “let there be a name,” occurs. Many later instances of this are to be found.[15]
From other than Bible sources there is but little that can be gathered concerning the descendants of Shem, though in this, as in many other things, one lives in hopes of something coming to light later on. And such a record, as may readily be imagined, would be of the greatest interest and value. Shem, as one of those born before the Flood, must certainly on that [pg 143] account have been renowned (as we have just seen he was, if it be true that he was deified) among other nations of Semitic stock than the Hebrews. To all appearance, the lives of the patriarchs decreased greatly after the Flood, and are represented, in the Bible narrative, as gradually assuming the average duration of those who attain a hoary old age at the present day. It is noteworthy that his eldest son was born two years after the Flood, and if this have any ethnic meaning, it ought to point to the foundation of the settlement known as Arpachshad at about that period, though it could not have attained to the renown of a well-known and recognized community until some time after that date.
The theory that Arpachshad represents a community is rather supported by the fact that it is mentioned in Gen. x. 22, where it is accompanied by the names of Elam, Asshur, Lud, and Aram, which were later, as we know, names of nationalities. Indeed, the long lives of the patriarchs of this exceedingly early period are best explained if we suppose that they represent a people or community.
There is a considerable amount of difference of opinion as to the correct identification of the Arpachshad of Gen. ix. 10, though nearly every critic places the country it represents in the same tract. It has been identified with Arrapkha, or Arrapachitis, in Assyria. Schrader makes it to be for Arpa-cheshed, “the coast of the Chaldeans.” Prof. Hommel, who is always ready with a seductive and probable etymology, suggests that Arpachshad is an Egyptianized way of writing Ur of the Chaldees—Ar-pa-Cheshed, for Ur-pa-Cheshed.
This, it must be admitted, is a possible etymology, for Egyptianized words were really used in that district in ancient times. This is shown in the name of Merodach, Asari, which is apparently connected with the Egyptian Osiris, just as one of the [pg 144] names of the Sun-god Šamaš, Amna, is probably an Akkadianized form of the Egyptian Ammon, and even the Egyptian word for “year,” ronpet, made, probably by early Babylonian scribes, into a kind of pun, became, by the change of a vowel, ran pet, “name of heaven,” transcribed, by those same scribes, into mu-anna, which, in its ordinary signification, means likewise “name of heaven,” in Akkadian; the whole being used with the meaning of ronpet, i.e. “year.” It will thus be seen that there is but little that is unlikely in Prof. Hommel's etymology of Arpachshad, and that the explanation which he gives may turn out to be correct.[16]
In any case, we may take it that the consensus of opinion favours the supposition that the name in question refers to Babylonia, and if this be the case, Abraham, the father of the Hebrew nation, as well as of other peoples, was really, as has been supposed, of Babylonian or Chaldean origin. This is also implied by the statement in Gen. xi. 28, that Ur of the Chaldees was the land of the nativity of Haran, Abraham's brother, who died in the country of his birth before the family of Terah went to settle at Haran, on the way to Canaan. The theory of the identity of Arpachshad is moreover important, because it is contended that Ur of the Chaldees was not in Babylonia, but is to be identified with the site known as Urfa, in Mesopotamia.
Concerning the names of Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, and Nahor, there is not much that can be said. To all appearance they are not Babylonian names, or, rather, they receive little or no illustration from [pg 145] Babylonian sources. Nothing is recorded concerning these patriarchs except their ages at the time their eldest sons were born, and at what age they died. The question whether the Hebrews derived their name from their ancestor Eber is not set at rest by any passage in the Bible, nor is there any statement in secular literature which would enable this to be decided. To all appearance, it is needful to keep the name of Eber distinct from that of the Hebrews, notwithstanding that they are from the same root. If, however, the Hebrews were “the men from beyond,” then Eber may well have been “the man from beyond,” indicating for his time a migration similar to that of Abraham. In this way, if in no other, the names may be connected.
We have seen that in many cases the names of these “genealogical tables” are regarded as nationalities, and, indeed, there is sufficient justification for such a theory on account of many of the names appearing as those of well-known nations. This being conceded, it would probably not be too much to regard the names of the patriarchs from Shelah to Serug as indicating ethnical historical events. Thus Shelah might mean “extension,” indicating the time when the Semitic race began to go beyond its ancient borders. Treating the other names in the same way, Eber would mean the period when that race crossed some river into another district; Peleg would mean that, at the time referred to, that race, or a portion of it, was divided into small states, as Babylonia was at the period preceding that of the dynasty of Amraphel; whilst Reu would mean “friendliness,” denoting the time when those states were united under one head, and the old dissensions ceased. Serug would then mean something like “interweaving,” perhaps referring to the time when the various races (? of Babylonia) intermingled. These explanations of the names receive a certain amount of confirmation from [pg 146] the parallel list in Gen. x. 25, where to the name Peleg the note is added, “for in his days was the earth divided.”
With regard to Nahor and his son Terah the Jews had other traditions, and they speak thus concerning them—
“Terah, son of Nahor, was the chief officer of king Nimrod, and a great favourite with his royal master. And when his wife Amtheta, the daughter of Kar-Nebo, bare him a son, she called his name Abram, meaning ‘great father.’ And Terah was seventy years old when his son Abram was born.”
Here we have, in Amtheta, a doubtful Babylonian name, in Kar-Nebo a possible Babylonian name, and in the meaning of Abram a signification that does not militate against the indications given by the tablets of Babylonia and Assyria. This being the case, it would seem that there were trustworthy data to go upon for certain facts connected with Abraham's ancestors, and that these facts were known to the Jews of earlier ages. The Talmudic account of the wonders seen at the birth of Abram, however, are not sufficiently worthy of credence to allow of repetition here, notwithstanding their reference to Terah and Abraham's youth.
Eusebius quotes the following from Eupolemus concerning Abraham—
“He saith, moreover, that in the tenth generation in a city of Babylonia, called Camarina (which, by some, is called the city of Urie, and which signifyeth a city of the Chaldeans), there lived, the thirteenth in descent, (a man named) Abraham, a man of a noble race, and superior to all others in wisdom.
“Of him they relate that he was the inventor of astrology and the Chaldean magic, and that on account of his eminent piety he was esteemed by God. It is further said that under the directions of God he removed and lived in Phœnicia, and there taught the [pg 147] Phœnicians the motions of the sun and moon, and all other things; for which reason he was held in great reverence by their king” (Praep. Evan. 9).
Nicolas of Damascus, apparently wishing to glorify his own city, states that Abram was king of Damascus, and went there, with an army, from that part of the country which is situated above Babylon of the Chaldeans, afterwards transferring his dwelling to the land which was at that time called Canaan, but is now called Judea. Justin also states that Abraham lived at Damascus, from which city he traces the origin of the Jews.
According to the most trustworthy traditions, therefore, as well as from the Bible itself, Abraham was of Chaldean or Babylonian origin. If the city of Urie or Ur be, as he says, that which was also called Camarina, this would in all probability be the Aramean form of the Arabic qamar, “the moon,” and the name Camarina would be due to the fact that the Moon-god, Sin or Nannara, was worshipped there. It is also noteworthy that the city whither the family of Terah emigrated, Haran (in Assyro-Babylonian, Ḫarran), was likewise a centre of lunar worship, and some have sought to see in that a reason for choosing that settlement. In connection with this it may be remarked, that in the Talmud Terah, the father of Abraham, is represented as an idolater, reproved by his son Abraham for foolish and wicked superstition.
We see, therefore, from the eleventh chapter of Genesis, that Abraham was a Babylonian from Ur, now known as Mugheir (Muqayyar), or (better still) from that part of the country which lay north of Babylon, known by the non-Semitic inhabitants as Uri, and by the Semitic population as Akkad. As the family of Terah was a pastoral one, they must have pastured their flocks in this district until they heard of those more fruitful tracts in the west, and decided to emigrate thither. And here it may be noted that [pg 148] they did not, by thus quitting their fatherland, go to swear allegiance to another ruler, for the sway of the king of Babylon extended to the farthest limits of the patriarch's wanderings, and wherever he went, Babylonian and Aramean or Chaldean would enable him to make himself understood. He was, therefore, always as it were in his own land, under the governors of the same king who ruled in the place of his birth.
The name of the patriarch, moreover, seems to betray the place of his origin. The first name that he bore was Abram, which has already been compared with the Abu-ramu, “honoured father,” of the Assyrian eponym-lists (in this place an official by whose name the year 677, the 5th year of Esarhaddon, was distinguished). At an earlier date than this the name has not been found, and the element ram, ramu, rame, etc., seems to be rare. Ranke's list gives only Sumu-ramê, “the name is established,” or “Sumu (? Shem) is established,” or something similar, but ramê here is probably not connected with the second syllable of Abram's name. The name of Sarah has been compared with the Assyro-Babylonian šarratu, “queen,” but seems not to occur in the inscriptions. Isaak is also absent, but Ishmael, under the form of Išme-îlu (meaning “(the) god has heard”) occurs, as well as others in which îlu is replaced by Êa, Sin, and Addu or Adad (Hadad).
When, however, it was revealed to Abram that he was to stay in the Promised Land, a change was made in his name—he was no longer known by the Assyro-Babylonian name Abram, “honoured father,” but, in view of the destiny appointed for him, he was to be called Abraham, “father of a multitude of nations.”
The first stratum of the Hebrew nation was, therefore to all appearance, Babylonian, the second stratum Aramean, probably a kindred stock, whilst the third was to all appearance Canaanitish. All these must have left their trace on the Hebrew character, and, [pg 149] like most mixed races, they showed at all times superior intelligence in many ways. They were good diplomates, brave warriors, divine lawgivers, and they excelled in literary skill. One great defect they had—among their many defects—they were stiffnecked to a fatal degree. Had their kings been less obstinate and better rulers, conciliating their subjects instead of exasperating them, the nation might have outlasted the power of Rome, and built upon its ruins in their land a kingdom dominating the Semitic world in the nearer East to the present day.
Of all the characters of early Bible history, there is hardly one which stands out with greater prominence than the patriarch Abraham. And not only is it his history and personality that is important—the historical facts touched upon in the course of his biography are equally so. Facts concerning the ancient East, from Babylonia on the east to Egypt on the west, face the reader as he goes through that attractive narrative, and make him wonder at the state of society, the political situation, and the beliefs of the people which should have made his migrations possible, brought about the monotheistic belief which characterizes his life and that of his descendants, and enabled him and his sons after him to attain such a goodly store of the riches of this world.
To begin with Babylonia, his native place. As is well known, that country had already been in existence as a collection of communities far advanced in arts, sciences, and literature, at an exceedingly early date, and many of the small kingdoms of which it consisted had become united under Ḫammurabi (Amraphel) into one single state, making it one of the greatest powers at the time. Of course, it is not by any means improbable that something similar to this had existed before, but if so, we have no record of the fact, though it is certain that different states had from time to time become predominant and powerful to an extent hardly [pg 150] conceivable. The influence, if not the sway, of Sargon of Agadé, who reigned about 3800 years before Christ, for example, extended from Elam on the east to the Mediterranean on the west—a vast tract of territory to acknowledge the suzerainty of so small a state.
Babylonia, therefore, with a long history behind it, was beginning to feel, to all appearance, a new national life. It had passed the days when the larger states boasted strength begotten of mere size, and when the smaller states sought mutual protection against the larger, finding in that alone, or in the acknowledgment of an overlord, the security upon which their existence as separate states depended. There is every probability that it was at this time that the legends which formed the basis of Babylonian national literature were collected and copied, thus assuring their preservation. It is also probable that the translations from Akkadian of the numerous inscriptions written in that language, and the bilingual lists, syllabaries, and other texts of a similar nature, belong to this period.
The social condition of Babylonia itself at this time is now fairly well known. The ancient Akkadian laws were still in force, but as they did not provide for all the possibilities that might arise, a large series of legal enactments was compiled, in which points were decided in a very common-sense and just manner. It is noteworthy that the number of tablets of a legal nature is very numerous, and arouses the suspicion that the Babylonians were exceedingly fond of litigation, due, no doubt, to the tendency they had to overreach each other. It is therefore very probable that this is the reason why we meet with that remarkable contract of the purchase of the field of Machpelah from the children of Heth. One would have imagined that the frequent protestations, made by the head of the tribe there located, to the effect that he gave the field and the cave to Abraham, would have been sufficient, [pg 151] especially at that solemn moment of the burial of Sarah, and that the matter could have been put upon a legal footing later on. But no, the patriarch was determined to have the matter placed beyond dispute there and then, and knowing how prone the Babylonians (with whom he had passed his youth) were to deny a contract, and try to get back again, by perjury, what they had already parted with for value, the matter was at once placed beyond the possibility of being disputed in any court of law.[17]
Chapter V. Babylonia At The Time Of Abraham.
The first dynasty of Babylon—The extent of its dominion—The Amorites—Life in Babylonia at this time—The religious element—The king—The royal family—The people—Their manners and customs as revealed by the contract-tablets—Their laws.
Much has been learnt, but there is still much to learn, concerning the early history of Babylonia.
During the period immediately preceding that of the dynasty of Babylon—the dynasty to which Amraphel (Ḫammurabi) belonged—there is a gap in the list of the kings, which fresh excavations alone can fill up. Before this gap the records, as far as we know them, are in the Akkadian language. After this gap they are in the Semitic-Babylonian tongue. To all appearance, troublous times had come upon Babylonia. The native rulers had been swept away by the Elamites, who, in their turn, had been driven out by the Semitic kings of Babylonia, but those Semitic kings were not Babylonians by origin, notwithstanding that the native scribes, who drew up the lists of kings, describe them as being a Babylonian dynasty.
Envelope (Printed upside down on account of seal-impressions 2 to 4) of a contract-tablet recording a sale of land by Sin-êribam, Pî-sa-nunu, and Idis-Sin, three brothers, to Sin-ikîsam. Reign of Immerum, contemporary with Sumula-îlu, about 2100 b.c. Seal Impressions. 1. (Here reversed.) Two deities, one (in a flounced robe) holding a sceptre. On the left, a worshipper; on the right, a man overcoming a lion. This scene is repeated, less distinctly, on the left. 2. Left: Two deities, one holding a sceptre and a weapon; right: deity, divine attendant adoring, and worshipper (?). 3. Men overcoming lions; winged creature devouring a gazelle. 4. Figure on plinth, holding basket and cup; worshipper; deity, holding sword; lion (or dog); deity, holding weapon. Inscription: Aa (the moon-goddess), Samas (the sun-god). (Tablet 92,649 in the British Museum (Babylonian and Assyrian Room, Table-case A, No. 62). The edges have also some very fine impressions.)
The change may have been gradual, but it was great. Many of the small states which had existed at the time of Dungi, Bûr-Sin, Gimil-Sin, Ibi-Sin, and their predecessors had to all appearance passed away, and become part of the Babylonian Empire long before the dynasty of Babylon came to [pg 153] an end, though some at least were in existence in the time of the great conqueror Ḫammurabi. But the change was, as it would seem, not one of overlordship only—another change which had been gradually taking place was, by this, carried one step farther, namely, the Semiticizing of the country. Before the period of the dynasty of Babylon, the two races of Akkadians and Semitic Babylonians had been living side by side, the former (except in the kingdom of which Sippar was the capital) having the predominance, the records being written in the Akkadian language, and the kings bearing mainly Akkadian names, though there were, for the Semitic inhabitants, translations of those names. Translations of the inscriptions and legends, as well as the old Akkadian laws, probably did not (except in the Semitic kingdom of Agadé) exist.
How it came about is not known, but it is certain that, about 2200 years b.c., a purely Semitic dynasty occupied the throne of the chief ruler in Babylonia. The first king was Sumu-abi, who reigned 14 years. This monarch was followed by Sumu-la-ili and Zabû, 36 and 14 years respectively. Then come two rulers with Babylonian names—Abil-Sin and Sin-mubaliṭ, 18 years and 20 years. These are followed, in their turn, by Ḫammurabi (43), Samsu-iluna (38), Ebišum (25), Ammi-ṭitana (25), Ammi-zaduga (21), and Samsu-ṭitana (31 years). This dynasty, therefore, lasted about 285[18] years, and with two exceptions, Abil-Sin and Sin-mubaliṭ, the names, though Semitic, are not Babylonian.
Yet it was called by Babylonians “the dynasty of Babylon!”
And this, in all probability, is correct. The dynasty must, on account of the name given to it, have come from that city, but was, at the same time, of foreign origin, its kings being descended from another dynasty which came from some other part of the Semitic world of that time. This is indicated by the following facts.
Three of the tablets of which we shall learn something more farther on, and which are preserved in the British Museum, have invocations of a personage, apparently a king, named Anmanila. The name of this ruler naturally recalls the Anman of the dynasty following that of Babylon—namely, the dynasty of Uru-ku; but the style of the writing of these three documents is not that of the later period, but of the beginning of the dynasty of Babylon, and there is, on that account, every probability that Anmanila was one of the predecessors of Sumu-abi, the first king of the dynasty of Babylon. It is, of course, possible that this ruler was simply a co-regent with one of the kings already known, like Immerum, who lived at the time of Sumu-la-îla, or Buntaḫun-îla,[19] another associate with Sumu-la-îla on the throne, but there is a certain amount of improbability in this, as Anmanila is named alone, and not in connection with any other. Moreover, it is probable that, in the case of the two co-regents here mentioned, we have examples of sons associated with their father, and one replacing the other on account of the early death of his brother. Another ruler, probably of the period preceding that of the dynasty of Babylon, is Manamaltel, whose name [pg 155] is found on a tablet belonging to the Rev. Dr. J. P. Way, head-master of Rossall School, and it is noteworthy that one of the tablets bearing the name of Anmanila gives, among the witnesses, a certain Sumuentel,[20] a name having the same termination as Manamaltel, a component which seems to have been common at this early period, and rare or non-existent later. Most, if not all, the above are foreign names.
The next question that arises is, what was the nationality of these rulers, who, though belonging to what was called “the dynasty of Babylon,” were not really of Babylonian origin?
The key to the matter is probably furnished by the following inscription of Ammi-ṭitana, the ninth king of the dynasty—
| “Ammi-ṭi(tana), | his(?) ... |
| the powerful king, | (in) a seat of gladness |
| king of Babylon, | he has made him sit. |
| king of Kiš, | |
| king of Šumer and (Akkad), | |
| king of the vast land of Amoria, | |
| am I; | its wall. |
| descendant | Asari-lu-duga (Merodach) |
| of Sumu-la-îli, | has revealed him as his worshipper— |
| eldest son[21] | may his name be established |
| of Abēšu',[22] am I, | in heaven and earth. |
| Obedient(?) (to) Bel | “(Inscription) of Bêl-ušallim, |
| the seat(?)” | son of ... -bi, the enchanter.” |
In this inscription, Ammi-ṭitana calls himself not only “king of Babylon,” and other important places in Babylonia, but “king of Amoria” (if the coining of a word for the district be allowed) also. Now, as we know from the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, Amurrū is [pg 156] the name that the Babylonians used for “the west,” which Assyriologists formerly read (on account of the polyphony of the Babylonian system of writing) Aḫarrū. In reality, however, this word, Amurrū, stands for the land of the Amorites, and the probability is, that the land of the Amorites belonged to the Babylonian Empire because it formed part of the original domain of the rulers of Babylonia at this time, who, if not of Amorite descent, may at least have had Amorite connections.
In any case, there is but little doubt that the population of Babylonia was very mixed 2000 years before Christ. As we know from the tablets, Amorites were, during this period, numerous in Babylonia, and the god whose name is written with the characters MARTU (a common group for Amurrū)—the fact is revealed by one of the tablets of late date published by Reisner—are to be read Amurrū, and the best translation is “the Amorite god,” whose name and worship seem to have been introduced into the Babylonian Pantheon at a much earlier date, and was known to the Akkadians under the name of Martu. It is noteworthy that, in the text in question (Mitteilungen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen, Heft. x. pl. 139, 147-81), the Akkadian Martu and Babylonian Amurrū is called “lord of the mountain,” probably because the country of the Amorites, especially when compared with Babylonia, is mountainous.
In addition to the god Amurrū, other deities of western origin appear in the inscriptions (generally in the names) from time to time. Thus we have Abdu-Ištara, interesting as giving an early form of the name Astarte (Ashtoreth), before it received the feminine termination; Ụsur-Malik, probably “protect, O Malik” (Moloch), Nabu-Malik, probably “Nebo is Malik” (Moloch), or “Nebo is king”; Ibi-Šân, probably “speak, O Shân,” which reminds the reader of Beth-Shean, the modern Beisan; and there are [pg 157] also, in all probability, other Amorite deities whom we cannot identify, on account of their names not occurring in other ancient literatures than the Babylonian. Ibaru, found in the name Arad-Ibari, “servant of Ibari,” Abâ, in the name Arad (Abdi)-Abâ, Alla, in the name Ur-Alla, “man of Alla” (though this is possibly a Babylonian [Akkadian] name), etc., are probably non-Babylonian, but not Amorite.
Besides the names of west Semitic deities, however, the names of west Semites themselves occur, and show that there was a considerable immigration in those ancient days into the country. Thus the word Amurrū, “the Amorite,” is exceedingly common, and one is not surprised to learn that, in consequence of the Amorites being so numerous, there was an Amorite district in the neighbourhood of Sippar. Other names of men which are apparently from the country spoken of are, Sar-îli, probably “prince of God,” and the same as Israel; Karanatum (probably for Qaranatum), which would seem to mean “she of the horned deity” (compare Uttatum, “he of the sun,” Sinnatum, “he of the moon”), and reminds us of Ashteroth Karnaim, “Ashteroth of the two horns,” the well-known site in Palestine. Besides these, we meet more than once with such names as Ya'kub, Jacob, with its longer form, Ya'kub-îlu, Jacob-el; and in like manner the name of Joseph and its longer form Joseph-el occur—Yasup and Yasup-îlu. Êsâ, the father of a man named Siteyatum, reminds us of Esau; Abdi-îli, “servant of God,” is the same as Abdeel; and Ya'zar-îlu, “God has helped” (compare Azrael), Yantin-îlu, “God has given” (compare Nethanel), with many others similar, receive illustration. In all probability, too, many of the bearers of names compounded with Addu (Hadad), Amurrū, and other names of deities naturalized in Babylonia, as well as some of the bearers of true Babylonian names, were, in reality, [pg 158] pure west Semites. Further examples will be found in the texts translated farther on, and the more noteworthy will be pointed out when they occur.
It will thus be seen that the population of Babylonia 2000 years before Christ had a considerable admixture of west Semites, many of whom would come under the designation of Amorites; besides other nationalities, such as Armenians or people of Aram-Naharaim (Mesopotamia)—at least two tablets refer exclusively to transactions between members of this northern race—Sutites, and Gutites, who were low-class people seemingly light-haired, “fair Gutian slaves” being in one place spoken of.
Life in Babylonia at this early period must have been exceedingly primitive, and differed considerably, as the East does even now, from what we in Europe are accustomed to. The city of which we can get the best idea, Sippar, the Sippara of the Greeks, generally regarded (though probably wrongly) as the Sepharvaim of the Bible, now represented by the mounds known as Abu-habbah, whence most of the early contract-tablets revealing to us the daily life of these ancient Babylonians came, was situated on the Euphrates, “the life of the land.” The name of this river is written, when phonetically rendered, by the characters Purattu (probably really pronounced Phuraththu), in Akkadian Pura-nunu, “the great water-channel,” often expressed (and then, of course, not phonetically) with characters meaning “the river of Sippar,” showing in what estimation the ancient Babylonians held both river and city. The mound of Abu-habbah is four miles from the river Euphrates, and situated, in reality, on the canal called Nahr-Malka, “the royal river,” which runs through it; but the tablets of the period of which we are now speaking refer not only to the city itself, but to the district all round from the Tigris on the east to the Euphrates on the west.
The following paragraph from Mr. Rassam's Asshur and the Land of Nimrod will give a fair idea of what this district is like:—
“It is most interesting to examine this canal (the Nahr-Malka) all the way between the Euphrates and the Tigris, as it shows the magnitude of the Babylonian agricultural industry in days gone by, when it irrigated hundreds of miles of rich alluvial soil. The remains of countless large and small watercourses, which intersect the country watered by those two branches[23] of Nahr-Malka, are plainly seen even now. Vestiges of prodigious basins are also visible, wherein a surplus supply must have been kept for any emergency, especially when the water of the Euphrates falls low in summer.”
The digging of canals, which was an exceedingly important work in those days, as indeed it is now, was evidently very systematically done, and the king often, to all appearance, made a bid for increased popularity by digging an important new canal for irrigation purposes, to which his name was attached. Thus we find the work of Sumu-la-ilu, Sin-mubaliṭ, Ḫammurabi, Samsu-iluna, and other kings recorded and chosen as the event of the year to date by. This, with the rebuilding or new decoration of the temples and shrines, endeared the king to the people and the priesthood, ensuring for him the faithful service of both, and willing submission to his rule. Indeed, there is but little doubt that the presence of foreign rulers in the country was often due to their having made friends of the priestly classes, and afterwards of the people, in this way.