The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia

by Theophilus G. Pinches

“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.