{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_38732/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_38732","id":"gutenberg_38732","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38732","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Old Testament -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"The Old Testament\n\n In the Light of\n\n The Historical Records and Legends\n\n of Assyria and Babylonia\n\n By\n\n Theophilus G. Pinches\n\n LL.D., M.R.A.S.\n\n Published under the direction of the Tract Committee\n\n Third Edition\u2014Revised, With Appendices and Notes\n\n London:\n\n Society For Promoting Christian Knowledge\n\n 1908\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nForeword\nChapter I. The Early Traditions Of The Creation.\nChapter II. The History, As Given In The Bible, From The Creation To The\nFlood.\nChapter III. The Flood.\n Appendix. The Second Version Of The Flood-Story.\nChapter IV. Assyria, Babylonia, And The Hebrews, With Reference To The\nSo-Called Genealogical Table.\n The Tower Of Babel.\n The Patriarchs To Abraham.\nChapter V. Babylonia At The Time Of Abraham.\n The Religious Element.\n The King.\n The People.\n \u201cYear of \u0160ama\u0161 and Rimmon.\u201d\nChapter VI. Abraham.\n Salem.\nChapter VII. Isaac, Jacob, And Joseph.\nChapter VIII. The Tel-El-Amarna Tablets And The Exodus.\nChapter IX. The Nations With Whom The Israelites Came Into Contact.\n Amorites.\n Hittites.\n Jebusites.\n Girgashites.\n Moabites.\nChapter X. Contact Of The Hebrews With The Assyrians.\n Sennacherib.\n Esarhaddon.\n A\u0161\u0161ur-Ban\u00ee-\u00c2pli.\nChapter XI. Contact Of The Hebrews With The Later Babylonians.\nChapter XII. Life At Babylon During The Captivity, With Some Reference To\nThe Jews.\nChapter XIII. The Decline Of Babylon.\nAppendix. The Stele Inscribed With The Laws Of \u1e2aammurabi.\nAppendix To The Third Edition.\nNotes And Additions.\nIndex.\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [Plate I.]\n\n Bas-relief and inscription of Hammurabi, generally regarded as the\n Biblical Amraphel (Gen. xiv. 1), apparently dedicated for the saving of\nhis life. In this he bears the title (incomplete) of \u201cKing of Amoria\u201d (the\nAmorites), _lugal Mar[tu]_, Semitic Babylonian _sar m\u00e2t Amurr\u00ee_ (see page\n 315).\n\n\n\u201cThere is a charm in finding ourselves, our common humanity, our puzzles,\nour cares, our joys, in the writings of men severed from us by race,\nreligion, speech, and half the gulf of historical time, which no other\nliterary pleasure can equal.\u201d\u2014ANDREW LANG.\n\n\n\n\n\nFOREWORD\n\n\nThe present work, being merely a record of things for the most part well\nknown to students and others, cannot, on that account, contain much that\nis new. All that has been aimed at is, to bring together as many of the\nold discoveries as possible in a new dress.\n\nIt has been thought well to let the records tell their story as far as\npossible in their own way, by the introduction of translations, thus\nbreaking the monotony of the narrative, and also infusing into it an\nelement of local colour calculated to bring the reader into touch, as it\nwere, with the thoughts and feelings of the nations with whom the records\noriginated. Bearing, as it does, upon the life, history, and legends of\nthe ancient nations of which it treats, controversial matter has been\navoided, and the higher criticism left altogether aside.\n\nAssyriology (as the study of the literature and antiquities of the\nBabylonians and Assyrians is called) being a study still in the course of\ndevelopment, improvements in the renderings of the inscriptions will\ndoubtless from time to time be made, and before many months have passed,\nthings now obscure may have new light thrown upon them, necessitating the\nrevision of such portions as may be affected thereby. It is intended to\nutilize in future editions any new discoveries which may come to light,\nand every effort will be made to keep the book up to date.\n\nFor shortcomings, whether in the text or in the translations, the author\ncraves the indulgence of the reader, merely pleading the difficult and\nexacting nature of the study, and the lengthy chronological period to\nwhich the book refers.\n\nA little explanation is probably needful upon the question of\npronunciation. The vowels in Assyro-Babylonian should be uttered as in\nItalian or German. _\u1e2a_ is a strong guttural like the Scotch _ch_ in\n\u201cloch\u201d; _m_ had sometimes the pronunciation of _w_, as in Tiamtu (=\nTiawthu), so that the spelling of some of the words containing that letter\nmay later have to be modified. The pronunciation of _s_ and _\u0161_ is\ndoubtful, but Assyriologists generally (and probably wrongly) give the\nsound of _s_ to the former and _sh_ to the latter. _T_ was often\npronounced as _th_, and probably always had that sound in the feminine\nendings _-tu_, _-ti_, _-ta_, or _at_, so that Tiamtu, for instance, may be\npronounced Tiawthu, Tukulti-\u00e2pil-\u00ca\u0161arra (Tiglath-pileser),\nTukulthi-\u00e2pil-\u00ca\u0161arra, etc., etc., and in such words as _q\u00e2t\u00e2_, \u201cthe\nhands,\u201d _\u0161um\u0101ti_, \u201cnames,\u201d and many others, this was probably always the\ncase. In the names \u00c2bil-Addu-nathanu and Nathanu-y\u00e2wa this transcription\nhas been adopted, and may be regarded as correct. _P_ was likewise often\naspirated, assuming the sound of _ph_ or _f_, and _k_ assumed, at least in\nlater times, a sound similar to _\u1e2b (kh)_, whilst _b_ seems sometimes to\nhave been pronounced as _v_. _G_ was, to all appearance, never soft, as in\n_gem_, but may sometimes have been aspirated. Each member of the group\n_ph_ is pronounced separately. _\u1e6c_ is an emphatic _t_, stronger than in\nthe word \u201ctime.\u201d A terminal _m_ represents the _mimmation_, which, in\nlater times, though written, was not pronounced.\n\n\n The second edition, issued in 1903, was revised and brought up to\n date, and a translation of the Laws of \u1e2aammurabi, with notes, and\n a summary of Delitzsch\u2019s _Babel und Bibel_, were appended. For the\n third edition the work has again been revised, with the help of\n the recently-issued works of King, Sayce, Scheil, Winckler, and\n others. At the time of going to press, the author was unable to\n consult Knudtzon\u2019s new edition of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets beyond\n his No. 228, but wherever it was available, improvements in the\n translations were made. In addition to revision, the Appendix has\n been supplemented by paragraphs upon the discoveries at\n Boghaz-Keui, a mutilated letter from a personage named Belshazzar,\n and translations of the papyri referring to the Jewish temple at\n Elephantine.\n\n New material may still be expected from the excavations in\n progress at Babylon, Susa, \u1e2aattu, and various other sites in the\n nearer East.\n\n\nTHEOPHILUS G. PINCHES.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. THE EARLY TRADITIONS OF THE CREATION.\n\n\n The Hebrew account\u2014Its principal points\u2014The Babylonian account\u2014The\n story of the Creation properly so called\u2014The version given by the\n Greek authors\u2014Comparison of the Hebrew and the Greek accounts\u2014The\n likenesses\u2014The differences\u2014B\u00eal and the Dragon\u2014The\n epilogue\u2014Sidelights (notes upon the religion of the Babylonians).\n\n\n\n\nTo find out how the world was made, or rather, to give forth a theory\naccounting for its origin and continued existence, is one of the subjects\nthat has attracted the attention of thinking minds among all nations\nhaving any pretension to civilization. It was, therefore, to be expected\nthat the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians, far advanced in civilization\nas they were at an exceedingly early date, should have formed opinions\nthereupon, and placed them on record as soon as those opinions were\nmatured, and the art of writing had been perfected sufficiently to enable\na serviceable account to be composed.\n\nThis, naturally, did not take place all at once. We may take it for\ngranted that the history of the Creation grew piece by piece, as different\nminds thought over and elaborated it. The first theories we should expect\nto find more or less improbable\u2014wild stories of serpents and gods,\nemblematic of the conflicting powers of good and evil, which, with them,\nhad their origin before the advent of mankind upon the earth.\n\nBut all men would not have the same opinion of the way in which the\nuniverse came into existence, and this would give rise, as really happened\nin Babylonia, to conflicting accounts or theories, the later ones less\nimprobable than, and therefore superior to, the earlier. The earlier\nCreation-legend, being a sort of heroic poem, would remain popular with\nthe common people, who always love stories of heroes and mighty conflicts,\nsuch as those in which the Babylonians and Assyrians to the latest times\ndelighted, and of which the Semitic Babylonian Creation-story consists.\n\nAs the ages passed by, and the newer theories grew up, the older popular\nones would be elaborated, and new ideas from the later theories of the\nCreation would be incorporated, whilst, at the same time, mystical\nmeanings would be given to the events recorded in the earlier legends to\nmake them fit in with the newer ones. This having been done, the scribes\ncould appeal at the same time to both ignorant and learned, explaining how\nthe crude legends of the past were but a type of the doctrines put forward\nby the philosophers of later and more enlightened days, bringing within\nthe range of the intellect of the unlearned all those things in which the\nmore thoughtful spirits also believed. By this means an enlightened\nmonotheism and the grossest polytheism could, and did, exist side by side,\nas well as clever and reasonable cosmologies along with the strangest and\nwildest legends.\n\nThus it is that we have from the literature of two closely allied peoples,\nthe Babylonians and the Hebrews, accounts of the Creation of the world so\nwidely differing, and, at the same time, possessing, here and there,\ncertain ideas in common\u2014ideas darkly veiled in the old Babylonian story,\nbut clearly expressed in the comparatively late Hebrew account.\n\nIt must not be thought, however, that the above theory as to the origin of\nthe Hebrew Creation-story interferes in any way with the doctrine of its\ninspiration. We are not bound to accept the opinion so generally held by\ntheologians, that the days of creation referred to in Genesis i. probably\nindicate that each act of creation\u2014each day\u2014was revealed in seven\nsuccessive dreams, in order, to the inspired writer of the book. The\nopinion held by other theologians, that \u201cinspiration\u201d simply means that\nthe writer was moved by the Spirit of God to choose from documents already\nexisting such portions as would serve for our enlightenment and\ninstruction, adding, at the same time, such additions of his own as he was\nled to think to be needful, may be held to be a satisfactory definition of\nthe term in question.\n\nWithout, therefore, binding ourselves down to any hard and fast line as to\ndate, we may regard, for the purposes of this inquiry, the Hebrew account\nof the Creation as one of the traditions handed down in the thought of\nmany minds extending over many centuries, and as having been chosen and\nelaborated by the inspired writer of Genesis for the purpose of his\nnarrative, the object of which was to set forth the origin of man and the\nHebrew nation, to which he belonged, and whose history he was about to\nnarrate in detail.\n\nThe Hebrew story of the Creation, as detailed in Genesis i., may be\nregarded as one of the most remarkable documents ever produced. It must\nnot be forgotten, however, that it is a document that is essentially\nHebrew. For the author of this book the language of God and of the first\nman was Hebrew\u2014a literary language, showing much phonetic decay. The\nretention of this matter (its omission not being essential at the period\nof the composition of the book) is probably due, in part, to the natural\npatriotism of the writer, overruling what ought to have been his inspired\ncommon-sense. How this is to be explained it is not the intention of the\nwriter of this book to inquire, the account of the Creation and its\nparallels being the subject in hand at present.\n\nThe question of language apart, the account of the Creation in Genesis is\nin the highest degree a common-sense one. The creation of (1) the heaven,\nand (2) the earth; the darkness\u2014not upon the face of the earth, but upon\nthe face of the deep. Then the expansion dividing the waters above from\nthe waters below on the earth. In the midst of this waste of waters dry\nland afterwards appears, followed by the growth of vegetation. But the sun\nand the moon had not yet been appointed, nor the stars, all of which come\ninto being at this point. Last of all are introduced the living things of\nthe earth\u2014fish, and bird, and creeping thing, followed by the animals,\nand, finally, by man.\n\nIt is noteworthy and interesting that, in this account, the acts of\ncreation are divided into seven periods, each of which is called a \u201cday,\u201d\nand begins, like the natural day in the time-reckoning of the Semitic\nnations, with the evening\u2014\u201cand it was evening, and it was morning, day\none.\u201d It describes what the heavenly bodies were for\u2014they were not only to\ngive light upon the earth\u2014they were also for signs, for seasons, for days,\nand for years.\n\nAnd then, concerning man, a very circumstantial account is given. He was\nto have dominion over everything upon the earth\u2014the fish of the sea, the\nfowl of the air, the cattle, and every creeping thing. All was given to\nhim, and he, like the creatures made before him, was told to \u201cbe fruitful,\nand multiply, and replenish the earth.\u201d It is with this crowning work of\ncreation that the first chapter of the Book of Genesis ends.\n\nThe second chapter refers to the seventh day\u2014the day of rest, and is\nfollowed by further details of the creation, the central figure of which\nis the last thing created, namely, man. This chapter reads, in part, like\na recapitulation of the first, but contains many additional details. \u201cNo\nplant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb ... had sprung up:\nfor the Lord God had not caused it to rain ..., and there was not a man to\ntill the ground.\u201d A mist, therefore, went up from the earth, and watered\nall the face of the ground. Then, to till the earth, man was formed from\nthe dust of the ground, and the Lord God \u201cbreathed into his nostrils the\nbreath of life, and man became a living soul.\u201d\n\nThe newly-created man was, at this time, innocent, and was therefore to be\nplaced by his Creator in a garden of delight, named Eden, and this garden\nhe was to dress and keep. A hidden danger, however, lay in this pleasant\nretreat\u2014the tree of knowledge of good and evil, of which he was forbidden\nto eat, but which was to form for him a constant temptation, for ever\ntesting his obedience. All might have been well, to all appearance, but\nfor the creation of woman, who, giving way to the blandishments of the\ntempter, in her turn tempted the man, and he fell. Death in the course of\nnature was the penalty, the earthly paradise was lost, and all chance of\neating of the tree of life, and living for ever, disappeared on man\u2019s\nexpulsion from his first abode of delight.\n\nIn the course of this narrative interesting details are given\u2014the four\nrivers, the country through which they flowed, and their precious mineral\nproducts; the naming of the various animals by the man; the forming of\nwoman from one of his ribs; the institution of marriage, etc.\n\nSuch is, in short, the story of the Creation as told in the Bible, and it\nis this that we have to compare with the now well-known parallel accounts\ncurrent among the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians. And here may be noted\nat the outset that, though we shall find some parallels, we shall, in the\ncourse of our comparison, find a far greater number of differences, for\nnot only were they produced in a different land, by a different people,\nbut they were also produced under different conditions. Thus, Babylonian\npolytheism takes the place of the severe and uncompromising monotheism of\nthe Hebrew account in Genesis; Eden was, to the Babylonians, their own\nnative land, not a country situated at a remote distance; and, lastly, but\nnot least, their language, thoughts, and feelings differed widely from\nthose of the dwellers in the Holy Land.\n\nThe Babylonian story of the Creation is a narrative of great interest to\nall who occupy themselves with the study of ancient legends and folklore.\nIt introduces us not only to exceedingly ancient beliefs concerning the\norigin of the world on which we live, but it tells us also of the\nreligion, or, rather, the religious beliefs, of the Babylonians, and\nenables us to see something of the changes which those beliefs underwent\nbefore adopting the form in which we find them at the time this record was\ncomposed.\n\nA great deal has been written about the Babylonian story of the Creation.\nAs is well known, the first translation of these documents was by him who\nfirst discovered their nature, the late George Smith, who gave them to the\nworld in his well-known book, _The Chaldean Account of Genesis_, in 1875.\nSince that time numerous other translations have appeared, not only in\nEngland, but also on the Continent. Among those who have taken part in the\nwork of studying and translating these texts may be named Profs. Sayce,\nOppert, Hommel, and Delitzsch, the last-named having both edited the first\nedition of Smith\u2019s book (the first issued on this subject on the\nContinent), and published one of the last and most complete editions of\nthe whole legend yet placed before the public. To Prof. Sayce, as well as\nto Prof. Hommel, belongs the honour of many brilliant suggestions as to\nthe tendency of the texts of the creation as a whole: Prof. Oppert was the\nfirst to point out that the last tablet of the series was not, as Smith\nthought, an \u201cAddress to primitive man,\u201d but an address to the god Merodach\nas the restorer of order out of chaos; whilst Delitzsch has perhaps (being\nalmost the last to write upon it) improved the translation more than many\nof his predecessors in the work.\n\nBefore proceeding to deal with the legend itself, a few remarks upon the\ntablets and the text that they bear will probably not be considered out of\nplace. There are, in all likelihood, but few who have not seen in the\nBritish Museum or elsewhere those yellow baked terra-cotta tablets of\nvarious sizes and shapes, upon which the Babylonians and Assyrians were\naccustomed to write their records. And well it is for the science of\nAssyriology that they used this exceedingly durable material. I have said\nthat the tablets are yellow in colour, and this is generally the case, but\nthe tint varies greatly, and may approach dark grey or black, and even\nappear as a very good sage-green. The smaller tablets are often\ncushion-shaped, but, with some few exceptions, they are rectangular, like\nthose of larger size. The writing varies so considerably that the hand of\nthe various scribes can sometimes be distinguished. In the best class of\ntablets every tenth line is often numbered\u2014a proof that the Assyrians and\nBabylonians were very careful with the documents with which they had to\ndeal. The Babylonian tablets closely resemble the Assyrian, but the style\nof the writing differs somewhat, and it is, in general, more difficult to\nread than the Assyrian. None of the tablets of the Creation-series are,\nunfortunately, perfect, and many of the fragments are mere scraps, but as\nmore than one copy of each anciently existed, and has survived, the\nwanting parts of one text can often be supplied from another copy. That\ncopies come from Babylon as well as from Nineveh is a very fortunate\ncircumstance, as our records are rendered more complete thereby.\n\nOf the obverse of the first tablet very little, unfortunately, remains,\nbut what there is extant is of the highest interest. Luckily, we have the\nbeginning of this remarkable legend, which runs, according to the latest\nand best commentaries, as follows\u2014\n\n\n \u201cWhen on high the heavens were unnamed,\n Beneath the earth bore not a name:\n The prim\u00e6val ocean was their producer;\n Mummu Tiamtu was she who begot the whole of them.\n Their waters in one united themselves, and\n The plains were not outlined, marshes were not to be seen.\n When none of the gods had come forth,\n They bore no name, the fates [had not been determined].\n There were produced the gods [all of them?]:\n La\u1e2bmu and La\u1e2bamu went forth [as the first?]:\n The ages were great, [the times were long?].\n An\u0161ar and Ki\u0161ar were produced and over th[em]....\n Long grew the days; there came forth (?)...\n The god Anu, their son.....\n An\u0161ar, the god Anu......\u201d\n\n\nSuch is the tenor of the opening lines of the Babylonian story of the\nCreation, and the differences between the two accounts are striking\nenough. Before proceeding, however, to examine and compare them, a few\nwords upon the Babylonian version may not be without value.\n\nFirst we must note that the above introduction to the legend has been\nexcellently explained and commented upon by the Syrian writer Damascius.\nThe following is his explanation of the Babylonian teaching concerning the\ncreation of the world\u2014\n\n\u201cBut the Babylonians, like the rest of the Barbarians, pass over in\nsilence the one principle of the Universe, and they constitute two, Tauth\u00e9\nand Apason, making Apason the husband of Tauth\u00e9, and denominating her the\nmother of the gods. And from these proceeds an only-begotten son, Moumis,\nwhich, I conceive, is no other than the intelligible world proceeding from\nthe two principles. From them, also, another progeny is derived, Dach\u00e9 and\nDachos; and again a third, Kissar\u00e9 and Assoros, from which last three\nothers proceed, Anos, and Illinos, and Aos. And of Aos and Dauk\u00e9 is born a\nson called Belos, who, they say, is the fabricator of the world, the\nCreator.\u201d\n\nThe likeness of the names given in this extract from Damascius will be\nnoticed, and will probably also be recognized as a valuable verification\nof the certainty now attained by Assyriologists in the reading of the\nproper names. In Tiamtu, or, rather, Tiawthu, will be easily recognized\nthe Tauth\u00e9 of Damascius, whose son, as appears from a later fragment, was\ncalled Mummu (= Moumis). Apason he gives as the husband of Tauth\u00e9, but of\nthis we know nothing from the Babylonian tablet, which, however, speaks of\nthis Apason (_aps\u00fb_, \u201cthe abyss\u201d), which corresponds with the \u201cprim\u00e6val\nocean\u201d of the Babylonian tablet.\n\nIn Dach\u00e9 and Dachos it is easy to see that there has been a confusion\nbetween Greek \u039b and \u0394, which so closely resemble each other. Dach\u00e9 and\nDachos should, therefore, be corrected into Lach\u00e9 and Lachos, the La\u1e2bmu\nand La\u1e2bamu (better La\u1e2bwu and La\u1e2bawu) of the Babylonian text. They were the\nmale and female personifications of the heavens. An\u0161ar and Ki\u0161ar are the\nGreek author\u2019s Assoros and Kisar\u00e9, the \u201cHost of Heaven\u201d and the \u201cHost of\nEarth\u201d respectively. The three proceeding from them, Anos, Illinos, and\nAos, are the well-known Anu, the god of the heavens; Illil, for En-lila,\nthe Sumerian god of the earth and the Underworld; and Aa or Ea, the god of\nthe waters, who seems to have been identified by some with Yau or Jah. Aa\nor Ea was the husband of Damkina, or Dawkina, the Dauk\u00e9 of Damascius, from\nwhom, as he says, Belos, _i.e._ Bel-Merodach, was born, and if he did not\n\u201cfabricate the world,\u201d at least he ordered it anew, after his great fight\nwith the Dragon of Chaos, as we shall see when we come to the third tablet\nof the series.\n\nAfter the lines printed above the text is rather defective, but it would\nseem that the god Nudimmud (Ae or Ea), \u201cthe wise and open of ear,\u201d next\ncame into existence. A comparison is then apparently made between these\ndeities on the one hand, and Tiamtu, Aps\u00fb, and Mummu on the other\u2014to the\ndisadvantage of the latter. On Aps\u00fb complaining that he had no peace by\nday nor rest by night on account of the ways of the gods, their sons, it\nwas at last determined to make war upon them.\n\n\n \u201cThey have become hostile, and at the side of Tiamtu they advance,\n Storming, planning, not resting night and day,\n They make ready for battle, wrathful (and) raging.\n They assemble themselves together, and make ready (for) the\n strife.\n\n Ummu \u1e2aubur, she who created everything,\n Added irresistible weapons, produced giant serpents,\n Sharp of tooth, unsparing (their) stings (?)\n She caused poison to fill their bodies like blood.\n\n Raging dragons clothed she with terrors,\n She endowed (them) with brilliance, she made (them) like the high\n ones (?)\n \u2018Whoever sees them may fright overwhelm,\n May their bodies rear on high, and may (none) turn aside their\n breast.\u2019\n\n She set up the viper, the pithon, and the La\u1e2bamu,\n Great monsters, raging dogs, scorpion-men,\n Driving demons, fish-men, and mountain-rams,\n Bearing unsparing weapons, not fearing battle;\n\n Powerful are (her) commands, and irresistible,\n She made altogether eleven like that,\n Among the gods her firstborn, he who had made for her a host,\n Kingu, she raised among them, him she made chief.\n\n Those going in front before the army, those leading the host,\n Raising weapons, attacking, who rise up (for) the fray,\n The leadership of the conflict\n She delivered into his hand, and caused him to sit in state (?).\n \u2018I have set firm thy word, in the assembly of the gods I have made\n thee great,\n\n The rule of the gods, all of them, have I delivered into thy hand,\n Only be thou great\u2014thou, my only husband\u2014\n Let them exalt thy name over all the heavenly ones (?)\u2019\n She gave him then the tablets of fate, she placed them in his\n bosom:\n \u2018As for thee, thy command shall not be changed, may thy utterances\n stand firm!\u2019\n\n Now Kingu is exalted, he has taken to him the godhood of Anu,\n Among the gods her sons he determines the fates.\n \u2018Open your mouths, let the Firegod be at rest.\n Be ye fearful in the fight, let resistance be laid low (?).\u2019 \u201d\n\n\nSuch are the last verses of the first tablet of the so-called story of the\nCreation as known to the Babylonians, and though it would be better named\nif called the Story of B\u00eal and the Dragon, the references to the creation\nof the world that are made therein prevent the name from being absolutely\nincorrect, and it may, therefore, serve, along with the more correct one,\nto designate it still. As will be gathered from the above, the whole story\ncentres in the wish of the goddess of the powers of evil to get\ncreation\u2014the production of all that is in the world\u2014into her own hands. In\nthis she is aided by certain gods, over whom she sets one, Kingu, her\nhusband, as chief. In the preparations that she makes she exercises her\ncreative powers to produce all kinds of dreadful monsters to help her\nagainst the gods whom she wishes to overthrow, and the full and vigorous\ndescription of her defenders, created by her own hands, adds much to the\ncharm of the narrative, and shows well what the Babylonian scribes were\ncapable of in this class of record.\n\nThe first tablet breaks off after the speech of Tiamtu to her husband\nKingu. The second one begins by stating how Aa or Ea heard of the plot of\nTiamtu and her followers against the gods of heaven. When his first wrath\non account of this had somewhat abated, he went and related the whole, in\npractically the same words as the story is given on the two foregoing\npages, to An\u0161ar, his father, who in his turn became filled with rage,\nbiting his lips, and uttering cries of deepest grief. In the mutilated\nlines which follow Aps\u00fb\u2019s subjugation seems to be referred to. After this\nis another considerable gap, and then comes the statement that An\u0161ar\napplied to his son Anu, \u201cthe mighty and brave, whose power is great, whose\nattack irresistible,\u201d saying that if he will only speak to her, the great\nDragon\u2019s anger will be calmed and her rage disappear.\n\n\n \u201c(Anu heard) the words of his father An\u0161ar,\n (Took the ro)ad towards her, and descended by her path,\n Anu (went),\u2014he examined Tiamtu\u2019s lair, and\n (Not having power to resist her?), turned back.\u201d\n\n\nHow the god excused himself to his father An\u0161ar on account of his\nignominious flight we do not know, the record being again defective at\nthis point. With the same want of success the god An\u0161ar then, as we learn\nfrom another part of the narrative, applied to the god Nudimmud, a deity\nwho is explained in the inscriptions as being the same as the god Aa or\nEa, but whom Professor Delitzsch is rather inclined to regard as one of\nthe forms of B\u00eal.\n\nIn the end the god Merodach, the son of Aa, was asked to be the champion\nof the gods against the great emblem of the powers of evil, the Dragon of\nChaos. To become, by this means, the saviour of the universe, was\napparently just what the patron-god of the city of Babylon desired, for he\nseems immediately to have accepted the task of destroying the hated\nDragon\u2014\n\n\n \u201cThe lord rejoiced at his father\u2019s word,\n His heart was glad, and he saith to his father:\n \u2018O lord of the gods, fate of the great gods!\n If then I be your avenger,\n (If) I bind Tiamtu and save you,\n Assemble together, cause to be great, (and) proclaim ye, my lot.\n\n In Up\u0161ukenaku assembled, come ye joyfully together,\n Having opened my mouth, like you also, let me the fates decide,\n That naught be changed that I do, (even) I.\n May the word of my lips neither fail nor altered be!\u2019 \u201d\n\n\nAn\u0161ar, without delay, calls his messenger Gaga, and directs him to summon\nall the gods to a festival, where with appetite they may sit down to a\nfeast, to eat the divine bread and drink the divine wine, and there let\nMerodach \u201cdecide the fates,\u201d as the one chosen to be their avenger. Then\ncomes the message that Gaga was to deliver to La\u1e2bmu and La\u1e2bamu, in which\nthe rebellion of Tiamtu is related in practically the same words as the\nwriter used at the beginning of the narrative to describe Tiamtu\u2019s revolt.\nMerodach\u2019s proposal and request are then stated, and the message ends with\nthe following words\u2014\n\n\n \u201cHasten, and quickly decide for him your fate\u2014\n Let him go, let him meet your mighty foe!\u201d\n\n\nLa\u1e2bmu and La\u1e2bamu having heard all the words of An\u0161ar\u2019s message, which his\nmessenger Gaga faithfully repeated to them, they, with the Igigi, or gods\nof the heavens, broke out in bitter lamentation, saying that they could\nnot understand Tiamtu\u2019s acts.\n\nThen all the great gods, who \u201cdecided the fates,\u201d hastened to go to the\nfeast, where they ate and drank, and, apparently with loud acclaim,\n\u201cdecided the fate\u201d for Merodach their avenger.\n\nHere follow the honours conferred on Merodach on account of the mighty\ndeed that he had undertaken to do. They erected for him princely chambers,\nwherein he sat as the great judge \u201cin the presence of his fathers,\u201d and\nthey praised him as the highest honoured among the great gods,\nincomparable as to his ordinances, changeless as to the word of his mouth,\nuncontravenable as to his utterances. None of them would go against the\nauthority that was to be henceforth his domain.\n\n\n \u201cMerodach, thou art he who is our avenger,\n (Over) the whole universe have we given thee the kingdom.\u201d\n\n\nHis weapons were never to be defeated, his foes were to be smitten down,\nbut as for those who trusted in him, the gods prayed him that he would\ngrant them life, \u201cpouring out,\u201d on the other hand, the life of the god who\nhad begun the evil against which Merodach was about to fight.\n\nThen, so that he should see that they had indeed given him the power to\nwhich they referred, they laid in their midst a garment, and in accordance\nwith their directions, Merodach spoke, and the garment vanished,\u2014he spoke,\nand it reappeared\u2014\n\n\n \u201c \u2018Open thy mouth, may the garment be destroyed,\n Speak to it once more, and let it be restored again!\u2019\n He spoke with his mouth, and the garment was destroyed,\n He spoke to it again, and the garment was reproduced.\u201d\n\n\nThen all the gods called out, \u201cMerodach is king!\u201d and they gave him\nsceptre, throne, and insignia of royalty, and also an irresistible weapon,\nwhich should shatter his enemies.\n\n\n \u201c \u2018Now, go, and cut off the life of Tiamtu,\n Let the winds bear away her blood to hidden places!\u2019\n (Thus) did the gods, his fathers, fix the fate of Bel.\n A path of peace and goodwill they set for him as his road.\u201d\n\n\nThen the god armed himself for the fight, taking spear (or dart), bow, and\nquiver. To these he added lightning flashing before him, flaming fire\nfilling his body; the net which his father Anu had given him wherewith to\ncapture \u201c_kirbi\u0161 Tiamtu_\u201d or \u201cTiamtu who is in the midst,\u201d he set north\nand south, east and west, in order that nothing of her might escape. In\naddition to all this, he created various winds\u2014the evil wind, the storm,\nthe hurricane, \u201cwind four and seven,\u201d the harmful, the uncontrollable (?),\nand these seven winds he sent forth, to confuse _kirbi\u0161 Tiamtu_, and they\nfollowed after him.\n\nNext he took his great weapon called _\u00e2bubu_, and mounted his dreadful,\nirresistible chariot, to which four steeds were yoked\u2014steeds unsparing,\nrushing forward, flying along, their teeth full of venom, foam-covered,\nexperienced (?) in galloping, schooled for overthrowing. Merodach being\nnow ready for the fray, he fared forth to meet the Dragon.\n\n\n \u201cThen, they clustered around him, the gods clustered around him,\n The gods his fathers clustered around him, the gods clustered\n around him.\n And the lord advanced, Tiamtu\u2019s retreat regarding\n Examining the lair of Kingu her consort.\u201d\n\n\nThe sight of the enemy was so menacing, that even the great Merodach began\nto falter and lose courage, whereat the gods, his helpers, who accompanied\nhim, were greatly disturbed in their minds, fearing approaching disaster.\nThe king of the gods soon recovered himself, however, and uttered to the\ndemon a longish challenge, on hearing which she became as one possessed,\nand cried aloud. Muttering then incantations and charms, she called the\ngods of battle to arms, and the great fight for the rule of the universe\nbegan.\n\n\n \u201cThe lord spread wide his net, made it enclose her.\n The evil wind following behind, he sent on before.\n\n Tiamtu opened her mouth as much as she could.\n He caused the evil wind to enter so that she could not close her\n lips,\n\n The angry winds filled out her body,\n Her heart was overpowered, wide opened she her mouth.\u201d\n\n\nBeing now at the mercy of the conqueror, the divine victor soon made an\nend of the enemy of the gods, upon whose mutilated body, when dead, he\nstood triumphantly. Great fear now overwhelmed the gods who had gone over\nto her side, and fought against the heavenly powers, and they fled to save\ntheir lives. Powerless to escape, however, they were captured, and their\nweapons broken to pieces. Notwithstanding their cries, which filled the\nvast region, they had to bear the punishment which was their due, and were\nshut up in prison. The creatures whom Tiamtu had created to help her and\nstrike terror into the hearts of the gods, were also brought into\nsubjection, along with Kingu, her husband, from whom the tablets of fate\nwere taken by the conqueror as things unmeet for Tiamtu\u2019s spouse to own.\nIt is probable that we have here the true explanation of the origin of\nthis remarkable legend, for the tablets of fate were evidently things\nwhich the king of heaven alone might possess, and Merodach, as soon as he\nhad overcome his foe, pressed his own seal upon them, and placed them in\nhis breast.\n\nHe had now conquered the enemy, the proud opposer of the gods of heaven,\nand having placed her defeated followers in safe custody, he was able to\nreturn to the dead and defeated Dragon of Chaos. He split open her skull\nwith his unsparing weapon, hewed asunder the channels of her blood, and\ncaused the north wind to carry it away to hidden places. His fathers saw\nthis, and rejoiced with shouting, and brought him gifts and offerings.\n\nAnd there, as he rested from the strife, Merodach looked upon her who had\nwrought such evil in the fair world as created by the gods, and as he\nlooked, he thought out clever plans. Hewing asunder the corpse of the\ngreat Dragon that lay lifeless before him, he made with one half a\ncovering for the heavens, keeping it in its place by means of a bolt, and\nsetting there a watchman to keep guard. He also arranged this portion of\nthe Dragon of Chaos in such a way, that \u201cher waters could not come forth,\u201d\nand this circumstance suggests a comparison with \u201cthe waters above the\nfirmament\u201d of the Biblical story in Genesis.\n\nPassing then through the heavens, he beheld that wide domain, and opposite\nthe abyss, he built an abode for the god Nudimmud, that is, for his father\nAa as the creator.\n\n\n \u201cThen measured the lord the abyss\u2019s extent,\n A palace in its likeness he founded:\u2014\u00ca\u0161arra;\n The palace \u00ca\u0161arra, which he made, (is) the heavens,\n (For) Anu, B\u00eal, and Aa he founded their strongholds.\u201d\n\n\nWith these words, which are practically a description of the creation or\nbuilding, by Merodach, of the heavens, the fourth tablet of the Babylonian\nlegend of the Creation comes to an end. It is difficult to find a parallel\nto this part of the story in the Hebrew account in Genesis.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\n [Plate II.]\n\n Plate II. Fragments of tablets (duplicates), giving the words for the\ndifferent fasts, festivals, etc., of the Babylonians and Assyrians. Line 4\n of the small piece, and 16 of the large one, have the words _\u00fbm n\u00fbh\n libbi_, \"day of rest of the heart,\" explained by _sapattum_ (from the\n Sumerian _sa-bat_, \"heart-rest\"), generally regarded as the original of\nthe Hebrew _Sabbath_. _Sapattum_, however, was the 15th day of the month.\n The nearest approaches to Sabbaths were the 7th, 14th, 21st, 28th, and\n19th, which were called _u-hul-gallu_ or _\u00fbmu limnu_, \"the evil day\" (the\n 19th being a _week of weeks_, from the 1st day of the preceding month),\n because it was unlawful to do certain things on those days.\n\n\nThe fifth tablet of the Babylonian story of the Creation is a mere\nfragment, but is of considerable interest and importance. It describes, in\npoetical language, in the style with which the reader has now become\nfairly familiar, the creation and ordering, by Merodach, of the heavenly\nbodies, as the ancient Babylonians conceived them to have taken place. The\ntext of the first few stanzas is as follows\u2014\n\n\n \u201cHe built firmly the stations of the great gods\u2014\n Stars their likeness\u2014he set up the Luma\u0161i,\n He designated the year, he outlined the (heavenly) forms.\n He set for the twelve months three stars each.\n From the day when the year begins, ... for signs.\n He founded the station of N\u00eebiru, to make known their limits,\n That none might err, nor go astray.\n The station of B\u00eal and Aa he placed with himself,\n Then he opened the great gates on both sides,\n Bolts he fixed on the left and on the right,\n In its centre (?) then he set the zenith (?).\n Nannaru (the moon) he caused to shine, ruling the night,\n So he set him as a creature of the night, to make known the days,\n Monthly, without failing, he provided him with a crown,\n At the beginning of the month then, dawning in the land,\n The horns shine forth to make known the seasons (?),\n On the 7th day crown (perfect)ing (?).\n The [Sa]bbath shalt thou then fall in with, half-monthly,\n When the sun (is) in the base of the heavens, at thy [approach?].\n ...... hath caused to be cut off and\n ... nearing the path of the sun.\n [The ...]th [day] shalt thou then fall in with, the sun shall\n change (?)...\n ...... the sign seeking its path.\n ... cause to approach and give the judgment.\n ........................ to injure (?)\n ........................... one.\u201d\n\n\nThe final lines of this portion seem to refer to the moon on the 7th and\nother days of the month, and would in that case indicate the quarters.\n\u201cSabbath\u201d is doubtful on account of the mutilation of the first character,\nbut in view of the forms given on pl. II. and p. 527 (_\u0161apattu__m_,\n_\u0161apatti_) the restoration as _\u0161apattu_ seems possible. It is described on\np. 527 as the 15th of the month, but must have indicated also the 14th,\naccording to the length of the month.\n\nAn exceedingly imperfect fragment of what is supposed to be part of the\nfifth tablet exists. It speaks of the bow with which Merodach overcame the\nDragon of Chaos, which the god Anu, to all appearance, set in the heavens\nas one of the constellations. After this comes, apparently, a fragment\nthat may be regarded as recording the creation of the earth, and the\ncities and renowned shrines upon it, the houses of the great gods, and the\ncities Nippuru (Niffer) and Asshur being mentioned. Everything, however,\nis very disconnected and doubtful.\n\nThe sixth tablet, judging from the fragment recognized by Mr. L. W. King,\nmust have been one of special interest, as it to all appearance contained\na description of the creation of man. Unfortunately, only the beginning of\nthe text is preserved, and is as follows:\u2014\n\n\n \u201cMerodach, on hearing the word of the gods,\n His heart urged him, and he made [cunning plans].\n He opened his mouth and [said] to the god A\u00ea\u2014\n [What] he thought out in his heart he communicates ...:\n \u2018Let me gather my blood and let me ... bone,\n Let me set up a man, and let the man ....\n Let me make then men dwelling ....\n May the service of the gods be established, and as for them, let\n ....\n Let me alter the ways of the gods, let me chan[ge their paths]\u2014\n As one let them be honoured, as two let them be ....\u2019\n A\u00ea answered him, and the word he spake.\u201d\n\n\nHere come the remains of ten very imperfect lines, which probably related\nthe consent of the other gods to the proposal, and must have been followed\nby a description of the way in which it was carried out. All this,\nhowever, is unfortunately not preserved. That the whole of Merodach\u2019s work\nreceived the approval of \u201cthe gods his fathers\u201d is shown by the remains of\nlines with which the sixth tablet closes:\u2014\n\n\n \u201cThey rejoiced ....................\n In Up\u0161ukenaku they caused .............\n Of the son, the hero, who brought back [benefit for them]\n \u2018As for us, whom, succouring, he ...........\u2019\n They sat down, and in their assembly they proclaimed\n ... they all announced ...............\u201d\n\n\nWhat they proclaimed and announced was apparently his glorious names, as\ndetailed in the seventh and last tablet of the series, which was regarded\nby George Smith as containing an address to primitive man, but which\nproves to be really an address to the god Merodach praising him on account\nof the great work that he had done in overcoming the Dragon, and in\nthereafter ordering the world anew. As this portion forms a good specimen\nof Babylonian poetry at its best, the full text of the tablet, with the\nexception of some short remains of lines, is here presented in as careful\na translation as is at present possible.\n\n\n The Seventh Tablet Of The Creation-Series, Also Known As The\n Tablet Of The Fifty-One Names.\n\n 1 Asari, bestower of planting, establisher of irrigation.\n\n 2 Creator of grain and herbs, he who causes verdure to grow.\n\n 3 Asari-alim, he who is honoured in the house of counsel, [who\n increases counsel?].\n\n 4 The gods bow down to him, fear [possesses them?].\n\n 5 Asari-alim-nunna, the mighty one, light of the father his\n begetter.\n\n 6 He who directs the oracles of Anu, Bel, [and Aa].\n\n 7 He is their nourisher, who has ordained....\n\n 8 He whose provision is fertility, sendeth forth....\n\n 9 Tutu, the creator of their renewal, [is he?].\n\n 10 Let him purify their desires, (as for) them, let them [be\n appeased].\n\n 11 Let him then make his incantation, let the gods [be at rest].\n\n 12 Angrily did he arise, may he lay low [their breast].\n\n 13 Exalted was he then in the assembly of the gods....\n\n 14 None among the gods shall [forsake him].\n\n 15 _Tutu._(1) \u201cZi-ukenna,\u201d \u201clife of the people\u201d\n\n 16 \u201cHe who fixed for the gods the glorious heavens;\u201d\n\n 17 Their paths they took, they set\n\n 18 May the deeds (that he performed) not be forgotten among men.\n\n 19 _Tutu._ \u201cZi-azaga,\u201d thirdly, he called (him),\u2014\u201che who effects\n purification,\u201d\n\n 20 \u201cGod of the good wind,\u201d \u201cLord of hearing and obedience,\u201d\n\n 21 \u201cCreator of fulness and plenty,\u201d \u201cInstitutor of abundance,\u201d\n\n 22 \u201cHe who changes what is small to great,\u201d\n\n 23 In our dire need we scented his sweet breath.\n\n 24 Let them speak, let them glorify, let them render him\n obedience.\n\n 25 _Tutu._ \u201cAga-azaga,\u201d fourthly, May he make the crowns glorious,\n\n 26 \u201cThe lord of the glorious incantation bringing the dead to\n life,\u201d\n\n 27 \u201cHe who had mercy on the gods who had been overpowered,\u201d\n\n 28 \u201cHe who made heavy the yoke that he had laid on the gods who\n were his enemies,\n\n 29 (And) for their despite (?), created mankind.\u201d\n\n 30 \u201cThe merciful one,\u201d \u201cHe with whom is lifegiving,\u201d\n\n 31 May his word be established, and not forgotten,\n\n 32 In the mouth of the black-headed ones (mankind) whom his hands\n have made.\n\n 33 _Tutu._ \u201cMu-azaga,\u201d fifthly, May their mouth make known his\n glorious incantation,\n\n 34 \u201cHe who with his glorious charm rooteth out all the evil ones,\u201d\n\n 35 \u201cSa-zu,\u201d \u201cHe who knoweth the heart of the gods,\u201d \u201cHe who\n looketh at the inward parts,\u201d\n\n 36 \u201cHe who alloweth not evil-doers to go forth against him,\u201d\n\n 37 \u201cHe who assembleth the gods,\u201d appeasing their hearts,\n\n 38 \u201cHe who subdueth the disobedient,\u201d...\n\n 39 \u201cHe who ruleth in truth (and justice\u201d), ...\n\n 40 \u201cHe who setteth aside injustice,\u201d ...\n\n 41 _Tutu._ \u201cZi-si\u201d (\u201cHe who bringeth about silence\u201d), ...\n\n 42 \u201cHe who sendeth forth stillness.\u201d ...\n\n 43 _Tutu._ \u201cSu\u1e2b-kur,\u201d \u201cAnnihilator of the enemy,\u201d ...\n\n 44 \u201cDissolver of their agreements,\u201d ...\n\n 45 \u201cAnnihilator of everything evil.\u201d ...\n\n\nAbout 40 lines, mostly very imperfect, occur here, and some 20 others are\ntotally lost. The text after this continues:\u2014\n\n\n 107 \u201cThen he seized the back part (?) of the head, which he\n pierced (?),\n\n 108 And as Kirbi\u0161-Tiamtu he circumvented restlessly,\n\n 109 His name shall be Nibiru, he who seized Kirbi\u0161u (Tiamtu).\n\n 110 Let him direct the paths of the stars of heaven,\n\n 111 Like sheep let him pasture the gods, the whole of them.\n\n 112 May he confine Tiamtu, may he bring her life into pain and\n anguish,\n\n 113 In man\u2019s remote ages, in lateness of days,\n\n 114 Let him arise, and he shall not cease, may he continue into\n the remote future\n\n 115 As he made the (heavenly) place, and formed the firm (ground),\n\n 116 Father B\u00eal called him (by) his own name, \u201cLord of the World,\u201d\n\n 117 The appellation (by) which the Igigi have themselves (always)\n called him.\n\n 118 Aa heard, and he rejoiced in his heart:\n\n 119 Thus (he spake): \u201cHe, whose renowned name his fathers have so\n glorified,\n\n 120 He shall be like me, and Aa shall be his name!\n\n 121 The total of my commands, all of them, let him possess, and\n\n 122 The whole of my pronouncements he, (even) he, shall make\n known.\u201d\n\n 123 By the appellation \u201cfifty\u201d the great gods\n\n 124 His fifty names proclaimed, and they caused his career to be\n great (beyond all).\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\n 125 May they be accepted, and may the prim\u00e6val one make (them)\n known,\n\n 126 May the wise and understanding altogether well consider\n (them),\n\n 127 May the father repeat and teach to the son,\n\n 128 May they open the ears of the shepherd and leader.\n\n 129 May they rejoice for the lord of the gods, Merodach,\n\n 130 May his land bear in plenty; as for him, may he have peace.\n\n 131 His word standeth firm; his command changeth not\u2014\n\n 132 No god hath yet made to fail that which cometh forth from his\n mouth.\n\n 133 If he frown down in displeasure, he turneth not his neck,\n\n 134 In his anger, there is no god who can withstand his wrath.\n\n 135 Broad is his heart, vast is the kindness (?) of (his) ...\n\n 136 The sinner and evildoer before him are (ashamed?).\u201d\n\n\nThe remains of some further lines exist, but they are very uncertain, the\nbeginnings and ends being broken away. All that can be said is, that the\npoem concluded in the same strain as the last twelve lines preserved.\n\nIn the foregoing pages the reader has had placed before him all the\nprincipal details of the Babylonian story of the Creation, and we may now\nproceed to examine the whole in greater detail.\n\nIf we may take the explanation of Damascius as representing fairly the\nopinion of the Babylonians concerning the creation of the world, it seems\nclear that they regarded the matter of which it was formed as existing in\nthe beginning under the two forms of Tiamtu (the sea) and _Aps\u00fb_ (the\ndeep), and from these, being wedded, proceeded \u201can only begotten son,\u201d\n_Mummu_ (Moumis), conceived by Damascius to be \u201cno other that the\nintelligible world proceeding from the two principles,\u201d _i.e._ from Tiamtu\nand _Aps\u00fb_. From these come forth, in successive generations, the other\ngods, ending with Marduk or Merodach, also named B\u00eal (B\u00eal-Merodach), the\nson of Aa (Ea) and his consort Damkina (the Aos and Dauk\u00e9 of Damascius).\n\nJudging from the material that we have, the Babylonians seemed to have\nbelieved in a kind of evolution, for they evidently regarded the first\ncreative powers (the watery waste and the abyss) as the rude and barbaric\nbeginnings of things, the divine powers produced from these first\nprinciples (La\u1e2bmu and La\u1e2bamu, An\u0161ar and Ki\u0161ar, Anu, Ellila, and Aa, and\nfinally Marduk), being successive stages in the upward path towards\nperfection, with which the first rude elements of creation were ultimately\nbound to come into conflict; for Tiamtu, the chief of the two rude and\nprimitive principles of creation, was, notwithstanding this, ambitious,\nand desired still to be the creatress of the gods and other inferior\nbeings that were yet to be produced. All the divinities descending from\nTiamtu were, to judge from the inscriptions, creators, and as they\nadvanced towards perfection, so also did the things that they created\nadvance, until, by contrast, the works of Tiamtu became as those of the\nEvil Principle, and when she rebelled against the gods who personified all\nthat was good, it became a battle between them of life and death, which\nonly the latest-born of the gods, elected in consequence of the perfection\nof his power, to be king and ruler over \u201cthe gods his fathers,\u201d was found\nworthy to wage. The glorious victory gained, and the Dragon of Evil\nsubdued and relegated to those places where her exuberant producing power,\nwhich, to all appearance, she still possessed, would be of use, Merodach,\nin the fulness of his power as king of the gods, perfected and ordered the\nuniverse anew, and created his crowning work, Mankind. Many details are,\nto all appearance, wanting on account of the incompleteness of the series,\nbut those which remain seem to indicate that the motive of the whole story\nwas as outlined here.\n\nIn Genesis, however, we have an entirely different account, based,\napparently, upon a widely different conception of the origin of the\nUniverse, for one principle only appears throughout the whole narrative,\nbe it Elohistic, Jehovistic, or priestly. \u201cIn the beginning God created\nthe heavens and the earth,\u201d and from the first verse to the last it is He,\nand He alone, who is Creator and Maker and Ruler of the Universe. The only\npassage containing any indication that more than one person took part in\nthe creation of the world and all that therein is, is in verse 26, where\nGod is referred to as saying, \u201cLet US make man,\u201d but that this is simply\nthe plural of majesty, and nothing more, seems to be proved by the very\nnext verse, where the wording is, \u201cand God made man in HIS own image,\u201d\netc. There is, therefore, no trace of polytheistic influence in the whole\nnarrative.\n\nLet us glance awhile at the other differences.\n\nTo begin with, the whole Babylonian narrative is not only based upon an\nentirely different theory of the beginning of all things, but upon an\nentirely different conception of what took place ere man appeared upon the\nearth. \u201cIn the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,\u201d implies\nthe conception of a time when the heavens and the earth existed not. Not\nso, seemingly, with the Babylonian account. There the heavens and the\nearth are represented as existing, though in a chaotic form, from the\nfirst. Moreover, it is not the external will and influence of the Almighty\nthat originates and produces the forms of the first creatures inhabiting\nthe world, but the productive power residing in the watery waste and the\ndeep:\n\n\n \u201cThe prim\u00e6val ocean (_aps\u00fb r\u00east\u016b_) was their producer (lit.\n seeder);\n Mummu Tiamtu was _she who brought forth_ the whole of them.\u201d\n\n\nIt is question here of \u201cseeding\u201d (_zaru_) and \u201cbearing\u201d (_\u00e2l\u0101du_), not of\ncreating.\n\nThe legend is too defective to enable us to find out anything as to the\nBabylonian idea concerning the formation of the dry land. Testimony as to\nits non-existence at the earliest period is all that is vouchsafed to us.\nAt that time none of the gods had come forth, seemingly because (if the\nrestoration be correct) \u201cthe fates had not been determined.\u201d There is no\nclue, however, as to who was then the determiner of the fates.\n\nThen, gradually, and in the course of long-extended ages, the gods La\u1e2bmu\nand La\u1e2bamu, An\u0161ar and Ki\u0161ar, with the others, came into existence, as\nalready related, after which the record, which is mutilated, goes on to\nspeak of Tiamtu, Aps\u016b, and Mummu.\n\nThese deities of the Abyss were evidently greatly disquieted on account of\nthe existence and the work of the gods of heaven. They therefore took\ncounsel together, and Aps\u016b complained that he could not rest either night\nor day on account of them. Naturally the mutilated state of the text makes\nthe true reason of the conflict somewhat uncertain. Fried. Delitzsch\nregarded it as due to the desire, on the part of Merodach, to have\npossession of the \u201cTablets of Fate,\u201d which the powers of good and the\npowers of evil both wished to obtain. These documents, when they are first\nspoken of, are in the hands of Tiamtu (see p. 19), and she, on giving the\npower of changeless command to Kingu, her husband, handed them to him. In\nthe great fight, when Merodach overcame his foes, he seized these precious\nrecords, and placed them in his breast\u2014\n\n\n \u201cAnd Kingu, who had become great over (?) them\u2014\n He bound him, and with Ugga (the god of death) ... he counted him;\n From him then he took the Fate-tablets, which were not his,\n With his ring he pressed them, and took them to his breast.\u201d\n\n\nTo all appearance, Tiamtu and Kingu were in unlawful possession of these\ndocuments, and the king of the gods, Merodach, when he seized them, only\ntook possession of what, in reality, was his own. What power the \u201cTablets\nof Fate\u201d conferred on their possessor, we do not know, but in all\nprobability the god in whose hands they were, became, by the very fact,\ncreator and ruler of the universe for ever and ever.\n\nThis creative power the king of the gods at once proceeded to exercise.\nPassing through the heavens, he surveyed them, and built a palace called\n\u00ca-\u0161arra, \u201cThe house of the host,\u201d for the gods who, with himself, might be\nregarded as the chief in his heavenly kingdom. Next in order he arranged\nthe heavenly bodies, forming the constellations, marking off the year; the\nmoon, and probably the sun also, being, as stated in Genesis, \u201cfor signs,\nand for seasons, and for days and years,\u201d though all this is detailed, in\nthe Babylonian account, at much greater length. Indeed, had we the whole\nlegend complete, we should probably find ourselves in possession of a\ndetailed description of the Babylonian idea of the heavens which they\nstudied so constantly, and of the world on which they lived, in relation\nto the celestial phenomena which they saw around them.\n\nFragments of tablets have been spoken of that seem to belong to the fifth\nand sixth of the series, and one of them speaks of the building of certain\nancient cities, including that now represented by the mounds known by the\nname of Niffer, which must, therefore, apart from any considerations of\npaleographic progression in the case of inscriptions found there, or\nevidence based on the depth of rubbish-accumulations, be one of the oldest\nknown. It is probably on account of this that the Talmudic writers\nidentified the site with the Calneh of Gen. x. 10, which, notwithstanding\nthe absence of native confirmation, may very easily be correct, for the\nJews of those days were undoubtedly in a better position to know than we\nare, after a lapse of two thousand years. The same text, strangely enough,\nalso refers to the city of A\u0161\u0161ur, though this city (which did not,\napparently, belong to Nimrod\u2019s kingdom) can hardly have been a prim\u00e6val\ncity in the same sense as \u201cBabel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh.\u201d\n\nThe text of the Semitic Creation-story is here so mutilated as to be\nuseless for comparative purposes, and in these circumstances the bilingual\nstory of the Creation, published by me in 1891, practically covering, as\nit does, the same ground, may be held, in a measure, to supply its place.\nInstead, therefore, of devoting to this version a separate section, I\ninsert a translation of it here, together with a description of the tablet\nupon which it is written.\n\nThis second version of the Creation-story is inscribed on a large fragment\n(about four and a half inches high) of a tablet found by Mr. Rassam at\nSippar (Abu Habbah) in 1882. The text is very neatly written in the\nBabylonian character, and is given twice over, that is, in the original\n(dialectic) Akkadian, with a Semitic (Babylonian) translation. As it was\nthe custom of the Babylonian and Assyrian scribes, for the sake of giving\na nice appearance to what they wrote, to spread out the characters in such\na way that the page (as it were) was \u201cjustified,\u201d and the ends of the\nlines ranged, like a page of print, it often happens that, when a line is\nnot a full one, there is a wide space, in the middle, without writing. In\nthe Akkadian text of the bilingual Creation-story, however, a gap is left\nin _every_ line, sufficiently large to accommodate, in slightly smaller\ncharacters, the whole Semitic Babylonian translation. The tablet therefore\nseems to be written in three columns, the first being the first half of\nthe Akkadian version, the second (a broad one) the Semitic translation,\nand the third the last half of the Akkadian original text, separated from\nthe first part to allow of the Semitic version being inserted between.\n\nThe reason of the writing of the version already translated and in part\ncommented upon is not difficult to find\u2014it was to give an account of the\norigin of the world and the gods whom they worshipped. The reason of the\nwriting of the bilingual story of the Creation, however, is not so easy to\ndecide, the account there given being the introduction to one of those\nbilingual incantations for purification, in which, however, by the\nmutilation of the tablet, the connecting-link is unfortunately lost. But\nwhatever the reason of its being prefixed to this incantation, the value\nand importance of the version presented by this new document is\nincontestable, not only for the legend itself, but also for the linguistic\nmaterial which a bilingual text nearly always offers.\n\nThe following is a translation of this document\u2014\n\n\n \u201cIncantation: The glorious house, the house of the gods, in a\n glorious place had not been made,\n A plant had not grown up, a tree had not been created,\n A brick had not been laid, a beam had not been shaped,\n A house had not been built, a city had not been constructed,\n A city had not been made, no community had been established,\n Niffer had not been built, \u00ca-kura had not been constructed,\n Erech had not been built, \u00ca-ana had not been constructed,\n The Abyss had not been made, \u00caridu had not been constructed,\n (As for) the glorious house, the house of the gods, its seat had\n not been made\u2014\n The whole of the lands were sea.\n When within the sea there was a stream,\n In that day Eridu was made, \u00ca-sagila was constructed\u2014\n \u00ca-sagila, which the god Lugal-du-azaga founded within the Abyss.\n Babylon he built, \u00ca-sagila was completed.\n He made the gods (and) the Anunnaki together,\n The glorious city, the seat of the joy of their hearts, supremely\n he proclaimed.\n Merodach bound together a foundation before the waters,\n He made dust, and poured (it) out beside the foundation,\n That the gods might sit in a pleasant place.\n He made mankind\u2014\n Aruru made the seed of mankind with him.\n He made the beasts of the field and the living creatures of the\n desert,\n He made the Tigris and the Euphrates, and set (them) in (their)\n place\u2014\n Well proclaimed he their name.\n Grass, the marsh-plant, the reed and the forest, he made,\n He made the verdure of the plain,\n The lands, the marsh, the thicket also,\n The wild cow (and) her young the steer; the ewe (and) her\n young\u2014the sheep of the fold,\n Plantations and forests also.\n The goat and the wild goat multiplied for him (?).\n Lord Merodach on the sea-shore made a bank,\n ... (which) at first he made not,\n ... he caused to be.\n (He caused the plant to be brought forth), he made the tree,\n (Everything?) he made in (its) place.\n (He laid the brick), he made the beams,\n (He constructed the house), he built the city,\n (He built the city), the community exercised power,\n (He built the city Niffer), he built \u00ca-kura, the temple,\n (He built the city Erech, he built \u00ca-a)na, the temple,\u201d\n\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nHere the obverse breaks off, and the end of the bilingual story of the\nCreation-story is lost. How many more lines were devoted to it we do not\nknow, nor do we know how the incantation proper, which followed it, and to\nwhich it formed the introduction, began. Where the text (about half-way\ndown on the reverse) again becomes legible, it reads as follows\u2014\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\n\n \u201cThy supreme messenger, Pap-sukal, the wise one, counsellor of the\n gods.\n Nin-a\u1e2ba-kudu, daughter of Aa,\n May she make thee glorious with a glorious lustration (?),\n May she make thee pure with pure fire,\n With the glorious pure fountain of the abyss purify thou thy\n pathway,\n By the incantation of Merodach, king of the universe of heaven and\n earth,\n May the abundance of the land enter into thy midst,\n May thy command be fulfilled for ever.\n O \u00ca-zida, seat supreme, the beloved of Anu and I\u0161tar art thou,\n Mayest thou shine like heaven; mayest thou be glorious like the\n earth; mayest thou shine like the midst of heaven;\n May the malevolent curse dwell outside of thee.\n Incantation making (the purification of the temple).\n Incantation: The star ... the long chariot of the heavens.\u201d\n\n\nThe last line but one is apparently the title, and is followed by the\nfirst line of the next tablet. From this we see that this text belonged to\na series of at least two tablets, and that the tablet following the above\nhad an introduction of an astronomical or astrological nature.\n\nIt will be noticed that this text not only contains an account of the\ncreation of gods and men, and flora and fauna, but also of the great and\nrenowned sites and shrines of the country where it originated. It is in\nthis respect that it bears a likeness to the fragmentary portions of the\nintermediate tablets of the Semitic Babylonian story of the Creation, or\nB\u00eal and the Dragon, and this slight agreement may be held to justify, in\nsome measure, its introduction here. The bilingual version, however,\ndiffers very much in style from that in Semitic only, and seems to lack\nthe poetical form which characterizes the latter. This, indeed, was to be\nexpected, for poetical form in a translation which follows the original\nclosely is an impossibility, though the poetry of words and ideas which it\ncontains naturally remains. It is not unlikely that the original Sumerian\ntext is in poetical form, as is suggested by the cesura, and the recurring\nwords.\n\nIn the bilingual account of the Creation one seems to get a glimpse of the\npride that the ancient Babylonians felt in the ancient and renowned cities\nof their country. The writer\u2019s conception of the wasteness and voidness of\nthe earth in the beginning seems to have been that the ancient cities\nBabel, Niffer, Erech and Eridu had not yet come into existence. For him,\nthose sites were as much creations as the vegetation and animal life of\nthe earth. Being, for him, sacred sites, they must have had a sacred, a\ndivine foundation, and he therefore attributes their origin to the\ngreatest of the gods, Merodach, who built them, brick, and beam, and\nhouse, himself. Their renowned temples, too, had their origin at the hands\nof the Divine Architect of the Universe.\n\nA few words are necessary in elucidation of what follows the line, \u201cWhen\nwithin the sea there was a stream.\u201d \u201cIn that day,\u201d it says, \u201c\u00caridu was\nmade, \u00ca-sagila was constructed\u2014\u00ca-sagila which the god Lugal-du-azaga\nfounded within the Abyss. Babylon he built, \u00ca-sagila was completed.\u201d The\nconnection of \u00ca-sagila, \u201cthe temple of the lofty head,\u201d which was within\nthe Abyss, with \u00caridu, shows, with little or no doubt, that the \u00caridu\nthere referred to was not the earthly city of that name, but a city\nconceived as lying also \u201cwithin the Abyss.\u201d This \u00caridu, as we shall see\nfarther on, was the \u201cblessed city,\u201d or Paradise, wherein was the tree of\nlife, and which was watered by the twin stream of the Tigris and the\nEuphrates.\n\nBut there was another \u00ca-sagila than that founded by the god Lugal-du-azaga\nwithin the Abyss, namely the \u00ca-sagila at Babylon, and it is this fane that\nis spoken of in the phrase following that mentioning the temple so called\nwithin the Abyss. To the Babylonian, therefore, the capital of the country\nwas, in that respect, a counterpart of the divine city that he regarded as\nthe abode of bliss, where dwelt Nammu, the river-god, and the sun-god\nDumuzi-Abzu, or \u201cTammuz of the Abyss.\u201d Like Sippar too, Babylon was\nsituated in what was called the plain, the _edina_, of which Babylonia\nmainly consisted, and which is apparently the original of the Garden of\nEden.\n\nThe present text differs from that of the longer (Semitic) story of the\nCreation, in that it makes Merodach to be the creator of the gods, as well\nas of mankind, and all living things. This, of course, implies that it was\ncomposed at a comparatively late date, when the god Merodach had become\nfully recognized as the chief divinity, and the fact that Aa was his\nfather had been lost sight of, and practically forgotten. The goddess\nAruru is apparently introduced into the narrative out of consideration for\nthe city Sippar-Aruru, of which she was patron. In another text she is\ncalled \u201cLady of the gods of Sippar and Aruru.\u201d There is also a goddess\n(perhaps identical with her) called Gala-aruru, \u201cGreat Aruru,\u201d or \u201cthe\ngreat one (of) Aruru,\u201d who is explained as \u201cI\u0161tar the star,\u201d on the tablet\nK. 2109.\n\nAfter the account of the creation of the beasts of the field, the Tigris\nand the Euphrates, vegetation, lands, marshes, thickets, plantations and\nforests, which are named, to all appearance, without any attempt at any\nkind of order, \u201cThe lord Merodach\u201d is represented as creating those things\nwhich, at first, he had not made, namely, the great and ancient shrines in\nwhose antiquity and glorious memories the Babylonian\u2014and the Assyrian\ntoo\u2014took such delight. The list, however, is a short one, and it is to be\nsupposed that, in the lines that are broken away, further cities of the\nkingdom of Babylon were mentioned. That this was the case is implied by\nthe reverse, which deals mainly\u2014perhaps exclusively\u2014with the great shrine\nof Borsippa called \u00ca-zida, and identified by many with the Tower of Babel.\nHow it was brought in, however, we have no means of finding out, and must\nwait patiently for the completion of the text that will, in all\nprobability, ultimately be discovered.\n\nThe reverse has only the end of the text, which, as far as it is\npreserved, is in the form of an \u201cincantation of \u00caridu,\u201d and mentions \u201cthe\nglorious fountain of the Abyss,\u201d which to was to \u201cpurify\u201d or \u201cmake\nglorious\u201d the pathway of the personified fane referred to. As it was the\ngod Merodach, \u201cthe merciful one,\u201d \u201che who raises the dead to life,\u201d \u201cthe\nlord of the glorious incantation,\u201d who was regarded by the Babylonians as\nrevealing to mankind the \u201cincantation of \u00caridu,\u201d which he, in his turn,\nobtained from his father Aa, we may see in this final part of the legend\nnot only a glorification of the chief deity of the Babylonians, but also a\nfurther testimony of the fact that the composition must belong to the\ncomparatively late period in the history of Babylonian religion, when the\nworship of Merodach had taken the place of that of his father Aa.\n\nOf course, it must not be supposed that the longer account of the Creation\nwas told so shortly as the bilingual narrative that we have introduced\nhere to supply the missing parts of the longer version. Everything was\nprobably recounted at much greater length, and in confirmation of this\nthere is the testimony of the small fragment of the longer account,\ntranslated on p. 28. This simply contains the announcement that Merodach\nhad made cunning plans, and decided to create man from his own blood, and\n[to form?] his bones, but there must have been, in the long gap which then\nensues, a detailed account of the actual creation of the human race,\nprobably with some reference to the formation of animals. One cannot base\nmuch upon this mutilated fragment, but, as the first translator has\npointed out, the object in creating man was seemingly to ensure the\nperformance of the service (or worship) of the gods, and the building of\ntheir shrines, prayer and sacrifice, with the fear of God, being duties\nfrom which there was no escape.\n\nIn the last tablet of the series\u2014that recording the praises of Merodach\nand his fifty new names,\u2014there are a few points that are worthy of\nexamination. In the first place, the arrangement of the first part is\nnoteworthy. The principal name that was given to him seems not to have\nbeen Merodach, as one would expect from the popularity of the name in\nlater days, but Tutu, which occurs in the margin, at the head of six of\nthe sections, and was probably prefixed to at least three more. This name\nTutu is evidently an Akkadian reduplicate word, from the root _tu_, \u201cto\nbeget,\u201d and corresponds with the explanation of the word given by the list\nof Babylonian gods, K. 2107; _mu\u00e2llid \u00eel\u0101ni, m\u00fbddi\u0161 \u00eel\u0101ni_, \u201cbegetter of\nthe gods, renewer of the gods\u201d\u2014a name probably given to him on account of\nhis identification with his father, Aa, for, according to the legend,\nMerodach was rather the youngest than the oldest of the gods, who are even\ncalled, as will be remembered, \u201chis fathers.\u201d In the lost portion at the\nbeginning of the final tablet he was also called, according to the tablet\nhere quoted, Gugu = _muttakkil \u00eel\u0101ni_, \u201cnourisher of the gods\u201d; Mumu =\n_mu\u0161pi\u0161 \u00eel\u0101ni_, \u201cincreaser (?) of the gods\u201d; Dugan = _ban\u00ee kala \u00eel\u0101ni_,\n\u201cmaker of all the gods\u201d; Dudu = _muttarr\u00fb \u00eel\u0101ni_, \u201csaviour (?) of the\ngods\u201d; \u0160ar-azaga = _\u0161a \u0161ipat-su \u00eallit_, \u201che whose incantation is\nglorious\u201d; and Mu-azaga = _\u0161a t\u00fb-\u0161u \u00eallit_, \u201che whose charm is glorious\u201d\n(cf. p. 31, l. 33). After this we have \u0160a-zu or \u0160a-sud = _m\u00fbd\u00ea libbi\n\u012bl\u0101ni_ or _libbi r\u00fb\u1e33u_, \u201che who knoweth the heart of the gods,\u201d or \u201cthe\nremote of heart\u201d (p. 31, l. 35); Zi-u\u1e33enna = _nap\u0161at nap\u1e2bar \u00eel\u0101ni_, \u201cthe\nlife of the whole of the gods\u201d (p. 30, l. 15); Zi-si = _nasi\u1e2b \u0161abuti_, \u201che\nwho bringeth about silence\u201d (p. 31, l. 41); Su\u1e2b-kur = _muball\u00fb aabi_,\n\u201cannihilator of the enemy\u201d (p. 31, l. 43); and other names meaning\n_muball\u00fb nap\u1e2bar aabi, nasi\u1e2b raggi_, \u201cannihilator of the whole of the\nenemy, rooter out of evil,\u201d _nasi\u1e2b nap\u1e2bar raggi_, \u201crooter out of the whole\nof the evil,\u201d _\u00ea\u0161\u00fb raggi_, \u201ctroubler of the evil (ones),\u201d and _\u00ea\u0161\u00fb nap\u1e2bar\nraggi_, \u201ctroubler of the whole of the evil (ones).\u201d All these last names\nwere probably enumerated on the lost part of the tablet between where the\nobverse breaks off and the reverse resumes the narrative, and the whole of\nthe fifty names conferred upon him, which were enumerated in their old\nAkkadian forms and translated into Semitic Babylonian in this final tablet\nof the Creation, were evidently repeated in the form of a list of gods, on\nthe tablet in tabular form from which the above renderings are taken.\n\nHailed then as the vanquisher of Kirbi\u0161-Tiamtu, the great Dragon of Chaos,\nhe is called by the name of Nibiru, \u201cthe ferry,\u201d a name of the planet\nJupiter as the traverser of the heavens (one of the points of contact\nbetween Babylonian and Greek mythology), the stars of which he was\nregarded as directing, and keeping (lit. pasturing) like sheep. (Gods and\nstars may here be regarded as convertible terms.) His future is then\nspoken of, and \u201cfather B\u00eal\u201d gives him his own name, \u201clord of the world.\u201d\nRejoicing in the honours showered on his son, and not to be outdone in\ngenerosity, Aa decrees that henceforth Merodach shall be like him, and\nthat he shall be called Aa, possessing all his commands, and all his\npronouncements\u2014_i.e._ all the wisdom which he, as god of deep wisdom,\npossessed. Thus was Merodach endowed with all the names, and all the\nattributes, of the gods of the Babylonians\u2014\u201cthe fifty renowned names of\nthe great gods.\u201d\n\nThis was, to all intents and purposes, symbolic of a great struggle, in\nearly days, between polytheism and monotheism\u2014for the masses the former,\nfor the more learned and thoughtful the latter. Of this we shall have\nfurther proof farther on, when discussing the name of Merodach. For the\npresent be it simply noted, that this is not the only text identifying\nMerodach with the other gods.\n\nThe reference to the creation of mankind in line 29 of the obverse (p. 31)\nis noteworthy, notwithstanding that the translation of one of the\nwords\u2014and that a very important one\u2014is very doubtful. Apparently man was\ncreated to the despite of the rebellious gods, but there is also just the\npossibility that there exists here an idiomatic phrase meaning \u201cin their\nroom.\u201d If the latter be the true rendering, this part of the legend would\nbe in striking accord with Bishop Avitus of Vienne, with the old English\npoet Caedmon, and with Milton in his _Paradise Lost_. In connection with\nthis, too, the statement in the reverse, lines 113 and 114, where \u201cman\u2019s\nremote ages\u201d is referred to, naturally leads one to ask, Have we here\ntraces of a belief that, in ages to come (\u201cin lateness of days\u201d), Merodach\nwas to return and live among men into the remote future? The return of a\ndivinity or a hero of much-cherished memory is such a usual thing among\npopular beliefs, that this may well have been the case likewise among the\nBabylonians.\n\nThe comparison of the two accounts of the Creation\u2014that of the Hebrews and\nthat of the Babylonians, that have been presented to the reader\u2014will\nprobably have brought prominently before him the fact, that the Babylonian\naccount, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, differs\nso much from the Biblical account, that they are, to all intents and\npurposes, two distinct narratives. That there are certain ideas in common,\ncannot be denied, but most of them are ideas that are inseparable from two\naccounts of the same event, notwithstanding that they have been composed\nfrom two totally different standpoints. In writing an account of the\nCreation, statements as to what are the things created must of necessity\nbe inserted. There is, therefore, no proof of a connection between two\naccounts of the Creation in the fact that they both speak of the formation\nof dry land, or because they both state that plants, animals, and man were\ncreated. Connection may be inferred from such statements that the waters\nwere the first abode of life, or that an expansion was created dividing\nthe waters above from those below. With reference to such points of\ncontact as these just mentioned, however, the question naturally arises,\nAre these points of similarity sufficient to justify the belief that two\nso widely divergent accounts as those of the Bible and of the Babylonian\ntablets have one and the same origin? In the mind of the present writer\nthere seems to be but one answer, and that is, that the two accounts are\npractically distinct, and are the production of people having entirely\ndifferent ideas upon the subject, though they may have influenced each\nother in regard to certain points, such as the two mentioned above. For\nthe rest, the fact that there is\u2014\n\n\n No direct statement of the creation of the heavens and the earth;\n\n No systematic division of the things created into groups and\n classes, such as is found in Genesis;\n\n NO REFERENCE TO THE DAYS OF CREATION;\n\n No appearance of the Deity as the first and only cause of the\n existence of things\u2014\n\n\nmust be held as a sufficient series of prime reasons why the Babylonian\nand the Hebrew versions of the Creation-story must have had different\norigins.\n\nAs additional arguments may also be quoted the polytheism of the\nBabylonian account; the fact that it appears to be merely the setting to\nthe legend of B\u00eal and the Dragon, and that, as such, it is simply the\nglorification of Merodach, the patron divinity of the Babylonians, over\nthe other gods of the Assyro-Babylonian Pantheon.\n\n\n\n\nSidelights:\u2014Merodach.\n\n\nTo judge from the inscriptions of the Babylonians and Assyrians, one would\nsay that there were not upon the earth more pious nations than they. They\nwent constantly in fear of their gods, and rendered to them the glory for\neverything that they succeeded in bringing to a successful conclusion.\nPrayer, supplication, and self-debasement before their gods seem to have\nbeen their delight.\n\n\n \u201cThe time for the worship of the gods was my heart\u2019s delight,\n The time of the offering to I\u0161tar was profit and riches,\u201d\n\n\nsings Ludlul the sage, and one of a list of sayings is to the following\neffect\u2014\n\n\n \u201cWhen thou seest the profit of the fear of God,\n Thou wilt praise God, thou wilt bless the king.\u201d\n\n\nMany a penitential psalm and hymn of praise exists to testify to the piety\nof the ancient nations of Assyria and Babylonia. Moreover, this piety was,\nto all appearance, practical, calling forth not only self-denying\nofferings and sacrifices, but also, as we shall see farther on, lofty\nideas and expressions of the highest religious feeling.\n\nAnd the Babylonians were evidently proud of their religion. Whatever its\ndefects, the more enlightened\u2014the scribes and those who could read\u2014seem to\nhave felt that there was something in it that gave it the very highest\nplace. And they were right\u2014there was in this gross polytheism of theirs a\nthing of high merit, and that was, the character of the chief of their\ngods, Merodach.\n\nWe see something of the reverence of the Babylonians and Assyrians for\ntheir gods in almost all of their historical inscriptions, and there is\nhardly a single communication of the nature of a letter that does not call\ndown blessings from them upon the person to whom it is addressed. In many\na hymn and pious expression they show in what honour they held them, and\ntheir desire not to offend them, even involuntarily, is visible in\nnumerous inscriptions that have been found.\n\n\n \u201cMy god, who art displeased, receive (?) my (prayer?),\n My goddess, who art wroth, accept (my supplication)\u2014\n Accept my supplication, and let thy mind be at rest.\n My lord, gracious and merciful, (let thy mind be at rest).\n Make easy (O my goddess) the day that is directed for death,\n My god, (grant that I be?) free (?).\n My goddess, have regard for me, and receive my supplication.\n Let my sins be separated, and let my misdeeds be forgotten\u2014\n Let the ban be loosened, let the fetter fall.\n Let the seven winds carry away my sighing.\n Let me tear asunder my evil, and let a bird carry it aloft to the\n sky.\n Let a fish carry off my trouble, and let the stream bear it away.\n Let the beasts of the field take (it) away from me.\n Let the flowing waters of the stream cleanse me.\n Make me bright as a chain of gold\u2014\n Let me be precious in thy eyes as a diamond ring!\n Blot out my evil, preserve my life.\n Let me guard thy court, and stand in thy sanctuary (?).\n Make me to pass away from my evil state, let me be preserved with\n thee!\n Send to me, and let me see a propitious dream\u2014\n Let the dream that I shall see be propitious\u2014let the dream that I\n shall see be true,\n Turn the dream that I shall see to a favour,\n Let Ma\u0161ara (?), the god of dreams, rest by my head,\n Make me to enter into \u00ca-sagila, the temple of the gods, the house\n of life.\n Deliver me, for his favour, into the gracious hands of the\n merciful Merodach,\n Let me be subject to thy greatness, let me glorify thy divinity;\n Let the people of my city praise thy might!\u201d\n\n\nHere the text breaks off, but sufficient of it remains to show of what the\ndevotion of the Babylonians and Assyrians to their gods consisted, and\nwhat their beliefs really were. For some reason or other, the writer\nrecognizes that the divinity whom he worships is displeased with him, and\napparently comes to the conclusion that the consort of the god is\ndispleased also. He therefore prays and humbles himself before them,\nasking that his misdeeds may be forgotten, and that he may be separated\nfrom his sins, by which he feels himself to be bound and fettered. He\nimagines to himself that the seven winds, or a little bird, or a fish, or\na beast of the field, or the waters of a stream, may carry his sin away,\nand that the flowing waters of the river may cleanse him from his sin,\nmaking him pure in the eyes of his god as a chain of gold, and precious to\nhim as the most precious thing that he can think of, namely, a diamond\nring (upon such material and worldly similes did the thoughts of the\nBabylonians run). He wishes his life (or his soul\u2014the word in the original\nis _napi\u0161ti_, which Zimmern translates _Seele_) to be saved, to pass away\nfrom his evil state, and to dwell with his god, from whom he begs for a\nsign in the form of a propitious dream, a dream that shall come true,\nshowing that he is in reality once more in the favour of his god, who, he\nhopes, will deliver him into the gracious hands of the merciful Merodach,\nthat he and all his city may praise his great divinity.\n\nFragment though it be, in its beginning, development, and climax, it is,\nto all intents and purposes, perfect, and a worthy specimen of\ncompositions of this class.\n\nIt is noteworthy that the suppliant almost re-echoes the words of the\nPsalmist in those passages where he speaks of his guarding the court of\nthe temple of his god and dwelling in his temple (\u00ca-sagila, the renowned\ntemple at Babylon), wherein, along with other deities, the god Merodach\nwas worshipped\u2014the merciful one, into whose gracious hands he wished to be\ndelivered. The prayer that his sin might be carried away by a bird, or a\nfish, etc., brings up before the mind\u2019s eye the picture of the scapegoat,\nfleeing, laden with the sins of the pious Israelite, into the desert to\nAzazel.\n\nTo all appearance, the worshipper, in the above extract, desires to be\ndelivered by the god whom he worships into the hands of the god Merodach.\nThis is a point that is worthy of notice, for it seems to show that the\nBabylonians, at least in later times, regarded the other deities in the\nlight of mediators with the chief of the Babylonian Pantheon. As\nmanifestations of him, they all formed part of his being, and through them\nthe suppliant found a channel to reconciliation and forgiveness of his\nsins.\n\nIn this there seems to be somewhat of a parallel to the Egyptian belief in\nthe soul, at death, being united with Osiris. The annihilation of self,\nhowever, did not, in all probability, recommend itself to the Babylonian\nmind any more than it must have done to the mind of the Assyrian. To all\nappearance, the preservation of one\u2019s individuality, in the abodes of\nbliss after death, was with them an essential to the reality of that life\nbeyond the grave. If we adopt here Zimmern\u2019s translation of _napi\u0161ti_ by\n\u201csoul,\u201d the necessity of interpreting the above passage in the way here\nindicated seems to be rendered all the greater.\n\nThe Creation legend shows us how the god Merodach was regarded by the\nBabylonians as having attained his high position among the \u201cgods his\nfathers,\u201d and the reverence that they had for this deity is not only\ntestified to by that legend, but also by the many documents of a religious\nnature that exist. This being the case, it is only natural to suppose,\nthat he would be worshipped both under the name of Merodach, his usual\nappellation, and also under any or all of the other names that were\nattributed to him by the Babylonians as having been conferred upon him by\nthe gods at the time of his elevation to the position of their chief.\n\nNot only, therefore, was he called Marduk (Amaruduk, \u201cthe brightness of\nday\u201d), the Hebrew Merodach, but he bore also the names of Asaru or Asari,\nidentified by the Rev. C. J. Ball and Prof. Hommel with the Egyptian\nOsiris\u2014a name that would tend to confirm what is stated above concerning\nthe possible connection between the Egyptian and Babylonian beliefs in the\nimmortality of the soul. This name Asaru was compounded with various other\n(explanatory) epithets, making the fuller names Asari-lu-duga (probably\n\u201cAsari, he who is good\u201d), Asari-lu-duga-namsuba (\u201cAsari, he who is good,\nthe charm\u201d), Asari-lu-duga-namt\u00ee (\u201cAsari, he who is good, the life\u201d),\nAsari-alima (\u201cAsari, the prince\u201d), Asari-alima-nuna (\u201cAsari, the prince,\nthe mighty one\u201d), etc., all showing the estimation in which he was held,\nand testifying to the sacredness of the first component, which, as already\nremarked, has been identified with the name of Osiris, the chief divinity\nof the Egyptians. Among his other names are (besides those quoted from the\nlast tablet of the story of the Creation and the explanatory list that\nbears upon it) some of apparently foreign origin, among them being Amaru\n(? short for Amar-uduk) and Sal-ila, the latter having a decidedly western\nSemitic look.(2) As \u201cthe warrior,\u201d he seems to have borne the name of\nGu\u0161ur (? \u201cthe strong\u201d); another of his Akkadian appellations was Gudibir,\nand as \u201clord\u201d of all the world he was called B\u00eal, the equivalent of the\nBaal of the Ph\u0153nicians and the Beel of the Aram\u00e6ans. In astronomy his name\nwas given to several stars, and he was identified with the planet Jupiter,\nthus making him the counterpart of the Greek and Latin Zeus or Jove.\n\nAs has been said above, Merodach was the god that was regarded by the\nBabylonians and Assyrians as he who went about doing good on behalf of\nmankind. If he saw a man in affliction\u2014suffering, for instance, from any\nmalady\u2014he would go and ask his father Aa, he who knew all things, and who\nhad promised to impart all his knowledge to his royal son, what the man\nmust do to be cured of the disease or relieved of the demon which troubled\nhim. The following will give some idea of what the inscriptions detailing\nthese charms and incantations, which the god was supposed to obtain from\nhis father, were like\u2014\n\n\n \u201cIncantation: The sickness of the head hath darted forth from the\n desert, and rushed like the wind.\n Like lightning it flasheth, above and below it smiteth,\n The impious man(3) like a reed it cutteth down, and\n His nerves like a tendril it severeth.\n (Upon him) for whom the goddess I\u0161tar hath no care, and whose\n flesh is in anguish,\n Like a star of heaven it (the sickness) flasheth down, like a\n night-flood it cometh.\n Adversity is set against the trembling man, and threateneth him\n like a lion\u2014\n It hath stricken that man, and\n The man rusheth about like one who is mad\u2014\n Like one whose heart is smitten he goeth to and fro,\n Like one thrown into the fire he burneth,\n Like the wild ass that runneth (?), his eyes are filled with\n cloud,\n Being alive, he eateth, yet is he bound up with death.\n The disease,(4) which is like a violent wind, nobody knoweth its\n path\u2014\n Its completed time, and its connection nobody knoweth.\u201d\n\n\n(Here come abbreviations of the set phrases stating that the god Merodach\nperceived the man who was suffering, and went to ask his father Aa,\ndwelling in the Abyss, how the man was to be healed of the sickness that\nafflicted him. In the texts that give the wanting parts, Aa is represented\nas asking his son Merodach what it was that he did not know, and in what\nhe could still instruct him. What he (Aa) knows, that Merodach shall also\nknow. He then tells Merodach to go and work the charm.)\n\n\n \u201cThe \u1e2baltigilla plant groweth alone in the desert\n Like the sun-god entering his house, cover its head with a\n garment, and\n Cover the \u1e2baltigilla plant, and enclose some meal, and\n In the desert, before the rising sun\n Root it out from its place, and\n Take its root, and\n Take the skin of a young goat, and\n Bind up the head of the sick man, and\n\n May a gust (?) of wind carry it (the disease) away, and may it not\n return to its place.\n O spirit of heaven, exorcise; spirit of earth, exorcise.\u201d\n\n\nThe numerous incantations of this class, in which the god Merodach is\nrepresented as playing the part of benefactor to the sick and afflicted\namong mankind, and interesting himself in their welfare, are exceedingly\nnumerous, and cover a great variety of maladies and misfortunes. No\nwonder, therefore, that the Babylonians looked upon the god, their own\ngod, with eyes of affection, and worship, and reverence. Indeed, it is\ndoubtful whether the Hebrews themselves, the most God-fearing nation of\ntheir time, looked upon the God of their fathers with as much affection,\nor reverence, as did the Babylonians regard the god Merodach. They show it\nnot only in the inscriptions of the class quoted above, but also in\nnumerous other texts. All the kings of Babylonia, and not a few of those\nof Assyria, with one consent pay him homage, and testify to their\ndevotion. The names of princes and common people, too, often bear witness\nto the veneration that they felt for this, the chief of their gods.\n\u201cMerodach is lord of the gods,\u201d \u201cMerodach is master of the word,\u201d \u201cWith\nMerodach is life,\u201d \u201cThe dear one of the gods is Merodach,\u201d \u201cMerodach is\nour king,\u201d \u201c(My, his, our) trust is Merodach,\u201d \u201cBe gracious to me, O\nMerodach,\u201d \u201cDirect me, O Merodach,\u201d \u201cMerodach protects,\u201d \u201cMerodach has\ngiven a brother\u201d (Marduk-nadin-a\u1e2bi, the name of one of Nebuchadrezzar\u2019s\nsons), \u201cA judge is Merodach,\u201d etc., etc., are some of the names compounded\nwith that of this popular divinity. Merodach was not so much in use, as\nthe component part of a name, as the god of wisdom, Nebo, but it is not by\nany means improbable that this is due to the reverence in which he was\nheld, which must, at times, have led the more devout to avoid the\npronunciation of his name any more than was necessary, though, if that was\nthe case, it never reached the point of an utter prohibition against its\nutterance, such as caused the pronunciation of the Hebrew Yahwah to become\nentirely lost even to the most learned for many hundred years. Those,\ntherefore, who wished to avoid the profanation, by too frequent utterance,\nof this holy name, could easily do so by substituting the name of some\nother deity, for, as we have seen above, the names of all the gods could\nbe applied to him, and the doctrine of their identification with him only\ngrew in strength\u2014we know not under what influence\u2014as time went on, until\nMarduk or Merodach became synonymous with the word _\u00eelu_, \u201cGod,\u201d and is\neven used as such in a list where the various gods are enumerated as his\nmanifestations. The portion of the tablet in question containing these\nadvanced ideas is as follows\u2014\n\n\n 81-11-3, 111.\n\n \u201c... is Merodach of planting.\n Lugal-a-ki- ... is Merodach of the water-spring.\n Ninip is Merodach of the garden (?).\n Nergal is Merodach of war.\n Zagaga is Merodach of battle.\n B\u00eal is Merodach of lordship and dominion.\n Nebo is Merodach of wealth (or trading).\n Sin is Merodach the illuminator of the night.\n \u0160ama\u0161 is Merodach of truth (or righteousness).\n Rimmon is Merodach of rain.\n Ti\u0161\u1e2bu is Merodach of handicraft.\n Sig is Merodach of....\n Suqamuna is Merodach of the (irrigation-) reservoir.\u201d\n\n\nAs this tablet is not complete, there is every probability that the god\nMerodach was identified, on the lost portion, with at least as many\ndeities as appear on the part that time has preserved to us.\n\nThis identification of deities with each other would seem to have been a\nfar from uncommon thing in the ancient East during those heathen times. A\nlarge number of deities of the Babylonian Pantheon are identified, in the\nAssyrian proper names, with a very interesting divinity whose name appears\nas Aa, and which may possibly turn out to be only one of the many forms\nthat are met with of the god Ya\u2019u or Jah, who was not only worshipped by\nthe Hebrews, but also by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, and other\nnations of the East in ancient times. Prof. Hommel, the well-known\nAssyriologist and Professor of Semitic languages at Munich, suggests that\nthis god Y\u00e2 is another form of the name of Ea, which is possible, but any\nassimilation of the two divinities is probably best explained upon the\nsupposition that the people of the East in ancient times identified them\nwith each other in consequence of the likeness between the two names.\n\nIn any case, the identification of a large number of the gods\u2014perhaps all\nof them\u2014with a deity whose name is represented by the group Aa, is quite\ncertain. Thus we have A\u0161\u0161ur-Aa, Ninip-Aa, Bel-Aa, Nergal-Aa, \u0160ama\u0161-Aa,\nNusku-Aa, Sin-Aa, etc., and it is probable that the list might be greatly\nextended. Not only, however, have we a large number of deities identified\nwith Aa, but a certain number of them are also identified with the deity\nknown as Ya, Ya\u2019u, or Au, the Jah of the Hebrews. Among these may be cited\nB\u00eal-Yau, \u201cBel is Jah,\u201d Nab\u00fb-Y\u00e2\u2019, \u201cNebo is Jah,\u201d A\u1e2bi-Yau, \u201cA\u1e2bi is Jah,\u201d a\nname that would seem to confirm the opinion which Fuerst held, that _a\u1e2bi_\nwas, in this connection, a word for \u201cgod,\u201d or a god. In Ya-Dagunu, \u201cJah is\nDagon,\u201d we have the elements reversed, showing a wish to identify Jah with\nDagon, rather than Dagon with Jah, whilst another interesting name, Au-Aa,\nshows an identification of Jah with Aa, two names which have every\nappearance of being etymologically connected.\n\nThere is then but little doubt that we have in these names an indication\nof an attempt at what may be regarded as concentration\u2014a desire and\ntendency towards monotheism. When this began, and what the real opinions\nof the more thoughtful upon the subject of the unity or the plurality of\nthe deity may have been, we have at present no means of finding out. There\ncan be no doubt, however, that it sprang from more than one cause\u2014the\ndesire not to offend either heavenly or earthly powers by seeming to\nfavour one divinity more than another, the difficulty of dividing and\napportioning the domain in nature of every divinity, the wish to identify\nthe divine patrons of the various nationalities with a view to\nunderstanding what they really were, and describing their nature for\neither religious or political purposes\u2014all these things, and probably\nothers, would tend to counteract not only polytheistic bigotry, but also\nthe exclusive appropriation by one tribe or people of any particular\ndivinity, who was their own special helper against their enemies, and to\nwhose particular protection they defiantly laid claim. When in conflict or\nin dispute with another, there is no doubt that the man bearing the name\nof \u0160ama\u0161-n\u00fbri, for instance, would be met with the fierce taunt, \u201cThe\nSun-god is not more thy light than he is mine,\u201d and, as an answer to\nY\u00e2-ab\u00ee-ni, \u201cJah is our father too, and more so than he is yours,\u201d would at\nonce spring to the lips of any Jew with whom the bearer of the name may\nhave had a dispute.\n\nFor the thoughtful, God was one, and all the various gods of the heathen\nwere but His manifestations, misconceived and misunderstood by the\nignorant and thoughtless, but, rightly regarded, full of deep\nsignificance. The Jews in later times had, in all probability, no tendency\nto polytheism, yet it is certain that they had but little objection to\nbearing heathen names, and of all the examples that might be adduced,\nthere is probably not one that is more noteworthy than Mordecai, or\nMardecai, the worshipper of Merodach as typical of the God beside whom\nthere was none other, of whom, as we have seen,\u2014and that from a Babylonian\ntablet,\u2014all the other deities of the Babylonian Pantheon were but\nmanifestations.\n\n\n\n\nThe God Aa, Ae, Or Ea.\n\n\nAs the primitive deity of the Babylonian Pantheon, and as apparently\nclosely identified with the well-known deity Jah, who was worshipped by a\nlarge section of the Semitic nations, and whose name is one of the words\nfor \u201cgod\u201d in the Assyro-Babylonian language, the god Ea, Ae, or Aa,\ndeserves notice here not only on account of his being the creator of all\nthe gods, but also on account of his fatherhood to Merodach, who, in\nBabylonian mythology, was conceived as supplanting him\u2014not by any unfair\nmeans, but by the right of being the fittest to exercise power and\ndominion over the world, the universe, and even over \u201cthe gods his\nfathers.\u201d\n\nAssyriologists early recognized the attributes of the god whose name they\nthen read Hea. They saw that he was regarded by the ancient Babylonians\nand Assyrians as the god of streams, rivers, seas, and the watery abyss of\nthe under-world\u2014the waters under the earth. Of the god Ae or Ea all sorts\nof wonderful stories were told by the Babylonians, who attributed to him,\nas the god of wisdom and knowledge, the origin of the civilization which\nthey enjoyed. His name, as god of deep wisdom, was Nin-igi-azaga, \u201cthe\nlord of the bright eye,\u201d a name which would seem to show that the\nAkkadians (the names of most of the deities of the Assyro-Babylonian\nPantheon are written in Akkadian) associated, as we also do at the present\nday, intelligence with brightness of the eyes, or, more correctly, with\nalertness of appearance.\n\nBut this god had many other names than those mentioned above. He was\nEn-ki, \u201clord of the world\u201d; Amma-ana-ki, \u201clord of heaven and earth\u201d;\nEngur, \u201cgod of the Abyss\u201d; Nudimmud, \u201cgod of creation\u201d; Nadimmud, \u201cgod of\neverything\u201d; Nun-ura, \u201cgod of the potter\u201d; Nin-agal, \u201cgod of the smith\u201d;\nDunga, \u201cgod of the singer\u201d (?); Nin-bubu, \u201cgod of the sailor\u201d;\nKuski-banda, \u201cgod of goldsmiths\u201d;\u2014in fact, he seems to have been the god\nof arts and crafts in general. He was also called Ellila-banda, \u201cthe\npowerful lord\u201d; En-uru and Nin-uru, \u201cthe protecting lord\u201d; Lugal-ida,\n\u201cking of the river\u201d; Lugal, En, Nuna, and Dara-abzu, \u201cking,\u201d \u201clord,\u201d\n\u201cprince,\u201d and \u201cruler of the abyss\u201d; Dara-dim, Dara-nuna, and Dara-banda,\nhonorific titles as \u201ccreator,\u201d \u201cprincely ruler,\u201d and \u201cpowerful ruler\u201d;\nAlima-nuna, Alima-banda, and Alima-\u0161um-ki, \u201cprincely lord,\u201d \u201cpowerful\nlord,\u201d and \u201clord disposer of the earth.\u201d He bore also besides these a\nlarge number of names, among which may be cited, as an example of his\nmany-sidedness, the following\u2014\n\n\n \u0160ar\u0161ara, apparently \u201cthe overwhelmer,\u201d probably as lord of the sea\n and its teeming myriads.\n En-t\u00ee, \u201clord of life.\u201d\n Gana-si, probably \u201cthe enclosure full (of life).\u201d\n Nam-zida, \u201crighteousness.\u201d\n Idima (Akk.) or Naqbu (Bab.), \u201cthe deep.\u201d\n Sa-kalama, \u201cruler of the land.\u201d\n \u0160anabaku and \u0160anabi, the god \u201c40.\u201d\n\n\nThat the sea was the abode of the god of knowledge seems to have been the\nbelief of the Babylonians from the earliest times. According to Berosus,\nwhose record has been preserved by Apollodoros, Abydenus, and Alexander\nPolyhistor, there appeared more than once, from the Erythr\u00e6an Sea (the\nPersian Gulf), \u201cthe Musaros Oannes, the Annedotos,\u201d a creature half man\nand half fish, probably conceived in shape of the deity answering to this\ndescription found on certain Babylonian cylinder-seals, in a sculpture\nwith representations of marine monsters, now preserved in the Louvre, and\nin the divine figures in the shape of a man clothed with a fish\u2019s skin,\npreserved in the form of clay statuettes and large sculptures\n(bas-reliefs) in the British Museum. Abydenus apparently understands\nBerosus differently, for he makes Annedotos and Oannes to be different\npersonages. All those who have quoted Berosus, however, agree in the main\npoint, that these beings, half man and half fish, came out of the sea to\nteach mankind. There is hardly any doubt that in some of these cases the\ndeity that is intended is the god whose name is now read Ae or Ea, who was\ncalled Aos by Damascius. After the appearance of the fourth Annedotos,\nthere came another person, also from the Erythr\u00e6an Sea, named Odakon,\nhaving, like the former, the same complicated form, between a man and a\nfish. To these names Abydenus, still quoting Berosus, adds those of four\nmore \u201cdouble-shaped personages\u201d named Euedocos, Eneugamos, Eneuboulos, and\nAnementos. These last came forth in the reign of Daos (probably Dumuzi\n(Duwuzi) or Tammuz) the shepherd, of Pantibiblon (Sippar or Sippara), who\nreigned for the space of ten sari (360,000 years)! \u201cAfter these things was\nAnodaphos, in the time of Euedoreschos.\u201d\n\nBesides his son Merodach, who, in Babylonian mythology, became \u201cking of\nthe gods,\u201d\u2014like Jupiter, in the place of his father\u2014Ae or Ea was regarded\nas having six other sons, Dumu-zi-abzu, \u201cTammuz of the abyss\u201d; Ki-gulla,\n\u201cthe destroyer of the world\u201d; Nira (meaning doubtful); Bara, \u201cthe\nrevealer\u201d (?); Bara-gula, \u201cthe great revealer (?)\u201d; and Burnunta-s\u0101, \u201cthe\nbroad of ear.\u201d One daughter is attributed to him, her name being\n\u1e2ai-dimme-azaga, \u201cthe glorious spirit\u2019s offspring,\u201d called, in one of the\nincantations (W.A.I. iv., 2nd ed., col. ii., line 54), \u201cthe daughter of\nthe abyss.\u201d He had also two bull-like guardians (probably those composite\ncreatures, winged bulls with human heads, representations of which guarded\nthe approaches to the Assyrian palaces), one seemingly named Duga, \u201cthe\ngood,\u201d and the other Dub-ga, apparently meaning \u201che who causes (the bolt)\nto be raised,\u201d giving the suppliant access to the palace of his lord. To\nall appearance, the gates giving access to his domain were guarded by\neight porters, the names of most of whom are unfortunately broken away on\nthe tablet that gives these details, but one of them seems to have borne\nthe name of Eniw-\u1e2bengala, \u201cthe bespeaker of fertility,\u201d whilst another was\nnamed Igi-\u1e2ben(?)gala, \u201cthe eye of fertility,\u201d and the third had a name\nbeginning, like that of the first, with the element Eniw, a circumstance\nwhich would lead one to ask whether this may not be the element Eneu found\nin the names of the two creatures Eneugamos and Eneuboulos, mentioned by\nBerosus.\n\nHis consort was called Damkina, \u201cthe lady of the earth,\u201d the Dauk\u00e9 of\nDamascius, or Dam-gala-nuna, \u201cthe great princely lady.\u201d She likewise had\ntwo bull-like attendants, A-eru and E-a-eru, of whom but little or nothing\nis known.\n\nThe tablet already quoted (W.A.I. iv., pl. 1, col. ii., ll. 36-39) names\nEngur (the deep) as being the mother of Ae or Ea, and attributes to him\nanother daughter, Nina, with whom the name of Nineveh is apparently\nconnected.\n\nDown in the Abyss, in the city called Eridu, \u201cthe good city,\u201d there dwelt\nAe, with all his court. Sitting on his throne, he waited for the time when\nhis son Merodach, the good of heart, came to ask him for those\nhealth-bringing incantations for the benefit of mankind. Sometimes,\nseemingly, instead of Merodach, his sixth son Burnunsia (Burnunta-s\u0101),\n\u201cthe broad of ear,\u201d would perform this office. Ae was always ready to help\nwith his counsels, and no one whose case Merodach forwarded was spurned by\nthe King of the Abyss.\n\nHere, too, dwelt \u201cTammuz of the Abyss,\u201d one of Ae\u2019s sons, but whether this\nwas the well-known Tammuz who was the husband of the goddess Ishtar, is\nuncertain. Judging from the legends of the Babylonians, Ishtar\u2019s husband\ndescended, not to the abode of the lord of the deep, but to the realms of\nthe Babylonian Persephone, the consort of Nergal, in Hades, \u201cthe land of\nno return,\u201d whither Ishtar once descended in search of him. Concerning the\nBabylonian paradise, where Ae dwelt, see the following chapter.\n\nThe second month of the Babylonian year, Iyyar, corresponding to\nApril\u2014May, was dedicated to Ae as lord of mankind, though in this the\nrecords contradict each other, for the Creation-stories of the Babylonians\nattribute the creation of mankind to Merodach, who has, therefore, the\nbest right to be regarded as their lord.\n\n\n\n\nAn\u0161ar And Ki\u0161ar (pp. 16, 17, 20, etc.).\n\n\nAn\u0161ar, \u201chost of heaven,\u201d and Ki\u0161ar, \u201chost of earth,\u201d are, it will be\nremembered, given in the Semitic Babylonian account of the Creation as the\nnames of the powers that succeeded La\u1e2bmu and La\u1e2bamu, according to\nDamascius, the second progeny of the sea and the deep (Tiamtu and Aps\u016b).\nThe Greek forms, Assoros and Kisar\u00e9, imply that Damascius understood the\nformer to be masculine and the latter feminine, though there is no hint of\ngender in the wedge-written records. That the Babylonians regarded them as\nbeing of different genders, however, is conceivable enough. The Greek form\nof the first, Assoros, moreover, implies that, in course of time, the _n_\nof An\u0161ar became assimilated with the _\u0161_ (as was usual in Semitic\nBabylonian), and on account of this, the etymology that connects An\u0161ar\nwith the name of the Assyrian national god A\u0161\u0161ur, is not without\njustification, though whether it be preferable to that of Delitzsch which\nmakes A\u0161\u0161ur to be really A\u0161ur, and connects it with _a\u0161aru_, meaning\n\u201choly,\u201d is doubtful. In favour of Delitzsch, however, is the fact that the\nAssyrians would more probably have given their chief divinity the name of\n\u201cthe Holy one\u201d than that of one of the links in the chain of divinities\nwhich culminated in the rise of the god Merodach to the highest place in\nthe kingdom of heaven.\n\nThe question naturally arises: Who were these deities, \u201cthe host of\nheaven\u201d and \u201cthe host of earth\u201d? and this is a question to which we do not\nget a very complete answer from the inscriptions. According to the\nexplanatory lists of gods (as distinct from the mythological texts proper)\nKi\u0161ar is explained as the \u201chost of heaven and earth\u201d and also as Anu and\nAntum, in other words, as the male and female personifications of the\nheavens. Strange to say, this is just the explanation given in the\ninscriptions of the names La\u1e2bmu and La\u1e2bamu, for though they are not \u201cthe\nhost of heaven and earth,\u201d they are the same, according to the lists of\ngods, as the deities Anu and his consort Antum. This probably arises from\nthe worship of Anu, the god of the heavens, and his consort, at some\nperiod preceding that of the worship of Merodach, or even that of his\nfather Aa or Ea, whose cult, as we have seen, was in early times abandoned\nfor that of the patron god of the city of Babylon. Concerning this portion\nof the legend of the Creation, however, much more light is required.\n\nBesides the simple form Ki\u0161ar, there occurs in the lists of gods also\nKi\u0161aragala, which is likewise explained as a manifestation of Anu and\nAntum, and described moreover as \u201cAnu, who is the host (_ki\u0161\u0161at_) of\nheaven and earth.\u201d In addition to An\u0161ar and Ki\u0161ar, the deities En\u0161ara and\nNin\u0161ara are mentioned. These names are apparently to be translated \u201clord\nof the host\u201d and \u201clady of the host\u201d respectively, and are doubtless both\nclosely connected with, or the same as, the An\u0161ar and Ki\u0161ar of the\nBabylonian story of the Creation, in close connection with which they are,\nin fact, mentioned. En-ki\u0161ara is given, in W.A.I., III., pl. 68, as one of\nthe three _mu-gala_ (apparently \u201cgreat names\u201d) of Anu, the god of the\nheavens. Another Nin-\u0161ara (the second element written with a different\ncharacter) is given as the equivalent of both Antum and I\u0161tar, the latter\nbeing the well-known goddess of love and war, Venus.\n\n\n\n\nTiamat.\n\n\nTiamat is the common transcription of a name generally and more correctly\nread as Tiamtu. The meaning of this word is \u201cthe sea,\u201d and its later and\nmore decayed pronunciation is _t\u00e2mtu_ or _t\u00e2mdu_, the feminine _t_ having\nchanged into _d_ after the nasal _m_, a phenomenon that also meets us in\nother words having a nasal before the dental. As this word is the Tauth\u00e9\nof the Greek writer Damascius, it is clear that in his time the _m_ was\npronounced as _w_ (this peculiarity is common to the Semitic Babylonian\nand Akkadian languages, and finds its converse illustration in the\nprovincialism of _mir_ for _wir_, \u201cwe,\u201d in German), though the decayed\nword _t\u00e2mtu_ evidently kept its labial unchanged, for it is difficult to\nimagine _w_ changing _t_ into _d_, unless it were pronounced in a way to\nwhich wee are not accustomed. We have here, then, an example of a\ndifferentiation by which one and the same word, by a change of\npronunciation, forms two \u201cvocables,\u201d the one used as a proper noun and the\nother\u2014a more decayed form\u2014as a common one.\n\nTiamtu (from the above it may be supposed that the real pronunciation was\nas indicated by the Greek form, namely, Tiauthu), meaning originally \u201cthe\nsea,\u201d became then the personification of the watery deep as the producer\nof teeming animal life such as we find in the waters everywhere.\nDominating and covering at first the whole earth, it was she who was the\nfirst producer of living things, but when the land appeared, and creatures\nof higher organization and intelligence began, under the fostering care of\nthe higher divinities, to make their appearance, she saw, so the\nBabylonians seem to have thought, that with the advent of man, whom the\ngods purposed forming, her power and importance would, in a short time,\ndisappear, and rebellion on her part was the result. How, in the\nBabylonian legends, this conflict ended, the reader of the foregoing pages\nknows, and after her downfall and destruction or subjugation, she retained\nher productive power under the immediate control and direction of the gods\nunder whose dominion she had fallen.\n\nTiamtu is represented in the Old Testament by _teh\u00f4m_, which occurs in\nGen. i. 2, where both the Authorised and Revised Versions translate \u201cthe\ndeep.\u201d The Hebrew form of the word, however, is not quite the same, the\nAssyrian feminine ending being absent.\n\nTo all appearance the legend of Tiamtu was well known all over Western\nAsia. As Gunkel and Zimmern have shown, there is a reference thereto in\nPs. lxxxix. 10, where Rahab, who was broken in pieces, is referred to, and\nunder the same name she appears also in Isaiah li. 9, with the additional\nstatement that she is the dragon who was pierced; likewise in Job xxvi. 12\nand ix. 13, where her followers are said to be referred to; in Ps. lxxiv.\n14 the dragon whose heads (a plural probably typifying the diverse forms\nunder which Nature\u2019s creative power appears) are spoken of. Tiamtu, as\nRahab and the dragon, therefore played a part in Hebrew legends of old as\ngreat, perhaps, as in the mythology of Babylonia, where she seems to have\noriginated.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. THE HISTORY, AS GIVEN IN THE BIBLE, FROM THE CREATION TO THE\nFLOOD.\n\n\n Eden\u2014The so-called second story of the Creation and the bilingual\n Babylonian account\u2014The four rivers\u2014The tree of life\u2014The\n Temptation\u2014The Cherubim\u2014Cain and Abel\u2014The names of the Patriarchs\n from Enoch to Noah.\n\n\n\u201cAnd the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the\nman whom He had formed.\u201d There also He made every pleasant and good tree\nto grow, including the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge of good and\nevil. A river came out of Eden to water the garden, and this river was\nafterwards divided into four smaller streams, the Pishon, flowing round\n\u201cthe Hawilah,\u201d a land of gold (which was good) and bdellium and onyx\nstone; the Gihon, flowing round the whole land of Cush; the Hiddekel or\nTigris, and the Euphrates.\n\nIt is to be noted that it was not the garden itself that was called Eden,\nbut the district in which it lay. The river too seems to have risen in the\nsame tract, and was divided at some indeterminate point, either in the\nland of Eden or on its borders.\n\nThe whereabouts of the Garden of Eden and its rivers has been so many\ntimes discussed, and so many diverse opinions prevail concerning them,\nthat there is no need at present to add to these theories yet another,\nmore or less probable. Indeed, in the present work, theories will be kept\nin the background as much as possible, and prominence given to such facts\nas recent discoveries have revealed to us.\n\nIt had long been known that one of the Akkadian names for \u201cplain\u201d was\n_edina_, and that that word had been borrowed by the Babylonians under the\nform of _\u00eadinnu_, but it was Prof. Delitzsch, the well-known\nAssyriologist, who first pointed out to a disbelieving world that this\nmust be the Eden of Genesis. The present writer thought this\nidentification worthless until he had the privilege of examining the\ntablets acquired by Dr. Hayes Ward in Babylonia on the occasion of his\nconducting the Wolfe expedition. Among the fragments of tablets that he\nthen brought back was a list of cities in the Akkadian language (the\nSemitic Babylonian column was unfortunately broken away) which gave the\nfollowing\u2014\n\nTranscription. Translation.\nSipar, D.S. Sippara.\nSipar Edina, D.S. Sippara of Eden.\nSipar uldua, D.S. Sippara the everlasting.\nSipar \u0160ama\u0161, D.S. Sippara of the Sun-god.\n\nHere at last was the word Eden used as a geographical name, showing that\nthe explanation of Delitzsch was not only plausible, but also, in all\nprobability, true in substance and in fact. Less satisfactory, however,\nwere the learned Professor\u2019s identifications of the rivers of Eden, for he\nregards the Pishon and the Gihon as canals\u2014the former being the Pallacopas\n(the Pallukatu of the Babylonian inscriptions), and the latter the Gu\u1e2band\u00ea\n(also called the Ara\u1e2btu, now identified with a large canal running through\nBabylon). He conjectured that it might be the waterway known as the Shatt\nen-N\u00eel. Whatever doubt, however, attaches to his identifications of the\nrivers, he seems certainly to be right with regard to the Biblical Eden,\nand this is a decided gain, for it locates the position of that district\nbeyond a doubt.\n\nTo Prof. Sayce belongs the honour of identifying the Babylonian story of\nthe nature and position of Paradise as they conceived it, and here we have\nanother example of the important details that the incantation-tablets may\ncontain concerning beliefs not otherwise preserved to us, for the text in\nquestion, like the bilingual story of the Creation, is simply an\nintroduction to a text of that nature. This interesting record, to which I\nhave been able to add a few additional words since Prof. Sayce first gave\nhis translation of it to the world, is as follows\u2014\n\n\n \u201cIncantation: \u2018(In) \u00caridu a dark vine grew, it was made in a\n glorious place,\n Its appearance (as) lapis-lazuli, planted beside the Abyss,\n Which is Ae\u2019s path, filling \u00caridu with fertility.\n Its seat is the (central) point of the earth,\n Its dwelling is the couch of Nammu.\n In the glorious house, which is like a forest, its shadow extends,\n No man enters its midst.\n In its interior is the Sun-god Tammuz.\n Between the mouths of the rivers (which are) on both sides.\u2019 \u201d\n\n\nThe lines which follow show how this plant, which was a miraculous remedy,\nwas to be used in the cure of a sick man. It was to be placed upon his\nhead, and beneficent spirits would then come and stay with him, whilst the\nevil ones would stand aside.\n\nFrom the introductory lines above translated, we see that \u00caridu, \u201cthe good\ncity,\u201d which Sir Henry Rawlinson recognized many years ago as a type of\nparadise, was, to the Babylonians, as a garden of Eden, wherein grew a\nglorious tree, to all appearance a vine, for the adjective \u201cdark\u201d may very\nreasonably be regarded as referring to its fruit. Strange must have been\nits appearance, for it is described as resembling \u201cwhite lapis-lazuli,\u201d\nthat is, the beautiful stone of that kind mottled blue and white. The\nprobability that it was conceived by the Babylonians as a garden is\nstrengthened by the fact that the god A\u00ea, and his path, _i.e._ the rivers,\nfilled the place with fertility, and it was, moreover, the abode of the\nriver-god Nammu, whose streams, the Tigris and Euphrates, flowed on both\nsides. There, too, dwelt the Sun, making the garden fruitful with his\never-vivifying beams, whilst \u201cthe peerless mother of heaven,\u201d as Tammuz\nseems to be called, added, by fructifying showers, to the fertility that\nthe two great rivers brought down from the mountains from which they\nflowed. To complete still further the parallel with the Biblical Eden, it\nwas represented as a place to which access was forbidden, for \u201cno man\nentered its midst,\u201d as in the case of the Garden of Eden after the fall.\n\nThough one cannot be dogmatic in the presence of the imperfect records\nthat we possess, it is worthy of note that Eden does not occur as the name\nof the earthly paradise in any of the texts referring to the Creation that\nhave come down to us; and though it is to be found in the bilingual story\nof the Creation, it there occurs simply as the equivalent of the Semitic\nword _\u1e63\u00earim_ in the phrase \u201che (Merodach) made the verdure of the\n_plain_.\u201d That we shall ultimately find other instances of Eden as a\ngeographical name, occurring by itself, and not in composition with\nanother word (as in the expression _Sipar Edina_), and even a reference to\n_gannat Edinni_, \u201cthe Garden of Eden,\u201d is to be expected.\n\nSchrader(5) has pointed out that whilst in Eden the river bears no name,\nit is only after it has left the sacred region that it is divided, and\nthen each separate branch received a name. So, also, in the Babylonian\ndescription of the Eridu, the rivers were unnamed, though one guesses that\nthe Tigris and the Euphrates are meant. The expression, \u201cthe mouth of the\nrivers [that are on] both sides\u201d (_p\u00ee n\u00e2r\u00e3ti ... kilallan_), recalls to\nthe mind the fact, that it was to \u201ca remote place at the mouth of the\nrivers\u201d that the Babylonian Noah (Pir-napi\u0161tim) was translated after the\nFlood, when the gods conferred upon him the gift of immortality. To all\nappearance, therefore, Gilgame\u0161, the ancient Babylonian hero who visited\nthe immortal sage, entered into the tract regarded by the Babylonians of\nold times as being set apart for the abode of the blessed after their\njourneyings on this world should cease.\n\nThe connection of the stream which was \u201cthe path of Ae\u201d with Eridu, seems\nto have been very close, for in the bilingual story of the Creation the\nflowing of the stream is made to be the immediate precursor of the\nbuilding of \u00caridu and \u00casagila, \u201cthe lofty-headed temple\u201d within it\u2014\n\n\n \u201cWhen within the sea there was a stream,\n In that day \u00caridu was made, \u00casagila was built\u2014\n \u00casagila which the god Lugal-du-azaga had founded within the\n Abyss.\u201d\n\n\nIn this Babylonian Creation-story it is a question of a stream and two\nrivers. In Genesis it is a question of a river and four branches. The\nparallelism is sufficiently close to be noteworthy and to show, beyond a\ndoubt, that the Babylonians had the same accounts of the Creation and\ndescriptions of the circumstances concerning it, as the Hebrews, though\ntold in a different way, and in a different connection.\n\nTwo trees are mentioned in the Biblical account of the Creation, \u201cthe tree\nof life\u201d and \u201cthe tree of the knowledge of good and evil.\u201d By the eating\nof the former, a man would live for ever, and the latter would confer upon\nhim that knowledge which God alone was supposed to possess, namely, of\ngood and evil, carrying with it, however, the disadvantage of the loss of\nthat innocence which he formerly possessed. Like the Hebrews, the\nBabylonians and Assyrians also had their sacred trees, but whether they\nattached to them the same deep significance as the Hebrews did to theirs\nwe do not know. Certain, however, it is, that they had beliefs concerning\nthem that were analogous.\n\nThe most familiar form of the sacred tree is that employed by the\nAssyrians, to a certain extent as a decorative ornament, on the sculptured\nslabs that adorned the walls of the royal palaces. This was the curious\nconglomeration of knots and leaves which various figures\u2014winged genii with\nhorned hats emblematic of divinity, eagle-headed figures, etc.\u2014worship,\nand to which they make offerings, and touch with a conical object\nresembling the fruit of the fir or pine. An ingenious suggestion has been\nmade to the effect that the genius with the pine-cone is represented in\nthe act of fructifying the tree with the pollen (in an idealized form)\nfrom the flowers of another tree, just as it is necessary to fructify the\ndate-palm from the pollen of the flowers growing on the \u201cmale\u201d tree. This,\nhowever, can hardly be the true explanation of the mystic act represented,\nas similar genii are shown on other slabs not only holding out the conical\nobject as if to touch therewith the figure of the king, but also doing the\nsame thing to the effigies of the great winged bulls. Of course, the\nfructification of the king would be not only a possible representation to\ncarve in alabaster, but one that we might even expect to find among the\nroyal sculptures. The fructification of a winged bull, however, is quite a\ndifferent thing, and in the highest degree improbable, unless the divine\nbull were a kind of representation of the king, which, though possible, is\nat present unprovable.\n\nThis symbolic scene, therefore, remains still a mystery for scholars to\nexplain when they obtain the material to do so. It seems to be a\npeculiarly Assyrian design, for the offering of a pine-cone or\nsimilarly-shaped object to the sacred tree has not yet been found in\nBabylonian art. The Babylonian sacred tree is, moreover, a much more\nnatural-looking object than the curious combination of knots and\nhoneysuckle-shaped flowers found in the sculptures of Assyria. As in the\ncase of the tree shown in the picture of the Temptation, described below,\nthe sacred tree of the Babylonians often takes the form of a palm-tree, or\nsomething very like one. (See pl. III.)\n\nAs has been already remarked, the tree of Paradise of the Babylonians was,\nto all appearance, a vine, described as being in colour like blue and\nwhite mottled lapis-lazuli, and apparently bearing fruit (grapes) of a\ndark colour. That the Babylonian tree of life was a vine is supported by\nthe fact that the ideograms composing the word for \u201cwine\u201d are _ge\u0161-tin_\n(for _ka\u0161-tin_), \u201cdrink of life,\u201d and \u201cthe vine,\u201d _gi\u0161 ge\u0161-tin_, \u201ctree of\nthe drink of life.\u201d In the text describing the Babylonian Paradise and its\ndivine tree, the name of the latter is given as _ki\u0161kan\u00fb_ in Semitic, and\n_gi\u0161-kin_ or _gi\u0161-kan_ in Akkadian, a word mentioned in the bilingual\nlists among plants of the vine species. Whether the Hebrews regarded the\ntree of life as having been a vine or not, cannot at present be decided,\nbut it is very probable that they had the same ideas as the Babylonians in\nthe matter.\n\nIt is noteworthy, in this connection, that the Babylonians also believed\nthat there still existed in the world a plant (they do not seem to have\nregarded it as a tree) which \u201cwould make an old man young again.\u201d Judging\nfrom the statements concerning it, one would imagine that it was a kind of\nthorn-bush. As we shall see later, when treating of the story of the\nFlood, it was this plant which the Chaldean Noah gave the hero Gilgame\u0161\ninstructions how to find\u2014for the desire to become young again had seized\nhim\u2014and he seems to have succeeded in possessing himself of it, only to\nlose it again almost immediately, for a lion, coming that way at a time\nwhen Gilgame\u0161 was otherwise occupied, carried it off\u2014to his own benefit,\nas the hero remarks, for he naturally supposed that the lion who had\nseized the plant would have his life renewed, and prey all the longer upon\nthe people.\n\nThe title of a lost legend, \u201cWhen the _ki\u0161kan\u00fb_ (? vine, see above) grew\nin the land\u201d (referring, perhaps, to the tree of life which grew in\n\u00caridu), leads one to ask whether \u201cThe legend of Nisaba (the corn-deity)\nand the date-palm,\u201d and \u201cThe legend of the _luluppu_-tree\u201d may not also\nrefer to sacred trees, bearing upon the question of the tree of knowledge\nreferred to in Gen. ii. As, however, the titles (generally a portion of\nthe first line only) are all that are at present preserved, there is\nnothing to be done but wait patiently until it pleases Providence to make\nthem further known to us.\n\nThe _ki\u0161kan\u00fb_ was of three kinds, white (_pi\u1e63u_), black (_\u1e63almi_), as in\nthe description of the tree of Paradise, and grey or blue (_s\u00e2mi_). In\nview of there being these three colours, it would seem that they refer\nrather to the fruit of the tree than to the tree itself. Now the only\nplant growing in the country and having these three colours of fruit, is\nthe vine. Of course, this raises the question whether (1) the _ki\u0161kan\u00fb_ is\na synonym of _gi\u0161tin_ or _karanu_, or (2) the word _gi\u0161tin_, which is\ngenerally rendered \u201cvine,\u201d is, in reality, correctly translated. Whatever\nbe the true explanation, one thing is certain, namely, that in the\ndescription of Paradise, the word black or dark (_\u1e63almu_), applied to the\ntree there mentioned, cannot refer to the tree itself, for that is\ndescribed as being like \u201cwhite lapis\u201d (_ukn\u016b \u00eabbu_), a beautiful stone\nmottled blue and white.\n\n [Plate III A.]\n\nBabylonian Mythological Composition. Impression of a cylinder-seal showing\na male figure on the right and a bull-man on the left, holding erect bulls\n by the horns and tails. In the centre is a form of the sacred tree on a\n hill. Date about 2500 B.C. British Museum.\n\n\n [Plate III B.]\n\nBabylonian Mythological Composition. Impression of a cylinder-seal showing\nIstar, goddess of love and of war as archeress, standing on the back of a\nlion, which turns its head to caress her feet. Before her is a worshipper\n (priest) and two goats (reversed to form a symmetrical design), leaping.\n Behind her is a date-palm. Date about 650 B.C. British Museum.\n\n\nAmong other trees of a sacred nature is \u201cthe cedar beloved of the great\ngods,\u201d mentioned in an inscription of a religious or ceremonial nature,\nthough exactly in what connection the imperfectness of the document does\nnot enable us to see. It would seem, however, that there were certain\npriests or seers to whom was confided the \u201ctablet of the gods,\u201d containing\nthe secret of the heavens and earth (probably the \u201ctablet of fate,\u201d which\nMerodach took from the husband of Tiamat after his fight with her for the\ndominion of the universe). These persons, who seem to have been the\ndescendants of En-we-dur-an-ki (the Euedoranchos of Berosus), king of\nSippar, were those to whom was confided \u201cthe cedar beloved of the great\ngods\u201d\u2014perhaps a kind of sceptre. They had, however, not only to be of\nnoble race, but also perfect physically and free from every defect and\ndisease. Moreover, one who did not keep the command of \u0160ama\u0161 and Addu\n(Hadad) could not approach the place of Ae, \u0160ama\u0161, Marduk, and Nin-edina,\nnor the number of the brothers who were to enter the seership; they were\nnot to reveal to him the word of the oracle, and \u201cthe cedar beloved of the\ngreat gods\u201d was not to be delivered into his hands.\n\nThere is hardly any doubt, then, that we have here the long-sought\nparallel to the Biblical \u201ctree of knowledge,\u201d for that, too, was in the\ndomain of \u201cthe lord of knowledge,\u201d the god Ae, and also in the land which\nmight be described as that of \u201cthe lord of Eden,\u201d the \u201chidden place of\nheaven and earth\u201d for all the sons of Adam, who are no longer allowed to\nenter into that earthly Paradise wherein their first parents gained, at\nsuch a cost, the knowledge, imperfect as it must have been, and evidently\nundesirable, which they handed down to their successors.\n\n\n\n\nAdam.\n\n\nThe name of the first man, Adam, is one that has tried the learning of the\nmost noted Hebraists to explain satisfactorily. It was formerly regarded\nas being derived from the root _\u0101dam_, \u201cto be red,\u201d but this explanation\nhas been given up in favour of the root _\u0101dam_, \u201cto make, produce,\u201d man\nbeing conceived as \u201cthe created one.\u201d This etymology is that put forward\nby the Assyriologist Fried. Delitzsch, who quotes the Assyrian _\u00e2dmu_,\n\u201cyoung bird,\u201d and _\u00e2dmi summ\u0101ti_, \u201cyoung doves,\u201d literally, \u201cthe young of\ndoves,\u201d though he does not seem to refer the Assyrian _udumu_, \u201cmonkey,\u201d\nto the same root. He also quotes, apparently from memory, the evidence of\na fragment of a bilingual list found by Mr. Rassam, in which Adam is\nexplained by the usual Babylonian word for \u201cman,\u201d _am\u0113lu_.\n\nThe writer of Genesis has given to the first man the name of Adam, thus\npersonifying in him the human race, which was to descend from him. In all\nprobability, the Babylonians had the same legends, but, if so, no fragment\nof them has as yet come to light. That the Hebrew stories of the Creation\nhad their origin in Babylonia, will probably be conceded by most people as\nprobable, if not actually proven, and the fact that the word _a-dam_\noccurs, as Delitzsch has pointed out, in a bilingual list would, supposing\nthe text to which he refers to be actually bilingual, be a matter of\npeculiar significance, for it would show that this word, which does not\noccur in Semitic Babylonian as the word for \u201cman,\u201d occurred in the old\nAkkadian language with that meaning.\n\nAnd the proof that Delitzsch was right in his recollection of the tablet\nof which he speaks, is shown by the bilingual Babylonian story of the\nCreation. There, in lines 9, 10, we read as follows\u2014\n\n\n Akkadian (dialectic): Uru nu-dim, a-dam nu-mun-ia.\n Babylonian: \u00c2lu \u00fbl \u00eapu\u0161, namma\u0161\u0161u \u00fbl \u0161akin.\n\n\n\u201cA city had not been made, the community had not been established.\u201d\n\nHere we have the non-Semitic _adam_ translated by the Babylonian\n_namma\u0161\u0161u_, which seems to mean a number of men, in this passage something\nlike community, for that is the idea which best fits the context. But\nbesides this Semitic rendering, the word also has the meanings of\n_teni\u0161\u0113tu_, \u201cmankind,\u201d _amel\u016btu_, \u201chuman beings.\u201d\n\nThe word _adam_, meaning \u201cman,\u201d is found also in Ph\u0153nician, Sabean, and\napparently in Arabic, under the form of _atam_, a collective meaning\n\u201ccreatures.\u201d\n\nThe possibility that the Babylonians had an account of the Fall similar to\nthat of the Hebrews, is not only suggested by the legends treated of\nabove, but also by the cylinder-seal in the British Museum with what seems\nto be the representation of the Temptation engraved upon it. We have there\npresented to us the picture of a tree\u2014a palm\u2014bearing fruit, and on each\nside of it a seated figure, that on the right being to all appearance the\nman, and that on the left the woman, though there is not much difference\nbetween them, and, as far as the form of either goes, the sexes might\neasily be reversed. That, however, which seems to be intended for the man\nhas the horned hat emblematic of divinity, or, probably, of divine origin,\nwhilst from the figure which seems to be that of the woman this head-dress\nis absent. Behind her, moreover, with wavy body standing erect on his\ntail, is shown the serpent, towering just above her head, as if ready to\nspeak with her. Both figures are stretching out a hand (the man the right,\nthe woman the left) as if to pluck the fruit growing on the tree.\nNotwithstanding the doubts that have been thrown on the explanation here\ngiven of this celebrated and exceedingly interesting cylinder, the subject\nand its arrangement are so suggestive, that one can hardly regard it as\nbeing other than what it seems to be, namely, a Babylonian representation\nof the Temptation, according to records that the Babylonians possessed.\nThe date of this object may be set down as being from about 2750 to 2000\nB.C.\n\nFuture excavations in Babylonia and Assyria will, no doubt, furnish us\nwith the legends current in those countries concerning the Temptation, the\nFall, and the sequel thereto. Great interest would naturally attach to the\nBabylonian rendering of the details and development of the story, more\nparticularly to the terms of the penalty, the expulsion, and the nature of\nthe beings\u2014the cherubim\u2014placed at the east of the garden, and \u201cthe flaming\nsword turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.\u201d\n\nThough the Babylonian version of this Biblical story has not yet come to\nlight, the inscriptions in the wedge-writing give us a few details bearing\nupon the word \u201ccherub.\u201d\n\nThe Hebrews understood these celestial beings as having the form which we\nattribute to angels\u2014a glorified human appearance, but with the addition of\nwings. They are spoken of as bearing the throne of the Almighty through\nthe clouds (\u201cHe rode upon a cherub, and did fly\u201d), and in Psalm xviii. 11\nhe is also represented as sitting upon them. In Ezekiel i. and x. they are\nsaid to be of a very composite form, combining with the human shape the\nface of a cherub (whatever that may have been), a man, an ox, a lion, and\nan eagle. It has been supposed that Ezekiel was indebted to\nAssyro-Babylonian imagery for the details of the cherubic creatures that\nhe describes, but it may safely be said that, though the sculptures\nfurnish us with images of divine creatures in the form of a man with the\nface of an eagle, or having a modification of a lion\u2019s head, and bulls and\nlions with the faces of men, there has never yet been found a figure\nprovided with a wheel for the purpose of locomotion, and having four\nheads, like those of which the prophet speaks. We may, therefore, safely\nconclude, that Ezekiel applied the word _ker\u00fbb_ (cherub) to the creatures\nthat he saw in his vision, because that was the most suitable word he\ncould find, not because it was the term usually applied to things of that\nkind. It is hardly likely that the guardians of the entrance into the\nearthly Paradise and the creatures that bore up the throne of the Almighty\nwere conceived as being of so complicated a form as the cherubim of\nEzekiel.\n\nWhatever doubt may exist as to the original form of this celestial being,\nthe discussion of the origin of the Hebrew word _ker\u00fbb_ may now be\nregarded as finally settled by the discovery of the Assyro-Babylonian\nrecords. It is undoubtedly borrowed from the Babylonian _kirubu_, a word\nmeaning simply \u201cspirit,\u201d and conceived as one who was always in the\npresence (_ina kirib_) of God, and formed from the root _qar\u0101bu_, \u201cto be\nnear.\u201d The change from _q_ (qoph) to _k_ (kaph) is very common in\nBabylonian, and occurs more frequently before _e_ and _i_, hence the form\nin Hebrew, _ker\u00fbb_ (cherub\u2014the translators intended that _ch_ should be\npronounced as _k_) for _qer\u00fbb_ (which the translators would have\ntranscribed as _kerub_).\n\nOriginally the Assyro-Babylonian word _kirubu_ seems to have meant\nsomething like \u201cintimate friend,\u201d or \u201cfamiliar,\u201d as in the expression\n_kirub \u0161arri_, \u201cfamiliar of the king,\u201d mentioned between \u201cdaughter of the\nking,\u201d and \u201cthe beloved woman of the king.\u201d An illustration of its\nextended meaning of \u201cspirit,\u201d however, occurs in the following lines from\n\u201cthe tablet of Good Wishes\u201d\u2014\n\n\n \u201cIn thy mouth may there be perfection of speech\n (_l\u00fb asim dababu_);\n In thine eye may there be brightness of sight\n (_l\u00fb namir ni\u1e6dlu_);\n In thine ear may there be a spirit of hearing\u201d\n (_l\u00fb_ KIRUB _ni\u0161m\u00fb_, lit. \u2018a cherub of hearing\u2019).\u201d\n\n\nThe cherubim were therefore the good spirits who performed the will of\nGod, and, in the minds of the Assyrians and Babylonians, watched over and\nguarded the man who was the \u201cson of his God,\u201d _i.e._ the pious man.\n\nThe cherub upon which the Almighty rode, and upon whom he sat, corresponds\nmore to the _guzal\u016b_ or \u201cthrone-bearer\u201d of Assyro-Babylonian mythology.\nThey were apparently beings who bore up the thrones of the gods, and are\nfrequently to be seen in Babylonian sculptures thus employed, at rest, and\nwaiting patiently, to all appearance, until their divine master, seated on\nthe throne which rests on their shoulders, should again give them word, or\nmake known that it was now his will to start and journey forth once more.\n\nThe story of Cain and Abel, and the first tragedy that occurred in the\nworld after the creation of man, has always attracted the attention of the\npious on that account, and because the first recorded murder was that of a\nbrother. This is a story to which the discovery of a Babylonian parallel\nwas least likely to be found, and, as a matter of fact, none has as yet\ncome to light. Notwithstanding this, a few remarks upon such remote\nparallels which exist, and such few illustrations of the event that can be\nfound, may be cited in this place.\n\nThese are contained in the story of Tammuz or Adonis, who, though not\nsupposed to have been slain by his brother, was nevertheless killed by the\ncold of Winter, who might easily have been regarded as his brother, for\nTammuz typified the season of Summer, the Brother-season, so to say, of\nWinter. As is well known, the name Tammuz is Akkadian, and occurs in that\nlanguage under the form of Dumu-zi, or, more fully, Dumu-zida, meaning\n\u201cthe everlasting son,\u201d in Semitic Babylonian _\u00e2blu k\u00eanu_. It is very\nnoteworthy that Prof. J. Oppert has suggested that the name of Abel, in\nHebrew Habel, is, in reality, none other than the Babylonian _ablu_,\n\u201cson,\u201d and the question naturally arises, May not the story of Cain and\nAbel have given rise to the legend of Tammuz, or _Ablu k\u00eanu_, as his name\nwould be if translated into Semitic Babylonian?\n\nUnless by a folk-etymology, however, the Semitic Babylonian translation of\nthe name of Tammuz can hardly be a composition of Abel and Cain, because\nthe first letter is _q_ (qoph) and not _k_ (kaph), the transcription Cain\nfor Kain or Kayin being faulty in the A.V. Still, we feel bound to\nrecognize that there is a possibility, though naturally a remote one, that\nthe legend of Tammuz is connected with that of Cain and Abel, just as the\ndivision of the Dragon (in the Babylonian story of the Creation) by the\ngod Merodach into two halves, with one of which he covered the heavens,\nleaving the other below upon the earth, typifies the division of the\nwaters above the earth from those below in the Biblical story of the same\nevent.\n\nThere is a legend, named by me (for want of a more precise title) \u201cThe\nLament of the Daughter of the god Sin,\u201d in which the carrying off (by\ndeath?) of \u201cher fair son\u201d is referred to. Here we have another possible\nBabylonian parallel to the story of the death of Abel, in which the\ndriving forth of her who makes the lament from her city and from her\npalace might well typify the expulsion of Eve from Paradise, and her\ndelivery into the power of her enemy, who is, to all appearance, the king\nof terrors, into whose hands she and her husband were, for their\ndisobedience, consigned. In this really beautiful Babylonian poem her\n\u201cenemy\u201d seems to reproach her, telling her how it was she, and she alone,\nwho had ruined herself.\n\nThough there may be something in the comparisons with the story of Cain\nand Abel which are quoted here, more probably (as has been already\nremarked) there is nothing, and the real parallels have yet to be found.\nIn any case, they are instances of the popularity among the Babylonians\nand Assyrians of those stories of one, greatly beloved and in the bloom of\nyouth, coming, like Abel, to an untimely end through the perversity of\nfate, and by no fault of his own. Though neither may be the original of\nthe Biblical story nor yet derived from it, they are of interest and value\nas beautiful legends of old time, possibly throwing light on the Biblical\nstory.\n\nAs yet the Babylonian and Assyrian records shed but little light on the\nquestion of the patriarchs of the early ages succeeding Adam, the details\nthat are given concerning them, and their long lives. Upon this last point\nthere is only one remark to be made, and that is, that the prehistoric\nkings of Babylonia likewise lived and reigned for abnormally long ages,\naccording to the records that have come down to us. Unfortunately, there\nis nothing complete in the important original of the Canon of Berosus\nfirst published by the late G. Smith, and the beginning is especially\nmutilated.\n\nThe likeness between Enoch and the Akkadian name of the city of Erech,\nUnug, has already been pointed out, and it has been suggested that the two\nwords are identical. This, however, can hardly be the case, for the Hebrew\nform of Enoch is \u1e2aan\u00f4\u1e33, the initial letter being the guttural _\u1e2beth_,\nwhich, notwithstanding the parallel ease of Hiddekel, the Akkadian Idigna\n(the Tigris), weakens the comparison. The principal argument against the\nidentification, however, is the fact that, in the bilingual story of the\nCreation, the god Merodach is said to have built the city, and such was\nevidently the Babylonian belief.(6)\n\nThe name of Enoch\u2019s great-grandson, Methusael, finds, as has many times\nbeen pointed out, its counterpart in the Babylonian Mut-\u00eeli, with the same\nmeaning (\u201cman of God\u201d).\n\n [Plate IV.]\n\nLower part of the obverse of a terra-cotta tablet from Nineveh, inscribed\nwith the names of Babylonian kings in Sumerian and Semitic Babylonian. The\n13th line (that running across two columns) has the statement, \"These are\n the kings who were after the Flood. They are not written in their proper\n order.\" The names of Sargina (Sargon of Agad\u00e9) and Hammurabi (Amraphel)\n also occur. Found by Sir A. H. Layard and Hormuzd Rassam.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. THE FLOOD.\n\n\n The Biblical account\u2014Its circumstantial nature and its great\n length\u2014The Babylonian account\u2014The reason of the Flood and why\n Pir-napi\u0161tim built the Ark\u2014His devotion to the God Ea\u2014Ea and\n Jah\u2014Ea\u2019s antagonism to B\u00eal\u2014The bloodless sacrifice\u2014Ea\u2019s gift of\n immortality\u2014Further observations\u2014Appendix: The second version of\n the Flood-story.\n\n\nNoah, son of Lamech, had reached the age of five hundred years, and had\nthree sons, Shem, Ham, and Japhet; and at this time men had begun to\nmultiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them; then\n\u201cthe sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they\ntook them wives of all that they chose.\u201d\n\nThe question naturally arises, \u201cWho were these sons of God?\u201d According to\nJob xxxviii. 7, where we have the statement that \u201cThe morning stars sang\ntogether, and all the sons of God shouted for joy,\u201d it would seem to be\nthe angels that are intended by these words, and this is apparently the\nopinion generally held by scholars and divines on the subject. This view\nseems to be favoured by the Second Epistle of Peter (ii. 1), though, as\nthe words do not actually agree with those of the text of Genesis quoted\nabove, nothing very positive can be maintained concerning the apostle\u2019s\ndictum\u2014in fact, his words in the passage referred to, \u201cfor if God spared\nnot the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them\ninto chains and darkness, to be reserved unto judgment,\u201d can much more\nreasonably be regarded as referring, and therefore giving authority to,\nthe story of the fall of the angels, as indicated in Avitus, Caedmon, and\nMilton, a legend of which the germs are found in the Babylonian account of\nthe Creation, referred to in Chapter I. The other passages of Job where\nthis expression occurs (i. 6, and ii. 2) are not conclusive as to the\nmeaning \u201cangels,\u201d for the expressions \u201csons of God,\u201d in those passages,\nwho are said to have come before the Almighty, may very well have been\nmerely men.\n\nHowever the matter may stand, for the passages in Job, there is every\nprobability that it is not the angels that are intended in the description\nwe are examining as to the reasons of the coming of the Flood. As the late\nGeorge Bertin was the first to point out, the Babylonians often used the\nphrase \u201ca son of his god,\u201d apparently to designate \u201ca just man,\u201d or\nsomething similar. The connection in which this expression occurs is as\nfollows\u2014\n\n\n \u201cMay Damu, the great enchanter, make his thoughts happy,\n May the lady who giveth life to the dead, the goddess Gula, heal\n him by the pressure of her pure hand,\n And thou, O gracious Merodach, who lovest the revivification of\n the dead,\n With thy pure incantation of life, free him from his sin, and\n May the man, the son of his god, be pure, clean, and bright.\u201d\n\n\nIn this passage the phrase in question is (in Akkadian) _gi\u0161gallu dumu\ndingirana_, and (in Assyrian) _am\u0113lu m\u00e2r \u00eeli-\u0161u_. It is a frequent\nexpression in documents of this class, and always occurs in a similar\nconnection. In some cases, instead of \u201cthe man, the son of his god,\u201d the\nvariation \u201cthe king, the son of his god\u201d occurs, and is apparently to be\nparaphrased in the same way, and understood as \u201cthe pious king.\u201d\n\nMay it not be, then, that \u201cthe sons of God,\u201d who saw that the daughters of\nmen were fair (lit. good), and took of them as many wives as they wanted,\nwere those who were regarded as the pious men of the time? For who among\nthe angels would at any time have thought of allying himself with an\nearthly and mortal spouse, and begetting children\u2014offspring who should\nturn out to be \u201cmighty men which were of old, men of renown,\u201d as verse 4\nhas it? In this case, the \u201cdaughters of men\u201d would be children of common\npeople, not possessing any special piety or other virtue to recommend\nthem, the only thing being that their daughters were fair, and good\nenough, in the opinion of those \u201csons of God,\u201d to have as their wives.\n\nIt is apparently given as the result of these unions between the pious men\nand the daughters of the people that wickedness became rife in the earth,\nand man\u2019s imagination continually evil; and this was so to such an extent\nthat the Almighty repented of having created man, and decided to destroy\nthe wicked generation\u2014both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of\nthe air\u2014dwelling upon the earth\u2014all except Noah, who found favour in the\neyes of Yahwah.\n\nHaving decided to destroy the life of the world by means of a flood, God\ncommunicated His intention and the reason thereof to the patriarch, and\ninstructed him to build an ark in which he was to save both himself and\nhis family from the impending destruction. The vessel is to be built of\ngopher-wood, to have rooms in it, and to be pitched within and without\nwith pitch. The dimensions also are specified. Its length was to be three\nhundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. He\nwas to make the ark \u201cwith light\u201d (\u05e6\u05d4\u05e8 or \u05e8\u05d4\u05e6), that is, with windows, and\ntheir length or height, apparently, was to be a cubit. The vessel was to\nhave a door, and to be built with three stories, lower, second, and third.\nIn accordance with God\u2019s covenant with the patriarch, he, his sons, and\nhis sons\u2019 wives were to be saved, along with every living thing, male and\nfemale of each kind. For all this great multitude a sufficiency of food\nwas directed to be provided.\n\nThen comes the command (the ark having been duly built, and all the\ndirections followed) to enter into the vessel, and further instructions\nare given with regard to the creatures that are to be saved, with a slight\nmodification in the numbers, for the clean beasts are to be taken in \u201cby\nsevens,\u201d and all the rest, \u201cthe unclean,\u201d by pairs. God then announces\nthat in seven days\u2019 time He will cause rain to come upon the earth for\nforty days and forty nights. \u201cAll the fountains of the great deep\u201d were\nbroken up, and the Lord shut up those upon whom He had favour in the ark.\n\nThen, as the rain continued, the waters \u201cprevailed exceedingly\u201d upon the\nearth, and the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered,\nthe depth of the waters being \u201cfifteen cubits and upwards.\u201d Everything was\ndestroyed, \u201cNoah alone remained alive, and those who were with him in the\nark.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.\u201d\n\nThe \u201cfountains of the deep\u201d and \u201cthe windows of heaven\u201d having been\nstopped, and the \u201crain from heaven\u201d restrained, the waters abated, leaving\nthe ark high and dry upon the mountains of Ararat; and after the tops of\nthe mountains were seen, Noah looked out of the window that he had made.\nHe then sent forth a raven and a dove, and the latter, not finding a\nresting-place, returned to him, to be sent forth again at the end of\nanother week. The dove again returned bearing in her beak an olive-leaf.\nSeven days more passed, and the dove, having been sent out a third time,\nreturned to him no more. Recognizing that the waters were now all returned\ninto their old channels, and that the land was dry enough for him and his,\nNoah removed the covering of the vessel, and saw that his supposition was\ncorrect, and having received the command to come forth from the ark, which\nhad been his abiding-place for so long, and to send forth the living\ncreatures that were with him, the patriarch obeyed, and, when on dry land,\nbuilt an altar to Yahwah, and offered burnt offerings thereon of every\nclean beast and every clean fowl.\n\n\u201cAnd the Lord smelled a sweet savour (lit. a savour of rest); and the Lord\nsaid in His heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man\u2019s\nsake, for the imagination of man\u2019s heart is evil from his youth.... While\nthe earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer\nand winter, and day and night shall not cease.\u201d\n\nThen comes, in the ninth chapter, the blessing of God, with a charge\nconcerning the shedding of blood. He makes also a covenant with Noah, by\nthe sign of the rainbow, declaring that a like calamity shall never again\ncome upon the earth to destroy all life that is upon it.\n\nSuch is, in short, the Bible story of the great flood that destroyed, at a\nremote age of the world, all life upon the earth. It is a narrative\ncircumstantially told, with day, month, and year all indicated, and it\nforms a good subject for comparison with the Babylonian account, with\nwhich it agrees so closely in all the main points, and from which it\ndiffers so much in many essential details.\n\nAs in the case of the Babylonian story of the Creation, it has been\nthought well not only to give a fairly full translation of the Babylonian\nstory of the Flood, but also to indicate under what circumstances that\nstory appears in the series of tablets in which it is found.\n\nThe first to detect the nature of the series of tablets giving the story\nof the Flood was the late George Smith, who had unrivalled opportunities\nof making himself thoroughly acquainted with the treasures of the British\nMuseum in the matter of Assyrian records. As the story runs, it was whilst\nsearching for the fragments of the Creation-series that he came across a\nfragment of a tablet mentioning that \u201cthe ship rested on the mountain of\nNi\u1e63ir,\u201d and this at once suggested to him that this was a reference to the\nFlood, as, in fact, it turned out to be. Continued and unremitting\nresearch among the treasures of the Department in which he was employed\nenabled him to bring together a large number of other fragments of the\nseries, leaving, in fact, very little indeed for any future student to do\nin the way of collecting together texts from the fragments that he had an\nopportunity of examining. The _Daily Telegraph_ expedition to Assyria,\nwhich was conducted by Mr. Smith himself, enabled him to add many other\nfragments to those which he had already recognized in the Oriental\nDepartment of the British Museum, and Mr. Rassam\u2019s very successful\nexcavations in the same place have since very considerably increased the\nlist of additions.\n\nThe story of the Flood, as known to the Babylonians and Assyrians, is one\nchapter or book of a legend consisting of twelve similar divisions, the\nfirst line of the series beginning with the words _\u0160a naqba im\u00fbru_, \u201cHe\nwho saw everything,\u201d and to this is added in the colophons, \u201cthe legend of\nGilgame\u0161.\u201d The number of fragments extant is large, but the individual\ntablets are very imperfect, that giving the account of the Flood being by\nfar the most complete, though even that has very regrettable lacun\u00e6.\nIncomplete as the legend is as a whole, an attempt will nevertheless be\nmade here to give some sort of a connected story, which may be regarded as\naccurate in all its main details.\n\nThe first tablet begins with the words that have been quoted above, \u201cHe\nwho saw everything, [who] ... the land.\u201d This is followed, it would seem,\nby a description of the hero, who, apparently, knew \u201cthe wisdom of the\nwhole (of the lands?),\u201d and \u201csaw secret and hidden things.... He brought\nnews of before the flood, went a distant road, and (suffered) dire fatigue\n(?).\u201d All his journeyings and toils were, apparently, inscribed on tablets\nof stone, and records thus left for future ages.\n\nGilgame\u0161, as we learn in the course of the narrative, was lord or king of\n_Uruk supuri_, or \u201cErech the walled,\u201d and at the time when the story\nbegins, the fortifications were in a ruinous state, and the treasury (?)\nof the sanctuary \u00ca-anna, the temple of the goddess I\u0161tar, which is\nmentioned in the legend immediately after, was, we may suppose, empty.\nOther details of the desolation of the temple are given, and the ruinous\nstate of the walls of the city are spoken of, together with the decay of\ntheir foundations.\n\nNo other fragment of Col. I. of the first tablet of the Legend of Gilgame\u0161\nseems to have been recognized, so that the further references to the city\nare lost. An interesting piece that Mr. G. Smith thought to be part of the\nthird column of this text refers to some misfortune that came upon the\ncity when the people moaned like calves, and the maidens grieved like\ndoves.\n\n\n \u201cThe gods of Erech the walled\n Turned to flies, and hummed in the streets;\n The winged bulls of Erech the walled\n Turned to mice, and went out through the holes.\u201d\n\n\nThe city was, on this occasion, besieged for three years, until at last\nthe god B\u00eal and the goddess I\u0161tar interested themselves in the state of\nthings. As to who the enemy was who brought the people into such distress,\nthere is no means at present of finding out, but Mr. G. Smith suggested,\nwith at least some show of probability, that they were the Elamites under\n\u1e2aumbaba, who appears later as the opponent of our hero. The indifference\nof the gods and the divine bulls that were supposed to protect the city is\nwell expressed in the statement that they respectively turned into flies\nand mice, buzzing about and active, but doing no good whatever.\n\nAfter the reference to the state of Erech, the text is exceedingly\nmutilated, and the sense difficult to gather, but it would seem to have\ncontained a further description of the hero, who, according to Jensen\u2019s\ntranslation, is described as \u201ctwo parts god and the third part man.\u201d To\nall appearance there was none in all his realm like him, and also no\nconsort suitable for him, though he collected to him all the young men and\nmaidens in the land. This was a matter for grief, which the (divine powers\n?) heard, and they called upon the goddess Aruru to make another in his\nlikeness. This being was \u00caa-ban\u00ee,(7) the mighty one, to all appearance\nmade to be the rival of Gilgame\u0161, but if this be the case, he did not\nfulfil his destiny, for his delight was to remain with the beasts of the\nfield. All his body was covered with hair, and he had long tresses on his\nhead, like those of a woman (recalling Samson\u2019s luxuriant locks). Far,\ntoo, from being the rival of Gilgame\u0161, he became his most devoted friend\nand companion.\n\n\n \u201c \u2018Thou, Aruru, hast created (mankind),\n Now make thou (one in) his likeness.\n The first day let his heart be (formed?),\n Let him rival (?) and let him overcome (??) Erech.\u2019\n Aruru hearing this,\n Made the likeness of Anu in the midst of her heart.\n Aruru washed her hands,\n She pinched off some clay, she threw it on the ground\u2014\n (Thus?) \u00caa-ban\u00ee she made, the warrior,\n The offspring, the seed, the possession of Ninip.\n Covered with hair was all his body,\n He had tresses like a woman,\n The amount (?) of his hair grew thick like corn.\n He knew not (?) people and land.\n Clothed with a garment like the god Gira.\n With the gazelles he eateth the grass,\n With the wild beasts he drinketh drink,\n With the dwellers in the water his heart delighteth.\n The hunter, the destroyer, a man,\n Beside the drinking-place he came across him,\n The first day, the second day, the third day, beside the\n drinking-place he came across him.\n The hunter saw him, and his (\u00caa-ban\u00ee\u2019s) countenance became stern,\n (He) and his wild beasts entered his house,\n (He became an)gry, stern, and he called out.\u201d\n\n\nApparently he did not like being watched so long by the hunter, and\nbecoming suspicious of his intentions, showed resentment, and tried to\ndrive him away. It may be noted by the way, that this description of\n\u00caa-ban\u00ee would answer excellently to the state attributed for a time to\nNebuchadnezzar in the Book of Daniel.\n\nThe hunter has a conversation with his father, who was with him, and the\nupshot of it is that they decide to communicate to Gilgame\u0161 an account of\nthe terrible man whom they had seen. It was therefore decided to try to\ncatch or, rather, entice him to Erech by means of a female named Sam\u1e2bat.\nIn accordance with the instructions received, therefore, the hunter took\nwith him the woman who was intrusted to him, and they awaited \u00caa-ban\u00ee in\nthe same place, by the side of the water. After watching for him for two\ndays, they got into communication with him, and the woman asked him why he\ndwelt with the wild animals, depicting at the same time all the glory of\nErech the walled and the nobility of Gilgame\u0161, so that he soon allowed\nhimself to be persuaded, and, in the end, went and took up his abode\nthere.\n\nVarious things are then narrated, the most important of them being the\nepisode of the Elamite \u1e2aumbaba, the same name, though not the same person,\nas the Kombabos of the Greeks.\n\nGilgame\u0161 seems to have gone to a place where there was a forest of\ncedar-trees, accompanied by \u00caa-ban\u00ee. Near this place, apparently, there\nwas a splendid palace, the abode (?) of a great queen. Judging from what\nremains of the text, they ask their way of her, and she it is who seems to\ntell them how to reach the dominions of the potentate whom they seek.\n\n\n \u201cA distant road is the place of \u1e2aumbaba.\n A conflict that he (Gilgame\u0161) knoweth not he will meet,\n A road that he knoweth not he will ride,\n As long as he goeth and returneth,\n Until he reach the forest of cedars,\n Until the mighty \u1e2aumbaba he subdueth,\n And whatever is evil, what ye hate, he shall destroy in the\n l(and).\u201d\n\n\nEvidently, from the extent of the record in this place, many adventures\nbefell them, but the fragmentary lines and the numerous lacun\u00e6 make a\nconnected narrative absolutely impossible, and it is not until we reach\nthe first column of what Mr. G. Smith regarded as the fifth tablet that we\nget something more satisfactory than this. The hero has apparently come\nwithin measurable distance of his goal\u2014\n\n\n \u201cThey stood and looked on the forest,\n They regarded the height of the cedar,\n They regarded the depth of the forest,\n Where \u1e2aumbaba walked, striding high (?),\n The roads prepared, the way made good.\n They saw the mountain of the cedar, the dwelling of the gods, the\n shrine of the god Irnini,\n Before the mountain the cedar raised its luxuriance\u2014\n Good was its shade, full of delight.\u201d\n\n\nThey had still a long way to go, however, and many things, seemingly, to\novercome, before they should reach the abode of the dreaded Elamite ruler,\nbut unfortunately, the details of their adventures are so very fragmentary\nthat no connected sense whatever is to be made out. The last line of the\ntablet referring to this section, mentioning, as it does, the head of\n\u1e2aumbaba, leads the reader to guess the conclusion of the story, whatever\nthe details may have been.\n\nIt is with the sixth tablet that we meet, for the first time, almost, with\nsomething really satisfactory in the matter of completeness, though even\nhere one is sometimes pulled up sharp by a defective or doubtful passage.\n\nApparently, Gilgame\u0161 had become, at the time to which this tablet refers,\nvery prosperous, and that, combined with his other attractions, evidently\ndrew upon him the attention of the goddess I\u0161tar\u2014\n\n\n \u201cCome, Gilgame\u0161, be thou the bridegroom,\n Give thy substance to me as a gift,\n Be thou my husband, and let me be thy wife.\n I will cause to be yoked for thee a chariot of lapis-lazuli and\n gold,\n Whose wheels are gold and adamant its poles.\n Thou shalt harness thereto the white ones, the great steeds.\n Enter into our house mid the scent of the cedar.\u201d\n\n\nAt his entering, the people were to kiss his feet, and kings, lords, and\nprinces do him homage, and lastly, he was to have no rival upon the earth.\n\nIn the mutilated passage that follows, Gilgame\u0161 answers the goddess,\nreproaching her with her treatment of her former lovers or husbands, which\nseems to have been far from satisfactory. Reference to a \u201cwall of stone,\u201d\nand to \u201cthe land of the enemy,\u201d seem to point to imprisonment and\nexpulsion, and the words \u201cWho is the bridegroom (whom thou hast kept?) for\never?\u201d indicate clearly the opinion in which the hero held the goddess.\nFrom generalities, however, he proceeds to more specific charges\u2014\n\n\n \u201cTo Tammuz, the husband of thy youth,\n From year to year thou causest bitter weeping.\n Thou lovedst the bright-coloured Allala bird,\n Thou smotest him and brokest his wings,\n He stayed in the forests crying, \u2018My wings!\u2019\n Thou lovedst also a lion, perfect in strength,\n By sevens didst thou cut wounds in him.\n Thou lovedst also a horse, glorious in war,\n Harness, spur, and bit (?) thou laidest upon him,\n Seven _kaspu_ (49 miles) thou madest him gallop,\n Distress and sweat thou causedst him,\n To his mother Silili thou causedst bitter weeping.\n Thou lovedst also a shepherd of the flock,\n Who constantly laid out before thee rich foods (?),\n Daily slaughtering for thee suckling kids,\n Thou smotest him and changedst him to a jackal,\n His own shepherd-boy drove him away,\n And his dogs bit his limbs.\n Thou lovedst also I\u0161ullanu, thy father\u2019s gardener,\n Who constantly transmitted (?) thy provisions (?),\n Daily making thy dishes bright.\n Thou raisedst thine eyes to him, and preparedst food.\n \u2018My I\u0161ullanu, divide the food, let us eat,\n And stretch forth thine hand, and taste of our dish.\u2019\n I\u0161ullanu said to thee:\n \u2018Me, what (is this that) thou askest me?\n My mother, do not cook (this), I have never eaten (of it)\u2014\n For should I eat foods of enchantments and witcheries?\n [Food bringing?] cold, exhaustion, madness (?)?\u2019\n Thou heardest this [the speech of I\u0161ullanu],\n Thou smotest him, and changedst him into a statue (?),\n Thou settest him in the midst of (thy) dom(ain?),\n He raiseth not the libation-vase, he descendeth (?) not....\n And as for me, thou wouldst love me and (make me) even as these!\u201d\n\n\nI\u0161tar being angry at these reproaches and accusations of the Babylonian\nhero, immediately ascended to heaven and complained to her father Anu and\nher mother Anatum that Gilgame\u0161 had reproached her with her enchantments\nand witcheries, and after a long conversation, a divine bull is sent\nagainst the hero and his friend. The heavenly animal is overcome,\nprincipally by the activity of \u00caa-ban\u00ee, who after its death, when the\ngoddess I\u0161tar was lamenting its overthrow, cut off a portion of the body,\nand threw it at her. Great were the rejoicings at Erech the walled at the\ntriumph of the hero and his counsellor, and after the feast that was held,\nthey all lay down to sleep. \u00caa-ban\u00ee also lay down with the rest, and\nduring the night he saw a dream, of the details of which nothing is known,\nthough, from the words with which it seems to be introduced, \u201cMy friend,\non account of what do the gods take counsel,\u201d it may be supposed that the\ndefiance and opposition which these mortals had offered to the goddess\nI\u0161tar was engaging the attention of the heavenly powers with a view to\nsome action being taken. As it is with these words that \u00caa-ban\u00ee begins to\ntell his dream to Gilgame\u0161, there is no doubt that the Babylonians\nregarded the former as having been admitted, whilst asleep (as in the case\nof the Babylonian Noah), into the councils of the gods. The solitary line\nthat is quoted above is the first of the seventh tablet.\n\nThe details of the legend now again become obscure, but thus much can be\ngathered, namely, that Gilgame\u0161 in his turn had a dream, and that, all\nappearance, \u00caa-ban\u00ee interpreted it. Later on, \u00caa-ban\u00ee falls ill, and lies\nwithout moving for twelve days. Though unwilling to regard his friend as\ndead, Gilgame\u0161 mourns for him bitterly, and decides to make a journey,\napparently with the object of finding out about his friend \u00caa-ban\u00ee, and\nascertaining whether there were any means of bringing him back to earth\nagain.\n\nHe sets out, and comes to the place where the \u201cscorpion-men,\u201d with their\nheads reaching to heaven, and their breasts on a level with Hades, guarded\nthe place of the rising and the setting sun. The horror of their\nappearance, which was death to behold, is forcibly described on the\ntablet. The hero was struck with terror on seeing them, but as he was of\ndivine origin (\u201chis body is of the flesh of the gods,\u201d as the scorpion-man\nsays to his female), death has no power over him on account of them. He\nseems to describe to them his journey, and the object he had in view.\nPir-napi\u0161tim, the Babylonian Noah, is mentioned in the course of the\nconversation, and it may be supposed that it is on account of his desire\nto visit him that he asks these monsters for advice. He afterwards comes\ninto contact with the goddess Siduri, \u201cwho sits upon the throne of the\nsea,\u201d and she, on seeing him, shuts her gate. He speaks to her of this,\nand threatens to break it open. Having gained admission, he apparently\ntells the goddess the reason of his journey, and she, in return, describes\nto him the way that he would have to take, the sea that he would have to\ncross, and of the deep waters of death that bar the way to the abode of\nthe Babylonian Noah, who had attained unto everlasting life, and whose\npilot or boatman, Ur-\u0160anabi, was to take the Erechite hero to his\npresence.\n\nAfter a long conversation with Ur-\u0160anabi, concerning the road that they\nwill take, they start together, and after passing through a forest, they\nembark in a ship, and reach, at the end of a month and ten days, the\n\u201cwaters of death.\u201d There Gilgame\u0161 does something a number of times, and\nafterwards sees afar off Pir-napi\u0161tim, the Babylonian Noah, who apparently\ncommunes with himself concerning the visitor who has come to his shores.\nThe conversation which follows is very mutilated, but in the course of his\nexplanation of the reason of his visit, Gilgame\u0161 relates all his\nadventures\u2014how he had traversed all the countries, and crossed difficult\nmountains, his visit to Siduri, and her refusal to open the door to him,\nwith many other things. The conversation apparently, after a time, becomes\nof a philosophical nature, for, in the course of it, Pir-napi\u0161tim says\u2014\n\n\n \u201cAlways have we built a house,\n Always do we seal (?) (the contract).\n Always have brothers share together,\n Always is the seed in (the earth?),\n Always the river rises bringing a flood.\u201d\n\n\nHe then discourses, apparently among other things, of death, and says\u2014\n\n\n \u201cThe Anunnaki, the great gods, are assembled (?).\n Mammitum, maker of fate, sets with them the destinies.\n They have made life and death,\n (But) the death-days are not made known.\u201d\n\n\nWith these words the tenth tablet of the Gilgame\u0161 series comes to an end.\n\n\n\n\nThe Eleventh Tablet Of The Gilgame\u0161 Series, Containing The Story Of The\nFlood.\n\n\nAs this tablet is the most complete of the series, it may not be\nconsidered out of place to give here a description of the outward\nappearance of the document\u2014or, rather, of the documents, for there are\nmany copies. This description will serve, to a certain extent, for all the\nother tablets of the series, when in their complete state.\n\nThe size of the document which best shows the form is about 8-\u00bd inches\nwide, by 5-7/8 inches high. It is rectangular in form, and is inscribed on\nboth sides with three columns of writing (six in all). The total number of\nlines, as given in the text published in the second edition of the fourth\nvol. of the _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, is 293, including\nthe catch-line and colophon, but as many of these lines are, in reality,\ndouble ones (the scribes frequently squeezed two lines into the space of\none, so as to economize space), the original number of the lines was\nprobably nearer 326, or, with the catch-line and colophon, 330. It is\nprobable that the other tablets of the series were not so closely written\nas this, and in these cases the number of lines is fewer.\n\nThe tablet opens with the continuation of the conversation between\nGilgame\u0161 and \u201cPir-napi\u0161tim the remote\u201d\u2014\n\n\n \u201cGilgame\u0161 said also to him, to Pir-napi\u0161tim the remote:\n \u2018I perceive thee, O Pir-napi\u0161tim,\n Thy features are not changed\u2014like me art thou,\n And thou (thyself) art not changed, like me art thou.\n Put an end in thine heart to the making of resistance,\n (Here?) art thou placed, does that rise against thee,\n (Now?) that thou remainest, and hast attained life in the assembly\n of the gods?\u2019\n\n Pir-napi\u0161tim said also to him, to Gilgame\u0161:\n \u2018Let me tell thee, Gilgame\u0161, the account of my preservation,\n And let me tell thee, even thee, the decision of the gods.\n \u0160urippak, the city which thou knowest,\n Lies (upon the bank) of the Euphrates.\n That city was old, and the gods within it.\n The great gods decided in their hearts to make a flood.\n There (?) was (?) their father Anu,\n Their counsellor, the warrior Ellila,\n Their throne-bearer, Ninip,\n Their leader, En-nu-gi.\n Nin-igi-azaga, the god Ae, communed with them, and\n Repeated their command to the earth:\n \u201cEarth, earth! Town, town!\n O earth, hear: and town, understand!\n Surippakite, son of Umbara-Tutu,\n Destroy the house, build a ship,\n Leave what thou hast (?), see to thy life.\n Destroy the hostile and save life,\n Take up the seed of life, all of it, into the midst of the ship.\n The ship which thou shalt make, even thou,\n Let its size be measured,\n Let it agree (as to) its height and its length;\n (Behold) the deep, launch her (thither).\u201d\n I understood and said to Ae, my lord:\n \u201c[Behol]d, my lord, what thou, even thou, hast said, verily (?)\n It is excellent (?), (and) I will do (it).\n (How?) may I answer the city\u2014the young men and the elders?\u201d\n Ae opened his mouth and spake,\n He said to his servant, to me:\n \u201cThus, then, shalt thou say unto them;\n \u2018It has been told me (that) Ellila hates me,\n I will not dwell in ... and\n In the territory of Ellila I will not set my face\u2014\n I will descend to the deep, with (Ae) my lord I shall (constantly)\n dwell.\n (As for) you, he will cause abundance to rain down upon you, and\n (Beasts and?) birds (shall be) the prey (?) of the fishes, and\n ... he will enclose, (?), and\n ... of a storm (?),\n (In the night) the heavens will rain down upon (y)ou\n destruction.\u201d \u2019 \u201d\n\n\nWith these words the second paragraph comes to an end, the total number of\nlost or greatly mutilated lines being about nine. Very little of the\ncontents of these lines can be made out, as not much more than traces of\nwords remain. Where the lines begin to become fairly complete, the text\nseems to refer to the building of the ship, upon which four days had\nalready been spent, its form being laid down on the fifth day. The\ndescription of the building, which is somewhat minute, is exceedingly\ndifficult to translate, and any rendering of it must therefore, at the\npresent time, be regarded as tentative. Its bulwarks seem to have risen\nfour measures, and a deck (apparently) is mentioned. Its interior was\npitched with six _\u0161ar_ of bitumen, and its outside with three _\u0161ar_ of\npitch, or bitumen of a different kind. The provisionment of the vessel is\nnext described, but this part is mutilated. A quantity of oil for the crew\nand pilot is referred to, and oxen were also slaughtered, apparently as a\npropitiatory sacrifice on the completion of the vessel. Various kinds of\ndrink were then brought on board, both intoxicating and otherwise,\nplentiful (this may be regarded as the word to be supplied here) \u201clike the\nwaters of a river.\u201d After this we have references to the completion of\ncertain details\u2014holes for the cables above and below, etc., and with this\nthe third paragraph comes to an end.\n\nIn the next paragraph Pir-napi\u0161tim collects his goods and his family, and\nenters into the ark:\u2014\n\n\n \u201cAll I possessed I transferred thereto,\n All I possessed I transferred thereto, silver,\n All I possessed I transferred thereto, gold;\n All I possessed I transferred thereto, the seed of life, the whole\n I caused to go up into the midst of the ship. All my family and\n relatives,\n The beasts of the field, the animals of the field, the sons of the\n artificers\u2014all of them I sent up.\n The god \u0160ama\u0161 appointed the time\u2014\n _Muir kukki_\u2014In the night I will cause the heavens to rain\n destruction,\n Enter into the midst of the ship and shut thy door.\u201d\n \u201cThat time approached\u2014\n _Muir kukki_\u2014In the night the heavens rained destruction.\n I saw the appearance of the day:\n I was afraid to look upon the day\u2014\n I entered into the midst of the ship, and shut my door.\n For the guiding of the ship, to Buzur-Kurgala, the pilot,\n I gave the great house with its goods.\n\n At the appearance of dawn in the morning,\n There arose from the foundation of heaven a dark cloud:\n Rimmon thundered in the midst of it, and\n Nebo and \u0160arru went in front\n Then went the throne-bearers (over) mountain and plain.\n Ura-gala dragged out the cables,\n Then came Ninip, casting down destruction,\n The Anunnaki raised (their) torches,\n With their brilliance they illuminated the land.\n Rimmon\u2019s destruction reached to heaven,\n Everything bright to darkness turned,\n ... the land like ... it ...\n The first day, the storm (?) ...\n Swiftly it swept, and ... the land (?)....\n Like a battle against the people it sought....\n Brother saw not brother.\n The people were not to be recognized. In heaven\n The gods feared the flood, and\n They fled, they ascended to the heaven of Anu.\n The gods kenneled like dogs, crouched down in the enclosures.\n I\u0161tar spake like a mother.(8)\n The lady of the gods(9) called out, making her voice resound:\n \u2018All that generation has turned to corruption.\n Because I spoke evil in the assembly of the gods,\n When I spoke evil in the assembly of the gods,\n I spoke of battle for the destruction of my people.\n Verily I have begotten (man), but where is he?\n Like the sons of the fishes he fills the sea.\u2019\n The gods of the Anunnaki were weeping with her.\n The gods had crouched down, seated in lamentation,\n Covered were their lips in (all) the assemblies,\n Six days and nights\n The wind blew, the deluge and flood overwhelmed the land.\n The seventh day, when it came, the storm ceased, the raging flood,\n Which had contended like a whirlwind,\n Quieted, the sea shrank back, and the evil wind and deluge ended.\n I noticed the sea making a noise,\n And all mankind had turned to corruption.\n Like palings the marsh-reeds appeared.\n I opened my window, and the light fell upon my face,\n I fell back dazzled, I sat down, I wept,\n Over my face flowed my tears.\n I noted the regions, the shore of the sea,\n For twelve measures the region arose.\n The ship had stopped at the land of Ni\u1e63\u1e63ir.\n The mountain of Ni\u1e63ir seized the ship, and would not let it pass.\n The first day and the second day the mountain of Ni\u1e63ir seized the\n ship, and would not let it pass,\n The third day and the fourth day the mountain of Ni\u1e63ir, etc.,\n The fifth and sixth the mountain of Ni\u1e63ir, etc.,\n The seventh day, when it came\n I sent forth a dove, and it left,\n The dove went, it turned about,\n But there was no resting-place, and it returned.\n I sent forth a swallow, and it left,\n The swallow went, it turned about,\n But there was no resting-place, and it returned.\n I sent forth a raven, and it left,\n The raven went, the rushing of the waters it saw,\n It ate, it waded, it croaked, it did not return.\n I sent forth (the animals) to the four winds, I poured out a\n libation,\n I made an offering on the peak of the mountain,\n Seven and seven I set incense-vases there,\n In their depths I poured cane, cedar, and rosewood (?).\n The gods smelled a savour,\n The gods smelled a sweet savour,\n The gods gathered like flies over the sacrificer.\n Then the goddess Ma\u1e2b, when she came,\n Raised the great signets that Anu had made at her wish:\n \u2018These gods\u2014by the lapis-stone of my neck\u2014let me not forget,\n These days let me remember, nor forget them forever!\n Let the gods come to the sacrifice,\n But let not Ellila come to the sacrifice,\n For he did not take counsel, and made a flood,\n And consigned my people to destruction.\u2019\n Then Ellila, when he came,\n Saw the ship. And Ellila was wroth,\n Filled with anger on account of the gods and the spirits of\n heaven.\n \u2018What, has a soul escaped?\n Let not a man be saved from the destruction.\u2019\n Ninip opened his mouth and spake,\n He said to the warrior Ellila:\n \u2018Who but Ae has done the thing\n And Ae knows every event.\u2019\n Ae opened his mouth and spake,\n He said to the warrior Ellila:\n \u2018Thou sage of the gods, warrior,\n Verily thou hast not taken counsel, and hast made a flood.\n The sinner has committed his sin,\n The evildoer has committed his misdeed,\n Be merciful\u2014let him not be cut off\u2014yield, let (him) not perish.\n Why hast thou made a flood?\n Let the lion come, and let men diminish.\n Why hast thou made a flood?\n Let the hy\u00e6na come, and let men diminish.\n Why hast thou made a flood?\n Let a famine happen, and let the land be destroyed (?).\n Why hast thou made a flood?\n Let Ura (pestilence) come, and let the land be devastated (?).\n I did not reveal the decision of the great gods\u2014\n I caused Atra-\u1e2basis to see a dream, and he heard the decision of\n the gods.\u2019\n When he had taken counsel (with himself),\n Ae went up into the midst of the ship,\n He took my hand and he led me up, even me\n He brought up and caused my woman to kneel (?) at my side;\n He touched us, and standing between us, he blessed us (saying):\n \u2018Formerly Pir-napi\u0161tim was a man:\n Now (as for) Pir-napi\u0161tim and his woman, let them be like unto the\n gods, (even) us,\n And let Pir-napi\u0161tim dwell afar at the mouths of the rivers.\u2019\n He took me, and afar at the mouths of the rivers he caused me to\n dwell.\n Now as for thee, who of the gods shall restore thee to health?\n That thou see the life that thou seekest, even thou?\n Well, lie not down to sleep six days and seven nights,\n Like one who is sitting down in the midst of his sorrow (?),\n Sleep like a dark cloud hovereth over him.\n Pir-napi\u0161tim then said to his wife:\n \u2018See, the hero who desireth life,\n Sleep like a dark cloud hovereth over him.\u2019\n His wife then said to Pir-napi\u0161tim the remote:\n \u2018Touch him, and let him awake a man\u2014\n Let him return in health by the road that he came,\n Let him return to his country by the great gate by which he came\n forth.\u2019\n Pir-napi\u0161tim said to his wife:\n \u2018The suffering of men hurteth thee.\n Come, cook his food, set it by his head.\u2019\n And the day that he lay down in the enclosure of his ship,\n She cooked his food, she set it by his head:\n And the day when he lay down in the enclosure of his cabin\n First his food was ground,\n Secondly it was sifted,\n Thirdly it was moistened,\n Fourthly she rolled out his dough,\n Fifthly she threw down a part,\n Sixthly it was cooked,\n Seventhly he (or she) touched him suddenly, and he awoke a man!\n\n Gilgame\u0161 said to him (even) to Pir-napi\u0161tim the remote:\n \u2018That sleep quite overcame me\n Swiftly didst thou touch me, and didst awaken me, even thou.\u2019 \u201d\n\n\nPir-napi\u0161tim, in answer to this, tells Gilgame\u0161 what had been done to him,\nrepeating the description of the preparation of his food in the same words\nas had been used to describe the ceremony (for such it apparently is), and\nending by saying, \u201cSuddenly I touched thee, (even) I, and thou awokest,\n(even) thou.\u201d Thus putting beyond question the personality of the one who\neffected the transformation which was brought about, though he leaves out\nthe word \u201cman,\u201d which hid from the hero the fact that a transformation had\nin consequence taken place in him. The ceremonies were not by any means\nfinished, however, for the boatman or pilot had to take him to the place\nof lustration to be cleansed, and for the skin, with which he seems to\nhave been covered, to fall off. The Babylonian patriarch then tells him of\na wonderful plant which would make an old man young again, and Gilgame\u0161\ngets possession of one of these. On his way to his own country in the\ncompany of the boatman or pilot, he stops to perform what seems to be a\nreligious ceremony, at a well, when a serpent smells the plant,(10) and,\napparently in consequence of that, a lion comes and takes it away.\nGilgame\u0161 greatly laments his loss, saying that he had not benefited by the\npossession of this wonderful plant, but the lion of the desert had gained\nthe advantage. After a journey only varied by the religious festivals that\nthey kept, they at length reached Erech, the walled. Here, after a\nreference to the dilapidation of the place, and a statement seemingly\nreferring to the offerings to be made if repairs had not, during his\nabsence, been effected, the eleventh and most important tablet of the\nGilgame\u0161 series comes to an end.\n\nOf the twelfth tablet but a small portion exists, though fragments of more\nthan one copy have been found. In this we learn that Gilgame\u0161 still\nlamented for his friend \u00caa-ban\u00ee, whom he had lost so long before. Wishing\nto know of his present state and how he fared, he called to the spirit of\nhis friend thus\u2014\n\n\n \u201cThou restest not the bow upon the ground,\n What has been smitten by the bow surround thee.\n The staff thou raisest not in thine hand,\n The spirits (of the slain) enclose thee.\n Shoes upon thy feet thou dost not set,\n A cry upon earth thou dost not make:\n Thy wife whom thou lovest thou kissest not,\n Thy wife whom thou hatest thou smitest not;\n Thy child whom thou lovest thou kissest not,\n Thy child whom thou hatest thou smitest not.\n The sorrowing earth hath taken thee.\u201d\n\n\nGilgame\u0161 then seems to invoke the goddess \u201cMother of Nin-a-zu,\u201d seemingly\nasking her to restore his friend to him, but to all appearance without\nresult. He then turned to the other deities\u2014B\u00eal, Sin, and Ea, and the\nlast-named seems to have interceded for \u00caa-ban\u00ee with Nerigal, the god of\nthe under-world, who, at last, opened the earth, \u201cand the spirit of\n\u00caa-ban\u00ee like mist arose (?).\u201d His friend being thus restored to him,\nthough probably only for a time, and not in bodily form, Gilgame\u0161 asks him\nto describe the appearance of the world from which he had just come. \u201cIf I\ntell thee the appearance of the land I have seen,\u201d he answers, \u201c... sit\ndown, weep.\u201d Gilgame\u0161, however, still persists\u2014\u201c... let me sit down, let\nme weep,\u201d he answers. Seeing that he would not be denied, \u00caa-ban\u00ee complies\nwith his request. It was a place where dwelt people who had sinned in\ntheir heart, where (the young) were old, and the worm devoured, a place\nfilled with dust. This was the place of those who had not found favour\nwith their god, who had met with a shameful death (as had apparently\n\u00caa-ban\u00ee himself). The blessed, on the other hand\u2014\n\n\n \u201cWhom thou sawest [die] the death (?) [of] . .[I see]\u2014\n In the resting-place of .... reposing, pure water he drinketh.\n Whom in the battle thou sawest killed, I see\u2014\n His father and his mother support his head\n And his wife sitteth [? beside him].\n Whose corpse thou hast seen thrown down on the plain, I see\u2014\n His spirit on earth reposeth not.\n Whose spirit thou sawest without a caretaker, I see\u2014\n The leavings of the dish, the rejected of the food,\n Which in the street is thrown, he eateth.\u201d\n\n\nAnd with this graphic description of the world of the dead the twelfth and\nconcluding tablet of the Gilgame\u0161 series comes to an end.\n\nWith the Gilgame\u0161 series of tablets as a whole we have not here to concern\nourselves, except to remark, that the story of the Flood is apparently\ninserted in it in order to bring greater glory to the hero, whom the\nwriter desired to bring into connection with one who was regarded as the\ngreatest and most renowned of old times, and who, on account of the favour\nthat the gods had to him, had attained to immortality and to divinity.\nExcept the great Merodach himself, no divine hero of past ages appealed to\nthe Babylonian mind so strongly as Pir-napi\u0161tim, who was called\nAtra-\u1e2basis, the hero of the Flood.\n\nThe reason of the coming of the Flood seems to have been regarded by the\nBabylonians as two-fold. In the first place, as Pir-napi\u0161tim is made to\nsay (see p. 100), \u201cAlways the river rises and brings a flood\u201d\u2014in other\nwords, it was a natural phenomenon. But in the course of the narrative\nwhich he relates to Gilgame\u0161, the true reason is implied, though it does\nnot seem to be stated in words. And this reason is the same as that of the\nOld Testament, namely, the wickedness of the world. If it should again\nbecome needful to punish mankind with annihilation on account of their\nwickedness, the instrument was to be the lion, or the hy\u00e6na, or\npestilence\u2014not a flood. And we have not to go far to seek the reason for\nthis. By a flood, the whole of mankind might\u2014in fact, certainly would\u2014be\ndestroyed, whilst by the other means named some, in all probability, would\nescape. There was at least one of the gods who did not feel inclined to\nwitness the complete destruction of the human race without a protest, and\nan attempt on his part to frustrate such a merciless design.\n\nLittle doubt exists that there is some motive in this statement on the\npart of the Babylonian author of the legend. It has been already noted\nthat Merodach (the god who generally bears the title of _B\u00eal_, or \u201clord\u201d)\nwas, in Babylonian mythology, not one of the older gods, he having\ndisplaced his father Ea or Ae, in consequence of the predominance of\nBabylon, whose patron god Merodach was. Could it be that the Babylonians\nbelieved that the visitation of the flood was due to the vengeful anger of\nMerodach, aroused by the people\u2019s non-acceptance of his kingship? It seems\nunlikely. Pir-napi\u0161tim was himself a worshipper of Ae, and on account of\nthat circumstance, he is represented in the story as being under the\nspecial protection of that god. To all appearance, therefore, the reason\nwhich Pir-napi\u0161tim is represented as having given, for the building of the\nship, to his fellow-townsmen, was not intended to be altogether false. The\ngod Ellila hated him, and therefore he was going to dwell with Ae, his\nlord\u2014on the bosom of the deep which he ruled. An announcement of the\nimpending doom is represented as having been made to the people by the\npatriarch, and it is therefore doubly unfortunate that the next paragraph\nis so mutilated, for it doubtless gave, when complete, some account of the\nway in which they received the notice of the destruction that was about to\nbe rained down upon them.\n\nIt has been more than once suggested, and Prof. Hommel has stated the\nmatter as his opinion, that the name of the god A\u00ea or Ea, another possible\nreading of which is Aa, may be in some way connected with, and perhaps\noriginated the Assyro-Babylonian divine name Ya\u2019u, \u201cGod,\u201d which is cognate\nwith the Hebrew Yah or, as it is generally written, Jah. If this be the\ncase, it would seem to imply that a large section of the people remained\nfaithful to his worship, and the flood of the Babylonians may symbolize\nsome persecution of them by the worshippers of the god Ellila, angry at\nthe slight put upon him by their neglect or unwillingness to acknowledge\nhim as the chief of the Pantheon. Some of the people may, indeed, have\nworshipped Ae or Aa alone, thus constituting a kind of monotheism. This,\nnevertheless, is very uncertain, and at present unprovable. It is worthy\nof note, however, that at a later date there was a tendency to identify\nall the deities of the Babylonian Pantheon with Merodach, and what in the\n\u201cmiddle ages\u201d of the Babylonians existed with regard to Merodach may very\nwell have existed for the worship of Ae or Ea at an earlier date. The\ntransfer, in the Semitic Babylonian Creation-story, of the name of A\u00ea to\nhis son Merodach may perhaps be a re-echo of the tendency to identify all\nthe gods with Ae, when the latter was the supreme object of worship in the\nland. There is one thing that is certain, and that is, that the Chaldean\nNoah, Pir-napi\u0161tim, was faithful in the worship of the older god, who\ntherefore warned him, thus saving his life. Ae, the god who knew all\nthings, knew also the design of his fellows to destroy mankind, and being\n\u201call and always eye,\u201d to adopt a phrase used by John Bunyan, he bore, as a\nsurname, that name Nin-igi-azaga, \u201cLord of the bright eye,\u201d so well\nbefitting one who, even among his divine peers, was the lord of\nunsearchable wisdom.\n\nIt is unfortunately a difficult thing to make a comparison of the ark as\ndescribed in Genesis with a ship of the Babylonian story. It was thought,\nby the earlier translators of the Babylonian story of the Flood, that its\nsize was indicated in the second paragraph of the story (p. 102, ll. 11,\n12), but Dr. Haupt justly doubts that rendering. If the size of the vessel\nwere indicated at all, it was probably in the next paragraph, where the\nbuilding of the ship is described. This part, however, is so very\nmutilated, that very little clear sense can be made out of it. The\nBabylonian home-land of the story seems certainly to be indicated by the\nmention of two kinds of bitumen or pitch for caulking the vessel,\nBabylonia being the land of bitumen _par excellence_. Those who were to\nlive on board were to sustain themselves with the flesh of oxen, and to\nall appearance they cheered the weary hours with the various kinds of\ndrink of which they laid in store. They were not neglectful, either, of\nthe oil that they used in preparing the various dishes, and with which\nthey anointed their persons. All these points, though but little things in\nthemselves, go to show that the story, in its Babylonian dress, was really\nwritten in the country of that luxury-loving people. The mention of holes\nfor the cables, too, shows that the story is the production of maritime\npeople, such as the Babylonians were.\n\nApparently the Babylonians found there was something inconsistent in the\npatriarch being saved without any of his relatives (except his sons), and\nthe artificers who had helped him to build the ship which was to save him\nfrom the destruction that overwhelmed his countrymen and theirs. For this\nreason, and also because of the relationship that might be supposed to\nexist between master and servant, his relatives and the sons of the\nartificers(11) are saved along with his own family, which, of course,\nwould not only include his sons, but their wives also. On this point,\ntherefore, the two accounts may be regarded as in agreement.\n\nWhen all was ready, the Sun-god, called by the usual Semitic name of\n\u0160ama\u0161, appointed the time for the coming of the catastrophe. This would\nseem to be another confirmation of the statement already made, that the\nBabylonians, like the Hebrews (see Gen. i. 14-18), regarded one of the\nuses of the sun as being to indicate seasons and times. It was a great and\nterrible time, such as caused terror to the beholder, and the patriarch\nwas smitten with fear. Here, as in other parts of the Babylonian version,\nthere is a human interest that is to a large extent wanting in the precise\nand detailed Hebrew account. Again the maritime nation is in evidence,\nwhere the consigning of the ship into the care of a pilot is referred to.\nOf course such an official could do but little more than prevent\ndisastrous misfortune from the vessel being the plaything of the waves. In\nthe description of the storm, the terror of the gods, I\u0161tar\u2019s grief, and\nMa\u1e2b\u2019s anger at the destruction of mankind, we see the production of a\nnation steeped in idolatry, but there are but few Assyro-Babylonian\ndocuments in which this fact is not made evident.\n\nWe have a return to the Biblical story in the sending forth of the birds,\nand the sacrifice of odoriferous herbs, when the gods smelled a sweet\nsavour, and gathered like flies over the sacrificer. In the signets of\nMa\u1e2b, \u201cthe lady of the gods,\u201d by which she swears, we may, perhaps, see a\nreflection of the covenant by means of the rainbow, which the Babylonians\npossibly explained as being the necklace of the goddess. Instead of the\npromise that a similar visitation to destroy the whole of mankind should\nnot occur again, there is simply a kind of exhortation on the part of the\ngod Ae, addressed to Ellila, not to destroy the world by means of a flood\nagain. To punish mankind for sins and misdeeds committed, other means were\nto be employed that did not involve the destruction of the whole human\nrace.\n\nNoah died at the age of 950 years (Gen. ix. 29), but his Babylonian\nrepresentative was translated to the abode of the blessed \u201cat the mouths\nof the rivers,\u201d with his wife, to all appearance immediately after the\nFlood. In this the Babylonian account differs, and the ultimate fate of\nthe patriarch resembles that of the Biblical Enoch, he who \u201cwas not, for\nGod took him\u201d (Gen. v. 24).\n\n\n\n\nAppendix. The Second Version Of The Flood-Story.\n\n\nThis was found by the late George Smith at Nineveh when excavating for the\nproprietors of the _Daily Telegraph_, and was at first supposed to belong\nto the text translated on pp. 101-109. This, however, is impossible, as\nthe narrative is in the third person instead of the first, and in the form\nof a conversation between Atra-\u1e2basis (= Pir-napi\u0161tim) and the god A\u00ea\u2014\n\n\n Tablet D. T. 42.\n\n ......................\n ....... may it be\n ....... like the vault of\n ....... may it be strong above and below.\n Enclose the ... and ...............\n [At] the time that I shall send to thee\n Enter [the ship] and close the door of the ship,\n Into the midst of it [take] thy grain, thy furniture, and [thy]\n goods,\n Thy . . ., thy family, thy relatives, and the artisans;\n [The beasts] of the field, the animals of the field, as many as I\n shall collect (?),\n [I will] send to thee, and thy door shall protect them.\n\n [Atra]-\u1e2basis opened his mouth and spake,\n Sa]ying to A\u00ea, his lord:\n \u201c...... a ship I have not made .......\n Form [its shape (?) upon the gr]ound.\n Let me see the [plan], and [I will build] the ship.\n [Form] ...... on the ground ........\n ........ what thou hast said .......\n .........................\n\n\nIt is not improbable that the fragment published by the Rev. V. Scheil, O.\nP., belongs to this legend (see _The King\u2019s Own_,(12) April 1898, pp.\n397-400).\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. ASSYRIA, BABYLONIA, AND THE HEBREWS, WITH REFERENCE TO THE\nSO-CALLED GENEALOGICAL TABLE.\n\n\n The Akkadians\u2014The Semitic Babylonians\u2014The Hebrews\u2014Nimrod\u2014Assur\u2014The\n Tower of Babel and the confusion of tongues\u2014Babylonian\n temple-towers\u2014How the legend probably arose\u2014The Patriarchs to the\n time of Abraham.\n\n\n\u201cAnd Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.\n\n\u201cHe was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as\nNimrod, the mighty hunter before the Lord.\n\n\u201cAnd the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and\nCalneh, in the land of Shinar.\n\n\u201cOut of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city\nRehoboth (or, the streets of the city), and Calah.\n\n\u201cAnd Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city.\u201d\n\nSuch is the Biblical account of the origin of the two most powerful states\nof the ancient East, Babylonia and Assyria. It has been many times quoted\nand discussed, but there seems always to be something new to say about it,\nor to add to it, or what has already been said may be put in another and\nclearer way. It is for one or more of these reasons, as well as for the\ncompleteness of this work, that the author ventures again to approach the\nwell-worn problems that these verses present.\n\nEvery reader, on taking up a book dealing with this period of ancient\nEastern history, will probably have noticed, that the word which most\nfrequently meets his eye (if the book be an English one) is Akkad, the\nSemitic equivalent of the Biblical Accad. If, however, it be a continental\nwork, the equivalent expression will be \u0160umer\u2014which word, indeed, he will\nmeet with also in English works, if the writer be at all under German or\nother foreign influence.\n\nThe reason for this divergence of opinion is very simple, the fact being\nthat there were two tribes or nationalities, \u0160umer being before Akkad when\nthe two countries are mentioned together, and as it is regarded as\nidentical with the Shinar of Gen. x. 10, \u0160umer and \u0160umerian may possibly\nbe preferable, but in all probability Akkad and Akkadian are not wrong.\n\nAs we see from the chapter of Genesis referred to, there were many\nnationalities in the Euphrates valley in ancient times, and the expression\n\u201cCush begat Nimrod,\u201d would imply that the inhabitants of Babylonia were\nall Cushites. Yet the great majority of the inscriptions found in that\ncountry of a later date than about 2000 B.C. are Semitic.\n\nLarge additions have of late years been made to the number of ancient\nremains from Babylonia, and most of these are of a very early period. We\nare thus in a position to compare not only the different types of that\nearly period with each other, but also with the sculptures of later date.\nThe cylinder-seals show us a comparatively slim race, long-bearded, erect\nand dignified, and these characteristics are also recognizable among the\nvarious types revealed to us by the still earlier sculptures. The\nrepresentations of kings and deities are often heavily bearded, but, on\nthe other hand, high officials and others are generally clean shaven.\nThese peculiarities, with the difference of costume, especially the\nthick-brimmed hats, would seem to imply distinct foreign influence, or,\nrather, in combination with the differences of racial type exhibited,\nconsiderable foreign admixture. Perhaps, however, the true explanation is,\nthat the plain of Shinar represents the meeting-point of two different\nraces\u2014one Cushite and the other Semitic.\n\nAnd this fact, as is well known, is confirmed by the existence of what is\nregarded as the language of the Akkadians, and also of a dialect of the\nsame. This is not the place to discuss the question whether these\nnon-Semitic idioms be really languages or only cryptographs\u2014the author\nholds, in common with Sayce, Oppert, Hommel, and all the principal\nAssyriologists, that they are real languages\u2014but a reference to the few\npassages where these idioms are spoken of may not be without interest.\n\nOne of these is the fragment known as S. 1190 in the British Museum, where\nthe contents of the tablet of which it formed a part are referred to as\n\u201cTwo \u0160umerian incantations used\u201d (seemingly) \u201cfor the stilling of a\nweeping child.\u201d Another tablet refers to the languages, and states that\nthe tongue of \u0160umer was like (the tongue of) Akkad, or assumed a likeness\nto it at some time or other. This document also refers to another form of\nspeech that was the tongue of the prince, chief, or leader. Yet another\nfragment refers to Akkad as below (? to the south) and \u0160umer above (? to\nthe north),(13) but it is doubtful whether this refers to the position of\nthe country. A fourth large fragment written partly in the \u201cdialect\u201d is\nreferred to as a \u201c\u0160umerian\u201d text.\n\nBoth from the ethnographical and the linguistic side, therefore, ample\ntestimony to the existence of a non-Semitic race (or non-Semitic races) in\nthe plain of Shinar in ancient times is at hand. As to the language\nintended in the expression \u201cTwo \u0160umerian incantations\u201d (spoken of above)\nthere can be no doubt, the original idiom in question being the\nnon-Semitic tongue already referred to\u2014that tongue which was like the\ntongue of Akkad, of which it was apparently a more decayed form. The title\ngiven cannot refer to the translation into Assyro-Babylonian which\naccompanies it, as this is undoubtedly of later date than the composition\nitself.\n\nThere is then no doubt that the Akkadians and the \u0160umerians were two\ntribes of the same race, probably intermixed to a certain extent with\nforeign elements (people with oblique eyes being depicted on at least two\nof the sculptures of the early period from Tel-Loh), and speaking a\nlanguage differing entirely from that of their Semitic\nfellow-countrymen,\u2014a language which was of an agglutinative nature,\nintroducing into its verbal forms whole rows of analytical particles,\nwhich sometimes gave to the phrase a precision of meaning to which the\nSemitic Babylonian has but little pretension, though \u0160umero-Akkadian is\ngenerally difficult enough in other respects, in consequence of the\nexcessive number of the homophones that it contains. Indeed, it is\nsometimes difficult to see how the speakers of the latter language could\nhave understood each other without resorting to some such distinctive aids\nsimilar to the tones used in modern\u2014as probably also in ancient\u2014Chinese,\nof which \u0160umero-Akkadian is regarded by the Rev. C. J. Ball as an\nexceedingly ancient form.\n\nThe question of the origin of the Akkadians is one concerning which there\nhas been and is still much uncertainty, and which presents many problems\nfor the future. It has been remarked that the fact that there is no\nspecial ideograph for \u201criver,\u201d and the fact that \u201cmountain\u201d and \u201ccountry\u201d\nare represented by the same character, imply that the people with whom the\ncuneiform script originated came from a mountainous country\u2014probably the\ntract to the east or the north-east. This assumption, however, is not\nwholly dependent on what is here stated, for it is a well-known and\nadmitted fact that the ideograph generally used for \u201cAkkad\u201d stands also\nfor other tracts that are largely mountainous, namely, Ph\u0153nicia and\nArarat.\n\nIt may be of interest here to quote the passage referring to this.\n\nThe text in question is the exceedingly important syllabary designated by\nProf. Fried. Delitzsch \u201cSyllabary _B_.\u201d The text is unfortunately\ndefective in the British Museum copy, but a duplicate found at Babylon by\nthe German explorers completes it as follows:\u2014\n\nUri [Cuneiform] Akkad\u016b\nAri [Cuneiform] Amurr\u016b\nTilla [Cuneiform] Ur\u1e6d\u016b.\n\nFrom this we see that the ideograph for Akkad not only stood for that\ncountry, but also for the land of the Amorites (Amurr\u016b), and for Ararat\n(Ur\u1e6d\u016b), both of them being more or less mountainous districts. That the\nancient home of the Akkadians was of the same nature is, therefore, more\nthan probable.\n\nThat the Akkadians were a conquering race is indicated by the legend of\nthe god Ura, generally called \u201cthe Dibbara Legend,\u201d where the hero, \u201cthe\nwarrior Ura,\u201d is represented as speaking prophetically as follows\u2014\n\n\n \u201cT\u00e2mtu with T\u00e2mtu,\n Subartu with Subartu,\n Assyrian with Assyrian,\n Elamite with Elamite,\n Kassite with Kassite,\n Sutite with Sutite,\n Qutite with Qutite,\n Lullubite with Lullubite,\n Country with country, house with house, man with man,\n Brother with brother, shall not agree: let them annihilate each\n other,\n And afterwards let the Akkadian come, and\n Let him overthrow them all, and let him cast down the whole of\n them.\u201d\n\n\nThe Akkadians had dominion, at one time or another, over all the above\nnationalities, some of whom were permanently subjected. T\u00e2mtu, the region\nof the Persian Gulf, was under their domination constantly, though the\ninhabitants were apparently rather turbulent, and unwilling subjects. The\nAssyrians were apparently for a time under Akkadian (Babylonian) rule, but\nthrew it off at a very early period, and later on conquered Akkad itself.\nThe Elamites, too, were for a while conquered by the inhabitants of\nBabylonia, and the Sutites (people of Sut\u00ee) are said to have been all\ntransported by Kada\u0161man-Muru\u0161 (he reigned about 1209 B.C., according to\nHilprecht). It will thus be seen that they played an important part in the\nhistory of the plain of Shinar where they settled, and to all appearance\nintroduced their civilization.\n\nIn the earliest ages known to us, the land of Akkad was a collection of\nsmall states resembling the Heptarchy. These states differed considerably\nin power, influence, and prosperity, and the passing centuries brought\nmany changes with them. From time to time one of the kings or viceroys of\nthese small states would find himself more powerful than his\ncontemporaries, and would gradually overcome all the others. One of the\nearliest instances of this is the ruler Lugal-zag-gi-si, whose reign is\nplaced by Hilprecht at about 4500 B.C. He was son of Uku\u0161 (the reading is\ndoubtful), viceroy (_patesi_) of a district which seems to be that of\nwhich Kis was capital. \u201cHe had conquered all Babylonia and established an\nempire extending from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea\u201d\n(Hilprecht).\n\nWhether he and his successors were able to maintain real dominion over all\nthis extensive tract or not, we do not know, but a few hundred years later\nwe find Sargon of Agad\u00e9 (known as \u201c\u0160argani king of the city\u201d) subduing the\nland of the west in the 11th year of his reign, and placing the districts\nunder one control, whilst his son, Naram-Sin, apparently added Elam to his\ndominions, and Uruwu\u0161 (whom Prof. Sayce suggests as the original of the\nHorus of Pliny), at a later date, led a warlike expedition thither, and\nbrought away much spoil, some of which is still extant as a lasting\ntestimony to the reality of this historical fact.\n\nAmong the states which existed in Akkad before the whole country was\nunited under one king may be mentioned Isin or Karrak, Ur (the supposed Ur\nof the Chaldees), K\u00ea\u0161, Nippur (or Niffur), the modern Niffer, Laga\u0161,\n\u00caridu, \u00carech, and Larsa (identified with Ellasar), with some others. Akkad\nand Babylon were always important centres, the former being supreme before\nthe date of the dynasty of Babylon (about 2200 B.C.), and the latter\nafterwards.\n\nUntil about the time of the dynasty of Babylon, the language principally\nused was to all appearance the non-Semitic Babylonian or Akkadian\u2014in any\ncase, the numerous texts (mainly temple-accounts) of the period of Dungi,\nB\u00fbr-Sin, Gimil-Sin, and Ibi-Sin are written in that tongue. Nevertheless,\nAkkadian seems to have been the official language of the country for a\nconsiderable time after, if we may judge from the contracts, and\nespecially the historical dates of these documents, which are always\nwritten in Akkadian. The names, too, which were before this period wholly\nAkkadian, gradually become more and more Semitic (Assyro-Babylonian), and\nfinally the Akkadian element only exists as a remnant of the non-Semitic\ntongue which prevailed before the Semitic Dynasty of Babylon\u2014that to which\n\u1e2aammurabi or Amraphel belonged\u2014made the Semitic tongue, spoken by Sargon\nof Agad\u00e9 more than 1500 years before, the official language of the\ncountry.\n\nSuch, then, is the history of the ancient Akkadians, from whose\nintermingled stock the later Semitic Babylonians sprang, and who\ninherited, at the same time, their method of writing, their literature,\ntheir arts and sciences, and also, to a great extent, their manners,\ncustoms, and religion. It was to all appearance with the Semitic dynasty\nof \u1e2aammurabi that the change from non-Semitic to Semitic predominance took\nplace. This change must have been slow enough, and in all probability it\noccurred without any national upheaval, and without any interruption of\nthe national life. Semitic names gradually replaced the Akkadian ones,\nmost of the religious works, incantations, national histories, bilingual\nlists, and syllabaries were supplied with Semitic translations, and legal\nprecedents in Semitic Babylonian for the information of the judges of\nlater times were drawn up, whilst the old Akkadian laws, though retained,\nwere translated for the use of students who no longer learned Akkadian as\ntheir mother-tongue, and who committed them to memory at the same time as\nthey learned the set phrases they would have to use when, their education\ncompleted, they should attain to the dignity of full-fledged ministers to\nthe legal needs of the community. By this time, or somewhat later, the\nracial type must have become fixed, for the sculptures from the thirteenth\ncentury B.C. downwards no longer show the slim, elegant form of the\nAkkadians, but the thick-set, well-developed figure of the Semites, such\nas at least some of the native Christians of Baghdad and the neighbourhood\nshow at the present day.\n\nAs has been already noticed, the Assyrians spoke the same language, and\nhad practically the same religion and literature (including the ancient\nAkkadian classics) as the Babylonians, whom they resembled in manners,\ncustoms, and outward appearance. The old translation of the verse\nreferring to Assyria, \u201cOut of that land (Babylonia) went forth Assur,\u201d is,\nin all probability, perfectly correct, whatever may be the arguments in\nfavour of the rendering, \u201cHe (Nimrod) went out into Assyria,\u201d for it is\nexceedingly likely that the Babylonian civilization of Assyria is wholly\ndue to emigration of settlers from Babylonia. Moreover, as will be seen\nlater on, the enigmatical Nimrod is none other than the well-known head of\nthe Babylonian Pantheon, Merodach, who is actually stated to have built\nBabel (= the city Babylon), Erech, and Niffer (identified in Rabbinical\ntradition, which in this case is probably correct, with Calneh). The\nBabylonian tradition as to the foundation of the city of Akkad is still\nwanting, but that its origin was attributed to Merodach is more than\nprobable. If, however, there had been any grounds for honouring Calah,\nNineveh, and Resen with the same divine origin, the Assyrians would\ncertainly not have allowed the tradition to go unrecorded. Properly\nspeaking the \u201cland of Nimrod\u201d (Micah v. 6) is Babylon, notwithstanding all\narguments to the contrary, for that was the land which he loved, the land\nwhose great cities he was regarded as having founded and as still\nfavouring, and the land where, if we may trust the language of his name\n(in Akkadian it means \u201cthe brightness of day\u201d), he ruled when he was king\nupon earth\u2014the land, in fact, which gave him birth.\n\nAt first governed by _patesis_, or viceroys (many Assyriologists call them\npriest-kings or pontiffs), this title was abandoned for that of _\u0161arru_,\n\u201cking,\u201d between 1600 and 1800 B.C. The use of the title _patesi_ (in\nAssyrian _i\u0161\u0161aku_, \u201cchief\u201d) implies that the earlier rulers of Assur\nacknowledged some overlord, and in all probability this overlord was the\nparamount king of Babylonia at the time. If we regard Nimrod (Merodach) as\nthe first king of Babylonia (or the first really great ruler of the\ncountry), then it is certain that it was not he who founded the great\ncities of Assyria, for they can have no pretensions to the same antiquity\nas the great cities of Babylonia, any more than Assyrian civilization can\nbe of the same period. Of course it is probable that the cities of Assyria\nwere founded at an exceedingly early date, perhaps many of them are as old\nas any Babylonian foundation, but their importance was nothing like so\ngreat as those of Babylonia until the latter had already been renowned\nmany hundreds\u2014perhaps many thousands\u2014of years, and to attribute the origin\nof these unimportant places to Nimrod would bring him no honour, even if\nit were probable that he had founded them.\n\nThe founder of Nineveh, Calah, Rehoboth Ir, and Resen was either a\nBabylonian emigrant named Asshur, the first viceroy of the district, or\nelse Asshur, in the tenth chapter of Genesis, stands for the Assyrian\nnation. It is noteworthy that, in the verse in question, there is no\nmention of the foundation of the old capital, the city of A\u0161\u0161ur. This is\nprobably to be explained by the fact that the book of Genesis was compiled\nat a time when the prim\u00e6val capital had already fallen into the\nbackground, and Nineveh, the city first mentioned in the enumeration, had\nassumed the first place\u2014indeed, the fact that it is mentioned first seems\nto prove this contention.\n\nBeing far away from the centre of civilization, and apparently mingling\nwith barbarous races to the north\u2014the people of Urar\u1e6du (Ararat), Van,\nUkka, Mu\u1e63a\u1e63ir, etc.\u2014in all probability the ancient Assyrians lost what\npolish they had brought with them from Babylonia, and, like all pioneers,\ndeveloped into hardy, fearless, and cruel warriors, constantly striving\nfor the mastery over all the other tribes and nationalities around. Thus\nit came to pass that, having ascertained her strength, Assyria refused to\nacknowledge the overlordship of the kings of Babylonia, and the rulers of\nthe country abandoned the title of _patesi_ or _i\u0161\u0161aku_ for that of\n_\u0161arru_ or \u201cking.\u201d The country from which the Assyrians had sprung did not\nlong remain secure from the attacks of her offspring, and the conquest of\nBabylonia by the Assyrians took place more than once. Brave, warlike, and\ncruel, the Assyrians at last possessed for a time not only Babylonia, with\nthe overlordship of Elam, but also the whole of Western Asia as far as the\nMediterranean and Cyprus, and a large part of Egypt. Notwithstanding the\npolish that they had attained during the last years of the empire, the\nnations around remembered against them all the cruelties that they had\ncommitted during the foregoing centuries, and when the time of weakness\ncame, when the ruling mind that should have held the empire together, and\nturned the tide of disaster into the channel of success, was wanting, then\ncame the chance of the nations that had known the Assyrian empire in\nformer ages, and the end of the seventh century before Christ saw the last\nof the power that had dominated Western Asia so long and so successfully.\n\nYet Assyria was a most remarkable power, and produced a number of really\ngreat rulers and generals. The Assyrian kings retained for a long time\ntheir dominion over fairly distant tracts, and made themselves greatly\nfeared by all the nations around. As is well known, they had made great\nadvances in the art of sculpture, so much so that visitors to the British\nMuseum, on seeing the wonderful hunting-scenes in the Assyrian\nside-gallery, have been heard to express the opinion that Greek artists\nmust either have originated them, or influenced their production. Their\nliterature was naturally influenced by that of Babylonia, but one has only\nto read the historical records of Tiglath-pileser I., who declaims his\nsuccesses in forceful and elegant paragraphs; Sennacherib, with his wealth\nof words; or Assur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli, who in moderate and elegant phrases tells of\nthe successes of his soldiers and generals, to see that, when occasion\narose, they could produce literary works as good as the best of ancient\ntimes.\n\nIt will probably be a matter of regret to many people, but the name of\nNimrod, which we have been accustomed to associate with the pleasures and\nperils of the chase for so many hundred years, must now be relegated to\nthe domain of words misunderstood or purposely changed for reasons that\ncan without much difficulty be divined.\n\nIt is not Nimrod alone that comes under this category\u2014Nibhaz (2 Kings\nxvii. 31), judging from the Greek, is in the same case, Nisroch (2 Kings\nxix. 37) is certainly so, and Abed-nego for Abed-nebo is a well-known\ninstance.\n\nBut why, it will be asked, should these names have been intentionally\nchanged? The answer is simple. All these names were, or contained, the\nnames of heathen deities, and this offended the strongly monotheistic\nHebrew scribe who, at a certain period, was copying the portions of the\nHebrew Bible in which they occur, so he defaced them, adding or changing a\nletter, and thus making them unrecognizable, and in all probability\nridiculous as well. A different punctuation (vowelling) completed the\nwork, and the names were then in such a form that pious and orthodox lips\ncould pronounce them without fear of defilement.\n\nNibhaz is probably for some such name as Aba-hazar, Nisroch is for Assur\nor Assuraku, and Nimrod is, by similar changes, for Amaruduk or Amarudu\n(original Akkadian), Maruduk or Marduk (Assyro-Babylonian). The change was\nbrought about by making the root triliteral, and the ending _uk_ (_ak_ in\nMerodach-baladan) disappearing first, Marduk appeared as Marad. This was\nconnected with the root Marad, \u201cto be rebellious,\u201d and the word was still\nfurther mutilated, or, rather, deformed by having a (_ni_) attached,\nassimilating it to a certain extent to the \u201cniphal forms\u201d of the Hebrew\nverbs, and making a change altogether in conformity with the genius of the\nHebrew language. This alteration is also clearly visible in Nibhaz and\nNisroch, which fully confirm the explanation here given.\n\nFrom a linguistic point of view, therefore, the identification of Nimrod\nas a changed form of Merodach is fully justified.\n\nBut there is another and a potent reason for eliminating Nimrod from the\nlist of Babylonian heroes, and that is, the fact that his name is nowhere\nfound in the extensive literature which has come down to us. His\nidentification with Gi\u0161dubar was destroyed when it was discovered that the\ntrue reading of that doubtful name was not, as it was expected that it\nwould be, a Babylonian form of Nimrod, but something entirely different,\nnamely, Gilgame\u0161. Moreover, there is some doubt whether the personage\nrepresented on the cylinder-seals struggling with lions and bulls be\nreally Gilgame\u0161 (Gi\u0161dubar)\u2014his prowess in hunting does not seem to be\nemphasized in the legend recounting his exploits (see pp. 92-111)\u2014he is in\nall probability the wild man of the woods who became his great friend and\ncounsellor, the satyr-like figure who is represented as accompanying and\nimitating the hunter being simply one of those beings who, the Babylonians\nimagined, existed in wild and waste places, for that this creature is not,\nas was at first supposed, \u00caa-ban\u00ee, the friend of Gilgame\u0161, is not only\nproved by the fact that in the legend he is described as a man with hairy\nbody and hair long like that of a woman, but also by the incontestable\ncircumstance that this satyr-like creature is, on certain cylinders,\nrepresented more than once, and in such a way that the repetition cannot\nbe attributed to the exigencies of the design. Moreover, he is sometimes\nrepresented in positions that seem to have no connection with the\nGilgame\u0161-legend at all.\n\nIt would seem therefore to be certain that Gilgame\u0161 is not Nimrod; that as\nhe had little or no fame as a \u201cgreat hunter before the Lord,\u201d it cannot be\nhe who is represented on the cylinder-seals; and that, in all probability,\nthe hunter there represented is \u00caa-ban\u00ee, who overcame the divine bull\nbefore Erech, and a lion after the defeat of \u1e2aumbaba, in both cases,\nhowever, assisted by his royal patron.\n\nBut, it may be asked, how is it that Nimrod, otherwise Merodach, is\ndescribed as \u201cthe mighty hunter before the Lord\u201d?\n\nThe explanation is very simple, and remarkably conclusive in its way.\nMerodach, in the legend of the Creation, there appears as the greatest\nhunter (using the word in the Hebrew sense of \u201centrapper\u201d) that ever\nlived. For did he not, when Tiamtu, the great dragon of chaos and\ndisorder, tried to usurp the dominion of the gods, and bring ruin on their\nfair work, chase and entrap her, thereby winning the throne of the kingdom\nof heaven, and laying the universe under an everlasting debt to him? With\nhis net he caught and held her fast, and, standing on her body, slew her.\nThis was the feat of a real _gibbor \u1e63ayid_, a \u201chero in hunting,\u201d or\nentrapping with a net, for _\u1e63ayid_, \u201chunting,\u201d is from the same root as\nSidon, the name of the ancient \u201cfishing town,\u201d renowned of old, and still\nexisting at the present day.\n\n\n\n\nThe Tower Of Babel.\n\n\nThere is no doubt that one of the most striking and attractive episodes of\nthe sacred narrative of Genesis is the Tower of Babel. It has attracted\nthe attention of all from its circumstantial details, and has, as an\nauthoritative narrative, had the full belief of all the faithful for many\nthousand years. This being the case, it is needful to go rather carefully\ninto the matter, not only to try to account for its origin, but also to\nsatisfy the believer of to-day with regard to the story being a real\nhistorical fact.\n\n\u201cOf these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands,\u201d\u2014\u201cThese\nare the sons of Ham, after their families,\u201d\u2014\u201cThese are the sons of Shem,\nafter their families,\u201d says the author of Genesis in ch. x. 5, 20, and 31,\nand then he adds, in slightly varying words, \u201cafter their tongues, in\ntheir lands, in their nations.\u201d\n\nYet, after this (ch. xi. 1) we have the statement, \u201cAnd the whole earth\nwas of _one_ language, and of _one_ speech.\u201d Moreover, how was it possible\nthat the whole of the nations of the earth there enumerated in the tenth\nchapter should have had their origin at Babel, the beginning of Nimrod\u2019s\n(Merodach\u2019s) kingdom, coeval with Erech, Akkad, and Calneh, in the land of\nShinar? The effect of such a statement as this would surely be to make the\nlanguage of Nimrod the primitive language of the world, unless, indeed,\nall the languages of the earth resulting from the confusion of tongues\nwere regarded as new, the primitive speech of man having been destroyed on\nthat occasion. Then, again, as we know, the building of the city was not\nstopped, for it continued until it became the greatest and most important\ncentre in the known world when it was at the height of its glory.\n\nWith the best will in the world, therefore, there seems to be no escape\nfrom regarding both the story of the Tower of Babel, and the reference to\nNimrod and Asshur in the foregoing chapter as interpolations, giving\nstatements from ancient and possibly fairly well-known records, recording\nwhat was commonly believed in the ancient East in those early ages. It is\nalso noteworthy, that both extracts, referring as they do, to Babylonia,\nare probably on that account from a Babylonian source. May it not be\npossible, that they have been inserted in the sacred narrative as\nstatements of what was the common opinion among the more well-informed\ninhabitants of Western Asia at the time, without any claim to an inspired\nauthority being either stated or implied? This would seem to be the most\nreasonable way of looking at the matter, and would take away what might\nwell be regarded as a great difficulty to the believer in good faith.\n\nIf this be conceded, we can with the greater ease analyze this portion of\nthe eleventh chapter of Genesis, and estimate it at its true value.\n\nIn any case, there is great improbability that the statement that the\nwhole earth was of one language and of one speech, was ever believed, by\nthinking men at the time as an actual historical fact. A better\ntranslation would be \u201cthe whole land,\u201d that is, the whole tract of country\nfrom the mountains of Elam to the Mediterranean Sea, rather than \u201cthe\nwhole earth.\u201d The same word is used when the \u201cland\u201d of Israel is spoken\nof, and also when \u201cthe land of Egypt\u201d is referred to. It will thus be seen\nthat no violence whatever is done to the text if the restricted use of the\nword be accepted.\n\nThat this is, in a sense, provable as an historical fact, we shall see in\nthe sequel.\n\nHaving thus in a measure cleared the way, the various points of the first\nnine verses of the eleventh chapter of Genesis may be taken in order.\n\n\u201cAs they journeyed in the east\u201d apparently refers to the remembrance of\nthe migrations that many a nation, handing down its traditions from mouth\nto mouth, must have preserved in ancient times. Whilst thus engaged, \u201cthey\nfound a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there\u201d\u2014a statement\nwhich would seem to point to the migrants having been wandering about in\nvarious districts, some of them mountainous\u2014like Armenia on the north of\nAssyria, and Elam and other mountainous tracts on the east. This would\nseem to agree with the migration which, from the evidence of the monuments\nof Babylonia, the Akkadians apparently made before they settled in that\ncountry. And here it may be noted, in support of that fact, that the\nideograph(14) for Akkad, Uri or Ura in Akkadian, and Akkad\u016b in Semitic\nBabylonian, not only stood for Akkad, but also (often used in the Assyrian\nletters) for Ararat (Ur\u1e6d\u016b), and likewise (this in a syllabary only) for\nAmurr\u016b, the land of the Amorites, or Ph\u0153nicia. Both these being districts\nmore or less mountainous, it is only reasonable to suppose that the\noriginal home of the Akkadians was likewise of the same nature, and that\nthey were not aborigines of the Babylonian plain. The Akkadians at least,\ntherefore, \u201cjourneyed in the east.\u201d\n\nIn the expression \u201cthey found a plain in the land of Shinar,\u201d we have a\nreference to the old name of a district of Babylonia, generally regarded\nas the \u0160umer of the Babylonian inscriptions, called Kingi or Kengi \u201cthe\ncountry\u201d _par excellence_ in the native tongue of the inhabitants. The\nland of Shinar here spoken of, if this explanation be correct, not merely\ncontained a plain\u2014it was, in fact, itself a large plain, through which the\nrivers Tigris and Euphrates ran, and it was covered, when the land had\nbeen brought into a really good state of cultivation, by a network of\ncanals connected with them. It must, when the ancient Akkadians first\nsettled there, have been a land of remarkable fertility, and would be so\nstill were it brought into the same efficient state of cultivation, with\nirrigation and drainage, such as the old inhabitants effected.\n\nHere, having settled down, they built a city and a tower, using brick for\nstone, and bitumen for mortar\u2014just as they are proved to have done from\nthe remains of cities found in the country at the present day. That\nBabylon was the site of the first settlement of the nature of a city is\nconceivable, and it is very possible that the first tower in Babylonia,\nwhich in later times had many towers, as had also Assyria, was situated in\nthat ancient city. Everything points, therefore, to the correctness of the\nstatements made in this portion of the sacred narrative. According to\nnative tradition, however (and this seems to be supported by the\nstatements in ch. x. 10), there were other important cities on the\nBabylonian plain of almost equal antiquity, namely, Erech, Akkad, and\nCalneh, which last is identified with Niffer (see p. 126). Notwithstanding\nthe extensive ruins, proof of the same remote date for Babylon will\ndoubtless be difficult to obtain, on account of the country around and a\nlarge portion of the site of the city being so marshy. The result of this\ncondition of things will in all probability be, that very few remains of a\nreally ancient date will be discovered in a condition to render services\nto arch\u00e6ology. To this must also be added the fact, that the city, being\nthe capital for some thousands of years, underwent many changes at the\nhands of its various kings, partly from the necessity of keeping in good\nrepair the many comparatively perishable brick monuments that the city\ncontained, and partly from a desire to add more to the glories of the city\nthan any of their predecessors had done.\n\n\u201cAnd they said, Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, and its top\n(lit. head) shall be in the heavens.\u201d To all appearance, this means simply\nthat they would build a very high structure,\u2014to many a student of the\nsacred text it has seemed that the writer only intended to say, that the\ntower (_migdol_) that they were about to build was to be very high. The\nmountains of Elam were not so very far off, and travellers from that part\nwould have been able to assure them that the heavens would not be\nappreciably nearer on account of their being a few hundred cubits above\nthe surface of the earth, even if traditions of their fathers\u2019 wanderings\nhad not assured them of the same thing. They wished simply to make them a\nname and a rallying-point, \u201clest,\u201d as the sacred text has it, \u201cwe be\nscattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.\u201d\n\nAnd here a few remarks upon the temple-towers of the Babylonians might not\nbe out of place.\n\nAs has already been stated, most of the principal towns of Babylonia each\npossessed one. That of Babylon (called \u0160u-ana in the list published in the\n_Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. ii., pl. 50) was named\n\u00ca-temen-ana, \u201cthe temple of the foundation-stone of Heaven\u201d; that of\nBorsippa, near to Babylon, was called \u00ca-ur-imina-ana, generally translated\n\u201cthe temple of the seven spheres of heaven,\u201d on account of its being\ndedicated to the sun, moon, and planets. This was a high and massive tower\nin seven stages, each coloured with an emblematic tint indicating the\nheavenly body with which each stage was associated. At Niffer the tower\nseems to have had three names, or else there were three towers (which is\nunlikely), the principal one being Im-ur-sag. Agade, the Akkad of Gen. x.\n10, had two of these temple-towers, \u00ca-Dadia, apparently meaning \u201cthe\ntemple of the (divine) Presence,\u201d and \u00ca-\u0161u-gala or \u00ca-igi-\u00ea-di, the latter\napparently meaning \u201cthe temple of the wonder (of mankind),\u201d which was\ndedicated to the god Tammuz. At Cuthah there was the temple of Nannara\n(Nan-naros); at Ur the temple \u00ca-\u0161u-gan-du-du; at Erech \u00ca-gipara-imina,\n\u201cthe temple of the seven enclosures\u201d; at Larsa \u00ca-dur-an-ki, \u201cthe Temple of\nthe bond of heaven and earth.\u201d\n\nThe only temple-tower that contains in its name a distinct reference to\nthe seven stages of which it was composed, is that at Borsippa, though\nthat at Erech may possibly have in its name \u201cseven enclosures\u201d a\nsuggestion of something of the kind. As, however, the ruins of the towers\nat D\u00fbr-Sargina (Khorsabad) in Assyria, Erech, Niffer, and elsewhere, show\ndistinctly this form of architecture, there is every probability that they\nwere all, or almost all, built on the same plan. In his description of the\nglories of Babylon, Herodotus gives details, in his usual minute way, of\nthe temple of Belos (\u00ca-sagila) there. He describes it as having eight\nstages (the platform upon which the tower proper was built being counted\nas one), and judging from his description, this building must have\ndiffered somewhat from the others, the various platforms being connected\nby a gradually rising ascent, arranged spirally as it were, so that by\nconstantly walking upwards, and turning at the corners of the edifice, one\nat last reached the top. About the middle of this long ascending pathway\nthere was a stopping-place, with seats to rest upon. Having reached the\ntop of the structure, the visitor came upon a cell, within which there was\na couch and a golden table. Here it was supposed that the god descended\nfrom time to time to dwell. Below, he relates, there was another cell,\nwherein was a large statue of Zeus (Belos) sitting. This image was of\ngold, as were also the table in front of it, the god\u2019s footstool, and his\nseat. It is probable that at the time to which the narrative in Genesis\nrefers, the tower was neither so high, nor the workmanship so splendid and\nvaluable, as in later times.\n\nBut was this the Tower of Babel? We do not know. The general opinion is\nthat the great and celebrated temple-tower at Borsippa, extensive remains\nof which still exist, was that world-renowned erection. Its name, however,\nwas \u00ca-zida, and it was not situated within Babylon. Notwithstanding the\nfact, therefore, that Borsippa, the town on the outskirts of the great\ncity, was called \u201cthe second Babylon,\u201d and that tradition associates the\nsite of the Tower of Babel with that spot, it must still be held to be\nvery doubtful whether that was really the place. Neither the renown of\n\u00ca-zida nor that of \u00ca-sagila prove that either of them must have been the\nplace, for the populace is fickle-minded in this as in other matters, and\nholy fanes have the periods when they are in fashion, just like anything\nelse.\n\nThis being the case, the question is, what was that \u00ca-temen-ana-kia which\nis apparently mentioned in the list of temple-towers quoted above? In many\nan inscription of Nebuchadnezzar, this temple-tower is referred to, though\nvery shortly, as having been restored by him. Thus, in the great cylinder\nof Nebuchadnezzar, 85-4-30, I, the following occurs\u2014\n\n\n \u201cI caused the fanes of Babylon and Borsippa to be rebuilt and\n endowed.\n \u00ca-temen-ana-kia, the temple-tower of Babylon;\n \u00ca-ur-imina-ana-kia, the temple-tower of Borsippa, all their\n structure with bitumen and brick\n I made, I completed.\u201d\n\n\nIn the above \u00ca-temen-ana-kia takes the place of \u00ca-sagila, and\n\u00ca-ur-imina-ana-kia that of \u00ca-zida, implying that they respectively\nbelonged to each other. The passage corresponding to the above in the\nIndia House Inscription is greatly expanded, and recounted with much\ndetail. The portion referring to \u00ca-temen-ana-kia is as follows\u2014\n\n\n \u201cThe vessels of the temple \u00ca-sagila with massive gold\u2014\n the bark Ma-kua (Merodach\u2019s shrine) with electrum and stones\u2014\n I made glorious\n like the stars of heaven.\n The fanes of Babylon\n I caused to be rebuilt and endowed.\n Of \u00ca-temen-ana-kia\n with brick and bright lapis stone\n I reared its head.\n To rebuild \u00ca-sagila\n my heart urged me\u2014\n constantly did I set myself,\u201d etc., etc.\n\n\nAccording to the plan of Babylon drawn up by Weissbach, one of the German\nexplorers, \u00ca-temen-ana-kia was situated to the north of \u00ca-sagila, which\nlatter was evidently the temple connected with it. As both were dedicated\nto Merodach (Bel), they practically formed one centre of worship, and it\nis possibly on this account that the Tower is called \u201cthe Temple of Belus\u201d\nin Herodotus. The description, from a Babylonian tablet probably in\nprivate hands, published by the late George Smith, agrees well with that\ngiven by Herodotus, but has some noteworthy differences\u2014the great height\nof the lowest stage, the sloping (?) sides of the second stage, and the\nbuildings grouped near it. Unfortunately, the baked brickwork of\n\u00ca-temen-ana-kia has been cleared away, practically destroying the remains.\n\nConcerning the miracle of the confusion of tongues, there is, of course,\nno historical reference. The Babylonian inscriptions know nothing of it.\nYet the stranger visiting Babylon could not have been otherwise than\nstruck by the number of languages spoken there. There was the religious\ntongue, which is called by modern scholars Akkadian or \u0160umerian, and its\ndialect, together with the language known as Assyrian, or, more correctly,\nSemitic Babylonian. Besides this, there were various Aramaic\ndialects\u2014Chaldee, Aramean (Syriac), and the language of the dockets on the\ntrade-documents, which is also found in Assyria. In addition to these, the\nElamite and Kassite conquerors of Babylonia brought with them large\nnumbers of people, and each of these nations naturally introduced, in\nlarger measure than before, the use of their respective languages.\nSpeakers of other tongues long since dead must also have visited the city\nfor the purposes of trade, and of this the so-called Hittite is in all\nprobability an example (in the researches of Profs. Sayce and Jensen we\nshall, perhaps, see the beginnings of the recovery of this tongue), and a\ndocket in an unknown script implies that yet another language heard there\nin later times has to be discovered, though this may simply be some other\nway of writing one of the tongues spoken there that is already known to\nscholars. With regard to the oneness of the language of the rest of the\nearth, in all probability this expression referred, as has been already\nremarked, to the tract enclosed between the mountains of Persia on the\neast, the Mediterranean on the west, Asia Minor and Armenia on the north,\nand Arabia on the south\u2014a tract in which the _lingua franca_ of diplomacy\nwas, as is proved by the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, the tongue now called\nAssyrian, which could easily have been regarded as the proofs and the\nremains of the thing that had been.\n\nTo recapitulate: The story of the Tower of Babel is a break in the\nnarrative of the genealogies, so striking that any thinking man must have\nbeen able to recognize it easily. It is a narrative that practically\nglorifies Babylonia, making it the centre of the human race, and the spot\nfrom which they all migrated after the dispersion caused by the confusion\nof tongues. It was probably given for, and recognized as, the legend\ncurrent in Babylonia at the time, and must, therefore, have been\nrecognized and valued by the people of the time at its true worth.\n\n\n\n\nThe Patriarchs To Abraham.\n\n\nLittle information is unfortunately to be obtained from Assyro-Babylonian\nsources concerning the patriarchs from Shem to Abraham. It is true that\ncertain comparisons can be made in the matter of the names, but these,\nwhen more precise information comes to light, may be found to be more or\nless erroneous. As a matter of fact, with one or two exceptions, it is\nprobable that we have nothing from Babylonian sources bearing on the\npatriarchs who preceded Abraham at all.\n\nNevertheless, there are one or two things that may be put forward in a\nmore or less tentative way, and these may well be discussed with this\nreservation in this place.\n\nAs we have seen, it was the custom of the early Babylonians to deify the\nearly rulers of their race, and as a well-known example of this, the case\nof the god Merodach will at once occur to the mind. As has been shown,\nthis deity is none other than the long-known and enigmatical hero Nimrod,\nand it is probable that, if we had more and more complete sources of\ninformation, other instances would be found. This being the case, it may\nbe permitted to the student to try to find similar instances of\ndeification by the Babylonians of the men of old who were their ancestors\nin common with the Jews and other nations of the ancient East.\n\nTo begin with Shem, the name of the ancestor of the Semitic race. As a\nword, this means, in Hebrew, \u201cname.\u201d Now, the Assyro-Babylonian equivalent\nand cognate word is _\u0161umu_, \u201cname,\u201d and this naturally leads one to ask\nwhether Shem may not have been designated \u201cHe of the Name\u201d _par\nexcellence_, and deified under that appellation. If this be the case, we\nmay perhaps see the word Shem in certain names of kings and others of the\nsecond dynasty of Babylon (that to which \u1e2aammurabi or Amraphel belonged,\nand which held the power from about 2230 to 1967 B.C.). Sumu-abi, the name\nof the first ruler of the dynasty, would then mean \u201cShem is my father,\u201d\nSumu-la-ili would mean \u201ca name to his god,\u201d with a punning allusion to the\ndeified ancestor of the Semitic nations.\n\nOther names, not royal, are Sumu-Up\u00ea, apparently, \u201cShem of Opis\u201d;\nSumu-Dagan, \u201cShem is Dagon,\u201d or \u201cName of Dagon\u201d; Sumu-\u1e2batnu, \u201cShem is a\nprotection\u201d; Sumu-atar, \u201cShem is great,\u201d and the form Samu-la-ili for\nSumu-la-ili leads one to ask whether Samia may not be for Sumia, \u201cmy\nShem,\u201d a pet name abbreviated from a longer one similar to those already\nquoted; Sumu-ya (= Sumia) also occurs. All these forms, being written with\ns, instead of \u0161, like Samsu-iluna for \u0160am\u0161u-iluna, betray foreign\n(so-called Arabic) influence, and are not native Babylonian. That the\nBabylonians had at this time names compounded with the native\nrepresentative of Sumu is shown by the contracts of that time, where the\nname \u0160umum-lib\u0161i, \u201clet there be a name,\u201d occurs. Many later instances of\nthis are to be found.(15)\n\nFrom other than Bible sources there is but little that can be gathered\nconcerning the descendants of Shem, though in this, as in many other\nthings, one lives in hopes of something coming to light later on. And such\na record, as may readily be imagined, would be of the greatest interest\nand value. Shem, as one of those born before the Flood, must certainly on\nthat account have been renowned (as we have just seen he was, if it be\ntrue that he was deified) among other nations of Semitic stock than the\nHebrews. To all appearance, the lives of the patriarchs decreased greatly\nafter the Flood, and are represented, in the Bible narrative, as gradually\nassuming the average duration of those who attain a hoary old age at the\npresent day. It is noteworthy that his eldest son was born two years after\nthe Flood, and if this have any ethnic meaning, it ought to point to the\nfoundation of the settlement known as Arpachshad at about that period,\nthough it could not have attained to the renown of a well-known and\nrecognized community until some time after that date.\n\nThe theory that Arpachshad represents a community is rather supported by\nthe fact that it is mentioned in Gen. x. 22, where it is accompanied by\nthe names of Elam, Asshur, Lud, and Aram, which were later, as we know,\nnames of nationalities. Indeed, the long lives of the patriarchs of this\nexceedingly early period are best explained if we suppose that they\nrepresent a people or community.\n\nThere is a considerable amount of difference of opinion as to the correct\nidentification of the Arpachshad of Gen. ix. 10, though nearly every\ncritic places the country it represents in the same tract. It has been\nidentified with Arrapkha, or Arrapachitis, in Assyria. Schrader makes it\nto be for Arpa-cheshed, \u201cthe coast of the Chaldeans.\u201d Prof. Hommel, who is\nalways ready with a seductive and probable etymology, suggests that\nArpachshad is an Egyptianized way of writing Ur of the\nChaldees\u2014Ar-pa-Cheshed, for Ur-pa-Cheshed.\n\nThis, it must be admitted, is a possible etymology, for Egyptianized words\nwere really used in that district in ancient times. This is shown in the\nname of Merodach, Asari, which is apparently connected with the Egyptian\nOsiris, just as one of the names of the Sun-god \u0160ama\u0161, Amna, is probably\nan Akkadianized form of the Egyptian Ammon, and even the Egyptian word for\n\u201cyear,\u201d _ronpet_, made, probably by early Babylonian scribes, into a kind\nof pun, became, by the change of a vowel, _ran pet_, \u201cname of heaven,\u201d\ntranscribed, by those same scribes, into _mu-anna_, which, in its ordinary\nsignification, means likewise \u201cname of heaven,\u201d in Akkadian; the whole\nbeing used with the meaning of _ronpet_, _i.e._ \u201cyear.\u201d It will thus be\nseen that there is but little that is unlikely in Prof. Hommel\u2019s etymology\nof Arpachshad, and that the explanation which he gives may turn out to be\ncorrect.(16)\n\nIn any case, we may take it that the consensus of opinion favours the\nsupposition that the name in question refers to Babylonia, and if this be\nthe case, Abraham, the father of the Hebrew nation, as well as of other\npeoples, was really, as has been supposed, of Babylonian or Chaldean\norigin. This is also implied by the statement in Gen. xi. 28, that Ur of\nthe Chaldees was the land of the nativity of Haran, Abraham\u2019s brother, who\ndied in the country of his birth before the family of Terah went to settle\nat Haran, on the way to Canaan. The theory of the identity of Arpachshad\nis moreover important, because it is contended that Ur of the Chaldees was\nnot in Babylonia, but is to be identified with the site known as Urfa, in\nMesopotamia.\n\nConcerning the names of Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, and Nahor, there\nis not much that can be said. To all appearance they are not Babylonian\nnames, or, rather, they receive little or no illustration from Babylonian\nsources. Nothing is recorded concerning these patriarchs except their ages\nat the time their eldest sons were born, and at what age they died. The\nquestion whether the Hebrews derived their name from their ancestor Eber\nis not set at rest by any passage in the Bible, nor is there any statement\nin secular literature which would enable this to be decided. To all\nappearance, it is needful to keep the name of Eber distinct from that of\nthe Hebrews, notwithstanding that they are from the same root. If,\nhowever, the Hebrews were \u201cthe men from beyond,\u201d then Eber may well have\nbeen \u201cthe man from beyond,\u201d indicating for his time a migration similar to\nthat of Abraham. In this way, if in no other, the names may be connected.\n\nWe have seen that in many cases the names of these \u201cgenealogical tables\u201d\nare regarded as nationalities, and, indeed, there is sufficient\njustification for such a theory on account of many of the names appearing\nas those of well-known nations. This being conceded, it would probably not\nbe too much to regard the names of the patriarchs from Shelah to Serug as\nindicating ethnical historical events. Thus Shelah might mean \u201cextension,\u201d\nindicating the time when the Semitic race began to go beyond its ancient\nborders. Treating the other names in the same way, Eber would mean the\nperiod when that race crossed some river into another district; Peleg\nwould mean that, at the time referred to, that race, or a portion of it,\nwas divided into small states, as Babylonia was at the period preceding\nthat of the dynasty of Amraphel; whilst Reu would mean \u201cfriendliness,\u201d\ndenoting the time when those states were united under one head, and the\nold dissensions ceased. Serug would then mean something like\n\u201cinterweaving,\u201d perhaps referring to the time when the various races (? of\nBabylonia) intermingled. These explanations of the names receive a certain\namount of confirmation from the parallel list in Gen. x. 25, where to the\nname Peleg the note is added, \u201cfor in his days was the earth divided.\u201d\n\nWith regard to Nahor and his son Terah the Jews had other traditions, and\nthey speak thus concerning them\u2014\n\n\u201cTerah, son of Nahor, was the chief officer of king Nimrod, and a great\nfavourite with his royal master. And when his wife Amtheta, the daughter\nof Kar-Nebo, bare him a son, she called his name Abram, meaning \u2018great\nfather.\u2019 And Terah was seventy years old when his son Abram was born.\u201d\n\nHere we have, in Amtheta, a doubtful Babylonian name, in Kar-Nebo a\npossible Babylonian name, and in the meaning of Abram a signification that\ndoes not militate against the indications given by the tablets of\nBabylonia and Assyria. This being the case, it would seem that there were\ntrustworthy data to go upon for certain facts connected with Abraham\u2019s\nancestors, and that these facts were known to the Jews of earlier ages.\nThe Talmudic account of the wonders seen at the birth of Abram, however,\nare not sufficiently worthy of credence to allow of repetition here,\nnotwithstanding their reference to Terah and Abraham\u2019s youth.\n\nEusebius quotes the following from Eupolemus concerning Abraham\u2014\n\n\u201cHe saith, moreover, that in the tenth generation in a city of Babylonia,\ncalled Camarina (which, by some, is called the city of Urie, and which\nsignifyeth a city of the Chaldeans), there lived, the thirteenth in\ndescent, (a man named) Abraham, a man of a noble race, and superior to all\nothers in wisdom.\n\n\u201cOf him they relate that he was the inventor of astrology and the Chaldean\nmagic, and that on account of his eminent piety he was esteemed by God. It\nis further said that under the directions of God he removed and lived in\nPh\u0153nicia, and there taught the Ph\u0153nicians the motions of the sun and moon,\nand all other things; for which reason he was held in great reverence by\ntheir king\u201d (_Praep. Evan._ 9).\n\nNicolas of Damascus, apparently wishing to glorify his own city, states\nthat Abram was king of Damascus, and went there, with an army, from that\npart of the country which is situated above Babylon of the Chaldeans,\nafterwards transferring his dwelling to the land which was at that time\ncalled Canaan, but is now called Judea. Justin also states that Abraham\nlived at Damascus, from which city he traces the origin of the Jews.\n\nAccording to the most trustworthy traditions, therefore, as well as from\nthe Bible itself, Abraham was of Chaldean or Babylonian origin. If the\ncity of Urie or Ur be, as he says, that which was also called Camarina,\nthis would in all probability be the Aramean form of the Arabic _qamar_,\n\u201cthe moon,\u201d and the name Camarina would be due to the fact that the\nMoon-god, Sin or Nannara, was worshipped there. It is also noteworthy that\nthe city whither the family of Terah emigrated, Haran (in\nAssyro-Babylonian, \u1e2aarran), was likewise a centre of lunar worship, and\nsome have sought to see in that a reason for choosing that settlement. In\nconnection with this it may be remarked, that in the Talmud Terah, the\nfather of Abraham, is represented as an idolater, reproved by his son\nAbraham for foolish and wicked superstition.\n\nWe see, therefore, from the eleventh chapter of Genesis, that Abraham was\na Babylonian from Ur, now known as Mugheir (Muqayyar), or (better still)\nfrom that part of the country which lay north of Babylon, known by the\nnon-Semitic inhabitants as Uri, and by the Semitic population as Akkad. As\nthe family of Terah was a pastoral one, they must have pastured their\nflocks in this district until they heard of those more fruitful tracts in\nthe west, and decided to emigrate thither. And here it may be noted that\nthey did not, by thus quitting their fatherland, go to swear allegiance to\nanother ruler, for the sway of the king of Babylon extended to the\nfarthest limits of the patriarch\u2019s wanderings, and wherever he went,\nBabylonian and Aramean or Chaldean would enable him to make himself\nunderstood. He was, therefore, always as it were in his own land, under\nthe governors of the same king who ruled in the place of his birth.\n\nThe name of the patriarch, moreover, seems to betray the place of his\norigin. The first name that he bore was Abram, which has already been\ncompared with the Abu-ramu, \u201chonoured father,\u201d of the Assyrian\neponym-lists (in this place an official by whose name the year 677, the\n5th year of Esarhaddon, was distinguished). At an earlier date than this\nthe name has not been found, and the element _ram_, _ramu_, _rame_, etc.,\nseems to be rare. Ranke\u2019s list gives only _Sumu-ram\u00ea_, \u201cthe name is\nestablished,\u201d or \u201cSumu (? Shem) is established,\u201d or something similar, but\n_ram\u00ea_ here is probably not connected with the second syllable of Abram\u2019s\nname. The name of Sarah has been compared with the Assyro-Babylonian\n_\u0161arratu_, \u201cqueen,\u201d but seems not to occur in the inscriptions. Isaak is\nalso absent, but Ishmael, under the form of _I\u0161me-\u00eelu_ (meaning \u201c(the) god\nhas heard\u201d) occurs, as well as others in which _\u00eelu_ is replaced by \u00caa,\nSin, and Addu or Adad (Hadad).\n\nWhen, however, it was revealed to Abram that he was to stay in the\nPromised Land, a change was made in his name\u2014he was no longer known by the\nAssyro-Babylonian name Abram, \u201chonoured father,\u201d but, in view of the\ndestiny appointed for him, he was to be called Abraham, \u201cfather of a\nmultitude of nations.\u201d\n\nThe first stratum of the Hebrew nation was, therefore to all appearance,\nBabylonian, the second stratum Aramean, probably a kindred stock, whilst\nthe third was to all appearance Canaanitish. All these must have left\ntheir trace on the Hebrew character, and, like most mixed races, they\nshowed at all times superior intelligence in many ways. They were good\ndiplomates, brave warriors, divine lawgivers, and they excelled in\nliterary skill. One great defect they had\u2014among their many defects\u2014they\nwere stiffnecked to a fatal degree. Had their kings been less obstinate\nand better rulers, conciliating their subjects instead of exasperating\nthem, the nation might have outlasted the power of Rome, and built upon\nits ruins in their land a kingdom dominating the Semitic world in the\nnearer East to the present day.\n\nOf all the characters of early Bible history, there is hardly one which\nstands out with greater prominence than the patriarch Abraham. And not\nonly is it his history and personality that is important\u2014the historical\nfacts touched upon in the course of his biography are equally so. Facts\nconcerning the ancient East, from Babylonia on the east to Egypt on the\nwest, face the reader as he goes through that attractive narrative, and\nmake him wonder at the state of society, the political situation, and the\nbeliefs of the people which should have made his migrations possible,\nbrought about the monotheistic belief which characterizes his life and\nthat of his descendants, and enabled him and his sons after him to attain\nsuch a goodly store of the riches of this world.\n\nTo begin with Babylonia, his native place. As is well known, that country\nhad already been in existence as a collection of communities far advanced\nin arts, sciences, and literature, at an exceedingly early date, and many\nof the small kingdoms of which it consisted had become united under\n\u1e2aammurabi (Amraphel) into one single state, making it one of the greatest\npowers at the time. Of course, it is not by any means improbable that\nsomething similar to this had existed before, but if so, we have no record\nof the fact, though it is certain that different states had from time to\ntime become predominant and powerful to an extent hardly conceivable. The\ninfluence, if not the sway, of Sargon of Agad\u00e9, who reigned about 3800\nyears before Christ, for example, extended from Elam on the east to the\nMediterranean on the west\u2014a vast tract of territory to acknowledge the\nsuzerainty of so small a state.\n\nBabylonia, therefore, with a long history behind it, was beginning to\nfeel, to all appearance, a new national life. It had passed the days when\nthe larger states boasted strength begotten of mere size, and when the\nsmaller states sought mutual protection against the larger, finding in\nthat alone, or in the acknowledgment of an overlord, the security upon\nwhich their existence as separate states depended. There is every\nprobability that it was at this time that the legends which formed the\nbasis of Babylonian national literature were collected and copied, thus\nassuring their preservation. It is also probable that the translations\nfrom Akkadian of the numerous inscriptions written in that language, and\nthe bilingual lists, syllabaries, and other texts of a similar nature,\nbelong to this period.\n\nThe social condition of Babylonia itself at this time is now fairly well\nknown. The ancient Akkadian laws were still in force, but as they did not\nprovide for all the possibilities that might arise, a large series of\nlegal enactments was compiled, in which points were decided in a very\ncommon-sense and just manner. It is noteworthy that the number of tablets\nof a legal nature is very numerous, and arouses the suspicion that the\nBabylonians were exceedingly fond of litigation, due, no doubt, to the\ntendency they had to overreach each other. It is therefore very probable\nthat this is the reason why we meet with that remarkable contract of the\npurchase of the field of Machpelah from the children of Heth. One would\nhave imagined that the frequent protestations, made by the head of the\ntribe there located, to the effect that he gave the field and the cave to\nAbraham, would have been sufficient, especially at that solemn moment of\nthe burial of Sarah, and that the matter could have been put upon a legal\nfooting later on. But no, the patriarch was determined to have the matter\nplaced beyond dispute there and then, and knowing how prone the\nBabylonians (with whom he had passed his youth) were to deny a contract,\nand try to get back again, by perjury, what they had already parted with\nfor value, the matter was at once placed beyond the possibility of being\ndisputed in any court of law.(17)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. BABYLONIA AT THE TIME OF ABRAHAM.\n\n\n The first dynasty of Babylon\u2014The extent of its dominion\u2014The\n Amorites\u2014Life in Babylonia at this time\u2014The religious element\u2014The\n king\u2014The royal family\u2014The people\u2014Their manners and customs as\n revealed by the contract-tablets\u2014Their laws.\n\n\nMuch has been learnt, but there is still much to learn, concerning the\nearly history of Babylonia.\n\nDuring the period immediately preceding that of the dynasty of Babylon\u2014the\ndynasty to which Amraphel (\u1e2aammurabi) belonged\u2014there is a gap in the list\nof the kings, which fresh excavations alone can fill up. Before this gap\nthe records, as far as we know them, are in the Akkadian language. After\nthis gap they are in the Semitic-Babylonian tongue. To all appearance,\ntroublous times had come upon Babylonia. The native rulers had been swept\naway by the Elamites, who, in their turn, had been driven out by the\nSemitic kings of Babylonia, but those Semitic kings were not Babylonians\nby origin, notwithstanding that the native scribes, who drew up the lists\nof kings, describe them as being a Babylonian dynasty.\n\n [Plate V.]\n\nEnvelope (Printed upside down on account of seal-impressions 2 to 4) of a\n contract-tablet recording a sale of land by Sin-\u00earibam, P\u00ee-sa-nunu, and\n Idis-Sin, three brothers, to Sin-ik\u00eesam. Reign of Immerum, contemporary\nwith Sumula-\u00eelu, about 2100 B.C. Seal Impressions. 1. (Here reversed.) Two\n deities, one (in a flounced robe) holding a sceptre. On the left, a\nworshipper; on the right, a man overcoming a lion. This scene is repeated,\nless distinctly, on the left. 2. Left: Two deities, one holding a sceptre\nand a weapon; right: deity, divine attendant adoring, and worshipper (?).\n3. Men overcoming lions; winged creature devouring a gazelle. 4. Figure on\nplinth, holding basket and cup; worshipper; deity, holding sword; lion (or\n dog); deity, holding weapon. Inscription: Aa (the moon-goddess), Samas\n (the sun-god). (Tablet 92,649 in the British Museum (Babylonian and\n Assyrian Room, Table-case A, No. 62). The edges have also some very fine\n impressions.)\n\n\nThe change may have been gradual, but it was great. Many of the small\nstates which had existed at the time of Dungi, B\u00fbr-Sin, Gimil-Sin,\nIbi-Sin, and their predecessors had to all appearance passed away, and\nbecome part of the Babylonian Empire long before the dynasty of Babylon\ncame to an end, though some at least were in existence in the time of the\ngreat conqueror \u1e2aammurabi. But the change was, as it would seem, not one\nof overlordship only\u2014another change which had been gradually taking place\nwas, by this, carried one step farther, namely, the Semiticizing of the\ncountry. Before the period of the dynasty of Babylon, the two races of\nAkkadians and Semitic Babylonians had been living side by side, the former\n(except in the kingdom of which Sippar was the capital) having the\npredominance, the records being written in the Akkadian language, and the\nkings bearing mainly Akkadian names, though there were, for the Semitic\ninhabitants, translations of those names. Translations of the inscriptions\nand legends, as well as the old Akkadian laws, probably did not (except in\nthe Semitic kingdom of Agad\u00e9) exist.\n\nHow it came about is not known, but it is certain that, about 2200 years\nB.C., a purely Semitic dynasty occupied the throne of the chief ruler in\nBabylonia. The first king was Sumu-abi, who reigned 14 years. This monarch\nwas followed by Sumu-la-ili and Zab\u00fb, 36 and 14 years respectively. Then\ncome two rulers with Babylonian names\u2014Abil-Sin and Sin-mubali\u1e6d, 18 years\nand 20 years. These are followed, in their turn, by \u1e2aammurabi (43),\nSamsu-iluna (38), Ebi\u0161um (25), Ammi-\u1e6ditana (25), Ammi-zaduga (21), and\nSamsu-\u1e6ditana (31 years). This dynasty, therefore, lasted about 285(18)\nyears, and with two exceptions, Abil-Sin and Sin-mubali\u1e6d, the names,\nthough Semitic, are not Babylonian.\n\nYet it was called by Babylonians \u201cthe dynasty of Babylon!\u201d\n\nAnd this, in all probability, is correct. The dynasty must, on account of\nthe name given to it, have come from that city, but was, at the same time,\nof foreign origin, its kings being descended from another dynasty which\ncame from some other part of the Semitic world of that time. This is\nindicated by the following facts.\n\nThree of the tablets of which we shall learn something more farther on,\nand which are preserved in the British Museum, have invocations of a\npersonage, apparently a king, named Anmanila. The name of this ruler\nnaturally recalls the Anman of the dynasty following that of\nBabylon\u2014namely, the dynasty of Uru-ku; but the style of the writing of\nthese three documents is not that of the later period, but of the\nbeginning of the dynasty of Babylon, and there is, on that account, every\nprobability that Anmanila was one of the predecessors of Sumu-abi, the\nfirst king of the dynasty of Babylon. It is, of course, possible that this\nruler was simply a co-regent with one of the kings already known, like\nImmerum, who lived at the time of Sumu-la-\u00eela, or Bunta\u1e2bun-\u00eela,(19)\nanother associate with Sumu-la-\u00eela on the throne, but there is a certain\namount of improbability in this, as Anmanila is named alone, and not in\nconnection with any other. Moreover, it is probable that, in the case of\nthe two co-regents here mentioned, we have examples of sons associated\nwith their father, and one replacing the other on account of the early\ndeath of his brother. Another ruler, probably of the period preceding that\nof the dynasty of Babylon, is Manamaltel, whose name is found on a tablet\nbelonging to the Rev. Dr. J. P. Way, head-master of Rossall School, and it\nis noteworthy that one of the tablets bearing the name of Anmanila gives,\namong the witnesses, a certain Sumuentel,(20) a name having the same\ntermination as Manamaltel, a component which seems to have been common at\nthis early period, and rare or non-existent later. Most, if not all, the\nabove are foreign names.\n\nThe next question that arises is, what was the nationality of these\nrulers, who, though belonging to what was called \u201cthe dynasty of Babylon,\u201d\nwere not really of Babylonian origin?\n\nThe key to the matter is probably furnished by the following inscription\nof Ammi-\u1e6ditana, the ninth king of the dynasty\u2014\n\n\u201cAmmi-\u1e6di(tana), his(?) ...\nthe powerful king, (in) a seat of gladness\nking of Babylon, he has made him sit.\nking of Ki\u0161,\nking of \u0160umer and (Akkad),\nking of the vast land of\nAmoria,\nam I; its wall.\ndescendant Asari-lu-duga (Merodach)\nof Sumu-la-\u00eeli, has revealed him as his\n worshipper\u2014\neldest son(21) may his name be established\nof Ab\u0113\u0161u\u2019,(22) am I, in heaven and earth.\nObedient(?) (to) Bel \u201c(Inscription) of B\u00eal-u\u0161allim,\nthe seat(?)\u201d son of ... -bi, the\n enchanter.\u201d\n\nIn this inscription, Ammi-\u1e6ditana calls himself not only \u201cking of Babylon,\u201d\nand other important places in Babylonia, but \u201cking of Amoria\u201d (if the\ncoining of a word for the district be allowed) also. Now, as we know from\nthe Tel-el-Amarna tablets, Amurr\u016b is the name that the Babylonians used\nfor \u201cthe west,\u201d which Assyriologists formerly read (on account of the\npolyphony of the Babylonian system of writing) A\u1e2barr\u016b. In reality,\nhowever, this word, Amurr\u016b, stands for the land of the Amorites, and the\nprobability is, that the land of the Amorites belonged to the Babylonian\nEmpire because it formed part of the original domain of the rulers of\nBabylonia at this time, who, if not of Amorite descent, may at least have\nhad Amorite connections.\n\nIn any case, there is but little doubt that the population of Babylonia\nwas very mixed 2000 years before Christ. As we know from the tablets,\nAmorites were, during this period, numerous in Babylonia, and the god\nwhose name is written with the characters MARTU (a common group for\nAmurr\u016b)\u2014the fact is revealed by one of the tablets of late date published\nby Reisner\u2014are to be read Amurr\u016b, and the best translation is \u201cthe Amorite\ngod,\u201d whose name and worship seem to have been introduced into the\nBabylonian Pantheon at a much earlier date, and was known to the Akkadians\nunder the name of Martu. It is noteworthy that, in the text in question\n(_Mitteilungen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen_, Heft. x. pl. 139,\n147-81), the Akkadian Martu and Babylonian Amurr\u016b is called \u201clord of the\nmountain,\u201d probably because the country of the Amorites, especially when\ncompared with Babylonia, is mountainous.\n\nIn addition to the god Amurr\u016b, other deities of western origin appear in\nthe inscriptions (generally in the names) from time to time. Thus we have\nAbdu-I\u0161tara, interesting as giving an early form of the name Astarte\n(Ashtoreth), before it received the feminine termination; \u1ee4sur-Malik,\nprobably \u201cprotect, O Malik\u201d (Moloch), Nabu-Malik, probably \u201cNebo is Malik\u201d\n(Moloch), or \u201cNebo is king\u201d; Ibi-\u0160\u00e2n, probably \u201cspeak, O Sh\u00e2n,\u201d which\nreminds the reader of Beth-Shean, the modern Beisan; and there are also,\nin all probability, other Amorite deities whom we cannot identify, on\naccount of their names not occurring in other ancient literatures than the\nBabylonian. Ibaru, found in the name Arad-Ibari, \u201cservant of Ibari,\u201d Ab\u00e2,\nin the name Arad (Abdi)-Ab\u00e2, Alla, in the name Ur-Alla, \u201cman of Alla\u201d\n(though this is possibly a Babylonian [Akkadian] name), etc., are probably\nnon-Babylonian, but not Amorite.\n\nBesides the names of west Semitic deities, however, the names of west\nSemites themselves occur, and show that there was a considerable\nimmigration in those ancient days into the country. Thus the word Amurr\u016b,\n\u201cthe Amorite,\u201d is exceedingly common, and one is not surprised to learn\nthat, in consequence of the Amorites being so numerous, there was an\nAmorite district in the neighbourhood of Sippar. Other names of men which\nare apparently from the country spoken of are, Sar-\u00eeli, probably \u201cprince\nof God,\u201d and the same as Israel; Karanatum (probably for Qaranatum), which\nwould seem to mean \u201cshe of the horned deity\u201d (compare Uttatum, \u201che of the\nsun,\u201d Sinnatum, \u201che of the moon\u201d), and reminds us of Ashteroth Karnaim,\n\u201cAshteroth of the two horns,\u201d the well-known site in Palestine. Besides\nthese, we meet more than once with such names as Ya\u2019kub, Jacob, with its\nlonger form, Ya\u2019kub-\u00eelu, Jacob-el; and in like manner the name of Joseph\nand its longer form Joseph-el occur\u2014Yasup and Yasup-\u00eelu. \u00cas\u00e2, the father\nof a man named Siteyatum, reminds us of Esau; Abdi-\u00eeli, \u201cservant of God,\u201d\nis the same as Abdeel; and Ya\u2019zar-\u00eelu, \u201cGod has helped\u201d (compare Azrael),\nYantin-\u00eelu, \u201cGod has given\u201d (compare Nethanel), with many others similar,\nreceive illustration. In all probability, too, many of the bearers of\nnames compounded with Addu (Hadad), Amurr\u016b, and other names of deities\nnaturalized in Babylonia, as well as some of the bearers of true\nBabylonian names, were, in reality, pure west Semites. Further examples\nwill be found in the texts translated farther on, and the more noteworthy\nwill be pointed out when they occur.\n\nIt will thus be seen that the population of Babylonia 2000 years before\nChrist had a considerable admixture of west Semites, many of whom would\ncome under the designation of Amorites; besides other nationalities, such\nas Armenians or people of Aram-Naharaim (Mesopotamia)\u2014at least two tablets\nrefer exclusively to transactions between members of this northern\nrace\u2014Sutites, and Gutites, who were low-class people seemingly\nlight-haired, \u201cfair Gutian slaves\u201d being in one place spoken of.\n\nLife in Babylonia at this early period must have been exceedingly\nprimitive, and differed considerably, as the East does even now, from what\nwe in Europe are accustomed to. The city of which we can get the best\nidea, Sippar, the Sippara of the Greeks, generally regarded (though\nprobably wrongly) as the Sepharvaim of the Bible, now represented by the\nmounds known as Abu-habbah, whence most of the early contract-tablets\nrevealing to us the daily life of these ancient Babylonians came, was\nsituated on the Euphrates, \u201cthe life of the land.\u201d The name of this river\nis written, when phonetically rendered, by the characters Purattu\n(probably really pronounced Phuraththu), in Akkadian Pura-nunu, \u201cthe great\nwater-channel,\u201d often expressed (and then, of course, not phonetically)\nwith characters meaning \u201cthe river of Sippar,\u201d showing in what estimation\nthe ancient Babylonians held both river and city. The mound of Abu-habbah\nis four miles from the river Euphrates, and situated, in reality, on the\ncanal called Nahr-Malka, \u201cthe royal river,\u201d which runs through it; but the\ntablets of the period of which we are now speaking refer not only to the\ncity itself, but to the district all round from the Tigris on the east to\nthe Euphrates on the west.\n\nThe following paragraph from Mr. Rassam\u2019s _Asshur and the Land of Nimrod_\nwill give a fair idea of what this district is like:\u2014\n\n\u201cIt is most interesting to examine this canal (the Nahr-Malka) all the way\nbetween the Euphrates and the Tigris, as it shows the magnitude of the\nBabylonian agricultural industry in days gone by, when it irrigated\nhundreds of miles of rich alluvial soil. The remains of countless large\nand small watercourses, which intersect the country watered by those two\nbranches(23) of Nahr-Malka, are plainly seen even now. Vestiges of\nprodigious basins are also visible, wherein a surplus supply must have\nbeen kept for any emergency, especially when the water of the Euphrates\nfalls low in summer.\u201d\n\nThe digging of canals, which was an exceedingly important work in those\ndays, as indeed it is now, was evidently very systematically done, and the\nking often, to all appearance, made a bid for increased popularity by\ndigging an important new canal for irrigation purposes, to which his name\nwas attached. Thus we find the work of Sumu-la-ilu, Sin-mubali\u1e6d,\n\u1e2aammurabi, Samsu-iluna, and other kings recorded and chosen as the event\nof the year to date by. This, with the rebuilding or new decoration of the\ntemples and shrines, endeared the king to the people and the priesthood,\nensuring for him the faithful service of both, and willing submission to\nhis rule. Indeed, there is but little doubt that the presence of foreign\nrulers in the country was often due to their having made friends of the\npriestly classes, and afterwards of the people, in this way.\n\n\n\n\nThe Religious Element.\n\n\nAs may be judged from the specimens of Babylonian names already given, the\ninhabitants of this part of the world were exceedingly religious. In every\ncity of the land there were great temples, each of which made its claim on\nthe people who formed the congregation\u2014in other words, the whole\npopulation. In the district of which we are at present treating\u2014the tract\nwhere the majority of early contract-tablets were found, namely,\nSippar\u2014the chief objects of worship were the Sun-god \u0160ama\u0161; his consort,\nthe Moon-goddess, Aa; Bunene, a deity of whom but little is known;\nAnunitum, a goddess identified with I\u0161tar or Venus; Addu or Rammanu (Hadad\nor Rimmon), and, in later times at least, among others, \u201cthe divine\nDaughters of \u00ca-babbarra.(24)\u201d All these deities were worshipped in the\ntemple of the place, called \u00ca-babbarra, \u201cthe (divinely) brilliant house,\u201d\nthe earthly abode of the god \u0160ama\u0161 and his companions. In addition to this\ngreat and celebrated temple, of such renown in later times that even\nEgyptians, sun-devotees in their own country, attended the services and\nmade gifts, temples were erected to the other gods of Babylon, notably\nSin, the Moon-god; to Merodach, the chief deity of Babylon; and likewise\nin all probability to Merodach\u2019s consort, Zer-panitum, who was worshipped\nalong with him. There was probably hardly a town in ancient Babylonia and\nAssyria where one or more of these gods were not honoured\u2014indeed, the sun\nhad also another centre of worship, namely, Larsa, the Ellasar of Gen.\nxiv. 1, as well as less renowned shrines. I\u0161tar was venerated at Erech\nalong with Anu; Sin, the moon, under the name of Nannar, had a great and\ncelebrated temple at Ur (generally regarded as Ur of the Chaldees), and\nalso at Haran, the city of Abraham\u2019s sojourning; Nebo was worshipped at\nBorsippa; Nergal at Cuthah; Gula, goddess of healing, at Babylon; \u00ca-girsu\n(\u201cthe lord of Girsu\u201d) at the city of Girsu, apparently a part of Laga\u0161; \u00caa\nand Tammuz at Eridu, etc.\n\nIn the province of which Sippar was capital, however, the people were more\nthan usually religious, or else more records of their piety have come down\nto us. Numerous persons, more especially women, are described as devotees,\nor perhaps priestesses, of the Sun-god there, and sometimes similar\ndevotees of Merodach are mentioned. Though we have no certain information,\nit is very probable that there were all over the country people dedicated\nto the various deities, \u201cthe gods of the land,\u201d for what was customary in\nthe district of Sippar (Sippar-Amnanu and Sippar-Ya\u2019ruru) was in all\nprobability equally so in the other provinces of the empire. From the\nearliest times the temples acquired and held large tracts of land, which\nthe priests let to various people, agriculturists and others, to\ncultivate, a certain proportion of the produce being paid to them, added\nto the revenues of the temples, and passed into the treasury of the god.\nTo this lucrative business of land-letting was added that of\nmoney-lending, and interest in the weaving-industry of the place, both of\nwhich increased enormously in later times. That the temples received from\ntime to time rich gifts from the king, goes without saying, for the\ncolophon-dates record many instances of this. Sumu-abu, for instance,\nrebuilt or restored the temples of the Lady of Isin, and the temple \u00ca-ma\u1e2b\nof Nannar (the Moon-god); Sumu-la-\u00eela made a throne of gold and silver for\nthe great shrine of Merodach; Abil-Sin seems to have given a similar\nobject to the temple of the Sun at Babylon; \u1e2aammurabi restored or gave\nthrones to the temples of Zer-panitum, I\u0161tar of Babylon, Nannar (the\nmoon), and built a great shrine for Bel. Samsu-iluna, likewise, was not\nnegligent of the gods, for it is related of him that he dedicated a bright\nshining mace (?) of gold and silver, the glory of the temple, to Merodach,\nand made \u00ca-sagila (the great temple of Belus at Babylon) to shine like the\nstars of heaven. It is needless to say, that the long lists of the pious\nworks of the rulers of Babylon would be much too long to enumerate here.\n\nAll this the kings did from motives of policy, to conciliate the priests,\nand, through them, the people. Sometimes, though, they had need of the\npriests, who were able to render them service, and then, naturally, they\nbought their good-will cheerfully. The service which the priests rendered\nin return was to pray to the gods for the king\u2019s health and his success\nagainst his enemies, or in any undertaking in which he might be engaged,\nand to inquire of the gods for him whether he would be successful. Many,\ntoo, were the ceremonies and festivals in which king, priests, and people\ntook part, and the king (who was himself a priest) and the priesthood\nthrived exceedingly.\n\nSometimes, too, it happened that a devotee or servant of another god than\nthat which was the divinity of the place, struck with the neglect of the\ndeities whom he worshipped, would decide to remedy that defect, and to\nthis end he would found a small temple himself, and endow it. The\nfollowing will show in what way this took place\u2014\n\n\u201cN\u00fbr-\u00eeli-\u0161u has built for his god the temple of \u0160arru and \u0160ullat. One\n_\u0161ar_ (is the measure of) the temple of his god\u2014he has dedicated it for\nhis life. P\u00ee-\u0161a-\u0160ama\u0161 is the priest of the temple. N\u00fbr-\u00eeli-\u0161u shall not\nmake a claim against the priesthood (_i.e._ demand the restitution of the\nproperty he has given). He is an enemy of \u0160ama\u0161 and Suma-\u00eelu who brings an\naction.\n\n\n \u201cBefore Bur-nunu, son of Ibubu (?);\n before Ibik-i\u0161tar, son of Ibubu;\n before Sin-rabu, son of Aba-Ellila-kime;\n before Idin-Sin, son of Ilu-malik;\n before Sin-idinna\u0161\u0161u, son of Lu-Ninsa\u1e2b;\n before A\u1e2bum-\u1e2bibum, son of A\u1e2bu-\u0161ina;\n before Sin-idinna\u0161\u0161u, son of Pi-\u0161a-Nin-Karak,\u201d\n\n\n\u201cThe light of his god,\u201d N\u00fbr-\u00eeli-\u0161u apparently wished to justify his name,\nand to show what a faithful servant he was, and he therefore dedicated the\ntemple to the deity mentioned. This, according to the inscriptions, should\nbe Merodach, one of whose titles was _\u0161arru_, \u201cthe king.\u201d It is to be\nnoted, however, that in the district of Sippar the Sun-god was \u201cking,\u201d and\nif this be the case, the pious giver of the temple, instead of wishing to\nhonour the patron god of another district, merely intended to honour the\npatron god of his own in another aspect, namely, as king in the heavens,\nalong with his consort, here called \u0160ullat, a name which, to all\nappearance, simply means \u201cthe bride.\u201d That the Sun-god was intended seems\nto be indicated by the name of the priest, P\u00ee-\u0161a-\u0160ama\u0161, \u201cWord of the\nSun-god,\u201d though it was not by any means impossible for a man bearing the\nname of another god as part of his own to officiate in this capacity,\nespecially in the case of Merodach, for the latter was, in many respects,\na sun-god, and therefore identified with \u0160ama\u0161. In any case, the new\ntemple was under the protection of the Sun-god, as the statement (\u201che is\nan enemy of \u0160ama\u0161 and \u0160uma-ilu\u201d) shows. It is noteworthy that, in the\nnames of the witnesses, \u0160ama\u0161 does not occur as a component part in any\ncase.\n\nBut a small foundation like this must have had but little influence beside\nthe great temple of the Sun-god at Sippara, with its revenues from lands,\ndues on grain, tithes, free-will offerings, and gifts on special\noccasions. In addition to all that has been mentioned above, the temple of\nthe Sun-god was the great court of justice, and the people resorted\nthither to settle their disputes, and in all probability gifts were made\nto the Sun-god on those occasions. The gates of the city, too, were\nfavourite places for this, especially that of \u0160ama\u0161, and there is every\nprobability that gifts to the god had to be made there also. The power and\ninfluence of the places of worship on account of all these temporal and\nsacerdotal duties invested in them can be easily imagined.\n\n\n\n\nThe King.\n\n\nAround the Babylonian king is hedged a certain amount of mystery, for we\nsee him but dimly. What he did year by year we know, but what his general\nway of life was the tablets do not reveal to us. He lived in a \u201cgreat\nhouse,\u201d _\u00ea-gala_ in Akkadian, _\u00eakallu_ in Semitic Babylonian, and there is\nhardly any doubt that the people looked upon him as a great high-priest,\nand often as being himself divine. Indeed, some, if not many, of the\nBabylonian kings were regarded as gods, and had their worshippers,\napparently whilst they were still inhabitants of this earth. The\ndeification of the early Babylonian kings is made known to us by the\nscribes placing the usual divine prefix before their names, and with\ncertain rulers this is seldom or never wanting. Thus we know that Dungi\n(about 2650 B.C.) was deified, as were also B\u00fbr-Sin, Gimil-Sin, and\nIbi-Sin. This custom seems to have been continued until later times, for\nRim-Sin of Larsa, the opponent of \u1e2aammurabi or Amraphel, was thus\nhonoured, and even \u1e2aammurabi himself, who never has this divine prefix\nbefore his name, was sometimes paid this exceptional tribute, as such\nnames as \u1e2aammurabi-\u0160am\u0161i, \u201cHammurabi is my Sun,\u201d or \u201cmy Sun-god,\u201d show.\nThe East was ever the home of flattery, which could hardly reach a higher\npoint than that of deification.\n\n [Plate VI A.]\n\n The Adoration of a Deified King. Impression of a cylinder inscribed\n \"Danatum, son of Sin-t\u00e2ar, servant ( = worshipper) of R\u00eem-Sin\" (see p.\n164). Published by permission of the owner, Mr. J. Offord, and the Society\n of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology.\n\n\n [Plate VI B.]\n\n The Adoration of a God. Impression of a cylinder-seal inscribed with the\nname of App\u00e2ni-\u00eel (see p. 555). (The figure on the left has been added by\n a later hand to obliterate part of the inscription.) Published by\n permission of the owner, Mr. J. Offord, and the Society of Biblical\n Arch\u00e6ology.\n\n\nYet the king does sometimes come forth from his shell, and then we see him\nin his two aspects\u2014as king, giving his orders to the officials of his\ncourt and army, and as the chief citizen of the country over which he\nruled. The former is illustrated by the despatches and letters in which\nhis name occurs, and the latter by such references to him as we find in\nthe contracts\u2014and these are very few, as the colophon-dates and\ninvocations of his name in the legal oaths do not count.\n\nMany letters of \u1e2aammurabi have been found, and indicate how active he was\nas a ruler. These texts, which, as far as they are published, are\ngenerally in a very incomplete state, nevertheless show that this most\nsuccessful king paid every attention to the welfare of his subjects, even\nthose in distant parts of the country. Thus in one of these communications\nhe gives instructions to Sin-idinnam (who was apparently military governor\nof Larsa or Ellasar) to pronounce judgment against a certain person who\nlaid claim to a field. Another letter to the same person refers to grain\ntaken by Awel-\u00eeli, concerning which the king says, \u201cI have seen these\nreports. The grain of the recorder (?), which Awel-\u00eeli has taken, let him\nreturn to the recorder.\u201d In another place he writes to his officer rather\nangrily because Inu\u1e2b-samar, apparently Sin-idinnam\u2019s lieutenant, had taken\naway from Sin-magir certain documents signed by the king. He asks\nSin-idinnam why he had done this (placing the blame directly upon him),\nand concludes, \u201cThe documents, the property of Sin-magir ... with the\nimpress of my seal, which thou hast taken, restore to him.\u201d If Sin-idinnam\nhad not been a very high-placed official, he would in all probability have\nbeen dismissed.\n\nThe following is a letter from king Ammi-\u1e6ditana to his agent\u2014\n\n\u201cTo the agent of Sippar-Ya\u2019rurum say thus: \u2018It is Ammi-\u1e6ditana. The\nwool-merchant has thus informed me: \u201cI keep sending to the purveyor of\nSippar-Ya\u2019rurum concerning the wool ordered from him, to cause (it) to be\nsent to Babylon, but he has not caused the wool ordered from him to be\nsent.\u201d Thus he informs me. Why hast thou not caused the wool ordered from\nthee to be sent to Babylon? As thou hast not feared to do this, when thou\nseest this tablet, cause the wool ordered from thee to be brought to\nBabylon.\u2019 \u201d\n\nIt will thus be seen that the early kings of Babylonia identified\nthemselves with the people of the country over which they ruled much more\nthan the sovereigns of Europe have for many hundreds of years been\naccustomed to do. More than this\u2014their families were accustomed to\nintermarry with the people, as did Elme\u0161u\u2014\u201cDiamond\u201d or \u201cCrystal,\u201d daughter\nof Ammi-\u1e6ditana\u2014\n\n(\u201cTablet of) Elme\u0161um, daughter of Ammi-\u1e6dit[ana the king], whom Kizirtum,\ndaughter of Ammi-\u1e6ditana the king, by the consent of \u0160umum-lib\u0161\u00ee, her\nbrother, \u0160ama\u0161-lipir, son of Ri\u0161-\u0160ama\u0161, and Taram-\u0161ullim (?), his wife,\nhave married to Ibku-Annunitum, their son, as (his) consort. Four shekels\nof silver, the wedding-gift of Elme\u0161u, daughter of Ammi-\u1e6ditana, the king,\n\u0160umum-lib\u0161\u00ee, son of Ammi-\u1e6ditana, the king, and Kizirtum, his sister, have\nreceived. If Ibku-Annunitum, son of \u0160ama\u0161-lipir, say to Elme\u0161um, his wife,\n\u2018Thou art not my wife,\u2019 he shall pay (1)[\u00bd] (?) mana of silver. If Elme\u0161um\nsay to Ibku-Annunitum, her husband, \u2018Thou art not my husband,\u2019 to....\nBefore Utul- ...; before ... -\u0161emi, son of ... -um; before Ibni-Addu, son\nof ... -um; before \u0160umma-lum- ..., (son of) Ili-bani; before Addu-\u0161arrum,\nson of Ri\u0161-\u0160ama\u0161; before Ba\u0161i-\u00eelu (?), son of ... -mar; before Nabi-\u00eelu\n(?), (son of) ... -be (?); before ... -pi- ....\n\n\u201cMonth Sebat, day 2nd, year Ammi-\u1e6ditana the king built (?) Kar- ... (and)\nthe wall of....\u201d\n\nThis is not only a curious document\u2014it is also an interesting one, and\nshows under what conditions a woman of royal blood and race could in\nancient Babylonia be wedded to a commoner. To all appearance the king\nhimself, Elme\u0161u\u2019s father, had nothing to do with the transaction\u2014perhaps\nhe purposely held aloof\u2014and this being the case, it is the bride\u2019s brother\nand sister who have charge of the ceremony and contract; and, with the\nbridegroom\u2019s father and mother, marry her as consort to Ibku-Annunitum.\nThe wording differs from that used in ordinary cases, and is more elegant\nand select. A wedding-gift of four shekels of silver is hardly, perhaps,\nwhat one would expect to be made to a royal bride, but perhaps it was the\ncustomary amount in such cases. The penalty if the husband afterwards\ndivorced his wife was, as usual, a money-payment, but the amount is\ndoubtful, though it seems to be above the average. The penalty if Elme\u0161u\nforsook her husband is unfortunately wanting by the mutilation of the\ndocument, but in ordinary cases it was generally death.\n\nNaturally, the members of the king\u2019s family were rich, and had a tendency\nto \u201cadd field to field,\u201d for their own advantage. Or they would, like\nother people of means, hire land adjoining their own, in order to\ncultivate them both together, as did Iltani, daughter of king Ab\u0113\u0161u\u2019\u2014\n\n\u201c1/3 _gan_, a field in the good tract, beside the field of the king\u2019s\ndaughter, its first end (_i.e._ front) the river (or canal) Pariktum, from\nMelulatum, sun-devotee, daughter of Ibku-\u0161a, owner of the field, Iltani,\nthe king\u2019s daughter, has hired the field for cultivation, and for profit.\nAt harvest-time, (upon) every _gan_, she will pay six _gur_ of grain, the\ndue of the Sun-god, in Kar-Sippar.\n\n\u201cBefore Edi- ..., (son of) ...-te (?); before Abil (?)- ... (son of) ...\n-aqar; before \u0160umu-lib\u0161\u00ee, son of P\u00ee-\u0161a-Sin; before Addu-napi\u0161ti-iddina,\nthe scribe.\n\n\u201cMonth Nisan, day 2nd, year Ab\u0113\u0161u\u2019, the king (made ?) an image (?) of\n(gold) and silver.\u201d\n\nThirty years, or thereabouts later, Iltani (or a younger namesake,\ndaughter of Ammi-zaduga) is found providing the wherewithal for\nagricultural operations\u2014\n\n\u201cOne _gur_ of grain, the property of the Sun-god, for the reaper, which\nwas from Iltani, sun-devotee, daughter of the king, \u0160eritum, son of\nIbni-Amurr\u016b, has received. At harvest-time, (in) the month Adar, he will\ncome\u2014(if) he come not, he shall be like a king\u2019s thrall.\n\n\u201cBefore Idin-Marduk, the officer, son of Idin-\u00eeli-\u0161u; before Ina-lali-\u0161u,\nson of Ibni-Marduk.\n\n\u201cMonth Adar, day 25th, year Ammi-zaduga the king (made ?) a weapon (?) of\ngold.\u201d\n\nThis contract is not quite clear without a little explanation. The grain\nadvanced was, to all appearance, from the storehouse of the temple of the\nSun-god at Sippara, and Iltani, as a sun-devotee, seems to have had it at\nher disposal for the benefit of the temple. In any case, the amount came\nfrom her, and was received by \u0160eritum, who seems to have been the reaper\nreferred to. He promises to come to do the work in Adar, that very month,\nwhen the grain would have to be reaped, and the penalty for failing to\nfulfil his contract was apparently slavery. Evidently the work was urgent.\n\nIt is needless to say, that interesting as these texts are, they are very\nincomplete, and leave a great deal to the imagination, and still more\naltogether unrecorded. Nevertheless, they are very valuable as far as they\ngo, and show us the royal family of Babylonia at the time working among\nthe people as members of the community. Each one, however, evidently\nworked for his or her own interest, or for the interest of the religious\ncommunity to which he or she belonged, and not for the people at large. It\nwas only the king who worked for his people, and he did it, it is hardly\ngoing too far to say, because it was his interest to do so. Most people,\nhowever, acted for their own interest in those days, as now.\n\n\n\n\nThe People.\n\n\nIn all probability the Babylonians consisted of what may be called the\noriginal Semites of that tract, with the Akkadians, also aboriginal, with\nwhom they lived and had already, at the time of the dynasty of Babylon,\nmingled to such an extent that they must have become a homogeneous people,\nnotwithstanding the racial differences which were probably noticeable at\ncertain points\u2014for example, a more strongly-marked Semitic type at Sippar\nand in that neighbourhood, and a more strongly-marked Akkadian type in the\nState to which Laga\u0161 belonged. Other invasions, however, seem to have\ntaken place, the principal being that of the Amorites, to which allusion\nhas already been made\u2014an invasion which the tablets of this period\nindicate to have been sufficiently numerous, and which must have left its\nmark on the population, to all appearance increasing the Semitic\npreponderance, and emphasizing the type. The existence of an \u201cAmorite\ntract\u201d in the district of Sippar, and the fact that Sin-idinnam,\n\u1e2aammurabi\u2019s general, is designated by the characters GAL-MAR-TU, in\nSemitic Babylonian _Rab-Amurr\u00ee_, \u201cchief of the Amorite(s),\u201d are in\nthemselves sufficient testimony to this invasion. It is noteworthy, too,\nthat the dynasty to which \u1e2aammurabi belonged is apparently that described\nby Berosus as \u201cArabic,\u201d in which case we should have to recognize yet\nanother invasion of Semites; but there is just the probability, that\n\u201cArabic\u201d and \u201cAmorite\u201d were interchangeable terms, the Amorites being\nregarded as a collection of wandering hordes of whom a portion entered the\ncountry, and took possession of the government. In any case, they shared\nthe fate of all invaders of the kind referred to, for they were speedily\nconquered by the superior civilization of the conquered, and became so\nnaturalized that notwithstanding their western names, they were called by\nthe Babylonians \u201cthe dynasty of Babylon.\u201d This Amorite element was to all\nappearance a sufficiently large one, as the more easily recognizable names\nshow. Thus we have _Amurr\u016b-bani_, _Karasumia_, _Asalia_, _Kuyatum_,\n_Bizizana_, _Izi-idr\u00ea_, _Sumu-ra\u1e33_, _Betani_, _Sar-ili (Israel)_,\n_Awel-Add\u00ee_ (\u201cman of Hadad,\u201d described an Amorite,) with many others,\nthough the different nationalities cannot always be distinguished, as many\nAmorites bore Babylonian names, and _vice vers\u00e2_.\n\nNaturally other nationalities than the Babylonians, Akkadians, \u0160umerians,\nand Amorites were represented in the country\u2014Elamites from the invasions\nof earlier centuries, Kassites and Sutites who came, in all probability,\nto trade, Qutites or Gutians brought into the country as slaves, or\npossibly living there as freemen\u2014all these and others helped to increase\nthe confusion of tongues which existed in the land from remote ages, and\nreminded people of the legend of the Tower of Babel, when \u201cthe Lord did\nthere confound the language of all the earth.\u201d(25)\n\nDocuments of an earlier date than those now under our notice indicate that\nBabylonian civilization goes back no less than three thousand years before\nthe period of the dynasty of Babylon, and this, in consideration of the\ndate calculated for the foundation of Niffer (another three thousand years\nearlier), must be regarded as a moderate estimate. Babylonian civilization\nwas already, at the time now treated of, exceedingly ancient. The early\nvillage settlement of primitive houses, clustered around an equally\nprimitively-constructed temple, had grown into a large city, with many\nfanes therein. The scattered outlying smaller villages around this\nprimitive settlement had gradually been incorporated with it, and formed\nits suburbs, each retaining its ancient name. Villages of more recent\nfoundation were scattered all over the land, and the whole country was\ninstinct with national life, due to the increase of importance which the\ncomparatively recent union of several small states in a single large and\ntherefore powerful kingdom had brought into existence.\n\nThus we find Babylonia at the period of the dynasty of Babylon. It could\neven then look back into a past stretching back into a remote and dim\nantiquity. Its laws, manners, customs, and religion were already old, and\nwere our knowledge of this interesting period complete, we should probably\nfind that there was much that was excellent in their laws, and interesting\nand instructive in the administration of those laws, as well as in their\nmanners and customs with regard to legal matters in general.\n\nSomething of what the tablets of the period are able to inform us\nconcerning the sacred person of the king and the position of his family\nhas already been treated of, and we have now to turn to the next in the\nsocial scale\u2014the people of the middle class. To this class belonged the\npriests, the leaders of the troops, the landowners, the employers of\nlabour, the scribes, the physicians, the land-hirers, and the small\nfarmers. In all probability artists and artisans also formed part of it,\nthough their position may have been sometimes as bad as that of many who\ntoiled in servitude, for the slaves seem, on the whole, to have been\nexceedingly well treated.\n\nWith regard to the scribes at least, the head and beard were shaven, they\nwore a simple garment like a toga thrown over the left shoulder, leaving\nthe right arm free, and in all probability had on their feet no shoes, but\nsandals, though this point is doubtful.\n\nA member of this upper class was polite in his address. When he wrote to a\nfriend, whether on business or otherwise, he said, \u201cto so and so, whom\nMerodach preserve,\u201d and after saying who it was who was writing, added,\n\u201cmay the Sun-god and Merodach grant thee to live for length of days\u2014mayest\nthou have peace, mayest thou have life, may the god thy protector preserve\nthy head (_r\u00ea\u0161-ka_) for happiness. I have sent to ask after thy\nhealth,\u2014may thy health before the Sun-god and Merodach be lasting.\u201d Other\nforms of address are found, generally shorter, but this may be taken as a\nfair specimen of the general style, which, however, seems to have been\nregulated by established usage, the form quoted here being that used in\naddressing a personage named Epi\u0161u, and it is always the same, though the\nletters, four or five in number, all come from different persons.\n\nThe following letter from a son to his father will show the general style\nof these missives\u2014\n\n\u201cSay to my father thus: \u2018It is Elme\u0161um.\u2019(26)\n\n\u201cMay \u0160ama\u0161 and Merodach cause my father to live enduring days. My father,\nmayest thou have health and life. The god protecting my father preserve my\nfather\u2019s happy head. I have sent (to ask) after my father\u2019s health\u2014may my\nfather\u2019s health before \u0160ama\u0161 and Merodach be lasting.\n\n\u201cFrom (the time) Sin and Amurr\u016b recorded thy name, my father, and I humbly\n(?) answered, thou, my father, hast said thus: \u2018As I am going to\nD\u00fbr-Ammi-zaduga on the river Sarqu, one sheep with five mana of silver (?)\nI will cause to be brought for the young man (?).\u2019 This, my father, thou\nsaidst\u2014my ear, my father, I made to attend\u2014and thou hast not caused (these\nthings) to be brought. And when thou, my father, sentest to the presence\nof Taribu, the queen, I caused a tablet to be brought to the presence of\nmy father. My father, thou didst not (even) ask (concerning) the\ninformation of my tablet, when I caused the tablet of my father to be\nbrought to the city, and he took it to my father for a shekel of silver.\nLike thy brother, thou hast not caused (the things) to be brought. Like\nMerodach (?) and Sin Amurr\u016b who are gracious to my father, my ears are\nattentive. My father, cause (the things) to be brought, and my heart will\nnot be downcast\u2014Before \u0160ama\u0161 and Merodach for my father let me plead.\u201d\n\nSuch is the way in which a son writes to his father, or to one who, from\nhis age, might have stood in that relationship. It is one of the less\ndifficult of a number of exceedingly difficult texts, and the translation\nis therefore given with all reserve. As, however, the words and phrases\nare for the most part fairly familiar, it is believed that the general\ndrift of the whole is correctly indicated. Although it is a letter in\nwhich the writer seems to believe that he has just reason to find fault,\nthe respectful and apparently reverent tone of the whole is very\nnoteworthy.\n\nIn all probability the Babylonian household consisted of the man and his\nwife, children if he had any, and as many servants or slaves as he could\nafford. A second wife was taken if the man was rich enough to afford such\nan addition, though he seems to have sometimes married again for economic\nreasons, namely, the acquisition of a suitable attendant for his first\nwife without having to pay her wages.\n\nThe following is an example of the ordinary wedding contract\u2014\n\n\u201cAna-Aa-uzni is daughter of Salimatum. As Salimatum has set her free, she\nhas given her in marriage to B\u00eal-\u0161unu, son of Nemelum. Ana-Aa-uzni is a\nvirgin\u2014no one has anything against Ana-Aa-uzni. They have invoked the\nspirit of \u0160ama\u0161, Merodach, and \u0160umu-la-\u00eelu (the king). Whoever changes the\nwords of this tablet (shall pay the penalty).\n\n\u201cBefore Libit-I\u0161tar; before B\u00fbr-nunu; before Amurr\u016b-bani; before\nRamm\u0101nu-r\u00eameni; before Nida-dum; before \u0160ama\u0161-\u00eamuki; before Imgurrum;\nbefore Sin-iki\u0161am; before Belizunu; before Aa-\u0161iti; before Lamazi; before\n\u1e2aunabia; before Betani; before Amat-\u0160ama\u0161; before Nabritum; before\n\u0160ad-Aa.\u201d\n\nSometimes, however, the wedding contract contains severe penalties in case\nthe newly-wedded wife should prove to be unfaithful, as in the following\ntext\u2014\n\n\u201cA\u1e2b\u1e2bu-ayabi is daughter of Innabatum. Innabatum, her mother, has given her\nin marriage to Zukania. Should Zukania forsake her, he shall pay one mana\nof silver. Should A\u1e2b\u1e2bu-ayabi deny him, he may throw her down from the\ntower. As long as Innabatum lives, A\u1e2b\u1e2bu-ayabi shall support her, and\nInnabatum afterwards (shall have nothing?) against A\u1e2b\u1e2bu-ayabi, ... (They\nhave invoked the spirit of the Sun-god and Zabi)um (the king). Whoever\nchanges the words of (th)is (tablet) (shall pay the penalty\u201d).\n\nHere follow the names of sixteen witnesses\u2014seven males and nine females,\none of the former being the priest of the devotees of the Sun-god.\n\nWhen there were two wives, a marriage contract was given to each, and by a\nfortunate chance, the British Museum possesses two documents connected in\nthis way, which have come together, though acquired at different\ntimes.(27) The following is the document drawn up for the principal wife\u2014\n\n\u201cArad-\u0160ama\u0161 has taken in marriage Taram-Sagila and Iltani, daughter of\nSin-abu-\u0161u. (If) Taram-Sagila and Iltani say to Arad-\u0160ama\u0161, their husband,\n\u2018Thou art not (our) husband,\u2019 he may throw them down from the tower; and\n(if) Arad-\u0160ama\u0161 say to Taram-Sagila or Iltani, his wives, \u2018Thou art not my\nwife,\u2019 she shall depart from house and goods. And Iltani shall wash the\nfeet of Taram-Sagila, shall carry her seat to the house of her god; Iltani\nshall put on Taram-Sagila\u2019s ornaments, shall be well inclined towards her,\nshall not destroy her (marriage) contract, shall grind (?) her meal (?),\nand shall obey (?) her.\u201d\n\nHere follow the names of nine witnesses.\n\nThe marriage contract drawn up for Iltani, the second wife, is as follows\u2014\n\n\u201cIltani is sister of Taram-Sagila. Arad-\u0160ama\u0161, son of Ili-ennam, has taken\nthem in marriage from Uttatum, their father. Iltani, her sister, shall\nprepare her food, shall be well inclined towards her, (and) shall carry\nher seat to the temple of Merodach. The children, as many as have been\nborn, and they shall bear, are their children. (If) Taram-Sagila say to\nIltani, her sister, \u2018Thou art not my sister,\u2019 (then) ... (If Iltani say to\nArad-\u0160ama\u0161, her husband), \u2018Thou (art not my husband),\u2019 he may shave (her\nhead), and sell her for silver. And (if) Arad-\u0160ama\u0161 say to his wives,\n\u2018(Ye) are not my wives,\u2019 he shall pay one mana of silver. And they, (if)\nthey say to Arad-\u0160ama\u0161, their husband, \u2018Thou art not our husband,\u2019 he may\nstrangle (?) them, and throw them into the river.\u201d\n\nThis document is attested by eleven witnesses.\n\nTo all appearance there was a kind of adoption of Iltani as daughter of\nUttatum (she is called daughter of Sin-abu-\u0161u in the first text), and\nhaving thus been raised in position so as to be somewhat the equal of\nTaram-Sagila in rank, she could become the second wife of Arad-\u0160ama\u0161, to\nlive with and wait upon her adopted sister.\n\nThe household itself, however, seldom or never meets our gaze in these\ntexts, though we get glimpses of it from time to time. One of the best is\nin all probability the following for the insight it gives\u2014\n\n\u201c... He has made him his adopted son. The field, plantation, goods, and\nfurniture of his house, which \u00catel-p\u00ee-Sin and Sin-nada, his wife,\npossess\u2014\u00catel-p\u00ee-Sin and Sin-nada have five sons\u2014to B\u00eal-\u00eazzu, their son,\nlike a son, they will give. If B\u00eal-\u00eazzu say to \u00catel-p\u00ee-Sin, his father,\nand Sin-nada, his mother, \u2018Thou art not my father\u2014thou art not my mother,\u2019\nthey may sell him for silver. And if \u00catel-p\u00ee-Sin, and Sin-nada, his wife,\nsay to B\u00eal-\u00eazzu, their son, \u2018Thou art not my son,\u2019 field, plantation, and\ngoods, his share, he may take, and may carry away. He (apparently\n\u00catel-p\u00ee-Sin) has invoked the spirit of the king.\u201d\n\n\u201cBefore Lugal-gi\u0161tug, the lord of the oracle; Lu-Dingira, the inspector(?)\nof the deep(?); \u00celu-dakullu, do.; Nidnat-Sin, do.; \u1e62ili-\u00ca-ki\u0161nugal, do.;\nMu-batuga, son of Azagga-Innanna; Zarriqu, son of Nannara-man\u0161um; Aapp\u00e2,\nson of Sin-\u00earibam; N\u00fbr-\u00eeli-\u0161u, the ...; \u00carib-Sin, the scribe; ... -Ningal,\nthe sword-bearer; ... -Sin, son of Zazia;\u201d\n\n\u201c(The seal of) the contracting parties (has been impressed).\u201d\n\n(The remainder of the text, containing the date, is lost.)\n\nThe above tablet from Tel-Sifr gives a most complete statement of the\ncircumstances attending the adoption of a son (a very common thing during\nthis period in Babylonia), omitting only the reason for this step. It is\nto be noted, however, that five of the witnesses belong, apparently, to\nthe priestly class, and this may, perhaps, have been the reason, their\ninfluence being, at this time, to all appearance, very great, and the\nnecessity for appeasing them proportionately so.\n\nThe following is an example under different conditions, and presents other\npoints of interest\u2014\n\n\u201cArad-I\u0161\u1e2bara is son of Ibni-\u0160ama\u0161. Ibni-\u0160ama\u0161 has taken him as his son.\nThe day that Arad-I\u0161\u1e2bara says to Ibni-\u0160ama\u0161 his father, \u2018Thou art not my\nfather,\u2019 he may put him into fetters and sell him for silver. And (if)\nIbni-\u0160ama\u0161 say to Arad-I\u0161\u1e2bara, his son, \u2018Thou art not my son,\u2019 he shall\ndepart from the house and the goods. And he may have sons, and with his\nsons he shall share.\u201d (This last phrase is expressed clearer on the\nenvelope of the tablet as follows: \u201cAnd Ibni-\u0160ama\u0161 may beget sons, and\nArad-I\u0161\u1e2bara shall share like one.\u201d)\n\nThe names of ten witnesses are attached to this document.\n\nIn this case the reason for the adoption of Arad-I\u0161\u1e2bara probably was, that\nIbni-\u0160ama\u0161 had no sons, though there was a possibility that he would have\nsome later on.\n\nThe following refers to the adoption of a daughter, which was also a\ncommon custom\u2014\n\n\u201cKaranatum is daughter of N\u00fbr-Sin, with his sons and his daughters. No one\nhas anything against Karanatum, daughter of N\u00fbr-Sin. Damiqtum is sister of\nKaranatum. He (N\u00fbr-Sin) will give her to a husband.\u201d\n\nHere follow the names of five witnesses.\n\nThough the inscription is short, it is sufficient to suggest that N\u00fbr-Sin\nadopted Karanatum for some special reason, though what that reason may\nhave been is uncertain. Probably it was in order that she should accompany\nDamiqtum as second wife of a man who wished to marry two women, as in the\ncase of Iltani and Taram-Sagila.\n\nTablets referring to adoption are, however, very numerous, and do not\nfurnish much variety. Considerations of space also forbid any great\nmultiplication of examples, so that it is needful to pass to the next\nstage, namely, the inscriptions referring to inheritance, which, though\ncontaining less information, are not without interest.\n\nOn the death of the father of the family, his children to all appearance\nmet and divided his property as agreed upon, or in accordance with the\nwill of their father. Thus we have the record of the three brothers\nSin-iki\u0161am, Ibni-\u0160ama\u0161, and Urra-na\u1e63ir, who divided their inheritance\nafter the death of their father\u2014\n\n\n\n1.\n\n\n\u201c1 \u0160AR, a dwelling-house (and) domain, beside the house of Ibni-\u0160ama\u0161, and\nbeside the house of the street, its exit (being) to the street, is the\nshare of Sin-iki\u0161am, which he has shared with Ibni-\u0160ama\u0161 and Urra-na\u1e63ir.\nFrom the word to the gold the division of the property is completed. They\nshall not make claim against each other. They have invoked the spirit of\n\u0160ama\u0161, Aa, and Sin-mubali\u1e6d (the king).\n\n\u201cBefore Li\u0161irammu; before Sin-pu\u1e6dram, son of \u00caa-bala\u1e6di (?); before\nSin-idinnam, son of Mann\u00eea; before Arad-ili-\u0161u, son of N\u00fbr-Sin; before\n\u0160a-I\u0161\u1e2bara, son of Il\u00e2; before Sin-magir, son of Etelum; before\nArad-Amurri, before Sin-\u00eelu, sons of Up\u00eea; before Libur-nadi-\u0161u, son of\nU\u0161ta\u0161ni-ili; before ... ; before ... ; before ... . Year of the river\n(canal) Tutu-\u1e2bengal.\u201d\n\n\n\n2.\n\n\n\u201c1 \u0160AR, a dwelling-place (and) domain, beside the house of Sin-iki\u0161am, and\nbeside the house of I\u0161tar-umma-\u0161a, the second exit to the street, is the\nshare of Ibni-\u0160ama\u0161, which he has shared with Sin-iki\u0161am and Urra-na\u1e63ir.\nFrom the word to the gold they have shared the (property). They shall not\nmake claim against each other. They have invoked the spirit of \u0160ama\u0161, Aa,\nMarduk, and Sin-mubali\u1e6d.\n\n\u201cBefore Sin-pu\u1e6dram; before Sin-idinnam; before Li\u0161irram; before\nArad-ili-\u0161u; before \u0160a-I\u0161\u1e2bara; before Sin-magir; before Arad-Amurri;\nbefore Sin-\u00eelu; before Libur-nadi-\u0161u. Year of the river Tutu-\u1e2bengal.\u201d\n\n\n\n3.\n\n\n\u201c1 \u0160AR, a dwelling-house and domain, beside the house of Ubarria, and\nbeside the house of Pu\u1e6dur-Sin, the second exit to the street, is the share\nof Urra-na\u1e63ir, which he has shared with Sin-iki\u0161am and Ibni-\u0160ama\u0161. From\nthe word to the gold the division is completed. They shall not make claim\nagainst each other. They have invoked the spirit of \u0160ama\u0161, Aa, Marduk, and\nSin-mubali\u1e6d.\n\n\u201cBefore Sin-pu\u1e6dram; before Li\u0161irram; before Sin-magir; before Sin-idinnam;\nbefore Arad-ili-\u0161u; before \u0160a-I\u0161\u1e2bara; before Arad-Amurri; before Sin-\u00eelu;\nbefore Libur-nadi-\u0161u. Year of the river Tutu-\u1e2bengal.\u201d\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThat the first tablet translated above was that first written is proved by\nthe fact that the fathers\u2019 names of several of the witnesses are given,\nand by the blank spaces with the word \u201cbefore,\u201d showing that the scribe\ndid not know exactly how many witnesses there would be. In the other two\ndocuments he had the right number, and did not therefore write the word in\nquestion too many times. In all probability the three brothers are\nmentioned in the first document in the order of their age, and it is\nnaturally the title-deed of the eldest which is written first. All three\ndocuments are attested by the same witnesses.\n\nThe following tablet in the possession of Sir Cuthbert Peek, Bart., shows\na division of property consisting of goods and chattels, as well as land\u2014\n\n\u201c3 GAN, a field by the territory of Kudma-bani, with 1 GAN, a field which\n(was) the share of A\u1e2b\u1e2bati-\u0161unu, (situated) beside the field of Amat-Sama\u0161,\ndaughter of Libit-I\u0161tar, and beside the field of B\u00eal-\u0161unu, its first end\n(being) the river Euphrates, (and) its second end the common. 2/3 of a \u0160AR\n(and) 5 ZU (of ground by) the temple of Sippara, 1-\u00bd \u0160AR (by) the temple\nof Kudma-bani, 1 ox, 1 young bull, 1 _\u2019iku\u0161e_ stone\u2014all this is the share\nof Kubbutu, which, along with Ibku-Annunitum, B\u00eal-\u0161unu, B\u00eal-bani,\nIl-\u0161u-bani, R\u00eamum, and Marduk-na\u1e63ir, they have divided. The division is\ncomplete. They are satisfied. From the word to the gold they shall not at\nany future time bring claims against each other. They have invoked the\nspirit of \u0160ama\u0161, Aa, Marduk, and Samsu-iluna the king.\n\n\u201cBefore Dadu-\u0161a, son of A\u1e2bum; before \u1e6caridum, the scribe; before\nSin-idinnam, son of Ibku-\u0160ala; before Anatum, son of Sin-\u00e2bu-\u0161u; before\n\u0160ama\u0161-na\u1e63ir-\u00e2bli.\n\n\u201cMonth Iyyar, day 18th, second year after the completion (?) of the temple\nof B\u00eal.\u201d\n\nWhere the division of the property and the drawing up of the tablets took\nplace is uncertain, there being in the documents translated above no\nindication. In the case of the three brothers Urra-kamini\u0161i, Ri\u0161-Urra, and\nBuria, the declaration of the division of the property which they\ninherited, and possibly the drawing up of their respective tablets as\nwell, took place in the Beth-el (_b\u00eat \u00eeli_) of the city, where legal\nmatters were often transacted. Whether this Beth-el was the temple of the\nSun and the Moon, where solemn contracts were also made, is uncertain, but\nnot improbable.\n\nIt is noteworthy that there is sometimes a statement indicating that the\ninheritors chose their lots\u2014\n\n\u201c1 \u0160AR, a dwelling-house beside the house of Belaqu, and beside\nAwel-Nannara, is the share of Eri\u0161tum, the sodomite, daughter of\nRibam-\u00eeli, which she has shared with Amat-\u0160ama\u0161, the priestess of the sun,\nher sister. The division is complete. From the word to the gold they shall\nnot bring claim against each other. Choice of Amat-\u0160ama\u0161, her sister. (The\nenvelope has: Her choice\u2014the place (which seems) good unto her she will\ngive.) (They have invoked) the spirit of \u0160ama\u0161, Merodach, Sin-mubali\u1e6d (the\nking), and the city of Sippar.\u201d\n\nHere follow the names of eighteen witnesses, all of them, apparently, men.\n\nAnother tablet, referring to the sharing of property, shows how brothers\nsometimes cared for their sister, all the property (at least in this case)\nbeing in their hands\u2014\n\n\u201cTablet (referring to) 1 GAN, a field in the _kar\u00ea_, beside (the field of)\nA\u1e2bi-daani (?) and Enkim-\u00eelu, Ki\u0161-nunu, Imgurrum, and Ilu-abi, her\nbrothers, have given to \u1e2audultum, daughter of Inib-nunu, as her share.\n\n\u201cBefore Ma\u0161pirum (var. Ma\u0161parum), son of U\u0161lu-rum; before B\u00fbr-ya, son of\nMunawirum; before \u1e2aay\u00e2bum, (before) Kiranum (?), sons of Sin-ennam; before\nSin-na\u1e63ir.\n\n\u201cYear Sumulel the king built the wall of Sippar.\u201d\n\nThus, in varying ways, did the ancient Babylonians live and wed, adopt\nchildren and inherit. Other incidents were there in their lives also, as\nwhen a man divorced his wife\u2014an unpleasant experience for them both, in\nall probability\u2014though often enough this must have taken place to the\ngreat joy of one or the other, or possibly of both, for it must have been\na much less solemn thing with them than with us\u2014the marriage tie. It is\ngratifying to know that documents referring to divorce are comparatively\nrare, though they are to be met with sometimes, as the following text\nshows\u2014\n\n\u201c\u0160ama\u0161-rabi has divorced Naramtum his wife. She has taken away her\nproperty (?) and received her portion (as a woman divorced). (If) Naramtum\nwed another, \u0160ama\u0161-rabi shall not bring action against her. They have\ninvoked the spirit of \u0160ama\u0161, Aa, Marduk, and Sin-mubali\u1e6d.\u201d\n\n(Here follow the names of ten witnesses.)\n\n\n\n\n\u201cYear of \u0160ama\u0161 and Rimmon.\u201d\n\n\nSometimes the even tenor of early Babylonian life was interrupted by a\nlawsuit on the part of a relative (often one who ought to have known\nbetter), and, though less of a family convulsion than a divorce, it must\nhave been sufficiently annoying, especially when the plaintiff was one\u2019s\nown father. The following gives details of such a case\u2014\n\n\u201c(Tablet concerning) one slave, her maid, whom Ayatia, her mother, left to\n\u1e2aulaltum, her daughter, and \u1e2aulaltum (on that account) supported Ayatia,\nher mother. And Sin-na\u1e63ir (was) husband of Ayatia. Ayatia left to her\n(\u1e2aulaltum), in the 20th year, that which was in the city Buzu, but there\nwas no tablet (?) (documentary evidence) concerning Ayatia\u2019s property.\nAfter Ayatia died, Sin-na\u1e63ir brought an action against \u1e2aulaltum on account\nof the maidservant, and I\u0161arlim, scribe of the city of Sippar and the\ncourt (?) of Sippar, caused them to receive judgment. He declared him\n(Sin-na\u1e63ir) to be in the wrong. He is not again to bring action in the\nmatter. (They have invoked) the spirit of \u0160ama\u0161, Merodach, and \u1e2aammurabi.\nJudgment of I\u0161arlim; Awat-\u0160ama\u0161, the merchant; Itti-B\u00eal-kinni; B\u00fbr-Sin;\nGimil-bani. Month Adar, year of the canal Ti\u0161ida-Ellilla.\u201d\n\nMany documents of this kind exist, though people did not generally bring\nactions against their own (step-) daughters, as Sin-na\u1e63ir is recorded as\nhaving done. The ancient Babylonians were at all times, however, very keen\nin standing up for their own rights, and went to law on the slightest\nprovocation. The following records a claim upon some property, and its\nissue, which was as unsuccessful as that translated above\u2014\n\n\u201cSin-\u00earibam, son of Up\u00ea-rabi, laid claim to the house of \u0160umu-r\u00e2\u1e2b, which\nis beside the house of Nidnu-\u0161a and beside the house (temple) of Allat;\nand they went before the judges, and the judges pronounced judgment. And\nas for Sin-\u00earibam, they declared him to be in the wrong, and made him\ndeliver a document which could not be proceeded against. He shall not\nbring action, and Sin-\u00earibam shall not again lay claim to the house of\n\u0160umu-r\u00e2\u1e2b.\n\n\u201cThey have invoked the spirit of \u0160ama\u0161, Zabium (the king), and the city of\nSippar.\u201d\n\nIt is noteworthy that the name of the first of the twelve witnesses\nattached to the document is Ya\u2019kub-ilu, or Jacob-el, which is supposed to\nbe connected with the name of the patriarch Jacob.\n\nAs in these days, many a man in those ancient times, for the better\nconducting of his business, would enter into partnership. As usual, all\nwould go well for a time, but at last, in consequence of disagreements or\ndisputes or some unpleasantness, they would decide to part. Several texts\nof this class exist, of which the following is a typical example\u2014\n\n\u201c\u1e62ili-I\u0161tar and Iribam-Sin made partnership, and, to dissolve it, they had\na judge, and they went down to the temple of \u0160ama\u0161, and in the temple of\n\u0160ama\u0161 the judge caused them to receive judgment. They give back their\ncapital, and receive back their shares, 1 male-slave Lu\u0161tamar-\u0160ama\u0161, with\na chain (?), and 1 female-slave Li\u0161limam, the share of Iribam-Sin; 1\nmale-slave Ib\u0161ina-ilu, and 1 female-slave Am-anna-lamazi, the share of\n\u1e62ili-I\u0161tar, they have received as their shares. In the temple of the\nSun-god and the Moon-god they declared that they would treat each other\nwell. One shall not bring action against the other, nor act hostilely\ntowards him. There is no cause for action on the part of the one against\nthe other. They have invoked the spirit of Nannara, \u0160ama\u0161, Merodach,\nLugal-ki-u\u0161una, and \u1e2aammurabi the king.\n\n\u201cBefore Utuki-\u0161emi, son of Awiatum; before Abil-Sin, son of\nNannara-man\u0161um; before Sin-\u00eare\u0161, the provost; before Ipu\u0161-\u00caa, the\n_du-gab_; before \u0160ama\u0161mubali\u1e6d, the priest of Gula; before Nabi-Sin, son of\nIdin-Sin; before Sin-uzeli, son of \u1e62ili-I\u0161tar; before Ubar-Sin, son of\nSin-\u0161emi; before Sin-gimlanni, the attendant of the judges.\n\n\u201cHe has impressed the seal of the contracting parties.\n\n\u201cMonth Adar, year \u1e2aammurabi the king made (images of) I\u0161tar and\nNanaa.\u201d(28)\n\nIribam-Sin, however, seems not to have been satisfied that he had been\nfairly dealt with, for notwithstanding that they were not to act hostilely\ntowards each other, he immediately brought an action to get possession of\nproperty belonging to \u1e62ili-I\u0161tar and his brothers, the result of which was\nthe following declaration on the part of the latter\u2014\n\n\u201cConcerning 1 \u0160AR, a dwelling-house, and 2 \u0160AR, a large enclosure, which\n\u1e62ili-I\u0161star and Awel-ili, his brother, sons of Ili-sukkalu, bought from\nSin-mubali\u1e6d and his brothers, sons of Pir\u1e2bum. In the temple of the Sun-god\n\u1e62ili-I\u0161tar said thus: \u2018I verily bought (it) with the money of my mother\u2014it\nwas not bought with the money that was ours in common. Iribam-Sin, son of\nUbar-Sin, has no share in the house and large enclosure.\u2019(29) He has\ninvoked the spirit of the king.\n\n\u201cBefore Utuki-\u0161emi, son of Awiatum; before Abil-Sin, son of\nNannara-man\u0161um; before Sin-\u00eare\u0161, the provost; before Sin-uzelli, son of\nN\u00fbr-\u00eeli; before Ipu\u0161-\u00caa, the _du-gab_; before Nabi-Sin, son of Idin-Sin;\nbefore Ubar-Sin, son of Sin-\u0161emi, his father; before \u0160ama\u0161-mubali\u1e6d, the\npriest of Gula; before Singimlanni, the attendant of the judges. They have\nimpressed the seal of the parties.\n\n\u201cMonth Adar, year of the (images of) I\u0161tar and Nanaa.\u201d\n\nThe day of the month is not given, so that we are in doubt as to whether\nthe second tablet preceded the first or followed it. In all probability\nthe latter was the case, or else the two actions were simultaneous, and\nthe fact that the witnesses and officials of the court are the same in\nboth documents speaks in favour of this.\n\nIn Babylonia, as in all the ancient East, there was the great blot upon\ntheir civilization which has not even at the present time, the dawn of the\ntwentieth century, disappeared from the earth, namely, that of slavery.\nThroughout the long ages over which Babylonian domestic literature\nextends, the student finds this to be always present, and one of the most\nstriking examples is contained in the following document, which exhibits\nthe blot with all its possible horrors\u2014\n\n\u201c(Tablet of) \u0160ama\u0161-n\u00fbri, daughter of Ibi-\u0160\u00e2n. Bunini-\u00e2bi and B\u00ealisunu have\nbought her from Ibi-\u0160\u00e2n, her father\u2014for Bunini-\u00e2bi a wife\u2014for B\u00ealisunu a\nservant. The day \u0160ama\u0161-n\u00fbri says to B\u00ealisunu, her mistress, \u2018Thou art not\nmy mistress,\u2019 they shall shave off her hair, and sell her for silver. As\nthe complete price he has paid five shekels of silver. He has taken the\nkey.(30) The affair is concluded. He is content. (At no future time) shall\none bring a claim against the other. They have invoked the spirit of\n\u0160ama\u0161, Aa, Marduk, and \u1e2aammurabi.\u201d\n\n(Here follow the names of seven witnesses.)\n\n\u201cMonth Iyyar, day 3rd, year of the throne of Z\u0113rpanitum\u201d (the 12th year of\n\u1e2aammurabi or Amraphel).\n\nThat a father should part with his daughter for money in order that that\ndaughter should become the wife of a man already married, agreeing at the\nsame time that the young woman should become the slave of the first wife,\nwould seem to the ordinary Western mind at the present day most barbarous.\nThat it was not the lowest depth, however, is implied by the condition\nattached to the contract, and containing a kind of penalty, namely, that\nif the new wife denied that the first wife was her mistress, she might be\nsold as a slave. In what her position differed from that of a thrall,\nhowever, does not appear.\n\nNaturally the case of Hagar, the slave of Sarah, Abraham\u2019s wife, will at\nonce occur to the reader, though the two differ somewhat. Nevertheless, it\nis not improbable that the well-known Bible-story explains that of the\ntablet, in giving a reason for the purchase of \u0160ama\u0161-n\u00fbri\u2014namely, in order\nto give the purchaser, Bunini-\u00e2bi, a chance of having offspring, which, in\nall probability, his first wife B\u00ealisunu had not brought him. It is\ndifficult to imagine that she would consent to the introduction of a rival\nfor any other reason. Of course, the new wife may have been well treated,\nbut a transaction of the kind here recorded naturally gave an opening to\nall possible abuses. Another case of the taking of a second wife, with the\nproviso that she is to be the servant of the first, is that of Iltani (see\npp. 174-175), who, however, was not a slave, and had a regular\nmarriage-deed. Moreover, she is described as the sister (_\u00e2\u1e2bat_), not the\nslave (_\u00e2mat_) of the first wife.\n\nOn the same plate of the British Museum publication from which the\nforegoing is taken, there is a more ordinary document referring to\nslavery, and in this case it is to all appearance the sale of a real\nslave-woman and her child\u2014\n\n\u201c1 slave-woman, B\u00ealti-magirat by name, and her child, handmaid of\n\u0160arrum-Addu and \u1e2aammurabi-\u0160am\u0161i, Nabium-malik, son of Addu-na\u1e63ir, has\nbought from \u0160arrum-Addu, son of Addu-na\u1e63ir, and \u1e2aammurabi-\u0160am\u0161i, his wife.\nAs the complete price he has paid 18-\u00bd shekels of silver. At no future\ntime shall they make claim against each other. They have invoked the\nspirit of Marduk and \u1e2aammurabi.\u201d\n\n(Here follow the names of eight witnesses, including two brothers of the\ncontracting parties.)\n\n\u201cMonth Tebet, day 21st, year \u1e2aammurabi the king destroyed, by command of\nAnu and B\u00eal, the fortification of Mair, and Malgia.\u201d\n\nTablets referring to the sale and purchase of slaves are numerous, and do\nnot present much variety, being nearly all written in accordance with the\nusual legal forms. In the _hiring_ of slaves, however, there is a little\nmore dissimilarity\u2014\n\n\u201cAwel-Addi, son of Sililum, has hired Arad-\u00eeli-remeanni from Eri\u0161ti-\u0160ama\u0161,\nsun-devotee, daughter of Sin-b\u00eal-\u00e2bli, for a year. The hire for a year, 5\nshekels of silver, he will pay. A first instalment of the sum, 2 shekels\nof silver, she has received. He will be clothed by his hirer.\n\n\u201cHe entered (upon his duties) on the 16th of Elul.\n\n\u201cBefore \u0160ama\u0161, Aa; before Taribatum; before N\u00fbr-Marduk; before La\u1e2butum.\n\n\u201cYear Samsu-iluna (made) a throne of gold (shining like the stars, for\nNin-gala\u201d).\n\nThe following is a similar text with additional clauses\u2014\n\n\u201cAsir-Addu, son of Libit-Urra, has hired \u0160ama\u0161-b\u00eal-ili from A\u1e2batani,\nsun-devotee, daughter of \u0160ama\u0161-\u1e2bazir, for his first year. As hire for his\nfirst year, he shall pay 3-\u00bd shekels of silver. He shall clothe himself.\nHe entered (on his duties) on the 4th of the month D\u00fbr-Addi, in the month\nMamitu he will complete (his term), and may leave.\n\n\u201cBefore Asirum, son of Ea-rabi; before Nin-gira-\u00e2bi, son of Eribam; before\nArad-Sin, son of Sin-idinnam.\n\n\u201cThe year of Samsu-iluna, the king.\u201d\n\n(The accession-year of Amraphel\u2019s successor.)\n\nIn the following the slave is hired for produce\u2014\n\n\u201cRi\u0161-\u0160ama\u0161, son of Marduk-na\u1e63ir, has hired Nawir-n\u00fbr-\u0161u from \u0160ubtum for a\nyear. He will pay 20 _qa_ of oil as his hire for the year. He will clothe\nhim. He entered in the month Elul, in the month Tirinu he may go forth.\n\n\u201cBefore Ri\u0161utum; before \u00cari\u0161ti-Aa.\n\n\u201cYear the great fortification....\u201d\n\nWhen a man had no master\u2014was his own master, in fact\u2014he was hired \u201cfrom\nhimself\u201d\u2014\n\n\u201cIdin-Ittum has hired for wages Naram-ili-\u0161u from himself, for six months.\nHe will receive 2 shekels of silver as wages for the six months.\n\n\u201cBefore \u00catel-p\u00ee-Ura\u0161, before Sin-\u00eelu, before A\u1e2bum, the scribe.\n\n\u201cMonth Nisan, day 20th, year the throne ... was....\u201d\n\nServants were not only hired from their masters and themselves, but also\nfrom their fathers, mothers, brothers, and whoever else might have charge\nof them. There are also lists of workmen hired for various purposes in\nbatches. Those who went about doing reaping seem to have been of various\nnationalities, and interesting names are on that account found in the\nlists from time to time.\n\nIn all probability the towns at that early period resembled closely those\nof the Semitic East at the present day, the streets being as a rule narrow\n(from the necessity of obtaining protection from the excessive heat of the\nsun during the hot season) and exceedingly dirty. This is shown by the\nexcavations at Niffer, where, at the earliest period, when the street in\nquestion was constructed, the houses were entered by going up a few steps.\nLater on, in consequence of the accumulations, the footpath became level\nwith the floor of the house, and, at a later period still, a little\nstaircase had to be built leading down into the building. As may easily be\nimagined, the conditions in which the ancient Babylonians lived were in\nthe highest degree insanitary, and such as would probably not be tolerated\nfor a day in Europe at the present time.\n\nJudging from the remains of private houses which have been found, these\nbuildings were not by any means large. In fact, they must have contained\nonly a few small rooms. Where, however, there was space\u2014as, for example,\nwhen the house was built in the middle of a field\u2014the rooms were probably\nmoderately large, and more numerous. They were of either unburnt or burnt\nbrick, and the roofs were supported by beams. The floors seem to have been\ngenerally the bare earth.\n\nMany lists of the furniture of these dwelling-places are extant, and allow\nus to estimate to a certain extent the amount of comfort which their\ninhabitants enjoyed. They reclined upon couches, and sometimes\u2014perhaps\noften\u2014it happened that the owner of the house possessed several of these\narticles of furniture. Apparently, too, it was their custom to sit upon\nchairs, and not upon the ground, as they do in the East at the present\nday, and have done for many centuries. Various vessels, of wood,\nearthenware, and copper, were also to be found there, together with\nmeasures of different kinds,(31) implements needed in the trade of the\nowner, and certain objects of stone. In some cases things of precious\nstone are referred to, a circumstance which points to a considerable\namount of prosperity on the part of the owner of the house and its\ncontents.\n\nAs will be seen farther on, when Babylonian life of a later period comes\nto be treated of, the leasehold system, with all its disadvantages, was in\nfull force, and there is just the possibility that it was already in use\nduring the time of the dynasty of Babylon. Even at this early date the\nquestion of party walls was an important one, as the tablet of\n\u0160ama\u0161-\u00een-m\u00e2tim and \u00cari\u0161ti-Aa, daughter of Zililum, shows. They were to set\nup the dividing wall (_gu\u0161uru_, apparently palings) _a\u1e2bum mala a\u1e2bim_, lit.\n\u201cbrother as much as brother,\u201d _i.e._ one as much as the other. They\nmanaged things differently in ancient Babylonia, and if this was the usual\narrangement, it must have given rise to endless disputes.\n\nIt is probable that, before the time of \u1e2aammurabi, the ancient Babylonians\nhad no code of laws in the true sense of the term. All the legal decisions\nknown seem to have been decided on their merits by the judges who tried\nthe cases, and in such actions in which the judges could not come to a\ndecision, the matter seems to have been referred to the king, whose word\nwas, to all appearance, final. Naturally an enormous responsibility rested\non the judges on account of this, but they were not entirely without help\nin the matter of deciding difficult and unusual questions. Lists of\nprecedents were kept, and to these, in all probability, they constantly\nreferred\u2014indeed, the tablets of legal precedents were held in such high\nesteem, that copies of them were kept in the libraries of Assyria, and in\nBabylonia also, in all probability, until long after the destruction of\nthe Assyrian power, notwithstanding that legal use and wont had by that\ntime somewhat changed. One or two examples of these legal precedents may\nhere be quoted to show their nature:\u2014\n\n\u201cIf a son say to his father, \u2018Thou art not my father,\u2019 they may shave him,\nput him in fetters, and sell him for silver.\n\n\u201cIf a son say to his mother, \u2018Thou art not my mother,\u2019 they may shave off\nhis hair, lead him round the city, and drive him forth from the house.\n\n\u201cIf a wife hate her husband, and say to him, \u2018Thou art not my husband,\u2019\nthey may throw her into the river.\n\n\u201cIf a husband say to his wife, \u2018Thou art not my wife,\u2019 he shall pay her\nhalf a mana of silver.\n\n\u201cIf a man hire a slave, and he dies, is lost, runs away, gets locked up,\nor falls ill, he shall pay as his hire every day half a measure of grain.\u201d\n\nThus did the ancient Babylonians punish those who offended against their\nlaws, and protect property (for the slave-hirer was undoubtedly saddled\nwith a heavy responsibility). Was it that the death of a hired slave was\nregarded as testifying to the severity of his temporary hirer? In all\nprobability it was so, and in that case, one cannot help regarding the law\nas a wise one. To all appearance, also, illness was attributed to his\nemployer\u2019s cruelty. As to his running away, or falling into the hands of\nthe police, these things would prove that his employer was not watchful\nenough with regard to him. A modern European lawyer would most likely not\nregard this particular law as being very exactly worded (there is no limit\nof time during which the slave\u2019s wages were payable, and one can only\n_guess_ that the term of his service with his hirer was understood), but\nthere seems to be no doubt as to its intention\u2014to safeguard the slave, and\nhis owner at the same time, by making his hirer responsible for every\nmishap and accident which might happen to him whilst he was with his\ntemporary master.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI. ABRAHAM.\n\n\n A short account of this period, with the story of Chedorlaomer,\n Amraphel, Arioch, and Tidal.\n\n\nHaran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his\nnativity, in Ur of the Chaldees, and afterwards Terah took Abram his son,\nLot, his grandson, and Sarai, his son Abram\u2019s wife, and they went forth\nfrom Ur of the Chaldees to go to Canaan. Arriving at Haran, they dwelt\nthere until Terah died at an exceedingly advanced age.\n\nThere have been many discussions as to the position of Ur of the Chaldees.\nSome, on account of the distance from Canaan, apparently, have contended\nthat Ur of the Chaldees is the same as the site known for many hundreds of\nyears as Urfa, in Mesopotamia\u2014the district in which the proto-martyr, St.\nStephen (Acts vii. 2, 41), places it. Mesopotamia, however, is an\nappellation of wide extent, and altogether insufficiently precise to\nenable the exact locality to be determined. To all appearance, though,\nUrfa or Orfa, called by the Greeks Edessa, was known as Orrha at the time\nof Isidore of Charax (date about 150 B.C.). Pocock, in his Description of\nthe East, states that it is the universal opinion of the Jews that Orfa or\nEdessa was the ancient Ur of the Chaldees, and this is supported by local\ntradition, the chief place of worship there being called \u201cthe Mosque of\nAbraham,\u201d and the pond in which the sacred fish are kept being called\n_Bahr Ibrah\u00edm el-Hal\u00edl_, \u201cthe Lake of Abraham the Beloved.\u201d The tradition\nin the Talmud and in certain early Arabian writers, that Ur of the\nChaldees is Warka, the \u1f48\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03b7 of the Greeks, and \u1f48\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7 of the Septuagint,\nneed not detain us, as this site is certainly the Erech of Gen. x. 10, and\nis excluded by that circumstance.\n\nTwo other possibilities remain, the one generally accepted by\nAssyriologists, the other tentatively put forward by myself some years\nago. The former has a series of most interesting traditions to support it,\nthe latter simply a slightly greater probability. The reader may adopt\nthat which seems to him best to suit the circumstances of the case.\n\nThe identification generally accepted is, that Ur of the Chaldees is the\nseries of mounds now called Mugheir, or, more in accordance with correct\npronunciation, Muqayyar, \u201cthe pitchy,\u201d from the noun _q\u00edr_, \u201cpitch,\u201d that\nmaterial having been largely used in the construction of the buildings\nwhose ruins occupy the site. The identification of these ruins with those\nof Ur-kasdim or Ur of the Chaldees was first proposed by Sir Henry\nRawlinson in 1855, on the ground that the name of the city on the bricks\nfound there, which he read Hur, resembled that of the name as given in\nGen. xi. 28 and 31. As a matter of fact, the Semitic Babylonian form of\nthe name approaches even nearer than the celebrated Assyriologist then\nthought, for it is given in the bilingual texts as _Uru_. The Akkadian\nform (which is most probably the more ancient of the two), on the other\nhand, is not so satisfactory, as it contains an additional syllable, the\nfull form being _Uriwa_ (the vowel before the _w_ only is a little\ndoubtful). This, with the absence of any addition corresponding to the\nHebrew _Kasdim_, is the principal flaw in what would otherwise be a\nperfect philological comparison.\n\nUr or Uriwa, the modern Mugheir, is situated about 140 miles S.E. of\nBabylon, and about 560 miles S.E. of \u1e2aaran. In ancient days it was a place\nof considerable importance, and the site of a celebrated temple-tower\ncalled \u00ca-\u0161u-gan-dudu, probably the \u00ca-gi\u0161-nu-gala(32) of other texts, the\nshrine of the god Nannara, also called Sin, the Moon-god, whose worship\nhad gained considerable renown.\n\n\n \u201cFather Nannar, lord of Ur, prince of the gods, in heaven and\n earth he alone is supreme;\n\n Father Nannar, lord of \u00ca-gi\u0161-nu-gala, prince of the gods, in\n heaven and earth he alone is supreme:\n\n Father Nannar, lord, bright-shining diadem, prince of the gods, in\n heaven and earth he alone is supreme;\n\n Father Nannar, whose dominion is greatly perfect, prince of the\n gods, in heaven and earth he alone is supreme;\n\n Father Nannar, who in a princely garment is resplendent, prince of\n the gods, in heaven and earth he alone is supreme,\u201d etc.\n\n\nThe above is the beginning of a long hymn written in the Sumerian dialect,\nin which an ancient Babylonian poet praises him, and in many another\ncomposition is his glory sung, and in adversity his name invoked\u2014\n\n\n \u201cThe temple of the Life of Heaven is destroyed\u2014who, in the day of\n its glory, has cut off its glory?\n The everlasting temple, the building of Uriwa,\n The everlasting temple, the building of \u00ca-ki\u0161-nu-gala.\n The city Uriwa is a house of darkness in the land\u2014\n \u00ca-ki\u0161-nu-gala (and) Nannara.\u201d\n\n \u201cLet heaven rest with earth, heaven enclosed with earth.\n Father Nannar, lord of Uriwa,\n To the great lady, the lady of \u00ca-ki\u0161-nu-gala, give thou rest.\n To heaven with earth, heaven and earth, (give thou rest).\n To the heaven of Ura\u0161, at _\u0161e-gu-nu_,\n The god Enki, the goddess Ninki, the god Endu, the goddess Nindu,\n The god En-da-u-ma, the goddess Nin-da-u-ma,\n The god En-du-azaga, the goddess Nin-du-azaga,\n The god En-u-tila, the god En-me-\u0161arra,\n The princess of the Life of Heaven, the lady of the mountain.\u201d\n\n \u201c... he will restore the site of \u00ca-ki\u0161-nu-gala.\u201d(33)\n\n\nThus does the poet of ancient days, in a composition in the non-Semitic\nidiom of his time, lament the misfortunes which had come over the temple\nand city\u2014how, whether by was by famine, or by some other mischance, we\nknow not. It serves to show, however, not only the poetical spirit which\nanimated the Akkadians at the time, but also the high esteem in which the\ntemple and the deities venerated therein were held, and the power\nattributed to the Moon-god in the centre of his worship. The fact that Ur\n(Mugheir) was an important place for the worship of the Moon-god has been\nnot seldom quoted in support of the identity of this city with Ur of the\nChaldees, because Haran, the city to which Abram migrated with his father\nTerah, was also a centre of the worship of Sin. This, in itself, is not at\nall improbable, the Jewish tradition being, that Terah was an\nidolater.(34) That Terah should go 560 miles simply for this reason, when\nhe might have found a suitable settlement nearer, seems to be in the\nhighest degree unlikely, minor shrines of the Moon-god being, in all\nprobability, far from rare in Babylonia.(35) He simply sojourned there\nbecause, in his journeyings, it suited him to stay there. If he were a\ndevotee of the Moon-god, he was in all probability the more pleased to\ntake up his abode there. But he may not have worshipped that divinity at\nall, or if he did do so, may not have honoured him more than the Sun-god,\nAnu, the god of the heavens, or the goddess I\u0161tar.\n\nMany legends concerning Abram\u2014legends of sufficiently high\nantiquity\u2014exist, but how far they are trustworthy must always be a matter\nof opinion. In any case, the writers had the advantage\u2014if advantage it\nwas\u2014of living 2000 years nearer to Abraham\u2019s time than we have. Thus\nEupolemus (as has already been pointed out on p. 146) states, that in the\ntenth generation, in the city of Babylonia called Camarina (which by some\nis called Urie, and which signifies a city of the Chaldeans), there lived,\nthe thirteenth in descent, Abraham, a man of a noble race, and superior to\nall others in wisdom. They relate of him that he was the inventor of\nastrology and Chaldean magic, and that on account of his eminent piety he\nwas esteemed by God. It is said, moreover, that under the direction of God\nhe departed and lived in Ph\u0153nicia, and there taught the Ph\u0153nicians the\nmotions of the sun and moon, and all other things, and was on that account\nheld in great reverence by their king.\n\nAll this, naturally, points to Babylonia and the city of Uru or Uriwa as\nthe original dwelling-place of Abram, Camarina being connected with the\nArabic _qamar_, \u201cthe moon,\u201d which, as we have seen, was the deity\nworshipped there. It is noteworthy that the transcription of the\nBabylonian name of the city, Urie, contains traces of the Akkadian\ntermination _-iwa_ (_Uriwa_) which is absent in the Hebrew form Ur. This\nis important, as it shows that at a comparatively late date (Eupolemus\nlived just before the Christian era), the ending in question made itself\nfelt in the transcription of the word, and that the form in Genesis, Ur,\ndoes not quite agree, as traces of that termination (two syllables in the\nAkkadian form) are altogether wanting in it. There can be no doubt,\ntherefore, that the theory that Abram lived and passed his earlier years\nat the Ur which is now represented by the ruins of Mugheir, originated\nwith the Jews during their captivity at Babylon and in the cities of\nBabylonia. Eupolemus, as a student of Jewish history, would naturally get\nhis information from a Jewish source, and the Jews had, in common with\nmost of the nations of the earth, a tendency to attribute to their own\nforefathers, whom they venerated so highly, the glory of being connected\nwith any renowned city or great discovery of earlier ages. Thus it arises\nthat Eupolemus, following his Jewish informant, makes Abraham to be the\ninventor of astrology and Chaldean magic; and to have dwelt at Ur. It must\nhave been the Jewish captives exiled in Babylonia who first identified Ur\nwith the renowned city Uru or Uriwa, quite forgetting that the form of the\nname could not have been Ur in Hebrew, and that there was another Ur, much\nmore suitable as the dwelling-place of a nomad family like that of Terah\nand his sons, namely, the country of Akkad itself, called, in the\nnon-Semitic idiom, Uri or Ura, a tract which included the whole of\nnorthern Babylonia.\n\nIn whatever part of Babylonia, however, the patriarch may have sojourned,\nof one thing there is no doubt, and that is, that if he dwelt there, the\nlife which he saw around him, and in which he must have taken part, was\nthat depicted by the tablets translated in the foregoing chapter. He saw\nthe idolatry of the people, and the ceremonies and infamies which\naccompanied it; he saw the Babylonians as they were in his day, with all\ntheir faults, and all their virtues\u2014their industry, their love of trade,\ntheir readiness to engage in litigation, and all the other interesting\ncharacteristics which distinguished them. He must have been acquainted\nwith their legends of the Creation, the Flood, and all their gods and\nheroes, and the poetry for which the Hebrew race has always been renowned\nmust have had its origin in the land of Nimrod, whence Abraham of old went\nforth free, and his descendants, a millennium and a half later, returned\nas captives.\n\nHow it came about (if it be really true) that Terah was an idolater,\nwhilst his son Abram was a monotheist, will probably never be known. It is\nonly reasonable to suppose, however, that among a people so intelligent as\nthe Babylonians, there were at least some who, thinking over the nature of\nthe world in which they lived and the destiny of mankind, saw that the\ndifferent gods whom the people worshipped could not all be governors of\nthe universe, but, if they existed at all, must be only manifestations of\nthe Deity who held the supreme power. Indeed, it was, to all appearance,\nthis doctrine which really prevailed, as is shown by the text translated\non p. 58. Whether taught generally to the learned class (the scribes) or\nnot, is not known, but it must have been very commonly known to those who\ncould read, otherwise it is hardly likely that such a tablet would have\nbeen drawn up and written out again at a later date (the text we possess\nbeing but a copy of a lost original). As the divinity with whom the others\nare identified is Merodach, it is most likely that this special doctrine\nof the unity of the Deity became general some time after the commencement\nof the Dynasty of Babylon (that to which \u1e2aammurabi or Amraphel belonged),\nwhen the city of Babylon became the capital of the country. Abram\u2019s\nmonotheism would, therefore, naturally fit in with the new doctrine which\napparently became the general belief of the learned class at this\ntime.(36)\n\nConcerning the journey of Abraham, there is naturally nothing to be said,\nthe Bible narrative merely stating that Terah and his family migrated to\nHaran. The only thing worth noting is, that the distance they had to\ntravel was sufficiently great\u2014about 560 miles from Uriwa (Mugheir), and\nabout 420 miles from Babylon, from the neighbourhood of which the family\nmust have started if the Ur mentioned in Genesis be the Uri or Ura of the\ninscriptions, which was equivalent to the land of Akkad. The whole of this\ndistrict was, in all probability, at this time, as later, under Babylonian\nrule, a state of things which must have contributed in some measure to the\nsafe transit of the household to Haran, and also that of Abraham later on\nto Canaan, which, as we know from the inscriptions(37) and from Gen. xiv.,\nacknowledged Babylonian overlordship.\n\nWith regard to Haran, it is very probable that this ancient city was, by\nturns, under the rule either of Babylonia or Assyria until the absorption\nof the former power into the great Persian Empire, when Haran likewise, in\nall probability, shared the same fate. Concerning the early history of the\ncity very little is known, but it is not improbable that it was an ancient\nBabylonian foundation, the name being apparently the Babylonian word\n_\u1e2barranu_, meaning \u201croad.\u201d The name given to this \u201croad-city\u201d is explained\nas originating in the fact, that it lay at the junction of several\ntrade-routes\u2014an explanation which is very probable.\n\nThe city itself was, at the time of its greatest prosperity, a\nconsiderable place, as the remains now existing show. There are the ruins\nof a castle, with square columns 8 feet thick, supporting a roof of 30\nfeet high, together with some comparatively modern ruins. The ancient\nwalls, though in a very dilapidated state, are said to be continuous\nthroughout. No houses remain, but there are several ruins, one of great\ninterest, and considerable extent, which Ainsworth considered to be a\ntemple. A rudely sculptured lion, found outside the walls, is regarded as\ngiving evidence of Assyrian occupation, which, however, is otherwise known\nto have been an historical fact.\n\nIn Abraham\u2019s time the place had, in all probability, not attained its\nfullest development, and must have been a small city. The plain in which\nit is situated is described as very fertile, but not cultivated to its\nfullest extent, on account of half the land remaining fallow because not\nmanured. This, at least, was the state of the tract 72 years ago, but it\nis very probable that, in the \u201cchangeless East,\u201d the same description\napplies at the present day. That it was of old, as now, a fertile spot,\nmay be gathered from the fact that the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser I.\nspeaks of having taken or killed elephants in that district\u2014\n\n\n _E\u0161rit pir\u00ea bu\u1e2bali dann\u016bti_ Ten powerful bull-elephants\n _ina m\u00e2t \u1e2aarr\u0101ni u \u0161idi n\u00e2r_ in the land of Haran and on\n _\u1e2aabur_ the banks of the \u1e2aabour\n _lu-ad\u00fbk; irbit pir\u00ea bal\u1e6d\u016bti_ I killed; four elephants alive\n _lu-u\u1e63abita. Ma\u0161kani-\u0161unu_ I took. Their skins,\n _\u0161inni-\u0161unu itti pir\u00ea_ their teeth, with the living\n _bal\u1e6d\u016bti, ana \u00e2li-ia A\u0161\u0161ur elephants, I brought to my\n ubla._ city Asshur.\n\n\nIf there were elephants in \u201cthe land of Haran\u201d 1100 years before Christ,\nit is very probable that they were to be found in the neighbourhood a\nthousand years earlier, but notwithstanding any disadvantage which may\nhave been felt from the presence of these enormous beasts, it was in all\nprobability a sufficiently safe district for one possessing flocks and\nherds. There is no reason to suppose that the presence of elephants around\nHaran in any way influenced the patriarch to leave the place, for these\nanimals were to be found (according to an inscription supposed to have\nbeen written for the same Assyrian king, Tiglath-pileser I.) in Lebanon,\nand therefore in the country where Abraham settled after quitting Haran.\n\nAs has already been noted, this was the centre of the worship of the\nMoon-god Sin or Nannaru,(38) and Terah and his family, in settling in this\nplace, doubtless saw the same ceremonies in connection with the worship of\nthis deity as they had been accustomed to see in Babylonia, slightly\nmodified; and this would be the case whether Terah\u2019s family came from\nUriwa or not, the Moon-god being worshipped in more cities than one in\nBabylonia. Something of the importance of the shrine of Nannaru at Haran\nmay be gathered from the fact, that the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (to all\nappearance) was crowned there. As the text recording this is very\ninteresting, and reveals something of the beliefs of the Assyrians and the\nnatives of Haran, I quote here the passage referring to the ceremony,\nrestoring the wording where defective. The writer is apparently addressing\nA\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli, \u201cthe great and noble Asnapper\u201d\u2014\n\n\u201cWhen the father of the king my lord went to Egypt, he was crowned (?) in\nthe _qanni_ of Haran, the temple (lit. \u2018Bethel\u2019) of cedar. The god Sin\nremained over the (sacred) standard, two crowns upon his head, (and) the\ngod Nusku stood before him. The father of the king my lord entered, (and)\nhe(39) placed (the crown?) upon his head, (saying) thus: \u2018Thou shalt go\nand capture the lands in the midst.\u2019 (He we)nt, he captured the land of\nEgypt. The rest of the lands not submitting (?) to A\u0161\u0161ur and Sin, the\nking, the lord of kings, shall capture (them\u201d).\n\n[Here follow an invocation of the gods, and wishes for a long life for the\nking, the stability (?) of his throne, etc.]\n\nIn addition to the god Sin, the above extract refers to the deity known as\nNusku, as being venerated there. That this was the case, is confirmed by\nseveral inscriptions of the time of A\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli, who seems to have\nrestored his temple. This fane, which the Assyrian king is said to have\nmade to shine like the day, was called \u00ca-melam-anna, \u201cthe temple of the\nglory of heaven,\u201d and the presence of its name in a list of the temples of\nBabylonia and Assyria testifies to its importance.\n\nThe temple of Sin or Nannaru, as we learn from the inscriptions of\nNabonidus, was called \u00ca-\u1e2bul\u1e2bul, \u201cthe temple of (great) joy.\u201d The fane\nhaving been destroyed by the Medes, Nabonidus received, in a dream,\ncommand to rebuild it, and it is interesting to learn that, when the work\nwas in progress, the records which A\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli had placed there,\naccording to custom, when restoring it, came to light. The letter of which\nan extract is given above was probably written to the Assyrian king upon\nthis occasion.\n\nSo renowned was the place as a centre of heathen worship, that at a\ncomparatively late date\u2014running far into the Christian era, namely, the\nfifth century A.D.\u2014the worship of heathen deities was still in full\nprogress there, though the god Sin had fallen, to all appearance, somewhat\ninto the background, and Bel-shamin, \u201cthe lord of the heavens,\u201d _i.e._ the\nSun-god, generally known as Shamash or Samas, and called later on by the\nGreek name of Helios, had taken his place. They also worshipped a goddess\ncalled Gadlat, generally identified with the Babylonian goddess Gula, and\nAtargatis, the feminine counterpart of Hadad, whose name is often found in\nAramean inscriptions under the form of \u2019Atar-\u2019ata.(40) This goddess is\ncalled Derketo(41) by Ktesias, and appears as Tar-\u2019ata in Syriac and in\nthe Talmud. According to Baethgen, Atargatis, or, better, Attargatis, was\na double divinity, composed of I\u0161tar and \u2019Ata or \u2019Atta (Attes). In\nconsequence of the worship of the sun, the moon, and the planet Venus\n(\u2019Atar = I\u0161tar), a second centre of the worship denominated Sabean (which\noriginated in south-west Arabia, the country of the Sabeans) was founded\nin Haran, where its devotees are said to have had a chapel dedicated to\nAbraham, whose renown had, to all appearance, brought to his memory the\ngreat honour of deification.\n\nIt was after a long sojourn at Haran that Abraham set out for his journey\nwestwards, the patriarch being no less than seventy-five years old when he\nleft that city. The next episode in his life was his journey, in obedience\nto the call which he had received, to Canaan, going first to Shechem,\n\u201cunto the oak (terebinth) of Moreh,\u201d afterwards to the mountain on the\neast of Bethel, and thence, later, towards the south. A famine caused him\nto continue his travels as far as Egypt, where the incident of Sarai being\ntaken from him, in consequence of the deceit practised by him in\ndescribing her as his sister, took place.\n\nThis portion of the patriarch\u2019s history is not one which can be very\neasily dealt with, the incident being told very shortly, and no Egyptian\nnames being given\u2014in fact, it is altogether destitute of \u201clocal colouring\u201d\nnecessarily so, from the brevity of the narrative.\n\nAt Haran, the patriarch and the members of his family probably saw people\nto a great extent of the type to which they had been accustomed in\nBabylonia, but in the land of Canaan they would notice some difference,\nthough they all spoke a Semitic language, like themselves. Indeed, it is\nnot at all improbable that wherever the ancestor of the Hebrews went, he\nfound the Semitic Babylonian language at least understood, for as the\nBabylonian king claimed dominion over all this tract as far as the\nMediterranean, the language of his country was fast becoming what it\ncertainly was a few hundred years later, namely, the _lingua franca_ of\nthe whole tract as far as Egypt, where also, to all appearance, Abraham\nand his wife had no difficulty in making themselves understood.\n\nAccording to Gen. x. 6, Canaan, into whose country Abraham journeyed with\nthe object of settling, was the descendant of Cush, and the inhabitants\nought therefore to have spoken a Hamitic language. Historically, however,\nthis cannot be proved, but it is certain that if the Canaanites spoke a\nHamitic language, they soon changed it for the speech which they seem to\nhave used as far back as history can go, this speech being closely akin to\nHebrew. In fact, there is very little doubt that Abraham and his\ndescendants, forsaking their mother-tongue, the language of Babylonia,\nadopted the dialect of the Canaanitish language, which they afterwards\nspoke, and which is so well known at the present day as Hebrew. To all\nappearance Abraham\u2019s relatives, who remained in Mesopotamia, in \u201cthe city\nof Nahor,\u201d spoke a dialect of Aramaic, a language with which Abraham\nhimself must have been acquainted, and which may have been spoken in\nBabylonia at that early date, as it certainly was, together with Chaldean,\nlater on.\n\nIt is noteworthy, that the country to which Abraham migrated, and which is\ncalled by the Hebrew writers Canaan, is called by the same name in the\nTel-el-Amarna letters, and the fact that the Babylonian king Burra-buria\u0161\nuses the same term shows that it was the usual name in that part of the\nworld. Among the Babylonians, however, it was called _m\u00e2t Amurr\u00ee_, \u201cthe\nland of Amoria,\u201d the common expression, among the Babylonians and the\nAssyrians, for \u201cthe West.\u201d In later times the Assyrians designated this\ndistrict _m\u00e2t \u1e2aatti_, \u201cthe land of Heth,\u201d the home of the Hittites. The\ninference from this naturally is, that at the time when the Babylonians\nbecame acquainted with the country, the Amorites were the most powerful\nnationality there, whilst the Hittites had the dominion, and were in\ngreater force later on, when the Assyrians first traded or warred there.\nThese two linguistic usages show, that the two great races in the country,\nboth of them Hamitic, according to Gen. x. 15, 16, were the Amorites (who\nspread as far as Babylonia, and even had settlements there), and the\nHittites, whose capital was \u1e2aattu (_Pterium_, now _Boghaz-keui_) in Asia\nMinor, and whose rule extended south as far as Carchemish and Hamath.\n\nIn addition to the above indications from the historical inscriptions of\nAssyria, and the contract-tablets of Babylonia belonging to the first\ndynasty of Babylon (a number of which are translated in Chap. V.), we have\nalso the indications furnished by the bilingual geographical lists.\n\nAs these lists are of great importance for the geography of the ancient\nSemitic East, with special reference to Western Asia, it may be of\ninterest, and perhaps also serve a useful purpose, to give, in the form in\nwhich they occur on the tablets, such portions as may bear on the question\nof the knowledge of the Babylonians of the countries which lay around\nthem.\n\nThe most important of these geographical documents is that published in\nthe _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. ii. p. 50. This text\nbegins, as would be expected from the hand of a patriotic scribe, with the\ntowns and cities of his own land, in two columns, Akkadian, and the\nSemitic equivalent. This was followed, in the same way, by the provinces\nof his country, ending with the two principal, Kengi-Ura, translated by\n\u0160umer and Akkad. This is followed by the four Akkadian groups for the land\nof Subartum and Gutium, probably a part of Media.\n\nTo all appearance a new section begins here, the scribe introducing in\nthis place the four Akkadian words or groups for \u201cmountain.\u201d The text then\nproceeds as follows\u2014\n\nKUR MAR-TU \u0161ad A-mur-ri-e Mountain of Amoria\nKI (the Amorite\n land).\nKUR TI-ID-NU-UM \u0161ad A-mur-ri-e Mountain of\nKI Amoria.\nKUR GIR-GIR \u0161ad A-mur-ri-e Mountain of\nKI Amoria.\nKUR SU-RU \u0161ad Su-bar-ti Mountain of\nKI Subarti.\nKUR NUM-MA \u0161ad Elamti Mountain of Elam.\nKI\nKUR Gu-ti-um \u0161ad Gu-ti-i Mountain of Gut\u00fb\nKI or Gutium.\nKURZAG Gu-ti-um \u0161ad pa-at Gu-ti-i Mountain of the\nKI border of Gutium.\nKUR \u0161i-rum \u0161ad Si-ri-i [?] Mountain of \u0160ir\u00fb.\nKI\nKUR [GI\u0160] ERI-NA \u0161ad E-ri-ni Mountain of Cedar.\nKI\nKUR MAR-\u1e2aA-\u0160I KI \u0161ad Pa-ra-\u0161i-i Mountain of\n Para\u0161\u00fb.\nKUR \u0160ir-rum \u0161ad Bi-ta-lal Mountain of\nKI Bitala. (Ka\u0161tala\n is possible.)\nKUR \u00ca-AN-NA \u0161ad Bi-ta-lal Mountain of\nKI Bitala.\nKUR \u1e2aE-A-NA \u0161ad \u1e2aa-ni-e Mountain of \u1e2aan\u00fb.\nKI\nKUR Lu-lu-bi \u0161ad Lu-lu-bi-e Mountain of\nKI Lulub\u00fb.\n\nHere follows a list of adjectives combined with the word for country,\nforming descriptions such as \u201csafe country,\u201d \u201clow-lying country,\u201d etc.\n\nIn the above list of countries, the land of the Amorites holds the first\nplace, and is repeated three times, there having, to all appearance, been\nthree ways of writing its name in Akkadian. Why this was the case\u2014whether\nin the older Akkadian literature the scribes distinguished three different\ndistricts or not, is not known, but is not at all improbable. The first of\nthe three ways of designating the country is the usual one, and apparently\nmeans the land of the Amorites in general, the other two being less used,\nand possibly indicating the more mountainous parts. What the mountains of\nSuru or Subartu were is uncertain, but it may be supposed that, as this\ngroup is used in the late Babylonian inscriptions (as shown by the text\ncontaining the account of the downfall of Assyria) for the domain over\nwhich the kings of Assyria ruled, there is hardly any doubt that it stands\nfor the Mesopotamian tract, extending from the boundaries of the Amorites\nto the frontiers of Babylonia. This would include not only Assyria, but\nalso Aram-naharaim, or Syria, and is in all probability the original of\nthis last word, which has given considerable trouble to students to\nexplain.\n\nIn all probability, Siru, like Gutium and the border of Gutium, was a\ntract in the neighbourhood of Elam, which precedes. A comparison has been\nmade between this Sirum and the Sirrum of the eleventh line of the\nextract, but as the spelling, and also, seemingly, the pronunciation, is\ndifferent, it is in all likelihood a different place. The mountain of\nCedar, however, is probably Lebanon, celebrated of old, and sufficiently\nwooded, in the time of A\u0161\u0161ur-na\u1e63ir-\u00e2pli, to give cover to droves of\nelephants, which the Assyrian king hunted there. _Mar\u1e2ba\u0161i_ (Akk.) or\n_Para\u0161\u00ee_ (Assyr.) seems to have been a country celebrated for its dogs.\nConcerning Bitala or Ka\u0161tala nothing is known, but \u1e2aan\u00ea is supposed to\nhave lain near Birejik on the Orontes.(42) Lulumu, which is apparently the\nsame as Lulub\u016b, was an adjoining state, which the Babylonians claim to\nhave devastated about the twenty-eighth century before Christ, a fact\nwhich contributes to the confirmation of the antiquity of Babylonian\ngeographical lore, and its trustworthiness, for the nation which invades\nanother must be well aware of the position and physical features of\nterritory invaded.\n\nIt is interesting to note, that one of the ordinary bilingual lists\n(W.A.I. II. pl. 48) gives what are apparently three mountainous districts,\nthe first being Amurru, translating the Akkadian GIRGIR, which we are told\nto pronounce Tidnu (see above, pp. 122, 206, and below, p. 312), the\nsecond Ur\u1e6d\u016b (Ararat), which we are told to pronounce in Akkadian Tilla,\nand the third Qut\u00fb, in Akkadian Gi\u0161gala \u0161u anna, \u201cthe district with the\nhigh barriers,\u201d likewise a part of the Aramean mountains.\n\nAfter returning from Egypt, Abraham went and dwelt in the south of Canaan,\nbetween Bethel and Ai, Lot quitting him in consequence of the quarrel\nwhich took place between their respective herdsmen. Concerning the\nCanaanite and the Perizzite, who were then in the land, the Babylonian\ninscriptions of this period, as far as they are known, say nothing, but\nthere is hardly any doubt that these nationalities were known to them,\nthis tract being within the boundaries of the Babylonian dominions. That\nthese names do not yet occur, is not to be wondered at, for the\nBabylonians had been accustomed to call the tract Amurr\u016b, and names which\nhave been long attached to a country do not change at all easily. The next\nresting-place of the patriarch was by the oaks or terebinths of Mamre in\nHebron, where he built an altar to the Lord.\n\nAt this point occurs Gen. ch. xiv., which contains the description of the\nconflict of the four kings against five\u2014evidently one of the struggles of\nthe Amorites and their allies to throw off the yoke of the Babylonians,\nwho were in this case assisted by several confederate states.\n\nMuch has been written concerning this interesting chapter of the Bible.\nThe earlier critics were of opinion that it was impossible that the power\nof the Elamites should have extended so far at such an early epoch. Later\non, when it was shown that the Elamites really had power\u2014and that even\nearlier than the time of Abraham\u2014the objection of the critics was, that\nnone of the names mentioned in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis really\nexisted in the inscriptions. The history of Abraham was a romance, and the\nnames of the Eastern kings with whom he came into contact equally so. It\nwas true that there were Elamite names commencing with the element Kudur,\nthe Chedor of the sacred text, but Chedorlaomer did not occur, Amraphel\nand Tidal were equally wanting, and that Arioch was the same as Eri-Aku or\nRim-Aku could not be proved.\n\nThe first step in solving the riddle was that made by Prof. Eberhard\nSchrader, who suggested that Amraphel was none other than the well-known\nBabylonian king \u1e2aammurabi. This, naturally, was a theory which did not\nsoon find acceptance\u2014at least by all the Assyriologists. There were,\nhowever, two things in its favour\u2014this king ruled sufficiently near to the\ntime of Abraham, and he overcame a ruler named Rim-Sin or Rim-Aku,\nidentified by the late George Smith with the Arioch of the chapter we are\nnow considering. Concerning the latter ruler, Rim-Aku, there is still some\ndoubt, but the difficulties which attended the identification of \u1e2aammurabi\nwith Amraphel have now practically disappeared. The first step was the\ndiscovery of the form Ammurabi in one of the numerous contracts drawn up\nduring his reign at Sippara, the city of the Sun-god. This form shows that\nthe guttural was not the hard guttural _kh_, but the softer _h_. Yet\nanother step nearer the Biblical form is that given by A\u0161aridu, who, in a\nletter to \u201cthe great and noble Asnapper,\u201d writes as follows\u2014\n\n\n Ana \u0161arri b\u00eali-ia To the king, my\n lord,\n \u00e2rad-ka, (A)\u0161aridu. thy servant A\u0161aridu.\n Nab\u00fb \u00fb Marduk ana Nebo and Merodach to\n \u0161ar m\u00e2t\u0101ti the king of the\n countries,\n b\u00eali-ia likrubu. my lord, be\n favourable.\n Duppi \u0161a \u0161arru The tablet which the\n ippu\u0161u king makes\n ...-\u1e6du \u00fb ul-\u0161alim. is bad(?) and\n incomplete.\n (A)d\u016b duppi. Now a tablet,\n (la)biru \u0161a Ammurapi an old one, of\n sarru. Ammurapi the king\n (e)pu\u0161u-ma al\u1e6daru\u2014 I have made and\n written out\u2014\n (la?) pani Ammurapi it is of the time\n \u0161arru. (?) of Ammurapi the\n king.\n K\u00ee a\u0161puru As I have sent (to\n inform the king),\n ultu B\u00e2b\u00eeli from Babylon\n atta\u0161\u00e2 I will bring (it).\n \u0160arru nipisu The king (will be\n able to do) the work\n [ina] pitti at once.\n\n [Here several lines are broken away.]\n\n ........................... .............................\n \u0161a A-................... which\n A-.......................\n qat ....................... the hand\n of....................\n ulla ...................... then (?)\n ......................\n anaku ..................... I\n .............................\n lik\u00eepanni. may he trust me.\n\n\nAs this is a late reference to \u1e2aammurabi, it is noteworthy not only on\naccount of the form the name (which agrees excellently with the Biblical\nAmraphel) had assumed at the time (the hard breathing or aspirate having\nto all appearance completely disappeared), but also as a testimony to the\nesteem in which he was held a millennium and a half after his death. How\nit is that the Hebrew form has _l_ at the end is not known, but the\npresence of this letter has given rise to numerous theories. One of these\nis, that Amraphel is for _\u1e2aammurabi \u00eelu_, \u201c\u1e2aammurabi the god,\u201d many of the\nold Babylonian kings having been deified after their death. Another (and\nperhaps more likely) explanation is, that this additional letter is due to\nthe faulty reading of a variant writing of the name, with a polyphonous\ncharacter having the value of _pil_ as well as _bi_,\u2014which form may, in\nfact, still be found. However the presence of the final (and apparently\nunauthorized) addition to the name be explained, the identification of\nAmraphel and \u1e2aammurabi is held to be beyond dispute.\n\nThanks to important chronological lists of colophon-dates and to a number\nof trade-documents from Tel-Sifr, Sippara, and elsewhere, which are\ninscribed with the same dates in a fuller form, the outline of the history\nof the reign of \u1e2aammurabi is fairly well known, though it can hardly be\nsaid that we have what would be at the present time regarded as an\nimportant event for each year, notwithstanding that they may have been to\nthe ancient Babylonians of all-absorbing interest. The following is a list\nof the principal dates of his reign, as far as they can at present be made\nout\u2014\n\n\n 1 Year of \u1e2aammurabi the king.\n 2 Year he performed justice in the land.\n 3 Year he constructed the throne of the exalted shrine of Nannar\n of Babylon.\n 4 Year he built the fortification of Malgia.\n 5 Year he constructed the ... of the god.\n 6 Year of the fortification of (the goddess) Laz.\n 7 Year of the fortification of Isinna.\n 8 Year of the ... of Emutb\u0101lum.\n 9 Year of the canal \u1e2aammurabi-\u1e2b\u00eagalla.\n 10 Year of the soldiers and people of Malgia.\n 11 Year of the cities Rabiqa and \u0160alibi.\n 12 Year of the throne of Z\u0113r-pan\u00eetum.\n 13 Year (the city) Umu (?) set up a king in great rejoicing.(43)\n 14 Year of the throne of I\u0161tar of Babylon.\n 15 Year of his 7 images.(44)\n 16 Year of the throne of Nebo.\n 17 Year of the images of I\u0161tar and Addu (Hadad)....\n 18 Year of the exalted shrine for Ellila.\n 19 Year of the fortification Igi-\u1e2bur-sagga.\n 20 Year of the throne of Merri (Rimmon or Hadad).\n 21 Year of the fortification of Ba\u1e63u.\n 22 Year of the image of \u1e2aammurabi king of righteousness.\n 23 Year of the ... of Sippar.\n 24 Year of the ... for Ellila.\n 25 Year of the fortification of Sippar.\n 26 Year a great flood (?)....\n 27 Year the supreme (?)....\n 28 Year of the temple of abundance.(45)\n 29 Year of the image of \u0160ala (spouse of Rimmon or Hadad).\n 30 Year the army of Elam....\n 31 Year of the land Emutb\u0101lu.\n 32 Year the army of....\n 33 Year of the canal _\u1e2aammurabi-nu\u1e2bu\u0161-ni\u0161i_.\n 34 Year of I\u0161tar and Nanaa.\n 35 Year of the fortification of....\n 36 Lost.\n 37 Practically lost.\n 38 Year the great....\n 39 Practically lost.\n 40 Lost.\n 41 Lost.\n 42 Practically lost.\n 43 Year dust (? ruin) overwhelmed Sippar and the city Ul-\u0160ama\u0161.\n\n\nIn the gaps indicated by the words \u201clost,\u201d and \u201cpractically lost,\u201d the\nfollowing entries ought, perhaps, to be inserted, though it is to be noted\nthat some of them may be merely additions to, or other forms of, dates\npreserved by the list\u2014\n\n\n \u201cYear he (_i.e._ the king) built the supreme shrine of B\u00eal.\u201d [?\n the eighteenth year.]\n\n \u201cYear of the ... of the fortification of Sippar.\u201d [? the 25th\n year.]\n\n \u201cYear he made supplication to the goddess Ta\u0161-m\u00eatu.\u201d\n\n \u201cYear of the river (canal) Ti\u0161ida-Ellilla\u201d (p. 182).\n\n \u201cYear the soldiers of E\u0161nunna were smitten by the sword.\u201d\n\n \u201cYear \u1e2aammurabi the king, by command of Anu and B\u00eal, destroyed the\n wall of Mair and Malgia\u201d (p. 187).\n\n \u201cYear \u1e2aammurabi the king renewed the temple \u00ca-me-temena-ursag, and\n raised the head of the temple-tower, the supreme seat of Zagaga,\n high like heaven.\u201d\n\n \u201cYear \u1e2aammurabi the king raised the top of the great wall on the\n bank of the Tigris high like a mountain, and caused its name to be\n called the embankment of the Sun.\u201d\n\n\nBesides these, there are additions in the entries in the chronological\nlist, some of which are of sufficiently great importance\u2014\n\n\n \u201cYear 31: Year \u1e2aammurabi the king, by the command of Anu and B\u00eal,\n established his advantage (and) captured the land Yamutb\u0101lum and\n the king R\u00eem-Sin.\u201d\n\n \u201cYear 34: Year \u1e2aammurabi the king made [images of] I\u0161tar and\n Nanaa.\u201d\n\n\nWhether the following be another form of this date, or a different one\naltogether is uncertain:\n\n\n \u201cYear \u1e2aammurabi the king renewed E-tur-kalama for Anu, I\u0161tar, and\n Nanaa.\u201d\n\n\nYear 38, which, in the chronological list, is called the year of the great\n... is possibly to be completed, in accordance with the indications from\nthe colophon-dates: \u201cYear of \u1e2aammurabi the king (when) a great flood\ndestroyed E\u0161nunna.\u201d\n\nWith regard to the other undecided dates, it is practically certain that\nthe three long ones\u2014those which record the destruction of the wall of Mair\nand Malgia, the restoration of the temple \u00ca-me-temena-ursag and the temple\ntower dedicated to Zagaga, and the construction of the great dam of the\nTigris\u2014come into the gaps after the entry for the thirty-first year. The\nreason for this assumption is, that the thirty-first year of \u1e2aammurabi was\nthe date of his conquest of R\u00eem-Sin, in whose dominions the town\nrepresented by the ruins of Tel-Sifr (the place whence the tablets came\nwhich bear these dates) lay. All the tablets from this place, bearing\ndates of the reign of \u1e2aammurabi, therefore belong to the thirty-first year\nof his reign and later.\n\nIn all probability there is one thing that will be considered as\nnoteworthy, and that is, that as far as our records go, there is no\nreference whatever to any expedition to the West-land, and if that be due\nsimply to the imperfection of the records which have come down to us, all\nthat can be said is, that it is a noteworthy coincidence.(46) It must not\nbe supposed, however, that it in any wise invalidates the trustworthiness\nof the narrative in the 14th chapter of Genesis\u2014there is plenty of room in\nthe mutilated list (of which I have given such a translation as is\npossible) for a date referring to this to have been recorded, though we\nmust keep in mind the possibility, that if the Babylonian king considered\nthat disaster had in any way overtaken his arms, he may not have recorded\nit at all. Then there is the fact, that the expedition was undertaken in\nconjunction with allies\u2014Chedorlaomer, Tidal, and Arioch\u2014for none of whom,\nin all probability, \u1e2aammurabi had any sympathy. The Elamite was a\nconqueror from a land over which the Babylonians of earlier ages had held\nsway, and Arioch had dominion over a neighbouring tract, to which\n\u1e2aammurabi himself laid claim, and over which, as the texts above\ntranslated show, he afterwards ruled. \u1e2aammurabi, moreover, claimed also\nthe West-land\u2014_m\u00e2t Amurr\u012b_, the land of Amurr\u016b\u2014as his hereditary\npossession, and he found himself obliged to aid Chedorlaomer, Tidal, and\nArioch to subjugate it\u2014indeed, it was Chedorlaomer whom the five kings had\nacknowledged for twelve years as their overlord, and against whom, in the\nthirteenth, they rebelled. It is, therefore, likely that \u1e2aammurabi\nregarded himself as having been forced by circumstances to aid\nChedorlaomer to reconquer what really belonged to Babylonia, and the\nprobability that he would cause it to be used as one of the events to date\nby, is on that account still less, even if the news of any success which\nhe might have considered himself entitled to reached his own domain in\ntime to be utilized for such a purpose.\n\nIt has been shown on p. 155 that Ammi-\u1e6ditana, the third in succession from\n\u1e2aammurabi, claimed the sovereignty of the land of Amurr\u016b, and from an\ninscription accompanying a portrait of \u1e2aammurabi discovered by Mr. Rassam,\nwe learn that he, too, claimed sovereignty over it. Sargon of Agad\u00e9 held\nsway over the tract centuries before, so that he probably reckoned that,\nby right of inheritance, it was his. It would therefore be natural that he\nshould omit to mention as an event to be remembered, an expedition to a\ncountry which ought never to have thrown off his dominion.\n\nOf course, one of the principal things confirming the identification of\n\u1e2aammurabi with Amraphel would naturally be the occurrence of one or more\nof the names recorded in Gen. xiv., in conjunction with his, or in such a\nway that a connection could be established. This, naturally, is difficult,\nprincipally on account of our having no continuous history of the period\nto which these rulers belong. Nevertheless, a close examination of the\ninscriptions suggests in what way confirmation of the events narrated with\nreference to Amraphel and his allies might be sought.\n\nReference has already been made to R\u00eem-Sin, king of Yamutb\u0101lu (or\nEmutb\u0101lu), who appears to have been defeated by \u1e2aammurabi in the\nthirty-first regnal year. From this time the dominions of R\u00eem-Sin\nevidently formed part of the Babylonian Empire, and were never again\nseparated from it as long as it existed.\n\nNotwithstanding the early identification of R\u00eem-Sin with Eri-Sin or\nEri-Aku by the late George Smith, considerable doubt has been thrown on\nthe identity of these two names by the fact, that in inscriptions\ncontaining the name of Kudur-mabuk, the father, the name of his son is\nwritten with _Eri_ as the first element\u2014not _R\u00eem_. This, it must be\nadmitted, is a considerable difficulty. Winckler, however, in the\n_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, Band III., 1 H\u00e4lfte, pp. 88-89, publishes\na text given by Lenormant, _Textes In\u00e9dits_, No. 70, in which the name of\nthe son of Kudur-mabuk is written Ri-im-Sin, and if this be correctly\ncopied, it would seem to settle the matter of their identity. It is to be\nnoted that they are both called king of Uriwa, king of Larsa, and king of\n\u0160umer and Akkad. In the inscriptions Eri-Aku or Eri-Sin also calls himself\n_adda Emutbala_, \u201cfather of Yamutb\u0101lu,\u201d and, as the colophon-date of the\n31st year of \u1e2aammurabi shows, R\u00eem-Sin or R\u00eem-Aku was also king of that\nregion.\n\nIn these circumstances, there is hardly any doubt that they were at least\nclosely connected, if not (as has been supposed since the time of the\nAssyriologist George Smith) actually identical. It is therefore worthy of\nmention, that M. F. Thureau-Dangin, the well-known French Assyriologist,\nsuggests that Eri-Aku and R\u00eem-Sin were brothers, sons of Kudur-mabuk, and\nsuccessively kings of Larsa (_Les Inscriptions de \u0160umer et d\u2019Akkad_, p.\n300, n. 3). This would not only account for their having the same\nparentage, but also for their claiming the same titles. It can therefore\nnot be said, that \u1e2aammurabi became the enemy of his old ally\u2014it was\nagainst his brother that he fought.\n\nThe date quoted on p. 214 (year 31) seems to include R\u00eem-Sin in the\ncapture of the land of Yamutb\u0101lum, but this is not confirmed by the new\nChronicle, which states that \u1e2aammurabi, king of Babylon, gathered his\nsoldiers and went against R\u00eem-Sin, king of Larsa. His hand captured Ur and\nLarsa, he carried off their goods to Babylon, and overthrew and carried\naway other things\u2014what they were the mutilation of the record does not\nallow us even to guess. It is noteworthy also that the mention of Ur as\none of the cities of R\u00eem-Sin shuts out that state from the tract which,\nfrom the 14th chapter of Genesis, would otherwise be included in Shinar,\nand seems also to explain why Ur is designated as being \u201cof the Chaldees.\u201d\n\nIf, however, the colophon-date be right, and R\u00eem-Sin was really made\nprisoner, he must either have escaped, or been set at liberty again, for\nSamsu-iluna, son of \u1e2aammurabi, when he became king, had apparently to\nresist another attack on the part of that ruler, who seems to have been\ncaptured, and \u201c(? burnt) alive in his palace.\u201d\n\nWith regard to the names Eri-Aku and R\u00eem-Sin, one Sumero-Akkadian, and the\nother Semitic, the former means, as was thought from the first, \u201cServant\nof the Moon-god,\u201d whilst the sense of the latter, as is made clear by the\nvariant spelling in the new Babylonian chronicle, is \u201cSin\u2019s (the\nMoon-god\u2019s) wild bull.\u201d A similar name is that of R\u00eem-Anu, another king of\nLarsa\u2014\u201cAnu\u2019s (the Heaven-god\u2019s) wild bull.\u201d These are paralleled by such\nnames as B\u00fbr-Sin, \u201cSin\u2019s young steer,\u201d in which the bearer is compared\nwith a strong and willing animal of service. Possibly the substitution of\nthe word for \u201cwild bull\u201d in R\u00eem-Sin and R\u00eem-Anu is symbolical of reckless\ncourage.\n\nVery little is known of the state of which Larsa (in Sumero-Akkadian\nArarma) was the capital. It is interesting to note, however, that this\ncity was a centre of the worship of the Sun-god \u0160ama\u0161, as was also Sippar\n(now Abu-habbah). The temple in both cities bore the same name, \u00ca-bara\n(-para) or \u00ca-babbara (-barbara), \u201cthe house of brilliant light.\u201d With the\nexception of Eri-Aku or Arioch, whose name is Sumero-Akkadian, all the\nrulers have Semitic names\u2014R\u00eem-Anu, N\u00fbr-Ramm\u0101ni or N\u00fbr-Addi, \u201clight of\nRimmon\u201d or \u201cof Hadad,\u201d Sin-idinnam, \u201cSin has given,\u201d and R\u00eem-Sin. If\nEri-Aku was called, in the Semitic tongue, Arad-Sin, \u201cServant of Sin,\u201d as\nis possible, this name must be added too, but in that case his\nidentification with Arioch would be less probable. As he was of Elamite\norigin, his bearing a Sumero-Akkadian or a Semitic name was probably due\nto motives of policy, and one which, when written, could be read either\nway would give pleasure to both sections of the people, Sumero-Akkadian\nand Semitic.\n\nThe following inscriptions record architectural works of Kudur-mabuk, and\nhis sons Eri-Aku and R\u00eem-Sin:\u2014\n\n\n Tablet Of Kudur-Mabuk Mentioning Eri-Aku.\n\n (Dingir) Nannara To Nannara\n lugala-ni-r his king,\n Kudur-mabuk Kudur-mabuk,\n adda kura Martu father of Amoria,\n dumu Simti-\u0161il\u1e2bak son of Simti-\u0161il\u1e2bak.\n Ud (dingir) Nannara When Nannara\n arazu-ni his prayer\n mu-igi-ginn\u0101 received,\n ne-zila-ma\u1e2ba ne-zila-ma\u1e2ba\n (dingir) Nannara-kam for Nannara\n nam-tila-ni-\u0161u for his life,\n u nam-ti and the life\n Eri-Aku dumu-ni of Eri-Aku, his son,\n lugal Ararma-\u0161u king of Larsa,\n munanindu. he made.\n\n \u201cTo Nannara, his king, Kudur-mabuk, father of the land of the\n Amorites, son of Simti-\u0161il\u1e2bak. When Nannara received his prayer he\n made for Nannara _ne-zila-ma\u1e2ba_ for his life and the life of his\n son Arioch, king of Larsa.\u201d\n\n Tablet Of Eri-Aku Mentioning Kudur-Mabuk, His Father.\n\n Eri-(dingir) Aku Eri-Aku\n u\u0161 kalagga powerful hero\n siba nig-zi everlasting shepherd\n ua Uri-(D. S.)-wa installed by B\u00eal\n (dingir) Ellilli nourisher of Uriwa\n garra\n lugal Arar-(D. king of Larsa\n S.)-ma\n lugal Kiengi-(D. king of \u0160umer (and)\n S.)-Uragi Akkad\n dumu Kudur-mabuk son of Kudur-mabuk\n Adda Emutbala-men father of Yamutb\u0101lu\n am I.\n Uriwa (D. S.) In Uriwa broad,\n dagal-e-ne\n mu maha dudune possessing an\n exalted name,\n\n Col. II.\n\n u\u0161u-na-bi to the peerless (?)\n ugul-immangaga supplication I have\n made.\n (dingir) Nannara Nannara my king\n lugala-mu\n mu\u0161in\u0161e I have obeyed (?):\n bad gala \u1e2bursag A great wall, high\n illa-dim \u0161u-nu-tutu like a mountain,\n impregnable,\n im-bi dul ea inspiring (?) its\n fear,\n munadu have I made,\n uru-ni \u1e2bimmira its city may it\n protect.\n bada-ba That wall\n (dingir) Nannara \u201cNannara the\n su\u1e2bu\u0161 mada gengen consolidator of the\n foundation of the\n land\u201d is\n mu-bi-im its name.\n\n \u201cArioch, the powerful hero, the everlasting shepherd installed by\n B\u00eal, the nourisher of Uriwa, the king of Larsa, the king of \u0160umer\n and Akkad, the son of Kudur-mabug, the father of Yamutb\u0101lu, am I.\n In broad Uriwa, possessing an exalted name, to the peerless one\n (?) have I made supplication, Nannara, my king, have I obeyed (?).\n The great wall, high like a mountain, impregnable, inspiring (?)\n its fear, have I built\u2014may it protect its city. The name of that\n wall is \u2018Nannara the consolidator of the foundation of the\n land.\u2019 \u201d\n\n [The above inscription is not without its difficulties, some of\n them formidable enough, but the general sense of the whole may be\n regarded as correctly made out.]\n\n Tablet Of Rim-Sin.\n\n (Dingir) Nin-sa\u1e2b To Ninsa\u1e2b\n en galla abba age great lord, beloved\n father\n \u0161aga-gu-sag-gi knowing the\n gala-zu supplication of the\n heart\n sukkala ma\u1e2ba exalted messenger,\n \u0161a-ku\u0161\u0161a dingira (giving) heart-rest,\n galla great god\n dugga-ni \u0161i tul-du he who sends forth\n his hidden word\n lugal-a-ni-ir his king\n (dingir) Rim-Sin.\n Rim-(dingir) Sin\n\n siba gu kalama Nipri shepherd of all the\n (D. S.) people of Nippur\n me gi\u0161kin he who fulfils the\n Gurudug-(D. S.)-ga word of the vine of\n su-dudu Eridu\n ua Uri-(D. S.)-wa nourisher of Uriwa\n \u00ea-ud-da-im-te-ga (and) \u00ca-udda-imtega\n lugal Arar-(D. king of Larsa\n S.)-ma\n\n Col. II.\n\n lugal Kengi-(D. king of \u0160umer and\n S.)-Ura-gi Akkad.\n Ud Ana (dingir) When Anu, B\u00eal,\n Ellila\n (dingir) En-ki (and) Ea,\n dingir-galgalene the great gods,\n Unuga (D. S.) uru du Erech, the ruined\n (?) city,\n \u0161u-mu-\u0161u into my hands\n manin-si-e\u0161a delivered\n (dingir) Ninsa\u1e2b to Ninsa\u1e2b, my king,\n lugala-mu-r\n gu-sagsaggi-da-mu-ta after my making\n supplication;\n \u00ea-da-agga-\u0161ummu \u00ca-dagga-\u0161ummu,\n ki-dura ki-agga-ni his beloved\n resting-place,\n nam-ti-mu-\u0161u for my life\n munadu. I built.\n\n \u201cTo Ninsa\u1e2b, the great lord, the beloved father, he who is aware of\n the supplication of the heart; the exalted messenger, (giving)\n rest to the heart, the great god who sendeth forth his hidden\n word\u2014his king, Rim-Sin, shepherd of all the people of Niffer, who\n fulfilleth the word of the vine of \u00caridu, nourisher of Uriwa (and)\n \u00ca-udda-imtega, king of Larsa, king of \u0160umer and Akkad. When Anu,\n B\u00eal, and Ea, the great gods, delivered Erech, the ruined (?) city,\n into my hands, I built to Ninsa\u1e2b, my king, after making\n supplication, \u00ca-dagga-\u0161ummu, his beloved seat, for (the saving of)\n my life.\u201d\n\n\nThis last text was found in the mound of Mugheir (Uriwa), and is of great\ninterest, as it is dedicated to Ninsa\u1e2b, the great messenger of the gods,\nand not to the god Sin or Nannara, the chief patron-deity of the city. It\nhas also an interesting reference to the vine of \u00caridu (see pp. 71 ff.),\nand apparently to his capture of the city of Erech, delivered into his\nhands by the gods Anu, B\u00eal, and Ea. That he should represent himself as\ntaking possession of the city by the will of Anu, the chief god of the\ncity, whose name he mentions before the other two divinities, sheds a\ncertain light upon the character of the man, whilst his military exploits,\nboth at home and in the west, must have made him, like Chedorlaomer his\nfellow-countryman, and \u1e2aammurabi his rival, one of the heroes of his time.\n\nThere now remain to be treated of Chedorlaomer and Tidal, the remaining\ntwo of the four allies who fought in that memorable conflict by the Dead\nSea to bring into subjection their revolted vassals.\n\nFrom the time of their first discovery it has been felt that the\noccurrence of names containing the element Kudur\u2014Kudur-mabuk,\nKudur-Nan\u1e2bundi, Kudur-Na\u1e2b\u1e2bunte, etc.\u2014was, in itself, excellent testimony\nto the correctness of the narrative in the 14th chapter of Genesis, where\nan Elamite king having _Chedor_ as the first element of his name, attacks\nand conquers, in alliance with certain kings of Babylonia, five petty\nrulers of a district on the shores of the Dead Sea. It was, however,\nnaturally a matter of disappointment that the name of Chedorlaomer himself\ndid not occur, for it was soon recognized that the identification, made by\nSir Henry Rawlinson, of Kudur-mabuk (read Kudur-mapula) with Chedorlaomer\ncould not be sustained. What was wanted, was some such name as\nKudur-Lagamar or Kudur-Lagamal, the second element having been recognized\nin other texts as the name of the Elamite deity Lagamaru. It was to all\nappearance thought to be probable that the name of Tidal would be found.\n\nAccordingly, when two tablets were referred to at the Congress of\nOrientalists held at Geneva in 1894 as containing the names Tud\u1e2bula,\n\u00cari-Eaku (\u00cari-Ekua), and another name read doubtfully as Kudur-la\u1e2b(gu)mal,\nno publicly-expressed objection to their possible identification with\nTidal, Arioch, and Chedorlaomer was made. The names were placed before the\nSemitic section of the Congress of Orientalists referred to, as recent\ndiscoveries, which were certain as far as they went, their identification\nbeing a matter of opinion.\n\nNone of these documents are in a state of completeness, though one of\nthem, a kind of poem, contains no less than 76 lines, more or less well\npreserved. The other two are of the nature, apparently, of historical\nlegends, though they may be true historical documents, and, though\nimperfect, are of great importance. Concerning the names which are\ncontained in these texts there is but little or no doubt, though there may\nbe doubt as to the way in which they ought to be read in consequence of\nthe fanciful way in which they are written.\n\nThe first document is Sp. III. 2, and contains all three names\u2014or, rather,\nthe names Tud\u1e2bula (Tidal), \u00cari-Eaku\u2019s son Durma\u1e2b-\u00eel\u0101ni, and Kudur-la\u1e2bmal.\nThe first portion of this text refers to the gods: \u201c\u0160ama\u0161, illuminator (of\nthe earth),\u201d \u201cthe lord of lords, Merodach, in the faithfulness of his\nheart,\u201d aided (probably) his servant to subdue (?) some region, \u201call of\nit.\u201d Then there is a reference to (soldiers) whom some ruler \u201ccaused to be\nslain,\u201d and as the name of Durma\u1e2b-\u00eel\u0101ni son of \u00cari-(E)aku follows, there\nis every probability that it was he who is referred to in the preceding\nlines. The carrying off of goods (?) is next spoken of, and waters which\nto all appearance came over Babylon and the great temple-tower called\n\u00ca-saggil (more usually written in earlier times \u00ca-sagila). The next line\nhas an interesting reference to \u201cthe son (?)\u201d of some one, who\n\u201cslaughtered him like (?) a lamb with the weapon of his hands.\u201d After\nthis, we are told that \u201cthe elder and the child (were killed) with the\nsword.\u201d To all appearance, another division of the subject begins with the\nnext line, though the text goes on recording things of the same\nnature\u2014\u201cthe child he cut off.\u201d This is immediately followed by the words\n\u201cTud\u1e2bula the son of Gazza- ..,\u201d or \u201cTidal son of Gazz\u0101(ni?),\u201d who, like\nDurma\u1e2b-\u00eel\u0101ni (if we may form any opinion from the fact that the wording of\nthe line following the mention of Tidal is the same as that following the\nname of the son of \u00cari-Eaku), carried off goods (?), and waters (he caused\nto flow?) over Babylon and \u00ca-saggil, the great temple of the city. The\nparallel between these two passages is still further emphasized by the\nwords in the line immediately following, which says that \u201chis son fell\nupon him with the weapon of his hand.\u201d The next line is the last of the\nobverse, and speaks of (\u201cthe proclamation,\u201d perhaps) of \u201chis dominion\nbefore the temple of Annunit,\u201d where we have the interesting archaism,\n_An-nu-nit_ for D.P. (_i.e._ the determinative prefix indicating that the\nname of a deity follows) _A-nu-nit_.\n\nThe reverse begins with a reference to Elam, and some one (perhaps the\nking of that country) who \u201cspoiled from the city A\u1e2b\u1e2b\u00ea (?) to the land of\nRabb\u0101tum.\u201d Something was made, apparently by the same personage, into\nheaps of ruins, and the fortress of the land of Akkad, and \u201cthe whole of\nBorsippa(?)\u201d are referred to. At this point comes the line mentioning\nKudur-la\u1e2bmal, supposed to be Chedorlaomer. It reads as follows\u2014\n\n\u201cKudur-la\u1e2bmal, his son, pierced his heart with the steel sword of his\ngirdle.\u201d\n\nAfter this there is a passage where the various kings mentioned seem to be\nreferred to, and it is stated that Merodach, the king of the gods, was\nangry against them, and they were, to all appearance, made to suffer for\nwhat they had done. The scribe who had composed this record now speaks, in\nfavourable words, of the king then reigning, and seems to refer to the\nrestoration of the inscription to its place by the person (prince) who, in\nlater days, should find it (as was the custom among the Babylonians and\nAssyrians). He ends with a pious wish that a sinful man might not exist,\nor something to that effect.\n\nThe second tablet, though in a more satisfactory state of preservation, is\nstill sufficiently incomplete, none of the lines being altogether perfect.\n\nAfter referring to Babylon, and to the property of that city, \u201csmall and\ngreat,\u201d it is said that the gods (apparently)\n\n\n \u201cin their faithful counsel to Kudur-la\u1e2bgumal, king of the land of\n Elam ... said \u2018Descend.\u2019 The thing which unto them was good (he\n performed, and) he exercised sovereignty in Babylon, the city of\n Kar-Dunia\u0161.\u201d\n\n\nIt would therefore appear that this Elamite ruler, by the will of the gods\n(such was the way with conquerors in those days\u2014they annexed other\ncountries to their dominions by the will of the gods of the lands\nannexed), took possession of Babylon, capital (such seems to be the\nmeaning of the phrase) of Kar-Dunia\u0161. This is followed by a long passage\nin which animals and birds, apparently the favourites of the Elamite king,\nare referred to, and the idea which one gains by reading it is, that he\nattended to these rather than to the welfare of his realm. This being the\ncase, it is natural that something about the remissness of the king should\nfollow, and this seems to be, in fact, intended in the next line, where\nsome one whose name is lost seems to ask: \u201cWhat king of Elam is there who\nhas (erected?) the chapel (?) (it was something made of wood, as the\ndeterminative prefix shows) of E-saggil?\u201d It was the Babylonians, the text\nseems to say, who had done things of this kind. The speaker then seems to\nbegin to talk of \u201ctheir work,\u201d when another gap destroys the remainder of\nthe phrase. He then speaks about \u201c(a let)ter (?) which thou hast written\nthus: \u2018I am a king, the son of a king,\u2019 \u201d but whether it is the same\npersonage who says that he is \u201cthe son of the daughter of a king, who has\nsat on the throne of dominion,\u201d is doubtful\u2014it may be a similarly boasting\nreply to the statement put into the mouth of the first speaker. The line\nwhich follows has the name of Durma\u1e2b-\u00eel\u0101ni, son of \u00cari-Ekua (\u00cari-Eaku of\nthe other historical text), who seems to have carried away spoil, but\nwhether it is he who is referred to in the next line as having sat on the\nthrone of dominion is doubtful. This is followed by the expression of the\nwish that the king might come who from eternal days ... was proclaimed\nlord of Babylon. The closing lines of the obverse, which is here\ndescribed, do not give any clear sense, but there is a reference to the\nmonths Kislev and Tammuz, probably in connection with festivals, also\n(apparently) to certain priests, and to the taking of spoil. The remains\nof the reverse are too scanty to gather what the text inscribed upon it\nreally refers to.\n\nIt is naturally difficult to judge which of these two inscriptions came\nfirst. Both of them seem to have a kind of peroration at the end\ncontaining similar phrases referring to the city of Babylon and its\nwell-being, and either might therefore be the last tablet of a series. To\nall appearance, the order of the two records turns upon the question\nwhether Durma\u1e2b-\u00eel\u0101ni is the one who is referred to as having written a\ncertain communication, or whether it is about him that some one has\nwritten. As he seems to be referred to in the third person, the\nprobability is that \u201cDurma\u1e2b-\u00eel\u0101ni, son of \u00cari-Eaku, who (carried away?)\nthe spoil of ... ,\u201d is not the person speaking, but the person spoken of.\nIn this case he was not necessarily alive at the time, and the order of\nthe two tablets as here printed may be the correct one.\n\nHow far the record which they contain may be true is with our present\nknowledge impossible to find out. The style of the writing with which they\nare inscribed is certainly very late\u2014later, in all probability, than the\nPersian period, and the possibility that it is a compilation of that\nperiod has been already suggested. That it is altogether a fiction,\nhowever, is in the highest degree improbable. If we have in the three\nnames which these two tablets contain the Babylonian prototypes of Tidal,\nArioch, and Chedorlaomer, they must refer to the events which passed\nbetween the first and thirty-first years of the reign of Amraphel or\n\u1e2aammurabi, in which it would seem that both Durma\u1e2b-\u00eel\u0101ni and Tud\u1e2bula\nattacked and spoiled Babylon, cutting the canals so that the town and the\ntemple were both flooded. Both of these royal personages, who, be it\nnoted, are not called kings, were apparently killed by their sons, and\nKudur-la\u1e2bmal seems to have been a criminal of the same kind, if we may\njudge from the words \u201cKudur-la\u1e2bmal, his son, pier(ced?) his heart with the\nsteel sword of his girdle.\u201d That three royal personages, contemporaries,\nshould all dispose of their fathers in the same way seems, however, in the\nhighest degree improbable. It also seems to be in an equal degree\nimpossible that (as has been suggested) the tablets in question should\nrefer to Tidal, Arioch, and Chedorlaomer, but not the _same_ Tidal,\nArioch, and Chedorlaomer as is spoken of in Genesis, unless it be meant\nthereby that the Biblical personages of that name are the historical ones,\nwhilst those of the two tablets belong to the realm of fiction. The\ngreater probability is, that they are the same personages, but that the\naccounts handed down to us on these two tablets are largely legendary.\n\nAnd that this is the case is made more probable by the third document,\ncouched in poetical form, which I have entitled _The Legend of\nChedorlaomer_. The following are extracts from this remarkable piece\u2014\n\n\n \u201c... and they pressed on to the supreme gate.\n He threw down, removed, and cast down the door of I\u0161tar in the\n holy places,\n He descended also, like Ura the unsparing, to D\u00fb-ma\u1e2ba;\n He stayed also in D\u00fb-ma\u1e2ba, looking at the temple;\n He opened his mouth, and spake with the children (of the place).\n To all his warriors (then) he hastened the message:\u2014\n \u2018Carry off the spoil of the temple, take also its goods,\n Destroy its barrier, cause its enclosures to be cut through.\u2019\n To the channel ... they pressed on....\u201d\n\n\n(Here comes a mutilated passage apparently referring to the destruction\nwhich he wrought.)\n\n\n \u201cHe drove away the director\u2019s overseer, he took away the vail.\n The enemy pressed on evilly to Ennun-dagalla.\n The god was clothed with light before him,\n He flashed like lightning, and shook the (holy) places.\n The enemy feared, he hid himself.\n There descended (?) also its chief man, and he spake to him a\n command.\n ... the god was clothed with light,\n (He flashed like lightning), and shook the (holy) places.\n \u2018(Draw near unto?) Ennun-dagalla, remove his crowns!\n (Enter into?) his temple, seize his hand!\u2019\n ..., he did not fear, and he regarded not his life.\n \u2018(He shall not approach?) Ennun-dagalla, he shall not remove his\n crowns.\u2019 \u201d\n\n\n(Here follows another mutilated passage, describing how \u201cthe Elamite, the\nwicked man,\u201d proclaimed something to the lands, and how he dwelt and\nstayed in D\u00fb-ma\u1e2ba.)\n\n(At this point is the end of the obverse, and there is a considerable gap\nbefore there are any further fairly complete passages.)\n\n\n \u201cWhen the guardian spoke peace (to the city)\n The guardian-bulls of \u00ca-\u0161arra, [the temple of the host of the\n gods], departed.\n The enemy, the Elamite, multiplied evils,\n And B\u00eal allowed evil to be planned against Babylon.\u201d\n\n \u201cWhen righteousness was absent (?), then was decided (?) also the\n destruction\n Of \u00ca-\u0161arra, the temple of the host of the gods, the guardian-bulls\n departed.\n The enemy, the Elamite, took its goods\u2014\n B\u00eal, dwelling upon it, had displeasure.\u201d\n\n \u201cWhen the magicians repeated their evil words (?),\n Gullum(47) and the evil wind performed their evil (?).\n Then their gods departed\u2014they departed like a torrent.\n Storm and evil wind went round in the heavens.\n Anu, their creator, had displeasure.\n He made pale their face, he made desolate his place,\n He destroyed the barrier in the shrine of \u00ca-anna,\n (He overthrew?) the temple, and the platform shook.\u201d\n\n \u201c .... he decreed destruction,\n ..... he had disfavour.\n The people (?) of B\u00eal of \u00ca-zida barred (?) the road to \u0160umer.\n Who is Kudurla\u1e2bgu(mal), the doer of the evils?\n He has gathered also the Umman-man(da against?) the people (?) of\n B\u00eal\u2014\n He has laid in ruin . . . by their side.\u201d\n\n \u201cWhen (the enclosure) of \u00ca-zida (was broken down?),\n And Nebo was ruler of the host, there (came) down his (winged\n bulls).\n Down to Tiamtu he se(t his face).\n Ibi-Tutu, whom the Sun-god (?) hastened within Tiamtu,\n Entered Tiamtu, and founded a pseudo-capital.\n The enclosure of \u00ca-zida, the everlasting temple, was caused to be\n broken through.\u201d\n\n \u201c(The enemy), the Elamite, caused his yoke of horses to be\n directed, (and)\n Set his face (to go) down to Borsippa.\n He traversed also the road of darkness, the road to Mesech.\n The tyrant (?) Elamite destroyed the palace (?),\n He subdued the princes of ... with the sword,\n He carried off the spoil of all the temples.\n He took their goods, and carried them away to Elam.\n .... ruler, he destroyed the ruler (?),\n .......... filled also the land.\u201d\n (The remainder is wanting.)\n\n\nApparently this is a poetical reproduction of the tablets of which\ntranslations have already been given. The enemy entered Babylon, according\nto the nine lines of the earlier portion of the inscription which are\npreserved, and spoiled and ravaged the place. The mention of the channel\n(\u00eeku, irrigation-channel) suggests a comparison with the first of the two\nhistorical fragments, where waters over Babylon and \u00ca-sagila are referred\nto, and cause one to ask whether Durma\u1e2b-\u00eel\u0101ni and Tud\u1e2bula were not the\nlieutenants of Kudur-la\u1e2bgumal.\n\nThe description of the conditions under which the entry into Babylon was\neffected, when the god (possibly Ennundagalla) was clothed with light,\nflashed like lightning and shook the holy places, suggests that a severe\nthunderstorm acted on the superstitious hopes of the Babylonians, and the\nequally superstitious fears of their foes, so much so, that the Elamite\ndid not carry out his intention of carrying away the crowns of the statue\nof the god. He seems, however, to have taken and retained possession of\nthe place, and to have continued to extend his operations.\n\nThe reverse apparently states why all these misfortunes came, and what\nfurther happened. It was because they accepted a foreign ruler (he spoke\npeace to the city, and thereby became its master); because there was\ndenial of righteousness or justice (righteousness was absent?); because\nthe magicians repeated evil words. Even in the temple of Anu at Erech (the\nshrine called \u00ca-anna, \u201cthe temple of heaven,\u201d or \u201cof Anu\u201d) the god of\nheaven was displeased, and caused something very like an earthquake. Some,\nhowever, were found who were willing to try to bar the passage of the\nconqueror, who had gathered the Umman-manda (barbarian hordes), possibly\nhis followers and those of Tud\u1e2bula or Tidal, against the people (?) of B\u00eal\n(the Babylonians), and laid everything in ruins.\n\nWhen the enclosure of \u00ca-zida (the great temple-tower of Borsippa,\nidentified with the tower of Babel by modern scholars) was broken down,\nIbi-Tutu, apparently a Babylonian prince, fled to Tiamtu, the region of\nthe Persian Gulf, and there founded a temporary capital. The invader\nthereupon seems to have proceeded to Borsippa, and to have taken the road\nto Mesech\u2014that is to say, to the north\u2014where he continued his ravages.\nThat he intended to go so far as Mesech, however, is very unlikely, his\nobject being to subdue the princes of the immediate neighbourhood of\nBabylon, and after collecting the spoil and goods of all the temples, he\ncarried them away with him to Elam.\n\nCyrus, when he entered Babylon, spoke peace to the city, and promised\npeace to all the land. In later documents even than the time of Cyrus,\n\u201cthe enemy, the Elamite,\u201d is spoken of, and there is every probability\nthat the legend here recounted was popular with the Babylonians as long as\nany national feeling was left, hence these incomplete remains which have\ncome down to us\u2014due, perhaps, to some period when the old hostility was\naroused by some inroad from the mountains on the east, where the Elamites\nheld sway apparently to a comparatively late date.\n\nWhether \u00cari-Eaku (or Eri-Aaku), Tud\u1e2bula, and Kudur-la\u1e2bgumal be Arioch,\nTidal and Chedorlaomer respectively, I leave to the reader to decide for\nhimself. The first of these will probably be regarded as sufficiently near\nto be exceedingly probable. With regard to the two others, it may be noted\nthat Tidal was pronounced, in Hebrew, Tidghal, as the Greek Thargal (for\nThadgal, _d_ and _r_ being so much alike in Hebrew as to be easily\ninterchanged) shows, and Chedorlaomer was Chedorlaghomer, as the Greek\nChodollogomar likewise indicates. Doubt concerning the reading can only be\nentertained with regard to this last name.(48)\n\nWhatever may be thought about the interesting and remarkable inscriptions\nof which an account has just been given, of one thing there can be no\ndoubt, and that is, that the Elamites and Babylonians were quite powerful\nenough, at the time of Abraham, to make an expedition of the magnitude\ndescribed in Genesis xiv. Sargon of Agad\u00e9 held sway over this district,\nand he reigned, according to Nabonidus\u2019s indications, more than 1500 years\nearlier. His son, when he came to the throne, added Elam to his dominions\nas well. That the position should, at a considerably later period, be\nreversed, is easily conceivable, and it was to all appearance the Elamites\nwho held sway in a part of Babylonia, of which country many of the states\nundoubtedly acknowledged Elamite overlordship, though with exceeding\nunwillingness. One point of the undoubted history is noteworthy.\nKudur-mabuk, son of Simti-\u0161il\u1e2bak, who ruled at Larsa, bears, like his\nfather, an Elamite name. His son, \u00cari-Aku, has an Akkadian name\u2014perhaps,\nas already suggested, from motives of policy, and likely enough from the\nsame motive, he may have Semitizised it later on, making it Arad-Sin.\n\u00cari-Ekua (-Eaku) is likewise an Akkadian name, and must be a fanciful\nvariant of that of \u00cari-Aku or Arioch. His son, however, bears the Semitic\nname of Durma\u1e2b-\u00eel\u0101ni, \u201cthe bond with the gods.\u201d This is apparently a case\nof carrying the policy of conciliation a step farther, for by doing this\nhe not only bears a native name, but also claims to be the intermediary\nwith the gods of his country.\n\nAfter the retreat of the conquering army of Elamites and Babylonians with\ntheir booty, with Lot, Abraham\u2019s nephew, as prisoner, and his goods as\npart of the spoil, comes the interesting account of the way in which\nAbraham rescued his relative and recovered his property, with a portion of\nthat belonging to the king of Sodom. On his return with the spoil,\nMelchizedek king of Salem meets him, offering him bread and wine, and\nblessing him as Abraham of El-Elyon, \u201cthe most high god.\u201d Certain supposed\nconfirmatory statements in the correspondence of Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba, ruler of\nJerusalem, which was found among the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, has been the\nsubject of much discussion, and it is apparently regarded as being of much\nimportance, though there are various opinions concerning it. The prince in\nquestion, when writing to his suzerain, the reigning king of Egypt, makes\nthe remarkable statement that it was not his father nor his mother who had\nset him in that place (_i.e._ Uru-salim or Jerusalem) as king, but \u201cthe\nmighty king\u201d\u2014\n\n\u201cBehold, this land of Jerusalem, neither my father nor my mother gave (it)\nto me\u2014the hand (arm(49)) of the mighty king gave it to me.\u201d\u2014(Tablet,\n_Berlin_, 103.)\n\n\u201cBehold, I am not a prefect, I am an employ\u00e9 of the king my lord,\u2014behold,\nI am an officer of the king, and one who brings the tribute of the king.\nNeither my father nor my mother, (but) the arm of the mighty king has set\nme in the house of my father.\u201d\u2014(Tablet _B._ 104.)\n\n\u201cBehold, I, neither my father nor my mother set me in this place. The arm\nof the mighty king caused me to enter into the house of my\nfather.\u201d\u2014(Tablet _B._ 102.)\n\nAs Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba then goes on to emphasize his faithfulness to the king of\nEgypt, apparently on account of his having been made ruler of Jerusalem by\nhim, these passages merely resolve themselves, to all appearance, into a\nstatement of the writer\u2019s indebtedness to his royal master. It may be\ndisappointing, but to all appearance the \u201cmighty king\u201d is the king of\nEgypt, and not the god of Uru-salim.\n\nNevertheless, the description of Melchizedek in Heb. vii. 3, \u201cwithout\nfather, without mother,\u201d makes it a quite legitimate question to ask: may\nnot Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba, in what he said to his suzerain, have made some mental\nreservation when writing what he did? Or is it not possible that, when\nspeaking about his independence of his father and his mother for the\nposition that he occupied, he was unconsciously making use of words\nfamiliar to him, and recorded in some document of the archives of the\ncity? We have yet to learn the history of the preceding period\u2014we know not\nwhether Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba had really a right to the position which he occupied (he\nseems to have been placed as ruler of Jerusalem by the foreign power to\nwhich he refers), and until we get more information, there is no escape\nfrom the necessity of regarding him, from his own letters, as being in a\ndifferent position from that which, in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis,\nMelchizedek occupies.\n\nIn connection with the question as to what divinity was worshipped at\nJerusalem, the tablet known as _B._ 105 is of importance. Line 14 of the\nletter in question reads: \u201cThe city of the land of Jerusalem, its name is\nB\u00eet-Ninip, the city of the king, is lost\u2014(it is) a place of the men of\nKelti.\u201d What was this \u201ccity of the king,\u201d or \u201croyal city\u201d? The general\nopinion at first was, that the place meant was Jerusalem itself, for that\nmust have been from the earliest times \u201ca royal city\u201d _par excellence_.\nWinckler, however, translates \u201c_A_ city of the land of Jerusalem,\u201d which\ncertainly seems a reasonable rendering. Properly speaking, however, the\nidiomatic Semitic Babylonian expression for \u201c_a_ city\u201d would be _i\u0161ten\n\u00e2lu_, \u201c_one_ city.\u201d Though Winckler\u2019s rendering is a perfectly reasonable\none, therefore, the first translation is not excluded, and in any case\nthere remains the clear statement that a city of the territory of\nJerusalem\u2014that is to say a city which owned the sway of her\nkings\u2014possessed, as its patron-deity, the god whom the Babylonians and\nAssyrians called Ninip, and worshipped under many names. Among these may\nbe mentioned Madanunu, explained as \u201cthe proclaimed (?), the renowned, the\nhigh\u201d; En-banda, probably meaning \u201cthe distinguished lord,\u201d a name which\nhe bore as \u201cNinip, he who takes the decision of the gods.\u201d Another of his\nnames was \u1e2aal\u1e2balla, \u201cNinip, protector of the decision, father of B\u00eal\u201d;\nand, more interesting still, he was called Me-ma\u1e2ba (\u201csupreme word\u201d), as\n\u201cNinip, guardian of the supreme commands.\u201d The Assyrians worshipped him\nboth under the name of Ninip and Apil-\u00ca\u0161arra, \u201cson of the house (temple)\nof the host.\u201d It is this deity whose name occurs in the Assyrian royal\nnames Tukulti-Ninip and Tukulti-\u00e2pil-\u00ca-\u0161arra, or Tiglath-pileser.\n\nOn these points, as on many others, we must wait for more light from the\nEast.\n\nIn the matter of Sarai, Abraham\u2019s wife, giving her handmaid Hagar to\nAbraham as a second or inferior wife, because she had no children herself,\nit is not improbable that we have a record of what was a common custom at\nthe time. On p. 174 ff. translations of Babylonian tablets are given,\nwhich seem to have some analogies with what is stated in the Biblical\nnarrative. In these inscriptions, however, the woman of inferior position,\nthough she is expected to be the servant of the other, is raised, to all\nappearance, into a higher position, and described as the sister of the\nfirst wife, apparently by adoption, this supposition being based on the\nstatement that Iltani was daughter of Sin-\u00e2bu-\u0161u, though both Iltani and\nTaram-sagila were taken in marriage from Uttatum, their father. Apparently\nthere was to be no difference in the status of the children of either of\nthem, and it was apparently on account of the hope that Hagar\u2019s son would\nbe as her own, that the patriarch\u2019s wife acted as she did.\n\nWith regard to the contract at Machpelah, that is, as has already been\nnoticed more than once, evidently a legal document, or at least an\nabstract of such a document, and bears some likeness to the ancient\ncontracts of Assyria and Babylonia, though the latter are generally\ncomposed in much shorter form, and with different phraseology. The\ndescriptions of landed property given on pp. 167, 178 ff., and also such\nsales of land as the following give material for comparing the document in\nquestion\u2014\n\n\u201c\u00bc of a gan, a field by the crossing, in the upper district of Tenu,\nbeside (the property of) Qaranu the son of the palace, and beside (the\nproperty of) Ili-midi, its first end the road A\u0161taba(tum ?), its second\nend the property of the enclosure Tenunam, Il-\u0161u-ban\u00ee has bought from\nNannara-man\u0161um and Sin-ban\u00ee, his brother, sons of Sin-\u00e2b\u00fb-\u0161u, for its\ncomplete price. He has paid the money, he has passed the barrier, his\ntransaction is complete\u2014the silver, the price of their field, is complete,\nthey are content. They shall not say \u2018We have not received the money\u2019\u2014they\nhave received it before the witnesses. At no future time shall\nNannara-man\u0161um and Sin-ban\u00ee make claim upon the field. They have invoked\nthe spirit of \u0160ama\u0161, Merodach, and Zabium (the king).\n\n\u201cClaim of his brothers and his sisters [this would be better \u2018their\nbrothers and their sisters\u2019], children of Sin-\u00e2b\u00fb-\u0161u, Nannara-man\u0161um and\nSin-ban\u00ee shall answer for.\n\n\u201cBefore Ili-\u2019adiwa, son of Amurru-ban\u00ee; before Nannara-itti, son of\nSin-na\u1e63ir; before Sin-r\u00eameni, son of I\u0161m\u00ea-Sin; before Nannara-ki-aga (?),\nson of Sin-idinnam; before Munawirum; before Sin-b\u00eal-ili; before\nSin-\u00fbblam; before Nannara-man\u0161um; before Ubar-Ninip, the scribe, before\nSin-\u00earibam.\u201d\n\nIn the following text the nature of the trees on the ground sold is\nspecified\u2014\n\n\u201c12 measures, a date-palm plantation, beside the plantation of R\u00ee\u0161-\u0160ama\u0161,\npriest of the Sun-god, son of the woman S\u00e2la, its first end (the property\nof) Girum, A\u1e2bat\u0101ni, sun-devotee, daughter of Marum, has bought for its\nprice in silver from R\u00ee\u0161-\u0160ama\u0161, son of S\u00e2la. She has paid the money, (and)\nis content\u2014she has passed the barrier. The transaction is ended. At no\nfuture time shall they make claim against each other. (They have invoked)\nthe spirit of \u0160ama\u0161, Merodach, and \u1e2aammurabi (Amraphel).\n\n\u201cBefore Amri-ili-\u0161u, son of Naram-\u00caa; before Yati-\u00eelu, son of Abil-Sin;\nbefore Ibi-\u0160ama\u0161, before \u00catil-\u0161\u00eap-\u0160ama\u0161 (?), sons of Buzia; before\nIzi-zar\u00ea; before \u00carib-Sin, son of S\u00e2rabi; before Manum, son of\nSin-idinnam; before I\u1e6dur-\u00e2\u0161dum, son of Ilu-ma-rabi (?); before Ili-\u00e2b\u00fb-Sin\n(?); before \u00carib-Sin, son of Su-...; before \u0160ama\u0161-bin\u00ee-p\u00ee-ia; before\nDima\u1e2bum; before R\u00ee\u0161-\u0160ama\u0161; before Ikunia, (son of?) ...-ninibu.\u201d\n\nA comparison of these inscriptions, which are types of hundreds of others\nknown to Assyriologists, with the transaction between Abraham and the\nHittite Ephron, shows noteworthy differences. The boundaries are usually\nstated in the Babylonian documents with sufficiently great precision; but,\non the other hand, the nature of the land is generally not stated except\nif it be actually under cultivation, and any trees growing on it are\napparently mentioned only on account of their commercial value\u2014when, for\ninstance, they are fruit-bearing trees, as in the reference to the\ndate-palms in the second document here translated. In Babylonia, as in\nPalestine, contracts and transactions of a legal nature often took place\nin the open space by the gate of the city in or near which the contracting\nparties lived, and where witnesses to the transaction could easily be\nfound among those who passed in and out, or who had business in the\nneighbourhood. In the record contained in the 23rd chapter of Genesis, the\nnames of the witnesses are naturally not given, but it is expressly stated\nthat the contract was made \u201cin the presence of the children of Heth,\nbefore all that went in at the gate of his city.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nSalem.\n\n\nOne of the most interesting points revealed by the Tel-el-Amarna tablets,\nis the fact that the name of Jerusalem occurs, and is not called simply\nSalem (as in Gen. xiv. 18), but Uru-salim, the Aramaic (Syriac)\n_Uri-shalem_, a form which confirms the translation given to it, namely,\n\u201ccity of peace,\u201d though the writing of the word in the Tel-el-Amarna\ntablets suggests the suppression of the particle \u201cof,\u201d making \u201cthe city\nPeace\u201d simply, which would, perhaps, be to a certain extent a counterpart\nto or an explanation of the form Salem, \u201cPeace,\u201d in Genesis.\n\nThere is no doubt that the name is an exceedingly interesting one. Prof.\nSayce has suggested that there was a god named Salem, or \u201cPeace,\u201d and that\nthe city was so called as being the abode of that deity. This, of course,\nis by no means improbable, but in no place where the name occurs\u2014neither\nin the Tel-el-Amarna tablets nor in the historical inscriptions of\nSennacherib\u2014has the element _salim_ (in Sennacherib\u2019s texts _salimmu_) the\ndivine prefix before it. That the divine prefix should be omitted in the\ninscriptions of Sennacherib is easily understood, as the name in question\nwould be a foreign one to the Assyrian scribes of his time. To the writers\nof the letters from Jerusalem, however, it was a native name, and one\nwould certainly expect the name of the city, in such documents, to be\ngiven fully at least once.\n\nNevertheless, that there was a god of peace among the Semites, is proved\nby the name of the Assyrian god \u0160ulmanu or Shalman, a component part of\nthe name Shalmaneser, the Assyrian \u0160ulmanu-a\u0161arid. It is noteworthy that\nthere were no less than four Assyrian kings of this name, and that it\nmeans \u201cthe god Shalman is chief.\u201d _\u0160ulmanu_ or _\u0160almanu nunu_, \u201cShalman\nthe fish,\u201d also occurs, as the name of one of the gods of the city Tedi,\nor, as Prof. Sayce reads it, Dimmen-Silim (better Temmena-silima), but\nthis latter reading would only be the correct one if the characters Tedi\nare to be read as an Akkadian group.\n\nIt is therefore very doubtful whether the element _salim_ in the name of\nJerusalem be the name of a god, notwithstanding the love that the peoples\nof the Semitic East naturally had for the blessings which the word\nimplies. It formed part, as in Arabic at the present day, of many a\ngreeting, and is one of the most noteworthy points of the Semitic\nlanguages. A poetic composition, apparently of the time of the dynasty of\nBabylon\u2014probably contemporaneous with Abraham\u2014seems to read as follows\u2014\n\n\n Mazzazam i\u0161u, It has the\n resting-place,\n Padanam i\u0161u\u2014 It has the roadway,\n Bab \u00eakalli \u0161alim; The gate of the\n palace is sound\u2014\n \u0160ulmu parku \u0161akin. Perfect (?)\n soundness exists;\n Martum \u0161alm\u00e2t The gall is sound,\n Ubanum \u0161alm\u00e2t The peak is sound,\n \u1e2aa\u0161\u00fb (?) u libbu (?) Entrails and heart\n \u0161almu are sound\u2014\n Sin\u0161erit tiranu. 12 (are) the\n coverings (?).\n\n Tertum immer izzim (If) the viscera (?)\n of a healthy sheep\n (?)\n \u0160alm\u00e2t Be sound,\n Mimma la tanakkud. Naught shalt thou\n fear.\n\n\nThe above probably represents the signs which the _extispices_ or\n\u201centrails-inspectors\u201d looked for when working out their forecasts. A\nbetter translation than \u201cpeace\u201d for _salim_ would therefore probably be\n\u201csafe and sound,\u201d \u201cintact,\u201d or something similar (see the 13th edition of\nGesenius\u2019s Lexicon, edited by Prof. F. Buhl, with the collaboration of\nSocin and Zimmern, also Fried. Delitzsch, _Assyrisches Handw\u00f6rterbuch_),\nbut the old and more poetic expression \u201cpeace,\u201d \u201cto be at peace,\u201d may be\nheld to sufficiently express the meaning.\n\nWith regard to the first element of the name Jerusalem, Uru-salim in\nAssyrian, that is to all appearance the Sumero-Akkadian _uru_ (from an\nolder _guru_), \u201ccity,\u201d in the dialect _eri_, from which the Hebrew _\u2019ir_,\n\u201ccity,\u201d has to all appearance come. The vowel-change from _u_ to _e_ or\n_i_ is shown in _tu_, dialectic _te_, \u201cdove\u201d; _uru_, dial. _eri_,\n\u201cservant\u201d; _duga_, dial. _\u1e63iba_, \u201cgood,\u201d etc. As is usual with two\nnationalities dwelling at no great distance from each other, borrowings of\nwords took place between the Semites on the one hand and the\nSumero-Akkadians on the other, which have left traces on the vocabularies\nof both.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII. ISAAC, JACOB, AND JOSEPH.\n\n\n Jacob, Yakub, and Yakub-ilu\u2014Joseph, Yasup, and Yasup-ilu\u2014Other\n similar names\u2014The Egyptian monuments and the Semites.\n\n\nWith the disappearance of Abraham from the scene of his earthly\nwanderings, a prominent figure connecting Babylonia with Palestine\nvanishes from history. His son Isaac and his grandson Jacob retain,\nhowever, their connection with those of the family who resided at Haran,\ntaking their wives from among their relatives there\u2014Isaac because his\nfather wished it, Jacob because the souls of his father and mother were\nvexed on account of the daughters of Heth whom Esau, Jacob\u2019s brother, had\nmarried. In this primitive story of three generations of a primitive\nfamily there is much to interest the student of ancient west Semitic\nmanners and customs\u2014the love of Isaac for Esau, because Isaac loved the\nsavoury venison which the former provided for him; how Jacob, \u201cthe\nsupplanter,\u201d obtained his brother\u2019s birthright and the blessing which he\nought to have had; Laban\u2019s covetousness and duplicity\u2014all these things\nfurnish material for the student of manners and customs and of human\nnature, but very little for the comparative arch\u00e6ologist who wishes to\nfind connections between Abraham\u2019s descendants and the country which gave\ntheir father (or their grandfather) birth. Nevertheless there are points\nwhich deserve illustration.\n\nTo all appearance the manners and customs of the families of the\npatriarchs had not changed since they came out of Babylonia. There is the\nsame pastoral life, the same dislike (and probably mistrust) of strangers\nand foreigners, the same freedom on the part of the men, even the most\nhonoured among them, with regard to the marriage-tie, the same tendency to\nadd to this world\u2019s goods, and to become great and mighty chiefs in the\nland (would that Jacob had done this otherwise), as at first. The\nBabylonian spirit of commerce and the desire for \u201csupplanting\u201d was well\ndeveloped in the father of the twelve tribes, and may be regarded as\nadding, as far as it goes, to the confirmation of the theory (but the\nquestion is more one of fact than of theory) that Abraham was of\nBabylonian race.\n\nExceedingly interesting are all the names borne by the patriarchs, and the\nreasons why they were given to them. Indeed, the punning references to\ncircumstances concerning their birth are similar in their character to\nthose of the patriarchs before the Flood. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy\nthat many of the names found in this part of the sacred narrative are not\nby any means unique. Thus the name of Jacob occurs many times in the\ntablets of the period of the first dynasty of Babylon under the forms of\n_Yakubu_, _Yakubi_, etc., and there are also forms with the word _\u00eelu_\nattached\u2014_Ya\u2019kubi-\u00eelu_, _Yakub-\u00eelu_, etc. In like wise we find what is\napparently the same name as that of Joseph, namely, _Ya\u0161upum_ with its\nlonger form _Ya\u0161up-\u00eelu_, types of many others, such as _Yakudum_,\n_Yakunam_, etc., _Yabnik-\u00eelu_, _Yagab-\u00eelu_ son of _Yakub-\u00eelu_, etc. As far\nas I have at present been able to find out, however, none of the names of\nthis class, except _Yakub-\u00eelu_ and _Ya\u0161up-\u00eelu_, have as yet been\ndiscovered in both forms (_i.e._ with and without the element _\u00eelu_),\nwhich may turn out to be of importance, or may be simply a remarkable\ncoincidence.\n\nThis, naturally, leads to the question: What are the meanings of these\nnames? According to Genesis, Jacob means supplanter, or, rather, \u201che has\nsupplanted,\u201d and the further query then arises: What does the name mean\nwhen _\u00eelu_ is added to it? The meaning in this case ought to be \u201cGod has\nsupplanted,\u201d which clearly will not fit.\n\nThe best explanation probably is, that the name of Jacob was never\nYa\u00b4kub-ilu, but Ya\u00b4kub simply, meaning, \u201che has supplanted,\u201d and\nreferring, naturally, to the person who bore the name. As the name\n\u201cSupplanter\u201d is not one which a man would be proud to bear, in all\nprobability it was seen that it would be taken for the usual abbreviation\nfor Ya\u00b4kub-\u00eelu, with the probable meaning of \u201cGod hath restrained\u201d\n(another signification of the root \u00b4aqab), and thus it may be that there\nis no record of any one having reproached him on account of it, except the\nmembers of his own family, who knew why it was given to him, and\nrecognized in his character as a man something which corresponded with the\nname given to him because of what was said to have happened at his birth.\n\nNotwithstanding the two etymologies of the name of Joseph which are given\n(Gen. xxx. 23, 24), \u201cHe (God) hath taken away,\u201d and \u201cHe (God) hath added,\u201d\nthere is but little doubt that the latter rendering is the correct one,\nagreeing, as it does, better with the root _y\u0101saph_, from which it is\nderived, the other rendering, from the root _\u0101saph_, \u201cto take away,\u201d being\ndue to a kind of pun. (The former rendering is explained as being from the\nElohist narrative, the other from that of the Jehovist, but it seems not\nat all improbable that a woman, even a Canaanitess of those primitive\nages, should have made a joke sometimes\u2014they seem always to have been\ngiven to making strange comparisons with regard to words, and even the\nancient Babylonians were not free from that failing, as at least one of\nthe bilingual tablets shows.) The meaning of the name Joseph is therefore\n\u201cHe (God) hath added,\u201d corresponding with that of the Ya\u0161up-\u00eelu, \u201cGod hath\nadded,\u201d of the tablets of the time of the dynasty of Babylon. The use of\n_\u0161_ for _s_ must be due to the fact that _Ya\u0161up-\u00eelu_ was, for the\nBabylonians, a foreign name, and that, in Assyro-Babylonian, _\u0161in_ was\npronounced like _samech_ and _samech_ like _\u0161in_, as a general rule.\n\nBesides the names of the patriarchs Jacob and Joseph, the name Sar-\u00eeli,\n\u201cprince of God,\u201d suggests a comparison with Israel, which is written\nSir\u00b4il\u00e2a, \u201cIsraelites,\u201d in the time of Shalmaneser II. The meaning\nattributed to this name would seem to be somewhat strained, as it would\nsignify rather \u201cGod hath striven,\u201d than \u201che hath striven with God.\u201d That\nword-play exists also here, and that the name was a changed form of\nSar-\u00eeli, \u201cprince of God,\u201d is possible, and is at least justified as a\nsuggestion by the form recorded by Shalmaneser II. already referred to.\n\nThe name of his brother Esau may possibly exist in the Babylonian Es\u00ea,\nfound on a tablet dated in the reign of Samsu-iluna. Laban does not occur,\nexcept as the name of a god in a list of deities worshipped in the city of\nA\u0161\u0161ur. With regard to Bethuel, one cannot help thinking that it must be\nthe same as the place-name Bethel, the terminal _u_ of the nominative\nbeing retained in the name of Abraham\u2019s nephew. If this be the case, he\nmay have been so named after the \u201cBethel of cedar\u201d (see p. 201), though\nthere is just the possibility that, as Gesenius suggests, Bethuel may be\nfor Methuel, the Babylonian _Mut-\u00eeli_, \u201cman of god.\u201d That the Bethel of\nHaran was a heathen place of worship, however, can hardly be regarded as\nany objection to one of the family to which Abraham and his descendants\nbelonged bearing such a name. If the Hebrew text be correct, therefore, it\nis probably an abbreviation, forming part of a name similar to\n\u00ca-sagila-z\u0113r\u00e2-\u00eapu\u0161, \u201c\u00ca-sagila (the temple of Belus at Babylon) has created\na name,\u201d and others like it. It is also to be noted, that the name given\nby Leah to the son which Zilpah her handmaid bore to Jacob after she\nherself left off bearing was Gad, rendered in the Hebrew itself by\n\u201cFortunate,\u201d and probably the name of a west Semitic deity, Gad, the god\nof good fortune.\n\nBut the heathenism of the portion of the family living at or near Haran is\nclearly proved by the matter of the teraphim, which Rachel stole from her\nfather Laban. It is true that they are generally regarded as figures used\nfor the purpose of magic, but as Laban himself calls them his \u201cgods,\u201d\nthere is every probability that they were worshipped as such. It is to be\nregarded as simply an indication of the difficulty which most dwellers in\nthe midst of polytheism in those days must have found in dissociating\nthemselves from the practices of those with whom they came daily into\ncontact. They may have had all the tendencies possible towards monotheism,\nbut how were they to embrace it in all its perfection in the midst of a\npopulation recounting from time to time the many wonderful things which\ntheir gods and protecting genii did for them, and which the hearer had no\nopportunity of probing to the bottom and estimating at their true value?\nAs these people were, to all appearance, but simple shepherds (though\nsufficiently wealthy), it is hardly to be expected of them that they would\ngo deeply into philosophical considerations concerning the Deity,\nespecially when we remember that the family of Laban was in close contact\nwith the idolatry of Haran.\n\nWith regard to the teraphim which Rachel took with her when Jacob fled\nfrom her father, there is not much that can be said. Figures so called\nwere in common use among the Jews and other nations for purposes of magic,\nand to all appearance they were statues of deities (as indicated in the\npassage now under consideration) which were consulted by some means when\nanything of importance was about to be undertaken. To all appearance they\nwere the household gods, like the Lares and Penates of the Romans, though\nthey were also used when on expeditions, as when Nebuchadnezzar is\nrepresented (Ezekiel xxi. 21-26 in the Heb.) standing at the parting of\nthe ways to use divination, shaking arrows to and fro, consulting the\nteraphim, and looking at a liver to decide what his success in the\noperations which he was about to undertake against Jerusalem would be. In\nZechariah x. 2 also, there is a reference to the teraphim, which, as\noracles, had \u201cspoken vanity,\u201d and the diviners had \u201cseen a lie.\u201d Little\ndoubt exists, therefore, as to what these things were used for. With\nregard to their form, it is supposed that they were similar to the small\nfigures found in the ruins of the ancient palaces of Assyria, generally\nunder the pavement, in all probability images of the gods of Assyria who,\nby their effigies, were supposed to protect the palace and its\ninhabitants. Some of these are four-winged figures similar to those found\non the bas-reliefs, whilst others are representations of a deity, probably\nthe god \u00caa or A\u00ea, the god of the sea, who is represented clothed with a\nfish\u2019s skin, etc. The size of these teraphim must have differed greatly;\nthat which was placed in David\u2019s bed by Michal, his wife, to deceive\nSaul\u2019s messengers, must necessarily have been of considerable\nheight\u2014probably not much under that of a man. Those hidden by Rachel when\nher father came to look for them, however, must have been comparatively\nsmall, and the figures found in the foundations of the Assyrian palaces\nrarely measure more than six inches in height.\n\nIn the light of what this incident of the teraphim reveals, it is not to\nbe wondered at that Jacob, when about to go up to Bethel from Shechem,\nafter the treacherous spoiling of the city by his sons, should have said,\n\u201cPut away the strange gods that are among you,\u201d and it shows also a\nconsiderable amount of tolerance on the part of the patriarch. Did he,\ntoo, believe that the gods which his relatives and dependents worshipped\nwere in any sense divine beings? In any case, it is to be noted that,\nafter they were given to him, he did not destroy them, but hid them, with\nthe trinkets which they possessed\u2014in all probability in many cases heathen\nemblems\u2014under the terebinth-tree which was by Shechem.\n\nTo all appearance they were allowed to keep these strange gods and heathen\nemblems until they set out on the journey to make the commanded sacrifices\nto the God who had revealed Himself to Jacob at Bethel.\n\nIt was after this sacrifice at Bethel that God again revealed Himself as\nEl-shaddai, His name in the text of \u201cthe priestly narrator\u201d (Gen. xvii.\n1), and in many other passages. The word Shaddai here is generally\nconnected with the root _shad\u0101d_, \u201cto act powerfully,\u201d and the translation\n\u201cGod Almighty\u201d is based on this. As the word is a very difficult one,\nhowever, there have been many attempts to find a more satisfactory\netymology. It is to be noted, therefore, that there is in Semitic\nBabylonian a word _\u0161ad\u00fb_, often applied to deities, and expressed, in the\nold language of Akkad, by means of the same ideograph (KURA) as is used\nfor mountain (_\u0161ad\u00fb_ or _\u0161add\u00fb_ in Semitic Babylonian). This word _\u0161ad\u00fb_,\napplied to divinities, Prof. Fried. Delitzsch regards as being distinct\nfrom the word for mountain, notwithstanding that they are both expressed\nby the same word in Akkadian, and renders it by the words \u201clord,\u201d\n\u201ccommander.\u201d\n\nHave we, in this word, an Assyro-Babylonian form of the Hebrew Shaddai? We\ndo not know, but the likeness between the two is worth referring to. The\ngod B\u00eal, for example, is called _\u0161ad\u00fb rab\u00fb_, \u201cthe great mighty one,\u201d and\nSin, with other deities, bears a similar title, found in such names as\nSin-\u0161ad\u00fbnu, \u201cthe Moon-god is our lord.\u201d That the idea of almightiness\nshould be expressed by means of the borrowed Akkadian idiomatic use of the\nword KURA, \u201cmountain,\u201d as that which towers up commandingly, a mighty\nmass, would seem to offer an acceptable explanation of what has long been\nfelt as a difficulty. \u201cBut God knows best.\u201d\n\nAfter a long and noteworthy account of Esau and his descendants, the\ninterest of the narrative shifts, and is transferred to Joseph, the\nyoungest but one of Jacob\u2019s twelve sons, though the narrative is for a\ntime interrupted by the story of Judah.\n\nWith the transfer of the interest of the narrative to Joseph, Egypt, the\ncountry into which he was sold as a slave, becomes the scene of the\naction. Here a vast and interesting store of material meets the student,\nwhich, unfortunately, we can only very imperfectly touch upon, partly from\nconsiderations of space, and partly because the present work is intended\nto be more the story of the Hebrews in connection with Babylonia and\nAssyria. It is necessary, however, to speak of Egypt not only on account\nof the continuity of the narrative, but also as an introduction to the\nchapter in which the Tel-el-Amarna tablets are examined\u2014documents found in\nEgypt, and addressed to an Egyptian king.\n\nThere is no doubt, that in the story of Joseph there exists a considerable\namount of what is known as \u201clocal colour.\u201d This is shown by the freedom\nwhich the women of Egypt evidently enjoyed (as exhibited in the story of\nPotiphar\u2019s wife), the matter of Joseph shaving himself before going to see\nPharaoh, the many undoubtedly Egyptian names, etc. These, of course, are\nundeniable points in favour of the authenticity of the narrative, which,\nperfect as it is, omits one important thing, namely, the name of the\nPharaoh who ruled at the time. That there should be such an omission in\nthe comparatively unimportant references to the visits of Abraham and\nIsaac to Egypt is, perhaps, not so very strange, but that there should be\nno clue to the identity of the Egyptian ruler under whom Joseph entered\nEgypt, nor to the persecutor of the Israelites under whose reign they went\nforth from what had become to them practically a hostile land, is\nnoteworthy, and a matter for great regret. It is, therefore, not to be\nwondered at that scholars have arisen who doubt the whole story, for the\nleast flaw in a narrative in the present day, when unbelief and the desire\nfor scientific proof meet one on every hand, will cause a thinking man to\ndoubt anything and everything.\n\nThe degree of civilization to which Egypt had attained at this period, and\nprobably thousands of years earlier, is so remarkable that it is difficult\nfor us at this distance of time to realize it. Whether the country was in\nreality more civilized than Babylonia is a matter of doubt\u2014possibly we\nregard their civilization as superior on account of the monuments being so\nmuch better preserved, and because, in consequence of the nature of the\nclimate (which is such as to preserve even perishable things), an untold\nwealth of material exists. This was not the case with Babylonia, in which\ncountry the annual rains have caused almost all woodwork to decay, and\nonly objects of stone and clay, and much more rarely metal, remain, even\nthese being in many instances more or less damaged and therefore defective\nas really useful historical documents.\n\nEgyptian antiquities testify to the civilization of the Egyptians, as has\nalready been remarked, from remote ages, and the inscriptions show that\nthe kingdom was well organized, and governed by rulers whose sway was\npopular and in accordance with the wishes of the priesthood. This state of\nthings lasted, according to Prof. Flinders Petrie, until about 2098 B.C.,\nwhen suddenly this exceedingly conservative nation, possessing as great a\ndislike for foreigners as do the Chinese at the present time, found itself\nattacked and invaded by barbarian hordes from Western Asia. From what\ndistrict these people came is not known. According to Josephus, they were\nregarded by some as Arabians, but Josephus himself regarded them as being\nof his own race, _i.e._ Jewish. Quoting from Manetho, he shows that, under\na ruler called Timaios, these people from the east, \u201cmen of an ignoble\nrace,\u201d invaded the land, and easily made themselves master of it without a\nbattle. When the rulers of Egypt fell into their hands, they burned the\ncities, destroyed the temples of the gods, and inflicted every kind of\nindignity upon the inhabitants. At last they raised one of themselves\nnamed Salatis (a name evidently derived from the Semitic root _\u0161\u0101la\u1e6d_, \u201cto\nrule\u201d) to the throne. This king made Memphis his capital, both Upper and\nLower Egypt become tributary to him, and he stationed garrisons in those\nplaces which were most suitable for the purpose. One interesting point is,\nthat he directed his attention especially to the security of the eastern\nfrontier, because he feared the Assyrians, who, he foresaw, would one day\nundertake an invasion of his kingdom. This, to all appearance, refers to\nthe Babylonian dominion, which, as we have seen (see pp. 124 and 155)\nextended to the Mediterranean. As far as our historical knowledge extends,\nhis fears were groundless, as no serious attempt (and certainly no\nsuccessful attempt) to conquer Egypt was made until long after the time of\nSalatis, when Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, succeeded in subjugating the\ncountry, which remained under Assyrian overlordship until the reign of his\nson A\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli.\n\nSalatis ruled 19 years, and was succeeded by a king named Beon or Bn\u014dn,\nwho reigned 44 years. The next ruler of this race bears the\nEgyptian-sounding name of Apakhnas, and ruled for 37 years and 7 months.\nNext came Apophis, the Apepi of modern scholars, who occupied the throne\nno less than 61 years, Ianias, who ruled for 50 years and 1 month, having\nalso a very long reign. After all these ruled Assis, 49 years and 2\nmonths. These six, says Manetho, were the first of their rulers, and\nconstantly strove to exterminate the Egyptians by making war upon them.\nHyksos, or Shepherd kings, and their successors, he goes on to say,\nretained possession of Egypt 511 years.\n\nIn the end the kings of Thebais, and of other provinces of Egypt, arose\nagainst the Shepherds, and a long and mighty war was carried on between\nthem, until the Shepherds were overcome by a king whose name was\nMisphragmouthosis, who, having expelled them from other parts of Egypt,\nshut them up in Avaris, a tract consisting of about 10,000 acres. All this\ntract the Shepherds fortified with great strength, whilst Thummosis, son\nof Misphragmouthosis, tried to force them to surrender by a siege, and\nsurrounded them with an army of 480,000 men. He was beginning to despair\nof being able to reduce them, when they agreed to capitulate, stipulating\nthat they should be permitted to leave Egypt, and go with all their\nfamilies whithersoever they pleased. This was agreed to, and they bent\ntheir way through the desert towards Syria. Fearing the Assyrians\n(Babylonians), however, who then had dominion over Asia, they built a city\nin the country called Judea, of sufficient size to contain them all (they\nnumbered not less than 240,000), and named it Jerusalem.\n\nFrom this it would appear that, taking advantage of the disorganized state\nof Egypt about 2100 years before Christ, these Shepherd kings invaded the\ncountry, and gradually consolidated their power there. In process of time\nthey had the whole of the country in their possession, and such rulers as\nremained were allowed to retain their provinces only as vassals, being\nreally princes only in name. It is also very probable that if, as really\nappears, they were barbarians on entering Egypt, they became civilized by\nintercourse with the nation which they had conquered. This having been\ndone, the monarchy which they established conformed more and more with\nthat of the native Egyptian kings, so that their court and manner of\nadministration were, to all intents and purposes, Egyptian; native\nadministrators being appointed to many important posts in order to obtain\nthe willing obedience of the people.\n\nAs the rule of these Shepherd kings began about 2100 B.C., and finished\nabout 1587 B.C. (Petrie), it is clear that the visits of Abraham, Isaac,\nand Joseph, including Jacob and his family, all fall within this period.\nAs will easily be understood, such a synchronism is not without its value,\nespecially when considering the historical authority of the Pentateuch.\nThat it was during the dominion of the above-named rulers that Joseph\nentered Egypt is or has been the opinion of all the best students of\nEgyptian history\u2014Birch, Brugsch, Maspero, Naville, Wiedemann, and many\nothers\u2014and there can be but little doubt of its correctness. It is\nremarkable that there is no native record of Joseph\u2019s administration, but\nthis is, after all, hardly to be wondered at, especially when we consider\nthe disturbed state of the country at a later date, when many records,\nespecially those of the hated conquerors, must have been destroyed, and in\nany case there is the ever-present chance of some untoward fate overtaking\nthem, by which such documents, if they really existed, may have become\nlost to the world for ever.\n\nThe strange thing about the foreign rulers who held possession of Egypt so\nlong is, as has already been pointed out by Prof. Petrie, that they\nremained throughout to all intents and purposes a distinct nationality.\nIntermarriage between the two races, even when they were on the most\nfriendly terms, must have been comparatively rare, and it is on this\naccount that the native princes succeeded at last in ridding the land of\nthe \u201cimpure,\u201d as the native recorder has it. From this same record we get\nthe information that one of the Shepherd kings was \u2019Apop\u2019i (Apepy), the\nApophis of the Greeks, and that he ruled at Hawar, a town which is\nidentified with Avaris. The only god which this ruler served was Sutekh,\nidentified with R\u00e2 or R\u00ea (in earlier times also, to all appearance,\npronounced Ria), the Egyptian Sun-god. According to the Sallier papyrus,\nfrom which the above details are taken, it would seem that R\u00e2-\u2019Apop\u2019i, as\nhe is there called, sent to Seqnen-R\u00ea, \u201cking of the South,\u201d proposing that\nthe latter should clear away all the hippopotamuses on the canals of the\ncountry, in order that R\u00e2-\u2019Apop\u2019i might sleep. If the king of the South\ndid not succeed in doing this, then he was to embrace the worship of\nSutekh, but if he did succeed, then R\u00e2-\u2019Apop\u2019i promised not to bow down\nbefore any other god of Egypt except Amon-R\u00e2, the king of the gods.\n\nThis, of course, was a distinction without a difference, and is evidently\nput forward by the writer as such, for the worship of Sutekh in all\nprobability meant the renouncing of the worship of all the other gods of\nEgypt, a thing which no Egyptian was likely to consent to. On the other\nhand, the worship of Amon-R\u00e2 by the Hyksos king would have been no great\nhardship, as it would in all probability not have involved any change in\nhis faith, seeing that it was generally recognized that this deity and\nSutekh were identical.\n\nThe end of this story is lost, so that there is no means of finding out\nhow matters were brought to a head, and the flame of revolt kindled which\nended in the expulsion of Egypt\u2019s Semitic invaders. What the historical\nvalue of the fragment may be is uncertain, as it reads more like a romance\nthan a true history. In all probability, however, its greatest importance\nwill be found to lie in its local colour.(50)\n\nJoseph, on arriving in Egypt, therefore, found himself, to all intents and\npurposes, among friends. The man to whom the Ishmaelites sold him was, as\nstated in the sacred narrative, Potiphar, \u201can officer of Pharaoh\u2019s,\ncaptain of the guard, an Egyptian.\u201d The writer of the narrative evidently\nwished to convey the idea that a man in the service of the king of Egypt,\nand bearing an Egyptian name, was not necessarily a native of the country.\nOne in the favour of the Semitic ruler of the country, and enjoying his\nconfidence, would naturally be favourably disposed towards a person of\nSemitic race falling into his hands, and this was actually the case with\nthe Hebrew youth, who \u201cfound grace in his sight,\u201d and became overseer of\nall his house. Indeed, it is possibly on account of this kindly\ndisposition towards him (though also, and perhaps chiefly, on account of\nhis being of the same race as the then ruler of Egypt), that Joseph was\nnot at once put to death by his enraged master on hearing his wife\u2019s lying\naccusation against him, for no man, in those days, would have looked\nleniently upon such a crime as that with which Joseph was charged. In\nconnection with this, it is noteworthy that he is said to have been\nconsigned to \u201cthe prison, the place where the king\u2019s prisoners were\nbound.\u201d Here, being of Semitic race, and helped by his God, he obtained\nthe favour of the keeper of the prison, whose trusted deputy he became.\nLater on, after interpreting to the king\u2019s imprisoned chief butler his\ndream, he asks this official, when he should again be restored to his\nplace, to make mention of him to Pharaoh, stating that he had been stolen\naway out of the land of the Hebrews, and had also done nothing to merit\nbeing detained a prisoner in that place. To all appearance he firmly\nbelieved that his nationality would favour him.\n\nIn accordance with his wish, so it turned out, for after two years mention\nwas made of him by the chief butler to Pharaoh, and he is careful to state\nthat Joseph was \u201can Hebrew.\u201d When called, by the ruler of Egypt, in\naccordance with the custom of the country, Joseph shaved himself, and put\non other clothes, before entering the royal presence. The sympathy of the\nking towards him was manifested immediately after his interpretation of\nhis dreams, and he was at once, with Oriental promptitude, made governor\nof all the land of Egypt, receiving from the king his ring in token of the\nauthority conferred upon him. The hero\u2019s complete Egyptianizing is to all\nappearance terminated by his receiving an Egyptian name, Zaphnath-paaneah,\nand marrying an Egyptian wife, Asenath, daughter of Poti-phera, priest of\nOn.\n\nThere are a great many points for consideration in these few statements.\n\nAs has been remarked, it was doubtless due to the custom of Egyptian\netiquette that Joseph shaved himself, setting aside his Semitic prejudices\nto the fashion, for it is supposed that Semites abhorred such a ceremony.\nSurely, it might be objected, the Semitic ruler of Egypt would have liked\nJoseph none the worse if he had retained his hair, and thus proclaimed his\nnationality, as it were, on this occasion. And such an objection would\npossess a certain amount of force. There is hardly any doubt, however,\nthat Semitic abhorrence to the practice has been greatly exaggerated, for\nit was the custom for high-placed personages in Babylonia, in Joseph\u2019s\ntime, to do this, and it remained the custom in that country until a very\nlate date. This was, in all probability, a sacred duty with certain\nclasses of people, such as priests and those dedicated to a divinity. A\nHebrew at that time would probably have had no objection, therefore, to\nadopting the practice, especially in such a climate as that of Egypt,\nwhere the necessity of keeping as cool as possible would probably be\nrecognized.\n\nThat it should be desired that the new viceroy should try to assimilate\nhimself as much as possible with the natives of the country was probably\nthe reason of Joseph\u2019s assuming an Egyptian name and taking an Egyptian\nwife. A great deal of uncertainty exists, however, as to the true Egyptian\nform and meaning of the name Zaphnath-paaneah (better\nZaphenath-pa\u2019eneakh). Many conjectures have been made as to its true\nEgyptian form and meaning, but that of Steindorff, \u201c(God), the living one,\nhas spoken,\u201d is undoubtedly the best of all.(51) The meaning generally\ngiven to the name of Asenath, his wife, is \u201cBelonging to (the goddess)\nNeith,\u201d but a certain amount of doubt is attached to this rendering. As\nfor the name of Poti-phera, her father, of that there is but little doubt:\nit is the Egyptian Pa-ti-pe-Ra\u2019, \u201cthe gift of Ra,\u201d or \u201cof the Sun,\u201d and\nwas naturally a very appropriate name for the priest of On, or Heliopolis,\nthe centre of the worship of the Sun-god. Potiphar, the name of the\nEgyptian who bought Joseph from the Ishmaelites, is regarded as being a\nshortened form of this same name.\n\nAnother point, and that a very interesting one, is the question of the\nderivation of the word _abrech_, which the criers were ordered to call out\nbefore the newly-chosen viceroy. Professor Sayce compares this expression,\nwith a great amount of probability, with the Babylonian _abriqqu_, from\nthe Akkadian _abrig_, the meaning which he attributes to it being \u201cseer.\u201d\nHe also refers to another word, namely, _abarakku_ (fem. _abarakkatu_). Of\nthese two, the latter etymology, on account of the consonants, is the more\npreferable, though the former one would probably suit better in the matter\nof vowels. But which is the right word?\u2014they cannot both have been the\noriginal of _abrech_. The meaning of _abriqqu_ is \u201cwise one,\u201d and that of\n_abarakku_ \u201cseer,\u201d a high official of the Assyrian (and probably also the\nBabylonian) court. The Tel-el-Amarna tablets show that Assyro-Babylonian\nliterature was known and studied in Egypt, and this would account for the\nword being introduced into Egyptian. It must be confessed, however, that\nseductive though these comparisons may be, the forms hardly fit, otherwise\nnothing would seem to be more appropriate than that a crier should be sent\nto precede Joseph during his triumphal progress through the streets of On\nor Avaris, announcing that this was the new grand vizier, or the great\nseer, who had successfully interpreted the king\u2019s dream. One would like to\nhave, moreover, at least one instance of the occurrence of the word in\nEgyptian literature.\n\nNaturally the Jews of later days were very much exercised in their minds\nthat one of the favourites and primitive heroes of their race should have\nmarried a heathen woman, daughter of the priest of the Sun at On, and\nlegends seem to have been invented to account for this undesirable\ncircumstance and explain it away. It is regarded as being due to this that\nthere exists a Christian legend, preserved in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and\nLatin, purporting to give the history of Asenath. She is represented as\nthe proud and beautiful daughter of Pentephres (Poti-phera), of\nHeliopolis, who lived in magnificent exclusion, and despised all men. Her\nparents wished her to marry Joseph, the great prime minister, but this she\nwould not do. In the course of his visits to collect corn, Asenath sees\nhim, and at once falls in love with him. Joseph, however, will have\nnothing to do with her because she worships idols. Shutting herself up for\nseven days in sackcloth and ashes, she threw her idols out of the window,\nand performed a strict penance. An angel in the form of Joseph then visits\nher, and blesses her, giving her to eat a mystic honeycomb, signed with\nthe sign of the cross. Asenath, thus accepted, arrays herself in beautiful\ngarments, and goes forth to meet Joseph. He had returned to the house in\nher parents\u2019 absence, but notwithstanding this, the betrothal at once\ntakes place, and afterwards their marriage in the Pharaoh\u2019s presence. Her\nsubsequent adventures include an attempt to carry her off on the part of\nPharaoh\u2019s first-born, aided by Dan and Gad, and in this attempt the heir\nto the throne loses his life. The original legend made Asenath a Jewess by\nbirth. (See Smith\u2019s _Dictionary __ of Christian Biography_, and Hastings\u2019s\n_Dictionary of the Bible_, sub voc.)\n\nTo what has already been said about the points tending to show that Joseph\nwas viceroy in Egypt under one or more of the Hyksos or Shepherd kings,\nmay be added the fact that, when his father and brethren came to settle in\nthe land, they were instructed to say that they were shepherds, though it\nis at once added that \u201cshepherds were an abomination to the Egyptians.\u201d\nThe only thing, to all appearance, that can be argued from this is, that\nhowever the native Egyptians might be inclined to look upon the\nnew-comers, the ruler of the land (who is also represented as being\npleased that Joseph\u2019s brethren had come) had no objection to them on that\naccount. In support of the contention that the period of Joseph was the\nHyksos period, it must also be pointed out that this new viceroy\nintroduced at least one measure which might be regarded as somewhat harsh.\nHe appropriated the surplus produce of the seven years of plenty, and when\nthe years of famine came, he compelled the Egyptians to buy back, \u201ceven to\ntheir own impoverishment,\u201d(52) what they had themselves previously parted\nwith for nothing. The reason for this, however, seems to be clear. The\nPharaoh upon the throne was of the same race as himself, and he and all\nSemitic foreigners in the land, including his father and brethren, were\ndependent on the same state of things continuing. What he then did would\nhave the effect of placing the native Egyptians still more in the power of\ntheir ruler, consolidating the dynasty of Semites to which he belonged,\nand going far, therefore, to ensure the permanency of its rule. In acting\nas he did, Joseph was only doing what any other man in his position and of\nhis race would have done.\n\nAs has been frequently pointed out, famines occurred from time to time in\nEgypt, and records of them are in existence. Even before the time of the\nHyksos kings, a failure of the waters of the Nile to rise to their\nordinary height would bring great want and distress. At such times the\ngovernors of the various provinces of the kingdom gloried, as Ebers says,\nin helping their subjects, and saving them from distress. Thus Ameni or\nAmen-em-ha, whose tomb is at Benihasan, praises himself in the following\nwords\u2014\n\n\u201cI cultivated the entire nome of Ma\u1e2b with many workpeople, I troubled no\nchild and oppressed no widow, neither did I keep a fisherman from his\nfishing, or a herdsman from his herd. There was no head of the village\nwhose people I had taken away for compulsory labour, and there was no one\nunhappy in my days or hungry in my time. When, however, a famine arose, I\ntilled all the fields in the nome of Ma\u1e2b, from its southern to its\nnorthern boundary, and gave nourishment and life to its inhabitants. So\nthere was no one in the nome who died of hunger. To the widow I allowed as\nmuch as to the wife of a man, and in all that I did I never preferred the\ngreat man to the small one. When the Nile rose again, and everything\nflourished\u2014fields, trees, and all else\u2014I cut off nothing from the\nfields.\u201d\u2014Ebers in B\u00e6deker\u2019s _Upper Egypt_, 1892, p. 15.\n\nAmen-em-ha departed this life in the 43rd year of Usertesen I., or about\n2714 B.C.\n\nMore interesting still, however, is the famine which occurred in the time\nof Baba, or Beby, as his name is also written. This functionary actually\nlived during the period of the dominion of the later Hyksos kings, and\ntherefore very close to the time of Joseph. According to Brugsch, Baba\nlived and worked under the native king Ra-seqenen or Seqenen-R\u00ea III., at\nthe city now represented by the ruins of El-K\u00e2b. Though the famine of\nwhich he speaks lasted \u201cmany years,\u201d and notwithstanding that the ruler\nwhom he served was a contemporary of \u2019Apop\u2019i, the Apophis of Josephus, in\nwhose reign, according to this Jewish historian, Joseph lived, it is\nthought that there is no reason to regard the calamity here referred to as\nbeing the famine of which so full an account is given in Genesis\u2014such a\nsupposition is \u201centirely gratuitous,\u201d according to the writer in B\u00e6deker\u2019s\n_Upper Egypt_. However this may be, there is no doubt that it is a very\nimportant parallel, and would imply that two disastrous famines took place\nin Egypt in close succession.\n\nThe following is Brugsch\u2019s translation of this text\u2014\n\n\u201cThe chief of the table of princes, Baba, the risen again, speaks thus: \u2018I\nloved my father, I honoured my mother; my brother and my sisters loved me.\nI stepped out of the door of my house with a benevolent heart; I stood\nthere with refreshing hand, and splendid were the preparations of what I\ncollected for the feast-day. Mild was my heart, free from noisy angers.\nThe god bestowed upon me a rich fortune on earth. The city wished me\nhealth and a life full of freshness. I punished the evildoers. The\nchildren who stood opposite me in the town during the days which I have\nfulfilled were, small as well as great, 60; there were prepared for them\nas many beds, chairs (?) as many, tables (?) as many. They all consumed\n120 ephas of durra, the milk of three cows, 52 goats, and nine she-asses,\nof balsam a hin, and of oil two jars.\n\n\u201c \u2018My speech may appear a joke to some opponent. But I call as witness the\ngod Month that my speech is true. I had all this prepared in my house; in\naddition I gave cream in the pantry and beer in the cellar in a more than\nsufficient number of hin measures.\n\n\u201c \u2018I collected the harvest, a friend of the harvest-god. I was watchful at\nthe time of sowing. And now, when a famine arose, lasting many years, I\nissued corn to the city at each famine.\u2019 \u201d(53)\n\nAs, in Hebrew, \u201cseven\u201d is often a round number, equivalent to the English\n\u201cseveral,\u201d the parallel is noteworthy. An additional remark upon the\nsubject of the Pharaoh of Joseph by Ebers (Smith\u2019s _Dict. of the Bible_,\nvol. i. pt. ii. p. 1729) is sufficiently striking. He says that the\nByzantine chronographer who is known under the name of Syncelles (he held\nthe office of Syncellus or suffragan in his monastery), like Josephus and\nothers, calls the Pharaoh of Joseph Apophis. Now Arab tradition, \u201cin which\nlittle or no reliance can be placed,\u201d says that he was an Amalekite of the\nname of Raian ibn el-Walid, and Naville, when excavating for the Egypt\nExploration Fund, at Bubastis, found a block with the name of Apophis, and\nnear it the lower part of a statue of black granite with the name of\nIan-Ra or Ra-ian, in hieroglyphics. In consequence of this, Dr. Rieu and\nMr. Cope Whithouse maintain that this Arab tradition was founded on fact.\n\u201cWe must therefore leave it uncertain,\u201d adds Prof. Ebers, \u201cwhether Joseph\ncame down into Egypt in the reign of Apophis, or in the reign of the\nhitherto unknown Raian.\u201d Perhaps both are right, and Joseph was in Egypt\nduring the reigns of two or more Egyptian kings. Traditions are sometimes\nstrangely correct, in certain points, though grossly untrustworthy in\nothers.\n\nIn Ebers\u2019s article to which reference has already been made, the writer is\nof opinion that Joseph met the king of Egypt on the occasion of the\ninterpretation of the latter\u2019s dream, either at Tanis, the Zoan of the\nEnglish translation (better \u1e62o\u2019an), the Arab. \u1e62\u00e2n, borrowed to all\nappearance from the Coptic Dzhane (Dzhani, Dzhaane, Dzhaani), from the\nEgyptian Dzha\u2019an, or at Bubastis, the Egyptian Pi-Bast, the Pi-Beseth of\nEzekiel xxx. 17, or at Memphis, the Egyptian Men-nofr, the Biblical Moph\nor Noph. Of these three sites the first (Tanis) is considered the most\nprobable. It is situated at the north-east of the Delta, and was founded,\naccording to Numbers xiii. 22, seven years after Hebron. From this\nstatement, one would think that there must be some connection between\nthese two places, or else some historical fact is to be associated with\nit. One thing is certain, and that is, that Tanis was the residence of the\nHyksos kings, who held court there for a considerable period, as did also\nmany who preceded and followed them. The ruins are extensive, and the\nplace is noted for its Hyksos sphinxes, in whose faces \u201cthe coarse Hyksos\ntype\u201d is strongly marked. The officers under the Pharaoh of the Exodus\nspeak, in their letters, of the life there as being sweet, and praise the\nneighbourhood for its fertility and the abundance of the food it produced\n(Ebers).\n\nNevertheless, Bubastis (the modern Tel-Basta) may have been the place\nwhere Joseph saw Pharaoh for the first time, as it was a place of great\nimportance, and had a celebrated temple dedicated to the goddess Bast.\nMemphis, too, may be regarded as having claims, on account of its being\nsituated so near to On, the abode of Joseph\u2019s father-in-law.\n\nOn, where Potiphera (\u201cdedicated to the Sun\u201d) was priest, was the\ncelebrated city of the Sun-god in Egypt, whose foundation went back to an\nexceedingly remote antiquity. Besides R\u00e2, Tum or Tmu (the evening sun),\nR\u00e2-Harmachis (the morning sun), his companion Thoth, Sehu and Tefnut,\nchildren of Tum, and Osiris, who was venerated there as the soul of R\u00e2,\nwere among the deities of the place. To these must be added Horus, son of\nOsiris and Isis, god of the upper world or region of light. His mother\nIsis was worshipped at On under the name of Isis-Hathor, corresponding\nwith Venus Urania. Besides these deities, various animals were held in\nhonour, among them being two lions, perhaps representing Sehu and Tefnut,\nwho were worshipped under the form of these animals; the bull Mnevis,\nsacred to R\u00e2 or R\u00ea; and the Ph\u0153nix, called by the Egyptians _Bennu_, the\nbird of R\u00e2, which was supposed to bring the ashes of its father to On once\nevery 500 years, after the latter had been consumed by fire. Other sacred\nanimals in this city were cats and a white sow. No wonder the Israelites\nof old winced at the thought that their hero Joseph, so perfect in\ncharacter, wedded the daughter of a priest of this idolatrous city.\n\nThe shrine here was immensely wealthy. The staff of priests, officials,\nand subordinates connected with the temple is said to have numbered no\nless than 12,913. As the embodiment of the god R\u00e2 on earth, the king of\nthe land naturally gave this shrine predominance, and increased its wealth\nby his gifts. This, added to the fact that the place had the honour of\ngiving him a title (\u201cLord of On\u201d) of which he, in his turn, was naturally\nproud, added greatly to the renown of the city. Besides the great temples,\nit is said to have been also \u201cfull of obelisks,\u201d which were dedicated to\nthe Sun-god in consequence of their being emblematic of his rays.\n\u201cCleopatra\u2019s Needle\u201d on the Embankment, the obelisk bearing the same name\nat Cairo, the Flaminian obelisk at Rome, and probably many others, all\ncame from this city. According to Herodotus, the priests of Heliopolis or\nOn were renowned above all others in Egypt for learning.\n\nThe Hyksos who held rule in Egypt for so many centuries are regarded as\nhaving been wandering hordes of Bedouin Asiatics, called by the Egyptians\n\u201cthe impure,\u201d though they also spoke of them under their name of Amu,\nregarded as being a word derived from the Semitic \u2019Am, from the root\n_\u2019amam_, meaning \u201cpeople.\u201d How early they entered the country is not\nexactly known, but Petrie\u2019s estimate, 2097 B.C., may be taken as the\nnearest at present possible. In connection with this it may be noted that,\nat the modern fishing-village of S\u00e2n, the present representative of the\nancient Tanis, which was the city of the Hyksos kings described above, the\nfaces and figures of the inhabitants are strange and unlike those of the\nremainder of Egypt. They call themselves Melakiyin, _i.e._ Melekites or\n\u201cRoyalists,\u201d a name applied in the Christian period to a sect of the\northodox Church. They were anciently known as Pi-shemer, corrupted to\nBashmurites, and also as Pi-Amu, corrupted to Biamites. There is,\ntherefore, hardly any doubt that these people, the descendants of the wild\nand turbulent Bashmurites and Biamites who gave so much trouble to the\nkhalifs Merw\u00e2n II. (744-750) and Mamun (813-822), may claim for their\nancestors either such of the followers of the Hyksos kings who, on the\nexpulsion of the latter, decided to remain in the country, or else of\nthose Semites whom the Hyksos found in Egypt when they conquered the\ncountry, and who helped them to consolidate their dominion, partly from\nsympathy and partly from interest.\n\nNotwithstanding Joseph\u2019s long residence in Egypt, it is noteworthy that,\nlike the Hyksos rulers of the land, he did not, to all appearance, become\nin any sense Egyptianized, but retained his Semitic nationality to the\nlast, as is shown by his command to his Hebrew fellow-subjects to carry\nhis remains away with them when they, in the fulness of time, should leave\nthe country. This being the case, Kalisch has asked, very naturally, \u201cWhy\ndid not Joseph, like Jacob, order his body to be conveyed at once to\nCanaan?\u201d In all probability the explanation is, that the Apophis referred\nto by the Greek writers was, as has been suggested, a contemporary of\nSeqnen-R\u00ea III., and therefore quite close to the end of the Hyksos period.\nJoseph must, then, have passed at least part of his life under native\nEgyptian rule, and at this time national feeling must have been more\nviolently anti-Semitic than ever. It may therefore be supposed that it\nwould not have been by any means politic for him to proclaim his\nnationality in this way, for this might have the effect of endangering the\nlives and prospects of his surviving countrymen, who were all related to\nhim, by attracting to them the attention of the hostile populace and\ncourt\u2014a thing which would, and did, happen soon enough.\n\nA still more difficult question to answer would be, \u201cWhy did not the\nHebrews go out of Egypt with the Hyksos?\u201d The answer probably is, that\nJoseph was, to all appearance, still known and honoured by the native\nPharaoh, when he came to the throne, for what he had done for the country.\nIt was seemingly not until after Joseph\u2019s death that a Pharaoh arose who\nknew him not. It may therefore be supposed that, until that time, the\nHebrews lived unmolested in the land which they had so long made their\nhome.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII. THE TEL-EL-AMARNA TABLETS AND THE EXODUS.\n\n\n Egypt and Syria before the Exodus\u2014The testimony of the\n Tel-el-Amarna tablets\u2014The relations between the two countries\n during the reigns of Amenophis III. and IV.\u2014Burra-burias of\n Babylonia, A\u0161ur-ubalit of Assyria\u2014Yabitiri, and others in\n Palestine\u2014The \u1e2aabati and the \u1e2aabiri\u2014The Letters of Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba\n (Ebed-tob, Abd-\u1e2biba)\u2014The Pharaoh and the prince of the\n Amorites\u2014Mahler and the date of the Exodus.\n\n\n\u201cBehold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than\nwe. Come, let us deal with them wisely, lest they multiply, and it come to\npass, that, when there falleth out any war, they also join themselves unto\nour enemies, and fight against us: and get them out of the land.\u201d\n\nSuch are the words which the new king who knew not Joseph, when he came to\nthe throne, spoke to his people with regard to the alien population which\nhad been allowed during a former reign to settle in the land of Goshen, a\nfruitful district on the north-east of Egypt, east of Bubastis (Zak\u0101zik).\nIt is the speech of one who feared that, if nothing were done to prevent\nthem from becoming too powerful, they would be a source of danger to the\nstate, as they might join, with every chance of success, in any attack\nwhich might be made on the kingdom over which he ruled. It was, in all\nprobability, the presence of a similar foreign (Semitic) population in or\nnear this district, about 2100 years B.C., which had contributed\u2014or\nperhaps even made\u2014the success of the Hyksos invaders, through which Egypt\nhad been ruled by an alien dynasty for five hundred years. The repetition\nof such a catastrophe was at all hazards to be prevented. It would seem,\ntherefore, that the persecution of the Hebrews was not undertaken\naltogether wantonly, but with the object of turning aside a possible\nmisfortune.\n\nAs the historical nature of the Exodus has not as yet been absolutely\ndisproved, it is here taken to be a matter of history, and this being the\ncase, it is necessary to try to identify, or, rather, to state what are\nthe most probable opinions, as to the rulers of Egypt at the time of the\nOppression and the Exodus. Ramses II. of the nineteenth dynasty is\ngenerally held to be the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and Meneptah, his son\nand successor, the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Lieblein, however, would regard\nthis latter event as having occurred during the reign either of Amenophis\nIII., or his son, Amenophis IV., of the eighteenth dynasty. This latter\ntheory is based on the Tel-el-Amarna letters, which speak of the \u1e2aabiri,\nroving bodies of men which went about Palestine stirring up the people,\nand even compelling them by force to renounce Egyptian rule (which\nextended in those days over the whole of this district). It will be part\nof the scope of the present work to examine into this question.\n\nAfter the death of Seqnen-R\u00ea in battle (see p. 255), he was buried in the\nusual way at Thebes, implying, as Petrie points out, that the Egyptians\nhad pushed their frontier some way to the north, \u201cso that ceremonials at\nThebes were uninterrupted.\u201d Further advance, he thinks, was made in the\nreign of Kames, \u201cthe valiant prince,\u201d as he calls himself, because Aah-mes\nwas able to besiege the stronghold of the Hyksos down in the Delta at the\nbeginning of his reign, about 1585 B.C. It is to be noted that two names\ncome, to all appearance, between those of Kames and Aah-mes, but these are\nprobably not those of important kings, though a part of the honour of the\nprogress made ought to be accredited to them. To all appearance it was the\nefforts of the Thebans, who had been pushing their way northwards during\nthese last three years, which prepared the way for the successes of\nAah-mes\u2014successes which placed him on the throne of Egypt, thus making him\nthe founder of the eighteenth dynasty.\n\nBefore he became Pharaoh, he succeeded, within four or five years, not\nonly in getting rid of the overlordship of the Hyksos kings, but also in\ndriving them out of the Nile valley, taking possession of Avaris, and\npursuing them into Palestine. Here, in the fifth year, he was able to\ncapture Sharhana or Sharuhen, some miles south of Lachish. He then went on\nto Zahi (Ph\u0153nicia), and later defeated the Mentiu of Setet (the Bedouin of\nthe hill-country), attacking afterwards the Anu Khenti. On his return to\nEgypt, he found that he had to deal with two outbreaks on the part of\nthose of the Hyksos (probably half-breeds) who remained, and these having\nbeen reduced to subjection, there was apparently no further trouble from\nthe Asiatics remaining in the country. So popular was this founder of a\nnew dynasty in Egypt, that both he and his queen had divine honours paid\nto them beyond those rendered to any other Egyptian ruler. His son\nAmen-hotep I. shared largely in these testimonies of popular esteem.\n\nAfter this the power of Egypt increased. The venerable captain of marines,\nAah-mes, relates that \u2019Aa-kheper-ka-R\u00ea (Thothmes I.) went against the\nRutennu (Syrians) for the purpose of taking satisfaction, and marched as\nfar as Naharaina (Upper Mesopotamia), where he found that an enemy had\nplotted conspiracy. On this occasion Thothmes gained many victories and\ntook many captives. Another official mentioning the Syrian campaigns of\nthis ruler is Pen-nekheb, who accompanied him to Naharaina. Thothmes III.\nalso refers to his grandfather\u2019s conquest in Syria, stating that he placed\nanother inscription where the tablet of his father \u2019Aa-kheper-ka-R\u00ea was,\nand adds that \u201chis majesty came to the city of Niy on his return. Then his\nmajesty set up his tablet in Naharaina to enlarge the frontiers of Kemi,\u201d\n_i.e._ Egypt. Niy was in the region of Aleppo, on the Euphrates.\n\nThothmes II. (1516-1503, Petrie) retained those portions of Syria which\nhis father had conquered. An expedition thither is also mentioned by\nPen-nekheb, who says: \u201cI followed the king \u2019A-kheper-en-R\u00ea (Thothmes II.),\nthe blessed one. I brought away from the land of the Shasu (Bedouin,\napparently the same tribes as those to which the Hyksos or _hak shasu_\nbelonged) very many prisoners\u2014I cannot reckon them.... The king\n\u2019A-kheper-en-R\u00ea gave me two gold bracelets, six collars, three bracelets\nof lapis-lazuli, and a silver war-ax.\u201d\n\nThothmes III. (1505-1449), son of Thothmes II., had one of the longest and\nmost glorious reigns in all Egyptian history. He was born at Thebes, and\ncrowned when about nine years old. On the death of Hatshepsut, the queen\nregent, his father\u2019s first wife, who, however, was not his own mother, his\nwarlike expeditions began, and he assembled an army on the frontier of\nZalu, preparatory to an expedition against the chiefs of Southern Syria,\nwho had rebelled. This was his twenty-second year. Next year, on his\ncoronation-day, he found himself, after a long march, at Gaza, on the way\nto Carmel and Megiddo, where he defeated the assembled Syrian chiefs, and\nutterly routed them on the plain of Esdraelon. The allies then took refuge\nin the town, which was besieged, and they were obliged to capitulate.\nEnormous spoils from this place, as well as from the other cities of\nSyria, was the result. This expedition was repeated in the two following\nyears.\n\nIn his twenty-ninth year he made his fifth expedition to the Syrian\nhill-country, Tunep, Arvad, and Ph\u0153nicia, from which latter district much\nspoil was obtained. The two following years found him in the same region.\nIn his thirty-third year he set up a tablet on the boundaries of\nNaharaina. The next year he made a campaign to, and received tribute from\nSyria, Ph\u0153nicia, and Cyprus. In his thirty-fifth year he went to Ph\u0153nicia,\nand received tribute from Naharaina. The year following this he received\ntribute from Cyprus. After this he again went to Ph\u0153nicia, and he is\nsupposed to have received tribute from Cyprus, Syria, and the Hittites in\nthe fortieth and forty-first years of his reign. In his forty-second year\nthere was an expedition to Tunep, Kadesh, etc. Besides the above, he\neither made himself, or dispatched, under his generals, during his long\nreign (fifty-four years) many expeditions into other lands than those\nmentioned above, and also took part in numerous works and public functions\nin his own country.\n\nThe expeditions in Syria made by this king are told very graphically and\nat great length. The march to Megiddo, the council of war, and the\ndispositions for the attack, are given in full, and the king claims to\nhave himself protected his army when going through a narrow defile in\nwhich all might have been lost had the enemy against whom they were\nmarching made an onslaught. Representations of the spoil taken accompany\nthe lists enumerating the amount, and show that the ancient Syrians had\nattained to a skill, in the arts as then known, equal, if not superior, to\nthat of the Egyptians. Among the places mentioned are Arvad, Kadesh, Gaza,\nYemma, etc. Besides Thothmes III.\u2019s own annals, there is an inscription of\none of his officers, Amen-em-heb, who gives his version, which, however,\nis not divided into different years. This text mentions the Negeb, where\nhe took some captives; Carchemish, from which place he obtained spoil, and\nother places. He speaks also of Thothmes III. having hunted elephants in\nthe land of Niy, one hundred and twenty in number, for their tusks. This\nagrees with what has been stated from the Assyrian inscriptions (pp. 200,\n201) concerning the existence of these animals in the Lebanon and around\nHaran.\n\nThothmes III. was succeeded by Amenophis II., a warlike and vigorous\nruler, who followed in his father\u2019s footsteps, and by so doing maintained\nthe power and influence of his country. Petrie (_History_, ii. p. 154)\nargues with great probability that he was not of age when he came to the\nthrone, and that he was apparently not the eldest of his father\u2019s sons.\nHis first expedition, which was a raid in Asia \u201cto establish his renown,\u201d\nwas probably, as Prof. Petrie says, in the first or second year of his\nreign. \u201cHis majesty had success (in Shemesh-atuma of South Galilee), his\nmajesty himself made captives there.... Account of what his majesty\nhimself took in this day: living prisoners Satiu 18, oxen 19.\u201d Later on he\nhad some further success, and took spoil from the Satiu with whom he\nfought.\n\nIn his second year, six months after the above expedition, he seems to\nhave made a promenade in force as far as the frontiers of the Egyptian\ndomains in Asia, in order to assert his power, and as a check to any\ndisaffection which might exist. After this there was a triumphal return to\nEgypt, where he held a festival on the occasion of the laying of the\nfoundation-stone of the temple of Amadeh. Among the captives sent to Egypt\nwere seven chiefs of the territory of Takhsi, near Aleppo, who were hung\nup by the feet on the fore-part of the king\u2019s barque. Of these six were\nafterwards hung up on the wall of Thebes in the same manner, a\ncircumstance which suggests that the Egyptians were upon about the same\nlevel as the Assyrians with regard to their barbarous customs in war,\nnotwithstanding their civilization and polish in other things.\n\nHe claims as his own nearly all the lands which his father had\nconquered\u2014the South land, the Oases, the Lybians, Nubians, Semites, Kefto\n(according to W. Max M\u00fcller, Cilicia), and the Upper Rutennu, or district\nof Megiddo.\n\nAmenophis II. died in 1423 B.C., and was succeeded by his son, Thothmes\nIV. His earlier years seem to have been occupied in asserting his power in\nSyria, and his later years were devoted to Nubia. Naharaina and the Kheta\nor Hittites occur in inscriptions referring to the former period.\nAccording to Manetho, he reigned nine years and eight months. He was\nsucceeded by his son, Amenophis III. (1414-1379, according to Petrie).\n\nAt this time Syria was completely in the hands of the Egyptians. Constant\nintercourse went on between the princes of the two countries, who in Syria\nseem to have been contented with their subordinate position. It is during\nthis reign that the now celebrated Tel-el-Amarna tablets come to our aid,\nand show how this was brought about. Alliance between the two countries by\nmarriage had taken place, and the royal and various princely families were\ntherefore related. Besides this, there was naturally reluctance on the\npart of a prince of Syria to take up a hostile attitude with regard to the\nking who had taken his daughter in marriage, as he would always be in fear\nof endangering his daughter\u2019s safety, and for the same cause he would\nnaturally try to restrain the petty rulers of his own district, including\nthose of his neighbours who were more of the nature of equals. In addition\nto this, the sons of the Syrian chiefs were sent to be educated in Egypt,\nand as the Egyptian ruler at the time had married Syrian princesses, it is\nprobable, as Petrie says, that the sons of Syrian chiefs, educated in\nEgypt, were married to Egyptians at the close of their education. As it\nwas only stipulated that they should be restored to their native country\nto succeed their fathers, they may, it is thought, have lived in Egypt\nuntil middle life. This being so, the rulers of Syria would naturally\nbecome imbued with the thoughts and ways of the Egyptians, and undesirous,\ntherefore, of throwing off the yoke. If, however, things were all really\nas thus depicted, there is one thing which is strange, namely, that the\ncorrespondence which was carried on between the two districts was not in\nEgyptian (which the princes of Syria ought to have known sufficiently well\nto write), but in Assyro-Babylonian, which was a foreign tongue to them\nall, especially the king of Mitanni, whose native language was not even\nSemitic. That the kings of Babylonia should correspond with the king of\nEgypt in Babylonian was to be expected, but if the kings of Syria, or\ntheir sons, were educated in Egypt, it is remarkable that we find so many\nletters in the Babylonian language.\n\nApparently, therefore, everything pointed to a continuance of the state of\nthings which existed at the time of the king\u2019s accession to the throne. It\nwas evidently his desire that nothing should occur to change the cordial\nrelations which existed between himself and the Egyptian dependencies,\nhence the mild suzerainty exercised. There was an Ethiopian campaign in\nhis fifth year, after which, to all appearance, no warlike expeditions\nwere undertaken\u2014in fact, it was considered that there was no need for\nthem.\n\nThe first wife of Amenophis III. was Teie, as the Tel-el-Amarna tablets\ncall her, the Teyi of the Egyptian monuments. She was daughter of Yewea\nand Tewa, and was to all appearance of Asiatic nationality. Prof. Petrie\nthinks that she may have been of Syrian race, and as a matter of fact, her\nportrait shows her with a pleasant face of Semitic type and a pointed\nchin. To all appearance, she was a personage of great importance in the\nland, and when negotiations with the princes of the north were being\ncarried on, she was one of those who were taken into consideration by the\noutlanders.\n\n [Plate VII.]\n\n Colossal statue of Hadad, dedicated by Bar-Rekub, King of Sam\u2019allu, to\n Hadad. El, Rekub-el, Shamash, and the gods of Yad\u00ee, in memory of his\n father, Panamm\u00fb, about 730 B.C. The horned cap which the god wears\nprobably shows Assyro-Babylonian influence. Gerchin N.E. of Zenjirli. From\n_Mittheilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen_, Part XI., by permission\n of the publishing-house of Georg Reimer, Berlin.\n\n\nIn one of the tablets from Tel-el-Amarna, it would appear that, besides\nTeie, Amenophis III. had married a sister of Du\u0161ratta, king of Mitanni,\nnamed Gilu-\u1e2b\u00eapa, for news of whom Du\u0161ratta wrote to the Pharaoh, sending\npresents to him, as well as to his sister. Later on, the Egyptian king\nasks Du\u0161ratta for one of his daughters, sending a messenger named Man\u00ea\nwith a tablet to that effect. As Du\u0161ratta in his letter to the Pharaoh\nNimmuaria (Neb-mut-Ra,(54) Amenophis III.) refers to her as the (future)\nmistress of Egypt, it is clear that she was intended as the consort of his\nson, Amenophis IV. From other letters which passed between them, it would\nseem that the princess in question was named T\u00e2du-\u1e2b\u00eapa, called, in\nEgyptian, Nefer-titi (perhaps a translation of her Mitannian name). It was\nto all appearance the custom in those days, as at the present time, for\nthe kings of the various states to ally themselves by marriage with other\nroyal houses; and at a time when kings, at least, were allowed more wives\nthan one, it was possible for them to take pledges for the preservation of\npeace by making use of the privilege. Quite in accordance with this are\nthe statements contained in other texts concerning intermarriages of this\nkind, both Amenophis III. and IV. having likewise espoused Babylonian\nprincesses, daughters of Kallima-Sin and Burra-buria\u0161, the son of the\nlatter being at the same time betrothed to Amenophis IV.\u2019s daughter. They\nwere also constantly making presents to each other, each trying to get as\nmuch as he possibly could of the things which were not common in his own\nland\u2014gold, much gold, being the commodity that the king of Egypt was\nexpected to supply. The other kings sent him, in return, various stones\n(lapis-lazuli being often mentioned), chariots, horses, and other things,\nboth natural and manufactured products. The women by whose means these\nfriendly relations had been established, made use of the messengers sent\nto their fatherland to transmit messages to their relatives and ask after\ntheir health.\n\nFrom these tablets we obtain certain details as to the state of the Holy\nLand and the surrounding country before the entry of the Israelites.\nBesides the kingdom of Mitanni mentioned above, there were the states of\nAla\u0161ia (supposed to be Cyprus), Ziri-ba\u0161ani (plain of Bashan), Hazor,\nAskelon, Lachish, Gaza, Qatna (west of Damascus), Accho, Simyra, Tyre,\nSidon, the Amorites, the Hittites, Dunip (Tenneb), Jerusalem, etc., etc.\nMany of them were small states with the cities after which they are named\nas capital, and naturally were obliged to enter into a league for their\ncommon protection, or else accept the suzerainty of some more powerful\nstate, falling, if its protector went under, into the power of the common\ninvader. It must have been in consequence of this state of things in the\neast Mediterranean littoral that Egypt was able to extend her power so\nfar, and subdue this large district.\n\nFrom these tablets we learn something of their religion. To all appearance\none of the gods most worshipped in the extreme west of Asia was Rimmon,\nthe Ramm\u0101nu (\u201cthunderer\u201d) of the Assyrians and Babylonians, the Addu or\nHadad of the Semitic nations of this district (the name Addu afterwards\nbecame general as the appellation of the god in Babylonia and Assyria),\nand the Te\u0161upa or Te\u0161ub of Mitanni (Aram-Naharaim) and district to the\nnorth (Armenia). At Tyre they seem to have worshipped a personage or deity\ncalled \u0160almay\u0101tu, whilst the Ph\u0153nician Astarte is commemorated in \u00e2l\nA\u0161tarti, \u201cthe city of A\u0161tartu,\u201d perhaps Ashtaroth, 29 miles east of\nTiberias (Petrie). As the word Ashtoreth is evidently a lengthening of the\nname of the Assyro-Babylonian goddess I\u0161tar, it is not to be wondered at\nthat this goddess should be mentioned by the king of Mitanni, Du\u0161ratta,\nwho refers to a statue of I\u0161tar of Nineveh, which had been sent to Egypt,\nand requests that it may be returned to him soon. The name of Nergal,\nalso, was evidently familiar to the king of Ala\u0161ia, for he speaks of the\nhand of that god as having killed all his people, when wishing to refer to\nthe prevalence of a pestilence there, Nergal being the Assyro-Babylonian\ngod of disease and death. In the same way Du\u0161ratta speaks of \u0160ama\u0161, the\nAssyro-Babylonian Sun-god, but he refers to him more as the luminary which\nmen love than as a god, though there is every probability that he was\nworshipped in Mitanni.(55) Another Assyro-Babylonian deity whose name\noccurs is Ninip, once in the name of Abdi-Ninip, \u201cservant of Ninip,\u201d\napparently a Gebalite, and again in _\u00e2l B\u00eath-Ninip_, \u201c(city of) the temple\nof Ninip,\u201d in a district which Abdi-A\u0161irta called upon to unite against\nGebal\u2014perhaps the Beth-Ninip in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. In the\nname of Abdi-A\u0161irta it is to be noted that we have here, to all\nappearance, the name of the _asherah_ or \u201cgrove\u201d of the Authorised\nVersion, the \u201ctoken\u201d of the goddess I\u0161tar,(56) with the ideogram for which\nthe word once interchanges. The Egyptian god Am\u0101na (Amon) is mentioned\nseveral times, invoked apparently as a god in whom the writer believed,\nthough he was the special god of the Egyptians and the Egyptian king. In\naddition to the above deities, the names of men reveal Ura\u0161, the god of\nDailem near Babylon, Bidina, another Babylonian deity, and Merodach, the\nprincipal god of the Babylonians. Among west Semitic deities may be\nmentioned Dagan (Dagon), Milku (Melech, Moloch), and others.\n\nNotwithstanding a considerable period of Egyptian rule, therefore,\nBabylonian influence, which had been predominant in the tract for many\ncenturies, still held the upper hand. Merodach was to all appearance\nvenerated, Nergal was worshipped as the god of death and disease, I\u0161tar\nwas held in high esteem. It must have been during those centuries of\nBabylonian rule that the worship of Tammuz or Adonis got into the country,\nbecoming one of the stumbling-blocks of the Israelites in later days, when\nHebrew women lamented for him, hidden in the realm of darkness where dwelt\nPersephone (Ere\u0161-ki-gala, \u201cthe lady of the great domain\u201d of the\nBabylonians), into whose realm, at great risk, I\u0161tar, his spouse,\ndescended to seek him, but only escaped from the rival\u2019s clutches by the\nintervention of the gods.\n\nExceedingly interesting are the various forms of government in Western\nAsia at this period. Among hereditary chiefs may be mentioned Etakama of\nGid\u0161i (Kadesh), \u0160um-addu, who is probably the same as \u0160amu-Addu, prince of\n\u0160am\u1e2buna, Mut-zu\u2019u (see p. 286), and Azru, though this last is doubtful, as\nin one of the letters he calls himself a governor installed by the king of\nEgypt. The best example of an elected chief, however, is in all\nprobability Yabitiri, governor of Gaza and Jaffa, who, when young, went\ndown to Egypt and served in the Egyptian army, being afterwards appointed\nto the posts which he held later. The power of the Egyptian kings of a\nperiod somewhat preceding this is well exemplified by the fact, that\nAddu-nirari of Assyria attributes to an Egyptian ruler the appointment of\nhis grandfather and father as kings of Nu\u1e2ba\u0161\u0161e, on account of which all\nthree rulers seem to have acknowledged Egyptian overlordship. An\ninteresting instance of female rule is that of Nin-Urmuru (?),(57) who, in\nher letters, mentions Ajalon and Sar\u1e2ba (identified with Zorah), probably\nlying in her district.\n\nMost interesting of all, however, is the case of Jerusalem, whose ruler,\nas will be seen from the letters quoted later on, was apparently elected\nby some of the magnates of the district which acknowledged his sway, and\nwho were probably the members of a religious community. Nothing, however,\nis known of the electorate or the system of election employed\u2014all that can\nbe said is, that the ruler was not placed there by virtue of his father or\nhis mother, but by the \u201cmighty king.\u201d\n\nThe matter of the government of Dunip, one of the most important towns of\nancient Palestine, is also of importance, as it does not seem to have\npossessed an autocratic head of any kind, and may have been a kind of\nrepublic. Its government was probably similar to that of Irqata, which was\nruled over by its elders, acknowledging the overlordship of the Egyptian\nking. A similar state of things seems to have prevailed in Babylonia,\nwhere, however, the king of Babylon was naturally recognized as lord of\nthe country. In all probability the towns governed by their elders were\nregarded as royal cities of Egypt, whilst the others were semi-independent\nstates.\n\nThe relations of the Egyptian king with foreign states is well illustrated\nby the following\u2014\n\nLetter From The Babylonian King Burra-Buria\u0161 (Burna-Buria\u0161) To Amenophis\nIV. King Of Egypt.\n\n\u201c(To) Nap\u1e2bu\u2019ruria the king of Egypt, my brother, say also thus: \u2018It is\nBurra-buria\u0161, king of the land of Karu-dunia\u0161, thy brother. My health is\ngood. To thee, thy country, thine house, thy wives, thy sons, thy great\nmen, thine horses, thy chariots, may there be very good health.\n\n\u201cI and my brother have spoken friendship with each other, and we said as\nfollows: \u2018As our fathers were with each other, let us be friendly.\u2019 Now my\nmerchants, who went with A\u1e2bi-\u1e6d\u00e2bu, remained in the land of Kina\u1e2b\u1e2bi\n(Canaan) for trade. After A\u1e2bi-\u1e6d\u00e2bu proceeded to my brother,(58) in the\ncity \u1e2ainnatunu of the land of Kina\u1e2b\u1e2bi (Canaan), when \u0160um-adda, son of\nMalumm\u00ea, (and) \u0160utadna, son of \u0160ar\u00e2tum, of the city of Akka (Accho), sent\ntheir people, they killed my merchants, and took their money away. When I\nhave sent (Azzu (?)) to thy presence, ask him, and let him tell thee.\u201d\n\n(Reverse)\n\n\u201c(Ki)na\u1e2b\u1e2bi is thy land, and (its) king(s are thy servants). In thy land\nhave I been ill-treated\u2014res(train them): make (up) the money which they\nhave taken away; and kill the people who have killed my subjects, and\navenge them. And if thou kill not these people, they will return, and both\nkill my caravans and thy messengers, and the messenger will be broken off\nbetween us, and if (this happen), they will fall away from thee. One man\n(of) mine, when \u0160um-adda had cut off his feet,(59) he held him prisoner;\nand another man, when \u0160utadna, the Akkaite (Acchoite), had caused him to\nbe placed with the servants, became a servant before him.(60) Let (them\ntake) those men to thee, and see thou to (it). And mayest thou know how I\nfare. I have caused to be brought to thee 1 mana of lapis-stone (as a\ngi)ft. (Let) my (messe)nger (come back) quickly. Let me know how my\nbrother fares. Do not de(tain) my (mess)enger\u2014let him come (back)\nquickly.\u201d\n\nIt is clear from this, and from other inscriptions of the series, that a\nkind of international law existed among the nations of the ancient East,\nby which they were expected to protect the caravans passing through each\nother\u2019s territory, and, in fact, see that no harm came to any of each\nother\u2019s subjects. They were expected to punish all persons who may have\nattacked and ill-treated or murdered them, and make restitution of\nproperty stolen. The law (probably an unwritten one) was evidently much\nthe same as prevails among civilized nations at the present day. That\nthese ancient rulers always obtained from their \u201cbrothers\u201d the redress\nwhich they demanded, is more than doubtful. Burra-buria\u0161\u2019s entreaty that\nhis messenger might be returned to him quickly points to vexatious delays\non former occasions, and probable failure to obtain any justice or redress\nwhatever.\n\nThe relations of Egypt with Assyria were similar to those with Babylonia,\nexcept that the Assyrian king, as has been shown, was, in some respects, a\nvassal.\n\nLetter From The Assyrian King A\u0161ur-Uballi\u1e6d To Amenophis IV. King Of Egypt.\n\n(Divided into paragraphs in accordance with the indications of the\noriginal text.)\n\n\u201cTo Nap\u1e2bur\u00ee, (the great king?), the king of Egypt, my brother, (say) thus:\n\u2018It is A\u0161ur-uballi\u1e6d, king of A\u0161\u0161ur, the great king, thy brother.\u2019\n\n\u201cTo thee, to thy house and thy country, may there be peace.\n\n\u201cWhen I saw thy messengers, I rejoiced greatly. Thy messengers are staying\nwith me for a time.\n\n\u201cI have caused to be brought to thee as thy gift a fine royal chariot of\nmy y(ok)e, and 2 white horses of m(y y)oke, and one chariot without yoke,\nand 1 seal of fine lapis-lazuli.\n\n\u201cThe great king\u2019s return-gift may be thus: Gold in thy land is (as)\ndust\u2014they gather it up. Why should it go round into thine eyes? I have\nundertaken to build a new palace. Cause gold, as much as its over-laying\nand its need (requires), to be sent.\n\n\u201cWhen A\u0161ur-nadin-\u00e2\u1e2bi, my father, sent to the land of Egypt, they caused to\nbe sent to him 20 talents of gold.\n\n\u201cWhen the \u1e2aanigalbatian king sent to Egypt to thy father, he caused 20\ntalents of go(ld) to be brought to him.\n\n\u201c(Behold), thou hast caused to be brought ... gold to the\n\u1e2aani(gal)ba(tian) king ... and to me, (but f)or the going and returning it\nsuffices (?) not for wages for my messengers.\n\n\u201cIf friendship be desirable unto thee, cause much gold to be brought; and\nas it will be thy house, send, and let them take what thou desirest.\n\n\u201cWe are distant countries\u2014in this wise let our messengers go about.\n\n\u201cThose who delayed thy messengers were the Sutites, their persecutors;\ndead (was I) until I had sent, and they had taken the persecuting Sutites.\nTheir bands (?) shall verily not delay my messengers.\n\n\u201cAs for messengers abroad, why should they be detained and die there? If\nthey stay abroad, the king will have the advantage, so let him stay and\nlet him die abroad\u2014let the king then have the advantage. And if not, why\nshould the messengers whom we send die abroad? ... attack the messengers\nand cause them to die abroad.\u201d\n\nThe last paragraph is difficult to understand on account of its being so\nmutilated, but the sense of the whole seems now to be fairly clear.\nA\u0161ur-uballi\u1e6d desires to be on friendly terms with Egypt, but he is anxious\nto get, above all, the precious metal which was said to be so plentiful\nthere, and for which all the rulers of Western Asia seem to have hungered.\nAnd this leads to the interesting statement in the fifth paragraph, in\nwhich gold in Egypt is said to have been as dust; and there is the\nquestion, \u201cWhy should it go round into thine eyes?\u201d (_Ammin\u00ee ina \u00ean\u0113-ka\nisa\u1e2b\u1e2bur?_) implying that, being dust, it behaved as dust, and was in that\nrespect undesirable, and therefore to be got rid of. He would like to have\nsome for the decoration of his palace\u2014his father, and the king of\n\u1e2aanigalbat had been favoured in this way. Let it not be as little\n(apparently), as that sent to the \u1e2aanigalbatian king, for that would not\nsuffice to pay his messengers. The interchange of things needed as\npresents made good friends. It was a lawless band of Sutites who had\ndetained the Egyptian king\u2019s messengers, and he was as one dead until his\npeople had stopped their depredations. It was useful to a king that his\nambassadors lived and died abroad, but not that they should be attacked\nand killed there.\n\nThe relations of Egypt with another class of ruler is well illustrated by\nthe following letter from a prince or governor brought up in Egypt\u2014\n\nYabitiri Asserts His Faithfulness, And Touches Upon His Early Life.\n\n\u201cTo the king my lord, my gods, my Sun-gods, say also thus: \u2018(it is)\nYabitiri thy servant, the dust of thy feet. At the feet of the king my\nlord, my gods, my Sun-gods, seven times, and twice seven times I fall.\nFurthermore, behold, I am a faithful servant(61) of the king my lord. I\nlook here, and I look there,(62) and it is not clear; then I look upon the\nking my lord, and it is clear. And the brick-foundation may give way from\nbeneath its wall, but I will not give way from beneath the feet of the\nking my lord. And the king my lord may ask Yan\u1e2bama, his official,\n(concerning) when I was young, and they sent me down to Egypt, where I\nserved the king my lord, and stood in the city-gate of the king my lord.\nAnd the king my lord may ask his official when I guard the city-gate of\nAzzati (Gaza) and the city-gate of Yapu (Jaffa). And I am with the hired\ntroops of the king my lord, where they go, I am with them, and I am also,\ntherefore, with them now. The yoke of the king my lord is on my neck, and\nI bear it.\u2019 \u201d\n\nApparently there had been spread abroad some statement reflecting on the\nfaithfulness of the writer, who seeks to justify himself by appealing to\nhis former services to the Egyptian king. His letter has a ring of\nsincerity in it which is wanting in many of the communications of this\nnature.\n\nReference has already been made to the caravans which passed through the\nterritory of the various rulers, and the protection which those rulers\nwere supposed to extend to them. Burra-buria\u0161, in his letter translated\nabove, complains that Babylonian caravans had been attacked in the land of\nCanaan, and asks for the punishment of the persons involved. To all\nappearance the protection of the caravans was entrusted to certain chiefs,\nowing allegiance to the Egyptian king, who always held themselves ready to\nperform this duty. The following translation shows how one of the chiefs\nor governors of a Canaanitish district looked after the caravans, as his\nfather did before him\u2014\n\nLetter From Mut-Zu\u2019u To The King Of Egypt.\n\n\u201cTo the king, my lord and my sun, say thus: \u2018It is Mut-zu\u2019u(63) thy\nservant, the dust of thy feet, the earth for thee to tread upon. Seven\ntimes, twice seven times, I fall down at the feet of the king my lord.\u2019\n\n\u201cThe king my lord has sent by \u1e2a\u00e2ya to speak of the \u1e2aana-galbat(64)\ncaravan. This I have dispatched and have directed it. Who am I, that I\nshould not dispatch the caravans of the king my lord? Behold, (Lab)\u2019aya,\nmy father, (who was faithful) to the king his lord, used to send (a\ncaravan, and give directions concerning it. The cara)vans (which) the king\n(di)rected to the land of \u1e2aana-galbat (and) to the land of Kara-dunia\u0161 let\nthe king my lord send. (As to) the caravan, I will bring it so that it is\nsafe.\u201d\n\nAs will be seen from this, Mut-zu\u2019u was one of the humble vassals of \u201cthe\nking his lord,\u201d who at that time\u2014evidently the peaceful days of Amenophis\nIII.\u2014was the happy possessor of many such. As examples of the relations\nbetween the smaller rulers and their suzerain, may be quoted two of the\nnumerous letters of Yidia of Askelon, who provided the necessaries for the\nEgyptian army in Palestine.\n\nYidia, The Askelonite, Concerning The King\u2019s Representative.\n\n\u201cTo the king, my lord, my Sun, the Sun who (cometh) from the heavens, (say\nalso) thus: \u2018(It is) Yidia, the Askelonite, thy servant, the dust of thy\nfeet, thy charioteer.(65) I fall down before the feet of the king my lord\nseven times and twice seven times, back and breast.\u2019\n\n\u201cNow (for) my (lord), (for) the gods of the king my lord, my god, my Sun,\nI guard this city, and again ... let me protect all his land.\n\n\u201cI have heard the words of the king my lord to his representative, when he\nis not able to protect the country of the king my lord. So now the king my\nlord has appointed Rianappa, the representative of the king my lord, to\nwhom(66) I will bring (?) good fortune for the king.\n\n\u201cWhatever cometh out of the mouth of the king my lord, lo, that will I\nkeep day and night.\u201d\n\nYidia Concerning The Commissariat.\n\n\u201cTo the king my lord, my Sun, my god, the Sun who (cometh) from the\nheavens, (say also) thus: \u2018(it is) Yidia thy servant, the dust of thy\nfeet, thy charioteer. I fall down at the feet of the king my lord seven\ntimes and twice seven times, back and breast. Behold, I am keeping the\ncommands of the king my lord, the son of the Sun, and behold, I have\nprovided the food, drink, oil, grain, oxen, (and) sheep, for the soldiers\nof the king my lord\u2014provisions, every kind, for the soldiers of the king\nmy lord. Who would be a vassal, and not obey the words of the king my\nlord, the son of the Sun?\u2019 \u201d\n\nLetters similar to the above are numerous, and show that Egyptian rule was\nnot regarded as burthensome\u2014indeed, it may have been even welcome, tending\nin all probability to the preservation of peace. It must have been\ndifficult, however, for the Egyptian king to hold the scales of justice\nalways even, for among the governors were always men who professed\nfaithfulness, but who aimed at throwing off the Egyptian yoke, light as it\nwas.\n\nIn all probability the trouble began in the north, that district being\nfarthest from the Egyptian marches, and what was going on there was on\nthat account longer in reaching the knowledge of the king. Judging from a\nletter from Ili-rabi\u1e2b, written from Gebal, Etakama, of Kinza and Kadesh,\nsmote the whole of the lands of Amki, \u201cthe territory of the king.\u201d \u201cAnd\nnow,\u201d the inscription continues, \u201che has sent his people to seize the\nlands of Amki and the places. Further, the king of the land of \u1e2aatta\n(Heth), and the king of the land of Narima (Naharaim), have been\nunsuccessful (?), and\u201d (here the writer breaks off the narrative).\n\nAnother account of this affair is as follows\u2014\n\nB\u00eari (Or Bieri) To The King About The Attack On Amki.\n\n\u201cTo the king, my lord, (my god, my sungod), say then thus: \u2018It is B\u00eari,\n(thy servant), the \u1e2aa\u0161abite.\u2019 Down to the dust of the feet of the king my\nlord 7 (times) and 7 (times) I fall. Behold, we occupy, in Amki, the\ncities of the king, my lord, and Edagama, the Kinzite, has gone to meet\nthe soldiers of \u1e2aatta (Heth), and set (the cities) of the king my lord on\nfire. And may the king my lord know, and may the king (my) lord give\nfield-soldiers. And we will occupy the cities of the king my lord, and we\nwill dwell in the cities of the king my lord, my god, my sungod.\u201d\n\nThis and two other accounts, one of which is from \u201cIlu-d\u00e2ya, the \u1e2aazite,\u201d\nall agree, and show that three officials were occupying cities in the\nterritory known as Amki (identified with _\u2019Amq_, a plain by Antioch, or\n_\u2019Amqa_, N.E. of Akka), when Edagama (whose name also appears as Etagama,\nEtakkama, Itatkama, Itakama, Ai\u1e6dugama, and Aidaggama) joined the Hittite\ntroops who were hostile to Egypt. It was in consequence of this, in all\nprobability, that the three officials decided to write to the king of\nEgypt to let him know how things were going, and this they did in\nidentical terms, with the same expressions, and the same peculiarities of\nspelling, pointing to the probability that the same scribe wrote all three\ncommunications. In the letter of Ili-rabi\u1e2b, from which a quotation is\ngiven on p. 288, Amki is called \u201cthe king\u2019s territory,\u201d implying that it\nwas a tract acknowledging Egyptian supremacy, which Etagama was trying to\nwrest from the Pharaoh\u2019s grasp. It was the king\u2019s friends who were\noccupying the king\u2019s cities (as B\u00eari, Ilu-d\u00e2ya, and the unknown writer\ncall them), because they desired to hold them against this active enemy.\nWith help from the Egyptian king, they thought that they would be able to\ndo this without difficulty. There seems to be (as far as can at present be\njudged) no reason to suppose that the beginning of the expulsion of the\nEgyptians from Palestine was due to the over-zeal of the supporters of\nEgyptian rule in that country, who, striving to extend the influence and\nthe dominions of their suzerain, drew down upon him, and upon themselves,\nthe hostility of all the independent states of Western Asia, as well as of\nthose which wished to throw off the Egyptian yoke. The Egyptian kings\nwould surely have warned their vassals in Palestine against the danger of\nsuch action on their part.\n\nAs an additional light upon the events here referred to, the following\nextract from a letter from Akizzi of Qa\u1e6dna to Amenophis III. may be of\ninterest:\u2014\n\n\u201cO lord, Teu(w)atti of the city L(apa)n(a) and Arzauia of the city Ru\u1e2bizzu\nare setting themselves with Ai\u1e6dugama (Etagama) and the land of (U)be. He\nis burning the territory of my lord with fire.\n\n\u201cO lord, as I love the king my lord, and likewise the king of the land\nNu\u1e2ba\u0161\u0161e, the king of the land of N\u00ee, the king of the land of Zinzar, and\nthe king of the land of Tunanat; and all these kings are for the king my\nlord serviceable.\n\n\u201cIf the king my lord will, then he will go forth. (But they say) thus:\n\u2018The king my lord will not go forth.\u2019 Then let my lord send out\nfield-troops, and let them come, since this land, as also, my lord, these\nkings, is well disposed towards him. (They are) my lord\u2019s great ones, and\nwhatever their gifts (contributions), let him speak, and they will give\n(them).\n\n\u201cO lord, if this land is to be off the mind of my lord, then let my lord\nsend forth field-troops, and let them come. The messengers of my lord have\narrived.\n\n\u201cO lord, if Arzauia of the city of Ru\u1e2bizzu and Teuwatti of the city Lapana\nremain in the land of Ube, and Da\u0161a remain in the land of Amki, then may\nmy lord know concerning them, that the land of Ube is not my lord\u2019s. They\nsend to Ai\u1e6dugama every day saying thus: \u2018Come and take the land of Ube\ncompletely.\u2019\n\n\u201cO lord, as the city Tima\u0161gi in the land of Ube is at thy feet, so also is\nthe city Qa\u1e6dna at thy feet. And, my lord, with regard to my messenger, I\nask for life, (and a)s I do not fear with regard to the field-troops of my\nlord, that the field-troops of my lord will come, as he will send (them)\nforth to me, I shall re(tire) into the city Qa\u1e6dna.\u201d\n\nThus the trouble spread, and the Hittites and their allies took possession\nof the territories south of the tracts referred to, trying, at the same\ntime, to win over to their side the governors who were faithful. All this\ntime posing as a friend of the Pharaoh, Etagama complained of the others,\nparticularly Namya-waza, one of Egypt\u2019s most trustworthy allies, who, in a\nletter couched in the usual humble style of the period, announces his\nreadiness to serve \u201cwith his horses and chariots, and with his brothers,\nand with his SA-GAS, and with his Sutites, along with the hired soldiers,\nwhithersoever the king his lord should command him.\u201d\n\nNow in this letter there is one noteworthy fact, and that is, that the\nSA-GAS and the Sutites are mentioned together as the allies of an\nimportant vassal of the Egyptian king, the latter being apparently\nwandering hordes of plunderers (see above, p. 283), whom Kada\u0161man-Muru\u0161,\nking of Babylonia, sent from east to west \u201cuntil there were no more.\u201d This\ntook place at a somewhat later date, so that they still roamed about the\neastern portion of the country, between Palestine and Babylonia,\napparently giving their services to any power which might desire to make\nuse of them.\n\nThe question of the identification of the troops or bands of warriors\ndesignated by the Akkadian compound SA-GAS is, however, of still greater\nimportance. Most Assyriologists regard them as being identical with the\n\u1e2aabiri, mentioned in the letters of Abdi-t\u00e2bu or Ebed-tob. This, of\ncourse, is possible, but it is unfortunate that no direct confirmation of\nthis identification exists. In the bilingual lists of Babylonia and\nAssyria, the expression SA-GAS, duly provided with the determinative\nprefix indicating a man or a class of men, occurs, and is always\ntranslated by the word _\u1e33abbatu_, the probable meaning of which is\n\u201crobber,\u201d from the root _\u1e2bab\u0101tu_, \u201cto plunder\u201d. It is also noteworthy that\nthere is a star called SA-GAS, and this is likewise rendered by the same\nword, namely, _\u1e2babbatu_. The fact that it is once provided with the\ndeterminative _ki_ (\u201cplace\u201d) does not help us, for this may be simply an\noversight or a mannerism of the scribe. Moreover, the difficulty of\nidentifying the SA-GAS with the _\u1e2aabiri_ of the inscriptions of Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba\nis increased by the word occurring in these texts (Winckler\u2019s No. 216, l.\n11), followed by the explanation (_am\u0113l\u016bti \u1e2babati_), an arrangement which\nwe find in others of these letters, when an ideograph has to be explained;\nand when they are, as here, Akkadian ideographs and Babylonian words, the\nsecond is always the pronunciation of the first\u2014never the alternative\nreading. Indeed, in the present case, such an explanation would be\nmisleading instead of helpful (were the word SA-GAS to be read _\u1e2aabiri_),\nfor the scribe tells you to read it _\u1e2babati_\u2014the same word as is given in\nthe bilingual lists, but spelled with one _b_ instead of two.\n\nIn all probability, therefore, the _\u1e2babati_ were wandering hordes\ndiffering from the Sutites in not having any special nationality, and\nbeing composed of the offscourings of many peoples of the ancient East.\nThey were probably included in the _\u1e2babiri_, together with the nations\nwith which they were afterwards associated. The _\u1e2babiri_ were not the\nHebrews, neither the word nor the date being what we should expect for\nthat nationality, who were still in Egypt. The best identification as yet\npublished is that of Jastrow, who connects it with the Hebrew Heber, the\npatronymic of various persons. Better still, however, would be the Heb.\n_\u1e25aber_, pl. _haberim_, \u201ccompanions,\u201d also used of tribes joined together\nto form a nation. Whether an advance guard of the Hebrews is to be\nincluded in this term or not, must be left to the judgment of the student.\n\nThe gradual loss of the districts south of Damascus in all probability\nfollowed. A letter from Mut-Addu (the only one from him) to Yan\u1e2bamu speaks\nof the cities of the land of Garu (identified\u2014though the identification is\nnot quite satisfactory\u2014with the Heb. Gur), namely Udumu (identified by\nPetrie with Adamah, though the form does not agree so well as might be\nwished, and Udumu is the usual way of rendering the word Edom, which is\nreferred to in the cuneiform inscriptions both as a land and a city),\nAduri (Petrie: et-Tireh), Araru (Petrie: Arareh), Me\u0161tu (Petrie: Mushtah),\nMagdali (Magdala), \u1e2aini-anabi (Ain-anab, if rightly identified\u2014there is a\ncertain difficulty in the word possessing a guttural at the beginning and\nnot likewise as the first letter of the second component\u2014probably \u2019Anab,\nsouth-west of Hebron, the Anab of Josh. xi. 21), and Sarki. At this time,\naccording to the tablet, Hawani and Yabi\u0161i (Jabesh) had been captured. It\nis probably on account of the occupation of the country by so many hostile\ntribes that the protest of Burra-buria\u0161 of Babylonia (see p. 281) was\nsent, but it was in all probability exceedingly difficult for the Egyptian\nking to afford any protection whatever to the caravans which passed\nthrough the disaffected area.\n\nOne of the things which the Tel-el-Amarna letters show very clearly is,\nthat it must have been very difficult for the Pharaoh to know who were his\nfriends and who were his enemies among the rulers of the Philistines. The\nAmorite Abdi-A\u0161irta and his allies were from the first desirous to throw\noff the Egyptian yoke, but this prince at the same time constantly sent\nletters to Amenophis IV. protesting his fidelity. Other chiefs who were\nhostile to Egypt are Etakama, the sons of Lab\u2019aya, Milk\u00eeli, Yapa-Addu,\nZimr\u00eada of Sidon, Aziru, and others. On the king\u2019s side were Namyawaza,\nwho held Kumidi (Petrie: Kamid-el-Lauz), Rib-Addi, whose chief cities were\nGebal, Beyrout, and Simyra, Zimr\u00eada of Lachish, and Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba of\nJerusalem. Numbers of chiefs, at first faithful, went over to the enemy\nwhen they saw the success of the league against the foreign power.\n\nIt is impossible to suppose that the letters now known (about three\nhundred in number) represent all the correspondence which passed between\nPalestine and Egypt concerning the state of the country during the reigns\nof Amenophis III. and IV., and from the time the troubles there commenced,\ncomplaints and applications for help must have claimed the attention of\nthe Egyptian translator literally in shoals. One of the most remarkable of\nthese is the letter from the people of Dunip, who say that, in consequence\nof the state of things in Palestine, they belong no longer to the king of\nEgypt, to whom they had been sending for twenty years, but their\nmessengers had been retained. Their prince (to all appearance) had been\ntaken back to Egypt by the king\u2019s orders, after he had allowed him to\nreturn to his country, so that they had not seen him again. \u201cAnd now\nDunip, thy city, weeps, and its tears flow, and there is no one to take\nour hands (_i.e._ help us). We have sent to the king, the lord, the king\nof Egypt, and not a single word from our lord hath reached us.\u201d\n\nWere they really sorry to be no longer under Egyptian rule? or were they\nmerely desirous that their prince should be restored to them?\n\nDuring this period, naturally enough, recriminations were going on on\nevery side. Those who were faithful very properly made complaints and\nuttered warnings concerning those who were unfaithful. The waverers, the\nunfaithful, and the hostile, on the other hand, were continually asserting\ntheir fidelity, and accusing those who were really well-disposed towards\nEgypt of all kinds of hostile acts against the supreme power. This is\nevident from the correspondence of Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba of Jerusalem, who, in one of\nhis letters, writes as follows\u2014\n\n\u201c(T)o the king my lord say also thus: \u2018It is Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba, thy servant. At\nthe feet of my lord the king twice seven times and twice seven times I\nfall. What have I done against the king my lord? They back-bite\u2014they\nslander(67) me before the king my lord, (saying): \u201cAbdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba has fallen\naway from the king his lord.\u201d Behold, (as for) me, neither my father nor\nmy mother set me in this place\u2014the arm of the mighty king caused me to\nenter into the house of my father. Why should I commit a sin against the\nking my lord? As the king my lord lives, I said to the commissioner of the\nking (my) lord: \u201cWhy love ye the \u1e2aabiri and hate the gover(nors)? it is on\naccount of this that they utter slander before the king my lord.\u201d Then he\nsaid: \u201cThe countries of the king my lord have rebelled, therefore they\nutter slander to the king my lord.\u201d \u2019 \u201d\n\nThe ruler of Jerusalem then seems to say, that the king had placed a\ngarrison in some city or other, but it had been taken, apparently by\nYan\u1e2bamu\u2014there was no longer a garrison (in that place). The king\u2019s cities\nunder Ili-milku had revolted, the whole of the land of the king was lost,\nso let the king have care for his land. He would like to go to the king,\nto urge him to take action, but the people in his district were too mighty\nfor him, and he could not leave it. As long as the king lived, and as long\nas he sent a commissioner, he would continue to give warning. If troops\nwere sent that year, things would be saved, otherwise the king\u2019s lands\nwould be lost. Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba ends with an appeal to the scribe to place the\nmatter clearly before the king.\n\nAnother very important letter from Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba is as follows\u2014\n\n\u201c(T)o the king my lord, (my) Sun, (say also) thus: \u2018It is Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba, thy\nservant. Twice seven times and twice seven times I fall down before the\nfeet of the king my lord. Behold, the king my lord has set his name to the\nrising of the sun and the setting of the sun. The slandering which they\nslander against me! Behold, I am not a governor, the king my lord\u2019s\nmagnate. Behold, I am an officer of the king, and have brought the tribute\nof the king. (As for) me, it was not my father nor my mother\u2014it was the\narm of the mighty king who set me in the house of my father. (When so and\nso),(68) the commissioner of the king, returned to me, 13 prisoners (?)\n(and a certain number(69)) of slaves I gave. \u0160\u00fbta, the commissioner of the\nking, came (back t)o me; 21 girls (and) 20(70) (?) prisoners I gave (in)to\nthe hand of \u0160\u00fbta (as) a gift for the king my lord. Let the king take\ncounsel with regard to his land\u2014the land of the king, all of it, has\nrevolted, it has set itself against me.(71) Behold, (as for) the lands of\n\u0160\u00eari (Seir) as far as Guti-kirmil (Gath-Carmel), the governors have allied\nthemselves(72) and there is hostility against me. Even though one be a\nseer, one wishes not to see the tears of the king my lord, when enmity\nexists against me. As long as ships were in the midst of the sea, the\npower of the mighty king took Na\u1e2brima (Naharaim) and the land of\nKa\u0161si,(73) but now the \u1e2aabiru have taken the cities of the king. There is\nnot one governor for the king my lord\u2014all have rebelled. Behold, Turbazu\nhas been killed at the gate of the city Zil\u00fb, (and) the king (?) remained\ninactive. Behold, (as for) Zimr\u00eada of the city of Lakisu (Lachish), (his)\nservants lay in wait for him (?), they took (him) to kill (?) (him).\nYapti\u2019-Addu has been killed (at) the gate of the city of Zil\u00fb, (and) the\nking remained inactive ... ask (?) him ... (let) the kin(g have care for\nhis land, and let) the king give attention ... (let him send) troops to\nthe land of (the city of Jerusalem, (?), and) if there are not troops this\nyear, the whole of the lands of the king my lord are lost. They do not\ntell the king my lord (this). When the country of the king my lord is\nlost, then are lost (also) all the governors. If there be not troops this\nyear, let the king direct his commissioner and let him take me\u2014(send him)\nto me with my brothers, and we will die with the king my lord.\u2019 (To the)\nscribe of the king my lord (say also thus): \u2018It is Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba, (thy)\nservant. (I fall down) at (thy) feet. Cause (my) words to enter (pl)ainly\nto the king (my lord). I am thy (faith)ful servant.\u2019 \u201d\n\nThe final phrase resembles that of an English letter.\n\nAccording to Petrie, S\u00eari is Shaaraim (Josh. xv. 36), now _Khurbet\nes-Sairah_. If the character read as _gu_ in Guti-Kirmil (Winckler,\nGin(?)ti-Kirmil) be correctly drawn in the official published copy, there\nis considerable doubt as to the reading of the first syllable of this\ninteresting name. Zil\u00fb, where Turbazu and Yapti\u2019-Addu were killed, is\nidentified by Petrie with Zelah, north of Jerusalem. This letter gives an\nexcellent illustration of the state of the country at the time.\n\nIn another letter Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba explains how all the lands had concluded a\nbond of hostility against him, and the districts of Gezer, Askelon, and\nLachish had supplied these people with food. After this comes the usual\nrequest for troops, and the indication that, if troops be sent \u201cthis\nyear,\u201d the situation would be saved\u2014next year there would be neither\ncountries nor governors for the king (in Palestine). \u201cBehold, this land of\nthe city of Jerusalem, neither my father nor my mother gave it to me\u2014the\npower of the mighty king gave it to me, (even) to me.\u201d \u201cSee,\u201d he\ncontinues, \u201cthis deed is the deed of Milki-\u00eeli, and the deed of the sons\nof Lab\u2019aya, who have given the land of the king to the \u1e2aabiri.\u201d He then\ngoes on to speak of the Ka\u0161i, who seem to have supported the confederates\nwith food, oil, and clothes. Next follows what Paura, the king\u2019s\ncommissioner, had told him about the disaffection of Adaya. Caravans had\nbeen robbed in the field of the city of Yaluna (Ajalon), but Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba\ncould not prevent this: \u201c(I mention this) in order to inform thee.\u201d\n\u201cBehold, the king has placed his name in the land of Jerusalem for ever,\nand the forsaking of the lands of Jerusalem is not possible.\u201d After this\ncomes the usual note to the scribe in Egypt, followed by a postscript\nreferring to the people of K\u00e2si, disclaiming some evil deed which had been\ndone to them. \u201cDo not kill a worthy servant (on that account\u201d).\n\nYet another letter refers to Milki-\u00eeli and Lab\u2019aya: \u201cBehold, has not\nMilki-\u00eeli fallen away from the sons of Lab\u2019aya and from the sons of Arzawa\nto ask the land of the king for them?(74) A governor, who has done this\ndeed, why has the king not called him to account for this?\u201d The narrative\nbreaks off where Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba begins to relate something further concerning\nMilki-\u00eeli and another named Tagi. When the text again becomes legible,\nAbdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba is again referring to the fact that there is no garrison of the\nking in some place whose name is lost. \u201cTherefore\u2014as the king lives\u2014Puuru\n(= Pauru) has entered it\u2014he has departed from my presence, (and) is in the\ncity of Gaza. So let the king indicate to him (the necessity) of a\ngarrison to protect the country. All the land of the king has rebelled.\nSend Ya\u2019en\u1e2bamu (Yan\u1e2bamu), and let him become acquainted with (lit. let him\nknow) the country of the king (_i.e._ the true state of affairs\u201d). Here\nfollows a note to the scribe in Egypt similar to that translated above.\n\nOne of the most interesting and instructive of the letters of Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba is\nthat which Petrie regards as the latest of the series; and on account of\nits importance, it is given in full here\u2014\n\n\u201c(To) the king, my lord, (s)ay also thus: \u2018It is (Abdi)-\u1e6d\u00e2ba thy servant.\nAt the feet of the (ki)ng my lord twice seven times and twice seven times\nI fall down. (Behold, the deed) which Milki-\u00eeli and \u0160u-ardatum have done\nto the land of the king my lord has been successful (?). The men of the\ncity of Gazri (Gezer), the men of the city of Gimti (Gath), and the men of\nthe city of K\u00eelti (Keilah) have been captured. The land of the city of\nRubute has revolted. The land of the king (belongs to) the \u1e2aabiri. And\nnow, moreover, a city of the land of Jerusalem, the city Beth-Ninip\n(\u201cHouse\u201d or \u201cTemple of Ninip\u201d)\u2014(this is) its name\u2014has revolted to the\npeople of K\u00eelti. Let the king hearken to Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba thy servant, and let\nhim send hired soldiers, and let me bring back the land of the king to the\nking. And if there be no hired soldiers, the land of the king will go over\nto the men, the \u1e2aabiri. This deed (is the deed of) \u0160u-ardatum (and)\nMilki-\u00eeli ... city ... and let the king care for his land.\u2019 \u201d\n\nWhether the fall of Jerusalem followed or not is doubtful; nor is it\ncertain that the Egyptians were ultimately driven out. Other letters seem\nto show how the influence of those whom Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba calls the \u1e2aabiri, and\nothers the \u1e2aabati\u2014the \u201cconfederates\u201d and the \u201cplunderers\u201d\u2014spread still\nfarther southward. Naturally more information is required to enable it to\nbe known in what manner the Egyptians tried to retrieve their position,\nand how it was that Amenophis IV. delayed so long the sending of troops.\nAll the governors who were in the least degree faithful to Egypt united in\nrepeatedly warning him as to what was taking place, and urging him to send\ntroops. Had the rebellion or invasion\u2014whichever it was\u2014been nipped in the\nbud, Palestine would have remained a faithful Egyptian province. All the\nking did, however, was to send his commissioner, and, occasionally,\nexhorting and even threatening letters, which had in all probability\nlittle or no effect, except to excite a little mild amusement on account\nof their erratic spelling. A very noteworthy communication of this class\nis the following\u2014\n\nThe King Of Egypt Rebukes The Prince Of The Amorites.\n\n\u201c(To) the Amorite say then thus, (\u2018It is the king\u2019). The king thy lord\n(hath hear)d thus: \u2018The Gebalite whose brother drove him from the gate\n(hath spoke)n to thee thus: \u201cTake me and cause me to enter into my city,\n(and a reward) then let me give thee\u2014yea, however much, (though) it be not\nwith me.\u201d Thus did he speak to thee.\u2019\n\n\u201cWritest thou (no)t to the king thy lord (th)us: \u2018I am thy servant like\nall the former governors who (were each) in the midst of his city\u2019? But\nthou doest wrong to receive a governor whose brother hath driven him from\nhis gate out of his city.\n\n\u201cAnd (whilst) dwelling in Sidon, thou deliveredst him to the governors as\nwas thy will. Knewest thou not the hatred of the people?\n\n\u201cIf thou be in truth a servant of the king, why hast thou not made\npossible his transmission to the presence of the king thy lord, (saying)\nthus: \u2018This governor sent to me thus: \u201cTake me to thee, and cause me to\nenter into my city\u201d \u2019?\n\n\u201cAnd if thou hast done according to right, then all the matters are not\ntrue concerning which thou wrotest: \u2018They are trustworthy,\u2019 for the king\nthought thus: \u2018All that thou hast said is not correct.\u2019\n\n\u201cAnd behold, the king hath heard thus: Thou art in agreement with the man\nof Kid\u0161a (Kadesh), food and drink together have ye supplied. And be it\ntrue, why doest thou thus? why art thou in agreement with a man with whom\nthe king is on bad terms? And if thou hast done according to right, and\nhast regard to thy opinion, then his opinion existeth not. Thou hast no\ncare for the things which thou hast done from the first. What hath been\ndone to thee among them (the disaffected ones), that thou art not with the\nking thy lord?\n\n\u201cBehold, those who attract(?) thee to themselves seek to throw thee into\nthe fire; and it is kindled, and thou findest everything very\nsatisfactory.\n\n\u201cAnd if thou do homage to the king thy lord, what is there which the king\nwould not do for thee? If on account of anything thou wish to work evil,\nand if thou set evil, and words of hate, in thine heart, then by the\nking\u2019s ax shalt thou die, together with all thy family.\n\n\u201cSo do homage to the king thy lord, and thou shalt live. And thou knowest,\neven thou, that the king desireth not to attack the land of Kina\u1e2b\u1e2bi\n(Canaan), the whole of it.\n\n\u201cAnd as thou hast sent thus: \u2018Let the king leave me this year, and let me\ncome in the second year before the king, my lord\u2014my son is not here to\n...;\u2019 behold, then, the king thy lord will grant thee this year, according\nas thou hast said. Come thou (or if thy son, send), and thou shalt see the\nking at the sight of whom all the lands live. And say not thus: \u2018Let him\nleave me this year in addition.\u2019 If it be not possible to go into the\npresence of the king thy lord, direct thy son to the king thy lord\ninstead. He (need) not (stay with thee), let him come.\n\n\u201cAnd, behold, the king thy lord hath heard that thou hast written to the\nking thus: \u2018Let the king my lord allow \u1e2aanni, the king\u2019s messenger, to\ncome a second time and let me cause the enemies of the king to be taken\nback by his hand.\u2019 Behold, he hath come to thee, as thou hast said, and\nleave not one of them behind. Behold, the king thy lord causeth to be\nbrought to thee the names of the enemies of the king in this letter at the\nhands of \u1e2aanni, the king\u2019s messenger, so cause them to be brought to the\nking thy lord, and do not leave one of them (behind). And brazen bonds\nshall be placed on their feet. Behold, the men whom thou shalt cause to be\nsent to the king thy lord (are):\n\n\n \u201c\u0160arru with all his sons;\n T\u00fbya;\n L\u00eaya with all his sons;\n Wi\u0161yari with all his sons;\n The son-in-law of Mania (or Ma-ili-ia) with his sons, (and) with\n his wives;\n The _pa-ma\u1e33\u00e2_ of \u1e2aanni the _pa-it\u00eaiu_ (? messenger) who reads\n (this) message;\n D\u00e2-\u0161art\u00ee; P\u00e2l\u00fbma;\n Nimma\u1e2b\u00ea, the _\u1e33apadu_ in the land of Amurru.\n\n\n\u201c \u2018And mayest thou know: well is the king, like the Sun in Heaven; his\nsoldiers and chariots are many. From the upper country as far as the lower\ncountry, (from) sunrise as far as sunset (_i.e._ from the extreme east to\nthe extreme west), great is the prosperity.\u2019 \u201d\n\nTo all appearance Amenophis IV. trusted too much to his own prestige, and\nthat of the country over which he ruled. He was \u201cthe son of the Sun,\u201d\n\u201clike unto the Sun in Heaven,\u201d \u201cthe king at the sight of whom all the\nlands live,\u201d and naturally took it for granted that he was everywhere\nlooked upon with the same veneration as in his own country.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nAs may easily be imagined, the expulsion of the Egyptians from Palestine\nleft the country in a very disturbed state, and marauding bands, having no\nlonger anything to do in the way of wresting territory from the Egyptians,\nmust have given considerable trouble to the native princes and governors,\nnow once more independent in their own territories.\n\nThe loss of Palestine, on the other hand, probably brought with it a\ncertain amount of loss of prestige to Egypt, which must have endured for\nsome time. In any case, the Egyptian kings who succeeded Amenophis IV.\nseem to have made no attempt to regain the lost provinces.\n\nAnkh-kheperu-Ra, the king who succeeded the ruler just named, lived for a\nwhile at Tel-el-Amarna, during which time, in all probability, the tomb of\nhis predecessor\u2019s six daughters was finished. Several rings of this king\nexist, on two of which he calls himself \u201cbeloved of Nefer-kheperu-Ra\u201d (or,\nin accordance with the indications of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets:\nNafar-khoperu-Ria) and \u201cbeloved of Ua-en-Ra,\u201d names of Amenophis IV.\nDuring his reign the worship of the sun\u2019s disc (Aten, or, if the\nderivation from the Semitic Adon, \u201clord,\u201d be correct, Aton) began to give\nway to that of the national gods of Egypt. He reigned thirteen years\n(1365-1353 B.C.), and was succeeded by Ra-kheperu-neb (1353-1344). The\npaintings in the tomb of Hui at Thebes show that tribute was still\nreceived from the Syrians (Rutennu), as well as from the people of Kush in\nthe Soudan. Evidently the road was being paved for the conquest of the\nlost provinces of Syria.\n\nAfter this came a ruler who seems to have held the throne only on account\nof his wife being of royal blood. According to Petrie, he was \u201cdivine\nfather Ay,\u201d and his wife\u2019s name was Ty. He reigned thirteen years\n(1344-1332 B.C.). During his reign a complete reversion to the old worship\ntook place.\n\nAy\u2019s successor, Ra-ser-kheperu (Hor-em-heb), 1332-1328 B.C., was\napparently also a commoner, and is identified (Petrie) with the Hor-em-heb\nwho was general in an earlier reign. He is represented being adored by\nnegroes and Asiatics.\n\nOne or two other obscure names occur, and then begins the reign of king\nRameses I., who came to the throne about 1300 B.C. This reign was short\nenough, but there is hardly any doubt that in it the prosperity of Egypt\nwas renewed. From the treaty of the Khita with Rameses II., the grandson\nof Rameses I., we learn that the latter had a war with the Khita, and from\nthe fact that he founded a storehouse for the temple of his divine father\nHor-khem, and filled it with captive men-servants and maid-servants, we\nmay conclude that he was fairly successful in his warlike expeditions.\n\nWith his son, Seti (Sethos) I., or Meneptah (\u201cbeloved of Ptah\u201d), we attain\nfirmer ground. In the very first year of his reign he warred in the east,\namong the Shasu Bedouin, \u201cfrom the fortress of Khetam (Heb. Etham) in the\nland of Zalu, as far as Kan\u2019ana (Canaan).\u201d Kadesh, at that time a city of\nthe Kheta (it had apparently fallen into the hands of the Hittites during\nthe reign of Amenophis IV.), was conquered by him. Not only the Hittites,\nhowever, but also Naharain (Naharaim), the country of which Du\u0161ratta of\nold had been king, upper and lower Rutennu (Canaan and North Syria),\nSinjar, the island of Cyprus, and Cappadocia, felt the force of his arms.\nHis son, Rameses II., was associated with him on the throne, and\nafterwards succeeded him. This took place about 1300 B.C. It is to this\nruler that the glory of the name of Rameses is principally due, and his\ngrandfather, the first who bore it, shines mainly with a reflected light.\n\nIt is impossible here to do more than touch upon such of the details of\nhis career as are essential in the present work. In all probability he is\nbest known on account of his expedition into Syria, and the conquest of\nthe Hittites, who, as recorded in the celebrated heroic poem of Pentaur,\nwere allied with a number of other tribes, including the people of\nNaharaim, Aleppo, Gauzanitis, the Girgashites (?), Carchemish, etc. The\nresult was success for the Egyptian arms, and the Hittites, on the whole,\nsubmitted, though some of the towns acknowledging Hittite rule, notably\nTunep, refused to accept Egyptian suzerainty, necessitating another\nexpedition, the result of which was, that the Egyptians found no more\nopposition to their overlordship. In his eighth and succeeding years he\nfought against the Canaanites, and in his descriptions of his operations\nthere, many familiar names are to be found\u2014names of great interest to all\nstudents of ancient Oriental history. It was in his eighth year, according\nto the texts in the Ramesseum, that he conquered Shalam (Salamis W. of\nCapernaum, according to Prof. Flinders Petrie), Marom (Merom), the spring\nof Anamimi (identified with Anamim), Dapur (identified with Tabor by\nBrugsch), and many other places.\n\nRameses II. is generally regarded as the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and\none of the tasks placed upon the oppressed Israelites was the building of\nhis store-cities, Pithom (Pi-tum, discovered by M. Naville when excavating\nfor the Egypt Exploration Fund) and Raamses, the Pi-Ramessu of the\ninscriptions, concerning which there is a very interesting letter by an\nEgyptian named Panbesa, who visited it. As Brugsch says: \u201cWe may suppose\nthat many a Hebrew, perhaps Moses himself, jostled the Egyptian scribe in\nhis wandering through the gaily-dressed streets of the temple-city.\u201d\n\nThe successor of Rameses, Meneptah II., is hardly the son which one would\nexpect to follow such a father. According to Brugsch, he does not rank\nwith those Pharaohs who transmitted their remembrance to posterity by\ngrand buildings and the construction of new temples. And the monolith\nfound by Petrie in 1896 seems to imply that his lists of conquests were\nnot always so trustworthy as could be wished. Nevertheless, the reign of\nMeneptah is one of the greatest importance, for it was he, to all\nappearance, who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, as seems also to be proved\nby the same document. As this is a text of the very first importance, a\ntranslation of the concluding lines is given here\u2014\n\n\u201cKheta (the land of the Hittites) is in peace, captive is Canaan and full\nof misery, Askelon is carried away, Gezer is taken, Yennuamma is\nnon-existent, Israel is lost, his seed is not,(75) Syria is like the\nwidows of Egypt. The totality of all the lands is at peace, for whoever\nrebelled was chastised by king Meneptah.\u201d\n\nNow the statement concerning Israel has given rise to a considerable\namount of discussion. Naville regards the reference to the condition in\nwhich the Israelites were as indicating that they had left Egypt, and were\nwandering, \u201clost\u201d in the desert. There is also some probability that the\nexpression, \u201chis seed is not,\u201d may be a reference to the decree of the\nking, who commanded the destruction of the male children of the Hebrews,\nwhich command, he may have imagined, had been finally carried out. The\nquestion also naturally arises, whether the last phrase, \u201cwhoever rebelled\nwas chastised by king Meneptah,\u201d may not have a reference to the\nIsraelites, who, from their own showing, were sufficiently peremptory in\ntheir demands to be allowed to proceed into the wilderness to sacrifice to\ntheir god, to bring down upon themselves any amount of resentment.\n\nExceedingly noteworthy, and in many respects startling, however, are the\nresearches and statements of Dr. Edouard Mahler. Following Spiegelberg as\nto the meaning of the phrase containing the name of the Israelites,\n\u201cJenoam has been brought to naught; Israel, the horde, destroyed his\ncrops\u201d\u2014a statement which hardly seems worthy of the honour of being\ninscribed on the memorial stele of a king of Egypt\u2014is the rendering he\nsuggests. The translation of the word _feket_ (which is rendered by other\nEgyptologists as \u201cannihilated, lost,\u201d or in some similar way) by \u201chorde,\u201d\nallows the learned chronologist to suggest, that the ideographs\naccompanying the word Israelites indicate that they had already entered\nthe Holy Land, and were trying to obtain a foothold there.\n\nHaving made these statements, he proceeds to examine the whole question.\nHe asserts the correctness of the view, that Amosis, the founder of the\neighteenth dynasty, was the prince who knew not Joseph. The first king of\nthis new dynasty, he calculates, came to the throne two years after\nJoseph\u2019s death. With regard to the reign of Rameses II., he refers to the\nfestival of the Sothis period which was celebrated in the thirtieth year\nof his reign. Starting from this period,(76) which, according to Oppolzer,\nwas renewed in the year 1318 B.C., he calculates that the first year of\nRameses II. was 1347 B.C., and that the Exodus took place in his\nthirteenth year, _i.e._ 1335 B.C.\n\nAccording to the _Pirke di Rabbi Elieser_, Dr. Mahler says, the departure\nof the Israelites is said to have taken place on a Thursday. \u201cThis view is\nalso held in the Talmud (cf. Sabbath 87B), and the _Shulchan-Aroch_ also\nmaintains that _the 15th Nisan, the day of the Exodus, was a Thursday_.\nThis all agrees with the year B.C. 1335, for in that year the 15th Nisan\nfell on a Thursday, and indeed on _Thursday the 27th of March (Julian\ncalendar)_.\u201d\n\nIf we accept the theory that Rameses II. was the Pharaoh of the Exodus,\nand that the Exodus took place in 1335 B.C., then Moses, who was eighty\nyears old at the time of the Exodus, must have been born in the year 1415\nB.C., _i.e._ the fifteenth year of Amenophis III. Now the chief wife of\nthis ruler was queen Teie (see p. 275), a woman who was certainly of\nforeign, probably Asiatic, race. In all probability, therefore, Teie,\nbeing an alien and of a different religion from the Egyptians, was not by\nany means in favour with the Egyptian priesthood, however much the Pharaoh\nmay have delighted in her. The daughter of such a woman, as will easily be\nunderstood, would find little or no opposition to the adoption by her of a\nchild of one of the Hebrews, an Asiatic like her mother. This, of course,\nwould explain excellently how it was that Moses came to be adopted and\neducated by an Egyptian princess at her father\u2019s court, and that he had no\nreal sympathy with the people among whom he lived, though it raises\nsomewhat of a difficulty, for it is hard to understand how the Egyptian\nking, sympathizing, as we may expect him to have done, with Asiatics,\nshould have ordered the destruction of their children. Nevertheless,\ncircumstances may easily have arisen to cause such a decree to be issued.\nAnother difficulty is, to explain who the people hostile to Moses were,\nwho in the thirteenth year of Rameses II. died (Exod. iv. 19). This has\ngenerally been understood to be the king and one or more of his advisers,\nthough this objection, like the other, really presents no difficulty\nworthy of the name, as there was no indication that the king was included.\n\nOf course there is no statement to the effect that Pharaoh was killed with\nhis army by the returning flood after the Israelites crossed the Red Sea\n(in Ps. cxxxvi. 15 he must be regarded as having been overwhelmed therein\nin the persons of his warriors, who suffered the fate which ought to have\nstricken also the king), so that little or no difficulty exists in this\nportion of the narrative.(77) On the other hand, a difficulty is got rid\nof if we suppose that the Exodus took place in the time of Rameses II. Dr.\nMahler points out, that Meneptah was succeeded by his son and heir,\nUser-kheperu-Ra\u2019, who did not die, but reigned thirty-three years. The\neldest sons of Rameses II., on the other hand, all died during their\nfather\u2019s lifetime, and it was the fourteenth of his numerous progeny who\nultimately came to the throne.\n\nDr. Mahler clinches the matter by making the plague of darkness to have\nbeen a solar eclipse.\n\nWhatever may be the defects of Dr. Mahler\u2019s seductive theory, it must be\nadmitted that it presents fewer difficulties than any other that has yet\nbeen put forward, and on that account deserves special attention.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX. THE NATIONS WITH WHOM THE ISRAELITES CAME INTO CONTACT.\n\n\n The Amorites\u2014The Hittites\u2014The Jebusites\u2014The Girgashites\u2014Moab.\n\n\n\n\nAmorites.\n\n\nThe earliest mention of the Amorites in the Old Testament is the passage\nin Gen. x. 16, where the name occurs along with that of the Jebusites and\nthe Girgashites, from which may be gathered that they were all three very\npowerful tribes, though their power is in all probability not to be\nmeasured by the order of their names, the most important of the three\nbeing the Amorites, whose name comes second. They were regarded by the\nancient Jews as an iniquitous and wicked people (Gen. xv. 6; 2 Kings xxi.\n11), though they may not, in reality, have been worse than other nations\nwhich were their contemporaries. That they were a powerful nation is\nimplied by the statement in Gen. xlviii. 22, where Jacob speaks of the\ntract which he had taken out of the hand of the Amorite with his sword and\nhis bow, as a feat of which a warrior might be proud.\n\nThe Amorites in Babylonia have already been referred to in Chap. V., and\nfrom that part of the present work it will easily be understood that they\nwere an extensive and powerful nationality, capable, with organization, of\nextending their power, as they evidently did from time to time, far and\nwide. Indeed, as has been pointed out, there is great probability that the\nBabylonian dynasty called by Berosus Arabic, was in reality Amorite. In\nany case, the kings of this dynasty held sway over Amoria, as the\ninscription of Ammi-\u1e6ditana, translated on p. 155, clearly shows. The\nimportance of this nationality in the eyes of the Babylonians is proved by\nthe fact that their designation for \u201cwest\u201d was \u201cthe land of Amurr\u016b,\u201d and\nthe west wind was, even with the Assyrians, \u201cthe wind of the land of\nAmurr\u016b\u201d (though the Hittites, in Assyrian times, seem to have been the\nmore powerful nation), and this designation of the western point of the\ncompass probably long outlived the renown of the nationality from which\nthe expression was derived. Among other Biblical passages, testifying to\nthe power of the Amorites, may be quoted as typical Amos ii. 9, 10, and in\nthis the Babylonian and the Hebrew records are quite in agreement.\n\nAs has been pointed out by Prof. Sayce, in process of time a great many\ntribes\u2014Gibeonites, Hivites, Jebusites, and even Hittites\u2014were classed as\nAmorites by the ancient Jewish writers, a circumstance which likewise\ntestifies to the power of the nationality. These identifications must be\nto a large extent due to the fact that all the tribes or nationalities\nreferred to were mountaineers, and, as we have seen (p. 122), the Akkadian\ncharacter for a mountainous region or nationality, stood not only for\nArmenia, and the land of the Amorites, but also for the land of Akkad,\nbecause the Akkadians came from a mountainous country, perhaps somewhere\nin the neighbourhood of the mountains of Elam. This character was\npronounced Ari when it stood for Amoria, but ceased to be used for that on\naccount of its signifying also the mountainous region of Armenia, and\nAkkad, for which it still continued to be employed, and it is only the\ncontext, in many cases, which enables the reader to gather which is meant.\nOther groups used for Amoria were the sign for foot, twice over (sometimes\nwith one of them reversed), [Cuneiform], and [Cuneiform], the ordinary\npronunciation of which is Sar\u0161ar, though it is probable that the latter\nwas pronounced, in Akkadian, like the former, _i.e._ Tidnu. In the\ninscriptions of Gudea, viceroy of Laga\u0161 about 2700 B.C., there occurs the\nname of a country called Tidalum, \u201ca mountain of Martu,\u201d from which a kind\nof limestone was brought. This Hommel and Sayce regard as another form of\nTidnu, by the interchange of _l_ and _n_, which is not uncommon in\nAkkadian. The fact that Martu is also used in the inscriptions for Amurr\u016b,\n(the land of) the Amorites, and also, with the prefix for divinity, for\nthe Amorite god (_\u00eelu Amurr\u016b_), which was introduced into Babylonia at an\nexceedingly early date, confirms this explanation. In all probability\nthere is not at present sufficient data for ascertaining the dates when\nthese names first appear, but Tidnu or Tidalu was probably the earlier of\nthe two.\n\nWhat the exact boundaries of the district were are doubtful. Prof. Sayce,\nafter examining the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, comes to the conclusion that it\ndenoted the inland region immediately to the north of the Palestine of\nlater days. In this Petrie concurs, the country being, according to him,\nthe district of middle and lower Orontes, and certainly covering a large\narea. This, of course, would be the position of the tract over which they\nheld sway in the earlier ages, but later they must have extended their\npower so as to embrace the Jebusites (Jerusalem), and even Mamre in Gen.\nxiv. 13. From this wide extension of the dominions of the Amorites in the\nbook of the Bible dealing with the earliest period of Jewish history, and\nfrom the fact that the Assyro-Babylonians used the word to indicate the\nwest in general, it is clear that the Amorites occupied a wide tract in\nthe earlier ages, and must have been pushed gradually back, probably by\nthe Babylonians under Sargon of Agad\u00e9, leaving, however, centres of\nAmorite influence in the south, which, when the power of Egypt, which\nfollowed that of Babylonia, waned and disappeared, left certain\nindependent states under Amorite rulers. It is thus that, at the time of\nthe Exodus, we find Og ruling at Bashan, who had threescore cities, all\nthe region of Argob, his chief seats being Edrei and Ashtaroth. This ruler\nand his people were of the remnant of the Rephaim, regarded by Sayce as of\nAmorite origin (Hastings\u2019s _Dictionary of the Bible_, under \u201cAmorites\u201d).\nWhatever doubt there may be, however, about the origin of the Bashanites,\nthere is none concerning Sihon king of the Amorites dwelling more to the\nsouth. A man of great courage and daring, he had driven the Moabites out\nof their territory, obliging them to retreat across the Arnon. On the\nentry of the Israelites, he gathered his troops and attacked them, but was\ndefeated and killed. Josephus (_Ant._ iv. 5, sect. 2) has some curious\ndetails of this battle, in which he states that the Amorites were unable\nto fight successfully when away from the shelter of their cities, but in\nview of their successes against the Moabites, we may be permitted to doubt\nthis.\n\nIn the Tel-el-Amarna tablets the ruler of the Amorites is apparently\nAbdi-A\u0161irti,(78) who, with his son Aziru, warred successfully against\nRib-Addi (Rib-Hadad), governor of Ph\u0153nicia, driving him from \u1e62umuru and\nGublu (Gebal), which last city was occupied, according to Petrie\u2019s\nanalysis, by the two hostile parties in turn. Naturally there are a great\nmany recriminations on the part of Rib-Addi against Abdi-A\u0161irti on account\nof the hostility between them, and the former is constantly complaining to\nthe Pharaoh of what the latter had done, frequently calling him a dog, and\nonce seemingly referring to the Amorites as \u201cdogs.\u201d (Elsewhere Abdi-A\u0161irti\napplies this word to himself as an expression of humility.) His letters to\nthe king of Egypt, however, are merely assurances of fidelity, and are all\nshort:\u2014\n\n\u201cTo the king my lord say then thus: \u2018(It is) Abdi-A\u0161tarti, the king\u2019s\nservant. At the feet of the king my lord I fall down\u2014seven (times at) the\nfeet of the king my lord, and seven times again (?) both front part and\nback. And may the king my lord know that strong is the hostility against\nme, and let it be acceptable before the king my lord, and let him direct\none of the great men to protect me.\u2019\n\n\u201c \u2018Secondly, the king my lord has sent word to me, and I have heard\u2014I have\nheard all the words of the king my lord. Behold, the ten women forgotten\n(?) I have brought\u2019 \u201d (?).\n\n(It is here worthy of note, that he does not, in this letter, call himself\nAbdi-A\u0161irti, \u201cservant of the Ashera,\u201d but Abdi-A\u0161tarti, \u201cservant of\nAstarte,\u201d using the Assyro-Babylonian ideograph for I\u0161tar, the original of\nthe goddess in question. On another document from him, the word is spelled\nout, Ab-di-a\u0161-ta-ti, in which the scribe intended to write\nAb-di-a\u0161-ta-ar-ti, but omitted the last character but one. Yet another\nletter gives his name as Abdi-A\u0161-ra-tum, in the second element of which we\nmust see another form of Abdi-A\u0161irti, unless the scribe has also made a\nmistake in this case, and written A\u0161ratum for A\u0161taratum, which is just\npossible. In any case, it shows a close connection between the goddess\nA\u0161tarte or I\u0161tar, and the Ashera, which was in Palestine, at that date,\nand for centuries before and after, her emblem. To be the servant of the\none was to be the servant of the other, though the bearer of the name\nseems to have the desire rather to be considered the priest of the\ngoddess. Even unintentional variants in names furnish valuable\ncontributions at times to comparative mythology.)\n\nIf there are but few letters from the father, there is a sufficient\nnumber, and of considerable extent, from the son. He, too, is the faithful\nservant of the Pharaoh, and he writes also to D\u00fbdu (a form of the name\nDavid) and \u1e2a\u00e2i, telling of the difficulties which he had with regard to\nthe king of the Hittites. It is apparently this prince to whom the Pharaoh\nwrites in the letter translated on pp. 300-302, a circumstance which leads\nto the belief that the complaints of Rib-Addi with regard to Abdi-A\u0161irti\nand his son Aziru were well-founded. That the king of Egypt asks therein\nfor the delivery to him of certain persons whom he names, implies that he\nhad trustworthy information as to who the intriguers were, and though\napparently willing to give Aziru the benefit of the doubt, he certainly\ndid not hold him blameless.\n\nIt will probably be long ere the true order of these letters is known, and\nuntil this be found, much of the history of the period to which they refer\nmust necessarily remain uncertain.\n\n\n\n\nHittites.\n\n\nAnother nationality which took a predominant part in the politics of\nancient Palestine is the Hittites. To all appearance they were a later\npower than the Amorites, as their name does not occur in the inscriptions\nof Babylonia and Assyria until a comparatively late date, whilst the\nAmorites are mentioned 2200 years before Christ, and their name had become\nthe common Assyro-Babylonian expression for \u201cthe west.\u201d That the Hittites\nwere nevertheless of considerable antiquity, however, is implied by the\npresence of the sons of Heth at Mamre in the time of Abraham, who\npurchased from Ephron the Hittite the cave of Machpelah in that place. It\nis difficult to assign to these people any definite limits, especially in\nearly times, but it seems certain that they began to act far in the north,\nand gradually extended their power southwards. In the times of Joshua, the\ntract between the Lebanon and Euphrates is described as theirs, and their\ndomain was, in fact, the country to the north of Palestine. It was no\ndoubt due to their predominating power that the Assyrians of later days\ncalled the whole of Palestine \u201cthe land of \u1e2aatti,\u201d a designation not\naltogether correct, but sufficient for their purpose, namely, that of\nindicating the position of the nationalities enumerated. Nevertheless, it\nhad some justification, several colonies of these people inhabiting that\ndistrict, as is indicated by Gen. xxiii. 3, xxv. 10; Numbers xiii. 29,\netc. The statement in Ezekiel xvi. 3, that the father of Jerusalem was an\nAmorite and its mother a Hittite, shows what was the opinion of the more\nlearned Jews of the time in the matter.\n\nThe earliest mention of the Hittites outside the Bible is in the Egyptian\nmonuments, where, in the annals of Thothmes III., it is recorded for the\nyear 1470 B.C., that the king proceeded to the banks of the Euphrates, and\nreceived tribute from \u201cthe greater\u201d land of the Hittites. In the year 1463\nB.C., the king of this district again paid tribute. During the reign of\nThothmes IV., grandson of Thothmes III., the relations between the two\ncountries must have changed, and the Egyptian king had to repel an attack\nmade by the Hittites upon Tunib (now Tennib) in Northern Syria. This\nhostile policy was continued by them also at a later date, for the\nsuccessors of Thothmes IV., Amenophis III. and his son, Amenophis IV., had\noften to oppose the Hittite king, who either attacked Northern Syria, or\nstirred up strife among the Egyptian vassals in Canaan.\n\nHere, again, the Tel-el-Amarna tablets come in, and supply a mass of\ndetails. At times the \u1e2aatti still send tribute, both to Amenophis III. and\nIV., but at the close of the reign of the former, hostilities again broke\nout, the Hittites being, to all appearance, the aggressors. Du\u0161ratta, king\nof Mitanni, writes that he sends to the king of Egypt tribute of the\nspoils which he had taken from the \u1e2aatti; and the king of Nu\u1e2ba\u0161\u0161e, who\nbears the Assyrian name of Addu-nirari, and whose grandfather had been\nappointed by Thothmes III., complains that the king of the \u1e2aatti is\nagainst him, and asks for help. From these and other statements it would\nseem, that whoever was on the side of the king of Egypt was the enemy of\nthe Hittites, and therefore to be attacked by them. Akizzi, king of Qatna,\ncomplains in one of the letters that the \u1e2aatti had burned down a city, and\nreports in another that they had tried to win him over to their side.\nAziru, another prince in the neighbourhood, complains that the king of\n\u1e2aatti has entered Nu\u1e2ba\u0161\u0161e, and for this reason he could not leave his own\nterritory to go to the king of Egypt. At the end of one of his\ncommunications, Akizzi states that the Sun-god had taken away the king of\nthe \u1e2aatti, but as no name is given, any historical importance which this\nfact might have is greatly minimized. In other letters they are spoken of\nas despoiling the princes of Gebal, capturing a personage named Lupakku\nand the cities of Amki \u201ceven from the cities of Aaddu\u201d (or Bin-Addu =\nBen-Hadad). As we have seen (pp. 288-289), at least a portion of them was\nled by Etakama of Kinza.\n\nAs is well known, a large number of hieroglyphic inscriptions of a people\nregarded as the Hittites exist, and many attempts have been made to\ntranslate them. In addition to these, there are many sculptures, mostly on\nrocks, and still _in situ_. The most remarkable of these are at Bogaz\nKeui, Eyouk, Iasili-Kaia, Ghiaour-kalesi, Doganlu-deresi, Ibriz,\nEflatun-bunar, Karabeli, and elsewhere in Asia Minor, as well as at\nJerabis (anciently called Carchemish), Hamah (Hamath), and monuments of\nthe Hittites have even been found at Babylon. How they came to this last\nplace is not at present known, but they may have formed part of the spoils\nbrought from the west by any of the later conquerors (such a supposition\nwould probably be better than attributing to them a very early date), or\nsent thither as presents or as specimens of Hittite work. It is noteworthy\nthat the inscriptions, with the exception of the bowl brought from\nBabylon, are all in relief and boustrophedon. A large number of seals,\nboth of the ordinary kind and cylindrical, are known, and though there are\nbilingual inscriptions (Hittite and Babylonian), none of them are of\nsufficient length to make them really serviceable in translating other\ntexts in the same character.\n\nNotwithstanding the great difficulty attending such a task as the\ntranslation of these inscriptions, a certain amount of success has been\nattained. Those who have advanced the study most are Prof. Sayce in\nEngland, and Profs. Jensen and Hommel in Germany. It will be many years,\nhowever (unless some unexpected help come to light), before renderings in\nany real sense of the word useful can be made.\n\nIn the opinion of Prof. Sayce, Cappadocia was the earliest home of this\nnationality, which spread thence in every direction (except, perhaps,\nnorthwards), and made itself master of a part of Palestine, from which\ncircumstance the district came to have, in Assyrian literature, the name\nof \u201cthe land of \u1e2aatti.\u201d Though later than the Amorite invasion, it\nnevertheless took place at a very early date, as is shown by the fact that\nAbraham had dealings with Ephron, a Hittite or \u201cson of Heth.\u201d\n\nComing down to a later date, it is interesting to see what is said about\nthem by the kings of Assyria. Tiglath-pileser I. (about 1120 B.C.) says as\nfollows\u2014\n\n\n \u201c... 4000 Ka\u0161kaians (and) Urumaians, people of the land of \u1e2aatt\u00ea,\n disobedient, who in their strength had taken the cities of\n Subarte, subject unto the god A\u0161ur, my lord, heard of my march to\n Subarte; the brilliance of my power overwhelmed them, they feared\n the conflict, my feet they embraced. With their goods and II.\n _sos_ (120) of chariots of their system of yoking(79) I took from\n them, and delivered to the people of my land.\u201d\n\n\nFarther on in his record, Tiglath-pileser I. states that he collected his\nchariots and warriors, and took to the desert, going to the border-people\nof the Arameans, enemies of A\u0161ur his lord. From before the land of S\u016b\u1e2bi\n(the Shuhites) as far as the city Carchemish of the land of \u1e2aatt\u00ea, he\nboasts of having plundered in a single day, slaughtering their soldiers,\nand taking back to his own country all their property. Some of them fled\nacross the Euphrates, followed by the Assyrians in boats of skins, and the\nresult of this flight to seek safety was, that six of their cities at the\nfoot of the mountain known as Bi\u0161ru, were taken, plundered, and destroyed.\n\nIn other passages of his record also, this king refers to certain\ndistricts which were undoubtedly Hittite, but without calling them by that\nname. One of these\u2014the interesting description of his operations in\nCommagene\u2014is especially worthy of notice. It reads as follows\u2014\n\n\u201cIn those days the people of Qur\u1e2b\u00ea, who had come with the people of\nKummu\u1e2bi to save and help the land of Kummu\u1e2bi, I caused to go down like\n_\u0161\u00fbbe._(80) The corpses of their warriors I heaped up in heaps on the tops\nof the mountains, the carcases of their warriors the river Nam\u00ea took forth\nto the Tigris. Kili-Te\u0161ub son of Kali-Te\u0161ub, whom Irrupi put to flight\n(?), their king, my hand took in the midst of the battle. His wives,\nchildren, offspring of his heart, his force, III. _sos_ (180) plates of\ncopper, 5 censers of bronze, with their gods, (objects) of gold and\nsilver, and the best of their property, I carried off. Their spoil and\ntheir goods I sent forth, that city and its palace I burned with fire,\ndestroyed (it), laid (it) waste.\n\n\u201cThe city Urra\u1e2bina\u0161, their stronghold, situated in the land of Panari,\nfear dreading(81) the glory of A\u0161ur, my lord, overwhelmed them; to save\ntheir lives they carried away their gods (and their goods), they fled to\nthe peaks of the lofty mountains like a bird. I collected my chariots and\ntroops, (and) crossed the Tigris, \u0160a-di-Te\u0161ub, son of \u1e2aattu-\u0161ar, king of\nUrra\u1e2bina\u0161, not to be captured in his own country, took my feet. The\nchildren, offspring of his heart, and his family, I took as hostages. I.\n_sos_ (60) plates of copper, libation-vases of bronze, offering-dishes of\nbronze, great ones, with II. _sos_ (120) men, oxen, sheep, tribute and\ngifts, he brought, (and) I received it. I had mercy on him, spared his\nlife, (and) set the heavy yoke of my dominion over him for ever. I\ncaptured the wide land of Kummu\u1e2bi to its (whole) extent (and) made it\nsubmit to my feet. At that time I offered one bronze offering-dish and one\nbronze libation-vase of the spoil and gifts of the land of Kummu\u1e2bi to A\u0161ur\nmy lord, (and) I. _sos_ of copper plates, with their gods, I presented to\nHadad who loveth me.\u201d\n\nIn the above extract the names containing that of the god Te\u0161ub show\nclearly that we have here to do with nationalities in the neighbourhood of\nMitanni (see p. 277), and a close relation with the Hittites is suggested\nby the other name \u1e2aattu-\u0161ar, father of \u0160adi-Te\u0161ub, which is an analogous\nformation to \u1e2aattu-\u0161il, the Kheta-sir of Egyptologists, with whom Rameses\nII. made a treaty (cf. p. 304). Another reading of \u1e2aattu-\u0161ar is \u1e2aattu\u1e2bi, a\nname which Prof. Sayce translates, \u201cthe Hittite,\u201d in the second series of\nthe _Records of the Past_, vol. i. p. 97, note 2. In the same passage he\nanalyzes the name of the city Urra\u1e2bina\u0161 as being derived from Urra, with\nthe termination _\u1e2bi-na\u0161_, denoting in Vannite, \u201cthe place of the people\nof.\u201d\n\nAnother interesting reference to the Hittites is that of the Assyrian king\nA\u0161\u0161ur-na\u1e63ir-\u00e2pli, renowned for his cruelty. The king ruling at the time\nwas Sangara, who had as his capital the city of Carchemish. The text reads\nas follows\u2014\n\n\u201cI drew near to the land of Carchemish. The tribute of Sangara, king of\nthe land of \u1e2aatte\u201420 talents of gold, bangles (?) of gold, rings of gold,\nswords of gold, 100 talents of bronze, 250 talents of iron, dishes of\nbronze, vases of bronze, libation-vases of bronze, a brazier of bronze,\nand the numerous vessels of his palace, the weight of which was not taken;\ncouches of oak, chairs of oak, tables of oak and ivory inlaid, 200\nslave-girls (or virgins), cotton stuffs, woollen cloth, white and black\nand white and grey, white marble (?), tusks of elephants, a white chariot,\nan umbrella of gold filled with overlaying (?), the ornament of his\nroyalty, I received. The chariots, horses, (and) grooms of the city\nCarchemish, (of the Hittites(82)) I set (aside) for myself.\u201d\n\nThe riches and importance of the city of Carchemish are here well\nindicated, and to all appearance the place maintained its position to the\nend, long after the power of the Hittites had completely disappeared.\nIndeed, as will be recognized from the above, Sangara has every appearance\nof having been a local ruler, implying that the district under Hittite\ncontrol was already broken up into small states practically independent of\neach other. Another prince of the Hittites, in the neighbourhood of\nDiarbekir, from whom this Assyrian king received tribute was \u201cthe son of\nBa\u1e2biani.\u201d Apparently he was called thus on account of his ancestor,\nBa\u1e2biani, being chief of a tribe, the district over which he ruled bearing,\nin A\u0161\u0161ur-na\u1e63ir-\u00e2pli\u2019s second reference to it, the name of B\u00eet-Ba\u1e2biani,\n\u201cthe house of Ba\u1e2biani.\u201d The special products of this tract are well\nindicated by the nature of the gifts sent to the Assyrian king: \u201cchariots,\nharness, horses, silver, gold, lead, bronze, and vessels of bronze.\u201d That\nthese Hittite districts paid tribute so submissively would seem to\nindicate that they had no coherence among themselves, and did not feel\ncalled upon to aid each other in time of need.\n\nSargon of Assyria, who claims to have subjugated all the land of the\nHittites, speaks, as do other Assyrian kings, of the people of Hamath, and\nwhat he did to Ilu-bi\u2019idi or Yau-bi\u2019idi, their king. This, too, was the\ncapital of a Hittite principality, and it is in the modern town of Hamah,\nin which form the name still survives, that the so-called \u201cHamah-stones,\u201d\nnow generally regarded as Hittite, were found.\n\nThe disappearance of the Hittite confederate states (if such they really\nwere), and the rise in their place from time to time of other powers,\ncaused the Assyrians, who regarded this territory as their own special\npossession, won by conquest, to apply to the whole district the name of\nm\u00e2t _\u1e2aatti_, \u201cthe land of Heth,\u201d which would seem to have included\n(probably in its extended sense) Samaria, Sidon, Arvad, Gebal, Ashdod,\nBeth-Ammon, Moab, Edom, Askelon, and Judah.(83) It thus, to all\nappearance, took the place of the ancient \u201cland of the Amorites\u201d (not,\nhowever, when indicating the points of the compass), and in this the\ninscriptions of Esarhaddon and A\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli agree.\n\nWhat the influence of the Hittites over the nations contemporary with them\nmay have been is difficult to estimate. The Assyrians, to all appearance,\nborrowed from them a certain style of architecture, used for the\nentrance-hall of the royal palaces. Their style of art, of which numerous\nexamples are preserved, shows that they had made considerable progress,\nand that they had individuality as artists. Neither in sculpture nor in\nengraving of hard stone, however, did they ever attain to the exquisite\nfineness and finish of the best work of the artists of Babylonia and\nAssyria. The subjects, too, seem to be usually more grotesque, though this\nsuggestion, which their work gives, may be due merely to our ignorance of\ntheir religious beliefs and the legends on which the designs were probably\nbased.\n\nThe inscribed vase in the British Museum, and the inscribed figure found\nby the German explorers at the same place have already been referred to\n(pp. 317-318), and it has been suggested as probable that they were sent\nas presents to one or more of the Babylonian kings, though the possibility\nthat they were part of the spoils of an expedition to that part of the\nworld, or specimens of Hittite art carried off at a later date, when the\nnations producing them had passed away, are also probable explanations. In\nany case, they seem to show that there were, at some period or other,\npolitical relations between the Hittites and the Babylonians.\n\n\n\n\nJebusites.\n\n\nThe importance of the Jebusites, who were, to all appearance, but a small\ntribe, lies in the circumstance, that their capital and stronghold, at the\ntime the Israelites entered the Holy Land, was Jerusalem. In consequence\nof this, Jerusalem is mentioned, in one or two places (Jud. xix. 10; 1\nChron. xi. 4, 5, etc.), apparently poetically, under the name of Jebus,\nperhaps so called by the Jebusites because of its being the capital of\ntheir tribe. The original name of the city, however, as we know from Gen.\nxiv. and the Tel-el-Amarna tablets (see p. 239), was Uru-salim. When the\nJebusites took possession of the city, however, is unknown, but in all\nprobability neither Melchizedek nor Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba belonged to the race.\n\nApart from the references to this tribe in connection with Jerusalem,\nthere is no indication as to its origin and race. The name of their ruler,\nAdoni-zedek, however, seems to show clearly that they were Semites, and we\nmay suppose, with Driver, that they were Canaanites (Hastings, _Dict. of\nthe Bible_, s.v.). It is apparently one of the tribes of which the\nBabylonian and Assyrian inscriptions know nothing as a body, but the name\nof Yabu\u0161u, which would be the old form of Jebus, occurs in a contract\ntablet of the time of the first dynasty of Babylon (about 2200 B.C.), and,\nif really the name of the tribe, as it would seem to be, confirms its\nantiquity, as indicated by the references to it in Genesis.\n\nIt is not improbable that future discoveries will give us more information\nconcerning this tribe, interesting principally on account of its having\ncome into contact with the Jews.\n\n\n\n\nGirgashites.\n\n\nThis nation, descended from the fifth son of Canaan, seems to have\ninhabited the tract on the western bank of the Jordan, and on that account\nwas not within easy reach of the Babylonians and Assyrians. The name, it\nis thought, is closely connected with that of Gergesa, where Christ healed\nthe demoniac, and allowed the evil spirits to enter into the herd of swine\nwhich then ran down the slope into the sea. This Gergesa has, in its turn,\nbeen identified with Kersa, a ruined town near the mouth of the Wady\nSamakh. If this be the case, there is some probability that the\nGirgashites are the Kirki\u0161\u0101ti of a tablet from Assyria which seemingly\ncontains an early historical record, or an historical legend. Whether the\nKirki\u0161\u0101ti be identical with the Girgashites or not, the text is of\nsufficient importance to make it a valuable record, and a translation of\nthe more perfect and interesting of the lines is given here\u2014\n\n\n \u201cGazz\u0101ni to the resting-place he has decided upon,(84)\n to the fortress camp of Kirki\u0161\u0101ti,\n to Zakar-gimilli (king?) of the Si\u1e2bites,\n to wide-spreading Kirki\u0161\u0101ti,\n to \u1e2aarri-si\u2019i\u0161i, to D\u00fbr-Dungi,\n and the neighbourhood of Tengurgur (?) may he go forth, and\n to the land of \u1e2aalman, the place to which his eyes are set, may he\n go.\n By the command of the enemy, the Lullubite, may he accomplish\n (it)\u2014\n As for him, his horses, his soldiers, his chariots, in peace to\n the land of \u1e2aalman have approached, and the enemy, the\n Lullubite,\n whether from before him, or from beside him, or from his right,\n or from his left, did not cease (?) from him, and shall not\n destroy him,\n shall not make him fail, shall not cause him to diminish.\u201d\n\n\nThat the majority of the countries mentioned are near to Babylonia, is\nagainst the probability that Kirki\u0161\u0101ti (if it be a country) is the land of\nthe Girgashites, unless \u1e2aalman be Aleppo, and not the Mesopotamian tract\nof the same name; or unless, being a \u201cnumerous people,\u201d they had sent out\ncolonies to the neighbourhood of Babylonia, as did the Amorites; or\nemigrants, like the Jebusites. Whatever be the explanation, however, the\nabove fragment is exceedingly interesting, the more so, that in the first\nline of the extract as given above, the person spoken of is to all\nappearance Gazz\u0101ni, which is possibly the completion of the name of the\nfather of Tud\u1e2bula, and is written, as far as it is preserved, in the same\nway.(85)\n\nIt is noteworthy that the prefix for country is absent in every case,\nexcept that of \u1e2aalman.\n\n\n\n\nMoabites.\n\n\nConcerning the early history and state of the Moabites we get no\ninformation from the inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria, though the\nname Muab occurs on the base of one of the six colossal inscriptions at\nLuxor (_Patriarchal Palestine_, p. 21). For a time, in all probability, it\nwas like an Egyptian province, or, at least, greatly under Egyptian\ninfluence. It is not until comparatively late times that the Moabites come\nbefore us in Assyrian history, and the same thing may be said with regard\nto the Edomites, Ammonites, and other petty states. As these will be\nreferred to incidentally in the chapters which follow, it has been thought\nwell not to treat of them here, in order to avoid repetition as much as\npossible.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X. CONTACT OF THE HEBREWS WITH THE ASSYRIANS.\n\n\n A\u0161\u0161ur-na\u1e63ir-\u00e2pli II.\u2014Shalmaneser II.\u2014Tiglath-pileser III.\n (Pul)\u2014Shalmaneser IV.\n (Elulaeus)\u2014Sargon\u2014Sennacherib\u2014Esarhaddon\u2014A\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli (the\n great and noble Asnappar)\u2014The downfall of Assyria.\n\n\nThe Hebrew commonwealth had come into being, and given place to a\nmonarchy, which, passing through many vicissitudes, reached its highest\npitch of glory in the time of David and Solomon, to suffer, after the\ndeath of the latter, diminution by the falling away of the ten tribes.\nThus weakened, the two parts of what had been erstwhile a powerful whole\nbecame tempting morsels to any power whose ruler was ambitious of\nconquest. It was probably more from unwillingness to attack with but\nlittle chance of success than inability from inherent weakness which\ncaused the Assyrians to refrain whilst the nation was united. Generally,\nthe kings of Assyria preferred making conquests nearer home, and\nTukulti-Ninip I., who reigned in the 13th century B.C., annexed Babylonia\nand ruled there for seven years, Assyrian predominance in that land coming\nto an end on his death, which was due to a revolt, in which his son,\nA\u0161\u0161ur-na\u1e63ir-\u00e2pli, took part. Though this was a check to Assyrian ambition\nin that quarter, its kings returned from time to time to the attack, but\nwith very varying success, which probably caused them to turn their\nattention to other districts as the field of their warlike zeal.\nTukulti-Ninip II. (891-885 B.C.) and his son, A\u0161\u0161ur-na\u1e63ir-\u00e2pli II.,\ntherefore aimed at the conquest of the north and west, and though the\nlatter came into conflict with Babylonia, no permanent accession of\nterritory resulted therefrom.\n\nIt seems not to have been until somewhat late in his reign that he\nreached, in his numerous expeditions, the Mediterranean Sea, \u201cthe great\nwestern sea,\u201d or \u201cthe great sea of the land of Amurr\u016b,\u201d(86) as he calls\nit. Here, after performing ceremonies to the gods of Assyria, he received\nthe tribute of the kings of the sea-coast\u2014\u201cof the land of the Tyrians, the\nland of the Sidonians, the land of the Gebalites, the land of the\nMa\u1e2ballatites, the land of the Maizites, the land of the Kaizites, the land\nof the Amorites, (and) the city of Arvad, which is amid the sea.\u201d This is\nfollowed by a list of the objects received, and the statement that they\n(the rulers) paid him homage. Having thus spied out the nakedness of the\nland, and ascertained the willingness of the rulers to give tribute, the\nAssyrian king proceeded to the mountains of \u1e2aamanu (Amanus), and cut beams\nof cedar, cypress, and other wood for the temple \u00ca-\u0161arra, for his house or\ntemple (apparently that in which he worshipped), \u201ca house of rejoicing,\n(and) for the temple of the moon and the sun, the glorious gods.\u201d\n\nShalmaneser II., son of A\u0161\u0161ur-na\u1e63ir-\u00e2pli, during the first six years of\nhis reign, warred, like his father, on the north and west, his object\nbeing to complete what his father had begun, namely, the subjugation of\nthe territory of A\u1e2buni, son of Adini, king of Til-barsip. This having been\nsuccessfully accomplished, he was free to turn his attention to the more\nsouthern regions of the old land of the Amorites. In the year 854 B.C.,\ntherefore, he marched against Giammu, a ruler whose land lay on the river\nBelichus. To all appearance this chief wished to resist, but his people\nfeared the power of the Assyrian king, and put Giammu to death. Taking\npossession of the district, he then proceeded to further successes, and\nafter crossing the Euphrates again in boats of skins, he received the\ntribute of the kings on the farther side\u2014Sangara of Carchemish, Kunda\u0161pu\nof Commagene, Aramu the son of Gusu, Lallu the Milidian, \u1e2aaianu the son of\nGabaru, Kalparuda of the Patinians, and Kalparuda of the Gurgumians, \u201c(at)\nthe city A\u0161\u0161ur-uttir-a\u1e63bat, of the farther side of the Euphrates, which is\nupon the river Sajur, which the men of the Hittites call the city Pitru\u201d\n(Pethor). Having reached Aleppo, he received also tribute there, and\noffered sacrifices before Hadad of Aleppo.\n\nNext came the turn of Ir\u1e2bul\u00eani of Hamath (Amat\u00e2a), whose cities Adennu,\nParg\u00e2, and Argan\u00e2 were captured and spoiled, and his palaces set in\nflames.\n\n\u201cFrom Argan\u00e2 I departed, to Qarqara I drew near: Qarqara, his royal city,\nI ravaged, destroyed, (and) burnt with fire. One thousand two hundred\nchariots, 1200 yoke of horses, 20,000 trained soldiers of Adad-\u2019idri (=\nBin-Adad-idri = Ben-Hadad) of \u0160a-im\u0113ri\u0161u (= the province of Damascus); 700\nchariots, 700 yoke of horses, (and) 10,000 soldiers of Ir\u1e2bul\u00eani of the\nland of the Hamathites; 2000 chariots (and) 10,000 men of A\u1e2babbu (regarded\nas Ahab) of the land of the Sir\u2019ilites (regarded as the Israelites); 500\nmen of the Guites; 1000 men of the Musrites; 10 chariots (and) 10,000 men\nof the Irqanatites; 200 men of Matinu-ba\u2019ali of the city of the Arvadites;\n200 men of the land of the Usanatites; 30 chariots (and) 10,000 men of\nAdunu-ba\u2019ali of the land of the \u0160ianians;(87) 1000 camels of Gindibu\u2019u of\nthe Arb\u00e2a (regarded as the Arabians); ... 00 men of Ba\u2019asa son of Ru\u1e2bubu\nof the land of the Amanians (Ammonites)\u2014these 12(88) kings he took to aid\nhim, (and) to make war and battle they advanced against me. With the\nsupreme powers which A\u0161\u0161ur, the lord, has given; with the mighty weapons\nwhich _ura-gala_ (Nergal(89)) going before me, has presented (me), I\nfought with them. From the city Qarqara as far as the city Gilzau(90) I\nmade an end of them. Fourteen thousand of their warriors I caused to be\nslain with the sword. Like Hadad I caused a torrent to rain down upon\nthem....\u201d\n\nSuch is the account of the first recorded contact of the Assyrians with\nthe Jews\u2014that is, if Sir\u2019il\u00e2a be rightly rendered \u201cIsraelites\u201d; as to\nAhab, there may have been more than one of the name, just as there were\ntwo Kalparudas, he of the Patinians, and he of the Gurgumians.\nNevertheless, the probability that it really is Ahab of Israel is great,\nand this theory is held by most Assyriologists.\n\nIn truth, however, the Hebrew and the Assyrian histories of this period\nare not altogether easy to reconcile. Ben-Hadad II., the son and successor\nof Ben-Hadad I., was in almost continual conflict with the Israelites. The\nstory is told in 1 Kings xx., according to which Ben-Hadad entered into an\nalliance with thirty-two other kings, who, with their armies, horses, and\nchariots, besieged Samaria. Too full of confidence, he sent to Ahab of\nIsrael, who was in the besieged city, demanding his surrender, the second\ntime with terms more than usually humiliating. In consequence of the words\nof a prophet who is unnamed, the rejection of these terms was followed by\na sortie of the inhabitants, who seem to have taken the besiegers\nunawares, whilst they were feasting and drinking in their over-confidence.\nThe result was the raising of the siege, and the complete defeat of the\nallied forces.\n\nThe next attack of Ben-Hadad upon Ahab was at Aphek, he hoping to obtain a\nvictory over the Israelites because he considered their God to be a god of\nthe mountains, and that they would not be under his protection in the\nplains. Here, too, the Israelites were victorious, and Ben-Hadad\nsubmitted, and agreed to restore cities taken by his father (xx. 34), and\nto allow the Israelites to build streets at Damascus (probably as a\nquarter for Jewish merchants).\n\nAdmitting the correctness of the general opinions of Assyriologists\nconcerning _A\u1e2babbu m\u00e2t Sir\u2019il\u00e2a_, it must have been between this period\nand his death that he joined the Syrian league against Shalmaneser II. of\nAssyria, with a force only half that of Ben-Hadad, though his chariots\nwere nearly twice as many. Notwithstanding this, however, the Israelitish\ntroops were sufficiently numerous, and the defeat of such a large army as\nthat of the allies of the Syrian league, and the slaughter of a total of\n14,000 men among them (another account says 20,500), many of them in all\nprobability Israelites, finds no place, strange to say, in the sacred\nrecord, notwithstanding that the Hebrew writers do not, as a rule, in the\nleast object to mentioning national defeat, and in this case it would have\nbeen a most important thing to refer to, the danger which threatened them\nand their allies being such as promised to overthrow their national\nexistence altogether. Perhaps the compiler of the sacred record, however,\ndid not realize to the full what the Assyrian invasion meant; or he may\nnot have desired to justify Ahab\u2019s policy (which, in view of the danger\nwhich threatened, was a sound one), and so discredit with the people the\nfanatical behaviour and tragic warning of the prophet who reproached the\nking so mercilessly because he had made friends with Ben-Hadad instead of\npressing on against him in hostility, even to the death.\n\nThe Rev. Joseph Horner (_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical\nArch\u00e6ology_, 1898, p. 244), besides bringing in the chronological\ndifficulty, which is very real, in spite of Prof. Oppert\u2019s _Noli me\ntangere_ (P.S.B.A., 1898, pp. 24-47), notes (pp. 237, 238) the difficulty\nof the name. This is the only place where Israel is called in the Assyrian\ninscriptions Sir\u00b4il\u00e2a\u2014in all other passages it is _b\u00eet \u1e2aumr\u00ee_, \u201cthe house\nof Omri,\u201d or _m\u00e2t b\u00eet \u1e2aumr\u00ee_, \u201cthe land of the house of Omri,\u201d and he\nregards it as incredible that a name never used before, and never\nafterwards found, should be employed. Elsewhere, when speaking of Jehu,\nShalmaneser calls him \u201cson\u201d or \u201cdescendant of Omri,\u201d apparently intending\nthereby to indicate his nationality, for, as is well known, the\nrelationship expressed is not correct.\n\nNevertheless, allowance must be made for the uncertainty attending the\nintroduction into the literature of a country of a name with which the\npeople, including the scribes, are unfamiliar. \u1e2aumr\u00ee or Omri may have\nbeen, to the scribe who composed the account given by the Black Obelisk,\nvery much easier to remember than the comparatively unfamiliar Sir\u00b4il\u00e2a,\nand it may have been felt that the form used was not by any means\ncertain\u2014Isra\u00b4il\u00e2a would, in fact, have been much better. The scribe of the\nmonolith, however, may have inserted what he felt to be the\nAssyro-Babylonian form of the name, for something very similar to Sir\u00b4il\u00e2a\n(or Ser\u00b4il\u00e2a) exists in the Sar-\u00eeli of a contract tablet of the reign of\nAmmi-zaduga, translated in the _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_,\n1897, pp. 594-595 (cf. p. 157).\n\nBut, as before remarked, the chronological difficulty still remains, the\ndate, from Hebrew sources, being, according to Prof. Oppert, before 900\nB.C. (the last year of Ahab), whilst, according to Assyrian chronology, it\nshould be 853 B.C. (cf. Sayce in Hastings\u2019s _Dictionary of the Bible_,\nvol. i. p. 272).\n\nThe importance of the city of Hamath is well indicated not only by the\nabove extract, but also by the numerous other passages where Ir\u1e2bul\u0113ni (or\nUr\u1e2bil\u0113ni) of Hamath is referred to. The Guites were regarded by the late\nGeo. Smith as the Biblical Goim\u2014a rather doubtful identification. As for\nthe Musrites, the same scholar thought them to be the Egyptians, Mu\u1e63r\u00e2a,\n\u201cMu\u1e63rites,\u201d coming apparently from Mu\u1e63ur, the name of Egypt in the\nAssyrian inscriptions. Others regard them as being a people of the north,\nand this is more probable, though it would perhaps be better to regard the\nname as unidentified. The mention of \u201ccamels\u201d in connection with Gindibu\u2019u\nof the Arb\u00e2a is regarded as stamping the nationality referred to as being\nArabic, and this is very probable. In Ba\u2019asa son of Ru\u1e2bubu of the\nAmmonites we have the comparatively familiar Biblical names Baasha and\nRehob in their Assyrian forms. It will therefore be seen that the extract\ntranslated above is of considerable interest quite independently of its\nhistorical bearings, which are of great importance, whatever may be the\nultimate opinion concerning them.\n\nDuring the next three years Shalmaneser was occupied on the west and\nnorth-west and in Babylonia, so that it was not until 850 B.C. that he was\nagain able to turn his attention to the neighbourhood of Palestine.\n\nThe clemency of Ahab towards Ben-Hadad had apparently ended, as has been\nseen, in an alliance between the two nationalities, but that alliance did\nnot, to all appearance, last very long. There is every probability that it\nwas an unwilling one on the part of Ben-Hadad, and in all probability he\ntook advantage of the death of Ahab to repudiate it. In any case,\nBen-Hadad is represented in 2 Kings vi. 24 ff., as again besieging\nSamaria, but with disastrous results. What interval there was between his\nraising the siege of Samaria and his death, the sacred narrative does not\nsay, but according to Assyrian chronology, there should be from four to\nsix years at least (850-846 B.C.).\n\nIn the tenth year of his reign Shalmaneser II. of Assyria crossed the\nEuphrates for the eighth time, and advanced against Sangara of Carchemish,\nwhose cities he destroyed, made waste, and burned in the flames. After\nthis came the turn of Arame, whose capital city, with one hundred other\nplaces around it, was laid in ruins. Adad-idri of Damascus (Im\u0113ri-\u0161u),\nhowever, set himself, with Ir\u1e2bul\u0113ni of Hamath, and twelve of the kings of\nSyria, to resist the Assyrian king. Shalmaneser claims to have defeated\nthem, put them to flight, and captured their chariots, horses, and\nwar-material.\n\nThere is hardly any doubt, however, that his success was not by any means\nwhat he desired and expected, for he found himself obliged to march again\nto the same region in his eleventh year, when he crossed the Euphrates for\nthe ninth time. On this occasion he says that he destroyed ninety-seven\ncities of Sangara of Carchemish and one hundred cities of Arame. Having\nreached the edge of the \u1e2aamanu (Amanus) range of mountains, he traversed\nthe portion named Yaraqu, and descended to the land of the Hamathites,\nwhere he captured the city A\u0161tamaku and ninety-nine other places,\ndefeating their armies with great slaughter. Again he met Adad-idri, with\nIr\u1e2bul\u0113ni of Hamath and the twelve \u201ckings of the sea-coast.\u201d In the battle\nwhich follows he claims to have defeated them and killed 10,000 of their\nfighting-men with the sword. He also states that he took their chariots,\nhorses, and war-material. On his way back he again turned his attention to\nArame, capturing his capital Apparazu. At that time he likewise received\nthe tribute of Kalparundu of the Patinians, consisting of silver, lead,\ngold, horses, oxen, sheep, and textile fabrics. Ascending again into the\nAmanus mountains, he brought away a further supply of cedar-wood for his\npalaces.\n\nIn the two following years (648 and 647 B.C., according to Assyrian\nreckoning), Shalmaneser was not to all appearance engaged in any\nexpeditions of importance, or at least their importance is unknown. In his\nfourteenth year, 846 B.C., however, he crossed the Euphrates again, and\nmet Ben-Hadad for the last time. As before, the latter was in alliance\nwith Ir\u1e2bul\u0113ni of Hamath and the \u201ctwelve kings of the sea-coast above and\nbelow.\u201d Again the Assyrian king fought with them and defeated them,\ndestroying their chariots and teams, and capturing, as before, their\nwar-material, and \u201cto save their lives, they fled.\u201d\n\nNaturally all these historical details are of great interest and value.\nThe question naturally arises whether, being so much alike in wording and\nresults, they may not all refer to the same expedition, which the Assyrian\nking repeated to fill up his annals? As a rule, however, the annals of the\nAssyrian rulers are exceedingly correct, and there is consequently but\nlittle reason to doubt the accuracy of Shalmaneser\u2019s statements. It is\nnoteworthy that, in all these descriptions of expeditions to the west,\ntwelve kings are mentioned, whilst in the first instance eleven only are\nenumerated, and in the other two the twelve are spoken of as if in\naddition to Adad-idri and Ir\u1e2bul\u0113ni of Hamath. Ought we, therefore, to\ntranslate \u201cthe twelve kings,\u201d meaning the eleven which are referred to\nalong with and including A\u1e2babbu of the Sir\u2019il\u00e2a, or are the twelve kings\nreferred to in the account of the second and third encounters with\nBen-Hadad merely an indefinite number, meaning \u201ca dozen,\u201d _i.e._\u201ctwelve\nmore or less\u201d? As it is impossible that Ahab of Israel should have been\none of the Syrian league all this time, the latter must be held to be the\nmore probable explanation\u2014\u201cIn those days Adad-idri of the land of Im\u0113ri-\u0161u\n(and) Ir\u1e2bul\u0113ni of the land of Hamath with a dozen kings of the sea-coast\ntrusted each other\u2019s might, and came against me to make war and battle.\u201d\n\nNotwithstanding all his efforts, however, as detailed in his annals,\nShalmaneser II. was still very far from the subjugation of the\n\u201csea-coast,\u201d as he calls Palestine and Syria, and realizing that he had a\nhard task before him, he returned to his own country and occupied himself\nin the two following years in Mesopotamia, Ararat, and Namri, south-east\nof Assyria. The following year, 843 B.C., for the first time during his\nreign, he was at peace, superintending the felling of trees in the Amanus\nmountains for use in the palaces of Assyria. This period of rest was in\nall probability necessary to enable the army to be reorganized for further\ncampaigns in that part of the world which he seems to have set his heart\nupon subjugating.\n\nThis being the case, he set out, in his eighteenth year (842 B.C.), and\ncrossed the Euphrates for the sixteenth time. This expedition, however,\nwas not against his old foe, Ben-Hadad or Adad-idri, but against\n\u1e2aaza\u2019-\u00eelu, the Hazael of 2 Kings viii. 8, etc., who had treacherously\nmurdered his master, as related in this passage, and seized the throne.\nHearing of the advance of the Assyrian army, he prepared for resistance,\nas is related in the following narrative.\n\n [Plate VIII.]\n\n Plates of Chased Bronze, which covered the Doors of an Enclosure at\n Balawat. (Left-hand portions, from right-hand leaf.) (Found by Mr. H.\n Rassam, in 1878, and now in British Museum, Assyrian Saloon.) I_a_.\u2014The\n expedition of Shalmaneser II. to the land of Nairi (Mesopotamia).\nSacrificing to the gods by throwing meat-offerings into the lake. March of\n the army over the mountains. I_b_.\u2014Siege and capture of the city Suguni,\n in Ararat. II_a_.\u2014Bringing to Shalmaneser \"_the tribute of the ships of\n Tyre and Sidon_.\" II_b_.\u2014March against the city Hazizi. Procession of\n prisoners. III_a_. and III_b_.\u2014Crossing the tributaries of the Euphrates\n by pontoon bridges. Receiving tribute from Adinu, son of Dakaru, of\n Enzudu. (Page 337.)\n\n\n\u201cIn my 18th year I crossed the Euphrates for the 16th time. \u1e2aaza-\u2019\u00eelu of\nthe land of Im\u0113ri-\u0161u trusted to the might of his troops, and called his\ntroops together in great number. Saniru, the peak of a mountain which is\nbefore Lebanon, he made his stronghold. I fought with him, I accomplished\nhis defeat: 16,000 of his fighting-men I slew with the sword: 1121 of his\nchariots, 470 of his horses, with his camp, I captured. He fled to save\nhis life\u2014I set out after him. I besieged him in Dima\u0161qu (Damascus), his\nroyal city. I cut down his orchards; I went to the mountains of the land\nof \u1e2aauranu (the Hauran), cities without number I destroyed, wasted, and\nburned in the flames. Untold spoil I carried away. I went to the mountains\nof Ba\u2019ali-ra\u2019asi\u201d (Aramaic: \u201clord of the promontory\u201d), \u201cwhich is a\nheadland\u201d (lit., \u201chead of the sea\u201d)\u2014\u201cI set up an image of my majesty\ntherein. In those days I received the tribute of the Tyrians, Sidonians,\n(and) of Yaua, son of \u1e2aumr\u00ee.\u201d\n\nThe description of this campaign given by the Black Obelisk is as follows\u2014\n\n\u201cIn my 18th year I crossed the Euphrates for the 16th time. \u1e2aaza\u2019-\u00eelu of\nthe land of Im\u0113ri-\u0161u came forth to battle: 1121 of his chariots, 470 of\nhis horses, with his camp, I took away from him.\u201d\n\nThese two documents, as will easily be seen, are in perfect accord, and\nthe story they have to tell agrees in its turn with that of the preceding\nyears of Shalmaneser\u2019s reign. Indeed, this text may be regarded as\nconfirming the opinions hitherto held concerning the identity of A\u1e2babbu\nm\u00e2t Sir\u2019il\u00e2a with Ahab of Israel, and Adad-idri with Ben-Hadad of\nDamascus. This, be it noted, is due to the fact that, like Ben-Hadad,\nAdad-idri was succeeded by Hazael, who, in both the Bible narrative and\nthe annals of Shalmaneser, is a contemporary of Jehu (Yaua, son of \u1e2aumr\u00ee\nor Omri). The Black Obelisk, probably for the sake of economizing space,\ndoes not refer to the receipt of tribute from Jehu when speaking of the\nbattle with Hazael, on account of the bas-relief thereon referring to that\nevent. The following is the translation of the epigraph in question which\nI gave in 1886(91)\u2014\n\n\u201cThe tribute of Yaua, son of \u1e2aumr\u00ee: silver, gold, a golden cup, golden\nvases, golden vessels, golden buckets, lead, a staff for the hand of the\nking (and) sceptres, I received.\u201d\n\nThe account of the conflict with Hazael indicates that certain changes had\ntaken place in the Mediterranean coast-lands since Shalmaneser\u2019s former\ncampaigns thither. It was no longer against the kings of Damascus and\nHamath with \u201ca dozen kings\u201d in alliance with them, but against Hazael\nalone. Had they broken with Ben-Hadad? or did they hold aloof because they\nhad no sympathy with his murderer? In any case, it would seem to be\ncertain that they no longer feared the Assyrian king, who, they must have\nfelt, had his hands full. In Israel, too, there had been changes, Ahab\nhaving been succeeded by Ahaziah, who, after a reign of one year, was\nsucceeded by Jehoram. The latter tried to reduce Mesha king of Moab again\nto subjection, but without success. Ben-Hadad\u2019s attempt to capture Samaria\nwas made during his reign, and the non-success of the Syrian king was\nprobably the cause of Jehoram\u2019s attempt to recover Ramoth-gilead, where\nAhab had found his fate some years before. The king of Israel did not fall\non the field of battle, but received there a wound which obliged him to\nreturn to Jezreel. His death at the hands of Jehu in Naboth\u2019s vineyard is\none of the most dramatic incidents of Israelitish history.\n\nJehu\u2019s payment of tribute to the Assyrian king in 842 B.C. was probably\ndue to a question of policy, and in the main it may be considered as a\ncheap way of avoiding misfortune, for he might easily have been worsted in\nan encounter with Shalmaneser. What Tyre and Sidon thought fit to do,\ncould hardly but be recognized as policy for Israel as well. It was\nimportant for Jehu that he should consolidate his power, hence this\nsubmission, though, to say the truth, he could not have been certain that\nhe would be attacked. Was it that he felt strong enough to resist the\nAssyrian king which made him withhold the payment of tribute when, in 839\nB.C., Shalmaneser again marched against Hazael? It would seem so. On this\noccasion four towns of the king of Damascus were captured, and tribute\nagain received from Tyre and Sidon, Gebal likewise buying peace in the\nsame way.\n\nThat Jehu, who destroyed the house of Omri, should be called \u201cson of Omri\u201d\nin the inscriptions of Shalmaneser II. of Assyria, is strange, and needs\nexplanation. Perhaps the successor of a king could loosely be spoken of as\nhis son, as occupying the place of such a relative; and, as is well known,\nBelshazzar, in the book of Daniel, is called son of Nebuchadnezzar, which,\naccording to the Babylonian inscriptions, he certainly was not. That Jehu\nmay have been in some way related with Jehoram, and therefore a descendant\nof Omri, is possible and even probable. That he was not descended from him\nin a direct line is certain.\n\nIt is noteworthy that the Assyrian form of the name, Yaua, shows that the\nunpronounced aleph at the end was at that time sounded, so that the\nHebrews must have called him Yahua (Jehua). Omri was likewise pronounced\nin accordance with the older system, before the ghain became ayin. \u1e2aumr\u00ee\nshows that they said at that time Ghomr\u00ee.\n\nAfter the rebellion which embittered the closing years of Shalmaneser\u2019s\nlife, the great Assyrian king died, and his crown went to his younger son\n\u0160am\u0161i-Adad III. (825-812 B.C.). The first work of the new ruler was the\npacification of his country, and this having been successfully done, he\ntried to restore Assyrian influence beyond the borders of his kingdom.\nDuring his reign of about thirteen years, he warred on the N., N.E., N.W.\nand S. (Babylonia), but never came nearer to Syria than Kar-Shalmaneser on\nthe Euphrates, near Carchemish.\n\nHis son, Adad-nirari, who reigned from 812 to 783 B.C., followed in his\nfootsteps, and began by making conquests on the east. The north and\nnorth-west, however, also felt the force of his arms. The only campaign of\nwhich details are given is one against Syria, the date of which, however,\nis not known. G. Smith thought that this could not have taken place\nearlier than 797 B.C., during the time of Amaziah king of Judah and Joash\nking of Israel\u2014a conjecture which is based, to all appearance, upon the\ncomparison of Mansuate with Manasseh. As the Assyrian form of this name is\nMins\u0113 or Minas\u0113, such an identification is impossible, and this being the\ncase, it is more probable that the expeditions to the Holy Land and Syria\ntook place either in 806, when he went to Arpad, 805, when he was at \u1e2aaza,\nor 804, when he marched against Ba\u2019ali, the name, apparently, of a\nPh\u0153nician city. The next year he went to the sea-coast, but whether this\nwas the Mediterranean or not is not indicated, though it may be regarded\nas very probable, and if so, 803 B.C. must be added to the dates already\nnamed, or the operations to which he refers in his slab-inscription may\nhave extended over one or more of the years here referred to.\n\nSo, when he was young and enthusiastic, King Adad-nirari III. of Assyria\nhad the inscription carved of which the following is a translation, as far\nas it is at present known\u2014\n\n\u201cPalace of Adad-nirari, the great king, the powerful king, king of the\nworld, king of the land of A\u0161\u0161ur; the king who, in his youth, A\u0161\u0161ur, king\nof the Igigi, called, and delivered into his hand a kingdom without equal;\nhis shepherding he (A\u0161\u0161ur) made good as pasture for the people of the land\nof A\u0161\u0161ur, and caused his throne to be firm; the glorious priest, patron of\n\u00ca-\u0161arra, he who ceaseth not to uphold the command of \u00ca-kura, who\ncontinually walketh in the service of A\u0161\u0161ur, his lord, and hath caused the\nprinces of the four regions to submit to his feet. He who hath conquered\nfrom the land of Siluna of the rising of the sun, the mountains (?) of the\nland of Ellipu, the land of \u1e2aar\u1e2bar, the land of Arazia\u0161, the land of Mesu,\nthe land of the Medes, the land of Gizil-bunda, to its whole extent, the\nland of Munna, the land of Parsua (Persia), the land of Allapria, the land\nof Abdadana, the land of Na\u2019iru (Mesopotamia), to the border of the whole\nof it, the land of Andiu, whose situation is remote, the range (?) of the\nmountains, to its whole border, as far as the great sea of the rising of\nthe sun (the Persian Gulf); from the river Euphrates, the land of \u1e2aatti\n(Heth, the Hittites), the land of Amurri (Amoria, the Amorites), to its\nwhole extent, the land of Tyre, the land of Sidon, the land of \u1e2aumr\u00ee\n(Omri, Israel), the land of Edom, the land of Palastu (Philistia) as far\nas the great sea of the setting of the sun (the Mediterranean), I caused\nto submit to my feet. I fixed tax and tribute upon them. I went to the\nland of \u0160a-im\u0113ri-\u0161u (Syria of Damascus); Mari\u2019u, king of \u0160a-im\u0113ri-\u0161u, I\nshut up in Dima\u0161qu (Damascus), his royal city. The fear and terror of\nA\u0161\u0161ur, his lord, struck him, and he took my feet, performed homage. Two\nthousand three hundred talents of silver, 20 talents of gold, 3000 talents\nof bronze, 5000 talents of iron, cloth, variegated stuffs, linen, a couch\nof ivory, an inlaid litter of ivory, (with) cushions (?), his goods, his\nproperty, to a countless amount I received in Damascus, his royal city, in\nthe midst of his palace. All the kings of the land of Kaldu (the Chaldean\ntribes in Babylonia) performed homage, tax and tribute for future days I\nfixed upon them. Babylon, Borsippa, Cuthah, brought the overplus (of the\ntreasures) of B\u00eal, Nebo, (and) Nergal, (made) pure offerings....\u201d\n\n(The remainder of the inscription is said to be still at Calah, not yet\nuncovered.)\n\nSchrader, in his _Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament_, makes the\ncampaign against Syria to have taken place in 803 B.C., and sees in\nAdad-nirari the deliverer sent by Yahwah in answer to the prayers of\nJehoahaz. According to 2 Kings xiii. 3, the Israelites were subject to\nHazael and Ben-Hadad, his son, all their days. There is every probability\nthat the successor of the latter was the Mari\u2019u mentioned in the\ntranslation given above, and the same inscription would seem to indicate\nthat the Israelites submitted to the Assyrian king, and paid him tribute\nin order to secure his intervention, which, judging from the enormous\namount of spoil which he secured, he did not regret. The saviour having\ncome, and the tribute paid, \u201cIsrael dwelt in their tents, as beforetime\u201d\n(2 Kings xiii. 5). Verses 22-25 are to all appearance a recapitulation,\nprobably extracted from another source. They show that Joash, son of\nJehoahaz, rebelled, and took from Ben-Hadad the cities which the\nlast-named had captured from Israel, and defeated him three times (see\nver. 19). Apparently \u201call their days\u201d in ver. 3 is not to be taken\nliterally, as the war of the Israelites against Syria took place before\nthe death of Ben-Hadad III. It may also be conjectured that the reason of\nthere being no more than three defeats of the Syrians was due to the death\nof Ben-Hadad, and his sceptre passing into younger and more vigorous\nhands, so that \u201ca saviour\u201d was still needed, and found in the person of\nthe Assyrian king, as suggested by Schrader. The Syrian forces not being\nin a condition, after their defeats by the Israelites, to offer battle to\nAdad-nirari, apparently submitted without fighting, and after such a visit\nthe country had too much need for peace to allow of reprisals being made\nagainst the Israelites.\n\nThe fame of Adad-nirari was great, and his queen seems to have shared in\nit. She was named Sammu-ramat, \u201c(the goddess) Sammu loveth (her),\u201d a name\nwhich is generally regarded as the original of the somewhat mythical\nSemiramis of Herodotus. That she was looked up to by the subjects of her\nroyal spouse, however, is proved by the two statues in the British Museum\n(there were in all four of them, erected at Calah). According to the\ninscription on them, they were made and dedicated for one of the chief\nofficers of the kingdom, B\u00eal-tar\u1e63i-\u00eeli-ma (\u201ca lord before God\u201d), who\nfurnished them with the following dedication\u2014\n\n\u201cTo Nebo, mighty, exalted, son of \u00ca-saggil,(92) the wise one,\nhigh-towering, the mighty prince, son of Nudimmud, whose word is supreme;\nprince of intelligence, director of the universe of heaven and earth, he\nwho knoweth everything, the wide of ear, he who holdeth the tablet-reed\n(and) hath the stilus; the merciful one, he who decideth, with whom is\n(the power of) raising and abasing; the beloved of Ea, lord of lords,\nwhose power hath no equal, without whom there would be no counsel in\nheaven; the gracious one, pitiful, whose sympathy is good; he who dwelleth\nin E-zida, which is within Calah\u2014the great lord, his lord\u2014for the life of\nAdad-nirari, king of the land of A\u0161\u0161ur, his lord, and the life of\nSammu-ramat, she of the palace, his lady, B\u00eal-tar\u1e63i-\u00eeli-ma, ruler of the\ncity of Calah, the land of \u1e2aamedu, the land of Sudgana, the land of\nTemeni, the land of Yaluna, for the saving of his life, the lengthening of\nhis days, the adding of days to his years, the peace of his house and his\npeople (not the one evil to him), he has caused (this statue) to be made\nas a gift. Whoever (cometh) after: Trust to Nebo\u2014trust not another god.\u201d\n\nIt is rare that an Assyrian queen is mentioned in the inscriptions,\nespecially on almost equal terms with the king, and additional interest is\nadded by the fact, that she bears a name commonly regarded as the same as\nthat of Semiramis. In Assyrian and Babylonian history, it is always the\nking who is the ruler, whatever influence his spouse may have had in\ndetermining his policy as such being always unmentioned, and therefore\nunknown to the world at large. The present inscription, however, seems to\ntestify that Sammu-ramat was known outside the walls of the palace, and\nthat one of the greatest in the kingdom thought fit to do her honour by\nassociating her with the king in the dedication to Nebo which he made for\nthe preservation of the lives of the king, the queen, and himself. Whether\nthe history of Sammu-ramat, queen of Assyria, was laid under contribution\nto furnish details for the legend of Semiramis, will probably never be\nknown; but it is nevertheless unfortunate that the slab recounting the\nwarlike exploits of Adad-nirari, king of Assyria, her husband, should\nbreak off in the middle of his account of his successes in Babylonia.\n\nAdad-nirari reigned 29 years, and was succeeded by Shalmaneser III. in 783\nB.C. The expeditions of this king were principally against Armenia and\nItu\u2019u, a region on the Euphrates. In the year 775 B.C. he went to the\ncedar-country, but whether the mountain region of the Amanus, Lebanon, or\nof a district called \u1e2aa\u0161ur be intended, is unknown. The necessity of\nexpeditions against Syria, however, still continued, for in 773 B.C. we\nfind Shalmaneser at Damascus, probably to bring the king then ruling there\nagain into subjection.\n\nAlthough doubt is now expressed as to whether \u1e2aatarika, whither\nShalmaneser III. marched in 772 B.C., the last year of his reign, be\nreally Hadrach (Zech. ix. 1) or not (the consonants do not agree so well\nas they ought to do), in all probability it was a district not far from\nDamascus to which he went.\n\nA\u0161\u0161ur-dan, his successor, ascended the throne in the following year, and\nat once began warring in Babylonia and on the east. In 765 B.C. he marched\nto \u1e2aatarika. Signs of revolt seem at this time to have broken out in\nAssyria, probably on account of the pestilence with which the land was\nafflicted, and it must have been for this reason that no expedition was\nundertaken in the year 764 B.C. Next year the rising, which was evidently\nexpected, took place in the city of A\u0161\u0161ur, and there was an eclipse of the\nsun in the month Sivan, an important astronomical occurrence which has\nbeen identified with an eclipse which passed over Assyria on the 15th of\nJune, 763 B.C., and was supposed by Mr. Bosanquet to be referred to in\nAmos viii. 9, \u201cI will cause the sun to go down at noon, and will darken\nthe earth in the clear day.\u201d\n\nTo all appearance this eclipse, taken in conjunction with the presence of\npestilence and rebellion, was regarded as an evil omen. This revolt lasted\ninto the next year, and spread, in 761 B.C., into Arrap\u1e2ba, where it\ncontinued three years. In 759 the revolt reached Gozan, and there was a\nrecrudescence of the plague. There is no reference to the stamping out of\nthe revolt in Assyria, but it seems very probable that the king and his\nsupporters were active to that end, as he was able to march in the year\n758 B.C., to Gozan, after which there is the entry, \u201cPeace in the land.\u201d\nTwo years were to all appearance occupied in reorganizing the country and\nproviding against a repetition of such risings, unless it be that\nA\u0161\u0161ur-dan was too ill to take the field, for according to the received\nchronology, he died in 755 B.C. when A\u0161\u0161ur-nirari II. ascended the throne.\n\nThis new ruler is represented to have made two expeditions, one in the\nyear of his accession, to \u1e2aatarika, and the other, in 754 B.C., to Arpad.\nWhat the additional statement, \u201cReturn from the city of A\u0161\u0161ur,\u201d really\nrefers to, is exceedingly doubtful\u2014perhaps troops had been stationed there\nduring the whole period since the breaking out of the revolt there in 763\nB.C.\n\nFor four years no expeditions were made, pointing to a continued ferment\nof discontent in Assyria. In 749 and 748 B.C., however, A\u0161\u0161ur-nirari made\nexpeditions to Namri, south-west of Media. It is significant, however,\nthat the Canon has, for the next year (747 B.C.), the usual words (\u201cIn the\nland\u201d) when no expedition took place, the reason probably being the\nunsettled state of the country. The entry for the next year is \u201cRevolt in\nCalah,\u201d which, as has already been seen, was one of the principal cities\nof the kingdom. After this is the usual division-line, indicating the end\nof a reign, followed by the words \u201c(Eponymy of Nab\u00fb-b\u00eal-u\u1e63ur, governor of)\nArrap\u1e2ba. In the month Aaru (Iyyar), day 13, Tiglath-pileser sat upon the\nthrone. In the month Tisritu (Tisri) he made an expedition to (the\ndistrict) between the rivers.\u201d This corresponds with 745 B.C.\n\nThus is ushered in, in the Eponym Canon, one of the most important reigns\nin Assyrian history. By what right Tiglath-pileser III. took the throne is\nnot known. To all appearance, he was not in any way related to his\npredecessor, A\u0161\u0161ur-nirari, and it is therefore supposed that he was one of\nthe generals of that king, who, taking advantage of the rising in A\u0161\u0161ur\n(of which he may, indeed, have been the instigator), made away with his\nsovereign, and set himself in his place. Further light, however, is needed\nupon this period, before anything can be said as to the circumstances\nattending Tiglath-pileser\u2019s accession to the throne.\n\n [Plate IX.]\n\n Tiglath-pileser III. in His Chariot. British Museum, Nimroud Central\n Saloon.\n\n\nThough all Tiglath-pileser\u2019s inscriptions are imperfect, and most of them\nvery fragmentary, they nevertheless contain enough to show of what\nenormous value they are. Their incompleteness and the absence of dates\nconsequent thereon is fortunately compensated somewhat by the fact that\nthe Eponym Canon is perfect in the part which refers to this king, and\nthat we are therefore able to locate with certainty all the events of his\nreign.\n\nAs the entry translated above shows, his first campaign was \u201cbetween the\nrivers,\u201d that is, to Babylonia, the land lying between the Tigris and the\nEuphrates. His object in leading his forces thither was to break the power\nof the Aramean tribes, with the Arabs and others who were in alliance with\nthem. Going first south-east, he subjugated the Chaldean tribes, including\nthe Pekodites; turning afterwards west, he went against the Arameans,\ncapturing Sippar, D\u00fbr-Kuri-galzu, and other Babylonian cities, and it is\nsupposed that it was on this occasion that he assumed the title \u201cking of\n\u0160umer and Akkad.\u201d To all appearance, however, he was not recognized by the\nBabylonians themselves as king, Nabonassar being then on the throne. There\nis hardly any doubt, however, that Babylonia acknowledged Assyrian\noverlordship on this occasion, thus giving Tiglath-pileser some\njustification for assuming the title.\n\nHaving arranged things to his satisfaction in Babylonia, Tiglath-pileser\nturned his attention to the East (Namri, 744), Ararat (743), and Arpad\n(same year), the last being his objective up to and including the year 740\nB.C. Sardurri of Ararat, however, saw his influence threatened by this\nmove, for he, too, was a conqueror, and had had such success, that he felt\njustified in calling himself \u201cking of Suri,\u201d or North Syria. How matters\nfell out is not known, but it may be supposed that the Assyrian king went\nand besieged Arpad, was attacked whilst doing so by Sardurri and his\nallies, and compelled to raise the siege. A pursuit of the Armenian forces\nby the Assyrians was the result of this attack, the end being, in all\nprobability, a decisive victory for Tiglath-pileser. This, according to\nRost, would seem to be the most reasonable supposition, for the Assyrian\nking was able to besiege Arpad again next year without any hindrance. The\ncapture of the city in the third year brought the rulers of the district\nin which it stood to the feet of the Assyrian king\u2014all except one, Tutam\u00fb\nking of Unqu, who was defeated and captured, and his territories annexed\nto Assyria.\n\nDuring the campaigns in the north at the end of 739 B.C., risings took\nplace in Syria and North Ph\u0153nicia, and this gave Tiglath-pileser the\nwished-for opportunity to bring these districts again under his sway. The\nEponym Canon gives for this year the simple entry, \u201cHe captured the city\nof Kullan\u00fb,\u201d which Rost supposes to have been in the neighbourhood of\nHamath, and if so, must be the Calne of Isaiah x. 9, which is there\nmentioned with Hamath, Carchemish, Arpad, Samaria, and Damascus as having\nbeen subdued by Assyria. The mention of Kullan\u00fb as the object of the\nexpedition is probably due to its having been one of the chief factors in\nthe disturbances which took place. It would also seem that Azariah of\nJudah took part in the attempt to get rid of Assyrian influence, and\nthough this was fully recognized by Tiglath-pileser, the Assyrian king to\nall appearance did not come into direct contact with his country.\n\nAzriau or Izriau (Azariah\u2014Rost\u2019s collation of the squeezes shows that both\nspellings of the name were used) of Judah is mentioned at least four\ntimes. The earlier references, however, are so very fragmentary that\nnothing certain can be said concerning their connection\u2014in one of the\npassages containing his name the wording leads one to imagine that he was\ncaptured by the Assyrian king, though, as Rost has shown, this may simply\nmean that certain sympathizers of his had taken his part. But whatever may\nhave taken place in Judah, Azariah\u2019s sympathizers did not get on so well\nas their leader. No less than nineteen places were captured by the\nAssyrian king, including \u201cUsn\u00fb, Siannu, \u1e62imirra (Simyra), Ra\u0161p\u00fbna, on the\nsea-coast, together with the cities of the Sau\u00ea-mountains (mountains which\nare in Lebanon), Ba\u2019ali-\u1e63apuna (Baal-zephon) as far as Ammana (Amanus, or\naccording to Winckler, the anti-Lebanon), the mountain of _urkarinu_-wood,\nthe whole of the land of Sau, the province of Kar-Adad (fortress of\nHadad), the city of \u1e2aatarikka, the province of Nuqudina, \u1e2aasu with the\ncities which are around it, the cities of Ar\u00e2, and the cities which are on\neach side of it, with the cities (= villages) which are around them, the\nmountain Sarb\u00fba to its whole extent, the city A\u0161\u1e2banu, the city Yadabu, the\nmountain Yaraqu to its whole extent, the city ... -ri, the city\nElli-tarbi, the city Zit\u0101nu as far as the city Atinnu, the city ... (and)\nthe city Bumamu\u2014XIX. districts of the city of Hamath, with the cities\nwhich were around them, of the sea-coast of the setting of the sun, which\nin sin and wickedness had taken to Azriau, I added to the boundary of\nAssyria. I set my commander-in-chief as governor over them, 30,300 people\nI removed from the midst of their cities and caused the province of the\ncity of Ku- ... to take them.\u201d\n\nNotwithstanding that there is no reference to the above in the Old\nTestament, there is no reason to doubt that it is substantially correct.\nIts omission is in all probability due to the fact, that neither Judah nor\nIsrael were menaced by the forces of the Assyrian king. Notwithstanding\nthis, the expedition and the success of Tiglath-pileser had its effect,\nthe result being that all the princes of middle and north Syria showed\ntheir submission to the Assyrian king by paying tribute, thus ensuring the\nsafety of their territory, at least for a time. This took place after the\ndefeat of Ki\u0161\u00ee, the Aramean, and his forces, together with several other\ndistricts, and the transportation of the inhabitants from their homes to\ndistricts in other principalities, a proceeding calculated to destroy\nnational feeling and thus contribute to the safety of the empire by\nrendering rebellion more unlikely. The following is the list of the\nprinces who secured immunity from attack by paying tribute:\u2014\n\n\u201cKu\u0161ta\u0161pu of the city of the Comagenians; Ra\u1e63unnu (Rezon) of the land of\nthe Sa-Im\u0113ri\u0161uites (Syria); Meni\u1e2bimme (Menahem) of the city of the\nSamarians; \u1e2airummu (Hirom) of the city of the Tyrians; Sibitti-bi\u2019ili of\nthe city of the Gebalites; Urikku of the K\u00fbites; Pisiris of the\nCarchemishites; \u00cani-\u00eelu of the city of the \u1e2aammatites; Panamm\u00fb of the city\nof the Sam\u2019allites; Tar\u1e2bulara of the land of the Gurgumites; Sulumal of\nthe land of the Melidites; Dadi-\u00eelu of the land of the Kaskites; Uassurme\nof the land of the Tabalites; U\u0161\u1e2bitti of the land of the Tunites; Urball\u00e2\nof the land of the Tu\u1e2banites; Tu\u1e2bamme of the city of the I\u0161tundites;\nUrimme of the city of the \u1e2au\u0161imnites; Zabib\u00ea, queen of the land of Arabia.\nGold, silver, lead, iron, elephant-skins, ivory, variegated cloth, linen,\nviolet stuff, crimson stuff, terebinth-wood, oak (?), everything costly,\nthe treasure of a kingdom, fat lambs whose fleeces were coloured crimson,\nwinged birds of heaven, whose feathers were coloured violet, horses,\nmules, oxen and sheep, male camels and female camels with their young, I\nreceived.\u201d\n\nIt was a rich booty, and was probably held to be a sufficient return for\nall the expense, and trials, and hardships of the campaign. Though the\nkingdom of Judah seems not to have suffered (we must not be too hasty to\nassume that this was the case, as the Assyrian records are exceedingly\ndefective), Israel, as is mentioned above, paid tribute. It does not\nappear from the Assyrian account that Tiglath-pileser went against\nSamaria, but notwithstanding this, 2 Kings xv. 19 has the following\u2014\n\n\u201cThere came against the land Pul the king of Assyria; and Menahem gave Pul\n1000 talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to confirm the\nkingdom in his hand. And Menahem exacted the money of Israel, even of all\nthe mighty men of wealth, of each man fifty shekels of silver, to give to\nthe king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria turned back, and stayed not\nthere in the land.\u201d\n\nIt is to be noted that there is here nothing about buying the Assyrian\nking off\u2014the money was paid him to confirm the kingdom in Menahem\u2019s hand.\nThe writer apparently assumed that the Assyrian king might not altogether\nbe hostilely inclined, notwithstanding that \u201che came against the land.\u201d\nPerhaps by \u201cland\u201d we are to understand \u201cdistrict.\u201d In any case, the two\naccounts can hardly be said to disagree. He did not war there, but he\nreceived Menahem\u2019s tribute\u2014it was therefore needless to mention his visit,\nif such it was. Many a ruler in this district must have done the same\nthing on this occasion, and there could have been no reason to mention one\nmore than the other\u2014hence, probably, the absence of references to any\nthreatening approach to the borders of Israel and other states on the part\nof the Assyrian king.\n\nBut whilst absent in the west, rebellion was rife nearer home, and was put\ndown with vigour by the governors of the provinces of Lullum\u00fb and Na\u2019iru\n(Mesopotamia). This led to further transportations of the inhabitants, who\nwere sent west to \u1e62imirra (Simyra), Arka, Usnu, Siannu, Tu\u2019immu, and other\nplaces in Syria. Next year Tiglath-pileser himself marched to Mad\u00e2a (the\nMedes), where he had a very successful campaign. As some of the places\nmentioned have the element Kingi as part of the name, it has been\nsuggested that in all probability the Sumerians, whose Babylonian home was\ncalled Kingi, had their original seat in Media.\n\nCampaigns against the district of the mountains of Nal and Ararat, the\nformer as a preparation for the latter, follow, after which comes,\naccording to the Eponym Canon, an expedition to the land Pili\u0161ta. This is\nset down as the event of 734 B.C. There is, it is needless to say, some\nuncertainty in this expression, as the question naturally arises, What is\nreally included in the term? Assuming, with Rost, that the statements in\nthe Canon indicate the point intended to be reached, and not the farthest\npoint attained, it is very probable that Israel did not come into the\nsphere of the Assyrian king\u2019s operations, and this is all the more\nprobable in that Rost\u2019s collation of one of the squeezes in the British\nMuseum shows that instead of the Assyrian form of Abel-Beth-Maachah, we\nhave to read Abil-akka, to which is added, however, the description \u201con\nthe boundary of Israel (B\u00eet-\u1e2aumria).\u201d It will be seen, therefore, that\nthough he may not have entered the country, or, at least, made any warlike\noperations there, he approached well within striking distance of its\nborders. On this occasion it would seem that he found it necessary to\ninstall six new governors so as to ensure the due obedience of the\ninhabitants. After this, Tiglath-pileser goes on to speak of Hanon of\nGaza, who on seeing the approach of the Assyrians fled to Egypt, leaving\nhis capital at the mercy of the invader. Having captured the city,\nTiglath-pileser entered Hanon\u2019s royal palace, taking possession of all his\nproperty, and setting therein his royal couch. He speaks of having\ndelivered something to the gods of the land, and of having laid upon its\ninhabitants (the payment of tribute and gifts). Further mutilated lines\nfollow, referring to the spoil taken, and there is a reference to the land\nof Israel (m\u00e2t B\u00eet-\u1e2aumria). After this comes the words, \u201cthe whole of his\npeople, (with their property) I sent to Assyria.\u201d The gap between the\nreference to Israel and this line, however, makes it doubtful to what it\nreally refers. The record immediately goes on, however, to speak of the\ndeath of Pekah.\n\nIn the Eponym Canon the entries for the two years following the campaign\nto Pili\u0161ta (_i.e._ 733-732 B.C.) are, \u201cto the land of Dima\u0161qa.\u201d It would\ntherefore seem that, having assured himself of the submission of his\nnorth-Ph\u0153nician vassals, Tiglath-pileser attacked the northern district of\nIsrael, taking Ijon, Abel-beth-maachah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead,\nGalilee, and all the land of Naphtali (2 Kings xv. 29). No account of\nthis, however, occurs in the Assyrian inscriptions,(93) which, as already\npointed out, are very mutilated for this period. It is possible that the\nreference to Israel, in the mutilated passage quoted above, relates to\nthis invasion, and possibly also to the payment of tribute by Pekah in\norder to secure himself against further attacks.\n\nWhether before or after the above is not known, but possibly on the\ndeparture of the Assyrians, Rezin (Rezon), king of Syria, made alliance\nwith Pekah, and their combined forces invaded Judah. Ahaz, who was at this\ntime king of Judah, was apparently besieged in Jerusalem, and the king of\nSyria took advantage of this opportunity to recover possession of Elath,\nwhich never fell into the hands of the Jews again (2 Kings xvi. 6).\n\nThere is no doubt that Ahaz was hard pressed, and hearing, to all\nappearance, that the Assyrians were again in the neighbourhood, he sent to\nTiglath-pileser a humble message: \u201cI am thy servant, and thy son; come up,\nand save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of\nthe king of Israel, which rise up against me.\u201d This would in all\nprobability have had but little effect, had it not been accompanied by a\ngoodly amount of gold and silver, taken not only from his own treasury,\nbut also from that of the Temple at Jerusalem. The result was, that\nTiglath-pileser went up against Damascus. The Syrian king, however,\ndecided to resist, and a battle was fought in which he was defeated, and\nobliged to seek safety in flight. With a grim, not to say barbarous,\nhumour, Tiglath-pileser describes his flight and the treatment of his\nsupporters\u2014\n\n\u201c... (like) a mouse he entered the great gate of his city. His chiefs (I\ntook) alive with my hands, (and) I caused them to be raised up and to view\nhis land (on) stakes: 45 camps of soldiers I collected (in the provin)ce\nof his city, and shut him up like a bird in a cage. His plantations,\n(fields, orchards (?), and) woods, which were without number, I cut down,\nand did not leave one ... (the city) \u1e2a\u0101dara, the house (= dwelling-place)\nof the father of Ra\u1e63unnu (Rezon) of the land of the \u0160a-im\u0113ri\u0161uites, (the\nplace where) he was born, I besieged, I captured: 800 people with their\npossessions, ... their oxen, their sheep, I carried off: 750 prisoners of\nthe city Kurussa, ... (prisoners) of the city of the Irmaites, 550\nprisoners of the city Metuna, I carried off: 591 cities ... of 16\ndistricts of the land of \u0160a-im\u0113ri\u0161u I destroyed like flood-mounds.\u201d(94)\n\nThis is immediately followed by an account of the operations against\nSamsi, queen of Arabia, and the tribes connected with that over which she\nheld sway. After this he states that he set Idi-bi\u2019ilu as governor over\nthe land of Musru. All these passages, however, are exceedingly\nincomplete, as is also that referring to Samaria, which follows. The\nshorter account of the expeditions of Tiglath-pileser gives in this place\nlines of which the following is a translation\u2014\n\n\u201cThey overthrew Paqa\u1e2ba (Pekah), their king, and I set Ausi\u2019a (Hosea) (upon\nthe throne) over them. Ten talents of gold, ... talents of silver, ...\ntheir (tribute), I received, and (brought) them (to the land of Assyria).\u201d\n\nThe longer account, from which most of the above extracts have been made,\nmay therefore be completed, with Rost, provisionally, as follows\u2014\n\n\u201c(Pekah, all of whose) cities (I had captured) in my earlier campaigns,\nand had given over (as a prey, and whose spoi)l I had carried off,\nabandoned the city of Samerina (Samaria) alone. (Pekah), their king, (they\noverthrew, and like) a hurricane (I ravaged the land).\u201d\n\nAs will be seen, the above agrees closely with the statement in 2 Kings\nxv. 30\u2014\n\n\u201cAnd Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of\nRemaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the\n20th year of Jotham the son of Uzziah.\u201d\n\nMutilated details concerning other cities captured by Tiglath-pileser\nfollow the above extract from his annals, after which the narrative\ncontinues\u2014\n\n\u201c(Mitinti, of the land) of the Askelonites, (sinned) against (my)\nagreement, (and revolted against me). He saw (the overthrow of Ra)\u1e63unnu\n(Rezon), and failure (of understanding (?) fell upon him (?), and R\u00fbkipti,\nthe son of Mitinti), sat upon the throne....\u201d\n\nIn the account of the flight and death of Pekah, the Assyrian king\nsuggests that the abandonment of the king of Israel of his capital was due\nto the fear of capture at his hands. One may also suppose that he wished\nit to be understood that Pekah incurred the displeasure of his subjects by\nhis flight, and that they pursued after him, and having overtaken him, put\nhim to death. As a matter of fact, Pekah must really have fled on account\nof the rebellion led by Hoshea, who, on learning of his flight, in all\nprobability pursued after him, and thus encompassed his death. Hoshea\nthen, by a payment of tribute to Tiglath-pileser, secured from the\nAssyrian king his recognition as king of Israel, and at the same time\nassured himself against attack at his hands.\n\nImitating Hoshea, R\u00fbkipti, the new king of Askelon, also paid tribute, and\nthus secured his recognition. As to Rezon, the Assyrian text does not\nenable us to see what was his ultimate fate, but as it was such,\napparently, as to terrify Mitinti of Askelon into madness, it may be\nsupposed that it was death at the orders of the Assyrian king, as recorded\nin 2 Kings xvi. 9.\n\nTiglath-pileser was now complete master of the land of \u0160a-im\u0113ri-\u0161u or\nSyria, and all the princes of the west acknowledged his overlordship. This\nbeing the case, it is only natural that Ahaz of Judah should visit and pay\nhim homage at Damascus, the capital of the new province, as related in 2\nKings xvi. 10, and probably it was to that city that many of the other\nsubject princes went for that purpose, and to offer him their tribute. The\nfurther result of the visit of Ahaz is detailed in the succeeding verses\nof the passage in 2 Kings referred to.\n\nThus ended Tiglath-pileser\u2019s successful expedition to Pili\u0161ta and\nDamascus, and there is no record that he ever went westward again. The\nChaldeans, in combination with the Arameans, had made use of his absence\nto engage in new advances against Babylon. Nabonassar, the king of that\ncountry, had died, and been succeeded by his son, Nab\u00fb-nadin-z\u0113ri, who,\nhowever, only reigned two years, and gave place to Nab\u00fb-\u0161um-uk\u00een, who\nmurdered him. This last, however, only held the throne for somewhat more\nthan two months, and Uk\u00een-z\u0113r, chief of the Chaldean tribe B\u00eet-Amukk\u0101ni,\ntook possession of the throne, and ruled for three years\u2014much against the\ninclination of the Babylonians, who, to all appearance, had no love for\nthe Chaldean tribes inhabiting certain tracts of the country. The\ninterference of Tiglath-pileser was therefore looked on with favour by the\nBabylonians, who welcomed him as a deliverer. Uk\u00een-z\u0113r (the Chinz\u0113ros of\nPtolemy) was besieged in his capital, Sap\u00eea, though that city was not\ntaken until the year 729 B.C. The result of this was, the submission of\nall the Chaldean tribes, including that of which Merodach-baladan (then\nonly a young man) was the chief. Entering Babylon, Tiglath-pileser, in\naccordance with the custom, \u201ctook the hand of B\u00eal,\u201d an expression\napparently meaning that he performed the usual ceremonies, and was\naccepted by the god\u2014and the priesthood\u2014as king. This also took place again\nnext year, from which it may be supposed that one acknowledged as king of\nBabylon had to perform the ceremony yearly in order to fulfil the\nconditions imposed upon all who held the reins of power. An entry in the\nCanon for this year suggests that there was a rebellion (?) in a city of\nwhich only the first character is preserved\u2014possibly to be completed Dir,\nand perhaps situated in Babylonia. Operations against this place, in all\nprobability, were taken in hand next year (727 B.C.), but whilst they were\nin progress, Tiglath-pileser died, and Shalmaneser IV. mounted the throne.\n\nHow it is that Tiglath-pileser III. of Assyria was called P\u00fblu is not\nknown. The name only occurs, in native documents, in the Babylonian Canon\nof kings\u2014to all appearance that from which the Canon of Ptolemy was\ncopied. It is therefore practically certain that he only bore this name\nofficially in Babylonia. Probably the most likely explanation is, that it\nwas his original name, though it may have been given him by the compiler\nof the canon (supposing that he was a man who had no great admiration for\nthe Assyrian conqueror) as a scornful expression, _b\u00fblu_ (which may also\nbe read _p\u00fblu_) meaning \u201cthe wild animal.\u201d It occurs, however, as a\npersonal name in the inscriptions of Assyria at least twice, the bearer of\nit being in one case a charioteer, one of nine officials of \u201cthe\n\u1e2au\u1e2bamite.\u201d\n\nThe fact that the name P\u00fblu (in the Canon of Ptolemy Poros), applied to\nTiglath-pileser, occurs only in a Babylonian document, suggests that the\nreference to the Assyrian conqueror in 2 Kings xv. 19 and 1 Chron. v. 26\nare due to a Babylonian source, though, as it is the name by which he is\nat first called by the writer of the 2nd Book of Kings, this is a\nconfirmation of the explanation that it was his original name. The glory\nattached to the name Tiglath-pileser in Assyrian history probably accounts\nfor his having ultimately adopted the latter.\n\n\u201cOn the 25th day of Tebet \u0160ulmanu-a\u0161arid (Shalmaneser) sat on the throne\nin Assyria. He destroyed \u0160abara\u2019in.\u201d (Babylonian Chronicle.)\n\n\n \u201cIn the eponymy of B\u00eal-\u1e2barran-b\u00eal-u\u1e63ur, of the city of Gozan, To\n the city ... \u0160almanu-a\u0161arid sat upon the throne.\n\n In the eponymy of Marduk-b\u00eal-u\u1e63ur, of the city of Amedi, In the\n land.\n\n In the eponymy of Ma\u1e2bd\u00ea, of the city of Nineveh, To....\n\n In the eponymy of A\u0161\u0161ur-\u1e2bal\u1e63ani (?), of the city of Kalzi, To....\n\n In the eponymy of \u0160almanu-a\u0161arid, king of Assyria, To....\u201d\n\n (Eponym Canon with historical notices.)\n\n\nThese two extracts give practically all that is known of the important\nreign of Shalmaneser IV. from native sources. The first is from the\nBabylonian Chronicle, and its brevity in all likelihood indicates the\namount of sympathy that the Babylonians had for this king. Short as it is,\nhowever, it is probably of as much value historically as the Assyrian\nEponym Canon in its present state, even including the restorations from\nthat without historical notices. The completion of this important document\nfrom additional fragments and duplicates is greatly to be wished.\n\nIt is therefore from the Old Testament and Josephus that we get the\nfullest history of the reign of this king. How it is that no records have\nbeen found is not known. They may have been destroyed, or nothing very\nextensive may have been written. That at least something of the kind\nexisted is indicated by the fact that the late George Smith refers to at\nleast one document, the whereabouts of which at present is not known.\n\nWhat may have been the relationship of Shalmaneser IV. of Assyria to\nTiglath-pileser does not appear. There is every probability that, like his\ngreat predecessor, he was an adventurer who, taking advantage of his\npopularity with the army, and the failing powers of his royal master,\nseized the throne. As will be seen from the Eponym Canon, an expedition\nwas in progress when he assumed the reins of power, so that he may have\ntaken advantage of the absence of Tiglath-pileser to carry out his design.\nTebet being the tenth month of the Assyro-Babylonian year, the time of his\naccession corresponds with the winter of 727 B.C., a period at which\nwarlike operations were impossible. In the year 726 B.C. also he remained\nat home, as was to be expected, consolidating his power.\n\nHis first campaign must therefore have taken place in 725 B.C., when, as\nrecorded in 2 Kings xvii. 3, he went against Hoshea, who paid him homage\nand became tributary. Hearing that the king of Israel had sent privately\nto So,(95) king of Egypt, asking for his help against the Assyrian king,\nShalmaneser threw Hoshea into prison, and advancing against Samaria,\ncalled upon the city to surrender. Submission being refused, he laid siege\nagainst it, and although Josephus relates that he ultimately took it, this\nmust be due simply to an inference, as there is no statement to that\neffect in the Book of Kings, the words recording the event being simply\n\u201cthe king of Assyria took Samaria,\u201d and, as we know from the inscriptions,\nit is Sargon, successor of Shalmaneser, who claims the honour of capturing\nthe city (see below, p. 363).(96)\n\nDuring the siege, however, the Assyrian king busied himself with the\nsubjugation of all the surrounding district. It was probably in the same\nyear (725 B.C.) that he sent his army against Elulaeus, king of Tyre,\nwhose king had just been very successful in subjugating the Cittaeans\n(people of Cyprus). According to Josephus (or, rather, Menander, whom he\nquotes), Ph\u0153nicia submitted (Menander tells the story from the native\npoint of view, and states that \u201che soon made peace with them all\u201d), but\nSidon, Accho, and Old Tyre (Palaetyrus) revolted (this probably means\n\u201cjoined the Assyrians\u201d), and several other cities yielded to the king of\nAssyria. Finding that the Tyrians(97) would not submit, the Assyrian king\nreturned against them (this must have been in the year 724 B.C.), and\nattacked them again, being aided on this occasion by the Ph\u0153nicians, who\nfurnished him with threescore ships, and 800 men to row them. The attack\nof the Assyrian allies, however, must have been a very half-hearted one,\nfor the Tyrians advanced against them with only twelve ships, and\ndispersed those of the enemy, taking 500 men prisoners.\n\nThe reputation\u2014and also the confidence\u2014of the citizens of Tyre being thus\ngreatly increased, they continued their resistance, and Shalmaneser found\nhimself obliged, in consequence of the inefficiency of his allies, to\ncontent himself with a mere blockade of the city, and the placing of\nguards over the water supply, so as to reduce the inhabitants of Tyre by\nthirst. The latter, however, dug wells, and were thus enabled to continue\ntheir resistance, which Meander states lasted all the time of the siege,\nnamely, five years\u2014_i.e._ until two years after the death of Shalmaneser.\n\nTo all appearance the Sabara\u2019in of the Babylonian Chronicle is the place\nwhich should be supplied in the historical Eponym Canon, but, if so, the\nform is a strange one. One would rather expect m\u00e2t B\u00eet-\u1e2aumr\u00ee, \u201cthe land of\nBeth-Omri,\u201d Pili\u0161ta, \u201cPhilistia,\u201d or \u00e2l \u1e62urri, \u201cthe city of Tyre.\u201d There\nis also the possibility that one of these names may have appeared in each\nof the three lines which require completing, indicating three different\nstages of his conquests. Samerina, \u201cSamaria,\u201d may also have been the word,\nor one of the words, to be restored. In this last case, Delitzsch\u2019s\nsuggestion that Sabara\u2019in ought to be read Samara\u2019in, and regarded as the\nBabylonian form of the Heb. Shomeron, \u201cSamaria,\u201d is worthy of note. The\nBabylonians do not state that he captured Sabara\u2019in or Samara\u2019in, but only\nthat he destroyed (perhaps the word means \u201cravaged\u201d) it, and the city may\nnot have really fallen into the hands of the Assyrians until Sargon was\nactually on the throne.\n\n\u201cIn the 5th year \u0160ulmanu-a\u0161arid died in the month Tebet. \u0160ulmanu-a\u0161arid\nhad ruled the kingdom of Akkad and A\u0161\u0161ur for five years. In the month\nTebet, the 12th day, Sargon sat on the throne in A\u0161\u0161ur, and in the month\nNisan Marduk-\u00e2bla-iddina (Merodach-baladan) sat on the throne in Babylon.\u201d\n\nThus does the Babylonian Chronicle record the change of rulers, which was\nto have wide-reaching results for both countries.\n\nWhat the verse in Hoshea, \u201cAll thy fortresses shall be spoiled, as Shalman\nspoiled Beth-arbel in the day of battle,\u201d refers to, is not known. There\nis every probability that Shalman stands for Shalmaneser IV., but which is\nthe Beth-arbel which is spoken of? There were two places of the name in\nPalestine, one west of the Sea of Galilee, and the other at the extreme\nnorth of Gilead. Both are now called Irbid. If it be one of these, the\nverse probably refers to some incident of Shalmaneser\u2019s invasion. George\nSmith, however, thought that the reference may have been due to some\ndomestic strife in Assyria at the close of the reign of Shalmaneser, in\nwhich the Assyrian city of Arbela was involved. That it was one of the two\nplaces in Palestine, however, is more probable.\n\nThe month which, five years earlier, had seen the death of\nTiglath-pileser, saw the departure of Shalmaneser IV. of Assyria to the\nabode of his god, and in Sargon, who succeeded him, the kingdom to all\nappearance accepted for the third time a ruler who might be described as\nan adventurer. Whether he, too, changed his name, in order to shine in\nborrowed plumes before the people, is unknown, but this is certain, that\n\u201cSargon the Later,\u201d as he called himself, by assuming that style and\ntitle, challenged comparison with an old Babylonian king of great renown,\nwho made the little state which was his original principality the centre\nof a wide-spreading domain.\n\nStrange as it may seem, until the discovery of the Assyrian inscriptions\nand their decipherment, nothing was known of this ruler outside of the Old\nTestament, his name being regarded as another name of Shalmaneser in the\npassage (Isa. xx. 1) where it occurs. Scholars did not realize that the\nArkeanos of Ptolemy was the king here mentioned, and that the change in\nthe form of his name was simply due to the change of the initial _s_ into\na breathing, according to a rule which is common in Greek etymology.\n\nOn assuming the government of the country, Sargon threw himself with\nenergy into the Syrian war, though in his slab-inscription found at\nNimroud, and in his annals, he makes his campaign against \u1e2aumbaniga\u0161 of\nElam to precede his operations in the west. The following is the text of\nhis \u201cState-Inscription\u201d\u2014\n\n\u201cFrom the beginning of my reign to the 15th of my regnal-years, I\naccomplished the overthrow of \u1e2aumbaniga\u0161 the Elamite in the suburbs of\nD\u00earu. I besieged and captured Samerina (Samaria): 27,290 people dwelling\nin the midst of it I carried off. Fifty chariots I collected among them,\nand allowed them to have the rest of their goods. My commander-in-chief I\nplaced over them, and imposed upon them the tribute of the former king.\n\n\u201c\u1e2aanunu (Hanon), king of \u1e2aazitu (Gaza), advanced against me with Sib\u2019e,\nthe Field-marshal of the land of Mu\u1e63uru (Egypt), to make war and battle in\nRapi\u1e2bu (Raphia). I defeated them.(98) Sib\u2019e feared the sound of my weapons\nand fled, and his place was not found. \u1e2aanunu of \u1e2aazitu I took with my\nhands. I received the tribute of Pir\u2019u, king of the land of Mu\u1e63uru, Sams\u00ea,\nqueen of the land of Aribu (Arabia), (and) It\u2019amara, of the land of the\nSaba\u2019aa (Sabeans)\u2014gold, the produce of the mountains, horses, (and)\ncamels.\u201d\n\n\u201cYau-bi\u2019idi of the land of the Amat\u00e2a (Hamathites), a loose fellow, a\nusurper, a frivolous, evil man, set his heart on the dominion of the land\nof Amattu (Hamath), and caused Arpadda (Arpad), \u1e62imirra (Simyra), Dima\u0161qa\n(Damascus), (and) Samerina (Samaria) to revolt against me, and caused them\nto agree together, and they assembled for battle. I collected the powerful\ntroops of the god A\u0161\u0161ur, and besieged (and) captured him in Qarqaru, his\nown city, with his warriors. I burned Qarqaru with fire. As for him, I\nflayed him. I slew the sinners in the midst of their (own) cities, and\nbrought about peace. I embodied 200 chariots (and) 600 cavalry among the\npeople of the land of Amattu, and added to the force of my kingdom.\u201d\n\nThe general opinion of Assyriologists is, that Shalmaneser did not succeed\nin making himself master of Samaria, the capture of the city falling to\nthe honour of Sargon, and this, as a matter of fact, is what the latter\nclaims. As will be seen from the above extract, he states that he carried\ncaptive no less than 27,290 of the inhabitants of the city, but whither he\ntransported them he does not say. According to 2 Kings xvii. 6, he placed\nthem in Halah (probably the \u1e2aala\u1e2b\u1e2ba of the inscriptions, near Haran), and\nby the river Habor (the Chaboras) in Gozan, and in the cities of the\nMedes. It is needless to say that these long journeys must in many cases\nhave entailed much suffering.\n\nAccording to the Babylonian Chronicle, the conflict with \u1e2aumbaniga\u0161 took\nplace in the second year of Merodach-baladan of Babylonia, which was the\nsecond year of Sargon as well. It is therefore difficult to understand why\nSargon, in his record, places this event first. The reason why he\ndismisses the account of his conflict with the Elamite king in so few\nwords is supposed to be, that he was in reality, as the Babylonian\nChronicle says, defeated on that occasion. Though he might have wished to\nkeep it in the background, his successes were so many, that there was no\nneed for him to change the chronological order of his campaigns.\n\nSargon was naturally unable to be present at the siege and occupation of\nSamaria, which occurred too close to the date of his assuming power to\nallow him to reach the place. Besides that, his presence was needed nearer\nhome, lest conspiracies should deprive him of his newly-acquired regal\ndignity. That he considered the successes of his troops in the west as a\nmost important circumstance, however, is proved by the fact, that he\ndevotes so much space in his annals to the account of it\u2014and, indeed, the\ncapture of 27,290 people is a thing of which any ruler might boast. There\ncan be no doubt that the Assyrian kings, like the Babylonians before them,\nalways desired to possess the dominion of the Mediterranean provinces,\nwhere were marts for the products both of their lands and their people,\nand entry to the ports, for then, as now, all good rulers tried to further\nthe interests of their subjects in distant lands, and were probably firmly\nof opinion, that \u201ctrade followed the standard.\u201d(99)\n\nIn addition to this, there was the rivalry of Egypt, the country which had\nheld these provinces in the past, and would have liked to regain them.\nWhether the rulers of the Mediterranean states realized this or not, is\nuncertain, but in any case, like the Israelites, they had no objection to\nmaking use of Egypt, \u201cbruised reed\u201d as she was by some considered. Seeing\nthat there was danger from the Assyrians, Hanon of Gaza followed the\nexample of Hoshea, in whom Shalmaneser had \u201cfound conspiracy,\u201d and made\novertures with Sib\u2019e, the So of 2 Kings xvii. 4 (the word ought really to\nbe pointed so as to read Seve, which was apparently the pronunciation of\nthe Assyrian form, the aspirate having the effect of changing _b_ into\n_bh_ or _v_). This ruler is called \u201cking of Egypt\u201d in the passage cited,\nbut Sargon says that he was \u201cTartan,\u201d or commander-in-chief of the\nEgyptian army. This would imply that he was acting for another, a Pharaoh\nunnamed, and at present unknown. The general opinion is, that So or Sib\u2019e\nis the same as Sabaco, and is called \u201cking\u201d by anticipation in 2 Kings\nxvii.(100)\n\nThe result was one exceedingly gratifying to the Assyrian king, for in the\nbattle at Raphia, which followed, Sib\u2019e fled in fear, whilst Hanon of Gaza\nwas made prisoner. The defeat and flight of the Egyptian army does not\nseem to redound to the credit of its leader, who must have returned\nbitterly disappointed to his native land.\n\nImmediately after, however, there is a reference to the receipt of tribute\nfrom \u201cPir\u2019u, king of the land of Mu\u1e63uru.\u201d This would be a natural result\nof the success of the Assyrians (so it seemed to the earlier\nAssyriologists), for surely Pir\u2019u is Pharaoh, and Mu\u1e63uru is the Mu\u1e63ur of\nother inscriptions, and stands for Egypt (the Heb. Misraim(101)). This\nhowever, is now denied, and Pir\u2019u is said to be the name of a chief of an\nArab tribe called Mu\u1e63uru. It reminds one of the Eri-Eaku of Larsa who is\nnot Arioch of Elassar, contemporary of Kudur-la\u1e2bgumal of Elam who is not\nChedorlaomer of Elam, and Tud\u1e2bula who is admittedly the same in name as\nTidal, all of them ruling at or near the same period, but not those\nreferred to in Gen. xiv. as contemporaries. In Assyriology, more than in\nany other study whatever, things are not what they seem, and must always\nbe identified with something else.\n\nAccording to the annals, it would seem that Yau-bi\u2019idi, who is there\ncalled Ilu-bi\u2019idi, acted in concert with Sib\u2019e of Egypt and Hanon of Gaza,\nthe operations against him preceding those against the other two. The\norder of the translation given above would seem to be preferable, as it\nmust have been in consequence of the flight of Sib\u2019e \u201clike a shepherd\nwhose sheep had been lost,\u201d that Yau-bi\u2019idi and Hanon of Gaza were so\neasily defeated. The former appears to have made Qarqaru the centre from\nwhich he intended to press his claim to the throne of Hamath, and he\nmanaged so well, that he got Arpad, Simyra, Damascus, and Samaria to join\nhim. The Assyrian king, however, soon disposed of the pretensions of this\nprince, whom he describes as \u201ca loose (?) fellow, a usurper, a frivolous\n(?), evil man\u201d (_\u1e63ab \u1e2bub\u0161i, l\u00e2-b\u00eal-kuss\u012b, am\u0113lu pat\u00fb limnu_). After this\nit is not surprising that he thought he was justified in flaying him\nalive.\n\nTo all appearance the state of affairs in Syria was satisfactory. The\ngreat victory of the Assyrians at Raphia had convinced the leaders of the\nvarious states of the uselessness of continuing to struggle against the\npower of the Assyrian king, who had nothing further to fear from Egypt,\nand was therefore free to occupy himself with other conquests. In 719,\ntherefore, he turned his attention to the region of the north, the\nkingdoms of Van and Urar\u1e6du or Ararat, the result of the operations against\nthe latter being, that the people were transported to Syria, or, as the\noriginal has it, \u201cinto Heth of the Amorites.\u201d The operations in 718 B.C.\nwere against Kiakki of Sinu\u1e2btu, a city in Tabal.\n\nThe next year, 717 B.C., came the turn of Pis\u00eeris of Carchemish, who had\ntried to get Mit\u00e2 king of Musku to join him in a rebellion against\nAssyria. Assyrians were after this settled there, and Carchemish became an\nintegral part of the Assyrian empire. The next entry in the Annals of\nSargon is a reference to the P\u00e2pites and the Lalluknites, \u201cdogs brought up\nin his palace,\u201d who planned treacherously against the land of Kakm\u00ea,\nthough the full extent of their crime is not stated. These people were\nremoved from their places, and sent down to the midst of Damascus of\nAmoria (Syria). In this year \u1e2aumbaniga\u0161 of Elam died, and was succeeded by\n\u0160utur-Nan\u1e2bundi, a man of a more peaceful character than his predecessor.\n\nExtensive operations, chiefly in Ararat, are recorded for 716 B.C., in\nwhich year also B\u00eal-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur, the city-chief of Ki\u0161e\u0161im, a Median\nprovince, was deposed, and his territory added to the boundaries of\nAssyria, together with several other west-Median districts. Among these\nwas \u1e2aar\u1e2bar, whose city-chief was driven away by the Assyrian king. This\ncity was re-peopled with prisoners of war, and its name having been\nchanged to Kar-\u0160arru-uk\u00een, made the capital of the province. The war\nagainst Ararat continued during the next year, resulting in the submission\nof Yanz\u00fb king of Na\u2019iri or Mesopotamia. On the east, a rebellion in \u1e2aar\u1e2bar\nwas put down, and the city fortified as a defence against Media. In this\nyear people of Tumadu, Ib\u00e2didu, Marsimanu, \u1e2aayap\u00e2, and the remote Arb\u00e2a\n(Arabs?), an unlettered tribe which had never paid tribute to an Assyrian\nking, were overthrown, and the survivors transported to Samaria. The\nreceipt of tribute from Pir\u2019u king of Mu\u1e63uru, Samsi queen of Aribbu\n(Arabia), It\u2019amra of the land of the Sab\u00e2a (Sabeans), kings of the\nsea-coast and the desert, consisting of \u201cgold, the produce of the\nmountain, precious stones, ivory, seeds of the _\u00fb\u0161\u00fb_-tree, all kinds of\nspices, horses and camels,\u201d(102) is recorded.\n\nTo all appearance, Pir\u2019u of Mu\u1e63uru is regarded as one of the kings of the\nsea-coast and the desert, but whether this is evidence against his being\nPharaoh of Egypt or not, may be doubted. Egypt is as much a country of the\nsea-coast as any part of Palestine, but it is naturally on the south shore\nof the Mediterranean, and not on the east.\n\n714 B.C. saw the continuance of the war with Ararat and its allies, and\nseems to have resulted in its becoming an Assyrian province. In 713\nexpeditions were made, among other places, to west Media and Cilicia. In\n712 B.C. he found himself obliged to proceed against Tar\u1e2bunazi of Meliddu,\nwho, driven from his capital by the Assyrians, shut himself up in\nTilgarimme, which had been identified with the Biblical Togarmah. This\ncity, having been conquered, was repeopled with the nomad Sut\u00ee(103) and\nplaced under Assyrian rule.\n\nAt this time, as Sargon says, he received the treasure (?) of the land of\nHeth (the high-lands of Syria), among the things sent being copper, iron,\nlead or tin, white marble from the Amanus mountains, royal garments of the\ncolour of _ukn\u00fb_-stone (lapis-lazuli), something which came from the\nmountain Ba\u2019il-\u1e63apuna (Baal-zephon), \u201ca great mountain,\u201d and silver,\nwhich, in consequence of the large consignments received at D\u00fbr-Sargina\n(Khorsabad), became in value like copper. The next year (711 B.C.) an\nexpedition against Muttallu, son of Tar\u1e2bulara, one of the kings of \u201cthe\nland of Heth,\u201d took place. The son had killed his father and mounted the\nthrone, hence the necessity for this campaign.\n\nA similar expedition also took place to Ashdod. It happened that Azuri,\nking of the district of which Ashdod was the capital, had withheld the\ntribute agreed upon, and Sargon had therefore deposed him, and set his\nbrother A\u1e2bi-miti in his place. The following is Sargon\u2019s own account of\nthis, and the sequel\u2014\n\n\u201cAzuri, king of Asdudu, planned in his heart not to send tribute, and sent\nto the kings around hostile expressions (towards) the land of A\u0161\u0161ur, and\non account of the evil he had done, I changed his dominion over the people\nof his land. A\u1e2bi-miti, his brother next in order, I appointed to the\nkingdom over them. Men of \u1e2aatt\u00ee,(104) speaking treachery, hated his\ndominion, and raised up over them Yaana, a usurper, who like themselves\nknew no reverence for the dominion. In the anger of my heart I went\nhastily with the chariot of my feet and my cavalry, which for security\nquit not my side, to the city Asdudu, the city of his dominion, and the\ncity Asdudu, the city Gimtu, (and) the city Asdudimma I besieged (and)\ncaptured. The gods dwelling in the midst of them, himself, with the people\nof his land, gold, silver, (and) the property of his palace, I counted as\nspoil. Their cities I rebuilt,(105) and settled therein the people of the\nlands captured by my hands. I placed my commander-in-chief as governor\nover them, and counted them with the people of my land, and they bore my\nyoke.\u201d\n\nAnother inscription calls Yaana by the name of Yawani, and states that,\nhearing from far of the advance of the Assyrian army, he fled to the\nborder of Mu\u1e63uru, which lies on the boundary of Melu\u1e2b\u1e2ba, and there hid\nhimself. The king of Melu\u1e2b\u1e2ba seems thereupon to have feared for his own\nland, and placing Yatna in chains, sent him to Assyria. A third text\nreferring to this campaign adds the following details\u2014\n\n\u201c(People) of the land of Pili\u0161te (Philistia), the land of Yaudu (Judah),\nthe land of Udumu (Edom), the land of Ma\u2019abi (Moab), dwellers by the sea,\nbringers of the tribute and the gift of A\u0161\u0161ur my lord, (for)\nsedition-mongering without measure, and evil, which was against me to\ncause hostility, unto Pir\u2019u, king of the land of Mu\u1e63ri, a prince who could\nnot save them, they brought their homage-offering, and asked him for aid.\nI, Sargina, the true prince, fearing the oath of Lag-gi (= Nebo) and\nMerodach, keeper of the commands of the god A\u0161\u0161ur, caused (my troops) to\ncross the Tigris and the Euphrates at high water, the fulness of the\nflood, as on dry land. And he, Yawani, their king, who trusted to his own\npower, and had not submitted to my dominion, heard from afar of the march\nof my expedition, and the glory of A\u0161\u0161ur, my lord, overthrew him, and ...\nof the region of the river ... depth of the waters ... possession (?) of\nhis land ... afar ... he fled ... Asdudu....\u201d\n\nIn this, too, there is a reference to Pir\u2019u, here called king of Mu\u1e63r\u00ed,\neither Egypt, or that mysterious and otherwise unknown kingdom to whose\nhelp so many trusted.\n\nThe years 710 and 709 B.C. were devoted to the operations against\nMerodach-baladan, the Chaldean prince who had made himself master of\nBabylonia. This is the Merodach-baladan who is referred to in 2 Kings xx.\n12, but as his embassy really belongs to a somewhat later date, reference\nwill be made to it in its place. Suffice it here to say that he was a\nusurper on the Babylonian throne, head of the Chaldean tribe called\nB\u00eet-Yak\u00een, and one of the most influential chieftains of the district. To\nall appearance, the Babylonians themselves (as in earlier days when they\ntried to seize the throne) preferred the Assyrians to the semi-barbarous\nChaldeans and Arameans, with whom they were, in fact, in too close\nconnection to have any great respect for. It is needless to say that this\nentirely fell in with the ambition of the kings of Assyria, who, from the\ntime of Tukulti-Ninip, if not earlier, had desired, and sometimes\nobtained, dominion over Babylonia. Sargon, the successor of two kings of\nAssyria who were acknowledged to be at the same time kings of Babylonia,\nnaturally regarded himself as inheriting that crown in virtue of his being\nking of Assyria, whilst the Babylonians themselves were probably not\ndispleased with the idea that they formed part of the world-renowned and\npowerful Assyrian empire, whose kings spoke the same language as\nthemselves, and with whose religion they were in sympathy. Thus it\nhappened, therefore, that in the course of the operations against\nMerodach-baladan, success frequently crowned the arms of the Assyrians,\nand the inhabitants of Babylon, sending to D\u00fbr-Ladinna, where Sargon was\nstaying, brought him in solemn possession to Babylon, where he made the\nprescribed offerings to the gods, took up his abode in Merodach-baladan\u2019s\npalace, and received the tribute of the Babylonian tribes which he had\nsubjugated. He still continued, however, his operations against\nMerodach-baladan, who was by no means willing to give up the struggle, to\nwhich there could be one end only, namely, the overthrow of the Chaldean\nking, which took place in 709 B.C.\n\nWhilst Sargon was busy in Babylonia, the governor of Qu\u00ea invaded Musku\n(Mesech) and brought the country to subjection. The seven kings of Cyprus\nalso sent gifts, and a stele of Sargon was set up in the island, which,\nthough mutilated, is of considerable importance, and is now preserved in\nthe Berlin Museum. Kummu\u1e2b (Comagene) was also added to the Assyrian empire\n(708 B.C.), and probably in the same year, a new king (in consequence of a\ndispute concerning the succession) set up in the land of Ellipu. In this\nreign also, the Elamites were generally against the Assyrians in their\nconflicts in Babylonia and on the eastern borders.\n\nConcerning his death there is much uncertainty. The supposition is, that\nhe was assassinated by one of his soldiers, as is indicated by the entry\nin an eponym-list with historical references\u2014\n\n\n _L\u00eemme Upa\u1e2b\u1e2bir-b\u00ealu, D.P. \u0161akin \u00e2l Amedi ..._\n _\u00eena \u00eali puruss\u00ee Kulumm\u00e2a...._\n _am\u0113l tid\u00fbki madaktam \u0161a \u0161ar m\u00e2t A\u0161\u0161ur D.S...._\n _\u00e2ra\u1e2b Abi, \u00fbmu \u0161in\u0161\u0113ru, Sin-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-\u00eariba (\u00eena_\n _kuss\u012b ittu\u0161ib)._\n\n \u201cEponymy of Upa\u1e2b\u1e2bir-b\u00ealu, prefect of the city Amedu....\n according to the oracle of the Kulummite(s)....\n a soldier (entered) the camp of the king of Assyria (and killed\n him?).\n month Ab, day 12th, Sennacherib (sat on the throne\u201d).\n\n\n [Plate X.]\n\n Reception by Sennachereb of Prisoners and Spoil. British Museum, Nineveh\n Gallery, No. 57.\n\n\nThat he died a violent death seems to be nearly certain, and how many\nothers of the overbearing rulers of Assyria had come to an end in the same\nway is not known. The fate of his son, to which reference will be made in\nits place, is a historical fact.\n\n\n\n\nSennacherib.\n\n\nThough in all probability young when he came to the throne in 705 B.C.,\nSennacherib had already some experience as a ruler, having been the\nrepresentative of his father Sargon in Armenia, where he had to receive\nand transmit the reports of the Assyrian generals, and probably also to\nadminister the country. For the nations over which he was to rule,\nhowever, he was practically a new and untried administrator, of whose\nstrength or weakness of character nothing was known. Merodach-baladan\ntherefore took advantage of the death of Sargon and the succession of his\nson to come forth from his hiding-place, with such of his followers who\nwere available, and an army placed at his disposal by the king of Elam. To\nall appearance the Chaldean ruler had taken advantage of the occupation of\nthe Assyrian army elsewhere to possess himself of Babylon, which city\nSennacherib entered, occupying Merodach-baladan\u2019s palace, and seizing all\nhis treasures. Merodach-baladan fled and took refuge in Nagitu, on the\nother side of the Persian Gulf, so as to be near his Elamite allies.\n\nAfter this the Assyrian king records his expedition to the mountainous\ncountries of Kass\u00fb (the Coss\u00e6ans) and the Yasubigalleans, north of Elam,\nin the course of which he wasted the neighbouring district of Ellipu,\ntaking, on his way, tribute from some of the more inaccessible tribes of\nthe Medes. His third campaign was to the land of \u1e2aatti (Syria), and as\nthis is of considerable importance, a translation of the whole, from the\nTaylor Cylinder, which gives a full account, is inserted here\u2014\n\n\u201cIn my third expedition I went to the land of \u1e2aatti. Lul\u00ee king of the city\nof \u1e62idunnu (Sidon), fear of the glory of my dominion struck him, and he\nfled from the midst of Tyre to Yatnana(106) (Cyprus), which is in the\nmiddle of the sea, and I subjugated his country. Great \u1e62idunnu, little\n\u1e62idunnu, B\u00eet-zitte, \u1e62areptu (Zarephath), Ma\u1e2balliba, \u00db\u0161\u00fb (Osah), Akzibi\n(Achzib), Akk\u00fb (Accho), his strong cities, fortresses, where were food and\ndrink, his strongholds, the terror of the weapons of A\u0161\u0161ur my lord struck\nthem, and they submitted to my feet. Tu-ba\u2019alu (Ethobaal) on the throne of\ndominion over them I set, and the tax and tribute of my overlordship\nyearly without fail I imposed upon him.\n\n\n \u201cAs for Min\u1e2bimmu (Menahem) of the city of the Samsimurun\u00e2a;\n Tu-ba\u2019alu of the city of the \u1e62idunn\u00e2a (Sidonians);\n Abdi-li\u2019iti of the city of the Arud\u00e2a (Arvadites);\n Uru-milki of the city of the Gubl\u00e2a (Gebalites);\n Mitinti of the city of the Asdud\u00e2a (Ashdodites);\n Budu-\u00eelu of the land of the B\u00eet-Amman\u00e2a (Beth-Ammonites);\n Kammusu-nadbi (Chemosh-nadab) of the land of the Ma\u2019ab\u00e2a\n (Moabites);\n Aa-rammu (Joram) of the land of the Udumm\u00e2a (Edomites);\n\n\nkings of the land of Amoria all of them, brought numerous treasures, their\nvaluable presents, as gifts to my presence and kissed my feet. And\n\u1e62idq\u00e2(107) (Zedekiah), king of the city of Isqalluna (Askelon), who was\nnot submissive to my yoke, the gods of his father\u2019s house, himself, his\nwife, his sons, his daughters, his brothers, (and) the seed of his\nfather\u2019s house, I removed and brought to the land of A\u0161\u0161ur. \u0160arru-l\u00fbd\u00e2ri,\nson of R\u00fbkibtu, their former king, I placed over the people of the city of\nIsqalluna, and the payment of tribute as the price of my overlordship I\nset for him, and he bore my yoke. In the course of my campaign the city\nB\u00eet-Daganna (Beth-Dagon), Yapp\u00fb (Joppa), Ban\u00e2a-barqa (Bene-berak), Azuru\n(Azor), cities of \u1e62idq\u00e2 which were not at once submissive to my yoke, I\nbesieged, captured, (and) carried off their spoil.\n\n\u201cThe prefects, the princes, and the people of the city Amqarruna (Ekron),\nwho had thrown Pad\u00ee, their king, who was faithful to the agreement and\noath of the land of A\u0161\u0161ur, into fetters of iron, and given him to \u1e2aazaqiau\n(Hezekiah), of the land of the Yaud\u00e2a (Jews)\u2014hostilely in secret they had\nacted\u2014feared in their hearts. The kings of the land of Mu\u1e63uru (Egypt),\n(and) the soldiers of the bow, the chariots, (and) the horses of the king\nof the land of Melu\u1e2b\u1e2ba, gathered to themselves a numberless force, and\ncame to their help. Over against me in sight of Altaq\u00fb (Eltekah) their\nline of battle was set in array, they called for their weapons. In the\nservice of A\u0161\u0161ur my lord I fought with them and accomplished their defeat.\nThe charioteers and the sons of the king of the Mu\u1e63ur\u00e2a (Egyptians), with\nthe charioteers of the king of the land of Melu\u1e2b\u1e2ba, my hands captured\nalive in the midst of the battle. (As for) the city of Altaq\u00fb (Eltekah)\n(and) the city of Tamn\u00e2 (Timnah), I besieged, captured, (and) carried off\ntheir spoil.\n\n\u201cI approached to the city of Amqarruna, and the prefects and princes who\nhad caused the wrong to be, I killed, and on stakes around the city I hung\ntheir corpses. The sons of the city doing the crime and misdeed I counted\nas spoil. The rest of them, who did not commit sin and wickedness, whose\nevil deed was not, I commanded their release. I caused Pad\u00ee, their king,\nto come forth from the midst of Ursalimmu (Jerusalem), and to sit on the\nthrone of dominion over them, and the tribute of my overlordship I imposed\nupon him. And (as for) Hazaqiau (Hezekiah) of the land of the Yaud\u00e2a\n(Jews), who had not submitted to my yoke, 46 of his strong cities,\nfortresses, and small towns which were around them, which were\ninnumerable, with overthrowing by battering-rams, and advance of towers,\ninfantry-attack, breaching, cutting, and earthworks, I besieged (and)\ncaptured. 200,150 people, small and great, male and female, horses, mules,\nasses, camels, oxen, and sheep, which were without number, from their\nmidst I caused to come forth and reckoned as spoil. As for him, like a\ncage-bird I shut him up within Ursalimmu, the city of his dominion.\nRedoubts I threw up around him, and I cut off the exit from the great gate\nof his city\u2014it was (completely) covered. His cities, which I had spoiled,\nI detached from the midst of his country, and gave (them) to Mitintu, king\nof Asdudu (Ashdod), Pad\u00ee, king of Amqarruna (Ekron), and \u1e62illi-b\u00eal, king\nof the city \u1e2aazitu (Gaza), and (thus) reduced his land. Over the former\ntribute, their yearly gift, I added a payment as to the due of my\noverlordship, and imposed it upon them. As for him, \u1e2aazaqiau (Hezekiah),\nfear of the magnificence of my lordship struck him, and the _urbi_ and his\nchosen soldiers, which he had brought in for the defence of Ursalimmu, the\ncity of his kingdom, and (who) had pay, with 30 talents of gold, 800\ntalents of silver, precious (stones), _gu\u1e2bli_, _daggassi_,(108) great\ncarbuncles (?), couches of ivory, state thrones of ivory, elephant-skin,\nelephant-tooth (ivory), ebony (?), _urkarinnu_-wood, all sorts of\nthings,(109) a valuable treasure, and his daughters, the women of his\npalace, male singers (and) female singers, he(110) caused to be brought\nafter me to the midst of Ninua (Nineveh), the city of my dominion, and he\nsent his messenger to present the gift and pay homage.\u201d\n\nIt is needless to say that the above long account differs considerably\nfrom that given in the Bible (2 Kings xviii. 13; Isa. xxxvi. 1 ff.), and\nit is very difficult to reconcile the two narratives. According to the\naccount in Kings, Sennacherib came and took all the fenced cities of\nJudah, but there is no statement as to the reason why. The Assyrian king\njustifies his invasion of the country by stating that Hezekiah had sided\nwith the inhabitants of Ekron in the deposition of their king, whom he had\nreceived from them and kept in prison. He even states that he brought him\nforth from Jerusalem and replaced him on the throne. That this\ncircumstance is not referred to in the Biblical account, cannot be held to\nindicate that the Assyrian king\u2019s story is wrong, and only shows that the\nwriter of the 2nd Book of the Kings did not think it of sufficient\nimportance to record. In all probability, Hezekiah did not know at the\ntime that Pad\u00ee was an Assyrian vassal, otherwise he would not have\nincurred the risk of an invasion of his country by the dreaded Assyrians.\nThe Biblical account then states that Hezekiah sent to the king at\nLachish, saying that he had offended, and asking for terms, a fact which\nindicates that he was aware of having done something at which the king of\nAssyria might justly take offence. The answer was, the fixing of the\namount of tribute which Hezekiah had to pay\u2014300 talents of silver and 30\ntalents of gold, this latter item agreeing with the statement of\nSennacherib himself, though the amount of silver which he mentions\u2014800\ntalents\u2014is much greater. The sacrifice which Hezekiah made on this\noccasion (he had to strip off the gold from the doors of the Temple, and\nalso from the pillars which he had overlaid, to make up the sum) was\nconsiderable. Concerning a siege of Jerusalem at this point, however,\nthere is not a single word in the Biblical account, and the general\nopinion is, that the Assyrian king has purposely combined two accounts to\ngive an appearance of success to what, in 2 Kings xix. 35-37, appears to\nhave been a serious disaster to the Assyrian arms.\n\nIt is worthy of note, however, that Josephus makes the siege of Jerusalem\nto have taken place when Sennacherib was returning from Egypt, where he\nhad spent a long time besieging Pelusium (_Ant._ x. i. 4), which was\nregarded as the key of Egypt. In support of this he quotes Herodotus, who,\naccording to him, made a great mistake \u201cwhen he called this king not king\nof the Assyrians, but of the Arabians.\u201d This, however, is not quite\ncorrect, as Herodotus really says (book ii. 141), \u201cSennacherib king of the\nArabians and of the Assyrians.\u201d That it took place on his return from\nEgypt, however, is also stated by Berosus, whom Josephus quotes in full,\nas follows\u2014\n\n\u201cNow when Sennacherib was returning from his Egyptian war to Jerusalem, he\nfound his army under Rabshakeh in great danger, for God had sent a\npestilential distemper upon his army; and on the very first night of the\nsiege, a hundred and eighty-five thousand, with their captains and\ngenerals, were destroyed. So the king was in a great dread, and in a\nterrible agony at this calamity; and being in great fear for his whole\narmy, he fled with the rest of his forces to his own kingdom, and to his\ncity Nineveh, and when he had abode there a little while, he was\ntreacherously assaulted, and died by the hands of his elder sons,\nAdramelech and Sarasar, and was slain in his own temple which was called\nAraske. Now these sons of his were driven away on account of the murder of\ntheir father, by the citizens, and went into Armenia, whilst Assarachoddas\ntook the kingdom of Sennacherib.\u201d\n\nThis would seem to be conclusive, especially as Sennacherib, according to\nhis own records, made no expedition to Egypt before or at the time of that\nagainst the land of \u1e2aatti, which took place in the eponymy of Mitunu,\nprefect of Isana, _i.e._ 700 B.C., or the year immediately preceding. Now\nas Sennacherib died in 681 B.C., nearly twenty years elapsed between the\ncampaign of which the account is above translated and his death. Berosus,\nhowever, states that, after the siege of Jerusalem, which ended so\ndisastrously for him, he abode at Nineveh only \u201ca little while\u201d before he\nwas murdered. There is then no doubt that there were two campaigns, and\nthe events referred to in 2 Kings xviii. 13-xix. 37, though they seem to\nfollow each other with little or no break, must have extended over a\nconsiderable period, the widest gap being in all probability between the\nsixteenth and seventeenth verses of ch. xviii. It is noteworthy that, at\nthis point, the Hebrew indicates the end of a paragraph, though not a\nchange of subject.\n\nAffairs in Babylonia now occupied the attention of Sennacherib for many\nyears, in consequence of the many revolutions there, which were largely\nfomented, aided and abetted by the Elamites. In 703 B.C., two pretenders,\nMarduk-zakir-\u0161umi and Marduk-\u00e2bla-iddina, held the throne in succession\nfor a few months, but Sennacherib put an end to this rule by setting on\nthe throne a Chaldean named B\u00eal-ibn\u00ee (Belibus).(111) This took place when\nhe defeated Merodach-baladan, before the campaign against the West.\nEvidently, however, he was not satisfied with the rule of his nominee, who\nhad probably been plotting against him, and therefore entered the country\nagain in 699 B.C., carried away B\u00eal-ibn\u00ee prisoner, and set on the throne\nhis own eldest son, A\u0161\u0161ur-nadin-\u0161um. After this seems to have occurred his\nfifth expedition, which was to the mountainous region where lay the cities\nTumurru, \u0160arum or \u0160arma, Ezema, Kib\u0161u, \u1e2aalbuda, Q\u00fba, and Qana, in the\nneighbourhood of Cilicia, his objective being the city Ukku, which was\ntaken and spoiled.\n\nWhilst absent on this expedition, however, the Elamites seem to have been\nagain plotting against the Assyrians in Babylonia. This being the case,\nSennacherib went in \u201cships of the land of \u1e2aatti\u201d to the place where\nMerodach-baladan(112) had taken refuge, namely, \u201cNagitu of Elam.\u201d(113) On\nthis occasion, he claims to have captured \u0160\u00fbzubu (otherwise\nNergal-u\u0161\u00eazib), and carried him in chains to Assyria. This led to\nreprisals on the part of the Elamites, who invaded Babylonia, carried\nA\u0161\u0161ur-nadin-\u0161um, the king, Sennacherib\u2019s son, prisoner, and set on the\nthrone Nergal-u\u0161\u00eazib, who, if he be the \u0160\u00fbzubu referred to by Sennacherib,\nmust have escaped from the custody of the Assyrians. This was in 693 B.C.\n\nNergal-u\u0161\u00eazib only ruled for a year or eighteen months, and was captured\n(? again) by the Assyrians. The Assyrian king now ravaged Elam \u201cfrom R\u00e2\u0161\nto B\u00eet-Burnaki,\u201d but his army would have been better employed in watching\nover affairs in Babylonia, where another pretender, Mu\u0161\u00eazib-Marduk, sat on\nthe throne, and ruled for four years. During this time he, too, found that\nhis seat was not altogether a bed of roses, for Menanu, king of Elam,\nafter a battle with the Assyrians,(114) captured Mu\u0161\u00eazib-Marduk with an\narmy composed of Elamites and Babylonians, and delivered him to the\nAssyrians. Sennacherib now again (688 B.C.) became king of Babylonia, and\nit is thought that, on taking possession of the capital again, out of\nrevenge for the loss of his son, and on account of the trouble he had had\nin consequence of the Babylonians running after the many pretenders, with\nwhich the land seems to have teemed, he destroyed the city of Babylon,\ncommitting such cruelties that they were remembered to the end, and sowed\nthe seeds of that hatred which were to bring forth for Assyria that\ndeadliest of all fruit\u2014her own destruction.\n\nIn the eight years which passed between his assuming the reins of power in\nBabylonia and his death, must be placed that expedition to Egypt spoken of\nby Berosus and Herodotus. The version of the former, which refers\nprincipally to the siege of Jerusalem, is quoted above (p. 378); the\nfollowing is the account of the latter\u2014\n\n\u201cAfter this, Sanacharib, king of the Arabians and of the Assyrians,\nmarched a great host against Egypt. Then the warriors of the Egyptians\nrefused to come to the rescue, and the priest (Hephaistos, whose name was\nSethos),(115) being driven into a strait, entered into the sanctuary of\nthe temple and bewailed to the image of the god the danger which was\nimpending over him; and as he was thus lamenting, sleep came upon him, and\nit seemed to him in his vision that the god came out and stood by him and\nencouraged him, saying that he should suffer no evil if he went forth to\nmeet the army of the Arabians, for he would himself send him helpers.\nTrusting in these things seen in sleep, he took with him, they say, those\nof the Egyptians who were willing to follow him, and encamped in Pelusion,\nfor by this way the invasion came; and not one of the warrior class\nfollowed him, but shopkeepers and artisans and men of the market. Then\nafter they came, there swarmed by night upon the enemies mice of the\nfields, and ate up their quivers and their bows, and moreover the handles\nof their shields, so that on the next day they fled, and being without\ndefence of arms great numbers fell. And at the present time this king\nstands in the temple of Hephaistos in stone, holding upon his head a\nmouse, and by letters inscribed he says these words, \u2018Let him who looks\nupon me learn to fear the gods.\u2019 \u201d\n\nJosephus\u2019s quotation from Herodotus differs somewhat from the above, in\nthat he makes the Egyptian king to pray to God (and not before his image),\nand omits all reference to the dream. This was doubtless to make the\nparallel with the case of Hezekiah more striking.\n\n [Plate XI.]\n\n Sennacherib before Lachish. For the translation of the inscription, see\n the opposite page. British Museum, Assyrian Saloon. The face of the king\n is mutilated in the original bas-relief, and has been restored.\n\n\nThe precise date of this expedition to Egypt and second siege of Jerusalem\nis unknown, but it must have taken place between 688 and 680 B.C. It is\nnot by any means improbable that the date may some time or other be fixed,\nfor an account of it will probably be found in the ruins of the cities of\nAssyria somewhere. That Herodotus calls Sennacherib \u201cking of the Arabians\nand the Assyrians\u201d is probably due to the fact that he seems to have been\nin alliance with \u201cthe queen of the Aribi\u201d\u2014_(\u0161ar)rat_ D.P. _Aribi_\u2014or\nArabians, at the time. Esarhaddon speaks of his father Sennacherib as\nhaving captured the Arabian city Adum\u016b, and inscriptions of\nA\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli also refer to Sennacherib\u2019s expedition thither, and to his\nconnection with an Arabian king named \u1e2aaza-\u00eelu (Hazael). With regard to\nPalestine itself, the reality of the siege of Lachish is testified to by\nthe fact, that a large portion of Sennacherib\u2019s sculptures represent him\nas being present at the siege of Lachish in person, when the prisoners and\nthe booty taken were passed before him in procession. The inscription\naccompanying this scene reads as follows\u2014\n\n\n \u201cSin-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iriba, king of the world, king of the land A\u0161\u0161ur,\n sat upon his throne of state, and\n the spoil of Lakisu\n passed before him.\u201d\n\n\nIt would be strange indeed if this event, of which he was evidently very\nproud, were omitted from the history of what he must have regarded as his\nglorious deeds. As it does not occur in the account of his expedition to\nthe land of \u1e2aatti, there is hardly any doubt that it belongs to the later\ncampaign there, when he took the city, though he failed, as has been seen,\nto take Jerusalem. In all probability there were two sieges of Lachish,\nand it was very possible that the city was taken only on the second\noccasion. In any case, it was from Lachish that Sennacherib sent the\nTartan, the Rabsaris, and the Rabshakeh to Hezekiah, with a great army to\nbesiege Jerusalem, and it is noteworthy that the Rabshakeh reproaches him\nwith trusting to Egypt, the power with which Assyria was at that moment in\nconflict; and in Sennacherib\u2019s second message to Hezekiah (2 Kings xix. 9)\nthe words accompanying it clearly show that the general opinion was, that\nit was the march of Tirhakah against him which called it forth. It is\nnoteworthy in this connection, that Tirhakah cannot have been on the\nthrone of Egypt so early as 700 B.C., the date of Sennacherib\u2019s first\ncampaign against the West.\n\nThere are therefore many arguments in favour of two expeditions of\nSennacherib to Palestine, with two sieges of Jerusalem, and also, to all\nappearance, two sieges of Lachish.\n\nThe following is the account of his death given in the Babylonian\nChronicle\u2014\n\n\u201cOn the 20th day of Tebet, Sin-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-eriba, king of Assyria, his son killed\nhim in a revolt. For (? 25) years Sin-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-eriba had ruled the kingdom of\nAssyria. From the 20th day of the month Tebet until the 2nd day of the\nmonth Adar, the revolt in Assyria continued. Month Adar, day 18th,\nA\u0161\u0161ur-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00e2-iddina (Esarhaddon), his son, sat upon the throne in Assyria.\u201d\n\nAccording to Berosus, who agrees with the Biblical account in this, it was\ntwo of his sons who killed him, but it may be taken that, though they were\nboth morally responsible, one only actually performed the deed. Shareser\nis not mentioned, either by Abydenus or Polyhistor, as taking part in the\nmurder; it would seem to be very probable, that Adrammelech was the\nculprit. From Berosus it is also clear that Esarhaddon had nothing to do\nwith it, and this is to a certain extent confirmed by his inscriptions,\nwhich, as will be seen farther on, represent him as warring in Armenia,\nwhither his brothers had fled.\n\nAccording to the received chronology, the assassination of Sennacherib and\nthe accession of Esarhaddon took place in the year 680 B.C.\n\n\n\n\nEsarhaddon.\n\n\nIt is a matter greatly to be regretted that the royal inscriptions of\nEsarhaddon have not come down to us in a complete state, and also that we\ndo not possess the later portions of the Assyrian Eponym Canon with\nhistorical references, which would enable us to fix the date of the\ncampaigns. Of course, there is every probability that they are mentioned\nin chronological order, but as their dates are not stated, at least some\nuncertainty must prevail.\n\n [Plate XII.]\n\nEsarhaddon, King of Assyria. The kneeling figure, which has the negro type\n of features and wears the uraeus ornament, is apparently Tirhakah, his\n opponent in Egypt. The prisoners here represented are regarded as being\ntreated as the same king treated Manasseh (2 Chr. xxxiii. 11, R.V. marg.).\nFound at Zenjirli. From _Mittheilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen_,\n Part XI., by permission of the publishing-house of Georg Reimer, Berlin.\n\n\nIt is therefore impossible to say with certainty whether the recital, in\nforcible though apparently well-chosen language, of what took place in\n\u1e2aanigalbat, or Mesopotamia, belongs to the account of the conflict with\nhis brothers (who would have liked to overthrow Esarhaddon that one of\nthem might reign in his stead) or not. The wording, however, makes it very\nprobable that the narrative does refer to them, for he overtook them on\nthe Nineveh road, and the disappearance of their resistance was more than\ngratifying to the new king\u2014\n\n\n \u201cThe Nineveh-road, with difficulty (but) speedily, I traversed\u2014\n before me, in the land of \u1e2aani-galbat, the whole of their mighty\n warriors halted before my expedition, and prepared their weapons.\n The fear of the great gods, my lords, overwhelmed them, and\n the attack of my mighty battle they saw, and became as demented.\n I\u0161tar, lady of war and battle, lover of my priesthood,\n stood by my side, and broke their bows.\n She scattered their serried battle(-array), and\n in their assembled mass they called out thus:\n \u201cThis is our king.\u201d\n By her supreme command they came over to my side.\u201d\n\n\nOracles encouraging Esarhaddon exist, and possibly refer to this\nexpedition.\n\nUnfortunately the mutilation of the record, by which the beginning is\nwanting, has deprived us of the names of both conspirators, which are,\ntherefore, only preserved by the Bible, Berosus, Abydenus, and Polyhistor.\nVarious have been the conjectures as to what the true Assyrian forms of\nthe names would be, and only one, that of Adrammelech, has been found with\nany probability of its being the right one. The name in question is that\nof A\u0161\u0161ur-munik, or, perhaps better, A\u0161\u0161ur-mulik, for whom Sennacherib\nbuilt a palace. From its form in Hebrew, Sharezer should be \u0160ar-u\u1e63ur in\nAssyrian, _i.e._ \u201cprotect the king,\u201d the name of the deity called upon\nbeing omitted.\n\nThough Esarhaddon\u2019s inscriptions do not give any chronological data, the\nBabylonian chronicle indicates the dates of his campaigns with sufficient\nprecision. From it we learn that in his first year he had to put down a\nrebellion in Ur, led by Z\u0113ru-k\u00eanu-l\u00ee\u0161ir, whom Esarhaddon calls\nNab\u00fb-z\u0113r-napi\u0161ti-l\u00ee\u0161ir, son of Merodach-baladan. In the year 676 B.C., his\nexpedition to Sidon took place, and Abdi-milkutti, the king, was beheaded\nin 675. After taking the spoil of the city, he says that he \u201cassembled the\nkings of \u1e2aatti and the sea-coast, all of them,\u201d and there is every\nprobability that it was at this time that he \u201ctook Menasseh with hooks,\u201d\nor, as the Revised Version has it, with chains, and bound him with\nfetters, and brought him to Babylon, where, as sovereign of that land\nalso, he sometimes held court. Though severe, and probably also cruel\nsometimes, Esarhaddon was more mercifully inclined than his father, and\nallowed Menasseh to resume the reins of government at Jerusalem. There is\nno reference to this in the inscriptions of Esarhaddon, though he\nmentions, in his list of tributaries, Menasseh king of the city of Judah.\nThis list, which is from a cylinder-inscription, is as follows\u2014\n\n\n \u201cI gathered also the kings of \u1e2aatti and across the river ...\n Ba\u2019alu king of \u1e62urru (Tyre): Menas\u00ea (Menasseh) king of the city of\n Yaudu:\n Qau\u0161-gabri, king of the city of Udumu (Edom); Mu\u1e63ur\u2019i, king of the\n city Ma\u2019ab (Moab);\n \u1e62illi-b\u00ealu, king of the city of \u1e2aazitu (Gaza); Mitinti, king of\n the city of Isqaluna (Askelon);\n Ikausu, king of the city of Amqarruna (Ekron); Milki-a\u0161apa, king\n of the city of Gublu (Gebal);\n Matan-ba\u2019al, king of the city of Aruadu (Arvad); Abi-baal, king of\n the city of Samsimuruna;\n Budu-ilu, king of the city B\u00eat-Ammana (Beth-Ammon); A\u1e2bi-milki,\n king of the city of Asdudu (Ashdod);\n 12 kings of the sea-coast. Eki\u0161tura, king of the city Edi\u2019al\n (Idalium);\n Pil\u00e2gur\u00e2, king of the city of Kidrusu; K\u00eesu, king of the city\n Sill\u00fba;\n It\u00fbandar, king of the city Pappa (Paphos); Er\u00easu, king of the city\n of Sillu;\n Damasu, king of the city Kur\u00ee (Kurium); Admezu, king of the city\n Tamesu (Tamessus);\n Dam\u00fbsi, king of the city Karti-\u1e2badasti (the new town, a Ph\u0153nician\n settlement);\n Unasagusu, king of the city Lidir; Bu\u1e63usu, king of the city Nur\u00eea:\n 10 kings of the land of Yatnana (Cyprus), within the sea\u2014\n altogether 22 kings of the land of \u1e2aatti, the sea-coast and the\n middle of the sea, all of them,\n I directed, and great beams, enormous poles,\n trunks of cedar and cypress from the midst of Sirara\n and Libnana (Lebanon) (etc., etc., etc.),\n from the midst of the wooded mountains,\n the place of their growing,\n for the requirements of my palace,\n with toil and with difficulty\n I caused them to be brought to Nineveh.\u201d\n\n\nThe tribute which he exacted was not, therefore, a tribute of gold,\nsilver, and other precious things, but simply the building materials which\nEsarhaddon required for his palace, and the kings of Heth, including\nMenasseh, contributed to this together with the kings of Cyprus\u2014and to all\nappearance they had to transport these things to Nineveh! It was the\nlabour and expense of transport rather than the material itself, which\nrendered this tribute so precious.\n\nJudging from his records, Esarhaddon was fully as active as the other\nkings of Assyria in making conquests. He attacked the people of Armenia\n(the Mann\u00e2a), the rebellious land of Barnaku\u2014\u201cthose who dwell in the land\nof Til-A\u0161urri,\u201d(116)\u2014the Medes, the Chaldeans, the Arabians (see p. 382),\nand Egypt, in the direction of which he had already made a little\nexpedition (to the cities of Arz\u00e2 and Aaki (?) of the brook of\nEgypt\u2014probably the river of Egypt of Gen. xv. 18, and other passages). His\nfirst real expedition to Egypt, however, was in the tenth year of his\nreign (670 B.C.). Three battles were fought there, and Memphis was\ncaptured by the Assyrians on the 22nd of Tammuz. Whether he really and\neffectually subjugated the country or not, is not known, but he again\nmarched to the same place in the last year of his reign, and falling ill\non the road, died on the 10th day of Marcheswan. He was succeeded by\nA\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli (Asshur-bani-pal) in Assyria, and \u0160ama\u0161-\u0161um-uk\u00een\n(Saosduchinos) in Babylonia, and the two kingdoms, united by so much\nbloodshed, became once more separated (668 B.C.).\n\n\n\n\nA\u0161\u0161ur-Ban\u00ee-\u00c2pli.\n\n\nThus it happened, that A\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli, on coming to the throne, found\nhimself involved in a war with Egypt. To such a ruler, it must have seemed\na hard thing to relinquish what his father had fought, and perhaps died,\nto acquire and retain. This being the case, he sent forth his army to\nreduce the country again to subjection, Tirhakah having taken advantage of\nthe death of Esarhaddon to revolt. In the course of this campaign his\nrepresentative (there is every probability that A\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli never went\nwestwards, or, indeed, made any warlike expedition in person whatever)\nreceived the tribute of the kings of the sea-coast and \u201cthe middle of the\nsea,\u201d _i.e._ Ph\u0153nicia and Cyprus. This list is, with few exceptions, the\nsame as that given by Esarhaddon, and includes Mins\u00ea (= Minas\u00ea, _i.e._\nMenasseh) of the land of Yaudi or Judah. In some cases, however, changes\nhad taken place and these are duly registered\u2014Yakinl\u00fb instead of\nMatan-ba\u2019al, king of the land of Aruada (Arvad); Ammi-nadbi (Amminadab),\nking of the land of B\u00eet-Ammana (Beth-Ammon), instead of Budu-ilu. For the\nkings of Cyprus, however, no change is indicated, a circumstance which\nleads one to look upon the list with some suspicion, it being not\nimpossible that the names of certain rulers are inserted to make a seeming\naddition to the Assyrian king\u2019s glory. They are all represented, however,\nas supporting, with their troops and their ships, on land and on sea, the\narmy of A\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli. The result was the defeat of Tirhakah, and the\nrestoration of the kings, prefects, and governors whom Esarhaddon had\nappointed as rulers of the country.(117)\n\nNo sooner had the Assyrians departed, than Tirhakah won over all the\nprinces they had installed to his side, and the work had to be done over\nagain. The Assyrian generals, however, returned promptly, and the\nrebellion was at once put down. Of the princes who were captured, Necho\nalone was spared, and, with his son, set as ruler in \u1e2aat\u1e2bariba (Athribis).\nAbout this time Tirhakah died, and Urdaman\u00ea, son of Sabaco, mounted the\nthrone, and made Thebes and On (Heliopolis) his principal strongholds,\nbesieging the Assyrian army of occupation in Memphis. Another expedition\non the part of the Assyrians therefore became necessary, and was at once\nundertaken, and with complete success, except that Urdaman\u00ea remained, to\nall appearance, still at large. Practically, however, the greater part of\nEgypt became at this time an Assyrian province.\n\nBut many were the conquests of this really remarkable king, which his\ngenerals accomplished for him. Soon came the turn of Ba\u2019al, king of Tyre,\nwhose subjection brought about that of Yakinl\u00fb, king of Arvad, Mugallu,\nking of Tubal, and Sandasarme of the land of the \u1e2ailakk\u00e2a (Cilicians).\nA\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli also speaks of the mission of Yakinl\u00fb, king of Arvad, who\nsent his sons to him with presents, and made obeisance. These princes bore\nthe interesting names Azi-ba\u2019al, Abi-ba\u2019al, Aduni-ba\u2019al, Sapati-baal,\nPudi-baal, Ba\u2019al-ya\u0161upu, Ba\u2019al-\u1e2banunu, Ba\u2019al-maluku, Abi-milki, and\nA\u1e2bi-milki, showing the popularity of the element _baal_ in the names of\nthe people of Arvad. Azi-ba\u2019al was designated as the next king, and all\nthe brothers were sent back with rich gifts. He also tells the story of\nthe dream of _Guggu \u0161ar Luddi_ (Gyges, king of Lydia), to whom the god\nA\u0161\u0161ur is said to have appeared, exhorting him to submit to\nA\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli, and overcome his enemies by invoking his name. Following\nthis advice, he succeeded in conquering the Gimmirr\u00e2a (people of Gomer),\ncapturing their chiefs, of whom he sent two in fetters to the Assyrian\nking, with valuable gifts.\n\nGyges did not send any more embassies, however, and allied himself with\nTu\u0161amilki, king of the land of Mu\u1e63ur (generally regarded as Psammeticus of\nEgypt, but to all appearance another Mu\u1e63ur\u2014probably that to the north\u2014is\nmeant), and for this he received the curse of the Assyrian king. The\nresult was, that the Gimmirr\u00e2a came and ravaged his country. This being\nthe case, his son, who succeeded him, thought best to renew the Assyrian\nalliance, and therefore sent an embassy with a message to the following\neffect\u2014\u201cThe king whom god hath chosen art thou; thou cursedst my father,\nand evil was wrought before him. As for me, the servant fearing thee, be\ngracious to me and let me bear thy yoke.\u201d\n\n [Plate XIII.]\n\n Assur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli (Assurbanipal), \"The Great and Noble Asnapper,\" Hunting\n Lions. British Museum. Assyrian Saloon.\n\n\nGyges, in Assyrian Gug(g)u, is regarded as the original of the mystic Gog\nof Ezekiel xxxviii. 39, and his country, Lydia (Luddu), is generally\nexplained as the Biblical Lud, though a certain amount of doubt regarding\nit exists.\n\nA\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli\u2019s other campaigns were against the Vannites, the Elamites,\nthe Babylonians (on account of his brother Saosduchinos, king of that\ncountry, refusing to acknowledge his suzerainty), after that twice more\nagainst Elam, then against the Arabians, and finally against Ummanalda\u0161,\nking of Elam, whom he seized as a hawk does his prey. In all, however, he\ncaptured four Elamite princes, whom he caused to be attached to his\ncarriage (_ina marri \u0161adadi, rukub \u0161arruti-ia_(118)), and as for the\nArabian princes whom he had taken as prisoners, he caused them to wear\nchains and badges of service, and to work at the building of his palace,\nas was the custom in those days.\n\nWe can easily imagine him\u2014the great and noble A\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli, called by\nEzra (iv. 10) Asnapper (better Asenappar), who transferred the Dinaites,\nApharsathchites, Tarpelites, Apharsites, Archevites, Babylonians,\nSusanchites (Susanians), Dehavites, and Elamites, to swell the mixed\nmultitudes in the cities of Samaria. Many a time is he represented in the\nbeautiful bas-reliefs which he caused to be carved as the adornments of\nhis palace at Nineveh, and we there see him, the patron of art, as the\nbold sportsman and hunter, just as his tablets show him as the greatest\npatron of literature of his time, one who knew the literature of his race,\nwho took a pride in learning, and himself copied out tablets \u201cin the\nassembly of the experts.\u201d\n\nThe \u201cgreat and noble Asnapper\u201d is worthy of a statue in every land where\nthe languages of Assyria and Babylonia are studied.\n\nHow the sudden downfall of the Assyrian empire really came about we do not\nknow. In all probability it remained intact until the death of\nA\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli, which took place in 626 B.C. His son,\nA\u0161\u0161ur-\u00eatil-\u00eel\u0101ni-ukinni, has left no historical records, though it is not\nby any means impossible that some light may ultimately be thrown on his\nreign. One of the enigmas of his time is: What was the circumstance which\ncalled forth the following communication?\u2014\n\n\u201cThe message of the daughter of the king to A\u0161\u0161ur\u00e2aitu the queen. As yet\nthou writest not thy tablet, and dictatest not thy letter? Shall they say\nthus: \u2018Is this the sister of \u0160er\u00fb-\u00ea\u1e6derat, the eldest daughter of the\nHarem-house of A\u0161\u0161ur-\u00eatil-\u00eel\u0101ni-ukinni, the great king, the mighty king,\nthe king of the world, the king of Assyria?\u2019 And thou art the daughter of\nthe bride, the lady of the house of A\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli, the son of the great\nking of the Harem-house, who was A\u0161\u0161ur-\u00e2\u1e2ba-iddina (Esarhaddon), king of\nAssyria.\u201d\n\nSome of the expressions in this letter seem obscure, but the probable\nexplanation is, that the daughter of one of the last Assyrian\nkings\u2014perhaps Sin-\u0161arra-i\u0161kun (Saracos)\u2014writes to the chief wife of\nA\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli urging her to take action by exhorting the chiefs of the\nnation at a crisis in the history of the country, which crisis was\nprobably that which led to the downfall of the mighty kingdom which had\nreached its zenith of power during the reign of A\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli. At this\ntime, according to Nabonidus, a king of the Umman-manda or Medes, whose\nname is doubtful, but which may be Iriba-tukt\u00ea, entered into alliance with\na ruler who must be Nabopolassar of Babylon, the father of Nebuchadnezzar,\nand accomplished the vengeance of Merodach, the god of the Babylonians,\nwho willed that the destruction wrought upon his city by Sennacherib\nshould be amply avenged. This vengeance was apparently the downfall of the\nAssyrian empire and the destruction of Nineveh, in accordance with\nstatements of Alexander Polyhistor, Abydenus, and Syncellus. It is\nDiodorus Siculus, however, who gives the fullest account. He relates that\nthere was a legend (according to an oracle) that the city could not be\ntaken until the river became its enemy. Arbaces, the Scythian, was\nbesieging it, but was unable to make any great impression on it for two\nyears. In the third year, however, the river(119) was swollen by rains,\nand being very rapid in its current, a portion of the wall was carried\naway, by which the besiegers gained an entrance. The king, recognizing in\nthis the fulfilment of the oracle, raised a funeral pyre, and gathering\ntogether his concubines and eunuchs, mounted it, and perished in the\nflames. Thus came the great Assyrian empire to an end.\n\n\n \u201cThe oracle concerning Nineveh:\n The Lord is a jealous God and avengeth.\n Who can stand before His indignation?\n With an _overrunning flood_ He will make a full end of the place\n thereof, and will pursue His enemies into darkness.\n The _gates of the rivers_ are opened, and the palace is dissolved.\n Thy shepherds slumber, O king of Assyria, thy worthies are at\n rest; thy people are scattered upon the mountains, and\n there is none to gather them.\u201d\n\n\nAnd there is much more in the same strain that the Hebrew Oracle of Nahum\nconcerning the fall of Nineveh gives.\n\nBut it was not simply the capture of an important city\u2014it was the\nenslavement and ultimate annihilation of a whole nation. Who can imagine\ntheir despair? Less than fifty years earlier, Assyria had been the most\npowerful nation of the then known world, and the people suddenly saw\nthemselves deprived of that proud position which they had enjoyed for so\nmany centuries. Their national existence had, in fact, been brought to an\nabrupt end, but the few Assyrian names which appear in Babylonian\ncontracts many years after their downfall show that theirs was a proud\nindomitable spirit, which could not give way to misfortune, and which\nprobably hoped for better things and more prosperous times. Their\ndescendants are still to be found among the Chaldean Roman Catholic\nChristians of the country which was the scene of their forefathers\u2019\ndominion when they ruled the land of their inheritance. Their most worthy\nrepresentatives in modern times are the family of the Rassams, one of whom\nwas for many years British Consul at Mossoul (a post which his nephew now\nfills), and another is the well-known veteran, Hormuzd Rassam, Layard\u2019s\nhelper, for some time Resident at Aden, and later a prisoner with that mad\nruler, King Theodore of Abyssinia. To him we owe the discovery of\nA\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli\u2019s palace, the ruins of Sippara and Cuthah, and many\nthousand cylinders and tablets bearing upon the manners, customs, history,\nreligion, etc., of the Babylonians and Assyrians, which have been used\nfreely in the compilation of this book.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI. CONTACT OF THE HEBREWS WITH THE LATER BABYLONIANS.\n\n\n Nabopolassar and the restoration of the power of\n Babylonia\u2014Nebuchadnezzar\u2014Evil-Merodach\u2014Neriglissar and his\n son\u2014Nabonidus\u2014The Fall of Babylon\u2014Nabonidus and Belshazzar\u2014Cyrus\n and Cambyses\u2014Darius and his successors.\n\n\nHow great the change which came over the Eastern world with the\ndisappearance from the political horizon of the power of Assyria can\nhardly be estimated. In the time of Merodach-baladan, the Chaldean who had\nmounted the Babylonian throne, an embassy was sent to the Jewish king\nHezekiah with a present and kind inquiries as to his health, apparently to\nsee whether it was worth while making an alliance with him.\nMerodach-baladan felt that he would need all the outside help that he\ncould get against the Assyrians, with whom he was in constant conflict.\nWith the downfall of Assyria, however, all was changed. The Jews\u2019 whilom\nfriend became their enemy, and, as indicated in 2 Kings xx. 17 ff., the\nIsraelites were to lose their independence at the hands of the descendants\nof those who were then seeking their friendship.\n\nThere is hardly any doubt that the later Assyrian kings regarded Babylonia\nas an integral part of the Assyrian empire, and had perfect faith in the\nfidelity of the inhabitants. It may reasonably be doubted, however,\nwhether the Babylonians had really forgotten the cruel treatment they had\nreceived at the hands of Sennacherib. In addition to this, there must have\nexisted for a considerable period the feeling that they, the Babylonians,\nwere the more ancient people of the two, and that the Assyrians were but a\nlater offshoot of their own stock, owing to them all their civilization,\nmanners, customs, laws, and literature. It will thus be seen that they\nwere sufficiently of the same origin to be regarded as one people, and for\nthis reason, many of the cities of Babylonia were satisfied and happy\nunder Assyrian rule, which they preferred, to all appearance, to that of\nthe Chaldeans, a nation which, though inhabiting their own borders, was in\nreality more alien to them than the Assyrians in language, manners, and\ncustoms, and whom they probably regarded as being only half civilized.\n\nThe general opinion is, that Nab\u00fb-\u00e2bla-u\u1e63ur (Nabopolassar), the general\nwhom Sin-\u0161arra-i\u0161kun (Saracos), the last king of Assyria, sent against his\nenemies (who seem to have invaded Babylonia by sea at the northern end of\nthe Persian Gulf), was a Chaldean, and this is, in fact, confirmed by the\nquotation in Eusebius\u2019s Armenian Chronicle (p. 44) from Polyhistor, where\nit is stated that after Samuges (\u0160ama\u0161-\u0161um-uk\u00een, the brother of\nA\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli), Sardanapallus (this is a mistake for Nabopollasarus),\nthe Chaldean, reigned for twenty-one years. If this be the case, it is a\nmatter of surprise that Sin-\u0161arra-i\u0161kun should have given into the hands\nof one belonging to a tribe of old hostile to Assyria, the command of his\narmy at such a critical time. In any case, the result was most disastrous\nfor Assyria, as the foregoing chapter has shown.\n\nIn the opinion of Friedrich Delitzsch, Nabopolassar was not the general of\nSin-\u0161arra-i\u0161kun, but in all probability a viceroy installed by\nA\u0161\u0161ur-\u00eatil-\u00eel\u0101ni-ukinni, and retained by Sin-\u0161arra-i\u0161kun, in which case it\nis to be supposed that he made an alliance with the Medes (as related by\nAlexander Polyhistor and Abydenus), and cemented it by marrying his son\nNebuchadrezzar to Amunhean, Amuhean, or Amytis, daughter of Astyages, king\nof the Medes; and according to the latter author, it was after this that\nhe marched against Nineveh. Fried. Delitzsch may therefore be regarded as\nmost probably right, for the king of the Medes would hardly have consented\nto bestow his daughter upon the son of one whom he could not otherwise\nhave regarded as being of royal race.\n\nThough Nabopolassar had close connection with Syria, his name is not\nmentioned in the Bible narrative. For our information concerning him we\nare indebted to Josephus, who, quoting the Babylonian writer Berosus,\nrelates what was recorded in the Babylonian chronicles of that period.\nAfter the division of the territory of Assyria, of which Egypt took a\npart, the former allies began to quarrel among themselves, the result\nbeing that Nabopolassar, wishing to regain possession of Syria, which at\nthis time acknowledged the suzerainty of Egypt, decided to attack that\ncountry. According to Berosus, he not only regarded himself as master of\nCoele-Syria and Ph\u0153nicia, but also of Egypt. Hearing, therefore, \u201cthat the\ngovernor which he had set over Egypt and over the parts of Coele-Syria and\nPh\u0153nicia had revolted from him, he was not able to bear it any longer, but\ncommitting certain parts of his army to his son Nabuchodonosor, who was\nthen but young, he sent him against the rebel.\u201d This is regarded as having\ntaken place in 605 B.C. The governor attacked by the young Nebuchadnezzar\nwas apparently Necho, who was completely defeated at Carchemish, and\nexpelled from Syria.\n\nWhilst upon this expedition, Nebuchadnezzar heard of the death of his\nfather at Babylon, in the twenty-first year of his reign, as Josephus,\nquoting Berosus, has it. This accords with the statement concerning him in\nthe Canon of Ptolemy, and also with native Babylonian chronology, as may\nbe seen from a tablet in the Museum of Edinburgh, of which the following\nis a translation\u2014\n\n\n \u201cThe 21st year of Nabopolassar a profit was made.\n The 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar a profit was made.\n The 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar a profit was made.\n The 3rd year the same.\n The fourth year the same.\u201d\n\n\nReturning to Babylon, the young prince found that his supporters there had\nlooked after his interests, and no pretender having appeared to dispute\nwith him the throne, he was at once acknowledged king. The death of\nNabopolassar and the accession of his son Nebuchadnezzar took place in the\nyear 604 B.C.\n\nUnfortunately, but few inscriptions of Nabopolassar have been found, and\nof them some are duplicates, and all refer to his architectural or\nengineering works. The principal treats of his restoration of the temple\n\u00ca-temen-ana-kia, the shrine at \u00ca-sagila, which the Babylonians regarded as\nthe Tower of Babel. It is written in the archaic style of writing much\naffected by his son Nebuchadnezzar, and has certain peculiarities of\nspelling. Like most of the pious architectural inscriptions of Babylonia,\nthere is no reference to historical events, but the king speaks of\nNabium-kudurra-u\u1e63ur (Nebuchadrezzar), \u201cthe eldest, firstborn, and beloved\nof my heart,\u201d and his younger brother, Nab\u00fb-\u0161umam-l\u00ec\u0161ir. Both the king and\nhis two sons took part in the restoration of the temple, bringing with\ntheir own hands material for the work, the younger son also assisting by\npulling the cord of the cart which carried it. The receptacles which they\nused to carry the material were made of gold and silver. Other\ninscriptions of this king refer to the digging out of the canal of the\nEuphrates near the city Sippara, and to Nabopolassar\u2019s restoration of the\ntemple of \u201cthe Lady of Sippar,\u201d called \u00ca-edinna, \u201cthe house (temple) of\nthe plain,\u201d or \u201cof Edina,\u201d _i.e._ Eden.\n\nWhen Nebuchadnezzar (in Babylonian Nab\u00fb-kudurri-u\u1e63ur\u2014he was the second of\nthe name) came to the throne, he found himself in possession of a mighty\nkingdom, consolidated by his father\u2019s talent, and he could himself boast\nof having had a hand in its enlargement and greater security. Everything\nwas, to all appearance, at peace, and the new king had no reason to fear\neither a pretender to the throne, or the advent of enemies from without.\nOne of his tributaries, namely, Jehoiakim, king of Judah, after paying\ntribute three years (604-602 B.C.), rebelled, but was again reduced to\nsubjection (2 Kings xxiv. 1 ff.).\n\nLater, however, uprisings of a more earnest nature came to the ears of the\nBabylonian king, constraining him to act. Apparently in consequence of the\npromises of Egypt, Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim, brought against himself\nthe hostility of the king of Babylon, who sent an army to besiege\nJerusalem, afterwards journeying thither himself, the result being, that\nthe city was taken, and the Jewish king, with his court, yielded, and were\ncarried away to Babylon (598 B.C.). The number of captives on this\noccasion exceeded 10,000, and the treasures of the palace and the Temple\nformed part of the spoils sent to Babylon. The country was not annexed,\nhowever, for Nebuchadnezzar made Mattaniah king of Judah instead of\nJehoiachin, changing his name to Zedekiah.\n\nGratitude to the power which had raised him, however, became weakened with\nyears, and, encouraged by Pharaoh Hophra, he rebelled in the ninth year of\nhis reign, the result being that Jerusalem was once more besieged. Pharaoh\nHophra now marched with an army across the Egyptian border to the help of\nhis ally, whereupon the Babylonians raised the siege of Jerusalem for a\ntime to get rid of the invader (Jer. xxxvii. 5-7). According to Josephus,\nthe Egyptians were totally defeated, and returned to their own land (Jer.\nxxxvii. 7). The siege of Jerusalem was then resumed, and the city was\ntaken at the end of a year and a half, notwithstanding a very courageous\nresistance. The date set down for this event is July 586 B.C.\n\nZedekiah with his army fled, but was pursued by the Chaldeans, and\ncaptured in the plains of Jericho. Nebuchadnezzar was then at Riblah,\nwhere, to all appearance, a court was held (see 2 Kings xxv. 6), and\nsentence pronounced against the faithless vassal, whose sons were then\nslain before his eyes, his sight destroyed, and he himself carried captive\nto Babylon. It was a barbarous sentence, and was quite in accordance with\nthe customs of the age, just as the legal formalities were to all\nappearance in conformity with Babylonian tradition. The destruction of the\nTemple and all the principal houses of the city by fire, followed, this\ndestruction being wrought by Nebu-zar-adan (Nab\u00fb-z\u0113r-iddina), the captain\nof Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s guard, who also carried captive all who remained in\nthe city. Only the lowest class of the people remained to carry on the\ncultivation of the land. Others were sent to Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, and\nby his orders put to death. Those of the Jews who remained, however, were\nnot placed, as might reasonably have been expected, under a Babylonian\ngovernor, but under Gedeliah the son of Ahikam, who was made governor. His\ndeath at the hands of his own countrymen took place shortly after, thus\nputting an end to the last vestige of native Jewish rule in Palestine.\n\nNext came the turn of Tyre, which the Babylonian king blockaded for no\nless than thirteen years (585-573 B.C.), but was apparently successful in\nthe end, when the inhabitants acknowledged Babylonian overlordship. That\nits capture cost him great pains is testified by Ezekiel (xxix. 18), who\nstates that, to take the city, \u201cevery head was bald, and every shoulder\nwas peeled\u201d in consequence of the carrying of material for the operations\nagainst the city, yet neither he nor his army reaped any material\nadvantage from this conquest, \u201cfor the service that he had served against\nit.\u201d The name of a city \u1e62\u00fbru, which is probably Tyre, occurs on a tablet\ndated in Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s thirty-fifth year (569 B.C.\u2014four years after the\ncity was taken). It refers to a transaction in which sesame is sold, an\nofficial of the city being a party to the contract. Later on, in the\nfortieth year of Nebuchadnezzar, a contract was entered into between\nMilki-idiri, governor of Kidis (Kedesh), with regard to some cattle. This\ndocument is dated at Tyre (\u1e62urru) on the 22nd of the month Tammuz. Not\nonly Tyre, therefore, but the whole district, owned the dominion of\nNebuchadnezzar at this time.\n\nJust as successful were Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s operations against Egypt.\nAccording to an Egyptian inscription, the Babylonian king attacked Egypt\nin the year 572 B.C., penetrating as far as Syene and the borders of\nEthiopia. Hophra, who still reigned, was defeated and deposed, the general\nAmasis being raised to the throne in his place to rule the land as a\nvassal of the Babylonian king. According to the only historical fragment\nof the reign of this king known, Nebuchadnezzar made an expedition to\nEgypt in his thirty-seventh year. This was to all appearance against his\nvassal Amasis, who, like Zedekiah, had revolted against the power which\nhad raised him to the throne. The rebellion was suppressed, but the\nultimate fate of Amasis is not stated.\n\nAccording to Megasthenes, who lived in the time of Seleucus Nicator,\nNebuchadnezzar conquered North Africa, crossing afterwards into Spain by\nthe Strait of Gibraltar, returning to Babylonia through Europe and Asia\nMinor. Such an expedition, however, it is hardly likely that he ever\nundertook, and the account of this exploit may therefore be relegated to\nthe domain of the fables with which the ancient historians sometimes\nornamented their work.\n\nConcerning the relations of Nebuchadnezzar with Daniel, the\nwedge-inscriptions of Babylonia give no indication whatever. Four hundred\nand fifty or more contract-tablets dated in his reign are known, but in\nnone of them is there any reference to Daniel, at least in a form that can\nbe recognized. The Babylonian name given to him, Belteshazzar, is\napparently an abbreviated form, which would be, in Babylonian,\nBala\u1e6d-su-\u00fb\u1e63ur, \u201cProtect thou (O God), his life.\u201d If this be the\nexplanation, a better transcription of the Hebrew form would be\nBeletshazzar (making the first sheva vocal and the second silent instead\nof the reverse). The name of the deity has, in accordance with custom,\nbeen suppressed in the Hebrew form, but it is probable that either the\npatron-deity of Babylon, B\u00eal, or else the favourite deity of the\nBabylonians in general, Nebo, the god of learning, may have preceded the\nfirst element as the name now stands. In the inscriptions of Babylonia and\nAssyria, many examples of abbreviated names occur, on account of what we\nshould consider their inordinate length, and to such an extent was this\ncustomary, that one element only, out of three or four, might alone be\nused. Thus, in the contracts of the time of Nebuchadnezzar, at least\nfourteen persons of the name of Bala\u1e6du, and seven of the name of Bala\u1e6d-su\noccur, and it may be safely taken that they are all abbreviations of names\nsimilar to that bestowed upon Daniel. Apart from the question whether the\nBook of Daniel is to be regarded as a part of the Hagiographa or not, the\nfact that his descent is not given there would make it impossible to\nrecognize him, if his name was still further abbreviated by the\nBabylonians, among so many bearing names possibly the same as his. Even\nthough his book be regarded as a romance, there is always the question,\nwhether the personages mentioned therein may not really have existed.\n\nWith regard to the other names in Daniel, it is to be noted that Shadrach\nand Meshach, the names given to Hananiah and Mishael, are doubtful in\nBabylonian, the corresponding forms not having been found. Abednego, on\nthe other hand, the Babylonian name of Azariah, has long been recognized\nas being written for Abed-Nebo, \u201cservant of Nebo,\u201d either by a scribal\nerror, or (as seems more probable) in order to deface the name of a\nheathen deity. The name of Ashpenaz, the master of the eunuchs, is still\nmore doubtful, if anything; but that of Arioch, the \u201cking\u2019s captain,\u201d is\none which has been well known for some time, being none other than the\nancient name (cf. Genesis xiv.) corresponding with the Akkadian \u00cari-Aku or\n\u00cari-Eaku, \u201cservant of the Moon-god,\u201d a rare name in later times (see pp.\n222 ff.).\n\nNaturally nothing concerning Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s dreams occurs in the\ninscriptions of Babylonia, though dreams which were regarded as having a\nsignification are sometimes recorded. This being the case, it might be\nsupposed that something upon the subject would in all probability be\nsooner or later found. But what we should expect to find in the extant\ninscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar is a reference to the golden image,\nthreescore cubits high and six cubits wide, which he is said to have set\nup in the plain of Dura. Had he erected such an enormous thing, even if it\nhad been merely gilt, and not of solid gold, one would expect that he\nwould at least have made a slight reference to it. That he may have set up\nimages of his gods is not only possible, but probable\u2014indeed, he must have\ndedicated at least a few during his long reign, but it is evident that\nnone of them was of sufficient importance to cause him specially to refer\nto it in his inscriptions. It is therefore not impossible that there is\nsome exaggeration in the dimensions of the figure referred to in Daniel.\nThere is also considerable uncertainty as to the position of the plain of\nDura, in the province of Babylon. The most probable explanation is that of\nProf. J. Oppert, the veteran Assyriologist, who found what appeared to be\nthe base of a great statue near a mound known as D\u00faair,(120) east of\nBabylon. It is not improbable, however, that \u201cthe plain of Dura, in the\nprovince of Babylon,\u201d means simply an extensive open space near one of the\ngreat fortifications (_d\u00fbru_) of the city. That all the principal\nofficials of the kingdom should be expected to come to the dedication of\nsuch an image is exceedingly probable.\n\n [Plate XIV.]\n\n Bas-relief supposed to depict the triple wall of Babylon, with a portion\n of the palace within. In the original, water flows at the base of the\n lowest wall. The above is the upper part of slab No. 89 in the Assyrian\nSaloon of the British Museum, and apparently illustrates Assur-bani-\u00e2pli\u2019s\n campaign against his brother, Samas-sum-ukin (Saosduchinos), King of\n Babylon (cf. p. 391). (Two at least of the walls of Babylon were _much\n older_ than the time of Nebuchadnezzar.)\n\n\nThe portion of Daniel referring to Nebuchadnezzar which receives the best\nillustration from the inscriptions is that referred to after the relation\nof his second dream, where he is represented as walking in or upon his\npalace, and one may imagine that he had gone up to enjoy the view of the\ncity, and whilst doing so, with almost justifiable pride the words, \u201cIs\nnot this great Babylon, which I have built for the royal dwelling-place,\nby the might of my power and the glory of my majesty?\u201d escaped him. From\nhis inscriptions (and they are fairly numerous) we learn, with regard to\nBabylon, that it owed most of its glories as they then existed to this,\nthe greatest of its kings. That the king did not always distinguish\nbetween what he built and what he rebuilt\u2014indeed, none of his predecessors\nseem to have done so either, a circumstance probably due to the poverty of\nthe Akkadian and Semitic Babylonian languages in that respect\u2014would\nexplain the words attributed to him.\n\nAccording to the great India-House inscription, which was carved by order\nof Nebuchadnezzar, Nabopolassar had built (= rebuilt) the two great walls\nof Babylon, called Imgur-B\u00eal and Nemitti-B\u00eal. He had dug the great\ncity-moat, and raised two strong walls on its banks, similar, in all\nprobability, to what other kings had done before him. To all appearance\nalso he lined the banks of the Euphrates with embankments (probably the\nquays of which Herodotus speaks), and constructed, within the city, a road\nleading from Du-azaga, \u201cthe holy seat,\u201d where the oracles were declared,\nto Aa-ibur-sab\u00fb, Babylon\u2019s \u201cfestival-street,\u201d close to the gate of Beltis,\nfor the yearly procession of the god Merodach.\n\n [Plate XV.]\n\n Bas-relief, supposed to represent the Hanging Gardens at Babylon, about\n645 B.C. On the slope is a temple, a stele with the figure of a king, and\n an altar on the path in front. On the right pointed arches support a\n terrace planted with trees. Streams water the sides of the wooded hill.\n British Museum, Assyrian Saloon, No. 92 (upper part). The above, with\n Plate XIV., apparently illustrate Assur-bani-\u00e2pli\u2019s campaign against his\n brother Samas-sum-ukin (cf. page 391).\n\n\nAll these erections Nebuchadnezzar completed or altered and improved. He\nadded to the defences which his father had built, and raised the level of\nthe street Aa-ibur-sab\u00fb from the \u201cglorious gate\u201d to the gate of Istar. The\nraising of the \u201cfestival-street\u201d necessitated the raising of the gateways\nthrough which it ran. Gates were made of cedar covered with copper,\nprobably after the style of the great gate found by Mr. Rassam at Balawat\nin Assyria, which was adorned with bands of bronze chased with scenes of\nShalmaneser II.\u2019s warlike exploits in relief. In all probability there\nwere but few gates in Babylon of solid metal, notwithstanding that there\nis no mention in Herodotus of their having been constructed merely of wood\ncovered with ornamented strips of bronze. The thresholds of these gates\nwere of bronze, probably similar to that of which a part was found by Mr.\nRassam at Borsippa (evidently the doorstep of one of the entrances to the\ntemple called \u00ca-zida), and which may now be seen at the British Museum.\nThese and other portals at Babylon were guarded by images of bulls and\nserpents, also of bronze. In addition to this, Nebuchadnezzar built a wall\non the east side of the city, high like a mountain, so that no enemy could\napproach. Access to the city was gained by gates, the doors of which were\nlikewise of cedar ornamented with bronze. For further protection, he\n\u201ccaused great waters like the volume of the sea to surround the land,\u201d and\nto cross them was \u201clike the crossing of the broad sea, the Salt Stream\u201d\n(the Persian Gulf). He then rebuilt the palace of his father, its walls\nhaving been undermined by the waters of the Euphrates, which ran near.\nAdvantage of the changes made in this building was taken to raise the\ngateways, which had become too low in consequence of the raising of the\nfestival-street of Merodach. In addition to this, he built another palace,\nadjoining that of his father, decorating it with cedar, cypress, and other\nprecious woods; gold, silver, and precious stones; and adorning it with\nsculptures and with gates overlaid with bronze. According to the\nIndia-House inscription of Nebuchadnezzar, the fabric of this building was\ncompleted in fifteen days, a fact so remarkable that it is specially\nmentioned by Berosus (see Josephus, _Antiquities_, x., xi. 1), whose word\nmay be taken as proving the translation of the passage in question.\nBesides restoring the temples of the cities, or at least the principal\nones, he restored all the chief temples of Babylonia, notably that at\nSippar, the chief centre of the Sun-god worship, and the great\ntemple-tower dedicated to Nebo at Borsippa. This last, indeed, was one of\nthe works upon which he prided himself most, as is proved by the fact that\nit is mentioned in all his inscriptions, including those on his bricks,\nalong with the temple known as \u00ca-sagila (later pronounced \u00ca-sangil), the\n\u201ctemple of Belus,\u201d which he calls \u201cthe tower of Babylon,\u201d the principal\nshrine of which seems to have been called \u201cthe House of the Foundation of\nHeaven and Earth,\u201d indicating clearly the estimation in which the\nBabylonians held it (see p. 138). It was there that the god Merodach, the\nprincipal deity of the Babylonians, and the founder of the temple in\nquestion, was worshipped.\n\nBut one might go on for a long time describing what Nebuchadnezzar did for\nthe city which, more than any other, he loved, and to which he brought the\nspoils of his many expeditions. There is no doubt that this, the last\ngreat king of Babylon, was a most successful ruler, of whom his people\nwere proud. He was pious, and an intense lover of his country\u2014two\ncharacteristics which endeared him, the one to the priesthood, the other\nto the people at large. Could we but find the real history of his reign,\nit would undoubtedly prove to be full of interest, and also of enormous\nimportance, not only on account of the light that it would throw upon\nJewish history during his period, but also on account of its bearing upon\na most important epoch in the life of the Babylonian nation.\n\nIt is noteworthy that, in Herodotus, many of the great architectural works\nof his reign are attributed to Nitocris, who, he states, was the mother of\nLabynetus (Book I. 185-188). Now, who this Labynetus was, is clear from\nthe statement that it was he against whom Cyrus marched\u2014namely the\nNabonidus of other Greek historians, and the Nab\u00fb-na\u2019id of the\ninscriptions. Nitocris would therefore seem to have been the name of the\nqueen of Nebuchadnezzar, and if so, it shows upon what grounds Nabonidus\nclaimed the throne, and how Belshazzar, in the Book of Daniel, could be\ndescribed as the son or descendant of Nebuchadnezzar. But in this case\nNitocris must have been another wife of Nebuchadnezzar, and not the Median\nprincess whom he had married when young. If she supplanted Amytis,\nNebuchadnezzar\u2019s Median wife, in the affections of her husband, it is easy\nto see how she could have feared a Median invasion, as indicated by\nHerodotus.\n\nNebuchadnezzar died in the year 561 B.C., leaving his crown to\nAw\u0113l-Maruduk, the Evil-Merodach of 2 Kings xxv. 27, and the\nAbilamar\u014ddachos of Josephus, who, however, also gives, in his book against\nApion (i. 20), the genuine Babylonian form as transcribed by Berosus,\nnamely, Eueilmaradouchos. Two other sons of Nebuchadnezzar are also\nmentioned in the contract-tablets of his reign, namely, Marduk-\u0161um-u\u1e63ur\n(in his fortieth year) and Marduk-nadin-\u00e2\u1e2bi (forty-first year). (See pp.\n434, 435.)\n\nThe substitution of the mild rule of Evil-Merodach for the vigorous\ngovernment of his father must have been witnessed by the Babylonians with\nconsiderable misgiving, for in the East, especially at that period, the\nsuccessful ruler was he who was the most energetic. There is every reason\nto believe, however, that the character of Evil-Merodach was that of a man\nin every way kind and considerate, as is shown by the fact, that he\nreleased Jehoiachin (whom Nebuchadnezzar had taken prisoner), spoke kindly\nto him, and set his throne above those of the other vassal kings in\nBabylon. The only thing, according to Josephus, recorded about him by\nBerosus was, that \u201che governed public affairs lawlessly and\nextravagantly\u201d\u2014words which imply that he displeased the priestly class, of\nwhich Berosus was one. His name appears in certain contracts (published by\nMr. Evetts) as ruler of Babylonia for about two years, from the 26th of\nElul of his accession year to the 4th day of Ab of his second year\u2014about\ntwo years and five months in all. According to Berosus, he was slain by\nhis sister\u2019s husband, N\u0113rigliss\u00f6oros, the Nergal-\u0161ar-u\u1e63ur of the\ninscriptions, who then ascended the throne.\n\nThe name is the same as that given as Nergal-sharezer in Jer. xxxix. 3,\n13, one of the princes of the Babylonians who was present at the taking of\nJerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and who at that time bore the title of\nRab-mag, which is to all appearance the Rab-mugi of the Assyro-Babylonian\ninscriptions. It is thought by many, and is not by any means improbable,\nthat the Nergal-sharezer of the passage referred to and the\nNergal-\u0161ar-u\u1e63ur of Babylonian history are one and the same, though there\nis no evidence that the latter ever bore the title of Rab-mag.\n\nIt was in the year 559 B.C. that Evil-Merodach was murdered, and\nNeriglissar at once seized the throne of his brother-in-law. Berosus (as\nquoted by Josephus) gives no details as to his reign. In his inscriptions\nhe states that he was (like Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar before him)\npatron of \u00ca-sagila and \u00ca-zida, the temple of Belus at Babylon and that of\nNebo at Borsippa, and that the great gods had established his dominion.\nAfter speaking of the god Nebo, he makes a reference to Ura, the god of\ndeath, which, under the circumstances, one can hardly regard as otherwise\nthan significant\u2014\n\n\n \u201cNebo, the faithful son, a just sceptre has caused his hands to\n hold.\n To keep the people, preserve the country,\n Ura, prince of the gods, gave him his weapon.\u201d\n\n\nHe then mentions his father, B\u00eal-\u0161um-i\u0161kun, whom he calls \u201cking of\nBabylon,\u201d and describes the restoration and decoration of \u00ca-zida and\n\u00ca-sagila, together with the palace which he built for himself at Babylon,\nand other architectural work.\n\nBut to describe his father as \u201cking of Babylon\u201d was a statement somewhat\nremoved from the truth. In the contract-tablets of the time of\nNebuchadnezzar and Evil-Merodach, where the name of Neriglissar occurs\nsomewhat frequently as a purchaser of houses, land, etc., he is called\nsimply \u201cson of B\u00eal-\u0161um-i\u0161kun,\u201d without any other title whatever (see p.\n438). But perhaps Neriglissar\u2019s statement is due to some historical event\nof which we are ignorant.\n\nNeriglissar died in the month Nisan or Iyyar of the fourth year of his\nreign, and was succeeded by his son Lab\u0101\u0161i-Marduk, the Labarosoarchod of\nthe Greek writers. According to Berosus (Josephus against Apion, i. 20),\nhe was no more than a child, and it may be supposed that he was a younger\nson of Neriglissar, though concerning this we have no information. He only\nreigned nine months, a plot having been laid against him by his friends,\nand he was tormented to death, \u201cby reason of the very ill-temper and ill\npractices he exhibited to the world\u201d (Berosus). After his death, according\nto the same historian, the conspirators met, and elected one of their\nnumber, Nabonnedus (Nabuna\u2019id), as king. \u201cIn his reign it was that the\nwalls of the city of Babylon were curiously built with burnt brick and\nbitumen,\u201d is all that Berosus has to say with regard to the sixteen years\nof his reign which preceded his overthrow.\n\nMany inscriptions of the reign of this king exist, and we are able to gain\nfrom them an excellent idea of the state of the country and the historical\nevents of this important period. All that Nabonidus tells us concerning\nhis origin is, that he was the son or descendant of Nab\u00fb-bala\u1e6d-su-iqb\u00ee,\nwhom he calls _rub\u00fb \u00eamqu_, \u201cthe deeply-wise prince.\u201d Who he may have been\nis not known, but there exist two tablets of the nature of letters written\nby a certain Nab\u00fb-bala\u1e6d-su-iqb\u00ee to A\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli, whose faithful servant\nhe professed to be, protesting against the treatment which he had received\nat the hands of certain men who were hostile to him. If both these letters\nwere written by the same person, they must belong to about the year 652\nB.C. (the eponymy of A\u0161\u0161ur-na\u1e63ir, which is mentioned in one of them). As\nthat was about one hundred years before Nabonidus came to the throne, this\npersonage, if related to him, must have been his grandfather or\ngreat-grandfather. Other persons of the same name are mentioned in the\nfifth, eleventh, eighteenth, and thirty-fourth years of Nebuchadnezzar,\nbut it seems very unlikely that the father of Nabonidus should be one of\nthese.\n\nAccording to the Babylonian Chronicle, Nabonidus was at the beginning of\nhis reign engaged in the west, to all appearance cutting down, among other\nthings, trees on Mount Amanus for building purposes at Babylon. Something\nalso took place by the Mediterranean (_t\u00e2mtim \u0161a m\u00e2t Amurr\u00ee_, \u201cthe sea of\nthe land of Amoria\u201d). Apparently he had also troops in this district, and\nsacrifices were performed there.\n\nAfter this there is a gap until the sixth year of his reign, the entry for\nwhich, however, refers wholly to Astyages\u2019 operations against Cyrus, and\nits disastrous results, for he was made prisoner, Ecbatana sacked, and the\nspoil brought to An\u0161an, Cyrus\u2019s capital.\n\nPrevious to this, as Nabonidus informs us in his cylinder-inscription\nfound by Mr. Rassam at Abu-habbah (Sippar), the Medes had been very\nsuccessful in their warlike operations, and had even besieged Haran,\nmaking it impossible for Nabonidus to carry out the instructions of his\ngod Merodach, revealed to him in a dream, to restore the temple of Sin in\nthat city. On the king of Babylon reminding the deity of the state of\nthings in that part, and speaking of the strength of the Median forces, he\nwas told that in three years\u2019 time their power would be destroyed, which\nhappened as predicted. He now caused his \u201cvast army\u201d to come from Gaza and\nelsewhere to do the needful work, and when completed, the image of the god\nSin was brought from Babylon, and placed in the restored shrine with joy\nand shouting. Naturally the Babylonian king was overjoyed at the release\nof Haran from the power of the Medes\u2014could he have foreseen that Cyrus,\ntheir conqueror, would one day hurl him from his throne, his enthusiasm\nconcerning the success of \u201cthe young servant of Merodach\u201d (as he calls\nhim) would have been greatly abated.\n\nIn his seventh and eighth years the king was in Tem\u00e2, and the crown prince\n(apparently Belshazzar is meant), with the great men and the army, was in\nAkkad (the northern part of Babylonia, of which the city of Agad or Agad\u00e9\nwas the capital). The king did not go to Babylon, Nebo did not go to\nBabylon, Bel did not go forth, the festival _akitu_ (new year\u2019s festival)\nwas not performed, though the victims seem to have been offered in\n\u00ca-sagila and \u00ca-zida as usual, and (the king) appointed a priest\n(_uru-gala_) of the weapon (?) and the temple. In the ninth year also the\nsame state of things existed, and this year the mother of the king died,\nto the great grief of the people. It is also recorded for this year that\nCyrus, apparently in the course of one of his military expeditions,\ncrossed the Tigris above Arbela.\n\nFrom the fact that the religious processions and ceremonies are given as\nbeing unperformed every year from the seventh to the eleventh of his\nreign, it is clear that a great deal of discontent was caused thereby, as\nis, in fact, indicated by the cylinder-inscription of Cyrus detailing\nunder what conditions he himself entered Babylon. It was evidently one of\nthe duties of the Babylonian kings (and, as we have seen, the Assyrian\nkings conformed to this when they became kings of Babylonia) to perform\nthe usual ceremonies, and the ruler neglecting this was certain to fall\ninto disfavour with the priesthood, and, by their influence, with the\npeople as well.\n\nWhatever may have been the sins of omission of Nabonidus\u2014whether they were\ntrivial or otherwise\u2014there is no doubt that they made a bad impression on\nthe people, and gave rise to all kinds of statements against him when the\ndays of misfortune came. For the scribe who drew up Cyrus\u2019s record after\nthe taking of Babylon, all Nabonidus\u2019s doings with regard to the temples\nand statues of the gods were to be quoted against him. The temple dues had\nbeen allowed to fail, and the gods quitted their shrines, angry at the\nthought that Nabonidus had brought foreign gods to \u0160u-anna (a part of\nBabylon). With regard to this last accusation, it may be remarked that a\npopular ruler would in all probability have been praised for bringing the\ngods of other places to Babylon\u2014it would have been either a tribute to the\npower of Babylonia in war (a power conferred upon her, in their opinion,\nby her gods); or else the payment of homage by the gods of other cities to\nthose of Babylon, acknowledging at the same time their (and her)\nsupremacy.\n\nThe fact is, Nabonidus was either the most intelligent, or one of the most\nintelligent, men in Babylonia. To all appearance he was not a ruler, but a\nlearned man, full of love for his country and its institutions, and\ndesirous of knowledge, which he obtained at all costs. Whenever he had to\nrestore a temple, he at once excavated in its foundations for the records\nof early kings which he knew to be there, and he was often successful in\nfinding what he wanted. As he always recorded what he found, his\ncylinder-inscriptions nearly always possess a value far beyond those of\nother kings of Babylon. He seems to have delighted in what he saw when\nengaged in this work\u2014he not only tells you that he read the texts thus\ndiscovered, but he refers to their perfect condition, and nearly always\nsays something about the ruler who caused them to be placed in the\nfoundations. He, too, is worthy of a statue in every place where the\nlanguage of his native land is studied.\n\nNaturally, his antiquarian researches, necessitating, as they did, the\ndestruction of a part of the fabric of the temple under repair at the\ntime, were not looked upon altogether with favour by the priests and the\npeople, hence the dissatisfaction to which the scribes, who were probably\nof the priestly caste, afterwards gave vent. Besides this, was it not\nnecessary that they should justify themselves for accepting a foreign\nruler, of a different religion from their own?\n\nNabonidus gives no hint in his inscriptions that he was aware of any\ndissatisfaction at what he was doing. In all probability he was as\nreligious as any of his predecessors had been, and his son Belshazzar was\nas the second ruler in the kingdom. Records exist showing that Belshazzar\nsent offerings to the temple at Sippar whilst he was in that\nneighbourhood, and the king\u2019s own offerings are sometimes mentioned with\nthem. The king had therefore a good deputy performing his work. With\nregard to the bringing of foreign gods to \u0160u-anna, Cyrus\u2019s scribe probably\nrefers to the deities of Haran, which were taken thither before the siege\nof the place by the Medes. When the enemy had departed, Nabonidus restored\nthe temple in that city, and replaced the deities referred to in their\nshrines. The transport of the idols may have been merely to place them for\nthe time being in a place of greater security.\n\nThere is, then, every probability that Belshazzar, son of Nabonidus, was\nthe real ruler. What an excellent understanding existed between him and\nhis father may be gained from the inscription which Nabonidus caused to be\ncomposed to place in the foundations of the temple of the Moon (the god\nSin) at Ur (identified with Ur of the Chaldees), the concluding lines of\nwhich run as follows\u2014\n\n\n \u201cAs for me, Nabonidus, king of Babylon,\n from sin against thy great divinity\n save me, and\n a life of remote days\n give as a gift;\n and as for Belshazzar, the eldest son,\n the offspring of my heart, the fear of thy great\n divinity cause thou to exist in his heart, and\n let not sin possess him, let him be satisfied with fulness of\n life.\u201d\n\n\nThe text being undated, there is no means of ascertaining in what year the\nrestoration of the temple of the Moon at Ur took place.\n\nThe story of the downfall of the Babylonian empire and the end of native\nrule in Babylonia is told by the Babylonian Chronicle as follows\u2014\n\n\u201c(Year 17th), Nebo to go forth (?) from Borsippa ... the king entered the\ntemple E-tur-kalama. In the month (?) ... and the lower sea, revolted ...\nwent (?). B\u00eal went forth, the festival Akitu (new year\u2019s festival) they\nheld as usual (?). In the month ... the gods (?) of Marad, Zagaga and the\ngods of the city of Ki\u0161, Beltis and the gods of \u1e2aursag-kalama, entered\nBabylon. At the end of the month Elul the gods of the land of Akkad who\nwere above the atmosphere and below the atmosphere entered Babylon, the\ngods of Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippar did not enter. In the month Tammuz\nCyrus made battle at Opis on the Tigris among the soldiers of Akkad. The\npeople of Akkad raised a revolt; people were killed; Sippar was taken on\nthe 14th day without fighting. Nabonidus fled. On the 16th day Ugbaru\n(Gobryas), governor of the land of Gutium, and the soldiers of Cyrus\nentered Babylon without fighting\u2014after Nabonidus they pursued (?), he was\ncaptured in Babylon. At the end of the month the regiment (?) of the land\nof Gutium surrounded (?) the gates of \u00ca-sagila (the temple of Belus). A\ncelebration (?) of anything, in \u00ca-sagila and the shrines, was not being\nmade, and a (lunar ?) festival was not proceeding. Marcheswan, the third\nday, Cyrus descended to Babylon; they filled the roads before him. Peace\nwas established to the city\u2014Cyrus promised peace to Babylon, all of it.\nGubaru (Gobryas), his governor, appointed governors in Babylonia, and from\nthe month Kisleu to the month Adar the gods of the land of Akkad, whom\nNabonidus had sent down to Babylon, returned to their places. The month\nMarcheswan, the night of the 11th day, Ugbaru (Gobryas) (went?) against\n... and the son (?) of the king died. From the 27th of the month Adar to\nthe third of the month Nisan, there was weeping in Akkad, all the people\nbowed down their heads. On the 4th day Cambyses, son of Cyrus, went to\n\u00ca-nig-\u1e2bad-kalama-\u0161ummu (\u2018the house where the sceptre of the world is\ngiven,\u2019 the temple of Nebo). The man of the temple of the sceptre of\nNebo....\u201d\n\n(The remainder is mutilated, and the sense not clear\u2014to all appearance it\nrefers to religious ceremonies and sacrifices in which Cambyses took\npart.)\n\nHere, again, the suggestion seems to be, that because the king thought fit\nto send the statues of the various gods of the land to other cities than\ntheir own \u201con a visit,\u201d as it were, the priesthood was justified in\nrenouncing allegiance to him (and in this the people naturally followed\nthem), and in delivering the kingdom to a foreigner. It has been said that\nthe success of Cyrus was in part due to the aid given to him by the Jews,\nwho, sympathizing with him on account of his monotheism, helped him in\nvarious ways; but in all probability he could never have achieved success\nhad not the Babylonian priests (as indicated by their own records) spread\ndiscontent among the people.\n\nMore important, however, are the details of the conquest by Cyrus. He must\nhave entered Babylonia on the north-east, and met the Babylonian army at\nOpis. That the conflict went against the Babylonians may be taken for\ngranted, though it is not stated. Apparently the country was divided into\ntwo parties\u2014those for resistance, and those who were probably discontented\non account of the king\u2019s reputed unorthodoxy. A conflict between these\ntook place, and there was bloodshed, the result being that no resistance\ncould be offered to the army of Cyrus, who entered Sippar, the seat of the\nworship of the Sun-god, without fighting. To all appearance Nabonidus was\nat his post, but recognizing that all was lost, fled. Two days later\nGobryas (not Cyrus, be it observed) entered Babylon with the army of Cyrus\nwithout fighting, and apparently captured Nabonidus there. This took place\nabout the end of June, and it was October before Cyrus entered the city.\nJudging from the text, he was well received, and the result of the\nconference between him and Gobryas was, that the latter \u201cappointed\ngovernors in Babylon,\u201d or \u201cin Babylonia,\u201d as the words may be also read.\nAnother stroke of policy was the return to their habitations of the images\nof the gods which Nabonidus had transferred to other places, thus\nappeasing the priests.\n\nAt this point come some very important and difficult phrases. On the night\nof the 11th of Marcheswan, Gobryas descended (or went) upon or against\nsomething, and the king, or the son of the king, died. The combination of\nthese two statements, taken in connection with the record in Daniel v. 30,\nsuggests that the latter reading is the correct one, though the first,\nwhich would make it to mean that the king was slain, is not excluded, and\nwould make very little difference in the record, it being possible that\nBelshazzar, as the successor of Nabonidus, might be meant. An earlier\nexplanation was, that the doubtful group stood for \u201cthe wife\u201d of the king,\nbut in this case it would be difficult to explain how it is that the\nverbal form (which is ideographically written, and may be read either\n_im\u00e2t_, \u201che dies,\u201d _tam\u00e2t_, \u201cshe dies,\u201d or _m\u00eatat_, \u201cshe died\u201d) should\ndiffer from that used in the case of the king\u2019s mother, where _imt\u00fbt_, the\nhistorical tense of the secondary form of the kal, is the form used. The\nuse of _im\u00e2t_ for _im\u00fbt_, \u201che died,\u201d would be paralleled by the use of\n_irab_ or _irub_, \u201che entered,\u201d in other parts of the inscription.\n\nNaturally, in a case of doubt, the seeker after truth in the matter of\nBabylonian history consults the record of the Babylonian historian\nBerosus. In the case of the taking of Babylon, however, there are such\nnoteworthy differences, that one may well be excused for doubting his\nstatements, notwithstanding his trustworthiness in other matters. He says\nthat when Nabonnedus saw that Cyrus was coming to attack him, he met him\nwith his forces, was beaten, and fled with a few of his troops to\nBorsippa. Cyrus then took Babylon, and gave order that the outer walls\nshould be demolished, the city having proved very troublesome to him, and\ncost him much pains to capture. He then proceeded to besiege Nabonnedus in\nBorsippa, but the Babylonian king decided not to attempt to resist, and\nyielded. Cyrus therefore treated him kindly, and though he would not allow\nhim to remain in Babylonia, he gave him Carmania as a place where he might\ndwell. \u201cAccordingly Nabonnedus spent the rest of his time in that country,\nand there died.\u201d\n\nThe Babylonian Chronicle, however, says nothing about Nabonidus having\ntaken refuge in Borsippa, nor of his being besieged there, nor of his\nhaving submitted at that place. On the contrary, he was taken in Babylon,\nwhich city had been captured without fighting, and there was on that\naccount no immediate excuse for demolishing the walls, which, as native\nrecords tell us, were dismantled in the time of the Seleucid\u00e6. The fact\nis, Berosus did not wish it to be thought that the Babylonians had allowed\ntheir country to pass into the hands of a foreign ruler without\nresistance, hence this statement as to the capital holding out. To all\nappearance, Berosus is truthful where it is not to his interest to be\notherwise.\n\nThe probability is, therefore, that \u201cthe son of the king,\u201d Belshazzar,\nheld out against the Persians in some part of the capital, and kept during\nthat time a festival on the 11th of Marcheswan, when Gobryas pounced upon\nthe place, and he, the rightful Chaldean king, was slain, as recorded in\nDaniel. In this case, Darius the Mede ought to be \u201cGobryas of Gutium,\u201d\nwho, like the former, appointed governors in Babylonia, and \u201creceived the\nkingdom\u201d for Cyrus. If this be the case, Daniel would seem to have been in\nBelshazzar\u2019s power, though his knowledge of what was going on on the\nPersian side gave him courage to reject that prince\u2019s favours with scorn.\n\nOfficially, Belshazzar is never mentioned as king, though the Jewish\ncaptives must have regarded him as such, and probably spoke of him\nhumorously as being the true ruler. This alone can account for his being\ncalled \u201cking of the Chaldeans,\u201d and for his appointing Daniel to be the\n\u201c_third_ ruler in the kingdom,\u201d as has been already suggested. That he was\nalso confused with his father is shown by the statement in Josephus, where\nhe is spoken of (_Antiq._ x. xi. 2) as being called Nabonidus by the\nBabylonians (\u201cBaltasaros, who by the Babylonians was called Naboandelos\u201d),\nthough Josephus\u2019s transcription of the names is as incorrect as a Greek\u2019s.\n\nCyrus now found himself master of Babylonia, without any pretender to\nmolest him; and being the acknowledged ruler of the land, he made himself\nas popular as he could by protecting the various religions which were to\nbe found in his new dominions. The Jews are said to have sympathized with\nhim on account of his being a monotheist, but to the Babylonians he seemed\nto be of the same religion as themselves, and his inscriptions show that,\nwhether with his consent or not, the gods of the Babylonians were spoken\nof and invoked on his behalf just as if this were the case, and we know\nthat he allowed his son to take part in the Babylonian religious\nceremonies.\n\nBut to show clearly the way in which Cyrus ruled, a portion of his\ncylinder-inscription, found by Mr. Rassam at Babylon, is given here\u2014\n\n(To all appearance Nabonidus had tried to make various religious changes\nand reforms, the words \u201cin the likeness of \u00ca-sagila\u201d suggesting that he\nhad at least thought of building another temple similar to that venerable\nfane.)\n\n\u201cThe gods, who dwelt in the midst of them (_i.e._ the temples), forsook\ntheir dwellings in anger that he (Nabonidus) had made (them) enter within\n\u0160u-anna.(121) Marduk in the presence of ... was going round to all the\nstates whose seat had been founded, and the people of \u0160umer and Akkad, who\nhad been like the dead,(122) became active(123) ... he had mercy upon the\nwhole of the lands\u2014all of them found (and) looked upon him. He sought also\na just king, the desire of his heart, whose hand he might hold, Cyrus,\nking of the city An\u0161an, he called his title, to all the kingdoms together\n(his) na(me) was proclaimed.\n\n\u201cThe land of Qut\u00fb, the whole of the troops of the Manda, he (Merodach)\nplaced under his feet, he caused his hands to capture the people of the\ndark head,(124) in righteousness and justice he cared for them. Merodach,\nthe great lord, the protector of his people, looked with joy upon his\nfortunate work and his just heart. He commanded that he should go to his\ncity Babylon, he caused him to take the road to Tindir,(125) like a friend\nand a companion he walked by his side. His vast people, which, like the\nwaters of a river, cannot be numbered,(126) had their weapons girded, and\nmarched by his side. Without fighting and battle he caused him to enter\ninto \u0160u-anna. His city Babylon he protected in (its) trouble. Nabonidus,\nwho did not fear him (_i.e._ Merodach), he delivered into his hand. The\npeople of Tindir, all of them, the whole of the land of \u0160umer and Akkad,\nprinces and high-warden, bowed down beneath him, and kissed his feet\u2014they\nrejoiced for his sovereignty, their countenances were bright.\n\n\u201cThe lord who, in trust that he (Merodach) gives life to the dead, spared\non every side from destruction and injury. Well did they do him\nhomage\u2014they held in honour his name. I am Cyrus, king of the host, the\ngreat king, the powerful king, king of Tindir, king of the land of \u0160umer\nand Akkad, king of the four regions, son of Cambyses, the great king, king\nof the city of An\u0161an, grandson of Cyrus, the great king, king of the city\nof An\u0161an, great-grandson of \u0160i\u0161pi\u0161 (Teispes), the great king, king of the\ncity of An\u0161an, the all-enduring royal seed whose reign B\u00eal and Nebo love,\nfor the contenting of their heart they desired his rule.\n\n\u201cWhen I entered in peace into (the midst) of Babylon, I founded in the\nking\u2019s palace a seat of dominion with pleasure and joy. Merodach, the\ngreat lord, broad-hearted for ... the sons ... Tindir and ... me, and\ndaily I looked upon his image (?). My vast army marches in the midst of\nBabylon peacefully, the whole of (the people of \u0160umer and) Akkad I made to\nhave no opposition. Within Babylon and all its districts in peace I had\ncare for the sons of Tindir ... as without heart (?) ... and a yoke (which\nwas) unseemliness for them was imposed (?). I comforted their sighing, I\ndid away with their distress. For the work Merodach, the great lord,\nestablished the command\u2014to me, Cyrus, the king his worshipper, and\nCambyses, the son (who is) the offspring of my heart ... all of my army\ngraciously he approached, and in peace before it kindly did he lead (?).\n(By his) supreme (command) the whole of the kings dwelling in the royal\nabodes of every region from the upper sea to the lower sea, (those)\ndwelling ... the kings of the Amorites(127) (and) the dwellers in tents,\nall of them, brought their valuable tribute and kissed my feet within\n\u0160u-anna. From ... -a, the city of A\u0161\u0161ur,(128) and Susa, Agad\u00e9, the land of\nE\u0161nunak (Umlia\u0161), Zamban, M\u00ea-Turnu, (and) D\u00fbr-\u00eelu to the border of Qut\u00fb,\nthe districts (on the banks) of the Tigris\u2014from old time had their seats\nbeen founded\u2014the gods dwelling within them I returned to their places, and\ncaused eternal seats to be founded, all their people I collected and\nreturned to their dwellings. And the gods of \u0160umer and Akkad, which\nNabonidus, to the anger of the lord of the gods, had caused to enter\nwithin \u0160u-anna, by the command of Merodach, the great lord, I set in peace\nin their shrines\u2014seats of joy of heart. May the whole of the gods whom I\ncaused to enter into their places pray daily before B\u00eal and Nebo for the\nlengthening of my days, may they announce the commands for my happiness,\nand may they say to Merodach that \u2018Cyrus, thy worshipper, and Cambyses,\nhis son, ... (in) the countries (?), all of them, he has founded a seat of\nrest\u2019....\u201d\n\n(Here follow the ends of nine more lines, from which, however, no certain\nsense can be gained.)\n\nIt will be seen, that this interesting and valuable inscription is in\nsubstantial agreement with the Chronicle. The grievance concerning the\ntransference of the statues of the divinities is repeated and amplified,\nand the fact that Cyrus entered Babylon without fighting is confirmed\n(against Berosus, Xenophon, and the other Greek authors who describe the\ntaking of Babylon).\n\nCyrus, however, here appears before us in quite a new character, namely,\nas the champion of Babylonian religious orthodoxy against Nabonidus\u2019s\nheterodoxy! That Cyrus was ignorant of the contents of this inscription\n(which must have been written by his orders) is in the highest degree\nimprobable. That he may have been affected by Zoroastrian monotheism is\nlikely, but if so, it was but a thin varnish, for he was to all appearance\na polytheist at heart, as his Anzanian fathers (who, as we know from\nrecent discoveries at Susa, were largely influenced by the religion of\nBabylonia) had been from the earliest times. He had chosen well the time\nof his invasion, as is shown by the revolt (apparently against Nabonidus)\nwhich is referred to in the Chronicle. It is strange how the Babylonians\nwere in the main ready to accept a new ruler. In the earliest times we\nhave mention of the Arabic dynasty which the native records call the\ndynasty of Babylon; later on came Cassites, Elamites and Assyrians, and\nnow the country received an Elamite king who ruled over Persia. In the\ncourse of time other aliens would come and rule over them, but their\nacceptance of these was much less a matter of choice, or, rather, of\napathetic acquiescence than on the occasion when they accepted Cyrus king\nof An\u0161an.\n\nWe see, moreover, from this inscription, that Cyrus did restore the\nvarious exiles to their homes, thus securing as far as possible the\nfidelity of those whom he wished to secure as his supporters. Among these\nwere the Jews, and it is on account of this that his name is so favourably\nmentioned in the Old Testament. Cyrus himself says, that he caused all the\ngods whose statues had been brought to Babylon to be returned to the\nplaces whence they had come, and it is clear that, as the Jews had no\ndivine statues, Cyrus did what he could for them, and sent back to\nJerusalem the sacred vessels (Ezra i. 7), and also gave a grant for the\nrebuilding of the Temple (Ezra iii. 7). In the decree quoted in Ezra (i. 2\nff.), where he is represented as saying that \u201cthe Lord God of heaven\u201d had\ngiven him all the kingdoms of the earth, it is best to see in that, as in\nhis Babylonian cylinder-inscription, a desire, for policy\u2019s sake, to be\n\u201call things to all men.\u201d His success must have been largely due to the\nfact, that he had learned the art of ruling men.\n\nIt is to be supposed that he continued as he had begun, and that his rule\nwas tolerated by the people. According to the contract-tablets, he\nassociated his son with him on the throne during part of his first year,\nCambyses becoming king of Babylon, whilst Cyrus retained the wider title\nof \u201cking of countries.\u201d Probably Gobryas had died, hence this change.\nCyrus died in 529 B.C., and Cambyses took the throne. During his reign the\nBabylonians seem to have become discontented, desiring, perhaps, to have a\nruler elected by themselves. Whilst, therefore, Cambyses was absent in\nEgypt, which country he conquered in the year 527 B.C., a Median, who was\na Magian named Gomates, taking advantage of the dissatisfaction which\nprevailed, gave out that he was Bardes or Smerdis (called by the\nBabylonians Barzia), declared himself the son of Cyrus, whom Cambyses had\nmurdered, and mounted the throne. Media, Persia, and Babylonia at once\nwent over to him, and Cambyses hastened from Egypt to meet the pretender.\nWhilst in Syria, on the way home, he killed himself (521), perhaps by\naccident, though it is not impossible that it was a case of suicide, and\nthe pretender retained for a very short period possession of the throne.\n\nAnother prince of the same family, Darius son of Hystaspes, now came\nforward, and after defeating Bardes and a number of other pretenders,\namong them Nidintu-B\u00eal, son of Aniru, who claimed to be Nebuchadnezzar the\nson of Nabonidus, mounted the throne. In fact, almost every province of\nthe Persian empire had a pretender of its own, so that Darius found plenty\nof work ready to his hand. One by one, however, they were defeated, and\n\u201cthe lie\u201d was put down in all the countries acknowledging Persian\nrule\u2014Darius was sole and undisputed king.\n\nIt is unfortunate that no historical records referring to the reigns of\nCyrus and Cambyses exist, except the Chronicle, which, however, ends with\nthe accession year of the former. We have, therefore, no independent\nrecords of what took place in Syria, though it must be confessed, that\nthere is great doubt whether the composer of the Chronicle at the time\nwould have considered the return of the Jews and the rebuilding of the\nTemple as of sufficient importance to place on record there. The Bible and\nJosephus give circumstantial accounts of what occurred, but the official\nview of the circumstances of the granting of the permission to rebuild the\nTemple and the city by Cyrus, and its countermanding, at the instance of\nthe Samaritans, during the reign of Cambyses, would be interesting in the\nextreme.\n\nTo find something about Zerubbabel, who is said to have been the friend of\nDarius (Jos., _Ant._ xi. iii. 1), would also be welcome, but this we can\nhardly dare to hope for. Zerubbabel (better Zeru-Babel, without the\ndoubling of the _b_) is a name which is far from uncommon in the contracts\nof Babylonia. One, for instance, lived during the time of Nabonidus, and\ndwelt at Sippara. He was to all appearance of Assyrian origin. Another,\nthe descendant of a smith, was the father of a man named Nab\u00fb-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-bulli\u1e6d,\nwho lived in the third year of Darius. A third bearing the same name is he\nwho is recorded as having acquired some ewes in the eleventh year of\nDarius. His father bore the unusual name of Mut\u00eari\u1e63u. For yet another\nexample, see p. 441. It will thus be seen that the name was far from rare\nin ancient Babylonia.\n\nAnd in the published contract-tables of Darius\u2019s reign, of which nearly\n600 have been made available for study, there is little bearing upon Old\nTestament history. The same may also be said of his historical\ninscriptions, of which that engraved on the great rock at Behistun in\nPersia is the most important. It is in his historical inscriptions,\nhowever, that the character of the man may be read. In the first lines,\nwhere he tells of his origin, you read of his pride of descent, just as,\nfarther on, he tells the story of his conflicts\u2014how, with the help of his\nfather, Hystaspes, who seconded him loyally and (there is hardly any\ndoubt) affectionately, he overcame all the rebels, and having annihilated\nthe lie which he hated so intensely, he could say, after his successes,\nthat \u201cthe land was his.\u201d\n\nAnd through it all shines at every point, as it were, his adoration of the\ngod whom he worshipped, Ahuramazda, by whose grace and favour he had been\nsuccessful. There is no doubt about his religious faith\u2014in his\ninscriptions he appears as a monotheist of the severest type, and for this\nreason he must have had but little sympathy with the polytheism of the\nBabylonians, and the other nationalities over which he ruled, whose faith\nwas in a plurality of gods. It is true that offerings seem to have been\nmade in his name in the temples of Babylonia, but these must have been due\nto old grants which had not been rescinded, and which the king and his\nadvisers probably would have regarded as bad policy to abolish.\n\nNaturally there is every probability that such a ruler as Darius would\nhave sympathies with the Jews, on account of their monotheism, and it may\nbe supposed that such a feeling towards them would have led him to consent\nto the upholding of Cyrus\u2019s decree that the Temple at Jerusalem should be\nfinished, as detailed in Ezra vi. 1 ff. Darius relates in the Behistun\ninscription, that he restored the temples of the gods (Bab. _b\u00eat\u00ea \u0161a\n\u00eel\u0101ni_, Median _ziyan nappana_, \u201ctemples of the gods,\u201d Pers. _\u0101yad\u0101na_,\n\u201cshrines\u201d) which Gomates the Magian, the pseudo-Bardes or Smerdis, had\ndestroyed. That a single word (_\u0101yad\u0101na_) is used in Persian, whilst the\nphrase \u201ctemples of the gods,\u201d in the plural, is used in Babylonian and\nMedian, shows merely the desire to speak to the latter nations in the\nlanguage to which they were accustomed, and at the same time indicates\nthat neither the one nor the other, unlike the Persians, were monotheists.\nGomates was therefore not a monotheist, otherwise he would not have\ndestroyed the temples, which would seem to have been those of Darius\u2019s own\nfaith; for this king would hardly have thought it worth while to mention\nthe fact of their destruction, had they been the sacred places of a creed\nwhich he despised, and it is only natural to suppose, from his very\nfrequent mention of Ahuramazda, the god whom he worshipped, that he was\nproud of being a monotheist.\n\nIt may therefore be taken, that if Darius Hystaspis ordered the completion\nof the Temple at Jerusalem, and the giving of funds in aid of the work, it\nwas out of sympathy with the Jews. As his reign was one of tolerance, he\ndid not interfere with the religion of either the Babylonians or the\nMedians, but in all probability he did not imitate Cyrus by grants on his\nown account, and under a royal decree, to the temples of those, to him,\nheathen countries. There is considerable doubt, however, whether it is\nthis king who is referred to in Ezra and Esdras, as Sir Henry Howorth has\nshown (_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology_, 1901, pp. 147\nff., 305 ff., 1902, pp. 16 ff.), the ruler intended being in all\nprobability Darius Nothus, whose position agrees with the chronology of\nthese books, and does away with much difficulty as to their acceptance as\nhistorical authorities.\n\nAccording to Darius, twenty-three countries owned his sway: Persia, Elam,\nBabylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, \u201cby the sea,\u201d Sarpada, Ionia, Media,\nArmenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Drangiana, Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria,\nSogdiana, Paruparaesana, Scythia, Sattagydia, Arachosia, and Maka.\nPalestine was evidently included in the district designated \u201cby the sea.\u201d\nAfter a most active reign, Darius died in the year 486 B.C., having\nappointed his son Xerxes as his successor.\n\nThe reign of this ruler, and his attempt to reduce Greece to submission,\nare well known. It was probably after his disastrous failure, when he had\nreturned to Persia, that he took as one of his wives the Jewess Esther, as\nrelated in the book bearing her name. His inscriptions are short ones,\nreferring to the buildings erected by his father and himself. In all\nprobability he thought that his warlike exploits, overwhelmed as they were\nby misfortune, were not of a nature to bear recording. In his own\ninscriptions, his name is given as \u1e2ai\u0161i\u2019ar\u0161i or \u1e2ai\u0161i\u2019ar\u0161a\u2019i in Babylonian,\nand Khshayarsha in Old Persian. In the contract-tablets, however, it\nappears as A\u1e2b\u0161iar\u0161u, A\u1e2b\u0161iwar\u0161u, Ak\u0161iar\u0161u, Akka\u0161iar\u0161u, and \u1e2ai\u0161iar\u0161i. It is\nfrom one of the forms with prefixed _a_ that the Hebrew A\u1e2bashw\u0113r\u00f4s (A.V.\nAhasuerus) has apparently come, the most probable original being one\nsimilar to the A\u1e2b\u0161uwar\u0161u of a contract-tablet in the Museum at Edinburgh.\n\nXerxes died in the year 464 B.C., and was succeeded by his son Artaxerxes,\nthe Artakhshatra of the Old Persian inscriptions, and the Artak\u0161atsu or\nArtak\u0161assu of Babylonian inscriptions. Though it was not without bloodshed\nthat he reached the throne, he proved to be a successful ruler\u2014more so, in\nfact, than his predecessor, whose expedition against the Greeks had ended\nonly in disgrace and the loss of an enormous number of troops taken from\nall the nations over which he ruled. It is therefore not to be wondered at\nthat his reign should have been regarded as wise and temperate. In any\ncase, he was well disposed towards the Jews, and gave permission, in his\nseventh year, to Ezra, to go up to Jerusalem with a royal grant, to settle\naffairs there, and sacrifice to the God of the Jews (Ezra vii., viii.).\nLater on, he gave permission to Nehemiah to return to the land of his\nfathers to restore and rebuild the walls of the city. As Nehemiah was his\ncupbearer, it is easily conceivable that he did this to please him, and to\nreward one who had evidently been a faithful servant, but it is not\nimprobable that the king at the same time had in his mind the rebellion of\nhis general Megabysus, who had risen against him in protest against the\ntreatment meted out by his royal master to his captive Inarus. To have a\nwell-fortified city defended by those who had benefited greatly by his\nrule, must have seemed to the Persian ruler good policy.\n\nArtaxerxes died in the year 425 B.C., and was succeeded by his son, Xerxes\nII., who reigned only two months, at the end of which time he was murdered\nby Sogdianus, a bastard son of Artaxerxes, who then became king. Seven\nmonths only, however, was the length of this new ruler\u2019s reign, he being,\nin his turn, put to death by another of the bastard sons of Artaxerxes,\nDarius Ochus, after he had surrendered to him. This ruler is the Darius\nNothus of history, who mounted the throne in 424 B.C. His reign was noted\nfor the numerous insurrections against his dominion which took place, but\nis of special interest because of the resumption of the work of rebuilding\nthe Temple of Jerusalem, which had been stopped by the decree of\nArtaxerxes, as recorded in Ezra iv. 21-24. (See Sir H. Howorth in the _P.\nS. B. A._, 1901, pp. 307, 308.)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII. LIFE AT BABYLON DURING THE CAPTIVITY, WITH SOME REFERENCE TO\nTHE JEWS.\n\n\n The reign of Nebuchadnezzar\u2014The earliest mention of\n Nabonidus\u2014Neriglissar and his relations with his fellow-citizens\n before his accession\u2014He marries his daughter Gig\u00eetum to the\n director of \u00ca-zida\u2014Prince Laborosoarchod\u2014Nabonidus and the temples\n at Sippar\u2014Prince Belshazzar\u2019s transactions\u2014His offerings at\n Sippar\u2014His sister\u2019s gift to her god (or goddess)\u2014Princess\n Ukabu\u2019sama\u2019s transaction\u2014The Jews at Babylon\u2014Babylonian business\n and other letters\u2014\u0160irku\u2019s slave\u2014A loan at Erech\u2014Work upon a\n plantation\u2014Sale of an ass\u2014Jews and Babylonians\u2014The dead slave\u2014A\n right of way\u2014The story of Abil-Addu-nath\u0101nu and Bunanitum\u2014The\n outcast slave\u2014The Egyptian slave and her infant\u2014\u0160irku\u2019s\n transactions\u2014Babylon as the Jewish captives saw it.\n\n\n\n\nI.\n\n\nIf trade-activity be a test of prosperity, then the Babylonians of the\nperiod extending from the end of the reign of Nabopolassar to the end of\nthat of Darius could have had but little to complain of on the whole,\nnotwithstanding the changes of dynasty which took place. Over three\nthousand inscriptions covering this period have been published, and there\nis every reason to believe that, if all the texts in the various museums\nwere made known, twice this number might be reached. There is, therefore,\nan abundance of material with which to reconstruct the life of that\nperiod. Naturally, many of this enormous number of inscriptions are\ncomparatively uninteresting, and some of the texts are of little or no\nvalue, even to specialists. This being the case, it will easily be\nunderstood that, as they are mostly of the nature of contracts, with a\ncertain number of legal documents, the information which many of them give\nis comparatively meagre, and there is a great deal of repetition. That\nsome of them, notwithstanding these disadvantages, are sufficiently\ninteresting, will be seen from the examples which this chapter contains.\n\nAmong all these documents we find repeated, with some differences which\nthe course of centuries had brought about, the same transactions, and the\nsame daily life as has already been treated of in the fifth chapter, pp.\n159-191. There are purchases and sales of land, property, and slaves,\nloans at interest and without interest, and all the various kinds of\ncontracts which the daily needs of a large population call forth.\nMarriage-contracts and contracts of apprenticeship are also not uncommon,\nwills and divisions of property\u2014generally in greater detail than of\nold\u2014are also to be found. To these must be added the leasing and hire of\nhouses, the purchase and hire of ships, divisions of property, inventories\nof the same, receipts of different kinds, etc. etc.\n\nFor the most part, the people who pass before us are slaves, servants,\nmoney-lenders, merchants, and other of the common folk, with a sprinkling\nof scribes, priests, both of the higher and the lower classes (generally\nthe latter), palace officials, now and then a judge, or a governor, or one\nof the subordinate officials. Did we know them all, perhaps we should\nthink more of them, and estimate them at their true worth; but in the\nappearance and reappearance of their names we see only the plaintiff or\nthe defendant, the buyer or the seller, and it is but rarely that we can\nrecognize them as men of note, though in many cases it is to be\nconjectured that they were so. It is only seldom that the crown prince or\none of his brothers, appears, or a relative of the ruling king comes\nwithin our range\u2014as for the king himself, except in the date of a\ndocument, his name is rare in the extreme, and when he appears actively,\nit is in the character of patron of the temples, or something of a similar\nnature.\n\nNaturally the king was hedged about with a considerable amount of\nreverence, which must have manifested itself in many ways which we shall\nprobably never know. This consideration for the name of the king would\nlead to his being represented by an agent, doing away with the necessity\nof his appearing in person, when dealing with his subjects. Though he\nprudently keeps out of sight, it is hardly a dignified thing that the\ngreat Nebuchadnezzar should appear as a moneylender, even by proxy, as he\nseems to do in the following document. But we do not know the whole\nhistory of the transaction, so must not hastily accuse him of an unkingly\naction\u2014his appearance may be unauthorized, or the loan may be capable of a\nperfectly natural explanation.\n\n\u201cTen shekels (in) ingots (?), the silver of Ina-\u00ea\u0161i-\u00ea\u1e6dir, son of Nadin,\nthe king\u2019s agent. The king\u2019s silver, which was given for gold (? = as\ncapital) to Ina-\u00ea\u0161i-\u00ea\u1e6dir, (is) due from Nab\u00fb-\u00ea\u1e6dir, son of \u0160ul\u00e2, descendant\nof the mead-dealer. At the end of the month Tisri he will give (it) back.\nHis property, as much as there is, (is) the security, until Ina-\u00ea\u0161i-\u00ea\u1e6dir\nreceives the king\u2019s silver. Witnesses: Nadin, son of Marduk, descendant of\nIrani; Nergal-iddina, son of Nab\u00fb-ka\u1e63ir, descendant of \u00cape\u0161-\u00eeli; and the\nscribe, Ana-B\u00eal-up\u00e2qu, son of B\u00eal-\u0161um-i\u0161kun, descendant of the\nmead-dealer. Babylon, month Tammuz, day 28th, year 21st,\nNab\u00fb-kudurri-u\u1e63ur, king of Babylon.\u201d\n\nThough security is referred to, there is no mention of interest, but\nIna-\u00ea\u0161i-\u00ea\u1e6dir probably expected something of the kind. The question also\narises, whether the sum may not have been advanced without the authority\nof his royal master. The original of the expression translated \u201cingots\u201d\nsuggests that the pieces may have been in the form of a sword-blade.\n\nAmong the tablets referring to Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s offerings, 84-2-11, 23,\nand its duplicate 270 of the same collection, are probably the most\ninteresting. This inscription is to the effect that Izkur-Marduk had given\nup with willingness the office of _na\u0161-pa\u1e6dr\u016btu_ to Nab\u00fb-bala\u1e6d-su-iqb\u00ee. His\nduty was to perform the king\u2019s sacrifices every year before the goddess\nI\u0161\u1e2bara, \u201cdwelling in \u00ca-\u0161a-turra, which is within \u0160u-anna,\u201d and before\nPap-sukal, of \u201cthe temple \u00ca-kidur-kani, the house of the Lady of heaven,\nof the bank of the water-channel of _\u00e2lu-e\u0161\u0161u_ (the new city) which is\nwithin Babylon.\u201d The animals sacrificed were oxen and sheep, and the parts\noffered before the two deities are fully specified. The contract ends with\na longer curse than usual in tablets of this class: \u201cWhoever the words and\nthis gift changes, as much as has been conferred (?) on\nNab\u00fb-bala\u1e6d-su-iqb\u00ee, may Merodach, Z\u0113r-panitum, I\u0161\u1e2bara, and Pap-sukal\nbespeak his destruction; may Nebo, the scribe of \u00ca-sagila, shorten his\nlong days. The spirit of Marduk, Z\u0113r-panitum, (and) his gods, and\nNab\u00fb-kudurri-u\u1e63ur, the king their lord, they have invoked.\u201d The names of\nthree witnesses and the scribe follow this, after which is the date, 29th\nday of Tammuz, 32nd year of Nebuchadnezzar. A portion of the sacrifices\nwere to be made on the 8th day of Nisan, _i.e._ at the beginning of the\nsecond week of the new year.\n\nAs stated in his long inscriptions referring to the restoration of the\ntemples at Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar looked upon that city as the one whose\ntemples he especially delighted to honour, and this text referring to his\nofferings seems to bear out that statement. As, however, his inscribed\ncylinders from other places show that he did not neglect the shrines of\nhis provincial capitals altogether, so certain inscriptions referring to\nhis offerings elsewhere show that he did not withhold what was considered\nas due from him to the other shrines of his realm. Thus, in his\nthirty-fifth year he is recorded to have made a gift or offering of an\nobject, made or set with some kind of stone, to the goddess of Sippar, Aa,\nthe consort of the Sun-god, and another object of gold to the god himself.\nIn all probability, the text referred to is only one of a number of\ninscriptions referring to the king\u2019s offerings, for even this great and\npopular ruler would hardly have dared to risk the hostility of the priests\nmerely to gratify his desire to enrich and embellish his capital city. In\naddition to the king, the officials of his court sometimes made offerings\nat Sippar, as is indicated by the following short inscription\u2014\n\n\u201cOne ass, tithe which Nab\u00fb-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur, the king\u2019s captain, has given to\nthe temple \u00ca-babbara. Month Iyyar, day 20 less 1, year 42nd,\nNab\u00fb-kudurri-u\u1e63ur, king of Babylon.\u201d\n\nTo all appearance, Nab\u00fb-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur was a man sufficiently well off, if, as\nmay well be supposed, he possessed nine other asses besides the one which\nhe was giving as tithe. From the nature of the offering, this could not\nhave been made on account of the king, though he must from time to time\nhave commissioned others to act on his behalf, as the following\ninscriptions inform us that his sons did\u2014\n\n\u201c..., tithe of (Marduk)-\u0161um-u\u1e63ur, the son of the king, Zubuduru, messenger\nof Marduk-\u0161um-u\u1e63ur, the son of the king, has given to \u00ca-babbara. The sheep\n(is) in the cattle-house in the care of \u0160ama\u0161-\u00eare\u0161. Month Adar, day 17th,\nyear 40th, (Nab\u00fb-kud)urri-u\u1e63ur, (king of Babylon).\u201d\n\nThe word to be restored at the beginning is probably \u201c1 sheep,\u201d this being\nthe number implied farther on. If so, it cannot be said that he was by any\nmeans a large owner of these animals. The following refers to tithe in\nsilver paid by the same prince\u2014\n\n\u201c1/3 and 5 shekels (= 25 shekels) of silver (is) the tithe which\nMarduk-\u0161um-u\u1e63ur, son of the king, has given by the hands of \u0160ama\u0161-kain-\u00e2\u1e2bi\nand Aqabi-\u00eelu to \u00ca-babbara. Month Iyyar, day 14th, year 42nd,\nNab\u00fb-kudurri-u\u1e63ur, king of Babylon.\u201d\n\nAnother inscription, dated in the forty-first year of Nebuchadnezzar,\nrefers to another son, named Marduk-nadin-a\u1e2bi, whose servant,\nSin-m\u00e2r-\u0161arri-u\u1e63ur, had paid half a mana for fruit (dates). The name of\nthe servant, which means \u201cMoon-god, protect the son of the king,\u201d is\ninteresting, and testifies to the devotion of the family of its owner to\nthe royal house.\n\nThese references to the sons of Nebuchadnezzar naturally raise the\nquestion of the parentage of Nabonidus, whose son, Belshazzar, is called,\nin Daniel, the son\u2014_i.e._ descendant\u2014of Nebuchadnezzar. As this is a\nhistorical point of some importance, even the most uncertain light, when\nthrown upon it, may turn out to be of considerable value. In all\nprobability, therefore, this is the most appropriate place to introduce\nwhat may be called\n\n\n\nThe Earliest Mention Of Nabonidus.\n\n\nThis document is preserved on two tablets, the most correct being very\nmuch crowded in one part, and the other very neatly and clearly, but at\nthe same time very incorrectly, written. Both are, therefore, in all\nprobability, copies, made at dates some time after the original document\nwas drawn up.\n\nThough the more clearly-written copy is rather incorrect, it furnishes in\nsome cases interesting variants, which will be noticed in their place. The\nvalue of the text as a historical document depends, in part, as will\neasily be recognized, upon the trustworthiness of a statement which the\nincorrect copyist has read into it.\n\nBoth these documents belong to the collection obtained by the late George\nSmith on his last ill-fated journey to the East. They are numbered S +,\n769 and 734.\n\n\u201cAdi\u2019\u00eelu, son of Nab\u00fb-z\u0113r-iddina, and \u1e2aul\u00eeti, his wife (the divine\n\u1e2aul\u00eetum!(129)) have sold Marduka (Mordecai), their son, for the price\nagreed upon, to \u0160ul\u00e2, son of Z\u0113r-uk\u00een. The liability to defeasor (?) and\npre-emptor (?), which is upon Marduka, Adi\u2019\u00eelu and Akkadu respond for.\u201d\n\n\u201cWitnesses: Nab\u00fb-na\u2019id (Nabonidus), who is over the city(130); Agar\u2019u;\nMu\u0161\u00eazib-B\u00eal, son of Marduka(131); Z\u0113r\u00eea, son of B\u00e2b\u00eel\u00e2a; Uk\u00een-z\u0113ra, son of\nYadi\u2019-\u00eelu(132); R\u00eamut, son of Marduka; and the scribe Nab\u00fb-z\u0113r-ik\u00ee\u0161a, son\nof Marduk- ... \u1e2au\u1e63\u1e63iti-\u0161a-Mu\u0161allim-Marduk, month Sebat, day 16th, year\n8th, Nab\u00fb-kudurr\u00ee-u\u1e63ur, king of Babylon.\u201d\n\nIt will probably seem strange to most readers that Babylonian parents, who\nwere as a rule fond of children, should sell their son; but it is\nimpossible to pronounce judgment against them without knowing more, so as\nto be able to take into consideration the circumstances in which the thing\nwas done. Though the document resembles those recording the sale of\nslaves, certain phrases are left out (compare the inscriptions referred to\non pp. 465 ff.).\n\nThe exclamatory addition of the scribe in one case, where he writes the\nname of the mother, \u1e2aul\u00eetum, with the prefix for divinity, shows that he\nregarded her as being with the gods\u2014to all appearance she had, at the time\nof making the copy, departed this life. It may be taken as implying\nrespect, reverence, and something more.\n\nNaturally there is no suggestion that the Nabonidus who is given as the\nfirst witness, with the title \u201che who is over the city,\u201d was the son of\nNab\u00fb-bala\u1e6d-su-iqb\u00ee, afterwards king of Babylon. The scribe of the second\ntablet calls him \u201cthe son of the king,\u201d but there is no indication, from\nBabylonian sources, that he was one of the sons of Nebuchadnezzar. It is\ntrue that, in Daniel, Belshazzar is spoken of as if Nebuchadnezzar was his\nfather (or, better, grandfather), but this is the first indication that\nthe Babylonians ever thought of Nabonidus, his father, as one of the sons\nof the great Nebuchadnezzar. The question is, whether the scribe who made\nthe second and more incorrect copy would have read into the doubtful\ncharacters which his original evidently contained, a statement which he\nmust have known to be untrue, incorrect, or impossible. In view of the\nfact that the copy in question must have been made sufficiently near to\nthe time of Nabonidus for the facts to be still known, a wilful error is\nto all appearance excluded, though, on the other hand, the incorrectness\nof other parts of the tablet obliges us to take the statement for what it\nis worth. The traces of a character after the words \u201cson of the king\u201d are\ndoubtful\u2014they look like the remains of three horizontal wedges, the two\nlower ones being fairly clear. As the topmost wedge is the most doubtful,\nit is possible that the traces which remain are really part of the sign\nfor \u201ccity,\u201d in which case the scribe wrote \u201cson of the king of the city,\u201d\nplacing the determinative prefix for \u201cman\u201d before the character for\n\u201cking\u201d\u2014a most unusual way of writing the word. It enables us to surmise,\nhowever, that the reading of his original was really _\u0161a mu\u1e2b\u1e2bi \u00e2li_,\ninstead of _\u0161a \u00eali \u00e2li_ (both phrases have the same meaning), that he\nregarded _\u0161a_ as _a_, that he thought _mu\u1e2b-\u1e2bi_ to be the characters for\n\u201cman\u201d and \u201cking,\u201d and that he read the last of the phrase, the character\nfor \u201ccity,\u201d correctly.\n\nThey are a couple of as interesting, but, at the same time, as\nunsatisfactory, tablets, as could well be imagined.\n\nIt is to be noted that the name of Nabonidus is not altogether uncommon in\nthe inscriptions. In most cases, however, we know that it is either not\nthe well-known king of that name, or that his identity with him is\ndoubtful. That the person here referred to was a man of some consequence\nis indicated by his title, \u201che who is over the city,\u201d and it often happens\nin that case (as here) that the name of his father and other remoter\nancestor is omitted. This is sometimes the case with Neriglissar, who is\nvery often named in the contract-tablets of Babylonia, and his name is\nthen either given without any indication of his parentage, or else with\nthe simple addition \u201cson of B\u00eal-\u0161um-i\u0161kun.\u201d\n\nAnother figure which appears at this time is that same Neriglissar who was\nto play so important a part in the affairs of Babylonia at a later date.\nIn the case of this prince (unlike the Nabonidus of the inscription\ntranslated above) we are not tormented by any doubts whatever. It is\nreally and truly Neriglissar, and none other. He first appears in\nNebuchadnezzar\u2019s thirty-fourth year, in the following legal document\u2014\n\n\u201c100 sheep of Kili(gug?), servant of Nergal-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur, concerning which\nAb\u00ee-nadib, son of Ya-\u1e2bata, said to Nergal-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur, son of\nB\u00eal-\u0161um-i\u0161kun, thus\u2014\n\n\u201c \u2018Nab\u00fb-\u1e63abit-q\u00e2t\u00e2, servant of Nergal-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur, brought them by my\nhand.\u2019\n\n\u201cIf Ab\u00ee-nadib (and) Nab\u00fb-\u1e63abit-q\u00e2t\u00e2 prove (this), Ab\u00ee-nadib is free; if he\nprove it (not), Ab\u00ee-nadib will give to Nergal-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur 100 sheep, (with)\nwool (?) and young (?).\n\n\u201cWitnesses: \u1e62illi-B\u00eal, son of Ab\u00ee-yadi\u0161a; Kabtia, son of Marduk-z\u0113r-ibn\u00ee,\ndescendant of the potter; Nab\u00fb-na\u1e63ir, son of Zill\u00e2; and the scribe,\n(Nab\u00fb)-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iddina, son of \u0160ul\u00e2, descendant of \u00cagibi. Takr\u0113tain (?), month\nElul, day 2nd, year 34th, Nab\u00fb-kudurri-u\u1e63ur, king of Babylon.\u201d\n\nNeriglissar must therefore have been an extensive cattle-owner, and had\nmany servants, some of whom at least must have been men of substance, like\nAb\u00ee-nadib, who engages to restore to his master the 100 sheep, if it could\nbe proved that they had been lost by his fault. Judging from the name,\nAb\u00ee-nadib (= Abinadab) must have come from the west, his Biblical\nnamesakes being Israelites. Nab\u00fb-\u1e63abit-q\u00e2t\u00e2 elsewhere appears as the\nmajor-domo of the crown prince (? Laborosoarchod = Lab\u00e2\u0161i-Marduk) during\nthe reign of Neriglissar, and of Belshazzar during the reign of his father\nNabonidus. The reader will meet his name again in the translations which\nfollow.\n\nA similar transaction to the above is one in which two servants of\nNeriglissar were concerned, but in which the prince himself seems not to\nhave been directly interested. It is as follows\u2014\n\n\u201c(At the end?) of the month Sivan, \u0160arru-\u00eel\u00fba, servant of\nNergal-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur, will bring his witness and will prove to \u1e2aat\u0101nu,\nservant of Nergal-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur, that \u0160arru-\u00eel\u016ba gave to \u1e2aat\u0101nu the iron\n_raqundu_. If he prove it, \u1e2aat\u0101nu will give to \u0160arru-\u00eel\u016ba a _raqundu_.\n\n\u201cWitnesses: Mu\u0161\u00eazib-B\u00eal, son of Nab\u00fb-iltama\u2019, and the scribe,\nNab\u00fb-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iddina, descendant of \u00cagibi. Upia (Opis), month Nisan, day 29th,\n(year ...)th, Nab\u00fb-kudurri-u\u1e63ur, king of Babylon.\u201d\n\nDuring the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, the \u201cchief of the house\u201d or major-domo\nof Neriglissar was B\u00eal-\u00ea\u1e6diranni, who is mentioned as having borrowed\nmoney, whether on his own or his master\u2019s behalf is not known. This took\nplace in the forty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar. The following is an order\nfor the delivery of goods to the prince\u2014\n\n\u201cCause ... iron implements (and) 80 _kudutum_ to be taken to\nNergal-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur by the hands of Nab\u00fb-\u0161um-iddina, secretary of\nNergal-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur. Month Iyyar, day 12th, year 43rd, Nab\u00fb-kudurri-u\u1e63ur,\nking of Babylon.\u201d\n\nTo all appearance prince Neriglissar was a very busy man, who sought to\nadd to his worldly goods by every means in his power, and did not disdain\nto engage in trade in the attainment of wealth. What he had apparently\nbegun in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, he continued in the time of\nEvil-Merodach, during whose reign there are several inscriptions referring\nto his transactions with regard to houses. In the first of these\ninscriptions he hires a house for 11 mana of silver from Nab\u00fb-\u00e2bla-iddina,\nby his agent, Nab\u00fb-kain-\u00e2bli (first year of Evil-Merodach, month and day\nlost).\n\nIn another contract he acquires 4 canes, 1 cubit, 8 fingers (of land) from\nMarduk-\u0161akin-\u0161umi, and 2 canes, 6-2/3 cubits from Kurbanni-Marduk, for a\ntotal of 4 mana 19 shekels of silver. (Babylon, month Tebet, day 9th, 1st\nyear of Evil-Merodach.)\n\nIn the third contract it would seem that the property in land of\nNab\u00fb-\u00e2bla-iddina had been given over to his creditors, of whom\nNab\u00fb-ban\u00ee-\u00e2\u1e2bi was one, the amount due to him being, in all, 53 shekels of\nsilver, due to him from Nab\u00fb-\u00e2bla-iddina in the name of a third party. By\nthe authority of Neriglissar it would seem that 42-1/3 shekels of silver\nwere paid to Nab\u00fb-ban\u00ee-\u00e2\u1e2bi, who then gave to Neriglissar a contract for 53\nshekels of silver, promising, at the same time, to speak to the king\u2019s\nscribes, and draw up and deliver to Neriglissar a _sealed_ document. If he\ndid not do this, he was to be liable for the silver and its interest.\n\nBy advancing the money to this creditor, Neriglissar became himself a\ncreditor of the estate of Nab\u00fb-\u00e2bla-iddina (15th of Adar, 1st year of\nEvil-Merodach), and it seems to have been his intention to get the whole\nof the land and the houses thereon into his own hands. He therefore\nacquired further interest in the property a few weeks later (26th of\nNisan, 2nd year of Evil-Merodach), and again after a further interval of\nthree months (14th of Tammuz, 2nd year of Evil-Merodach). To all\nappearance, the amounts advanced by Neriglissar to the creditors of the\nestate were less than the sums due to them from Nab\u00fb-\u00e2bla-iddina on\naccount of their claims. He seems, however, to have got them to give him\nreceipts in full, and they had to promise to deliver sealed documents. He\nmust have made a considerable profit out of this species of\nbill-discounting.\n\nThe last tablet referring to the estate of Nab\u00fb-\u00e2bla-iddina is dated in\nthe accession year of Neriglissar\u2019s own reign (9th of the 2nd Adar), and\nin this Nab\u00fb-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iddina secures an interest by paying 26-\u00bc shekels of\nsilver on account of a sum of 52-\u00bd shekels\u2014just half. The land is stated\nto have been \u201csold for silver for a palace,\u201d and the money was paid by the\nintermediary of Nab\u00fb-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iddina, Neriglissar\u2019s representative in such\nmatters before he ascended the throne. The following is a translation of\nthis interesting document\u2014\n\n\u201c52-\u00bd shekels of silver due to Ik\u00ee\u0161\u00e2, son of Gil\u00fba, descendant of\nSin-\u0161ad\u00fbnu, which is upon (_i.e._ due from) Nab\u00fb-\u00e2bla-iddina, son of\nBala\u1e6du, descendant of the butler (?), in (part payment) of the price of\nthe house of Nab\u00fb-\u00e2bla-iddina, which has been sold for silver for the\npalace. In agreement with the creditors, Ik\u00ee\u0161a, son of Gil\u00fba, descendant\nof Sin-\u0161ad\u00fbnu, has received 26-\u00bc shekels of silver from the hands of\nNab\u00fb-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iddina, son of \u0160ul\u00e2, descendant of \u00cagibi, and has given the\ncontract for 52-\u00bd shekels of silver, which is upon (_i.e._ due from)\nNab\u00fb-\u00e2bla-iddina, to Nab\u00fb-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iddina.\n\n\u201cWitnesses: D\u00e2anu-\u0161um-iddina, son of Z\u0113ru-B\u00e2b\u00eeli, descendant of the\ndagger-bearer; Nab\u00fb-nadin-\u0161umi, son of Abl\u00e2, descendant of Sin-nadin-\u0161umi;\nB\u00eal-\u0161unu, son of U\u0161\u0161\u00e2a, descendant of \u00c2\u1e2bi-ban\u00ee;\n\n\u201cand the scribe, Nab\u00fb-bala\u1e6d-su-iqb\u00ee, son of Ik\u00ee\u0161\u00e2, descendant of\nSin-\u0161ad\u00fbnu. Babylon, month of the later Adar, day 9th, year of the\nbeginning of dominion of Nergal-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur, king of Babylon.\u201d\n\nBut Neriglissar was now king, and had no need and but little desire to\nappear before his subjects as a purchaser of houses, or as a trader in any\nway (it is probably on this account that his name does not occur in the\nabove document). When he engaged in anything of the kind, it was\nhenceforth through agents. The only exception known is the\nmarriage-contract of his daughter Gig\u00eetum, who espoused the high priest of\nNebo at Borsippa. The following is a translation of this document, as far\nas it is preserved\u2014\n\n\u201cNab\u00fb-\u0161um-uk\u00een, priest of Nebo, director of \u00ca-zida, son of\n\u0160iriktum-Marduk, descendant of I\u0161d\u0113-\u00eel\u0101ni-dannu, said to\nNergal-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur, king of Babylon: \u2018Give Gig\u00eetum, thy virgin daughter, to\nwifehood, and let her be my wife.\u2019 Nergal-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur (said) to\nNab\u00fb-\u0161um-uk\u00een, priest of Nebo, director of \u00ca-zida....\u201d\n\n(About twenty-eight lines are wanting here, the text becoming again\nlegible at the end of the list of witnesses on the reverse.)\n\n\u201c..., son of Nab\u00fb-\u0161um-li\u0161ir, ...; ...-ri, son of Nab\u00fb-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur, the\njudge (??);\n\n\u201cNab\u00fb-\u0161um-u\u1e63ur, the scribe, son of A\u0161\u0161ur ... Babylon, month Nisan, day\n1st, year 1st, (Nergal-\u0161arra)-u\u1e63ur, king of Babylon. Copy of \u00ca-zida.\u201d\n\nThe mutilation of the record is unfortunate, as the conclusion of the\nmatter cannot be ascertained, but it may be regarded as fairly certain\nthat Neriglissar really did give his daughter Gig\u00eetum in marriage to\nNab\u00fb-\u0161um-uk\u00een, for had it been otherwise, there would have been but little\nneed to draw up the document of which the fragment here translated has\nbeen preserved to us. The remainder of the tablet was probably taken up\nwith the usual conditions\u2014the penalty Nab\u00fb-\u0161um-uk\u00een would have to pay\nshould he divorce or abandon his wife; the penalty Gig\u00eetum would have to\nsuffer if she disowned or forsook her husband; directions with regard to\nthe amount and disposal of her dowry, etc. This and similar inscriptions\nseem to suggest that Herodotus was probably wrongly informed with regard\nto the compulsory nature of the public prostitution of unmarried women\nwhich, he says, was practised in Babylonia, the expressions found in these\ninscriptions often pointing, as in the present case, to a belief, on the\npart of the bridegroom, in the chastity of the woman chosen by him to be\nhis wife.\n\nThe date corresponds with the Babylonian New Year\u2019s Day, 559 B.C.\n\nWith this inscription we take leave of Neriglissar except as the ruler\nwhose name the scribes used to date by.\n\nThough, according to Berosus, Laborosoarchod (Lab\u0101\u0161i-Marduk) was a mere\nchild when he came to the throne, there is no doubt, from the inscription\nwhich follows, that he was old enough to have an establishment of his own,\nand also to carry on the business of money-lender, Nab\u00fb-\u1e63abit-q\u00e2t\u00e2 (see p.\n439) being his representative in the transactions in which he engaged. As\nit is an inscription typical of its class, it is given here in full\u2014\n\n\u201c12 mana of silver of the son of the king, which (has been advanced\nthrough) the hand of Nab\u00fb-\u1e63abit-q\u00e2t\u00e2, chief of the house of the son of the\nking, is upon (_i.e._ due from) \u0160um-uk\u00een, son of Mu\u0161allim-\u00eelu. In the\nmonth Nisan the silver, 12 mana, in its full amount, he will repay.\nEverything of his, in town and country, all there is, is the security of\nthe king\u2019s son\u2014another creditor shall not have power over it until\nNab\u00fb-sabit-q\u00e2t\u00e2 receives the money. Nab\u00fb-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iddina, son of \u0160ul\u00e2,\ndescendant of \u00cagibi, takes responsibility for the receipt of the money.\n\n\u201cWitnesses: \u0160ama\u0161-uballi\u1e6d, son of Ik\u00ee\u0161\u00e2; Kalb\u00e2, son of B\u00eal-\u00eare\u0161; the\nscribe B\u00eal-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-ik\u00ee\u0161\u00e2, son of B\u00eal-\u00ea\u1e6deru. Babylon, month Elul, day 10th,\nyear 2nd, Nergal-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur, king of Babylon.\u201d\n\nWhat the crown prince did, it goes without saying that all the court\nofficials sought to do. An instance of this is B\u00eal-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iddina, the king\u2019s\ncaptain, who is recorded as having lent 2/3 of a mana of silver to Ard\u00eea\nand \u0160ul\u00e2, at an interest of one shekel upon every mana monthly\u2014twenty per\ncent. yearly\u2014a sufficiently high interest, though it was the usual rate in\nBabylonia. This inscription is dated at Babylon, 7th day of Kisleu, 2nd\nyear of Neriglissar. It is noteworthy, however, that there is no mention\nof interest in the document drawn up for Lab\u0101\u0161i-Marduk\u2019s major-domo.\n\nInteresting is the inscription in which two partners engage to meet two\nother men, also partners, at the gate of the house of the king\u2019s son to\ncome to an arrangement concerning profits which they had made _\u0161a zall\u0101nu\nu dus\u00ea_, _i.e._ with regard to two \u201clines\u201d of leather goods (9th day of\nTammuz, 3rd year of Neriglissar). It also furnishes further testimony to\nthe fact that this prince had a separate establishment.\n\nAfter Laborosoarchod\u2019s nine months came the reign of Nabonidus, whom, as\nwill be remembered, the Babylonians and Cyrus, his conqueror, accused of\nneglecting the gods, and sending them forth from their shrines to the\ncities around. Perhaps his crime consisted in his preference for the gods\nof other cities than Babylon, the city which Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s lavish\nfavours had somewhat spoilt, and who resented her neglect at the hands of\nthe antiquarian king. However that may be, contemporary records show that\nhe gave to the benefit of Sippar, the city of the Sun-god, not\nunfrequently. A mutilated inscription refers to full-grown oxen and sheep\nfrom the son of the king, for the king\u2019s sacrifices, divided between two\ntemples at Sippar, one of them being that of Anunitu[m] (7th of Adar, 9th\nyear of Nabonidus); and things from the _b\u00eet makkur nidinit \u0161arri_\n(\u201cwarehouse of the king\u2019s gifts\u201d) are often mentioned. Naturally he had to\nmake gifts to many shrines in Babylonia.\n\nWhether the following refers to oxen for sacrifice or not is doubtful\u2014\n\n\u201c20 shekels of silver have been given to Nab\u00fb-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur, the sec(retary)\nof the king, for oxen for the husbandmen who are in the city \u1e2aa(buru). He\nhas not given the oxen. Month Nisan, day 16th, year 7th, Nab\u00fb-na\u2019id, king\nof Babylon.\u201d\n\nThe above inscription comes from Sippar, near which the city referred to\nmust have stood.\n\nSeveral inscriptions refer to the storehouse into which the king\u2019s gift\nwas delivered. The following is a specimen of these texts\u2014\n\n\u201cFruit, the amount of the 10th year, Ana-\u00e2mat-B\u00eal-atkal has given into the\nstorehouse of the gift of the king. Month Kisleu, day 14th, year 10th,\nNab\u00fb-na\u2019id, (king) of \u00caridu.\n\n\u201c35 _gur_, \u0160ama\u0161-killi-anni.\n\u201c12 _gur_ 90 _qa_, \u0160um-uk\u00een and R\u00eamut.\n\u201c65 _gur_ 144 _qa_, Ik\u00ee\u0161\u00e2.\n\u201c45 _gur_ 72 _qa_, Kin\u00e2.\n\u201c62 gur, Niqu(du).\n\u201c17 _gur_ 72 _qa_, ...\n\u201cAltogether 23(8 _gur_ 18 _qa_).\u201d\n\nThis and other inscriptions, especially one referring to 250 _gur_ of\ngrain, shows that Nabonidus was fairly liberal to the temples at Sippar.\nIt is also very probable that he provided for the needful repairs of this\nand other temples from time to time, one of the inscriptions (dated in his\nthird year) recording a contribution of half a talent and 7 mana of silver\nfor work done on the great temple-tower of Sippar, \u00ca-babbara, besides 8\nmana 20 shekels of silver as tithe, seemingly for grain for the city\n\u1e2aaburu, where, it is to be conjectured, an agricultural farm belonging to\none of the temples of Sippar was situated.(133)\n\nIt is not by any means improbable that Nabonidus had a residence at\nSippar, and if so, this would explain the reason of his favouring that\ncity, and at the same time add to the causes of the discontent of the\n\u201csons of Babylon.\u201d This is implied by a small tablet apparently inscribed\nwith an account of the receipts and expenditure of the temple \u00ca-babbara at\nSippar, which occupied the position of purveyor of water, and took the\nplace of the water-company of the cities of modern Europe\u2014\n\n\u201c2 mana 13 shekels of silver, the price of the king\u2019s water, which is from\nB\u00eal-\u00e2bla-iddina, the overseer of(134) K\u00ee-B\u00eal, the chief man of the king\u2019s\nwater, has been brought by the hands of \u0160ama\u0161-kain-\u00e2bli, son of Balatu.\n\n\u201cFrom the amount, 2 mana of silver have been given for 80 measures (?) of\noil to Nab\u00fb-u\u1e63ur-\u0161u, son of Dummuq, descendant of Ga\u1e2bal, in the presence\nof Kalb\u00e2, the secretary. 13 shekels of silver are in the treasury.\n\n\u201cSilver, 2 mana, is with Nab\u00fb-d\u00fbr-p\u00e2ni\u00e2. Of the amount, 4 shekels of\nsilver have been paid for 2 _parrum_(135)-stones, which were given to\nA\u0161\u0161ur-r\u00eemananni, son of Nab\u00fb-bala\u1e6d-su-iqb\u00ee.\n\n\u201cMonth later Adar, day 27th, year 6th, Nab\u00fb-na\u2019id, king of Babylon.\u201d\n\nAnother tablet, dated in Nabonidus\u2019s accession year, indicates that the\ntemple supplied water, for a fixed sum, to a part of Sippar called \u201cthe\ncity of the Sun.\u201d\n\nFrom other tablets we obtain also information about the family of\nNabonidus. Most of them, as is to be expected, refer to Belshazzar, the\nheir to the throne, who is conjectured to have been the second ruler in\nthe kingdom, thus explaining how it was that the position of \u201cthird ruler\nin the kingdom\u201d could be offered to the Prophet Daniel. Like the other\nrulers of Babylonia, Nabonidus had granted to Belshazzar, or at least\npermitted him to occupy, a separate house, which was situated within\nBabylon, beside the house of Marduk-\u00eeriba, son of R\u00eamut, descendant of\nMi\u1e63r\u00e2a. From the inscription referring to this which has come down to us,\nit may be conjectured that Marduk-\u00eeriba was a minor, and his sister,\nBau-\u00ea\u1e6dirat, therefore acted for him. B\u00eal-r\u00ea\u1e63\u016ba, servant of Belshazzar,\napproached her and succeeded in acquiring her brother\u2019s land for 45\nshekels of silver, which was duly paid to Marduk-\u00eeriba. Though it is not\nstated, this transaction probably took place on behalf of Belshazzar, who\nwished to add to his possessions, and as it is dated in the month Adar, in\nthe 1st year of Nabonidus, it would seem that he decided to enlarge the\ndomain he was entitled to as crown prince shortly after he found himself\noccupying that position.\n\nAnother tablet referring to Belshazzar is a contract drawn up for one of\nhis secretaries (on the one hand), by which he obtained the occupation of\na house in exchange for a loan of silver\u2014a common arrangement in those\ndays in Babylonia. The following translation will enable the reader to see\nthe terms of this, the type of a numerous series of documents\u2014\n\n\u201cThe house of Nab\u00fb-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iddina, son of \u0160ul\u00e1, descendant of \u00cagibi, which is\nbeside the house of B\u00eal-iddina, son of R\u00eamut, descendant of the _dik\u00fb_,\n(is granted) for 3 years to Nab\u00fb-kain-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ee, secretary of B\u00eal-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur,\nthe son of the king, for 1-\u00bd mana of silver. He has let (it) upon (the\ncondition that) \u2018there is no rent for the house, and no interest for the\nmoney.\u2019 He shall repair the woodwork and renew the dilapidation of the\nhouse. After 3 years, the silver, 1-\u00bd mana, Nab\u00fb-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iddina shall (re)pay\nto Nab\u00fb-kain-\u00e2\u1e2bi, and Nab\u00fb-kain-\u00e2\u1e2bi shall leave the house in the\npossession of Nab\u00fb-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iddina.\u201d\n\nHere follow the names of three witnesses and the scribe, after which comes\nthe date: \u201cBabylon, month Nisan, day 21st, year 5th, Nab\u00fb-na\u2019id, king of\nBabylon.\u201d\n\nAs the 1-\u00bd mana of silver would have brought in 18 shekels at the usual\nrate of interest, that sum may be taken as representing the rent of the\nhouse in question.\n\nAnother inscription, dated two years later, shows that Nab\u00fb-kain-\u00e2\u1e2bi,\nBelshazzar\u2019s secretary, borrowed 35 shekels of silver from\nNab\u00fb-\u1e63abit-q\u00e2t\u00e2, that prince\u2019s major-domo, to purchase a slave, and that\nthe loan was duly repaid. The curious thing in connection with this\ntransaction is, that the money advanced is stated to be \u201ctithe of B\u00eal,\nNebo, Nergal, and the lady (_i.e._ I\u0161tar) of Erech,\u201d implying that\nNab\u00fb-\u1e63abit-q\u00e2t\u00e2 was entitled to certain sums from this source, or else\nthat he had control of them, and could advance money to others therefrom.\nInformation concerning all the items of income and expenditure of the\ntemples would probably furnish interesting reading, showing, as it should,\nwho were the people who benefited from the funds available, and upon what\ngrounds.\n\nIt is noteworthy that, in these inscriptions referring to transactions\nbetween the members of Belshazzar\u2019s household, no interest seems to have\nbeen charged on the loans granted; and if this was really so, it indicates\na considerable amount of loyalty among these men towards each\nother\u2014indeed, it is doubtful if it could be surpassed at the present day.\n\nStrangest of all these contracts in which Belshazzar is mentioned, is\nprobably that in which the prince himself seems to appear as one of the\ncontracting parties\u2014as a dealer in clothes. As it is the only one\nreferring to him thus, a translation of the inscription in question is\nhere given in full\u2014\n\n\u201c20 mana of silver, the price of the garments(136) (which were) the\nproperty of B\u00eal-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur, the son of the king, which (are due), through\nNab\u00fb-\u1e63abit-q\u00e2t\u00e2, chief of the house of B\u00eal-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur, the son of the\nking, and the secretaries of the son of the king, from Iddina-Marduk, son\nof Ik\u00ee\u0161\u0101, descendant of N\u00fbr-Sin. In the month Adar of the 1(1th) year, the\nsilver, 20 mana, he shall pay. His house, which is beside the\n(plantation?), his slave, and his property in town and country, all there\nis, is the security of B\u00eal-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur, the son of the king, until\nB\u00eal-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur receives his money. (For) the silver, as much as (from the\nsum) is withheld, interest he shall pay.\n\n\u201cWitnesses: B\u00eal-iddina, son of R\u00eamut, descendant of the _dik\u00fb_; \u00catel-p\u00ee,\nson of ..., descendant of \u2018the father of the house\u2019; Nadin, son of\nNarduk-\u0161um-u\u1e63ur, descendant of the master-builder; Nergal-u\u0161allim, son of\nMarduk-..., descendant of Ga\u1e2bal; Marduk-na\u1e63ir, son of Kur-..., descendant\nof Dabibu; and the scribe, B\u00eal-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-ik\u00ee\u0161a, son of Nab\u00fb-balat-su-iqb\u00ee.\nBabylon, month ..., day 20th, year 11th, Nab\u00fb-na\u2019id, king of Babylon.\u201d\n\nBut Belshazzar did not confine himself to dealing in woollen stuffs or\nclothes, as many another inscription indicates. This was but an\nunimportant incident in his life which chance has preserved to us, and how\nfar the transaction may have taken place with (or without) his own\nknowledge, it is impossible to say. For a considerable time, however, he\nwas with the army in Akkad, and whilst there, he interested himself\ngreatly in the welfare of the temples at Sippar, making donations to them,\nnot only on his own behalf, but also for his father. Thus, on the 11th of\nIyyar, in the 9th year of his father\u2019s reign, he gave to the god \u0160ama\u0161 a\ntongue of gold weighing one mana; and on the 7th of Adar of the same year\nhe gave two full-grown oxen for sacrifice (his father gave one on that\noccasion), together with fourteen sheep, and in addition other sacrifices\nwere made on his and his father\u2019s behalf in the temple of the goddess\nAnnunitum. The following little inscription, being rather out of the\ncommon, is probably above the average in the matter of interest\u2014\n\n\u201c1 shekel and a quarter of silver for the hire of a ship for 3 oxen and 24\nsheep, the sacrifices of the king\u2019s son, which went in the month Nisan for\n\u0160ama\u0161 and the gods of Sippar.\n\n\u201cIn the presence of B\u00eal-\u0161arra-bulli\u1e6d, who has given the offerings of the\nking to \u0160ama\u0161-iddina and Dannu-\u00c2ddu. He has given 60 _qa_ of fruit as\ntheir offerings. Month Nisan, day 9th, year 10th, Nab\u00fb-na\u2019id, king of\nBabylon.\u201d\n\nSeemingly Belshazzar sent the sheep and oxen from his estate to Sippar by\nwater.\n\nInteresting to an equal degree is likewise the inscription recording a\ngift made by his sister\u2014\n\n\u201c27 shekels of silver is the weight of one cup, tithe of\nIna-\u00ca-sagila-r\u00eamat, the daughter of the king. By the hands of\nB\u00eal-\u0161arra-(bulli\u1e6d), as a king\u2019s offering, she has given (it) to the\ngod.... The cup is in the treasure-house.\n\n\u201cMonth Ab, day 5th, year 17th, (Nab\u00fb-na\u2019id) king of Babylon.\u201d\n\nThough this inscription is defective in places, there is every probability\nthat little or nothing more than the name of the god is wanting. The name\nof B\u00eal-\u0161arra-(bulli\u1e6d) shows that the inscription must belong to the time\nof Nabonidus, and, in fact, the initial wedges of his name are visible.\n\nThe name of a second daughter of Nabonidus seems to appear in another\ninscription from Sippar, though, as it is rather carelessly written, this\nis doubtful. Notwithstanding the uncertainty attending the name, however,\nthe inscription is worth quoting in full\u2014\n\n\u201c3 _gur_ 75 _qa_ of sesame Ukabu\u2019sama (?), daughter of the king, has sold,\nthrough Tattanu, for silver, to \u00ca-babbara. The silver has not been\nreceived.\n\n\u201cMonth Ab, day 7th, year 16th, Nab\u00fb-na\u2019id, king of Babylon.\u201d\n\nWith this we take leave of Nabonidus and his family, as revealed by the\ncontracts and temple accounts from Babylon and Sippar. The picture these\nand the historical inscriptions give of the Babylonian royal family is not\naltogether unpleasing, and that this king, with his son, were the last\nrulers of their race, is greatly to be regretted. But, alas, they had\noffended the priesthood of Babylon, and all the people accepted, without a\nmurmur, the alien ruler, of a differing faith from theirs, who presented\nhimself, in hostile array, at their doors. It was the beginning of the end\nof their life as a nation, and who shall say that they did not deserve it?\nIf they had made even a show of resistance, the world could hold them\nexcused, but this was not the case, as their own records show, and\nwhatever Nabonidus\u2019s faults may have been, they do not attain to the\nculpability of the nation, which, instead of protecting him\u2014if for no\nother reason, it ought to have done this for his son\u2019s sake\u2014practically\nbetrayed him to the enemy.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\n\nSo far, in depicting the life which the Jews, during the Captivity, must\ndaily have seen around them, we have given the tablets whereon the court\nand its officials are referred to, and though these reveal certain phases\nof life in Babylonia among the people, typical of the time, they can\nhardly be held to show the life _of_ the people\u2014those engaged in the\nlife-struggle of which every great city is the battlefield, and has been\nthe battlefield since the first gathering of large bodies of men in one\nplace.\n\nWho among us can estimate the misery caused by the tearing away of the\nslave from the home of the master with whom he had for many years dwelt in\ncontent?\u2014it must have far outweighed the few cases in which a slave in\nthose days benefited by such a change. That the loss of his slaves was\nsometimes also a wrench to the owner is indicated by the fact that he is\ngenerally\u2014if not always\u2014made to say, that he parts with them cheerfully.\nHe had to admit this for the satisfaction of the buyer, who naturally\nfeared that the old master would return and ask for the contract to be\nannulled, saying that it was all a mistake on his part\u2014he did not really\nwish to get rid of them, and would like to have them back again.\n\nNaturally the tablets do not reveal to us all this, nor the joys and\nsorrows, the successes and the failures, which those great cities of the\nancient East must have contained. But they allow us to guess a great deal.\nDid the man ever get the money back which he had lent? Did he receive the\nmoney for the things he had sold and given credit for? These and other\nsimilar questions are always occurring to the student of these documents,\nwhich reveal always the grave side of life in that ancient land\u2014never the\ngay side\u2014even a wedding, being a contract, was a thing much too serious to\nallow its joyful nature to shine through at any point.\n\nAs the documents which best represent the character of the Babylonians are\nthe letters, it has been thought well to begin (as in the case of the\nchapter upon the earlier Babylonians) with a few specimens of these, and\nin the forefront the following may be cited as not unworthy of a prominent\nplace\u2014\n\n\u201cTablet of Nab\u00fb-z\u0113r-ibn\u00ee to Ugar\u00e2, Bala\u1e6du, Nab\u00fb-b\u00eal-\u0161um\u0101ti, and\n\u0160ama\u0161-udammiq, his brothers.\n\n\u201cNow to B\u00eal and Nebo for the preservation of the life of my brothers I\npray.\n\n\u201cB\u00eal-epu\u0161, who is along with you, is my brother. Whoever speaks his evil\nwords, as my brothers wish, let him be silent. As for him, from the\nbeginning to the end, brothers of each other are we. As warning to my\nbrothers I send this. Let my brothers do what is right. I should like to\nsee an answer (to this) letter from my brothers.\u201d\n\nWhether we are to substitute \u201cfriend\u201d and \u201cfriends\u201d for \u201cbrother\u201d and\n\u201cbrothers\u201d is uncertain, but is very probable. In any case, the writer\nwould seem to show considerable courage in the course he was taking, as\nwell as confidence in the righteousness of his cause.\n\nThe following is apparently the letter of a father in poverty to his more\nsuccessful son\u2014\n\n\u201c(Letter of) Iddina-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00e2 (to) R\u00eam\u016bt, his son.\n\n\u201cMay (B\u00eal) and Nebo bespeak peace and life for my son.\n\n\u201cHe, my son, knoweth that there is no corn in the house. Let my son cause\n2 or 3 _gur_ of corn to be brought by the hands of some one whom thou\nknowest. Wilt thou not send by the hands of the boatman whom thou\nindicatedst? As for him, (he is coming?) to me\u2014send a gift, cause it to go\nforth to (thy) father. To-day I pray B\u00eal and Nebo for the preservation of\nthe life of my son. R\u00eamat asks after the peace of R\u00eam\u016bt, her son.\u201d\n\nThe change from the third person to the second is noteworthy, and may have\nbeen caused by the necessity of distinguishing between the son and the\nmessenger to whom the writer referred. R\u00eamat was evidently the writer\u2019s\nwife.\n\nThe following is a letter of a different nature, and leads to speculations\nas to the state of things\u2014\n\n\u201cLetter of Marduk-z\u0113r-ibn\u00ee to \u0160ul\u00e2 his brother.\n\n\u201cMay B\u00eal and Nebo bespeak the peace of my brother.\n\n\u201cWhy dost thou destroy my house? thou goest before the destruction of\nthine (own) house. When thou hadst taken the responsibility of holding the\nfield, my field was sold, and the date-palms which I grow have been\ndestroyed. And thou (remainest) contented in thy house!(137) Now (as for)\nthe corn which I have planted in my field, thou (always) takest the whole.\nI am now sending to my lord: Come, enter my field, and give me my\nharvests. Behold, the corn which has been got ready thou (always)\ndeliverest: Ik\u00ee\u0161\u0101 and Nab\u00fb-\u00e2\u1e2ba-iddina, if they wish, can take it. Speak to\nthe judges about it.\u201d\n\nApparently the writer of the letter was vexed because his friend (and\nlord) had not fulfilled his undertaking to look after his interests.\n\nLetters of a business nature are not unfrequent, and are generally dry and\nuninteresting. The character of the inscriptions of this class which least\nexhibit these defects may be gathered from the following text, which also\nhas an interest because the sender was a slave. The original belongs to\nthe collection of tablets acquired by the late Sir Cuthbert Peek for his\nfather, the late Sir Henry Peek:\u2014\n\n\u201cLetter from D\u00e2an-b\u00eal-u\u1e63ur to \u0160irku, my lord. I pray to-day to B\u00eal and\nNebo for the preservation of the life of my lord.\n\n\u201cConcerning the lambs which my lord sent, B\u00eal and Nebo indeed know that\nthere is a lamb (for them) from thee. I have made the irrigation-channel\nand the wall. Behold, send thy servant with the sheep and thy servant with\nthe lambs, and a command that they may cause a sheep to be brought up as\nan offering (?) to Nebo (?), for I have not acquired a single lamb for\nmoney. (On) the 20th day I worked for \u0160ama\u0161; lo, (there were) 56\u2014I caused\n20 head to be bought for my lord from his hand. (As for) the garlic for\nthe governor, which my lord bought, the lord of the fields (? the chief\noverseer), when he came, took possession of (it), and it was sold to the\ngovernor of the district of our fields for silver, but enough (?) thereof\nI have retained (?); and as my lord said thus: \u2018Why hast thou not sent the\nmessenger? the ground is suitable (?)\u2014I sent thee a number (?) of (them).\u2019\nLet one messenger take thy message (?), and depart.\u201d\n\nPortions of this inscription, especially towards the end, being very\nobscure, the translation is not so sure as could be wished. Nevertheless,\nit may be taken as indicating fairly well the drift of the whole, and thus\nanswer the purpose for which it is given, namely, to show what texts of\nthis class generally refer to, and how excellently they reveal to us the\nconditions of Babylonian life at the time when they were written.\n\nThis tablet belongs to the reign of Darius Hystaspis, and is addressed to\none of the most prominent men of Babylon at the time, \u0160irku, otherwise\n\u201cMarduk-na\u1e63ir-\u00e2blu, son of Iddin\u0101, descendant of \u00cagibi.\u201d(138) He was an\nactive man, and his business transactions, which begin, as far as we have\nrecord of them, in the third year of the king named, consist of the usual\nloans, exchanges, purchases, sales, agreements, etc., which exist in large\nnumbers during this period. In the third year of Darius he seems to have\nbeen in Elam, perhaps upon business of state, the name of a high\nBabylonian official being mentioned on the tablet which records this fact.\nLater on, he comes before us as a large owner and dealer in ships, some of\nwhich, of small size, he seems to have used for the construction of a\nbridge of boats. He owned D\u00e2an-b\u00eal-u\u1e63ur, the writer of the tablet\ntranslated above, Nanaa-b\u00eal-u\u1e63ri, his wife, and their six children, who\ndwelt on his property in the city of \u0160uppatum. On one occasion, as\nrecorded on a tablet in the Louvre, they formed part of the security for a\nsum of 45 mana of silver, advanced by \u0160irku to \u0160arru-d\u00fbri, \u201cthe king\u2019s\ncaptain, son of Idra\u2019.\u201d Further references to both master and slave will\nbe found farther on.\n\nAs the tablets referring to life at Babylon are exceedingly numerous, and\nmany of them have special interesting points of their own, a few selected\nspecimens are here translated, and may be regarded as characteristic and\ntypical in their class and subject.\n\n\n\nA Loan Granted On Security At Erech.\n\n\n\u201cOne mana of silver of Nab\u00fb-ban\u00ee-\u00e2\u1e2bi, son of Ablaa, son of the gatekeeper,\nunto B\u00e2b\u00eea, son of Marduk-\u00eare\u0161, and \u0160a-Nanaa-\u0161\u00ee, his wife. The door of the\ngatekeepers of the Salimu-gate, and his property, of (both) town and\ncountry, all there is, are the security of Nab\u00fb-ban\u00ee-\u00e2\u1e2bi.\n\n\u201cWitnesses: B\u00eal-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iddina, son of Gudad\u016b; Nab\u00fb-z\u0113r-ukin, son of Sum\u00e2;\nNab\u00fb-z\u0113r-ik\u00ee\u0161a, son of Ginn\u00e2; and the scribe Mu\u0161\u00eazib-B\u00eal, son of\nNanaa-t\u00eare\u0161. Erech, month Tisri, day 15th, year 21st, Nab\u00fb-kudurri-usur,\nking of Babylon.\u201d\n\nIn all probability, the possession of the door carried with it the right\nof receiving any toll or dues connected therewith. As Nab\u00fb-ban\u00ee-\u00e2hi, the\nlender, belonged to the family or clan of gatekeepers, he would not be\nregarded altogether as an interloper. The name of one of the borrowers,\nB\u00e2b\u00eea, \u201cmy gate,\u201d is suggestive, and shows the enthusiasm of his parents\nfor their profession.\n\n\n\nThe Work Upon A Plantation.\n\n\n\u201c144 _qa_ (is the amount needed for) the seeding of the plantation of\nNab\u00fb-\u0161um-l\u00ee\u0161ir, which Nab\u00fb-\u0161ar-\u00eel\u0101ni has taken for cultivation.(139)\n(During) 4 years, everything, whatever grows on the date-palms and in the\nearth, belongs to Nab\u00fb-\u0161ar-\u00eel\u0101ni; (during the succeeding 4 ?) years a\nthird, and 4 years (after that) a fourth. Nab\u00fb-\u0161um-l\u00ee\u0161ir with\nNab\u00fb-\u0161ar-\u00eel\u0101ni (?) ... 10 years Nab\u00fb-\u0161ar-\u00eel\u0101ni ... gardener of\nNab\u00fb-\u0161um-l\u00ee\u0161ir ... everything, whatever (gro)ws in the earth, belongs to\nNab\u00fb-\u0161ar-\u00eel\u0101ni.\n\n\u201c(The duty) of doing the work, digging (the irrigation-channels), raising\n(?) embankments (?), protecting the plantation, restoring what is wanting\nof the date-palms, raising water, Nab\u00fb-\u0161ar-\u00eel\u0101ni undertakes. (If) he\ncontravene (this contract), he shall compensate (to the extent of) 1 mana\nof silver.\u201d\n\nHere follow the names of three witnesses and the scribe, the date being\u2014\n\n\u201cCity of S\u00fbq\u00e2ain, month Elul, day 26th, year 11th, Nab\u00fb-kudurri-u\u1e63ur, king\nof Babylon.\u201d\n\n\n\nSale Of An Ass.\n\n\n\u201cThe ass of \u00c2rad-Meme, son of Gimillu, descendant of \u00cape\u0161-ili, he (the\nowner) has sold to \u0160ubabu-sara\u2019, son of Temi\u0161\u00e2a, for half a mana six and a\nhalf shekels of silver. \u00catillu, son of R\u00eamut, descendant of Dabibi (and)\nNergal-iddina, son of D\u00e2anu-Marduk, descendant of Lugal-araz\u016b, guarantee\nthe serviceableness of the ass. It is a branded ass, upon whose front is a\nmark.\u201d\n\nHere come the names of three witnesses and the scribe, followed by the\ndate\u2014\n\n\u201cCity of the land of \u1e62uma\u2019, (or \u1e62uba\u2019), month Tammuz, day 16th, year 40th,\nNab\u00fb-kudurri-u\u1e63ur, king of Babylon.\u201d\n\nFrom a tablet in the Edinburgh Museum it would seem that asses were\nbranded to distinguish them, and that, in place of a mere mark, the name\nof the owner was somehow impressed. Cattle were marked with the letters of\nthe Aramaic alphabet.\n\n\n\nJews And Babylonians During The Captivity.\n\n\n\u201cWhen Nab\u00fb-na\u2019id, son of Nab\u00fb-gamil, brings his witness, and proves to\nA\u00e2\u1e2b\u1e2ba\u2019u, son of \u0160an\u00ee\u0101wa, that Nab\u00fb-na\u2019id has given the proceeds of 2-\u00bd\nmana of silver to A\u00e2\u1e2b\u1e2ba\u2019u and Baru\u1e2bi-\u00eelu, (then) the profit which has been\nmade with them (the 2-\u00bd mana) belongs to Nab\u00fb-na\u2019id, and all right to the\nshare which belongs to him remains\u2014one do. (? share) (belongs to) A\u00e2\u1e2b\u1e2ba\u2019u.\nIf the witness do not prove it, his property, as much as Nab\u00fb-na\u2019id has\ntaken, one do. (? share) he will return and will give to A\u00e2\u1e2b\u1e2ba\u2019u.\n\n\u201cWitnesses: Iddina-Marduk, son of Akk\u00eea, Ya\u0161um-ma, son of \u00c2\u1e2b\u00ea-\u0161u;\nBala\u1e6d-su, son of \u00c2\u1e2b\u00ea-\u0161u, and the scribe, Nab\u00fb-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iddina, son of \u00cagibi.\nUp\u00ea (Opis), month Tammuz, day 21st, year 40th, Nab\u00fb-kudurri-u\u1e63ur, king of\nBabylon.\u201d\n\nApparently it was a dispute about profits, which was to be settled, as was\nusual in such cases, by producing a witness. \u0160an\u00ee\u0101wa is one of those names\nending in _i\u0101wa_ which were certainly not Babylonian, and which are\ngenerally regarded as Israelite, like \u0160ubunu-y\u0101wa = Shebaniah;\nNathanu-y\u0101wa = Nathaniah, and many others; and its later form would\nprobably be Shaniah. Baru\u1e2bi-\u00eelu is probably for Baruchiel, and, if so,\nwould show that the pronunciation of the aspirated _k (ch)_ as _\u1e2b (kh)_,\ncommon among Jews on the Continent and in the East, is of very ancient\ndate.\n\n\n\nThe Dead Slave.\n\n\n\u201cOn the 5th day of the month Kisleu, \u0160arru-k\u00eenu, son of Ammanu, will bring\nhis witness to the city Piqudu (Pekod), and he will testify to Idi\u1e2bi-\u00eeli,\nson of D\u00een\u00e2, that Idi\u1e2bi-\u00eeli sent to \u0160arru-k\u00eenu thus: \u2018Do not litigate\nagainst me concerning thy slave who was killed\u2014I will make up to thee the\nlife of thy slave.\u2019 If he prove it, Idi\u1e2bi-\u00eeli shall pay to \u0160arru-k\u00eenu 1\nmana of silver, the price of his slave. If he do not prove it (he is\nfree).\u201d\n\nAfter the names of three witnesses and the scribe, is the date\u2014\n\n\u201cUp\u00ea, month Marcheswan, day 7th, year 40th, Nab\u00fb-kudurri-u\u1e63ur, king of\nBabylon.\u201d\n\n\n\nA Right Of Way.\n\n\n\u201cMarduk-iriba, son of R\u00eamut, descendant of the Mi\u1e63irite,(140) and Kalb\u00e2,\nson of Bala\u1e6du, descendant of the chief of the construction (?), in their\ngoing forth, shall go forth over the brook; they have no power over the\nexit of the wall of the house of Nab\u00fb-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iddina, son of \u0160ul\u00e2, descendant\nof \u00cagibi; the exit of the wall of the house of Nab\u00fb-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iddina belongs to\nNab\u00fb-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iddina.\u201d\n\nHere come the names of five witnesses, including the scribe, and then the\ndate\u2014\n\n\u201cBabylon, month of the later Adar, day 24th, year 1st, Nab\u00fb-na\u2019id,(141)\nking of Babylon.\u201d\n\n\n\nThe Story Of Abil-Addu-Nathanu And Bunanitum.\n\n\nThis is contained, as far as it is preserved, on a series of five tablets,\nfour of which are in the British Museum, and the fifth in the Museum of\nArt at New York. Abil-Addu-nath\u0101nu would seem, from his name, which would\nbe the West-Semitic Ben-Hadad-nathan, to have come from Damascus, and\nsettled at Babylon, and afterwards at Borsippa. His wife Bunanitum (or\nBunanith) was to all appearance a Babylonian.\n\n\n\nThe Purchase Of The House At Borsippa.\n\n\n\u201c7 canes, 5 cubits, 18 fingers, a built house, the territory of a\nplantation(142) which is within Borsippa, which D\u00e2an-\u0161um-iddina, son of\nZ\u0113r\u00eea, descendant of Nab\u00e2a, has bought from Ib\u00e2, son of Zill\u00e2, descendant\nof the carpenter, for 11-\u00bd mana of silver, for the price complete, by the\nauthority of Abil-Addu-nath\u0101nu, son of Add\u00eea, and Bunanitu, his wife,\ndaughter of \u1e2aari\u1e63\u00e2a. That house he has received, the silver of\nAbil-Addu-nath\u0101nu and Bunanitu as the price of the house has been given.\nD\u00e2an-\u0161um-iddina has no share in the house or the silver. The tablet which\nD\u00e2an-\u0161um-iddina has sealed in his name, he has given to Abil-Addu-nath\u0101nu\nand Bunanitu. The day a copy of the sealed document of the purchase or any\ncontract for that house appears in the house of D\u00e2an-\u0161um-iddina or in any\nother place, it belongs to Abil-Addu-nath\u0101nu and Bunanitu.\u201d\n\nHere follow the names of four witnesses and two scribes. The date is\u2014\n\n\u201cBabylon, month Shebat, day 24th, year 2nd, Nab\u00fb-na\u2019id, king of Babylon.\u201d\n\nThe agent through whom the purchase was made has to declare that no part\nof the property or the money belonged to him, hence the final clause of\nthe contract, which was intended to prevent trouble at any future time.\n\nAt the end are the seal-impressions of the two scribes.\n\n\n\nThe Loan To Make Up The Sum Required To Purchase The Property.\n\n\n\u201c1-\u00bd mana 8-\u00bd shekels of silver of Iddina-Marduk, son of Ik\u00ee\u0161\u0101, descendant\nof N\u00fbr-Sin, upon (= due from) Abil-Addu-nath\u0101nu, son of Add\u00eea, and\nBunanitu, his wife. It increases to them monthly at the rate of 1 shekel\nof silver upon each mana. They shall pay the interest from the month Sivan\nof the 5th year of Nab\u00fb-na\u2019id, king of Babylon. The silver was the balance\nof the silver for the price of a house, which was paid to Ib\u00e2. They shall\npay the interest monthly.\u201d\n\nAfter the names of two witnesses and the scribe comes the date\u2014\n\n\u201cBarsip (Borsippa), month Iyyar, day 3rd, year 5th, Nab\u00fb-na\u2019id, king of\nBabylon.\u201d\n\nAs this tablet was written two years and three months after the house at\nBorsippa was bought, it is clear that the money had been advanced, but the\nindebtedness of Abil-Addu-nath\u0101nu had not been placed, until the date of\nthe second tablet, on a legal footing. Probably he intended to pay the\nmoney, but had not the wherewithal, and this being the case, the lender\nagreed to allow the debt to remain unpaid, stipulating only that the\ninterest should be paid at the usual rate of one mana upon every mana\nmonthly. As will be seen from the other documents, the principal was not\npaid for many years after this. There is no record whether any payment of\ninterest had been made in the meanwhile, but, in any case, the rate is far\nbeyond what at the present time is considered fair.\n\n\n\nA First Payment Made After The Death Of Abil-Addu-Nath\u0101nu.\n\n\nThis is a small tablet similar in shape to the last, and is now preserved\nin the Museum of Art at New York.\n\n\u201c8 shekels of silver Iddina-Marduk, son of Ik\u00ee\u0161\u0101, descendant of N\u00fbr-Sin,\nhas received from the hands of Bunanitu, with the first payment, which\n(has been made) since the death of Ablada-nathanu, her husband, from the\ninterest of his money. In the presence of Tabn\u00eaa, son of Nab\u016b-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iddina,\ndescendant of the priest of ...; Nab\u00fb-kain-\u00e2bli, son of Marduk-\u0161um-ibn\u00ee,\ndescendant of Dannu-Nab\u00fb. Barsip (Borsippa), month Adar, day 18th, year\n8th, Nab\u00fb-na\u2019id, king of Babylon.\n\n\u201cThere is to be no abatement (?).\u201d\n\nAs the loan was contracted in the second year of Nabonidus, it cannot be\nsaid that Iddina-Marduk had been by any means pressing in the matter. The\nnumerous documents which exist show that the Babylonians were good at\nmaking contracts, but they were probably not so strict in keeping them,\nand certainly not so merciless (to judge from the history here unfolded)\nas the people of the modern West in enforcing them.\n\nThe phonetic spelling of the name of the husband, Ablada-nath\u0101nu, is\ninteresting, as it shows the Babylonian pronunciation. Ben-Addu-nathan,\nhowever, was a possible form, and may have been even a fairly common one.\n\n\n\nThe Legal Action After The Death Of Abil-Addu-Nath\u0101nu.\n\n\n\u201cBunanitu, daughter of \u1e2aari\u1e63\u00e2a, said thus to the judges of Nab\u00fb-na\u2019id,\nking of Babylon\u2014\n\n\u201c \u2018Abil-Addu-nath\u0101n, son of Nikmadu\u2019, had me to wife, and he took 3-\u00bd mana\nof silver as my dowry, and one daughter I bore to him. I and\nAbil-Addu-nath\u0101n, my husband, traded with the silver of my dowry, and we\nbought 8 canes, a built house, the territory of a large property,(143)\nwhich was within Barsip, for 9-2/3 of a mana of silver, with 2-\u00bd mana of\nsilver which was from Iddina-Marduk, son of Ik\u00ee\u0161\u0101, descendant of N\u00fbr-Sin,\nas balance, and we fixed (it) as the price of that house, and we paid and\nreceived it together. In the 4th year of Nab\u00fb-na\u2019id, king of Babylon, I\nmade an agreement with Abil-Addu-nath\u0101n, my husband, concerning my dowry,\nand Abil-Addu-nath\u0101n, in the kindness of his heart, sealed the 8 canes,\n(and) that house which is within Barsip, and bequeathed it to me for\nfuture days, and on my tablet made it known thus: \u20182-\u00bd mana of silver,\nwhich Abil-Addu-nath\u0101n and Bunanitu took from Iddina-Marduk, and paid as\nthe price of that house, they received together.\u2019 He sealed that tablet,\nand wrote thereon the curse of the great gods. In the 5th year of\nNab\u00fb-na\u2019id, king of Babylon, I and Abil-Addu-nath\u0101n, my husband, took\nAbil-Addu-amara as our son, and wrote the tablet of his sonship, and made\nknown 2 mana 10 shekels of silver and the furniture of a house as the\ndowry of N\u00fbbt\u00e2, my daughter. Fate took my husband, and now Aqabi-\u00eelu, the\nson of my father-in-law, has laid claim upon the house and everything\nwhich had been sealed and bequeathed to me, and upon Nab\u00fb-n\u00fbr-\u00eeli, (the\nslave) whom we had acquired by the hands of Nab\u00fb-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iddina for silver. I\nhave brought it before you, make a decision.\n\n\u201cThe judges heard their words, they read the tablets and contracts which\nBunanitu brought before them, and they caused Aqabi-\u00eelu not to have power\nover the house at Barsip, which had been bequeathed to Bunanitu instead of\nher dowry, over Nab\u00fb-n\u00fbr-\u00eeli, whom she and her husband had bought for\nsilver, or over anything of Abil-Addu-nath\u0101nu; Bunanitu and\nAbil-Addu-amara, by their tablets, they caused to be confirmed.\nIddina-Marduk pleads for (?), and will receive, the 2-\u00bd mana of silver\nwhich had been given towards the price of that house. Afterwards Bunanitu\nwill receive the 3-\u00bd mana of silver, her dowry, and her share besides.\nN\u00fbbt\u00e2 will receive Nab\u00fb-n\u00fbr-\u00eeli, according to the contracts of her father.\n\n\u201cBy the decision of this judgment.\n\n\u201cNergal-ban\u00fb-nu, the judge, son of the builder;\n\u201cNab\u00fb-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iddina, the judge, son of \u00cagibi;\n\u201cNab\u00fb-\u0161um-uk\u00een, the judge, son of Irani;\n\u201cB\u00eal-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iddina, the judge, son of ...\n\u201cB\u00eal-\u00ea\u1e6dir, the judge, son of ...\n\u201cNab\u00fb-bala\u1e6d-su-iqb\u00ee, the judge, son of ...\n\u201cNadinu, the scribe, son of ...\n\u201cNab\u00fb-\u0161um-i\u0161kun, the scribe, son of the ...\n\u201cBabylon, month Elul, day 26th, year 9th, Nab\u00fbna\u2019id, king of Babylon.\u201d\n\nTwo copies of this document exist, neither of them being the original.\nThey were probably made for persons interested in the result of the\njudgment.\n\nIt has been suggested that the claim of Aqabi-\u00eelu to all his brother\u2019s\nproperty was based upon the fact that he was the eldest of the family.\nThis, however, is hardly likely to have been the case, the Babylonian law\nconcerning the wife\u2019s dowry\u2014_i.e._ that it was her own in any event\u2014being\nclear and incontrovertible. The probability therefore is, that he claimed\nthe property hoping that she might not be able to prove her right. The\nclear statements of this document, and the common-sense judgment delivered\nby Nabonidus\u2019s judges are full of simplicity and dignity, and show well\nthe Babylonian character.\n\n\n\nThe Final Repayment Of The Loan To Iddina-Marduk.\n\n\nA tablet recording the payment of interest has already been translated (p.\n461), and from that it would seem that no repayment on account of the\nmoney lent to Abil-Addu-nath\u0101nu and Bunanitu took place until after the\nformer\u2019s death. When the last payment was made is unknown, but it must\nhave been some time after the lawsuit. From the portion of the tablet\nrecording it, it would seem that the amount remaining to be paid was 2\nmana and 10 shekels, which was paid jointly by Abil-Addu-amari and\n\u201cBunaniti, his mother,\u201d who probably lived on the property with him and\nher daughter.\n\nThus ends the life-story of this Babylonian family, as far as at present\nknown.\n\nIn addition to the names Abil-addu-nath\u0101nu and Abil-Addu-amara (or\n-amari), both of which contain the name of the deity Abil-Addu or\nBen-Hadad, the name of the brother, Aqabi-\u00eelu, is interesting. It is\nnaturally a synonym of a Hebrew name found under the form of Aqabi-y\u0101wa,\nthe Talmudic Aqabiah, with _-y\u0101wa_ or _-i\u0101wa_ for _-iah_, as in \u0160an\u00ee\u0101wa,\nwhich appears on p. 458.\n\n\n\n\u00ca-Sagila-R\u00e2mat And Her Father-In-Law\u2019s Slave.\n\n\n\u201cIk\u00ee\u0161\u0101, son of Kudurru, descendant of N\u00fbr-Sin, sealed a tablet of adoption\nfor R\u00eamanni-B\u00eal, his slave, whose name is called R\u00eamut, for the giving of\nhis food and his clothing. R\u00eamanni-B\u00eal, whose name is called R\u00eamut, after\nhe had sealed the tablet of his adoption, ran away, and he did not give\nhim food, oil, and clothing. \u00ca-sagila-r\u00e2mat, daughter of Z\u0113r\u00eea, descendant\nof Nab\u00e2a, wife of Iddina-Marduk, son of Ik\u00ee\u0161\u0101, descendant of N\u00fbr-Sin,\nreverenced him, feared him, and befriended him, and gave him food, oil,\nand clothing. Ik\u00ee\u0161\u0101, son of Kudurru, descendant of N\u00fbr-Sin, in the joy of\nhis heart, annulled the tablet of the adoption of R\u00eamanni-B\u00eal, and sealed\nand bequeathed him to \u00ca-sagila-r\u00e2mat and N\u00fbbt\u00e2, her daughter, daughter of\nIddina-Marduk, descendant of N\u00fbr-Sin. He shall reverence \u00ca-sagila-r\u00e2mat\nand N\u00fbbt\u00e2, her daughter. Afterwards \u00ca-sagila-r\u00e2mat shall leave him to\nN\u00fbbt\u00e2, her daughter. Whoever changes these words, and destroys the\ncontract Ik\u00ee\u0161\u0101 has drawn up and given to \u00ca-sagila-r\u00e2mat and N\u00fbbt\u00e2, her\ndaughter, may Merodach and Z\u0113r-panitum command his destruction.\u201d\n\nThe names of four witnesses and the scribe follow. Date: \u201cBabylon, month\nIyyar, day 9th, year 13th, Nab\u00fb-na\u2019id, king of Babylon.\u201d Postscript: \u201cAt\nthe sitting of Biss\u0101, daughter of Ik\u00ee\u0161\u0101, descendant of N\u00fbr-Sin.\u201d\n\nFrom this it would seem that Ik\u00ee\u0161\u0101 made R\u00eamanni-B\u00eal his heir, freeing him\nfrom the position of a bondsman, in exchange for his (Ik\u00ee\u0161\u0101\u2019s) keep, but\nthat R\u00eamanni-B\u00eal, declining the advantage and the responsibility, ran\naway, whereupon the burden fell upon Ik\u00ee\u0161\u0101\u2019s daughter-in-law,\n\u00ca-sagila-r\u00e2mat. This the last-named seems to have undertaken willingly,\nand in return, Ik\u00ee\u0161\u0101 annulled R\u00eamanni-B\u00eal\u2019s adoption, and bequeathed him,\nas a slave, to \u00ca-sagila-r\u00e2mat and her daughter. Means probably existed for\nbringing back the runaway, when the news of his return to his old\ncondition would be communicated to him. \u00ca-sagila-r\u00e2mat\u2019s husband,\nIddina-Marduk, is the one who advanced to Abil-Addu-nath\u0101nu and Bunanitu\nthe money to make up the price of their house.\n\n\n\nIddina-Nab\u00fb Sells His Egyptian Slave And Her Infant.\n\n\n\u201cIddina-Nab\u00fb, son of Mu\u0161\u00eazib-B\u00eal, has cheerfully sold Nanaa-itt\u00eea, his\nslave, and her daughter, a child of three months, Egyptians captured by\nhis bow, for 2 mana of silver, the complete price, to Itti-Marduk-bala\u1e6du,\nson of Nab\u00fb-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iddina, descendant of \u00cagibi. Iddina-Nab\u00fb has received the\nmoney, 2 mana of silver, the price of Nanaa-itt\u00eea and her daughter, from\nthe hands of Itti-Marduk-bala\u1e6du. Iddina-Nab\u00fb guarantees against the\nexistence of any liability of defeasor (?), legal claimant, royal service,\nor freedmanship with regard to Nanaa-itt\u00eea and her daughter.\u201d\n\nHere come the names of four witnesses and the scribe.\n\n\u201cBabylon, month Kisleu, day 23rd, year 6th, Kambuz\u00eea (Cambyses), king of\nBabylon.\n\n\u201cBesides the contract of 240 gur of fruit, from Itti-Marduk-bala\u1e6du, which\nwas unto (or due from) Iddina-Nab\u00fb.\u201d\n\nThis document may be held to testify to the reality of Cambyses\u2019 campaign\nin Egypt, which took place in his 5th year (525 B.C.). It is also a proof\nthat the Babylonians took part in the campaign.\n\nIt is noteworthy that three copies of this document exist, one being in\nthe British Museum, another in the Museum of Art at New York, and the\nthird in the museum founded by the late Sir Henry Peek at Lyme Regis. The\ntablet recording the contract for the 240 gur of fruit also exists, and is\npreserved in the British Museum.\n\nAmong the tablets of the time of Nabonidus, translations of all the\nrecords known which refer to the family of Ben-Hadad-nathan or\nAbil-Addu-n\u0101thanu have been given, and examination of the numerous other\ntablets of the reigns of his predecessors and his successors down to the\ntime of Darius, and perhaps Xerxes, shows that similar more or less\ncomplete family histories could be made. One of the most interesting of\nthese, and the most complete on account of the number of documents (by far\nthe greater number of the contracts from Babylon and its neighbourhood, of\nthe period to which he belongs, contain his name) are those referring to\n\u0160irku, a tablet from whose slave D\u00e2an-b\u00eal-u\u1e63ur has been given above (p.\n454). This man\u2019s history has been tentatively dealt with by the present\nauthor in Part IV. of the catalogue of tablets belonging to the late Sir\nHenry Peek. From a tablet in the Louvre, we find that \u0160irku was not his\nreal name, but that he was called Marduk-na\u1e63ir-\u00e2bli. The curious thing\nabout this double naming of \u0160irku, however, is that the majority of the\ntablets where he is called \u0160irku say that he was the son of Iddina, and\nthe majority of those calling him Marduk-na\u1e63ir-\u00e2bli say that he is the son\nof Itti-Marduk-bala\u1e6du. Fortunately documents exist reversing this\nparentage, and showing conclusively that \u0160irku and Marduk-na\u1e63ir-\u00e2bli are\none and the same personage. Were it otherwise, we should have to credit\nhis slaves with two masters, and his wife with two husbands, a state of\nthings probably unknown in Babylonia.\n\nFrom a tablet dated in the first year of Darius, we learn that he bought a\nfield before the great gate of Ura\u0161 in the province of Babylon, this field\nbeing beside that of his wife \u00c2mat-Bau, which she had brought as her\ndowry. Other documents record that he made loans of silver and produce,\nboth alone and associated with his brothers. In these his proper name is\ngenerally used, but sometimes he was called \u0160irku. The hiring and letting\nof houses, the buying and selling of slaves, etc., are also recorded of\nthem. In the third year of Darius he and his brothers came into\nconsiderable property in Babylon, sharing it among them, and there is also\nrecord of Marduk-na\u1e63ir-\u00e2bli paying his father\u2019s debts. This increase in\ntheir resources naturally enabled them to deal in the produce of their\nfields, and in all probability they managed his wife\u2019s as well, whilst\nthere is at least one record that she lent money on her own account. To\nenumerate all the interesting points which the tablets reveal to us\nconcerning their various transactions, however, would naturally take too\nmuch time and space.\n\nIn exchange for the slave D\u00e2an-b\u00eal-u\u1e63ur, the slave\u2019s wife, their six\nchildren, and a cornfield upon the canal called \u1e6cupa\u0161u, which\nMarduk-na\u1e63ir-\u00e2bli gave to his wife \u00c2mat-Bau, he received from her two sums\nof silver and one of gold, a ring, and two slaves, who had been part of\nher dowry. The slaves he gave her, though now her property, were in all\nprobability still at his disposition, but D\u00e2an-b\u00eal-u\u1e63ur seems to have\nserved him so well when in charge of his affairs, that after having parted\nwith him, though only to his wife, he must have found, to his regret, that\nhe and his family were naturally not so much at his disposition as when he\ncould call them his own.\n\nUnder the name of Marduk-na\u1e63ir-\u00e2bli, he appears before us principally in\nthe character of an agriculturalist and dealer in produce, combining with\nthis money-lending on occasion. As \u0160irku, he dealt largely in ships, and\napparently also in boats for pontoon bridges. In the fifth year of Darius\nhe was in Elam, and there is a reference to the sending to him of a\nmessenger, \u201cwith the charioteers of B\u00eal-\u00e2bla-iddina, captain of Babylon.\u201d\nMany years afterwards \u0160irku is said to have received the rent of a house\nsituated \u201cupon the _gi\u0161\u0161u_ of Borsippa,\u201d and the question naturally\narises, whether _gi\u0161\u0161u_ may not be for _gi\u0161ru_, \u201cbridge,\u201d though a house\nupon a bridge crossing a comparatively narrow canal near Babylon is\ncertainly not what one would expect.\n\nOn the 16th of Sivan in the twenty-sixth year of Darius, \u0160irku was the\nscribe who drew up a contract referring to two ships, one apparently for\nservice on the Euphrates, the other for the bridge. Later on, he borrowed\nsome money upon the security of two of his female slaves, Mu\u0161\u00eazibtum and\nNar\u00fb, the wrist of the former being inscribed with the name of one of his\nrelations, the other with his own name, \u0160irku (it is given as \u0160i\u0161ku on the\ntablet). This loan is distinctly stated to be for the purpose of acquiring\n\u201ca ship for the bridge\u201d (_\u00ealippu \u0161a gi\u0161iri_), and this he seems to have\nbought two months later, unless there was another contract for a vessel\nwhich has not come down to us. In the Peek collection is a large tablet\nreferring to the completed bridge, the traffic upon it, and the ships\nmoored to it, suggesting that a portion of it at least was used as a quay\nor landing-stage. More research is needed, however, ere its precise nature\nwill be clear\u2014perhaps the etymology is misleading, and _gi\u0161ru_ or _gi\u0161iru_\nmeans, in Babylonian, \u201cpier\u201d or \u201clanding-stage\u201d simply.\n\nThe following is one of the inscriptions which refer to his hiring a ship\u2014\n\n\u201c(Concerning) the ship of Iddina-B\u00eal which is with \u0160ama\u0161-iddina, son of\nB\u00eal-iddina, for navigation. He has given the ship for hire as far as\n_bi\u0161tum \u0161a \u1e63\u00ear\u00fba_ (= _birtum \u0161a \u1e63\u00ear\u00fba_, \u2018the fortress of _\u1e63\u00ear\u00fba_\u2019) for 1/3\nof a mana of white silver, coined, to \u0160irik (\u0160irku), son of Iddin\u0101,\ndescendant of \u00cagibi. The silver, 1/3 of a mana, the hire of the ship, and\nits provisions, he has received. The ship shall not cross the great\n(water), if it pass, he shall pay 5 mana of silver. Each has taken (a copy\nof this contract).\u201d\n\nThe names of three witnesses and the scribe follow this, after which is\nthe date\u2014\n\n\u201cBabylon, month Adar, day 6th, year 26th, Darius, king of Babylon and\ncountries.\u201d\n\nThe tablets in which Marduk-na\u1e63ir-\u00e2bli, _alias_ \u0160irku, are mentioned,\nprove that Babylonia maintained its character as a maritime nation to a\nvery late date. As, however, voyages on the ocean are not provable, it is\ndoubtful whether their ships sailed to any great distance\u2014in all\nprobability they confined themselves to making coast-voyages only. Judging\nfrom the penalty attached to taking the ship across the great (water), the\nquestion naturally arises, whether the sea (the Persian Gulf) may not have\nbeen intended. The word used in the original is _rabbu_, which would then\ncorrespond with the last word of the poetic expression, \u201cthe rolling\nmain.\u201d\n\nSuch, as far as space allows, was life at Babylon and the chief cities of\nBabylonia, where the Israelites dwelt for so many years, and colonies of\nthem existed until a very late date, as the drinking bowls inscribed with\ncharms against sickness and evil spirits in Hebrew and Aramaic show. Some\nof the Hebrew names contained in the tablets from Babylonia have already\nbeen referred to (p. 458), and to these several others may be added, such\nas Ban\u0101wa or Beniah; Gamari\u0101wa or Gemariah; Malaki\u0101wa or Malchiah, who had\na son bearing the heathen name of Nergal-\u00ea\u1e6dir; together with several\nsimilarly-formed but otherwise unknown names (as was to be expected).\nExamples of these are, Azzi\u0101wa, \u1e2auli\u0101wa, Nir\u00ee\u0101wa and Agir\u00ee\u0101wa. The\nGemariah mentioned above was witness, with his compatriot Barik\u00eea\n(Berechiah) and others, on the occasion when \u0160a-Nab\u00fb-duppu sold\nNanaa-silim, his Bactrian slave-girl. The scribe\u2019s name on this occasion\nwas Marduka (Mordecai), son of \u00c9pe\u0161-\u00eeli. Mordecai means \u201cthe Merodachite,\u201d\nand is interesting as showing how Babylonian monotheism, such as it was,\nreconciled the Jews to accept what they would otherwise have regarded as a\nheathen name.\n\nInteresting in the extreme would it be, if we could know what the Jews\nthought of the country and the city of their captivity. In that enormous\nwalled tract known as the city of Babylon were large open spaces covered\nwith gardens, and cornfields, and orchards, mostly, perhaps almost\nexclusively, of date-palms, the fruit of which formed such an important\npart of the food of the people. These were the trees, in all probability,\non which the Jewish captives hung their harps when, in their captivity,\nthey mourned for the city of Sion, from which they were so far away. The\nrivers of Babylon, of which the well-known psalm speaks, were the Tigris\nand the Euphrates, with the innumerable canals and watering-channels which\nthe nature of the country rendered so necessary to the fertility and\nproductiveness of the land, and without which it would have been a desert.\n\nThere, too, they looked upon the buildings of old time, the fanes which\nwere there when their forefather Abraham was a dweller in the land,\nchanged, doubtless, beyond recognition. Chief among these was the great\ntemple of Belus, joined to the tower called \u201cthe temple of the foundation\nof heaven and earth,\u201d and which Nebuchadnezzar speaks of as \u201cthe tower of\nBabylon.\u201d There, too, were the shrines dedicated to Z\u0113r-panitum, consort\nof Merodach, the goddess Nin-ma\u1e2b; Nebo, the god of wisdom; Sin, the\nMoon-god; \u0160ama\u0161, the Sun-god; Gula, the goddess of healing, and many other\ndivinities. Whilst the Jews were there, they must have seen many of this\nking\u2019s building operations\u2014the strengthening of the fortresses and the\nwalls, and the repair and extension of the moats and ditches; the raising\nof the level of the great street, Aa-ib\u00fbr-sab\u00fb (the remains of which have\njust been found by the German explorers on the site of the city), along\nwhich, yearly, at the beginning of the year, processions went, and the\nimages of the gods were in all probability carried. Then there was the\nrebuilding of the royal palace, with its roof and doors of cedar, the\nlatter being also overlaid with bronze, probably after the manner of the\nbronze gates of Shalmaneser found by Mr. Rassam at Balawat. The thresholds\nwere also of bronze, and the palace was adorned, in other parts, with\ngold, silver, precious stones, and various other costly things.\n\nThey must have seen, also, the construction, between the two great\nfortifications called Imgur-B\u00eal and N\u0113-mitti-B\u00eal, of that great building\nwhich was to serve as a castle and a royal residence at the same time.\nThis was in connection with the old palace of Nabopolassar,\nNebuchadnezzar\u2019s father, built, as already stated, in a fortnight. Chief\namong the shrines restored by Nebuchadnezzar with great magnificence must\nbe mentioned \u00ca-kua, the sanctuary of Merodach, in the temple \u00ca-sagila (the\ntemple of Belus), and that called Du-azaga (\u201cthe glorious seat\u201d),\notherwise described as \u201cthe place of fate,\u201d where yearly, on the new\nyear\u2019s festival (the 8th and 9th of Nisan) the statue of the god Merodach,\n\u201cthe king of the gods of heaven and earth,\u201d was placed, and the king\u2019s\nfuture declared on the question being put. Doubtless the glory of the\nplace attracted not a few, causing them to decide to stay there\npermanently, and these, mingling with the native population, were lost to\nIsrael, like their brethren of the ten tribes, and even as Nergal-\u00ea\u1e6dir,\nson of Malaki\u0101wa (see above) seems to have been.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII. THE DECLINE OF BABYLON.\n\n\n The Jews who remained at Babylon and other cities of the\n land\u2014Alexander the Great\u2019s intentions with regard to the city, and\n the result of their non-fulfilment\u2014A Babylonian lamentation dated\n in the reign of Seleucus Nicator and his son\u2014The desolation of the\n city after the foundation of Seleucia\u2014The temples still\n maintained\u2014Antiochus Epiphanes and the introduction of Greek\n worship\u2014His invasion of Egypt\u2014The Arsacid\u00e6\u2014A contract of the time\n of Hyspasines\u2014Materials for history\u2014Further records of the time of\n the Arsacid\u00e6\u2014The latest date of Babylonian worship\u2014The Christians\n of Irak or Babylonia.\n\n\nNotwithstanding the return of large numbers of Jews to Jerusalem, a\nconsiderable portion of the nation had become attached to the land of\ntheir captivity, and remained in Babylon and the other cities of Chaldea,\nas well as in Persia. These, no longer captives, but settlers by their own\nfree will, had probably decided to stay in the land either from the desire\nto continue the businesses which they had started there, the relinquishing\nof which would have meant, in all probability, ruin to themselves and\ntheir families; or because of aged relatives for whom the journey to\nJerusalem, however much they might have desired it, would have been an\nimpossibility; or because of official and civil positions which they held\neither at court or in the employment of rich or influential personages, by\nwhose support they hoped to be able to aid their compatriots; or because\nof the attractions of a great city, whose origins must for them have\npossessed a special interest (notwithstanding the horrors of the captivity\nwhich their forebears must have experienced there), and whose position for\nthousands of years as the capital of a large province gave it a\npreponderating influence, not only in the country of which it was the\ncapital, but in all the civilized world at the time.\n\nThis being the case, there numbers of the Jews stayed, and there they\nwitnessed the gradual departure of the sceptre from that city which one of\ntheir own writers had described as the glory of kingdoms, and the beauty\nof the Chaldees\u2019 excellency. After the passing of the kingdom into the\nhands of the alien Persian kings, things went on as usual under their rule\nfor a considerable time\u2014the people lived on their land, and bought and\nsold, and transacted their ordinary business, and trade seems to have been\ngood (judging from the number of documents which have been preserved)\nuntil the end of the reign of Darius Hystaspis. Thereafter there was\neither a great falling off, or else the documents were deposited in other\nplaces, or a more perishable material was used for them. In any case, they\nbecome comparatively scarce, and their rarity may be due to the departure\nof trade from the capital, brought about by the removal of the court from\nBabylon, and the consequent migration of her merchants to other places.\n\nThings had been going, in fact, from bad to worse for Babylon, and among\nthe clay records left, some of the royal names which we should like to see\nare to all appearance absent. It was still, however, a place of great\nimportance, when, in the year 331 B.C., it opened its gates to Alexander\nthe Great, surrendering, like Susa and Persepolis, without striking a\nblow. Doubtless to them it was perfectly indifferent under which foreign\npotentate they lived, and a change in that respect could not make their\ncondition worse, and might be to their advantage. Had he not died long\nbefore the term which nature has fixed, the city might have taken upon it\nsuch a renewed lease of life as would have caused it to exist as a great\ncapital to the present day. As it happened, the Babylonians began to see\ntheir fondest hopes realized, for it must soon have become noised abroad\nthat the new conqueror of Asia intended to make Babylon his Eastern\ncapital, and they saw the clearing away of the rubbish which was the\npreliminary to the restoration of the great and renowned temple of Belus,\n\u00ca-sagila (or \u00ca-sangil as they called it at that time), actually\nproceeding, not only during the reign of Alexander, but also during that\nof his successor, Philip, as well. The mental calibre of the latter,\nhowever, who came to the throne on the death of Alexander in the year 323\nB.C., must soon have told the Babylonians that the realization of his\ngreat predecessor\u2019s schemes was hopeless, and the downward course of the\ncity\u2019s star, arrested as it were for a moment, soon began again.\n\nThe next change of rulers was that following upon the unworthy bearing of\nAntigonus with regard to Seleucus, Alexander the Great\u2019s favoured general,\nwho had espoused his claims to the throne of the Eastern empire. After\naiding Ptolemy of Egypt against Demetrius, son of Antigonus, he set out\nwith a small force, and gathering recruits in his course, especially among\nthe Babylonians, with whom he was popular, he entered their capital\nwithout opposition in 312 B.C., from which date the era of the Seleucid\u00e6\nis regarded as beginning. How the Babylonians took the foundation of\nSeleucia on the Tigris, which is often mentioned in the numerous\nastrological tablets of this period, is not recorded, but from the way in\nwhich they speak of the migration of the inhabitants of Babylonia to\nSeleucia implies that they took it greatly to heart.\n\n\u201cBlessed shall he be who serveth thee as thou hast served us,\u201d sang the\nPsalmist when lamenting the captivity of the Jews at Babylon, and if\nsuccess in conquest be a sign of blessedness, then Seleucus must have been\nhappy indeed. The Babylonians could not have regarded the continual and\nincreasing desolation of their city with indifference, however, and it is\nnot impossible that their loyalty to their king suffered somewhat in\nconsequence. This, to all appearance, found vent in expressions of regret,\nand an old lamentation, referring to the depredations of the Qut\u00fb at a\nperiod so remote that we can hardly, at this distance of time, estimate,\nand of which a copy was made for a certain B\u00eal-z\u0113r-l\u00ee\u0161ir, might well\nexpress their feelings at this period:\n\n\n \u201cFor the misfortunes of Erech, for the misfortunes of Agad\u00e9, I am\n stricken.\n The Erechitess wept, that departed was her might, the Agaditess\n wept, that departed was her glory (?);\n The daughter of Erech wept, the daughter of Agad\u00e9 cried aloud;\n As for the daughter of Larancha, in her garment her face was\n hidden.\n The \u1e2aursagkalamitess wept, that her husband was in trouble;\n The \u1e2aul\u1e2but\u1e2bulitess wept, that cast down was her sceptre;\n The Ma\u0161itess wept, that her 7 brothers were slain, that her\n brother-in-law was stricken.\n The Agaditess wept, that her elder was slain, the lord of her\n well-being;\n The Ke\u0161itess wept\u2014they have wrought destruction (?) for the name\n of her house: \u2018My helpers are shattered\u2019;\n The Dunnaitess wept, \u2018Who has a resting-place, who has leave to go\n forth?\n Whose is it to defeat (?) the enemy, (with) the exits cut off?\u2019\n The daughter of Niffer wept, for the raging (?) Qut\u00fb assembled,\n She bowed down her face on account of the trouble of the husband\n of her well-being.\n The D\u00fbr-\u00eelitess wept, for the Qut\u00fb collected,\n For the son of her city destroyed, the overthrow of her father\u2019s\n house.\n Weep for Erech, ravaging (and) shame has she received\u2014\n As for me, in the storm a place of refuge I know not.\n Weep for Larancha (for the spoiling?) of (my) mantle I am in\n trouble.\n My eyes see not my ..., the mothers are cut off from the child.\n Weep for Niffer, as for me, (with) abundance of affliction (?)\n Heaven has bound me fast;\n The throne of my glory has been caused to pass away from me;\n The bridegroom, the husband of my well-being, B\u00eal has taken away\n from me.\u201d\n\n \u201cLike its original written, made clear, and acquired.\n\n Tablet of B\u00eal-z\u0113r-l\u00ee\u0161ir, son of B\u00eal-\u00e2ba-usur, descendant of the\n sculptor.\n\n (By) the hands of B\u00eal-bulli\u1e6d-su, his son. He who fears the king\n shall not take (?) (this) tablet (?) away.\n\n \u201cBabylon, month Elul, day 15th, year 25th, Siluku and Antiukusu\n (Seleucus and Antiochus), king of countries.\n\n\nBy those same \u201crivers of Babylon\u201d where the Israelites had mourned in\ncaptivity, thinking of Jerusalem, there the Babylonians themselves came at\nlast to lament the departed glories of their land. Many a time, it is\ntrue, they had seen the country which was their fatherland overrun by\nenemies, but it had always recovered, and risen to a greater height of\nprosperity. This time, however, there was to be no healing of her wound.\nThe large and well-peopled space within the walls of the great city\ngradually became uninhabited, and the houses fell into ruin. A time even\ncame at last when the great walls had to be demolished\u2014or at least\npractically so\u2014in order that they might not afford protection to the\nlawless bands which infested the country, and were only too ready to make\nthe most of such an advantage.\n\nNotwithstanding the desolation of the city, however, a certain number of\npeople continued to inhabit the site, probably officials of the temples\n(whose services still continued), and tradesmen who supplied the wants of\nthose whose duty held them attached to the place. Here, year after year,\nthe usual sacrifices were offered to the old gods of the Babylonians,\nespecially \u201cMy Lord and Lady,\u201d _i.e._ B\u00eal (Merodach) and Beltis\n(Z\u0113r-panitum, his consort), and prayers were made for the king at the time\nreigning, and also for his sons (if he had any). That inscriptions may\ncome to light which will show more clearly the state of things in that\nvast ruined city is exceedingly probable, and a sufficient number of\ntablets referring to this period are known to exist even now, and show in\nsome measure the state of the city and the kind of people who dwelt in\nsuch parts of it as had been reserved for that purpose.\n\nTo those who inhabited Babylon\u2019s desolation, the most important thing, in\nall probability, was the worship, with all the old rites and ceremonies,\nof the deities whose temples and shrines still existed there. But those\nold priests and temple scribes occupied their time in another way, namely,\nthe keeping of careful records of every historical event for the purpose\nof being able to tell the future. These historical notices are preceded by\nindications of the positions of the moon and the planets, together with\nthe price of grain or other produce, during the period referred to. The\npositions of the planets, etc., were combined afterwards, by the \u201cmonthly\nprognosticators,\u201d with the historical happenings, for the purpose of\nforetelling events, which at that late period was probably done much more\nsystematically than during earlier ages, to the great advantage of the\nmodern student of this period.\n\nThe following will give an idea of these historical notices:\u2014\n\n(Month Ab, 143rd year, Anti\u2019ukusu, king = 168 B.C., reign of Antiochus\nEpiphanes.)\n\n\u201cAn., the king, marched victoriously among the cities of the land of\nMelu\u1e2b\u1e2ba, and ... the people (_puli\u1e6d\u0113_(144) the Greek \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2)\n(constructed?) idols (_pupp\u0113_, evidently a Greek word, probably meaning\n\u2018images of gods\u2019) and works like a shrine (of?) the Greek(s?)....\u201d\n\nThe inscription then goes on to speak of the appointment of a _zazak_\n(apparently a grade of priests) by the king, the handing to him of the\ngold in the treasury of \u00ca-saggil for the great (shrine) of B\u00eal, the\n(dedication?) of an unsuitable or an untimely image of the god Uru-gala on\nthe 8th day of the month, and other similar occurrences. From the lines\ntranslated above, it will be seen that the Babylonians had not by any\nmeans escaped from the influence of Greek civilization, not only Greek\nwords, but also, to all appearance, Greek gods and shrines having made\ntheir appearance. The word used in speaking of the image of the god\nUru-gala is _tam\u0161il_, but the things which the citizens made were _pupp\u0113_,\npossibly used like our word \u201cidol.\u201d It is possibly to this period, or a\nlittle later, that the transcriptions into Greek of Babylonian tablets\n(which promise to be of considerable value for the study of the\nAssyro-Babylonian language) belong.\n\nIf the translation given above be correct, it would confirm the account in\nthe second book of Maccabees (vi. 2), from which it would appear that this\nruler tried to habituate the Jews to Greek customs, and also to the Greek\nreligion, going even so far as \u201cto pollute also the temple in Jerusalem,\nand to call it the temple of Jupiter Olympus; and that in Garizim, of\nJupiter the Defender of strangers, as they did desire that dwelt in the\nplace\u201d (vi. 2). \u201cThe abomination of desolation\u201d which was set on the altar\nat Jerusalem (1 Macc. i. 54) is understood by commentators to mean an\nidol-altar, though almost any heathen image would suit the sense, and a\nstatue of a god, with or without a shrine, might be meant. The reference\nto Melu\u1e2b\u1e2ba in all probability refers to one of his expeditions to Egypt,\nand is generally supposed to indicate Ethiopia.\n\nAnother change which the Babylonians experienced was when the rule of\ntheir Greek masters was exchanged for that of the Parthians, and the\nSeleucid\u00e6 gave way to the Arsacid\u00e6. Concerning the period of the change,\nand the way in which it came about, very little is known. The varied\nfortunes of the Seleucid princes is illustrated by the fact that a satrap\nof Media named Timarchus, in 161-160 B.C., had succeeded in proclaiming\nhimself king of Babylon; and from 153-139 B.C., Arsaces VI. (Mithridates\nI.) was in possession of all the district east of the Euphrates\u2014Babylonia,\nElam, and Persia. After his death, however, all this portion seems to have\nreturned to the rule of the Seleucid\u00e6, and their era was in all\nprobability restored. After the death of Antiochus Sidetes, in 129 B.C.,\nthe province of Kharacene became independent under a ruler named\nHyspasines or Spasines, who, two years later, seems to have made himself\nmaster of Babylon. An interesting tablet dated in the reign of this king\n(who used the Seleucian era) shows something of the state of things on the\nsite of the old city, and that somewhat vividly.\n\n(The inscription is preceded by five introductory lines, which are\nunfortunately imperfect, but do not seem to affect the transaction as a\nwhole.)\n\n\u201cIn the month Iyyar, the 24th day, year 185th, Asp\u0101sin\u0113 (being) king,\nB\u00eal-l\u00fbmur, director of \u00ca-saggil, and the Babylonians, the congregation of\n\u00ca-saggil, took counsel together, and said thus\u2014\n\n\u201c\u2019Itti-Marduk-bala\u1e6du, chief of the construction over the artificers (?) of\nthe houses of the gods, scribe of Anu-B\u00eal, son of Iddin-B\u00eal, who formerly\nstood (?) at the side of Asp\u0101sin\u0113, the king, who (relieved?) want in the\ngate of the king; lo, this is for B\u00eal-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-u\u1e63ur and Nab\u00fb-mu\u0161\u00eatiq-\u00fbrri, his\nsons\u2014\n\n\u201c \u2018(As) they find the whole of his keep, a sum (?) has been collected (?)\nin the presence of the aforesaid B\u00eal-l\u00fbmur and the Babylonians, the\ncongregation of \u00ca-saggil.\n\n\u201c \u2018From this day of this year we will give 1 mana of silver, the\nsustenance of Itti-Marduk-bala\u1e6du, for their father, to B\u00eal-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-u\u1e63ur and\nNab\u00fb-mu\u0161\u00eatiq-\u00fbrri, from our (own) necessities. The amount, as much as\nItti-Marduk-bala\u1e6du, their father, has taken, they shall keep for (his)\nkeep, and they shall give the grant for this year.\u2019\n\n\u201c(Done along) with B\u00eal-\u0161unu; N\u00fbr; Muranu; Iddin-B\u00eal; B\u00eal-u\u1e63ur-\u0161u, the\nscribe of Anu-B\u00eal, and the deputy-scribes of Anu-B\u00eal.\u201d(145)\n\nThough the translation is necessarily, from the mutilation of the text,\nnot altogether satisfactory, certain items of information which it\ncontains will hardly admit of doubt. There were still inhabitants of the\ncity, there were temple-servants, who were probably under a kind of\noverseer of the works, and these apparently attended to all the temples.\nWhether this man was too old to work or not is doubtful, but it would seem\nthat it was considered too much that his sons should keep him altogether,\nhence the drawing up of the document here quoted.\n\nIt is noteworthy that, instead of Merodach, or B\u00eal-Merodach, the god of\nBabylon, who became the chief deity of all Babylonia, a new deity appears,\nnamely, Anu-B\u00eal, _i.e._ Anu the Lord, or, paraphrased, the Lord God of\nHeaven, probably the god Merodach identified with Anu. The religion of the\nBabylonians probably underwent many changes during this later period, when\nthose who belonged to it came into contact with foreigners, many of them\nmost intelligent men, whose teaching must have had with them great weight.\n\nAnother important inscription, in the British Museum, gives many details\nof the period of this little-known king, Asp\u0101sin\u0113. From this we learn that\nthe Elamites made incursions in the neighbourhood of the Tigris.\nPilinussu, the general in Akkad, apparently carried on operations against\nanother general, and seems to have gone to the cities of the Medes before\nB\u0101g\u0101-as\u0101, the brother of the king. A man named Te\u2019udi\u0161\u012b also seems to have\nopposed the general in Akkad. Yet another inscription of the same period\nstates that Ti\u2019im\u016b\u1e6dusu, son of Asp\u0101sin\u0113, went from Babylon to Seleucia (on\nthe Tigris), showing that the former renowned place was still regarded as\none of the cities of the land. At this time one of the opponents of\nAsp\u0101sin\u0113\u2019s generals was \u201cPittit, the enemy, the Elamite.\u201d Elam, to its\nwhole extent, was smitten with the sword, and Pittit (was slain, or\ncaptured). Sacrifices were made to Bel, probably on account of this\nvictory.\n\nSimilar inscriptions of the time of the Arsacidean rule in Babylonia also\nexist, and would probably be useful if published. Unfortunately, they are\nall more or less damaged and mutilated, but of those which I have been\nable to make notes of, one may be worth quoting. The following extract\nwill show its nature:\u2014\n\n\u201cThis month I heard thus: Ar\u0161ak\u0101 the king and his soldiers departed to the\ncity of Arqania.... (I) heard thus: The Elamite and his soldiers departed\nto battle before the city Apam\u2019a which is upon the river \u1e62il\u1e2bu....\u201d\n\nThe remainder is very mutilated, and requires studying in conjunction with\nall the other inscriptions of the same class, though even then much must\nnecessarily be doubtful.\n\nIn many of these inscriptions each of the long paragraphs ends with a\nreference to the sacrifices which had been made in the temples of Babylon\namong the ruins, and sometimes, though rarely, they refer to something of\nthe nature of an omen. The following will serve as an example:\u2014\n\n\u201c... descended to Babylon from Seleucia which is upon the Tigris. Day 10,\nthe governor of Akkad ... the congregation of \u00ca-saggil, (sacrificed) one\nox and 4 lambs in the gate Ka-dumu-nuna of \u00ca-saggil, (and) made (prayer\nfor the lif)e of the king and his preservation. On the 5., one ox and 3\nlambs (they sacrificed). The congregation of Baby]lon came to Ka-dumu-nuna\nof \u00ca-saggil, offerings like the former ones were made ... went forth from\nSippar. This month a goat brought forth, and the litter was 15.\u201d\n\nContract-tablets, some of them of a very late date indeed, within a decade\nor two of the Christian era, show that the temples still existed, and that\nsacrifices and services still went on, probably uninterruptedly, at the\ntemples of Babylon, and this implies that, though the country had no\nnational existence, the beliefs of the people survived for many centuries\nthe downfall of their power. In all probability, what took place at\nBabylon had its counterpart in other places in the country\u2014the fanes\nrenowned of old\u2014as well. Indeed, it is known that, at the most perfectly\npreserved of the temple-towers of Babylonia at the present day\u2014that at\nBorsippa, now and for many centuries known as the Birs Nimroud, \u201cthe tower\n(as it is explained) of Nimrod,\u201d\u2014the services and worship were continued\nas late as the fourth century of the Christian era. The worship of Nebo,\nthe god of wisdom, or, rather, letters, had always been extremely popular,\nhence, in all probability, the continuation of his cult until this late\ndate. But this was to all appearance the last remnant of the powerful and\npicturesque creed of old Babylon, and details of its slow and gradual\ndisappearance from the religious beliefs of the world would probably be as\ninteresting as the story of its growth and development.\n\n\u201cThe Church at Babylon,\u201d mentioned in 1 Peter v. 13, is generally\nunderstood allegorically, as of the Church in the world, or that in the\ngreat Babylon of the time when the apostle wrote, namely, Rome. Though it\nis unknown whether a Christian Church existed in his time anywhere in\nBabylonia, it is probably certain that the native Christians of Baghdad\n(and \u2019Ir\u0101q in general) are pure descendants of the ancient Babylonians, to\nwhom, in form and stature, as well as in character, and their tendency to\nprogress, they have a great likeness. The same may be said of the native\nChristians of Assyria.\n\nCould we but know the history of Assyria at this period, it is very\nprobable that we should find it to resemble in certain things\u2014perhaps in\nthe main\u2014that of Babylonia after her downfall. From the religious point of\nview, also, there must have been similarity. They, too, knew the worship\nof the \u201cmerciful Merodach,\u201d to them a type of Christ, and his father \u00caa\n(from whom he obtained the means of helping mankind), in name and position\na type of Jah, God the Father, whom the Christians worshipped. But we\nshall never in all probability know whether they thus analyzed and\ncompared the two faiths, though it is very possible that they did, for it\nis said that the Egyptians were attracted to Christianity by the\ncomparison of Christ with their Osiris. Such, however, is the tendency of\nthe mind of mankind. Ever unwilling to break with the old, he seeks for\nsome analogy in the new, to form a bridge whereby to pass to higher\nthings. Minor deities have ever tended to become Christian saints, and\nsuch may have been\u2014indeed, probably was\u2014the case with the Babylonians and\nthe Assyrians.\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. THE STELE INSCRIBED WITH THE LAWS OF \u1e2aAMMURABI.\n\n\nThis monument was found at Susa, in the excavations undertaken by the\nFrench Government, by MM. de Morgan and Prof. V. Scheil. It is a column of\ndiorite, measuring about 7 feet in height, tapering slightly from the\nbottom upwards. The circumference of the base is about 2 yards, and at the\nsummit about 5 feet 5-\u00bd inches. As, however, the stone is not square, it\nmay be described as measuring, roughly, 22 inches broad at the base, and\n16 inches just above the bas-relief at the top, where it is rounded\nsomewhat irregularly.\n\nThe bas-relief, which is in perfect condition, measures about 2 feet 2\ninches in height, and represents \u1e2aammurabi standing, facing to the right,\ntowards the sun-god \u0160ama\u0161, who sits on a throne of the usual recessed\ndesign. The god is bearded, clothed in a flounced robe, and has his hair\nlooped up behind. His hat is pointed, and is adorned with four (eight)\nhorns, rising at the side, and coming forward, where their points are\nturned up. His right shoulder is bare, and in his right hand he holds a\nstaff and a ring, emblematic of authority and eternity, or his apparent\ncourse in the heavens. His right hand is held against his breast, and wavy\nlines, probably representing his rays, arise from his shoulders.\n\n\u1e2aammurabi, who stands before the seated god, is clothed in a long robe\nreaching to his feet, and held up by his left arm. His right shoulder and\narm are bare, and the hand is raised as if to emphasize the words he is\nuttering. Like the god, he is heavily bearded. On his head he wears the\nglobular thick-brimmed hat distinctive of men in authority for many\nhundred years before his time, and for a considerable period afterwards.\n\nThe inscription, which is in horizontal columns, covers all four sides of\nthe stone, and is divided into two parts, called by Prof. Scheil, who\nfirst translated it, the \u201cobverse\u201d and the \u201creverse\u201d respectively. The\nformer is in 16 columns, after which come 5 columns which have been\nerased, probably, as Prof. Scheil remarks, to insert the name and titles\nof an Elamite king, \u0160utruk-Na\u1e2b\u1e2bunte, who has his inscription placed on\nseveral other monuments of Babylonian origin found there. For some reason\nor other, the space on the stele of \u1e2aammurabi still remains blank. The\n\u201creverse\u201d has 28 columns of inscription. The columns are narrow, and the\nlines consequently short, but as the latter are no less than 3638 in\nnumber, the text is a very extensive one, and when complete, must have\nconsisted of over 4000 lines.\n\nThe inscription consists of three portions: the Introduction, consisting\nof 4 columns and 25 lines, detailing all the benefits which \u1e2aammurabi had\nconferred on the cities and temples of the land; the Laws, which occupy\nthe remainder of the obverse, and 23 columns of the reverse (in all, 40\ncolumns less 25 lines); and the Conclusion, occupying the remaining 5\ncolumns, in which he recounts his own virtues, and in a long curse, calls\nupon the gods whom he worshipped to punish and destroy any of his\nsuccessors who should abolish or change what he had written, or destroy\nhis bas-relief.\n\n\n\n\nThe Laws Of \u1e2aammurabi.\n\n\n\nIntroduction.\n\n\nWhen the supreme God, king of the Annunaki,(146) and Bel, lord of the\nheavens and the earth, who fixes the destinies of the land, had fixed for\nMerodach, the eldest son of A\u00ea, the Divine Lordship over the multitude of\nthe people, and had made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by\nits supreme name, caused it to be great among the countries (of the\nworld), and caused to exist for him in its midst an everlasting kingdom,\nwhose foundation is as firm as heaven and earth.\n\nAt that time \u1e2aammurabi, the noble prince\u2014he who fears God\u2014me\u2014in order that\njustice might exist in the country, to destroy the evil and wicked, that\nthe strong might not oppress the weak,\u2014God and Bel, to gladden the flesh\nof the people, proclaimed my name as a Sungod(147) for the black-headed\nones,(148) appearing and illuminating the land.\n\n\u1e2aammurabi, the shepherd proclaimed of Bel am I\u2014the perfecter of abundance\nand plenty, the completer of everything for Niffur (and) Dur-an-ki,(149)\nthe glorious patron of \u00ca-kura;(150)\n\nThe powerful king who has restored the city \u00caridu to its first state, who\nhas purified the service of \u00ca-aps\u00fb;(151)\n\nThe best of the four regions, who made great the name of Babylon,\nrejoicing the heart of Merodach, his lord, who daily stays (at service) in\n\u00ca-sagila;(152)\n\nThe kingly seed whom the god Sin has created, who endows with riches the\ncity of Ur;(153) humble, devout, he who brings abundance to\n\u00ca-ki\u0161-nu-gala;(154)\n\nThe king of wisdom, favourite of \u0160ama\u0161, the powerful one, he who founded\n(again) the city of Sippar, who clothed with green the burial-places of\nAa,(155) who made supreme the temple \u00ca-babbara,(156) which is like a\nthrone (in) the heavens;\n\nThe warrior benefiting Larsa,(157) who renewed the temple \u00ca-babbara(158)\nfor \u0160ama\u0161 his helper;\n\nThe lord who gave life to Erech, procuring waters in abundance for its\npeople, he who has raised the head of the temple \u00ca-anna, completing the\ntreasures for Anu and Innanna;(159)\n\nThe protector of the land, who has reassembled the scattered people of\nNisin, who has made abundant the riches of the temple E-gal-ma\u1e2b;(160)\n\nThe unique one, king of the city, twin brother of the god Zagaga, he who\nfounded the seat of the city of Ki\u0161, who has caused the temple\n\u00ca-mete-ursag(161) to be surrounded with splendour, who has caused the\ngreat sanctuaries of the goddess Innanna to be increased;\n\nOverseer of the temple of \u1e2aursag-kalama, the enemies\u2019 temple-court, the\nhelp of which caused him to attain his desire;(162)\n\nHe who has enlarged the city of Cuthah, made great everything for the\ntemple Meslam;(163)\n\nThe mighty steer who overthrows the enemy, the beloved of the god\nTutu;(164)\n\nHe who causes the city of Borsippa to rejoice, the supreme one, he who is\ntireless for the temple \u00ca-zida;(165)\n\nThe divine king of the city, wise, alert, he who has extended the\nagriculture of Dilmu,(166) who has heaped up the (grain) receptacles for\nthe powerful god Ura\u0161;(167)\n\nThe lord (who is) the adornment of the sceptre and the crown, with which\nthe wise goddess Mama has crowned him;\n\nWho has defined the sanctuaries of K\u00ea\u0161, who has made plentiful the\nglorious feasts for the goddess Nin-tu;\n\nThe provident and careful one, who set pasturages and watering-places for\nLaga\u0161 and Girsu, he who procured great offerings for \u00ca-ninn\u00fb;(168)\n\nHe who holds fast the enemy, the favourite of the divinity, he who fulfils\nthe portents of the city \u1e2aallabu, he who has gladdened the heart of\nI\u0161tar;(169)\n\nThe prince undefiled, whose prayer(170) Addu(171) has heard, he who gives\nrest to the heart of Addu, the warrior, in the city Muru;\n\nHe who set up the ornaments in the temple E-para-galgala, the king who\ngave life to the city of Adab;\n\nHe who directs the temple E-ma\u1e2b, the prince who is the city-king, the\nwarrior who is without rival;\n\nHe who has given life to the city Ma\u0161kan-\u0161abri, who has caused abundance\nto arise for the temple Me\u0161lam;\n\nThe wise, the active one, who has captured the robbers\u2019 hiding-places,\nsheltered the people of Malk\u00e2 in (their) misfortune, caused their seats to\nbe founded in abundance, (and) instituted pure offerings for A\u00ea and\nDamgal-nunna, who have made his kingdom great for ever.\n\nThe prince who is city-king, who subjugated the settlements of the\nEuphrates, the boundary (of) Dagan, his creator, who spared the people of\nMera and Tutul;\n\nThe supreme prince, who has made the face of the goddess I\u0161tar to shine,\nset pure repasts for the divinity Nin-azu, who cared for his people in\n(their) need, fixing their dues within Babylon peacefully;\n\nThe shepherd of the people, whose deeds are good unto I\u0161tar, who set I\u0161tar\nin the temple \u00ca-ulma\u0161 within Agad\u00e9 of the (broad) streets; he who makes\nthe faithful obedient, who guides the Race;(172)\n\nWho returned its good genius to the city of Asshur, who caused (its)\nsplendour (?) to shine forth;\n\nThe king who in Nineveh has caused the names of I\u0161tar to be glorified in\n\u00ca-me\u0161me\u0161;(173)\n\nThe supreme one, devoted in prayer to the great gods, descendant of\nSumula-ilu, the mighty son of Sin-mubali\u1e6d, the eternal seed of royalty;\n\nThe powerful king, the Sun of Babylon, he who sends forth light for the\nland of \u0160umer and Akkad, the king causing the four regions to obey him,\nthe beloved of the goddess I\u0161tar, am I.\n\nWhen Merodach chose me to govern the people, to rule and instruct the\nland, law and justice I set in the mouth of the land\u2014in that day did I\nbring about the well-being of the people.\n\n\n\nThe Laws.\n\n\n1. If a man ban a man, and cast a spell upon him, and has not justified\nit, he who has banned him shall be killed.\n\n2. If a man has thrown a spell upon a man, and has not justified it, he\nupon whom the spell has been thrown shall go to the river,(174) (and)\nshall plunge into the river, and if the river take him, he who banned him\nmay take his house. If the river show that man to be innocent, and save\n(him), he who threw the spell upon him shall be killed; he who plunged\ninto the river may take possession of the house of him who banned him.\n\n3. If a man in a lawsuit has come forward (to bear) false witness, and has\nnot justified the word he has spoken, if that lawsuit be a lawsuit of\nlife,(175) that man shall be killed.\n\n4. If he has come forward (to bear) witness concerning wheat or silver, he\nshall bear the guilt of that lawsuit.\n\n5. If a judge has given judgment, and decided a decision, and delivered a\ntablet (thereupon), and afterwards his judgment is found faulty, that\njudge, for the fault in the judgment he had judged, they shall summon, and\nthe claim which is in question(176) he shall (re)pay twelvefold, and in\nthe assembly they shall make him rise up from his judgment-seat, and he\nshall not return, and he shall not sit again with the judges in judgment.\n\n6. If a man has stolen the property of a god, or of the palace, that man\nshall be killed; and he who has received the stolen thing from his hand\nshall be killed.\n\n7. If a man has bought either silver, or gold, or a man-slave, or a\nwoman-slave, or an ox, or a sheep, or an ass, or anything whatever, from\nthe hands of the son of a man or the slave of a man, without witness or\ncontract, or has received it on deposit, that man is a thief\u2014he shall be\nkilled.\n\n8. If a man has stolen either an ox, or a sheep, or an ass, or a pig, or a\nship\u2014if it be from a god or from the palace, he shall (re)pay thirtyfold;\nif it be from a poor man, he shall restore tenfold. If the thief have not\nwherewith to (re)pay, he shall be killed.\n\n9. If a man who has lost his property meet with his lost property in the\nhands of a man, (and) the man in whose hands the lost thing has been found\nsay \u201ca certain seller sold it\u2014I bought it before certain witnesses,\u201d and\nthe owner of the lost object say \u201cLet me bring witnesses who will\nrecognize my lost object,\u201d the buyer shall bring forward the seller who\nsold it, and the witnesses before whom he bought (it), and the owner of\nthe lost object shall bring forward the witnesses who will recognize his\nlost object. The judge shall see what they have to say, and the witnesses\nbefore whom the purchase was made, and the witnesses knowing the object\nlost shall speak before God,(177) and (if) the seller is the thief, he\nshall be killed. The owner of the lost object shall take (back) his lost\nobject; the buyer shall receive (back) from the house of the seller the\nsilver which he has paid.\n\n10. If the buyer has not brought forward the seller who sold it to him and\nthe witnesses before whom he bought (it), (and) the owner of the lost\nobject has brought forward witnesses recognizing his lost object, the\nbuyer is a thief\u2014he shall be killed; the owner of the object lost shall\ntake (back) the lost object.\n\n11. If the owner of the lost object has not brought forward witnesses\nrecognizing his lost object, he is a rogue, (and) has made a false\naccusation\u2014he shall be killed.\n\n12. If the seller has gone to his fate, the buyer shall receive from the\nhouse of the seller the claims of that judgment fivefold.\n\n13. If that man have not his witnesses at hand, the judge shall grant him\na delay of six months,(178) and if he have not procured his witnesses in\nsix months,(179) that man is a rogue\u2014he shall bear the guilt of that\njudgment.\n\n14. If a man has stolen the young son of a man, he shall be killed.\n\n15. If a man has caused to go forth from the gate either a slave of the\npalace, or a handmaid of the palace, or the slave of a poor man, or the\nhandmaid of a poor man, he shall be killed.\n\n16. If a man has sheltered the escaped male or female slave of the palace\nor of a poor man in his house, and at the request of the steward has not\nsent him forth, the master of that house shall be killed.\n\n17. If a man has met the escaped male or female slave in the fields, and\nhas taken him back to his master, the master of the slave shall give him\ntwo shekels of silver.\n\n18. If that slave will not name his master, he shall take him to the\npalace, his intention shall be inquired into, and they shall return him to\nhis master.\n\n19. If he has shut up that slave in his house, and afterwards the slave\nhas been found in his hands, that man shall be killed.\n\n20. If a slave escape from the hands of the man who has found him, that\nman shall call God to witness(180) unto the master of the slave, and shall\nbe held blameless.\n\n21. If a man has made a breach in a house, in front of that breach they\nshall kill him and bury him.\n\n22. If a man has exercised brigandage, and has been taken, that man shall\nbe killed.\n\n23. If the brigand has not been captured, the man who has been robbed\nshall take the thing which he has lost before God, and the city and the\nauthorities within whose territory and boundaries the brigandage has been\nexercised shall make up to him what he has lost.\n\n24. If (it be a question of) a life, the city and authorities shall pay\none mana of silver to his people.\n\n25. If the house of a man has been set on fire,(181) and a man who went to\nextinguish it has raised his eyes to the property of the owner of the\nhouse, and taken the property of the owner of the house, that man shall be\nthrown into that same fire.\n\n26. If an army-leader or a soldier, who has been commanded to go his way\non a royal expedition, does not go, and has hired a mercenary, and his\nsubstitute is taken, that army-leader or soldier shall be killed, he who\nchanged with him shall take his house.\n\n27. If an army-leader or a soldier, who by the king\u2019s misfortune is kept\nprisoner, afterwards they have given his field and plantation to another,\nand he has carried on its administration; if (the original owner) then\nreturn and reach his city, they shall return to him his field and\nplantation, and he himself shall carry on its administration.\n\n28. If the son of an army-leader or a soldier, who is kept prisoner by the\nking\u2019s misfortune, is able to carry on the administration, they shall give\nto him the field and plantation, and he shall carry on the administration\nfor his father.\n\n29. If his son is young, and is unable to carry on the administration for\nhis father, the third part of the field and plantation shall be given to\nhis mother, and his mother shall bring him up.\n\n30. If an army-leader or a soldier neglect his field, his plantation, and\nhis house on account of the burden, and leave it waste, (and) another\nafter him has taken his field, his plantation, and his house, and has\ncarried on its administration for three years, if he return and wish to\ncultivate his field, his plantation, and his house, it shall not be given\nto him\u2014he who took and has carried on its administration shall continue to\nadminister.\n\n31. If for one year (only) he has let (them) lie waste, and has returned,\nhis field, his plantation, and his house they shall give to him, and he\nshall carry on his administration himself.\n\n32. If a merchant has redeemed an army-leader or a soldier who has been\nkept prisoner upon a royal expedition, and has caused him to regain his\ncity\u2014if in his house there be (the wherewithal) for his redemption, he\nshall then redeem himself. If in his house there be not (the wherewithal)\nfor his redemption, in the house of his city\u2019s god he shall be redeemed.\nIf in the house of his city\u2019s god there be not (the wherewithal) for his\nredemption, the palace shall redeem him. His field, his plantation, and\nhis house shall not be given for his redemption.\n\n33. If a governor or a prefect have a substitute,(182) or for a royal\nexpedition accept a mercenary as substitute and incorporate (him), that\ngovernor or prefect shall be killed.\n\n34. If a governor or a prefect take the property of an army-officer, ruin\nan army-officer, lend an army-officer for hire, grant an army-officer in a\nlawsuit to a magnate, take the gift which the king has given to an\narmy-officer, that governor or prefect shall be killed.\n\n35. If a man purchase from the hands of an army-officer the cattle and\nsheep which the king has given to the army-officer, he shall forfeit his\nmoney.\n\n36. Field, plantation, and house of an army-officer, soldier, and\ntax-payer he(183) shall not sell for silver.\n\n37. If a man buy the field, plantation, or house of an army-officer,\nsoldier, or tax-payer, his contract shall be broken, and he shall forfeit\nhis money. The field, plantation, or house shall return to its owner.\n\n38. Army-officer, soldier, or tax-payer shall not leave to his wife or his\ndaughter (anything) from the field, plantation, and house of his\nadministration, and shall not give them for his indebtedness.\n\n39. He may leave to his wife and his daughter (any part) of the field,\nplantation, or house which he has bought and owns, and may give it for his\nindebtedness.\n\n40. But to an agent or other official, he may give his field, his\nplantation, or his house for silver, (and) the purchaser shall carry on\nthe administration of the field, plantation, and house which he has\nbought.\n\n41. If a man has enclosed the field, plantation, or house of an\narmy-officer, soldier, or tax-payer, and given substitutes, the\narmy-officer, soldier, or tax-payer may return to his field, plantation,\nor house, and take the substitutes which have been given to him.\n\n42. If a man has hired a field for cultivation, and has not caused wheat\nto be in that field, they shall summon him for not having done work in the\nfield, and he shall give to the owner of the field wheat like his\nneighbour.\n\n43. If he has not planted the field, and has let it lie, he shall give to\nthe owner of the field wheat like his neighbour, and the field which he\nhas let lie he shall break up for cultivation, shall enclose (it) and\nreturn (it) to the owner of the field.\n\n44. If a man has hired an uncultivated field for cultivation(184) for\nthree years, and he has been idle and has not cultivated the field, in the\nfourth year he shall break up the field for cultivation, shall hoe (it),\nand shall enclose (it) and return (it) to the owner of the field, and for\nevery 10 _gan_ he shall measure (to him) 10 _gur_ of wheat.\n\n45. If a man has given his field for rent to a planter, and has received\nthe rent of his field, and afterwards a storm(185) has inundated the\nfield, or has (otherwise) destroyed the produce, the loss belongs to the\nplanter.\n\n46. If he have not received the rent of his field, and has let the field\nfor a half or a third (of the produce), the planter and the owner of the\nfield shall share the wheat which has been produced in the field\nproportionately.\n\n47. If the planter, because his husbandry did not yield profit(186) in the\nfirst year, direct the field to be cultivated (by another), the owner of\nthe field shall not object. The planter then shall cultivate his field,\nand shall take the wheat at harvest-time, according to his contract.\n\n48. If there be interest (upon a loan) against a man, and a storm(187)\ninundate his field, or has (otherwise) destroyed the produce, or by want\nof water there is no wheat in the field, that year he shall not return any\nwheat to the creditor.(188) He shall damp his tablet (? to alter it), and\nshall not pay interest(189) for that year.\n\n49. If a man has borrowed money from an agent, and has given to the agent\na field laboured for wheat or sesame, (and) has said to him: \u201cPlant the\nfield, and gather and take the wheat or the sesame which will be\nproduced;\u201d if the planter has caused wheat or sesame to be in the field,\nat harvest-time the owner of the field may take the wheat or sesame which\nhas been produced in the field, and shall give to the agent wheat for his\nsilver and his interest(190) which he received from the agent, and (for)\nthe cost of the cultivation.\n\n50. If he has given (as security) a planted field, or a field planted with\nsesame, the owner of the field shall take the wheat or sesame which is\nproduced in the field, and shall return the silver and its interest to the\nagent.\n\n51. If there be no silver (wherewith) to repay, he shall give to the agent\nsesame at their market-price for his silver and his interest, which he\nreceived from the agent, according to the tariff of the king.\n\n52. If the planter has not caused wheat or sesame to be in the field, it\ndoes not annul his contract.\n\n53. If a man has neglected to stren[gth]en his [dyke], and has not\nstreng[thened his] dyke, [and] a breach has o[pened] in [his] dyke, and\nwater has inundated the enclosure, the man in whose dyke the breach has\nbeen opened shall make good the wheat which it has destroyed.\n\n54. If the wheat does not suffice to make good (the damage), they shall\nsell that (man) and his goods for silver, and the people(191) of the\nenclosure, whose wheat the water carried away, shall share together.\n\n55. If a man has opened his irrigation-channel to water, (and) has been\nnegligent, and the water has flooded the field of his neighbour, he shall\nmeasure (to him) wheat like(192) (that of) his neighbour.\n\n56. If a man has opened the water, and the water flood the work of the\nfield of his neighbour, he shall measure (to him) 10 _gur_ of wheat for\neach 10 _gan_.\n\n57. If a shepherd has not agreed with the owner of a field for grass to\npasture his sheep, and without the owner of the field has pastured sheep\n(in) the field, the owner shall reap _his_ fields; the shepherd who,\nwithout the owner of the field, pastured sheep (in) the field, shall pay\nto the owner of the field 20 _gur_ of wheat for every 10 _gan_ besides.\n\n58. If, after the sheep have left the enclosure, (and) the whole flock has\npassed through the gate, the shepherd place the sheep (again) in the\nfield, and cause the sheep to pasture (in) the field, the shepherd shall\nkeep the field (where) he has pastured them, and shall measure to the\nowner of the field, at harvest-time, 60 _gur_ of wheat for every 10 _gan_.\n\n59. If a man, without (the permission of) the owner of a plantation, has\ncut down a tree in the plantation of a man, he shall pay half a mana of\nsilver.\n\n60. If a man has given a field to a gardener to plant as a plantation,\n(and) the gardener has planted the plantation, he shall tend the\nplantation for four years. In the fifth year the owner of the plantation\nand the gardener shall share equally; (thereafter) the owner of the\nplantation shall apportion and take his share.\n\n61. If a gardener has not completed the plantation of a field, and has\nleft an uncultivated place, they shall set for him the uncultivated place\nin his share.\n\n62. If he has not planted the field which has been given him for a\nplantation, if (it be) grain, the gardener shall measure to the owner of\nthe field the produce of the field, for the years during which it has been\nneglected, like his neighbour; and he shall do the work of the field, and\nreturn (it) to the owner of the field.\n\n63. If the field (was) waste land, he shall do the work of the field, and\nreturn (it) to the owner of the field, and he shall measure for every year\n10 _gur_ of wheat for each 10 _gan_.\n\n64. If a man has given his plantation to a gardener to cultivate, the\ngardener, as long as he holds the plantation, shall give two-thirds of the\nproduce of the plantation to the owner of the plantation, (and) shall take\na third himself.\n\n65. If the gardener has not cultivated the plantation, and has diminished\nthe produce, the gardener [shall measure to the owner of the field]\nproduce (like) his neighbour.\n\n(Five columns have here been erased, apparently by the Elamite king who\nintended to inscribe his name upon the monument. Prof. Scheil estimates\nthat this contained about 35 sections of the laws, containing the\nremaining sections referring to the cultivation of plantations or\norchards, the letting of houses, and the laws relating to commercial\ntransactions, of which a portion is preserved after the gap. As pointed\nout by Prof. Scheil, the following sections, from fragments of tablets\nfound at Nineveh by Hormuzd Rassam and the late Geo. Smith, probably came\nin here.)\n\n[If a man has borrowed silver from an agent, and has given] to the agent\n[a date-orchard, and] has said to him: \u201cTake for thy money the dates, [as\nmuch as] will be produced in [my] orchard, for thy money;\u201d (if) that agent\nbe not in agreement, the owner of the orchard shall take the dates which\nare produced in the orchard, and return to the agent the silver and its\ninterest, according to his tablet; and the owner of the orchard may ta[ke]\nthe surplus dates which have been produced in the orchard.\n\n[If a man has hired a house, and] the man has paid to the owner of [the\nhouse] the complete money for his rent for a year, [and] the owner of the\nhouse, before the days are full, command the ten[ant] to go [forth],\u2014the\nowner of the house, [as] he sends the tenant [forth] from his house before\nthe time,(193) [shall return to the tenant a proportionate sum, for having\ngone forth from his house], from the money which the tenant has pai[d to\nhim].\n\n[If a man] owe (?) wheat (or) silver, and has not wheat or silver\n[wherewith] to [pay], but possess (other) goods, whatever is in his hands\nhe shall gi[ve] to the agent, before witnesses, as profit, [and] the agent\nshall not f[ind fault], and shall ac[cept it].\n\n(Portions of other laws are also preserved, but they are too fragmentary\nto enable the sense to be gathered.)\n\n100. [If an agent has advanced silver to a commissioner, and he has had\ngood fortune in the place to which he went], he shall write down the\nprofits of his silver, as much as he has received, and the day when they\nmake up their accounts he shall pay (it) to his agent.\n\n101. If he found no profit where he went, he shall make up the silver\nwhich he took, and the commissioner shall repay it to the agent.(194)\n\n102. If an agent has advanced silver to a commissioner for profit, and he\nfound loss where he went, he shall return the capital of the silver to the\nagent.\n\n103. If, whilst going on his way, an enemy caused him to lose what he was\ncarrying, the commissioner shall call God to witness(195) and shall go\nfree.\n\n104. If an agent has given to a commissioner grain, wool, oil, or any\nother goods for trading, the commissioner shall write down the silver\n(received), and shall return it to the agent. The commissioner shall take\na sealed document of the silver which he gives to the agent.(196)\n\n105. If the commissioner has been negligent, and has not taken a sealed\ndocument of the silver which he has given to the agent, the silver not\ncertified shall not be placed in the business.(197)\n\n106. If a commissioner has taken silver from an agent, and dispute\n(withhold it from) his agent, that agent shall summon the commissioner\nbefore God and the witnesses concerning the money taken; the commissioner\nshall repay to the agent the silver, as much as he has taken, threefold.\n\n107. If an agent act unjustly to a commissioner, and the commissioner has\nreturned to the agent everything which the agent had given to him, (and)\nthe agent dispute with the commissioner (concerning) anything which the\ncommissioner has repaid to him, that commissioner shall summon the agent\nbefore God and the witnesses, and the agent, for having disputed (with)\nhis commissioner, anything which he has received he shall repay to the\ncommissioner sixfold.\n\n108. If a wine-woman has not accepted wheat as the price of drink, (but)\nhas accepted silver by the large stone, or has set the tariff of the drink\nbelow the tariff of the wheat, they shall summon that wine-woman, and\nshall throw her into the water.\n\n109. If a wine-woman, (when) riotous fellows are assembled at her house,\ndoes not seize those riotous fellows and take them to the palace, that\nwine-woman shall be killed.\n\n110. If a devotee who dwells not in a cloister open a wine-house, or enter\na wine-house for drink, that female they shall burn.\n\n111. If a wine-woman has given 60 _qa_ of second (?) quality drink, for\nthirst, she shall take 50 _qa_ of corn at harvest-time.\n\n112. If a man is travelling,(198) and has given to (another) man silver,\ngold, (precious) stones, and his other property(199) and has caused him to\ntake them for delivery, (and) that man has not delivered what he was to\ntransmit at the place to which he was to transmit (it), and has taken it\naway, the owner of the consignment shall summon that man for anything\nwhich he took and did not deliver, and that man shall give (back) to the\nowner of the consignment fivefold anything which had been given to him.\n\n113. If a man have (an account of) wheat or silver against a man, and\nwithout the owner of the wheat has taken wheat from the barn or the\ndepository, they shall summon that man, for having taking wheat, without\nthe owner of the wheat, from the barn or depository, and he shall return\nthe wheat, as much as he took, and he shall forfeit whatever it may be, as\nmuch as he lent.(200)\n\n114. If a man have no (account of) wheat or silver against a man, and make\nhis distraint, for every distraint he shall pay one-third of a mana of\nsilver.\n\n115. If a man have (an account of) wheat or silver against a man, and make\nhis distraint, and the person distrained(201) die, by his fate, in the\nhouse of the distrainer, that lawsuit has no claim.\n\n116. If the person distrained die in the house of the distrainer by blows\nor by ill-treatment, the owner of the person distrained shall summon his\nagent;(202) and if (the person distrained) was the son of the man, they\nshall kill his (the distrainer\u2019s) son; if he was the servant (slave) of\nthe man, he shall pay one-third of a mana of silver; and he shall forfeit\nwhatever it may be, as much as he lent.\n\n117. If a man has contracted a debt, and has given his wife, his son, (or)\nhis daughter for the money, or has let (them) out for service, three years\nthey shall serve the house of their purchaser or master, in the fourth\nyear he shall grant their freedom.\n\n118. If he let out a male or female slave for service, (and) the agent\npass (them) on (and) give them for silver, there is no claim.\n\n119. If a man has contracted a debt, and has sold his female-slave who has\nborne him children, the owner of the slave may (re)pay the silver which\nthe agent has paid, and redeem his slave.\n\n120. If a man has delivered his grain for storage in the house of a man,\nand a deficiency appears in the granary, or the master of the house has\nopened the storehouse and taken the grain, or he has disputed as to the\ntotal of the grain which was delivered at his house, the owner of the\ngrain shall claim his grain before God, and the master of the house shall\ncause the grain which he has taken to be made up, and shall give (it) to\nthe owner of the grain.\n\n121. If a man has delivered grain (for storage) at the house of a man, he\nshall pay yearly 5 _qa_ of grain for every _gur_ (as) the price of the\nstorage.\n\n122. If a man give silver, gold, or anything else, to a man on deposit, he\nshall show the witnesses everything, whatever he gives; he shall make\ncontracts, and (then) give (it) on deposit.\n\n123. If he has given it on deposit without witnesses and contracts, and\nthey dispute (this) to him where he gave it, that lawsuit has no claim.\n\n124. If a man has given silver, gold, or anything else, to a man, before\nwitnesses, on deposit, and (the man) dispute with him, he shall summon\nthat man, and whatever he has disputed, he shall make up and give (back).\n\n125. If a man has given his property on deposit, and where he gave (it),\nhis property disappeared, with the property of the owner of the house,\neither through a breaking in or through a trespass, the master of the\nhouse which was in fault shall compensate for his property which he gave\nhim on deposit and (which) was lost, and he shall make (it) up to the\nowner of the property. The master of the house shall seek his lost\nproperty, and take it from the thief.\n\n126. If a man, his property not being lost, say that his property is lost,\nhe shall bring forward his deficiency. As his property has not been lost,\nhe shall state his deficiency before God, and whatever he has claimed they\nshall cause him to make up, and he shall give (it) to (make up) his\ndeficiency.\n\n127. If a man has caused the finger to be raised against a devotee or the\nwife of a man, and has not justified it, they shall set that man before\nthe judges, and mark his forehead.\n\n128. If a man has taken a wife, and has not made her contract,(203) that\nwoman is not a wife.\n\n129. If the wife of a man is taken in adultery with another male, they\nshall tie them together, and throw them into the water. If the owner of\nthe wife spare his wife, and the king spare his servant....\n\n130. If a man force the wife of a man who has not yet known a male, and\n(who) dwells in the house of her father, and has lain in her bosom, and\nthey have found him, that man shall be killed, the woman shall be allowed\nto go.\n\n131. If the wife of a man has been accused by her husband,(204) and he has\nnot found her on the couch with another male, she shall swear by God,(205)\nand return to her house.\n\n132. If, on account of another male, the finger has been pointed at the\nwife of a man, and she has not been found with another male on the couch,\nshe shall plunge into the river for her husband(\u2019s sake).\n\n133. If a man has been made captive, and there is in his house the\nwherewithal to eat, (and) his [wife] has [gone] forth [from] her [house],\n[and afterwards?] has [en]tered into another house, [as] that woman has\nnot guarded her homestead, and has entered another house, they shall\nsummon that woman, and throw her into the water.\n\n134. If a man has been made captive, and there is not in the house the\nwherewithal to eat, his wife may enter another house; that woman is not in\nfault.\n\n135. If a man has been made captive, and there is not in his house the\nwherewithal to eat,(206) (and) his wife has entered another house, and has\nborne children, (and) afterwards her husband return, and reach his city,\nthat woman shall(207) return to her husband; the children shall go to\ntheir father.\n\n136. If a man has abandoned his city and fled, (and) afterwards(208) his\nwife has entered another house, if that man return, and (wish to) take his\nwife, as he hated his city and fled, the wife of the deserter shall(209)\nnot return to her husband.\n\n137. If a man set his face to repudiate a concubine who has borne him\nchildren, or a wife who has caused him to have children, he shall return\nto that woman her (marriage) gift, and shall give to her the usufruct of\nfield, plantation, and goods, and she shall bring up her children. After\nshe has brought up her children, they shall give to her, from the property\nwhich has been given to her children, (a share of) the produce like (that\nof) one son, and she may marry the husband of her choice.(210)\n\n138. If a man (wish to) repudiate his spouse, who has not borne him\nchildren, he shall give to her silver, as much as was her dower, and he\nshall restore to her the wedding-gift which she brought from the house of\nher father, and shall repudiate her.\n\n139. If there be no dower, he shall give her one mana of silver for the\nrepudiation.\n\n140. If (he be) a poor man, he shall give her one-third of a mana of\nsilver.\n\n141. If the wife of a man, who dwells in the house of the man, set her\nface to go forth, commit foolishness (?), ruin her house, despise her\nhusband, they shall summon her, and if her husband say: \u201cI have divorced\nher,\u201d he shall let her go her way. (As for) her repudiation(-gift),\nnothing shall be given to her. If her husband say: \u201cI have not repudiated\nher,\u201d her husband may marry(211) another woman; that woman shall dwell in\nher husband\u2019s house like a servant.\n\n142. If a woman hate her husband, and say: \u201cThou shalt not possess me,\u201d\nher reason for that which she lacks shall be examined, and if she has been\ncontinent, and have no fault, and her husband go out, and neglect her\ngreatly, that woman has no defect; she shall take her wedding-gift, and\nshall go to the house of her father.\n\n143. If she has not been continent, and has gone about, she has ruined her\nhouse, (and) despised her husband; they shall throw that woman into the\nwater.\n\n144. If a man has married a wife, and that wife has given a maid-servant\nto her husband, and she has had children, (if) that man set his face to\ntake a concubine, they shall not allow that man\u2014he shall not take a\nconcubine.\n\n145. If a man has married a wife, and she has not caused him to have\nchildren, and he set his face to take a concubine, that man may take a\nconcubine, (and) may introduce her into his house, (but) he shall not make\nthat concubine equal with (his) wife.\n\n146. If a man has married a wife, and she has given a maid-servant to her\nhusband, and (the maid-servant) has borne children, (if) afterwards that\nmaid-servant make herself equal with her mistress, as she has borne\nchildren, her mistress shall not sell her for silver; she shall place a\nmark(212) upon her, and count her with the maid-servants.\n\n147. If she has not borne children, her mistress may sell her for silver.\n\n148. If a man has married a wife, and a malady has seized her, (and) he\nhas set his face to marry a second, he may marry. He shall not divorce the\nwife whom the malady has seized; she may stay in the house he has made,\nand he shall support her as long as she lives.\n\n149. If that woman is not content to dwell in the house of her husband, he\nshall deliver to her her marriage-gift, which she brought from the house\nof her father, and she shall go her way.\n\n150. If a man has presented to his wife a field, a plantation, a house,\nand property, (and) has left her a sealed tablet, after her husband(\u2019s\ndeath) her sons shall make no claim against her. The mother may give her\nproperty(213) to the son whom she loves,\u2014to the brother she need not give.\n\n151. If a woman who dwells in the house of a man contract with her\nhusband, and cause (him) to deliver a tablet, so that a creditor(214) of\nher husband may not seize her, if that man have interest of money against\nhim before he marries that woman, his creditor shall not seize his wife,\nand if that woman have interest of money against her before she enter the\nhouse of the man, her creditor shall not seize her husband.\n\n152. If interest accrue against them after that woman has entered the\nhouse of the man, they shall both be responsible to the agent.\n\n153. If the wife of a man cause her husband to be killed on account of\nanother male, they shall impale that woman.(215)\n\n154. If a man has known his daughter, they shall expel that man from the\ncity.\n\n155. If a man has chosen a bride for his son, and his son has known her,\n(and if) he (himself) then afterwards has lain in her bosom, and they have\nfound him, they shall bind that man, and cast her into the water.(216)\n\n156. If a man has chosen a bride for his son, and his son has not known\nher, and he (himself) has lain in her bosom, he shall pay her half a mana\nof silver, and shall restore to her whatever she brought from the house of\nher father, and she shall marry the husband of her choice.\n\n157. If a man, after his father, has lain in the bosom of his mother, they\nshall burn them both.\n\n158. If a man, after his father, be found in the bosom of her who brought\nhim up, (and) who has brought forth children, that man shall be turned out\nof (his) father\u2019s house.\n\n159. If a man, who has brought to his father-in-law\u2019s house furniture(217)\n(and) has given a dower, pay attention to another woman, and say to his\nfather-in-law: \u201cI will not marry thy daughter,\u201d the father of the girl\nshall take the property which has been brought to him.\n\n160. If a man has brought furniture to the house of his father-in-law,\n(and) given a dower, and the father of the girl say: \u201cI will not give thee\nmy daughter,\u201d the property, as much as has been brought to him, he shall\ncause to be equal,(218) and shall return.\n\n161. If a man has brought furniture to the house of his father-in-law,\n(and) given a dower, and his friend slander him, (and) his father-in-law\nsay to the husband of the wife:(219) \u201cThou shalt not marry my daughter,\u201d\nhe shall cause to be equal the property, as much as has been brought to\nhim, and return (it), and his friend shall not marry his wife.\n\n162. If a man has married a wife, (and) she has borne him children, and\nthat woman has gone to (her) fate, her father shall have no claim upon her\nmarriage-gift\u2014her marriage-gift belongs to her sons.\n\n163. If a man has married a wife, and she has not caused him to have\nchildren, (and) that woman has gone to (her) fate, if his father-in-law\nhas returned to him the dower which that man took to the house of his\nfather-in-law, her husband shall have no claim upon the marriage-gift of\nthat woman\u2014her marriage-gift belongs to the house of her father.\n\n164. If his father-in-law has not returned to him the dower, he shall\ndeduct from her marriage-gift all her dower, and return (the balance of)\nher marriage-gift to her father\u2019s house.\n\n165. If a man has presented to his son, who is foremost in his eyes, a\nfield, a plantation, and a house, (and) has written for him a tablet,\n(and) afterwards the father has gone to (his) fate, when the brothers\nshare together, he shall take the gift which the father gave him, and they\nshall share equally in the property of the house of the father besides.\n\n166. If a man has taken wives for the sons which he has had, (and) has not\ntaken a wife for his youngest son, (and) afterwards the father has gone to\n(his) fate, when the brothers share together, they shall set aside the\nmoney of a dower for their youngest brother, who has not taken a wife,\nfrom the property of the father\u2019s house, besides his (lawful) share, and\nshall cause him to take a wife.\n\n167. If a man has married a wife, and she has borne him sons, (and) that\nwoman has gone to (her) fate, (and) after her he has married another\nwoman, and she has brought forth sons, (and) afterwards the father has\ngone to (his) fate, the sons shall not share according to the mothers.\nThey shall take the marriage-gifts of their mothers, and the property of\nthe father\u2019s house they shall share equally.\n\n168. If a man set his face to discard his son, he shall say to the judge:\n\u201cI discard my son;\u201d the judge shall inquire into his reasons. If the son\nhas not committed a grave fault which cuts him off from sonhood, the\nfather shall not cut off his son from sonhood.(220)\n\n169. If he has committed against his father a grave fault which cuts him\noff from sonhood, the first time (the father) shall refrain. If he has\ncommitted a grave fault a second time, the father shall cut his son off\nfrom the sonhood.\n\n170. If a man\u2019s wife has borne him children, and his maid-servant has\nborne him children, (and) the father in his lifetime say to the children\nwhom the maid-servant has borne to him: \u201cMy children,\u201d he has reckoned\nthem with the children of the wife. After the father has gone to (his)\nfate, the children of the wife and the children of the maid-servant shall\nshare in the property of the father\u2019s house equally; the son (who is) the\nchild of the wife shall choose and take at the sharing.\n\n171. And if the father, during his lifetime, has not said to the children\nwhom the maid-servant has borne to him: \u201cMy children,\u201d after the father\nhas gone to (his) fate, the children of the maid-servant shall not share\nin the property of the father\u2019s house with the children of the wife. (If)\nhe has set free the maid-servant and her children, the children of the\nwife shall not claim the children of the maid-servant for service. The\nwife shall take her marriage-gift and the dowry which her husband gave her\n(and) recorded upon a tablet, and she shall sit in the seat of her\nhusband; as long as she lives, she shall enjoy (them)\u2014she shall not sell\nthem for money\u2014they belong to her children after her.\n\n172. If her husband has not given her a dowry, they shall make up to her\nher marriage-gift, and she shall take, from the property of her husband\u2019s\nhouse, a share like (that of) one son. If her sons afflict her, to send\nher forth from the house, the judge shall inquire into her reasons, and\n(if) he set the fault upon the children, that woman shall not go forth\nfrom her husband\u2019s house. If that woman set her face to go forth, she\nshall leave to her children the dowry which her husband gave her. She\nshall take the marriage-gift of her father\u2019s house, and the husband of her\nchoice shall marry her.\n\n173. If that woman, in the place where she has entered, has borne to her\nsecond husband children, after that woman has died, the former and latter\nchildren shall share her marriage-gift.\n\n174. If she has not borne children to her second husband, then the\nchildren of her (first) spouse shall take her marriage-gift.\n\n175. If a slave of the palace or the slave of a poor man has married the\ndaughter of a (free) man, and has borne children, the owner of the slave\nshall not make a claim upon the children of a (free) man\u2019s daughter for\nservitude.\n\n176a. And if a slave of the palace or a slave of a poor man has married a\n(free) man\u2019s daughter, and when he has married her, she has entered the\nhouse of the slave of the palace or the slave of the poor man with a\nwedding-gift from the house of her father, and after they have been\nestablished, they have built a house and have property, (if) afterwards\nthe slave of the palace or the slave of the poor man has gone to (his)\nfate, the daughter of the (free) man shall take her marriage-gift, and\nthey shall divide the property, which her husband and she had after they\nwere established, into two parts, and the owner of the slave shall take\nhalf, (and) the daughter of the (free) man shall take half for her\nchildren.\n\n176b. If the daughter of the (free) man had no marriage-gift, the property\nwhich her husband and she possessed after they were established they shall\ndivide into two parts, and the master of the slave shall take half, the\ndaughter of the (free) man shall take half for her children.\n\n177. If a widow whose children are young set her face to enter another\nhouse,(221) she shall not enter without the judge. When she enters another\nhouse, the judge shall inquire concerning what remains of her first\nhusband\u2019s house, and they shall entrust the first husband\u2019s house to the\nsecond husband and to that woman, and shall cause them to deliver a\ntablet. They shall keep that house and bring up the young (children). They\nshall not sell (any) utensil for silver. The buyer who buys a utensil of\nthe children of a widow shall forfeit his money; the property shall return\nto its owner.\n\n178. If a devotee, or a public woman, to whom her father has presented a\ngift, (and) has written for her a tablet, (and) on the tablet which he has\nwritten for her has not written for her (concerning) the giving of what\nshe should leave to whomsoever she pleased, and has not let her follow the\ndesire of her heart, after the father has gone to (his) fate, her brothers\nshall take her field and her plantation, and according to the amount of\nher share shall give to her food, oil, and clothing, and shall satisfy her\nheart. If her brothers have not given her food, oil, and clothing\naccording to the amount of her share, and have not satisfied her heart,\nshe may give her field and plantation to the farmer who may seem good to\nher, and her farmer shall support her. Field, plantation, and property,\nwhich her father gave her, she shall enjoy as long as she lives\u2014she shall\nnot give (them) for silver, nor shall she be answerable (to) another\n(therewith)\u2014her share as daughter belongs to her brothers.(222)\n\n179. If a devotee or a public woman, to whom her father has presented a\ngift, (and) has written for her a sealed tablet, (and) on the tablet which\nhe has written for her has written for her (concerning) the giving of what\nshe should leave to whomsoever she pleased, and has let her follow the\ndesire of her heart, after the father has gone to (his) fate, she shall\ngive what she leaves to whomsoever she pleases\u2014her brothers have no claim\nupon her.\n\n180. If a father has not presented a gift(223) to his daughter, who is a\nrecluse or a public woman, after the father has gone to (his) fate, she\nshall take a share in the property of the father\u2019s house like a son, and\nenjoy (it) as long as she lives. What she leaves belongs to her brothers.\n\n181. If a father has brought to a god a hierodule or a virgin, and has not\npresented to her a gift,(224) after the father has gone to (his) fate, she\nshall share in the property of the father\u2019s house a third (as) her\ninheritance, and she shall enjoy (it) as long as she lives. What she\nleaves belongs to her brothers.\n\n182. If a father has not presented a gift to his daughter, priestess of\nMerodach of Babylon, (and) has not written for her a sealed tablet, after\nthe father has gone to (his) fate, she shall share, with her brothers, in\nthe property of the father\u2019s house a third part (as) her inheritance, and\nshe shall not carry on its administration. The priestess of Merodach may\ngive what she leaves to whomsoever she pleases.\n\n183. If a father has presented a marriage-gift to his concubine-daughter,\ngiven her to a husband, (and) written for her a sealed tablet, after the\nfather has gone to (his) fate, she shall not share in the property of the\nfather\u2019s house.(225)\n\n184. If a man has not presented to his concubine-daughter a marriage-gift,\n(and) has not given her to a husband, after the father has gone to (his)\nfate, her brothers shall give her a wedding-gift according to the amount\n(of the property) of the father\u2019s house, and shall give her to a husband.\n\n185. If a man has adopted(226) a child by its name,(227) and has brought\nit up, that foster-child cannot be claimed back.\n\n186. If a man has adopted a child, and when he had adopted him, he\nrebelled against his (foster-)father and his (foster-)mother, that\nfoster-child shall return to his father\u2019s house.\n\n187. The son of a favourite attending the palace, and the son of a public\nwoman, cannot be claimed back.(228)\n\n188. If an artizan(229) has taken a child to bring up,(230) and has taught\nhim his handicraft, he cannot be claimed back.\n\n189. If he has not taught him his handicraft, that foster-child(231) may\nreturn to his father\u2019s house.\n\n190. If a man has not reckoned with his sons a young child which he has\nadopted and brought up, that foster-child may return to the house of his\nfather.\n\n191. If a man who has adopted a child and brought him up, has built a\ndwelling, (and) after he has children (of his own) set his face to cut off\nthe foster-child, that child shall not go his way. His foster-father shall\ngive him one-third of his property as his inheritance and (then) he shall\ngo. He shall give him nothing of the field, plantation, and house.\n\n192. If the son of a favourite or the son of a public woman say to his\nfoster-father and his foster-mother, \u201cThou art not my father, thou art not\nmy mother,\u201d they shall cut out his tongue.(232)\n\n193. If the child of a favourite or the child of a public woman come to\nknow his father\u2019s house, and despise his foster-father and his\nfoster-mother, and go to his father\u2019s house, they shall tear out his\neyes.(233)\n\n194. If a man has given his child to a nurse, and that child has died in\nthe hands of the nurse, and the nurse, without [his] father and his\nmother, rear another child, they shall summon her, and as she has rear[ed]\nanother child without [his] father and mother, they shall cut off her\nbreasts.\n\n195. If a son smite his father, they shall cut off his hands.\n\n196. If a man has destroyed the eye of the son of a man, they shall\ndestroy his eye.\n\n197. If he has broken the limb of a man, they shall break his limb.\n\n198. If he has destroyed the eye of a poor man, or broken the limb of a\npoor man, he shall pay one mana of silver.\n\n199. If he has destroyed the eye of a man\u2019s slave, or broken the limb of a\nman\u2019s slave, he shall pay half his value.(234)\n\n200. If a man has knocked out the teeth of a man of his rank, they shall\nknock out his teeth.\n\n201. If he has knocked out the teeth of a poor man, he shall pay one-third\nof a mana of silver.\n\n202. If a man has struck the head(235) of a man who is greater than he, he\nshall be struck in the assembly sixty times with an ox-hide whip.\n\n203. If the son of a man(236) has struck the head of the son of a man who\nis like himself, he shall pay one mana of silver.\n\n204. If a poor man has struck the head of a poor man, he shall pay ten\nshekels of silver.\n\n205. If the slave of a man has struck the head of the son of a man, they\nshall cut off his ear.\n\n206. If a man has struck a man in a quarrel, and do him hurt, that man\nshall swear: \u201cI did not strike him knowingly,\u201d and he shall be responsible\nfor the physician.\n\n207. If he die of his blows, he shall swear (the same). If (it was) the\nson of a man, he shall pay one-half a mana of silver.\n\n208. If it was the son of a poor man, he shall pay one-third of a mana of\nsilver.\n\n209. If a man has struck the daughter of a man, and caused what was within\nher to fall from her, he shall pay ten shekels of silver for what was\nwithin her.\n\n210. If that woman die, they shall kill his daughter.\n\n211. If by blows he has made what was within the daughter of a poor man to\nfall from her, he shall pay five shekels of silver.\n\n212. If that woman die, he shall pay one-half a mana of silver.\n\n213. If he has struck a man\u2019s slave-woman and made that which was within\nher fall from her, he shall pay two shekels of silver.\n\n214. If that slave-woman die, he shall pay one-third of a mana of silver.\n\n215. If a physician has treated a man for a grave injury with a bronze\nlancet, and cured the man, or opened the cataract of a man with a bronze\nlancet, and cured the eye of the man, he shall receive ten shekels of\nsilver.\n\n216. If it was the son of a poor man, he shall receive five shekels of\nsilver.\n\n217. If it was a man\u2019s slave, the owner of the slave shall pay to the\nphysician two shekels of silver.\n\n218. If a physician has treated a man for a grave injury with a bronze\nlancet, and caused the man to die, or opened the cataract of a man with a\nbronze lancet, and destroyed the eye of a man, they shall cut off his\nhands.\n\n219. If a physician has treated a poor man\u2019s slave for a grave injury with\na bronze lancet, and has caused (him) to die, he shall make good slave for\nslave.(237)\n\n220. If he has opened his cataract with a bronze lancet, and destroyed his\neye, he shall pay half his value in silver.(238)\n\n221. If a physician has made sound the broken limb of a man, or saved a\ndiseased part, the patient(239) shall pay to the physician five shekels of\nsilver.\n\n222. If it be the son of a poor man, he shall pay three shekels of silver.\n\n223. If it was a man\u2019s slave, the owner of the slave shall pay to the\nphysician two shekels of silver.\n\n224. If an ox-doctor or an ass-doctor has treated an ox or an ass for a\ngrave injury, and has saved (it), the owner of the ox or the ass shall pay\nto the physician one-sixth (of a shekel) of silver (as) his hire.\n\n225. If he has treated the ox or the ass for a grave injury, and caused\n(it) to die, he shall give to the owner of the ox or the ass a quarter of\nits price.\n\n226. If a barber, without the (knowledge of the) owner of a slave, has\nmarked an inalienable slave with a mark, they shall cut off the hands of\nthat barber.(240)\n\n227. If a man has deceived a barber, and he has marked an inalienable\nslave with a mark, they shall kill that man, and bury him in his house;\nthe barber shall swear: \u201cI did not mark knowingly,\u201d and shall go free.\n\n228. If a builder has made a house for a man, and has finished it (well),\nfor a house of one _\u0161ar_, he shall give him two shekels of silver as his\npay.\n\n229. If a builder has made a house for a man, and has not done his work\nstrongly, and the house he has made has fallen down, and killed the owner\nof the house, that builder shall be killed.\n\n230. If it cause the son of the owner of the house to die, they shall kill\nthe son of that builder.\n\n231. If it cause the slave of the owner of the house to die, he shall give\nto the owner of the house a slave like (his) slave.\n\n232. If it has destroyed the property, whatever it has destroyed, he shall\nmake good. And as he did not make strong the house he constructed, and it\nfell, from his own property he shall rebuild the house which fell.\n\n233. If a builder has made a house for a man, and has not caused his work\nto be firm, and the wall has fallen over, that builder shall strengthen\nthat wall with his own money.\n\n234. If a boatman has calked a vessel of 60 _gur_ (burthen) for a man, he\nshall give him two shekels of silver as his pay.\n\n235. If a boatman has calked a vessel for a man, and has not perfected his\nwork, and in that (same) year that vessel sail, (if) it have a defect, the\nboatman shall alter that vessel, and repair (it) with his own capital, and\ngive the repaired vessel to the owner of the vessel.(241)\n\n236. If a man has given his vessel to a boatman for hire, and the boatman\nhas been neglectful, and sunk or lost the vessel, the boatman shall\nreplace the vessel to the owner of the vessel.\n\n237. If a man has hired a boatman and a vessel, and has freighted it with\nwheat, wool, oil, dates, and any other kind of freight; (if) that boatman\nbe neglectful, and sink the vessel, and lose what is within (it), the\nboatman shall replace the vessel which he has sunk, and whatever he lost,\nwhich was within it.\n\n238. If a boatman has sunk a man\u2019s vessel, and refloated it, he shall pay\nhalf its value(242) in silver.\n\n239. If a man [has hired] a boatman, he shall give him 6 _gur_ of wheat\nyearly.\n\n240. If a down-stream vessel collide with an up-stream vessel, and sink\n(it), the owner of the sunken vessel shall declare before God whatever has\nbeen lost in his vessel, and (he) of the down-stream vessel which sank the\nup-stream vessel shall replace for him his vessel and whatever was lost.\n\n241. If a man has driven the ox (of another) to work, he shall pay\none-third of a mana of silver.\n\n242 and 243. If a man has hired for a year, (as) hire of a draught-ox he\nshall pay to its owner 4 _gur_ of wheat. (As) hire of a carrier(?)-ox, 3\n_gur_ of wheat.\n\n244. If a man has hired an ox (or) an ass, and a lion kill it in the\nfield, (the loss) is its owner\u2019s.\n\n245. If a man has hired an ox, and cause it to die by negligence or by\nblows, to the ox\u2019s owner he shall make up ox for ox.(243)\n\n246. If a man has hired an ox, and has broken its foot or cut its\nnape,(244) to the ox\u2019s owner he shall make up ox for ox.\n\n247. If a man has hired an ox, and has poked out its eye, he shall pay to\nthe ox\u2019s owner half its value in silver.\n\n248. If a man has hired an ox, and has broken its horn, cut off its tail,\nor pierced(245) its nostril, he shall pay a quarter of its value in\nsilver.\n\n249. If a man has hired an ox, and God has stricken it and it has died,\nthe man who hired the ox shall swear by God,(246) and shall go free.\n\n250. If a mad bull, in its onset, has gored a man, and caused (him) to\ndie, that case has no claim.(247)\n\n251. If a man\u2019s ox\u2014goring for goring\u2014has made known to him its vice,(248)\nand he has not sawn off its horns, (if) he has not shut up his ox, and\nthat ox has gored the son of a man, and caused him to die, he shall pay\nhalf a mana of silver.\n\n252. [If] it be a man\u2019s servant, he shall give one-third of a mana of\nsilver.\n\n253. If a man has hired a man to stay upon his field, and [ha]nded to him\nthe produce (?), confided to him the oxen, [and] contracted with him [to]\ncultivate the field, if that man has stolen the wheat or the vegetables,\nand it is found in his hands, they shall cut off his hands.\n\n254. If he has taken away the produce and deprived(249) the oxen, he shall\nreplace the amount of the wheat which he has wasted (?).\n\n255. If he has let out(250) the oxen of a man for hire, or stolen the\nwheat, and not made (it) to grow in the field, they shall summon that man,\nand for every 10 _bur-gan_ he shall measure 60 _gur_ of wheat.\n\n256. If his borough cannot respond for him, they shall leave him in that\nfield with the oxen.\n\n257. If a man has hired a field-labourer, he shall give him 8 _gur_ of\nwheat yearly.\n\n258. If a man has hired an ox-herd (?), he shall give him 6 _gur_ of wheat\nyearly.\n\n259. If a man has stolen a watering-machine from the enclosure, he shall\ngive to the owner of the watering-machine five shekels of silver.\n\n260. If he has stolen a shadoof or a plough, he shall give three shekels\nof silver.\n\n261. If a man has hired a herdsman to pasture oxen and sheep, he shall\ngive him 8 _gur_ of wheat yearly.\n\n262. If a man an ox or sheep for....\n\n263. ... If he has lost [an ox] or a sheep which has been given to [him],\nhe shall restore to [their] owner, ox for [ox], sheep for [sheep].\n\n264. If a [herdsman], to whom oxen or sheep have been given to pasture,\nhas received his wages, everything (?) as agreed (?), and is\nsatisfied,(251) has reduced the oxen, (or) reduced the sheep, (or)\nlessened (their) young, he shall give (back) young and increase according\nto his contracts.\n\n265. If a herdsman, to whom oxen and sheep have been given to pasture, has\nacted wrongly, and changed the natural increase,(252) and has given (it)\nfor silver, they shall summon him, and ten times what he has stolen, oxen\nand sheep, he shall make good to their owner.\n\n266. If in the fold an act of God has taken place, or a lion has killed,\nthe herdsman shall declare his innocence before God, and the owner of the\nfold shall meet the destruction of the fold.\n\n267. If the herdsman has been in fault, and has caused damage in the fold,\nthe herdsman shall make up the loss caused by(253) the damage which he has\nbrought about in the fold, (both) oxen and sheep, and shall give (them) to\ntheir owner.\n\n268. If a man has hired an ox for treading out (the corn), 20 _qa_ of\nwheat is his hire.\n\n269. If he has hired an ass for treading out (the corn), 10 _qa_ of wheat\nis his hire.\n\n270. If he has hired a young animal for treading out (the corn), 1 _qa_ of\nwheat is his hire.\n\n271. If a man has hired oxen, a cart, and its driver, he shall give 180\n_qa_ of wheat daily.\n\n272. If a man has hired the cart by itself, he shall give 40 _qa_ of wheat\ndaily.\n\n273. If a man has hired a workman, from the beginning of the year to the\nfifth month he shall give six grains(254) of silver daily; from the sixth\nmonth to the end of the year, he shall give five grains of silver daily.\n\n274. If a man hire an artizan, (as) wages of a ... five [grains] of\nsilver; (as) wages of a brickmaker (?)(255) five grains of silver; (as)\nwages of a linen-weaver(256) five grains of silver; (as) wages of a\nstone-worker(?)(257) ... grains of silver; (as) wages of a milkman (?) ...\n[grains] of silver; (as) [wages] of a ... ... [grains] of silver; (as)\n[wages] of a carpenter four grains of silver; (as) wages of a ... four\ngrains of silver; (as) [wages] of a house-superintendent (?) ... grains of\nsilver; (as) [wages] of a builder (?), ... grains of silver. [dai]ly [he\nshall g]ive.\n\n275. [If] a man has hired a small boat (?), three grains of silver is its\nhire daily.\n\n276. If he has hired a down-stream (vessel), he shall give two grains and\na half of silver (as) its hire daily.\n\n277. If a man has hired a vessel of 60 _gur_, he shall give one-sixth (of\na shekel) of silver daily (as) its hire.\n\n278. If a man has bought a male or female slave, and before he has\nfulfilled his month an infirmity has fallen upon him, he shall return him\nto his seller, and the buyer shall receive back the silver he has paid.\n\n279. If a man has bought a male or female slave, and he is liable to be\nreclaimed,(258) his seller shall respond to the claim.(259)\n\n280. If a man, in a foreign country, has bought a male (or) female slave\nof a man, (and) when they have arrived in the midst of the land, a\n(former) owner of the male or female slave recognize his male or female\nslave, if their male and female slave are children of the land, he shall\nset them free without payment.(260)\n\n281. If they are children of another land, the buyer shall declare before\nGod the money(261) he has paid, and the (former) owner of the male or\nfemale slave shall give to the agent the money he has paid, and shall\nrecover his male or female slave.\n\n282. If a slave has said to his master: \u201cThou art not my master,\u201d he shall\nsummon him as his slave, and his master shall cut off his ear.\n\nDecrees of equity, which \u1e2aammurabi, the able king, has established, and\nhas procured (for) the country lasting security and a happy rule.\n\u1e2aammurabi, the accomplished king, am I. For the head-dark (ones),(262)\nwhom Bel assigned, (and whose) shepherding Merodach has given, I have not\nbeen neglectful, I have not relaxed\u2014peaceful localities have I found for\nthem,(263) I have opened the narrow defiles, light have I caused to go\nforth to them. With the powerful weapon which Zagaga and I\u0161tar have\nconferred upon me, with the acuteness which A\u00ea has bestowed, with the\nmight which Merodach has bestowed, I have rooted out the enemy above and\nbelow.(264) I have dominated the depths,(265) I have made happy the flesh\nof the land, the people of the dwellings (therein) have I caused to lie\ndown in security\u2014fear caused I not to possess them. The great gods have\nelected(266) me, and I am the shepherd giving peace, whose sceptre is\njust, setting up my good shadow in my city. I have pressed the people of\nthe land of \u0160umer and Akkad in my bosom; by my protective spirit\nfraternally (?) have I guided them in peace; in my wisdom have I protected\nthem. For the strong not to oppress the weak, to direct the fatherless\n(and) the widow, I have raised its(267) head in Babylon, the city of God\nand Bel. In \u00ca-sagila, the house whose foundations are firm like heaven and\nearth, I have written on my monument my most precious words to judge the\njustice of the land, to decide the decisions of the land, to direct the\nignorant; and I have placed (them) before my image as king of\nrighteousness.\n\nThe king who is great among the city-king(s) am I; my words are renowned,\nmy power has no equal; by the command of \u0160ama\u0161, the great judge of heaven\nand earth, may righteousness have power in the land;(268) by the word of\nMerodach, my lord, may my bas-reliefs not have a destroyer; in \u00ca-sagila,\nwhich I love, may my name be commemorated in happiness for ever. The\nignorant man, who has a complaint,(269) let him come before my image (as)\nking of righteousness, and let him read my inscribed monument and let him\nhear my precious words, and my monument explain to him the matter. Let him\nsee his judgment, let his heart expand, (saying): \u201c\u1e2aammurabi is a lord who\nis like a father, a parent to the people; he has caused the word of\nMerodach, his lord, to be reverenced, and has gained the victory for\nMerodach above and below. He has rejoiced the heart of Merodach, his lord,\nand fixed for the people happiness(270) for ever, and (well) has he\ngoverned the land.\u201d Let him pronounce (it) aloud, and with his heart\nperfect, let him pray before Merodach, my lord, (and) Z\u0113rpanitum, my lady.\nMay the winged bull, (and) the protecting spirit, the gods of the entrance\nof \u00ca-sagila, (and) the wall of \u00ca-sagila, daily further (his) desires(271)\nin the presence of Merodach, my lord, and Z\u0113rpanitum, my lady.\n\nFor the future, the course(272) of days for all time: May the king who is\nin the land protect the words of righteousness which I have written on my\nmonument. Let him not change the law of the land which I have adjudged,\nthe decisions of the country which I have decided; let him not cause my\nbas-relief to be destroyed. If that man have intelligence, and wish to\ngovern his country well, let him pay attention to the words which I have\nwritten on my monument, and may this monument show him the path, the\ndirection, the law of the land which I have pronounced, the decisions of\nthe land which I have decided. And let him rule his people,(273) let him\npronounce justice for them, let him decide their decision. Let him remove\nthe evil and the wicked from his land, let him rejoice the flesh of his\npeople.\n\n\u1e2aammurabi, the king of righteousness, to whom \u0160ama\u0161 has given (these)\nenactments,(274) am I. My words are noble, my works have no equal\u2014they\nhave brought forth the proud (?) to humility (?) the humble (?) to wisdom\n(?) (and) to renown. If that man(275) is attentive to my words, which I\nhave written on my monument, and set not aside my law, change not my word,\nalter not my bas-relief\u2014that man like me, the king of righteousness, may\nthe god \u0160ama\u0161 make his sceptre to endure, may he guide his people in\nrighteousness. If that man regard not my words, which I have written on my\nmonument, and despise my curse, and fear not the curse of God, and do away\nthe law which I have ordained\u2014(if) he change my word, alter my bas-relief,\ndestroy my written name, and write his (own) name, (or) on account of\nthese curses cause another to do so,(276) that man, whether king, or lord,\nor viceroy, or personage who has been elected,(277) may the great God, the\nfather of the gods, proclaimer of my reign, take back from him the glory\nof my kingdom, break his sceptre, curse his destiny. May Bel, the lord who\ndetermines the destinies, whose command is unchangeable, he who has\nmagnified my kingdom, rouse against him revolts which his hand cannot\nsuppress, causing (?) his destruction upon his seat.(278) A reign of\nsighing, days (but) few, years of want, darkness without light, death the\nvision of (his) eyes, may they set for him as (his) destiny. May he decree\nwith his grave lips the destruction of his city, the dispersion of his\npeople, the taking away of his royalty, the annihilation of his name and\nhis record in the land. May Beltis, the great mother whose command is\nsupreme(279) in E-kura, the lady who makes my thoughts propitious, instead\nof judgment and decision, make his word evil before Bel, may she\naccomplish the ruin of his country, the loss of his people, the pouring\nout of his life like water by the command of Bel the king. May A\u00ea, the\ngreat prince, whose decisions have the precedence,(280) the sage of the\ngods, he who knows everything, who lengthens the days of my life, take\nback from him understanding(281) and wisdom, bring him back into\nforgetfulness.(282) May he dam up his rivers at (their) sources, (and)\ncause grain, the life of the people, not to exist in his land. May \u0160ama\u0161,\nthe great judge of heaven and earth, he who rules living things, the lord\nmy trust, destroy his dominion; may he not pronounce his judgment, may he\nconfuse his path, may he annihilate the course of his army. May he place\nfor him, in his oracles,(283) an evil design to snatch away the foundation\nof his dominion and to destroy his country. May \u0160ama\u0161\u2019s word of misfortune\nspeedily attack him; may he snatch him from the living on high, beneath in\nthe earth may he deprive his spirit(284) of water. May Sin, lord of the\nheavens, the god my creator, whose brightness(285) shines resplendent\namong the gods, withdraw from him crown and throne of dominion. May he fix\nupon him a grave misdeed, his great fault, which will not disappear from\nhis body, and may he cause the days, the months, the years of his reign to\nend in sighing and tears. May he increase for him the burthen of his\ndominion, may he fix for him as (his) fate a life which is comparable(286)\nwith death. May Hadad, lord of fertility, dominator of heaven and earth,\nmy helper, withhold from him the rains in the heavens, the flood in the\nsprings. May he destroy his country with want and famine, may he angrily\nrage over his city, and turn his country to mounds of the flood.(287) May\nZagaga, the great warrior, the eldest son of (the temple) \u00ca-kura, he who\ngoes at my right hand, break his weapons on the battle-field. May he turn\nfor him day into night, and may he set his enemy over him. May I\u0161tar, lady\nof war and battle, who lets loose my weapons, my propitious genius, lover\nof my reign, in her angry heart, in her great wrath, curse his dominion,\nhis favours into evils may she turn, may she turn.(288) In the place of\nwar and battles may she break his weapons, may she make for him confusion\nand revolt, may she cast down his warriors, may she cause the earth to\ndrink their blood, may she cast down in the plain a heap of corpses of his\nwarriors, may she not cause his soldiers to have [burial?]. As for him,\nmay she deliver him into the hand of his enemy, and bring him as a captive\nto the land which is hostile to him. May Nergal, the strong one among the\ngods, unrivalled battle,(289) he who causes me to attain my victory, in\nhis great might burn(290) his people like a tiny bundle of reeds. With his\nstrong weapon may he subjugate him, and may he crush his members like an\nimage of clay. May Nintu, the supreme lady of the lands, the mother my\ncreator, withhold from him his son, and cause him to have no name, in the\nmidst of his people may she not produce a human seed. May Nin-Karrak,\ndaughter of Anu, she who announces my happiness, let forth from \u00ca-kura\nupon his members a grave sickness, an evil pestilence, a grievous injury,\nwhich they cannot cure, whose nature the physician does not know, which he\ncannot ease with a bandage, (and which), like the bite of death, cannot be\nremoved. Until she take possession of his life, may he groan for his\nmanliness.(291)\n\nMay the great gods of heaven and earth, the Anunna(292) in their assembly,\nthe divine bull of the house,(293) the bricks of \u00ca-babbara,(294) curse\nthat (man), his reign, his country, his army, his people, and his nation,\nwith a deadly curse\u2014with powerful curses may Bel, by his word which cannot\nbe changed, curse him, and speedily may they overtake him.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThese laws, as being the oldest known, have attracted considerable\nattention, and much has been said concerning their connection with the\nMosaic Code. Whatever connection there may be between them, however, it\nmust be kept well in mind, that they have been formulated and compiled\nfrom totally different standpoints. Notwithstanding the references in the\nCode of \u1e2aammurabi to religious things, there is no doubt that the laws\ngiven therein are purely civil, and compiled either by the king as\ntemporal ruler of the land, or by his advisers, or by the judges who\n\u201cdecided the decisions of the land.\u201d Charitable enactments were therefore\nas far from the intention of the compilers of the Babylonian code as such\nthings are from the intention of the legislation of this or any other\nmodern civilized community or nationality. The Law of Moses, on the other\nhand, has long been recognized as a Priestly Code, into which all kinds of\nprovisions for the poor, the fatherless, the necessitous, were likely to\nenter, and have, in fact, entered. From this point of view, Moses\u2019 code is\nimmeasurably superior to that of the Babylonian law-giver, and can hardly,\non that account, be compared with it.\n\nFrom existing duplicates of this inscription, we know that it bore a title\nwhich, in accordance with the usual custom in ancient times, was taken\nfrom the first few words of the inscription, in this case _Ninu \u00eelu\n\u1e63\u00eerum_, \u201cWhen the supreme God.\u201d In the Ninevite duplicate in the British\nMuseum, however, a kind of title in the modern sense of the word is given,\nnamely, _Dinani \u1e2aammurabi_, \u201cThe Laws of \u1e2aammurabi,\u201d the first word being\nfrom the common Semitic root which appears, in Semitic Babylonian, under\nthe form of _d\u00e2nu_, \u201cto judge.\u201d As far as our information goes, it would\nseem that, whilst the Hebrew _t\u00f4rah_ was both judicial, ceremonial, and\nmoral, the Babylonian _d\u00eenu_ was judicial only. Ceremonial enactments are\nentirely foreign to it, and morality, in the modern sense of the word,\nthough represented, does not hold a very high place, though it must not be\nforgotten that five columns of the text are wanting.\n\nThat there should be, therefore, but few parallels between the Codes of\nMoses and of \u1e2aammurabi was to be expected, though naturally likenesses and\nparallelisms are to be found, the Hebrews being practically of the same\nstock as the Babylonians, and also, as has been shown, under the influence\nof the same civilization. It will be noticed, in reading through the code,\nthat not only are there no laws against sorcery, worshipping other than\nthe national god or gods, and prostitution, but there are actually\nenactments referring to the first and the last, showing that they were\nrecognized. Moral, religious, ceremonial, and philanthropic enactments\nare, in fact, entirely absent.\n\n3-4. With the enactments concerning false witness, cp. Ex. xx. 16; Deut.\nv. 20, etc. More especially, however, are the directions in Deut. xix. 16\nff. noteworthy. Here the direction is, to do to the false witness \u201cas he\nhad thought to do to his brother.\u201d In this case, too, the logical penalty\nwould be death, in a matter involving the life of a man.\n\n7 (liability to be regarded as a thief on account of the purchase or\nreceiving of things without witnesses or a contract) is to a certain\nextent paralleled by Lev. vi. 2 ff., where, however, the penalty for\nwrongful possession is not death, but the restoration of the object\ndetained, with a fifth part of the value added thereto.\n\n8 (theft of live-stock) is illustrated by Ex. xxii. 1, where it is ordered\nthat the thief restore five oxen for a stolen ox, and four sheep for a\nstolen sheep. All laws dealing with theft seem to have been more severe\namong the Babylonians than among the Hebrews, and inability to make the\nobject good, with the penalties attached thereto, was visited with death\n(6-11, 14, 15, etc.).\n\n14. This enactment is exactly parallel with Ex. xxi. 16: \u201cHe that stealeth\na man ... shall surely be put to death.\u201d\n\n21 (housebreaking). Ex. xxii. 2-4, justifies the killing of a burglar\ncaught in the act before sunrise, but not otherwise.\n\n57. In the case of unlawful pasturing, it is probable that Ex. xxii. 5 may\nfurnish the key to the obscurities of this Babylonian enactment. According\nto the Mosaic law, the owner of the cattle had to make the damage good\nwith the best of his field or vineyard. To ensure getting the best, and\nhis due share, the most satisfactory way would be to reap the offender\u2019s\nfield, if he had one.\n\n110. The opening (seemingly in the English sense) of a wine-house by a\ntemple-devotee, or her merely entering such a place, was in all\nprobability equivalent to prostituting herself, and if so, this law may be\ncompared with Lev. xxi. 9, in which the daughter of a priest, if she\nprofaned herself (and her father) by playing the whore, was to be put to\ndeath by burning.\n\n117. As is shown by the preceding enactments, the person of a man might be\nseized for debt, but this shows that he might allow his wife, his son, or\nhis daughter to be taken to work it off, and in that case they were to be\nset free in the fourth year. In Hebrew law (Ex. xxi. 2) an ordinary\npurchased slave was free after six years\u2019 service, but if a man sold his\ndaughter (v. 7), she did not \u201cgo out as the men-servants do.\u201d(295)\n\n125. The theft of things on deposit entailed only restitution if the\nperson with whom they were deposited were not in fault. In Ex. xxii. 7-9\nthe person condemned had to pay or restore double the value of the things\nstolen.\n\n129. In this law the conditional clause at the end is incomplete, but it\nmay be supposed that liberty was accorded therein to the king and to the\ninjured husband to exercise mercy, and commute the death-penalty in any\nway they thought fit, attaching thereto any other penalty which might seem\ngood to them. According to Lev. xx. 10, the adulterer and the adulteress\nwere to be put to death, but in what manner is not stated. To all\nappearance no mercy was given.\n\n130. As this is a case of a married woman living in her father\u2019s house,\nEx. xxii. 16 is not an exact parallel. The woman being unbetrothed, the\nman who had violated her had to endow and marry her.\n\n155. Incest of the nature referred to here is practically a complete\nparallel with Lev. xx. 12, where, however, the nature of the death-penalty\nis not stated. If the correction of the code of \u1e2aammurabi suggested in the\nfootnote (\u201cthey shall bind that man, and cast _him_ into the water\u201d) be\nthe true one, the man would seem to have been regarded as the chief\nsinner, and the woman was probably left to be dealt with by the son\u2019s\nfamily. The mere binding of the man, as in the text, would be no adequate\npunishment, and the correction: \u201cThey shall bind _them_, and cast _them_\ninto the water,\u201d pre-supposes a very serious mistake on the part of the\nscribe.\n\n157. This is a parallel with Lev. xviii. 8, and xx. 11, and the penalty is\ndeath in both codes. The word \u201cmother\u201d in the Babylonian Code probably\nincludes \u201cstep-mother\u201d as well.\n\n195. This is parallel with Ex. xxi. 15, where, however, the smiting of the\nmother is included, and the more severe penalty of death is prescribed,\ninstead of merely cutting off the offending members as a punishment.\n\n196, 197, 200, 210. These illustrate the dictum: \u201cAn eye for an eye, and a\ntooth for tooth\u201d (Ex. xxi. 24, 25; Lev. xxiv. 20; Deut. xix. 21; Matt. v.\n38). They were naturally the common punishments of the period when the\npenalty of imprisonment could not be imposed.\n\n199. The destruction of the eye of a man\u2019s slave, or the fracture of his\nlimb, was apparently held to entail the diminution of his value by\none-half, which the person who inflicted the injury had to pay. Nothing is\nsaid, however, concerning injury to a slave by his master, and this law,\ntherefore, has no parallel in the Mosaic ordinance given in Ex. xxi. 26,\n27, where the master is spoken of as the possible aggressor, and had to\nset his slave free on account of the injury he had received.(296)\n\n206. The law regarding injuries inflicted upon a man in a quarrel is\nparallel with Ex. xxi. 18, 19, except that the latter decrees that the\nperson inflicting the injury, in addition to causing the injured man to be\ncompletely healed, has also to pay for his loss of time. On the other\nhand, it is noteworthy that, in the Code of \u1e2aammurabi, he who committed\nthe injury had to swear that he did not do it knowingly\u2014that is, with the\nintention of injuring the man, otherwise he probably came under the law of\nretaliation, Nos. 196, 197, and 200.\n\n209. This is parallel with Ex. xxi. 22, but whereas the penalty for the\ninjury to the woman was fixed at ten shekels of silver, the law of Moses\nallowed the husband to estimate the compensation, which was certified and\nprobably revised by the judges.\n\n210. It was not only \u201can eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,\u201d but\nalso \u201ca daughter for a daughter,\u201d even when a mortal injury may not have\nbeen intended. This is practically the same as Ex. xxi. 23: \u201cAnd if any\nmischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.\u201d\n\n241. As this law stands, it refers to the unlawful working of another\nman\u2019s ox, and not to an ox taken in pledge, for the working of which there\ncould be no remedy, any more than there was for taking a man\u2019s wife,\nchild, or slave, in pledge to work out a debt.\n\n244 (loss of an animal through attack by a wild beast). Compare Ex. xxii.\n13: \u201cIf it (an animal delivered into the care of another) be torn in\npieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that\nwhich was torn.\u201d Apparently there was no obligation to place the animal in\na safe place. Cf. Gen. xxxi. 39 (Jacob\u2019s reproof to Laban): \u201cThat which\nwas torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bare the loss of it.\u201d\n\n245 ff. These are to a certain extent illustrated by Ex. xxii. 14, 15, in\nwhich passage, if the owner of the injured animal was not present, the\nborrower had to make good any loss. If, however, the owner was there to\nprotect it, there was no penalty, as he could in all probability have\nprevented the injury from being inflicted, and in any case might be\nsupposed to have control over the animal.\n\n250. The owner of a furious bull was protected from loss, even though the\nresult was fatal, if he did not know that the animal was vicious. In Ex.\nxxi. 28, though the owner of the offending ox was to go free, the animal\nitself was to be stoned to death, and its flesh not eaten. There is no\ndoubt that this was hard on the owner, but it must have had an excellent\neffect, and ensured the proper enclosing of all doubtful animals.\n\n251. Even when the master knew that his ox was vicious, the Babylonians\nwere more lenient than the Hebrews, who, in such a case, besides the\ndestruction of the ox, decreed the death of the owner as a punishment for\nhis negligence (Ex. xxi. 29). As will be seen from verse 30, however, he\nmight be spared by paying such ransom as might be imposed upon him.\n\n252. One-third of a mana of silver is equivalent to 20 shekels, so that\nthe sum here indicated as compensation for the death of a slave who has\nbeen gored by a bull differs from that awarded in Ex. xxi. 32, by ten\nshekels\u2014one-sixth of a mana more.\n\n266. This is in part covered by 244 (destruction of cattle by a lion), and\nis parallel with Ex. xxii. 10, 11, where, also, an oath had to be sworn\nbetween the parties, and the herdsman in whose care the cattle were, went\nfree of all obligation. The accident causing the loss, however, is not\nthere described as \u201can act of God.\u201d\n\n267. The wording of this law clearly indicates that it would apply if the\nherdsman were in fault, and suggests that the same condition must be read\ninto Ex. xxii. 12, where, if the cattle were stolen from him, he had to\nmake the loss good.\n\nBesides the enactments in the Code of Moses, however, we find, in the\ninteresting and important monument translated above, and in the legal\ndocuments of the period to which it belongs, noteworthy parallels to other\nparts of the Old Testament. Reference has already been made (pp. 174, 175,\nand 185, 186) to the contracts of the period of \u1e2aammurabi\u2019s dynasty which\nillustrate the matter of Sarah giving Hagar to Abraham because she herself\nwas childless (Gen. xvi. 1, 2). That this was the custom in Babylonia is\nnow confirmed by law 144, which also furnishes the reason why it was the\nwife who chose her partner in the husband\u2019s affections. It was because the\nfirst wife preferred to choose herself the woman who was to replace her,\nand in doing this, she chose one who would be her subordinate, not one who\nmight become a really serious rival. A parallel case is that of Bilhah\n(Gen. xxx. 4). Hagar\u2019s despising her mistress (Gen. xvi. 4) is illustrated\nby law No. 146, which allows the mistress to reduce her to the position of\na slave again, which was agreed to by the patriarch, the result being that\nHagar fled (v. 6).\n\nThe determination to have the possession of the cave of Machpelah placed\nupon a thoroughly legal footing (Gen. xxiii. 14-20) may, perhaps, be\nillustrated by law No. 7, though there is not much parallelism between the\ntwo instances, a field with a cave and trees being a difficult thing to\nsteal. There is hardly any doubt, however, that the patriarch desired that\nno accusation should be brought against him or his descendants for\nunlawfully using it, as is suggested by the fact that when Ephron offered\nto give it, he said that he did so \u201cin the presence of the sons of my\npeople\u201d only, but when the transaction was completed as Abraham wished, it\nwas done not only in the presence of the children of Heth, but before all\nwho went in at the gate of his city (Gen. xxiii. 18), and naturally\nincluded strangers as well.\n\nAbraham\u2019s seeking a wife for his son (Gen. xxiv. 4) is in conformity with\nlaws 155, 156, and 166; gifts are given (Gen. xxiv. 53 and laws No. 159,\n160, etc.); seemingly the father-in-law retained the presents given by his\nson-in-law, if he could get possession of them (Gen. xxxi. 15 and laws\n159-161), and these belonged to the wife (wives) and the children (xxxi.\n16 and laws 162, 167, 171, ff.).\n\nWhether the theft of her father\u2019s teraphim by Rachel (Gen. xxxi. 19) could\nbe construed as sacrilege or not is doubtful, but this may well have been\nthe penalty thought of by Jacob when Laban accused some of his household\nof theft (Gen. xxxi. 32 and law No. 6), though theft, if there were no\nrestitution, was in Babylonian law always punishable with death.\n\nThe punishment of death by burning, which Judah decreed for his\ndaughter-in-law Tamar (Gen. xxxviii. 24), is parallel with that meted out\nto a devotee opening or entering a wine-house (probably a place of\nill-repute), but the parallel ends there\u2014there is no law in the code of\n\u1e2aammurabi, as at present preserved, decreeing death by burning for a widow\nwho became a harlot.\n\nTheft from a palace (law No. 6) is parallel with Gen. xliv. 9, where the\nsons of Jacob admit the justice of a death-penalty if Joseph\u2019s cup were\nfound in the possession of any of them. Whether the purchase of the\nEgyptians and their land for bread by Joseph had any analogy in Western\nAsia or not, is uncertain, though law No. 115, as well as those which\nprecede it, refer to something similar, but in these cases the servitude\nwas terminable, which does not appear from Gen. xlvii. 19 ff. Thereafter\nthe Egyptian ruler took from these farmer-thralls a fifth part of the\nproduce, which compares well with the half or third exacted by the owner\nof a field in Babylonia from the hirer (law 46). Finally, the clauses of\nthe laws of \u1e2aammurabi referring to adoption (No. 185) might be quoted in\nillustration of the adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh by their grandfather\nJacob (Gen. xlviii. 5), especially when read in connection with the\ninscriptions translated on pp. 176 and 177, where the sharing of the\nadopted son \u201clike a son\u201d is expressly referred to.\n\nIn the New Testament, Gal. iv. 30: \u201cCast out the bondwoman and her son,\nfor the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the\nfreewoman,\u201d finds illustration in law 171 of \u1e2aammurabi\u2019s code, and the\nparable of the talents (Matt. xxv. 14 ff.) reminds one of the agent\nsending forth commissioners to get gain for him by trafficking, as in laws\n100-102. 103-107 do not bear directly upon this parallel, but are worth\nnoting in connection with it.\n\nIt will be long ere all that can be said about this noteworthy inscription\nfinds expression. There is much needing comment, and much to study\ntherein, and the precise rendering of many a word has still to be found\nout.\n\n\n\nBabylon And The Bible.\n\n\nA great deal has been written concerning the two lectures which the\nrenowned Assyriologist, Friedrich Delitzsch, delivered some time ago\nbefore the German Emperor, under the title of _Babel und Bibel_. These\nlectures have now been published, and from their style and contents, one\ncan easily judge how great was the interest which they aroused. Those who\nwere privileged to hear them must have enjoyed a true arch\u00e6ological feast,\nall the more exquisite in that the subject was that which throws more\nlight upon the Old Testament than any other known.\n\nHis lectures deal, for the most part, with the things which are touched\nupon at greater length in this book\u2014the early records of Babylonia and\nAssyria, the history, the literature, the arts, and the sciences of those\ncountries, and of the great cities of which they were so proud. Beginning\nwith \u201cthe great mercantile firm of Mura\u0161\u00fb and Sons in the time of\nArtaxerxes,\u201d about 450 B.C., and the Hebrew names found therein, he speaks\nof Ur of the Chaldees, Carchemish, Sargon of Agad\u00e9, \u1e2aammurabi, the Bronze\nGates of Shalmaneser II., Sargon of Assyria, Sennacherib, Assurbanipal\n(A\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli or Sardanapalus), the Laws of \u1e2aammurabi (translated in\nfull in this volume), the processions of gods,(297) the blessing of\nAaron,(298) the advanced civilization of Babylonia 2250 years B.C., and\nmany other things. To touch upon all his points would be to repeat much\nthat has been treated of in this book, and that being the case, all the\nmost important of them are referred to in the following pages under\nspecial headings:\u2014\n\n\nCanaan.\n\n\nThat he is right in calling Canaan at the time of the Exodus \u201cA domain of\nBabylonian culture\u201d is indicated by the testimony of the Tel-el-Amarna\ntablets, and is fully shown in the present work, Chapters V.-VII. In the\nnotes appended to the first lecture he refers to the fact that there\nexisted, in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, a town called B\u00eet (or Beth)\nNinip, after the Babylonian god\u2014\u201ceven though there may not have been in\nJerusalem itself a _b\u00eet Ninip_, a temple of the god Ninip.\u201d\n\n\nThe Sabbath.\n\n\nIn the present work, the Sabbath is referred to on pl. II., where\nphotographs of two fragments (duplicates) explaining the word are given.\nProf. Delitzsch calls attention, in the notes to his first lecture, to\nthis text, together with the British Museum syllabary 82-9-18, 4159, col.\nI., l. 24, where _ud_ (weakened to _\u00fb_), meaning \u201cday,\u201d is explained by\n_\u0161abattum_, \u201cSabbath,\u201d as \u201c_the_ day\u201d _par excellence_, and from other\npassages he reasons that the old rendering of the word as \u201cday of rest,\u201d\n_\u00fbm n\u00fb\u1e2b libbi_, \u201cday of rest of the heart\u201d\u2014cf. pl. II.\u2014is the correct one.\n\nThe following list of Sumerian and Babylonian days of the month will serve\nto show exactly how the matter stands:\u2014\n\nSumerian. Semitic Translation.\n Babylonian.\nU \u00fbmu day.\nU-ma\u0161-am [mi\u0161il] \u00fbmu half a day.\nU-gi-kam [\u00fbmu] kal first day (Sum.),\n the whole day\n (Sem.).\nU-mina-kam \u0161i-na [\u00fbmu] second day.\nU-e\u0161i-kam \u0161ela[\u0161tu \u00fbmu] third day.\nU-lama-kam irbit fourth (day).\nU-ia-kam \u1e2bamil[tu] fifth (day).\nU-\u00e2\u0161a-kam \u0161e\u0161[\u0161itu] sixth (day).\nU-imina-kam sib[itu] seventh (day).\nU-ussa-kam saman[atu] eighth (day).\nU-ilima-kam tilti do. ninth day.\nU-\u1e2bu-kam \u00ea\u0161irti do. tenth day.\nU-\u1e2buia-kam \u0161apatti fifteenth day\n (Sum.), Sabbath\n (Sem.).\nU-mana-gi-lal-kam ibb\u00fb twentieth day less\n 1 (Sum.), the\n wrathful (Sem.).\nU-mana-kam \u00ea\u0161r\u00fb twentieth day.\nU-mana-ia-kam \u00e2r\u1e2bu bat[tu] twenty-fifth day\n (Sum.), festival\n month (Sem.).\nU-e\u0161a-kam \u0161ela\u0161\u00e2 thirtieth day.\nU-na-am bubbulum rest-day (Sum.),\n (day of) desire\n (Sem.).\nU-\u1e2bul-gala u-\u1e2bulgallum evil day.\nU-\u1e2bul-gala \u00fbmu lim[nu] evil day.\nU-\u0161u-tua \u00fbmu rimku libation-day.\nU-elene \u00fbmu t\u00ealiltum purification-day.\n\nFrom the above it will be seen, that the _\u0161apattum_ or Sabbath was the\n15th day of the month, and that only. That it was a day of rest, is shown\nby the etymology, the word being derived from the Sumerian _\u0161a-bat_,\n\u201cheart-rest,\u201d which probably has, therefore, no connection with the\nSemitic root _\u0161ab\u0101tu_, which, as far as at present known, is a synonym of\n_gam\u0101ru_, \u201cto complete.\u201d It was the day of rest of the heart, but being\nthe 15th, it was also the day when the moon reached the full in the heart\nor middle of the month, and its name may, therefore, contain a play upon\nthe two ideas which the word _libbu_ contains. In accordance with the\ngeneral rule, the consonants of words borrowed from the Sumerian were\noften sharpened when transferred to Semitic Babylonian, hence the form\n_\u0161apattum_ instead of _\u0161abattum_, though the latter is also found.\n\nThe nearest approach to the Sabbath, in the Jewish sense, among the\nBabylonians, is the _\u00fb-\u1e2bulgala_ or _\u00fbmu limnu_, \u201cthe evil day,\u201d which, as\nwe know from the Hemerologies, was the 7th, 14th, 21st, 28th, and 19th day\nof each month, the last so called because it was a week of weeks from the\n1st day of the foregoing month. It is this, therefore, which contains the\ngerm of the idea of the Jewish Sabbath, but it was not that Sabbath in the\ntrue sense of the term, for if the months had 30 days, the week following\nthe 28th had 9 days instead of 7, and weeks of 8 and 9 days therefore\nprobably occurred twelve times each year. The nature of this original of\nthe Sabbath is shown by the Hemerologies, which describe how it was to be\nkept in the following words:\u2014\n\n\n(The Duties Of The 7th Day).\n\n\n\u201cThe 7th day is a fast of Merodach and Z\u0113r-panitum, a fortunate day, an\nevil day. The shepherd of the great peoples shall not eat flesh cooked by\nfire, salted (savoury) food, he shall not change the dress of his body, he\nshall not put on white, he shall not make an offering. The king shall not\nride in his chariot, he shall not talk as ruler; a seer shall not do a\nthing in a secret place; a physician shall not lay his hand on a sick\nman;(299) (the day) is unsuitable for making a wish. The king shall set\nhis oblation in the night before Merodach and I\u0161tar, he shall make an\noffering, (and) his prayer(300) is acceptable with god.\u201d\n\nFor the 14th, 21st, 28th, and 19th, the names of the deities differ, and\non the last-named the shepherd of the great peoples is forbidden to eat\n\u201canything which the fire has touched.\u201d Otherwise the directions are the\nsame, and though generally described as a lucky or happy day, it was\ncertainly an evil day for work, or for doing the things referred to. It is\nto be noted, however, that there is no direction that the day was to be\nobserved by the common people.\n\n\nWas The Flood A \u201cSin-Flood\u201d?\n\n\nThat the Flood was a \u201csin-flood\u201d (\u201cdass die Sintflut eine S\u00fcndflut(301)\nwar\u201d) among the Babylonians as among the Hebrews has already been stated\n(p. 112\u2014cf. p. 107, I, II ff.), and with this Prof. Delitzsch, answering\nthe criticisms of Oettli, agrees. Replying to K\u00f6nig, he energetically\nrepudiates the idea that \u201cthe Babylonian hero saves his dead and living\nproperty, but in both Biblical accounts there appears, instead of that,\nthe higher point of view of the preservation of the animal-world.\u201d He then\ncites Berosus, according to whom Xisuthros received the command to take\ninto the ark winged and four-footed animals, and quotes the line\ntranslated on p. 103: \u201cI caused to go up into the midst of the ship ...\nthe beasts of the field and the animals of the field\u2014all of them I sent\nup.\u201d\n\n\nThe Dragon And The Serpent-Tempter.\n\n\nProf. Delitzsch\u2019s notes upon the Dragon of Chaos are exceedingly\ninteresting, as is also the picture which he gives, from a little seal in\nthe form of a long bead, of the god Merodach \u201cclothed in his majestic\nglory, with powerful arm, and broad eye and ear, the symbols of his\nintelligence, and at the feet of the god the captive Dragon of the\nprim\u00e6val waters.\u201d From our point of view the deity does not look very\nmajestic, but it is an exceedingly interesting representation, the more\nespecially as he bears in his left hand (in the drawing) the circle and\nstaff of \u0160ama\u0161, the sun, showing the correctness of the theory which made\nMerodach likewise a sun-god. It is noteworthy, however, that a similar\nobject found by the German expedition to Babylonia shows a figure of\nHadad, the wind-god, as the Babylonians conceived him, and accompanying\nhim are a winged dragon and another creature\u2014indeed, each deity seems to\nhave had his own special attendant of this nature. Are we, therefore, to\nunderstand that each deity overcame a dragon or other animal? or may it\nnot be, that Merodach had a kind of dragon as his attendant, and the one\ndepicted sitting by his side, close to his feet, is the creature devoted\nto him, and not the Dragon of Chaos at all?\n\nThe Dragon of Chaos, Tiamtu or Tiawthu, appears in the inscriptions as the\nrepresentative of the Hebrew _teh\u00f4m_, which is the same word without the\nfeminine ending. It is also regarded, however, as being represented in the\nOld Testament by _liwy\u0101th\u0101n_ (leviathan), _tann\u00een_, and _rahab_, explained\nas \u201cthe winding one,\u201d \u201cthe dragon,\u201d and \u201cthe monster\u201d respectively. As far\nas our knowledge at present goes, none of these names occur in the\nBabylonian inscriptions, but there is sufficient analogy between the\nBiblical passages which contain them and the story of Tiamtu to establish\nan identity between the two sources.\n\nIn the passage \u201cAwake, awake,\u201d etc. (Is. li. 9), the cutting of Rahab in\npieces, and the piercing of the dragon, are made into similes typifying\nthe drying up of the Red Sea, so that the Israelites might pass over, and\non this account the words standing for these creatures seem to have become\nan allegorical way of referring to Egypt, caught, like Tiamtu, in a net\n(Ezek. xxxii. 2, 3). In Job ix. 13 the \u201chelpers of Rahab\u201d are mentioned,\nrecalling the gods who aided Tiamtu, and in xxvi. 12 \u201che smiteth through\nRahab\u201d is a reminiscence of the piercing of the head of Merodach\u2019s\nopponent.\n\nIn Job xli. 3 the words \u201cLay thine hand upon him; remember _the battle_,\nand do so no more,\u201d evidently refer to leviathan in v. 1, here typical of\nTiamtu, the battle being that which Merodach fought with her. \u201cShall not\none be cast down even at the sight of him?\u201d in verse 9, recalls the\ndreadful appearance of Tiamtu and her helpers, whose aspect filled the\ngods of the Babylonians with fear. Still another parallel is to be found\nin the verse \u201cTheir (the enemies\u2019) wine is the poison of dragons\n(_tanninim_),\u201d Deut. xxxii. 33, reminding us of the monsters created by\nTiamtu, whose bodies were filled with poison like blood.\n\nAll these passages naturally prove that the legend was well known to the\nHebrews, and must also have been current among their neighbours. Though\nthey identified her with the sea (_tehom_), they did not, to all\nappearance, use that word to indicate the Dragon of Chaos, as did the\nBabylonians\u2014she was a serpent, a dragon, or a monster. Though she may be\nthe type of the serpent-tempter (the difference of sex makes a little\ndifficulty), the compiler of the first two chapters of Genesis rigorously\nexcluded her from the Hebrew Creation-story. The story of leviathan, the\ndragon, or the monster, was a legend current among the people, and used by\nthe Hebrew sacred writers as a useful simile, but it seems to have formed\nno part of orthodox Hebrew religious belief.\n\nProf. Delitzsch has boldly reproduced, on p. 36 of his _Babel und Bibel_\n(German edition), what has been regarded in England as the driving of the\nevil spirit from the temple built at Calah by A\u0161\u0161ur-na\u1e63ir-\u00e2pli (885 B.C.),\nbut he calls it \u201cFight with the Dragon.\u201d The evil spirit represented is\ncertainly a kind of dragon, but on the original slab in the British Museum\nthe creature is a male, and not a female, as in the Babylonian\nCreation-story. Identification with the Dragon of Chaos is therefore in\nthe highest degree improbable, and as it would seem from his answer to\nJensen, Delitzsch does not regard it as having anything to do with the\nCreation-story, but a representation of \u201ca fight between the power of\nlight and the power of darkness in general.\u201d This seems exceedingly\nprobable, as is also his statement that in such a conception as that of\nTiamtu, it may easily be imagined that plenty of room for fancy existed.\n\nThe serpent-tempter in Gen. iii. 1 is an ordinary serpent, _na\u1e2bas_, the\ntype of the evil one. He had no part in the creation, and was to all\nappearance one of the beasts of the field created by God. Tiamtu, his\nBabylonian parallel, on the other hand, does not seem to have been in any\nsense a tempter\u2014she simply tried to overcome the gods of heaven, aided by\nher followers and offspring, among whom were some of the divine beings\ncreated by the gods. That in consequence of this, she may have been\nregarded as having tempted those of her followers who were the offspring\nof the gods of heaven, is not only possible, but probable, and if\nprovable, we should have here the identification of the Dragon of Chaos\nwith the serpent-tempter.\n\nAnd this leads him to the question as to whether the celebrated\ncylinder-seal referred to on p. 79 is really intended to be a picture of\nthe circumstance of the fall of man. Delitzsch points out, that the\nclothed condition of the figures prevents him from recognizing in the tree\nthe tree \u201cof knowledge of good and evil\u201d\u2014perhaps there glimmers through\nthe Biblical account in Gen. ii. and iii. another and older form of the\nstory, in which only one tree, the tree of life, appeared. The words in\nii. 9: \u201cand the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,\u201d seem, as it were,\npatched on, and the narrator completely forgets this newly-introduced\n\u201ctree of the knowledge of good and evil\u201d to the extent, that he even, by\noversight, makes God allow man, in contradiction to iii. 22, to eat of the\nTree of Life (ii. 16). All this seems very plausible, but may it not be,\nthat man, before eating of the tree of knowledge, was permitted to eat of\nthe tree of life, which was denied to him after the Fall? If this be the\ncase, there was probably no forgetfulness on the part of the narrator, and\nthe story hangs excellently together. And here it is to be noted that both\nthe tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, were in\nthe midst of the garden (ii. 9), that the woman seems to be aware of the\nexistence of one tree only (iii. 3), and there is no statement that the\nman knew the nature of the fruit which his wife handed to him (6), though\nit may be surmised that, with the prohibition with regard to one of them\nin his mind, he ought to have inquired. The heaviest punishment therefore\nfalls upon the tempter, the woman coming next, and the man having the\nlightest though even his is sufficiently severe.\n\nIn the design on the cylinder Delitzsch sees a male and a female figure,\nwith a serpent, and in this both Hommel and Jensen agree. Delitzsch,\nmoreover, says: \u201cThe distinguishing of the one figure by horns, which was,\nin Babylonia, as in Israel, equally the common symbol of strength and\nvictoriousness, I regard as a very delicate device of the artist to\nintroduce into the two clothed human figures the sex-distinction in an\nunmistakable manner.\u201d He is of opinion that nothing very decisive can as\nyet be pronounced concerning the serpent, but one might connect therewith\nthe appearance of Tiamtu, who also, like leviathan in Job iii. 8 and \u201cthe\nold serpent\u201d in the Apocalypse, may be assumed to have been still\nexisting. (Compare p. 32 of the present work, lines 112 and 113.)\n\nHe points out that in a list of rivers, etc., there is one called \u201cthe\nriver of the Serpent-god destroying(302) the abode of life\u201d\n(_Id-Sir-tindir-duba_), which is also a confirmation of the theory that\nthe Babylonians possessed the legend of the serpent-tempter. Noteworthy\nalso is the following text, which he refers to \u201cby the way,\u201d with a slight\nindication of the contents:\u2014\n\n\u201c... sin, fixing the command.\n... of the ordinance, the man of lamentation.\n... the maid, has eaten the evil thing\u2014\n... Ama-namtagga has done what is evil\nThe fate of Ama-namtagga is hard(303)\u2014\nHer fate is hard, her face is troubled with a tear.\nShe has sat on a glorious throne,\nShe has lain on a glorious couch,\nShe has learned to love aright,\nShe has learned to kiss.\u201d\n\nThe mutilation of this inscription renders the true interpretation\ndoubtful, but it would seem to be exceedingly probable that there is in it\nsome reference to the fate of our first mother, inherited by all her\ndaughters to the end of time.\n\nAma-namtagga means \u201cThe Mother of Sin,\u201d and her having eaten and done what\nis evil makes an interesting parallel with the case of Eve.(304)\n\n\nThe Cherubim.\n\n\nConcerning the Cherubs something has been said in this book, pp. 80-82,\nand to this Prof. Delitzsch adds a few more instances. As others have\ndone, he regards the cherubim of the Babylonians and Assyrians as being\nthe winged bulls, with heads of men. As an angel he gives a picture of a\nwinged female figure holding a necklace(305); the demons he depicts are\nfrom the slabs in the Assyrian Saloon of the British Museum, where two of\nthese beings are fighting with each other; and devils he regards as being\ntypified by a small but mutilated statuette of a creature with an animal\u2019s\nhead, long erect ears, and open mouth with threatening teeth. For the\nexistence of guardian-angels he quotes the letter of Abl\u00e2 to the\nqueen-mother: \u201cBel and Nebo\u2019s messenger of grace (_\u00e2bil \u0161ipri \u0161a dunqi \u0161a\nB\u00eal u Nab\u00fb_) will go with the king of the countries, my lord.\u201d Of especial\ninterest, however, is his reference to the inscription of Nabopolassar, in\nwhich that founder of the latest of the Babylonian empires states that\nMerodach \u201ccalled him to rule over the land and the people, caused a\nguardian-god (cherub) to go by his side, and caused all the work which he\nundertook to succeed.\u201d Besides the cherubs or guardian-angels, the\nBabylonians believed in numerous evil gods and devils, besides Tiamtu and\nthe serpent-tempter of mankind.\n\n\nBabylonian Monotheism.\n\n\nThe question of Babylonian monotheism, and of the antiquity of the name\nYahweh (Jehovah) attracted a considerable amount of attention, and has\nbeen supplemented by Delitzsch very fully in the notes to his first\nlecture. Upon this point something was said in the present volume (pp. 47\nand 58-61), and the author is practically at one with Prof. Delitzsch. As\nthe inscription translated on p. 58 shows, the Babylonians were\nmonotheists, and yet they were not. They believed in all their various\ngods, and at the same time identified those gods with Merodach. Just as,\nin the beliefs of India, each soul may be regarded as emanating from, and\nreturning to, the Creator, and forming one with Him at the final death of\nthe body, so the gods of the Babylonians were apparently regarded as parts\nof, and emanations from, Merodach, the chief of the gods, who, when they\nconferred upon him their names, conferred upon him in like manner their\nbeing. It is in this way alone that Merodach, the last-born of the great\ngods, can be regarded as the father and begetter of the gods (see pp. 45,\n46).\n\nProf. Delitzsch has therefore done a service in bringing more prominently\nto the notice of students and scholars the text of which the obverse is\nprinted on p. 58, and mentioning the paper where it first appeared.(306)\nThe study of the religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians has been\ngreatly furthered thereby.\n\nWith regard to the question, whether besides this tablet, there be other\nindications that the Babylonians\u2014or a section of them\u2014believed in one god,\nDelitzsch quotes, as did also the present author, many names supporting\nthis idea. Thus he gives the following:\u2014\n\nIlu-itt\u00eea, \u201cGod is with me.\u201d\nIlu-amta\u1e2bar, \u201cI called upon God.\u201d\nIlu-\u00e2bi, \u201cGod is my father.\u201d(307)\nIlu-milki, \u201cGod is my counsel.\u201d\nYarbi-\u00eelu, \u201cGod is great.\u201d\nYamlik-\u00eelu, \u201cGod rules.\u201d\nIb\u0161\u00ee-ina-ili, \u201cHe existed through God.\u201d(308)\nAwel-ili, \u201cMan of God.\u201d(309)\nMut(um)-ili, \u201cMan of God.\u201d\nIl\u00fbma-le\u2019i, \u201cGod is mighty.\u201d\nIl\u00fbma-\u00e2bi, \u201cGod is my father.\u201d\nIl\u00fbma-ilu, \u201cGod is God.\u201d\n\u0160umma-\u00eelu-l\u00e2-\u00eel\u00eea, \u201cIf God were not my god?\u201d\n\nAnd if more be wanted, to these may be added Ya\u2019kub-\u00eelu, Yasup-\u00eelu,\nAbdi-\u00eelu, Ya\u2019zar-\u00eelu, and Yantin-\u00eelu, on p. 157; Ili-bandi, \u201cGod is my\ncreator,\u201d p. 166; Sar-\u00eeli, \u201cPrince of God,\u201d p. 170; U\u0161ta\u0161ni-\u00eeli, \u201cMy God\nhas made to increase twofold,\u201d p. 178; N\u00fbr-ili, \u201cLight of God,\u201d p. 184;\nArad-\u00eeli-r\u00eameanni, \u201cThe servant of God, (who) had mercy on me,\u201d p. 187;\nYabnik-\u00eelu, \u201cGod has been gracious (?),\u201d p. 243; and many others. Remarks\nupon some of these names will be found on pp. 244, 245. Similar names\noccurring during the time of the later Babylonian empire will be found on\npp. 434, 463 (Aqabi-\u00eelu), 435, 436 (Adi\u2019-ilu and Yadi\u2019\u00eelu), 458\n(Baru\u1e2bi-ilu, probably a Jew, and Idi\u1e2bi-\u00eelu). It will therefore be seen\nthat names of a monotheistic nature were common in Babylonia at all\nperiods, but as they are greatly outnumbered by the polytheistic\nones,(310) their exact value as testimony to monotheism, or to a tendency\nto it, is doubtful. In certain cases, the deity intended by the word _\u00eelu_\nis the family god, but in the above examples, names implying this have\nbeen as far as possible avoided.\n\n\u201cOf what kind and of what value this monothesis was, our present sources\nof knowledge do not allow us to state, but we can best conclude from the\nlater development of Jahvism.\u201d (Delitzsch.)\n\n\nJahweh (Jehovah).\n\n\nMost important of all, however, from the point of view of the history of\nthe religion of the Jews, is what Delitzsch states concerning the name\nJahweh (Jehovah). On p. 46 of his first lecture (German edition) he gives\nhalf-tone reproductions of three tablets preserved in the British Museum,\nwhich, according to him, contain three forms of the personal name meaning\n\u201cJahwe is God\u201d\u2014_Ya\u2019we-\u00eelu_, _Yawe-\u00eelu_, and _Yaum-\u00eelu_. The last of these\nnames we may dismiss at once, the form being clearly not that of Yahweh,\nbut of Yah, the Jah of Ps. civ. 35 and several other passages. The other\ntwo, however, are not so lightly dealt with, notwithstanding the\nobjections of other Assyriologists and Orientalists. It is true that\nYa\u2019pi-\u00eelu and Yapi-\u00eelu are possible readings, but Delitzsch\u2019s objections\nto them are soundly based, and can hardly be set aside. The principal\nargument against the identification of Ya\u2019we or Yawe with Yahwah is, that\nwe should have here, about 2000 years before Christ, a form of the word\nwhich is really later than that used by the Jewish captives at Babylon 500\nyears before Christ, when it was to all appearance pronounced Ya(\u2019)awa or\nY\u00e2wa (see pp. 458, 465, 470, 471). If, however, we may read the name Ya\u2019wa\n(Ya\u2019awa) or Y\u00e2wa, as is possible, then there is nothing against the\nidentification proposed by Delitzsch. That [Cuneiform] was used with the\nvalue of _wa_ is proved by such words as _warka_, \u201cafter,\u201d where the\nreading _wearka_ seems to be impossible, and the necessary distinction\nbetween _ma_ and _wa_ (the former was written with a different character)\nwould be maintained. It is worthy of note that Ya\u2019wa must have been more\nof a name than Yau, which was a primitive Babylonian word for \u201cGod,\u201d it is\ndoubtful whether it could always be written without the divine prefix. As,\nhowever, the divine name Ae or Ea, with others, is often written so\nunprovided, such an objection as this could not be held to invalidate\nDelitzsch\u2019s contention.\n\nThe probability therefore is, that Delitzsch is right in transcribing the\nname as he has done, if we may change the final _e_ to _a_, and he is also\nprobably right in his identification. Nevertheless, we require more\ninformation from the records of ancient Babylonia before we can say, with\ncertainty, that the first component of the name Ya\u2019wa-\u00eelu is the Yahweh of\nthe Hebrews, though we are bound to admit that the identification is in\nthe highest degree probable. Delitzsch speaks of the possibility of\n_ya\u2019ve_ being a verbal form (it would be parallel to names like\nYabnik-\u00eelu), only to reject it, as a name meaning \u201cGod exists\u201d (Hommel and\nZimmern) is certainly not what one would expect to find. On the other\nhand, Zimmern admits the possibility that Yaum may be the name of a god,\nand possibly the name Yahu, Yahve may be present in it. As he is against\nDelitzsch on the whole, this is an important admission.\n\n\n\nAdditional Notes To \u1e2aammurabi\u2019s Laws.\n\n\nP. 492, \u00a7. 8. The \u201cpoor man\u201d who is mentioned here and in several other\nplaces, is referred to under a Sumerian term translated by the Semitic\n_mu\u0161kinu_, Arabic _misk\u012bn_, from which the French _mesquin_ is derived\n(through the Spanish _mezquino_). With the Babylonians, however, the \u201cpoor\nman,\u201d as expressed by this term, was only one who was comparatively\nwanting in this world\u2019s goods. That he was able to pay a fine, presupposes\nthat he was the possessor of property, and this is confirmed by a\nbilingual explanatory list, which reads as follows:\n\nGi\u0161 \u0161ar kir\u00fb Plantation.\ngi\u0161 \u0161ar \u00eagal kir\u00fb \u00eakalli plantation of the\n palace.\ngi\u0161 \u0161ar lugal kir\u00fb \u0161arri plantation of the\n king.\ngi\u0161 \u0161ar ma\u0161du kir\u00fb mu\u0161kini plantation of a\n poor man.\n\n_Mu\u0161kinu_ is rendered by Winckler \u201cfreedman.\u201d\n\nP. 493, \u00a7 26 ff. It is difficult to find a satisfactory rendering for the\nwords translated \u201carmy-leader\u201d and \u201csoldier.\u201d Winckler translates\n\u201csoldier\u201d and \u201cslinger.\u201d Perhaps the latter should be rendered \u201cscout.\u201d\n\nP. 495, \u00a7\u00a7 43 and 44. The word translated \u201cshall enclose (it)\u201d is in\naccordance with the meaning given for the root _\u0161ak\u0101ku_ in Delitzsch\u2019s\n_Handw\u00f6rterbuch_. If, however, the rendering \u201cplough\u201d in \u00a7 260 (p. 513),\nfirst proposed by Scheil, be correct, then in all probability the\ntranslation in the two sections should be \u201cshall plough (it).\u201d\n\nP. 498, l. 12. Literally, \u201cthe man the tenancy, the silver of his rent\ncomplete for a year, to the lord of the house has given.\u201d\n\nP. 499, \u00a7 108. The \u201clarge stone\u201d was seemingly large only by comparison\nwith the \u201csmall stone\u201d which weighed 1/3 of a shekel.\n\nP. 500, \u00a7 116, etc. \u201cThe son of a man\u201d Winckler translates as \u201ca free-born\nperson.\u201d\n\nP. 501, \u00a7 126. Or \u201cAs (in the case of) his property (which) has not been\nlost, he shall state his deficiency before God.\u201d\n\nP. 510, \u00a7\u00a7 215, 218, 220. Instead of \u201ccataract\u201d Winckler translates\n\u201ctumour,\u201d but thinks \u201clachrymal fistula\u201d still better, though \u201ccataract\u201d\nis possible.\n\nP. 513, \u00a7 257. Here, as in other places, the character for field-labourer\nis the archaic form of [Cuneiform] _ikkaru_ or _\u00eerri\u0161u_.\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX TO THE THIRD EDITION.\n\n\n\n\nThe Hittites.\n\n\nIn consequence of the very important discoveries of the German explorers\nat Boghaz-K\u00f6i, the site of the ancient Hittite capital \u1e2aattu,(311) much\nlight will be thrown on the ancient history, religion, manners, and\ncustoms of that portion of Western Asia, and Syria as well, together with\nthe relations of the empire of the Hittites with Egypt. As far as can at\npresent be judged, the language of the Hittites was Aryan, and the similar\nterminations in such Kassite(312) words as are known point to its being of\nthe same family, and the same may, perhaps, be said of Mitannian.(313) The\nexcavations at Boghaz-K\u00f6i began where fragments of tablets had already\nbeen found, namely, on the slope of the hill at B\u00f6y\u00fck-kale, the documents\nbecoming more complete as the explorers went higher. Another mass of\nrecords was found at the foot of the hill, by the ruins of the temple. It\nwas in the upper find that the Babylonian version of the treaty between\nRameses II. and the Hittite king \u1e2aattu\u0161il was found. The founder of the\ndynasty was \u0160ubbiluliuma, the name read _Sapalulu_ in the Egyptian version\nof the treaty. He was evidently a warrior-king, whose overlordship the\nstate of Mitanni acknowledged, and seems to have been succeeded by his son\nAranda\u0161. The next ruler was Mur\u0161il, the _Maurasar_ of Egyptologists, who\nappears to have been a great conqueror. Mur\u0161il\u2019s successor was his brother\nMutallu (_Mautenel_), who, however, was apparently killed in a revolt,\nwhereupon the renowned \u1e2aattu\u0161il (the _Khetasir_ of Egyptologists) mounted\nthe throne. His queen was Pudu-\u1e2bipa, and they had a son Dud\u1e2balia, whose\nname recalls the Tidal (Tid\u2019al) of the 14th chapter of Genesis, and the\nTud\u1e2bula (or Tud\u1e2bul) of the tablets which apparently refer to Chedorlaomer\nand his allies.(314) In the Babylonian version of the treaty of \u1e2aattu\u0161il\nwith Rameses II., we learn that the titles of the Egyptian king were\n_Wa\u0161mua-ria \u0161atepuaria Ria-ma\u0161e\u0161a m\u00e2i Amana m\u00e2r Mim-mua-Ria binbin\nMin-pa\u1e2birita-Ria_, _i.e._ User-maat-ra Ra-messu Mery Amen, son of\nMen-maat-ra (Seti I.), grandson of Men-pe\u1e2bti-ra (Rameses I.).(315)\n\n\n\n\nThe \u1e2aabiri.\n\n\nDr. Hugo Winckler, the explorer of Boghaz-K\u00f6i, who has published many\ninteresting details of the result of his researches, states that parallel\npassages prove the identity of the Sa-gas (_see_ pp. 291, 292) of the\nTel-al-Amarna tablets with the \u1e2aabiri, and that not only the Sa-gas\npeople, but also the Sa-gas gods are referred to. For these latter, he\nsays, compare the image of the \u201cvalley of the _\u2019oberim_\u201d (translated \u201cthem\nthat pass\u201d) in Ezekiel (xxxix. 11), in which further justification of the\ncomparison of _\u1e2babiri_ and _\u2019eber_ (Eber, regarded as the ancestor of the\n_\u2019Ibrim_ or Hebrews) results. One would like to have further details of\nthe learned explorer\u2019s opinions upon this point. To all appearance the\nconnection of _\u2019oberim_ with _\u2019eber_ would involve a change in the\nvocalization. For the author, the difficulty of connecting _\u1e2babiri_ with\n_\u2019Ibrim_ (Hebrews) still continues to exist. The connection of _\u1e2babiri_\nwith _\u2019Ibri_ (Hebrew) requires that the _ain_ should have been pronounced\nas _ghain_, and the Septuagint generally gives _gh_ when it was so\npronounced.(316) In _\u2019Ibrim_, however, this is not the case, and Prof.\nSwete has only the soft breathing in his edition.\n\n\n\n\nA Letter Apparently From Prince Belshazzar (_see_ pp. 446-451).\n\n\nThis is evidently one of the documents obtained by Mr. Hormuzd Rassam at\nSippar (Abu-habbah), as the reference to Bunene, one of the deities of the\ncity, shows. Unfortunately, it is very defective, there being only eight\nlines (five of them incomplete) on the obverse, and the remains of the\nlast three lines of the communication on the reverse. What makes it\nprobable that the Belshazzar who sent the letter is the son of Nabonidus,\nand the hero of the fall of Babylon, is, that no honorific expressions are\nused with reference to the person to whom it is addressed\u2014he does not call\nMu\u0161\u00eazib-Marduk his lord, or father, or brother, as was the custom in\nprivate correspondence. As far as it is preserved, the following is a\nrendering of this document, which is of interest mainly on account of the\npersonality of its assumed writer\u2014\n\n\u201cLetter of B\u00eal-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur to Mu\u0161\u00eazib-Marduk. May the gods grant thee\nprosperity. Behold, I have sent B\u00eal-\u0161unu and ... the (two) _ma\u0161ma\u0161\u0113_,\nto.... Send the requirements for the robes (?) of the deity Bunene....\n\n(Several lines are wanting here.)\n\n... I have caused ... to be ... the threshold ... may all....\u201d\n\nThe documents referring to Belshazzar\u2019s residence at Sippar, are mentioned\non pp. 414, 449, 450.\n\n\n\n\nThe Aramaic Papyri From Elephantine.\n\n\nThese noteworthy documents, which have attracted considerable attention,\nwere found in the ruins of the city which lie at the southern point of the\nisland. Almost all the brick-built private houses of Elephantine are in a\nruinous state, partly due to the ravages of time, but principally to the\nFellahin, who have for many years dug there for garden-mould. To the south\nof the place where Mr. Mond\u2019s Aramaic papyri(317) are said to have been\nfound, Greek papyri were discovered, but proceeding north of that point,\nthe German explorers soon came upon the Aramaic fragments. Those first\nfound are said to have been in earthen vessels, but the most important of\nthem (the texts translated below) were buried, without any protective\ncovering, close to the eastern and southern walls of the room in which\nthey lay. To all appearance these last had escaped the notice of the\nearlier excavators, who had thrown them away with the rubbish cast aside\nas containing nothing more worth carrying off.\n\nThe text of the most perfect of them reads as follows\u2014\n\n\u201cTo our lord Bagohi, governor of Judea, thy servants Yedoniah and his\ncompanions, the priests in the fortress of Yeb, salutation! May our Lord,\nthe God of heaven, grant (thee) prosperity at all times, and set thee in\nfavour before Darius the king, and the sons of the (royal) house a\nthousandfold more than now, and may He give thee long life. Be at all\ntimes joyful and firm. Now speak thy servants Yedoniah and his companions\nas follows\u2014\n\n\u201cIn the month Tammuz in the 14th year of Darius the king, when Ars\u00e2m\n(Asames) had marched forth and gone to the king, the priests of the god\nKhnub, who are in Yeb, the fortress, [made] with Waidrang, who is the\ngovernor here, a secret union of the following nature\u2014\n\n\u201c \u2018The temple of Yah\u00fb, the god who is in Yeb, the fortress, shall be\nremoved(318) from that place.\u2019\n\n\u201cThereupon that Waidrang, the _la\u1e2bya_,(319) sent letters to Nephayan, his\nson, who was commander-in-chief in Syene, the fortress, saying\u2014\n\n\u201c \u2018The temple which is in Yeb, the fortress, they shall destroy.\u2019\n\n\u201cThereupon Nephayan brought in Egyptians, together with other warriors;\nthey came to the fortress of Yeb together with their _tali_,(320)\npenetrated into that temple, destroyed it down to the ground. And they\nshattered the stone columns which were there. It also happened, (that)\nthey shattered the seven stone doors,(321) built out of a hewn block of\nstone, which were in that temple, and their heads, they ...(322) and their\nhinges which were in the marble, those were of brass,(323) and the\nroofing, consisting wholly of cedar beams, together with the plaster\npavement (?) of the forecourt (?) and other (things) which were there\u2014all\nthis have they burned with fire. And the sacrificial dishes of gold and\nsilver, and the things which were in that temple, all have they taken and\nhave used as their own. And since the days of the kings of Egypt have our\nfathers built that temple in Yeb, the fortress. And when Cambyses came up\nto Egypt, he found that temple (already) built, but they pulled all the\ntemples of the gods of Egypt down. In that temple, on the contrary, no one\nhad destroyed anything.\n\n\u201cAnd after they had done this, we, with our wives and children, wore\nmourning-garments, fasted, and prayed to Yah\u00fb, the lord of heaven, who had\ngiven us warning concerning that Waidrang, the _kalbya_.(324) They have\ntaken the chains(325) away from his feet, and all the treasures, which he\nhad acquired, have gone to ruin. And all the men who wished evil to that\ntemple, have all been killed, and we have been witnesses thereof.\n\n\u201cAlso before this, at the time when this evil was committed upon us, did\nwe send a letter to our lord, and to Yeho\u1e25anan, the high-priest, and his\ncompanions, the priests who were in Jerusalem, and to Ostan (Ostanes), his\nbrother, that is, \u2019Anani,(326) and the free ones (princes) of the Jews.\nThey have not sent us one letter (in reply).\n\n\u201cAlso since the days of Tammuz of the 14th year of Darius the king, and\nuntil this day, we wear mourning-garments and fast, our wives have been\nmade as a widow, we have not anointed (ourselves with) oil nor drunk wine.\nAlso since then and until (this) day of the 17th year of Darius the king\nthey have not made food-offerings, incense-offerings, and burnt-offerings\nin that temple.\n\n\u201cMoreover, thy servants, Yedoniah and his companions, and the Jews, all\ncitizens of Yeb, speak as follows\u2014\n\n\u201c \u2018If it be good to our lord, mayest thou consider upon that temple, for\nits rebuilding, as they do not allow us to rebuild it. Look to the\nreceivers of thy benefits and favours, who are here in Egypt. Let a letter\nbe sent from thee to them with regard to the temple of the god Yah\u00fb, to\nrebuild it in Yeb, the fortress, even as it was heretofore built. And they\nshall offer food-offerings and incense-offerings and burnt-offerings upon\nthe altar of the god Yah\u00fb in thy name. And we will pray for thee at every\ntime\u2014we and our wives and our children and all the Jews who are here, if\nthey(327) have then worked until that temple is rebuilt.\n\n\u201c \u2018And a share shall be thine before Yah\u00fb the god of heaven from the man\nwho offers to him a burnt-offering and a sacrifice, a value equal to the\nworth of a silver (shekel) for (every) 1000 talents.(328) And with regard\nto the gold, concerning that we have sent and given instruction. We have\nalso sent everything in a letter in our name to Delaiah and Shelemiah,\nsons of Sanaballat, governor of Samaria. Also Arsames had no knowledge of\nall that which has been done unto us.\u2019\n\n\u201cOn the 20th of Marcheswan in the year 17 of Darius the king.\u201d\n\nA fragment of a duplicate gives some instructive variants of this\nexceedingly interesting document, from which it would appear that gold and\ntreasure was given to Waidrang to induce him to act against the temple of\nYah\u00fb at Yeb.\n\nTo this plea on the part of Yedoniah and the Jewish congregation at Yeb a\nfavourable answer was given, as the following document shows\u2014\n\n\u201cMemorandum of what Bagohi and Delaiah said to me\u2014Memorandum as follows\u2014\n\n\u201c \u2018Thou shalt speak in Egypt before Arsames concerning the temple of the\nsacrificial altar of the God of Heaven which is in Yeb, the fortress,\nbefore our time, before Cambyses, which Waidrang, that _lahia_,(329)\ndestroyed in the 14th year of Darius the king, to rebuild it in its place,\nas it was formerly. And they shall offer food-offerings and incense upon\nthat altar, even as was wont to be done formerly.\u2019 \u201d\n\nNothing could be more satisfactory than this little episode of the Jewish\ncolony at Yeb\u2014it needs but the discovery of the record of the rebuilding\nand the inauguration of the temple to round it off.\n\nBagohi governor of Judea is the Bagoas or Bagoses of Josephus,\n_Antiquities of the Jews_, xi. 7. The high-priest Johannes or John (the\nYo\u1e2banan mentioned on p. 539) had slain his brother Jesus in the temple,\nbecause the latter, supported by Bagoas, sought to dispute with him the\nHigh-priesthood. Notwithstanding the protests of the Jews, Bagoas\npenetrated into the temple, and imposed upon it a fine of 50 drachmas for\nevery lamb sacrificed therein. It will thus be seen, that in offering to\nhim a percentage of the sacrifices in return for his support in rebuilding\nthe temple at Yeb, Yedoniah and his companions were acting in accordance\nwith what was known to be his character. The reference to Yohanan\u2019s\nrefraining from helping them, it is reasonable to suppose, also occurred\nto them as likely to further their desires.\n\nYedoniah, the chief of the Jewish colony at Yeb and the writer of the\nlonger document, is probably likewise named in the Oxford papyri\u2014he was\neither Yedoniah ben Hosea or Yedoniah ben Meshullam, but could not have\nbeen identified with a third of the name, Yedoniah ben Nathan, as this\nlast is stated to have been an Aramean of Syene. We have to await further\nlight upon his identity.\n\nArsames, who is mentioned in the second paragraph (p. 537), is probably,\nas Sachau points out, the Arsanes of Ktesias, who was governor of Egypt\nwhen Darius II. mounted the throne. He left Egypt and went to the court of\nDarius, and the priests of Chnum(330) in Elephantine profited by his\nabsence to destroy the Jewish temple there. In this they were supported by\nWaidrang, who, in the absence of Arsames, seems to have exercised the\noffice of governor. To all appearance he had been commander-in-chief of\nthe army in Egypt, a post held, at the time this document was written, by\nNephyan his son. There is some doubt as to the reading and vocalization of\nthe name Waidrang, and consequently, also, as to its true form, but it is\nregarded as certainly Persian. It is thought that its Persian prototype\nmay have been _Vayu-darengha_,(331) \u201ccompanion of the wind-god,\u201d whilst\nhis son\u2019s name, in Persian, is possibly _Nap\u00e2o-y\u00e2na_, \u201cfavour of the god\nNap\u00e2o.\u201d Should these identifications be found correct, they will have, as\nSachau remarks, considerable value in ascertaining the principle upon\nwhich names in Persian were given.\n\nTo all appearance Arsames returned to Egypt, and a reaction followed which\nended in the disgrace of Waidrang and his followers, who were deprived of\nthe spoils which they had stolen from the temple at Yeb, and the Jews also\nbecame, in the end, witnesses of the death of all their persecutors. It\nseems probable that the central government was greatly displeased at the\naction of Waidrang and the priests of Chnub, for the Persians seem always\nto have been well-disposed towards the Jews\u2014moreover, cupidity, and not\nthe good of the state, was at the bottom of Waidrang\u2019s action. The\ndestruction wrought, however, was not immediately made good, hence this\ndocument, which throws such a vivid light upon the state of Egypt and the\nJews in those days. It is but just to the Persians of that period to say,\nthat notwithstanding their seemingly Persian names, Waidrang and his son\nwere apparently not Persians, but possibly Semites, as the (probably\ngentilic) adjectives applied to the former seem to show.\n\nThe date of this document is regarded as not admitting of any doubt, as\nmay be gathered by the references to the regnal years of Darius in\nconjunction with the names of historical personages\u2014Bagohi (Bagoas or\nBagoses of Josephus), governor of Judea, Yeho\u1e25anan or John, the\nhigh-priest at Jerusalem, and the two sons of Sanaballa\u1e6d,(332) the\ngovernor of Samaria in the time of Artaxerxes I. (Longimanus). The ruler\nof the Persian empire when these documents were written, must therefore\nhave been Darius II. (Nothus), who reigned for 19 years, namely, 424-405\nB.C. The 14th year of Darius II.\u2014the date of the destruction of the temple\nat Yeb\u2014was 410 B.C., and his 17th year\u2014the date when the appeal was sent\nto Bagohi\u2014corresponds with 407 B.C. This fixes, among others, the date of\nYeho\u1e25anan, and Sachau points out as noteworthy that one of his brothers,\nnamed Manasseh, was son-in-law of the governor of Samaria, Sanaballa\u1e6d, as\nrelated in Nehemiah xiii. 28. Another brother of the high-priest was the\none whom he killed in the temple (Jesus). In this record, however, a third\nbrother, Ostan or Ostanes, appears. To all appearance this last bore also\nanother name, to wit, \u2019Ahani, which would be his true Hebrew appellation.\nIf, however, the Babylonian construction has been followed here, this\nOstan or Ostanes would be brother of \u2019Ahani, a personage of importance in\nJerusalem, but not otherwise known. Adopting the rendering given in the\ntranslation, however, it is noteworthy that two brothers named Yeho\u1e25anan\nand \u2019Ahani are mentioned in 1 Chronicles iii. 24. These, however, were\ndescendants of David, whereas the brothers mentioned in the papyrus must\nhave been descendants of Aaron.\n\nA high Persian official named _U\u0161tanu or U\u0161tannu (Ostanu_ or _Ostan_)\noccurs on two Babylonian tablets in the British Museum, and also on one in\nthe possession of Lord Amherst of Hackney. He bears the title \u201cgovernor of\nBabylon and across the river,\u201d possibly meaning all the tract west of the\nEuphrates. This man, however, can hardly at the same time have been\ngovernor of Egypt, and the texts in which he is mentioned seem, moreover,\nto belong to the time of Darius Hystaspis, in which case he lived at a\nmuch too early date.\n\nThe Egyptians called the island of Elephantine Yeb, and its capital bore\nthe same name as the island. It is transcribed Ab by those who follow the\nold system of reading Egyptian, so that the present documents seem to\nsupport the philological views of the Berlin school. A common ideograph\nfor the name of the island is an elephant with an upturned trunk, showing\nthat Yeb really means \u201celephant-island,\u201d and that Elephantine is simply\nthe Greek translation of the native name. The temple of Khnum (Khnumba,\nKhnub), whose priests are referred to in the papyri, was destroyed by\nMo\u1e25ammed Ali in 1822.\n\nThe Hebrew divine name is written Yahu, which is apparently the longer\nform of the biblical Jah, seen in such names as Hezekiah (Assyrian\n_\u1e2aazaqi-yau_), Gemariah or Gemariahu (Jer. xxix. 3; xxxvi. 10, etc.). As\nis shown on p. 471, this termination was pronounced _i\u0101wa_ by the\nBabylonian Jews, which raises the question whether the Yahu of these\npapyri may not have been pronounced _Y\u0101wa_ also.\n\nDr. L. Belleli, of the Philological Section of the _Instituto di Studi\nSuperiori_ in Florence, doubts the genuineness of the papyri found at\nElephantine on account of chronological difficulties. In the case of the\ndocuments here translated, however, no such difficulties can be said to\nexist, and the forger of such things would have to be not only a splendid\nAramaic scholar acquainted with the Berlin scheme of transcribing\nEgyptian, but also a historian and the possessor of an exceedingly lively\nimagination.\n\nThe above description is based upon Eduard Sachau\u2019s noteworthy monograph,\n_Drei aram\u00e4ische Papyrusurkunden aus Elephantine_, Berlin, K\u00f6nigliche\nAkademie der Wissenschaften, 1907. The documents in question were\ndiscovered by Dr. Otto Rubensohn, and the collection included some papyri\nstill in roll-form, and various fragments. The principal document\ntranslated above belonged to the former category, and was successfully\nunrolled by Herr Ibscher, the keeper of the Royal Museum. The reproduction\nshows it as a large sheet of papyrus, folded in two, and certain damaged\nportions, on the left, imply that it was rolled upon itself about six\ntimes.\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES AND ADDITIONS.\n\n\nP. 11. It is needful to state, as has been pointed out to the writer, that\n\u201cour English translation would make all (the Biblical Creation-story)\nappear English.\u201d In other words, the test of language is not an unfailing\none.\n\nPp. 14-15. To the names of translators of the Babylonian Creation-stories\nmust be added P. Jensen, and W. L. King, who has published important\nadditions to the text.\n\nP. 21, l. 4. Alternative rendering: \u201cHe beheld Tiamtu\u2019s snarling\u201d (see the\nnote to p. 24).\n\nP. 22. With the first paragraph on this page the contents of the third\ntablet, and with the last paragraph those of the fourth, begin.\n\nP. 24. Instead of \u201cthey clustered around him,\u201d Jensen translates\n(doubtfully), \u201cthey ran round about him,\u201d and King, \u201cthey beheld him.\u201d\nSomething may be said in favour of each, but the rendering of the text\nseems more probable. Also, instead of \u201cExamining the lair,\u201d I am inclined\nto return to my earlier rendering, \u201cNoting the snarling of Kingu, her\nconsort.\u201d The four succeeding lines read:\u2014\n\n\n \u201cHe looks, and his advance(333) becomes confused,\n His understanding is destroyed, and his action fails (?),\n And the gods, his helpers, going by his side,\n Saw the [con]fusion (??) of their leader, (and) their sight was\n troubled (too).\u201d\n\n\nKing attributes this fear and confusion not to Merodach, but to Kingu and\nhis followers, which would seem to be more consistent, but the difficulty\nis, that the original gives no indication that this was the case. Further\ndiscoveries may throw light upon the point.\n\nP. 27. The Luma\u0161i (l. 2), according to _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western\nAsia_, vol. III., pl. 57, were seven constellations, and seem to have been\nincluded in the thirty-six stars or constellations mentioned two lines\nlower down. A list of these will be found in the _Journal of the Royal\nAsiatic Society_ for 1900, pp. 573-575.\n\nP. 28, l. 29. The translation of this line is based on that of Mr. L. W.\nKing, who first published the text. The word for \u201cbone\u201d is _i\u1e63\u1e63imtum_, the\nHeb. _\u2019e\u1e63em_, Arab. _\u2019adhm_. If the word be correctly read (the character\n_tum_ is doubtful), it is possibly connected with _\u00ea\u1e63imtum_, which\ntranslates the Sumerian character standing for a weapon or a long straight\nobject.\n\nPp. 29-31. Tutu and other names given to Merodach in this section are\nreferred to on pp. 45-46. By \u201cthe people\u201d in line 15 (p. 30) are\napparently to be understood the gods.\n\nP. 44. Other names of the goddess Aruru, who assisted Merodach in the\ncreation of man, are \u201cthe lady potter,\u201d \u201cthe constructor of the world,\u201d\n\u201cthe constructor of the gods,\u201d \u201cthe constructor of mankind,\u201d \u201cthe\nconstructor of the heart.\u201d Aruru was the goddess of progeny, and is one of\nthe forty-one names by which \u201cthe lady of the gods\u201d was known. An\ninteresting Sumerian (dialectic) hymn to her exists in the Brussels\nMuseum.\n\nP. 47, ll. 29-32. Instead of \u201cin their (the fallen gods\u2019) room,\u201d Jensen\nsuggests, \u201cfor their redemption.\u201d That the fallen gods were to be redeemed\n(lit.: \u201cspared\u201d) by the merits of the race of men which Merodach created\nis a new idea, which further information may confirm.(334)\n\nP. 59, l. 13. Ea is the A\u00ea of the preceding pages, the Oannes of\nDamascius. There is reason to believe that the name was also read Aa,\nwhich would account for the Greek form which he employs, and likewise for\nthe identification of this god with the Aa of l. 4 and the following\nparagraph.\n\nP. 63, l. 27. Perhaps the most interesting of recent discoveries is the\nidentification (by Prof. Zimmern) of Euedoreschos with the Enweduranki of\nthe tablet described on p. 77. The original Greek form must have been\nEuedoranchos (see the note to the page mentioned). Euedocus (l. 21) is\nprobably the Sumero-Akkadian En-me-duga.\n\nP. 67. For further notes in connection with Tiamat, see the discussion of\nDelitzsch\u2019s _Babel und Bibel_ at the end, pp. 529-532. It is noteworthy\nthat this name heads the list of abodes of the gods published in the\n_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology_ for Dec., 1900, pp.\n367-369. The explanation is unfortunately broken away, but it may be\nsurmised that as the goddess of the watery wastes of the earth she was\ndescribed as the abode of the gods who were regarded as her followers.\n\nP. 72. The description of Tammuz as \u201cthe peerless mother of heaven\u201d is\nprobably to be explained by the fact, that _ama-gala_, \u201cgreat mother,\u201d is\none of the Sumerian words for \u201cforest,\u201d and Tammuz was identified with the\nforest of Eridu, the divine abode where he dwelt.\n\nP. 73. For Pir-napi\u0161tim, Ut-napi\u0161tim is a possible reading (see below,\nnote to p. 99).\n\nFor further notes upon the trees of Paradise, see pp. 531.\n\nP. 77. Euedoranchos. The forms of this name, as handed down, are\n\u0395\u1f50\u03b5\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, \u0395\u1f50\u03b5\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, and \u0395\u1f50\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2. Eusebius\u2019s Chronicle, however,\ngives the best form, namely, Edoranchus.\n\nP. 78, l. 20. Perhaps it would be better to say that the Hebrew accounts\nof the Creation \u201cprobably came from Babylonia\u201d\u2014they may not have\noriginated there.\n\nPp. 80-82. For further remarks upon the cherubin, see p. 533. In \u201cthe\n_kurub_ of Anu, Bel,\u201d etc., which also occurs, we probably have a variant\nform.\n\nP. 83, ll. 1-5. It is noteworthy that Ablum (\u201cSon\u201d) as a personal name\nactually occurs (De Sarzec, _D\u00e9couvertes_, pl. 30 bis, No. 19). Compare\nAblaa, \u201cmy son,\u201d p. 533, l. 12.\n\nP. 90. For further information about the name Gilgame\u0161, see the\n_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology_ for 1903, pp. 198-199.\nProf. Hommel has pointed out that an inscription exists stating that he\nbuilt the fortress of Erech, thus bringing him almost within the domain of\nhistory.\n\nP. 99. (The Legend of Gilgame\u0161.) Dr. Meissner\u2019s discovery of a fragment of\na new version of the Gilgame\u0161-legend(335) is a most welcome addition to\nour knowledge. A description of this text will be found in the\n_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology_ for March and May,\n1903, where a comparison of the two versions is also given. It speaks of\nhis visit to the land of darkness in quest of his friend Ea-ban\u00ee (whose\nname, as this inscription indicates, should properly be read Enki-du or\nEa(A\u00ea, Aa)-du). In the second column it details his conversation with\nSiduri (\u201cthe _Sabitu_\u201d), in which he refers to the death of his beloved\ncompanion, since whose departure he had not sought to live, but having\nseen her face, he expresses the hope that he will now not see death. The\n_Sabitu_, however, answers him to the effect that he would not find the\nlife which he sought\u2014death was the lot which the gods had set for mankind.\nEat, therefore, make festival, rejoice day and night, put on fine apparel,\ntake pleasure in child and wife\u2014such was her advice. In the last column of\nthis version the hero meets with Sur-Sunabu (Ur-\u0160anabi), who asks him his\nname. Gilgame\u0161 tells him who he is and whence he came, and asks to be\nshown Uta-nai\u0161tim, the remote, as the Babylonian Noah seems to be called\nin this version of the legend. About one-third of the tablet, giving the\nlower parts of columns 1 and 2, and the upper parts of columns 3 and 4, is\nthe amount preserved.\n\nThe above seems to show, that the name of the friend of Gilgame\u0161 was\n\u00caa-du, (Aa-du, A\u00ea-du, or Enki-du), not \u00caa-ban\u00ee; whilst Ur-\u0160anabi the\nboatman, was really called Sur-Sunabu (or Sur-\u0160anabi); and Pir-napi\u0161tim,\nthe Babylonian Noah, was Ut-napi\u0161tim.\n\nP. 104, ll. 1 and 6. Jensen suggests, for _muir kukki_, the translation\n\u201crulers of darkness(?)\u201d:\u2014\n\n\u201c(If) the rulers of darkness cause to rain down one evening a rain of dirt\n(?),\n\nEnter into the ship, and shut thy door!\u201d\n\nThat period arrived;\n\n\u201cThe rulers of darkness rain down one evening a rain of dirt (?).\u201d\n\n_Muir_, however, seems to be singular, not plural. Another meaning of the\nword is \u201cmessenger.\u201d\n\nP. 108, l. 35. If this translation be correct, the throwing down of a part\nof the food recalls the casting of meal on the ground as an offering to\nthe gods. It is not unlikely that the preparation of the food, and setting\nit by his head, was accompanied by some prayer or incantation to secure\nhis recovery, as in the inscription translated in the _Proceedings of the\nSociety of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology_, May, 1901, pp. 193 and 205-210. Sleeping\nwith a cruse of water near the head (1 Sam. xxvi. 11-12) was probably\nsimply a provision against thirst, with no special meaning. On p. 111,\nthere is just the possibility that \u201cThe leavings of the dish\u201d were what\nwas allowed to remain therein for the gods, and \u201cthe rejected of the food\u201d\nmay have been that which was thrown on the ground as an offering.\n\nP. 113, ll. 19 ff. A number of the deities identified with the god Ea or\nAa are given in the _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. II.,\npl. 58, and form a parallel with the inscription printed on p. 58. Deities\nseem also to have been identified with Nebo. The centres where these gods\nwere worshipped therefore had likewise their monotheistic system, in which\nall the other gods were identified with the patron-deity of the place,\njust as those Babylonians who worshipped Merodach identified all the other\ngods with him.\n\nP. 119. There has been a great deal of discussion as to the way in which\n\u0160umer could be connected with Shinar, the chief reasons against their\nidentification being that the latter must have come from a Babylonian\nform, of whose existence there is no evidence, and that it stood for the\nwhole country (except, possibly, Larsa), whereas \u0160umer was the name of the\nsouthern part only. Hommel derives the Biblical Shinar from Ki-Imgir,\nthrough the intermediate forms Shingar, Shumir (\u0160umer) and Shimir. This is\nbased upon the tendency which _k_ had to change into _\u0161_, whilst the\nsubstitution of _m_ for an older _g_ or _ng_ can be proved. As, however,\nShinar corresponds practically with the whole of Babylonia, a modification\nof Prof. Hommel\u2019s etymology may, perhaps, best meet the case. The whole of\nthe country was called by the Sumerians Kingi (or Kengi) Ura, and the\nexpression _m\u00e2da Kingi-Ura_ is rendered, in the lists, _m\u00e2t \u0160umeri u\nAkkad\u012b_, \u201cthe land of Sumer and Akkad.\u201d It is therefore clear, that\nKingi-Ura corresponds with the whole tract, and is practically synonymous\nwith the Biblical Shinar. The change from _k_ to _\u0161 (sh)_ being provable,\nit is possible that Kingi-Ura, pronounced Shingi-Ura, may have originated\nthe Hebrew form Shinar (better Shin\u2019ar), through the intermediate forms\nShingura and Shingar.\n\nThe statement that Elam was the firstborn of Shem (Gen. x. 22) receives\nillustration from the fact, that many inscriptions have been found showing\nthat Semitic Babylonian was not only well known, but also used in that\ncountry. From the order in which the names occur in Genesis, it ought to\nbe the earliest of the Semitic settlements, coming before Asshur,\nArpachshad, Lud, and Aram. If, however, Arpachshad stand, as is generally\nthought, for Babylonia, it is quite clear that there is no indication of\nchronological order in this, for Assyria was certainly younger, as a\nSemitic settlement, than Babylonia, and it would seem that Elam was\ncolonized with Semites from the last-named country. This would make Elam\nto be simply the first Semitic colony, as Prof. Scheil has already\nsuggested.\n\nA good example of the slim racial type is shown on pl. V., second\nseal-impression. For a long time after the Sumerians had become one nation\nwith the Semitic Babylonians, the type of the figures represented on the\ncylinder-seals and sculptures remained unchanged, and it is on this\naccount that \u1e2aammurabi is portrayed, on the slab reproduced as pl. I., in\nthe old non-Semitic costume. The early Semitic type is shown on pl. III.,\nno. 1 (no. 2 shows the late Assyrian type). In pl. VI. the Sumerian style\nis there, but the type is rather thick. This, however, may be partly due\nto the sliding of the cylinder when the impression was taken.\n\nP. 124. Sargon of Agad\u00e9\u2019s conquests, according to the omens referring to\nhis reign, were as follows:\u2014(paragraph 1) Elam, (2) the land of the\nAmorites, (4 and 5) the land of the Amorites (twice), (6) doubtful, (7) he\ncrossed the sea of the rising of the sun, and the reference to three years\nin that district seems to refer to the time he stayed there, (8)\napparently no expedition, (9) he ravaged the land of Kazalla, (10) he put\ndown a revolt in his own country, (11) he fought against Suri or Suma\u0161tu.\n\nP. 125, l. 27. The old Sumerian or Akkadian laws are only known to us from\na few specimens preserved in the tablets of grammatical paradigms (the\nseries _Ana itti-\u0161u_), and will be found on pp. 190-191. It is probable\nthat they were made use of in compiling the Code of \u1e2aammurabi.\n\nP. 127, l. 21 ff. But perhaps it was the city of A\u0161\u0161ur which came forth\nfrom Babylonia (_i.e._ was a Babylonian colony), and its ever-increasing\ninhabitants who founded the other cities mentioned.\n\nP. 130 (the derivation of Nimrod). Another suggestion is, that Nimrod may\nbe the name of Merodach, as \u201cLord of Marad\u201d (Nin-Marad). As far as I have\nbeen able to see, however, this name of Merodach does not occur, and\nmoreover, it was Nergal, and not Merodach, who was lord of\nMarad\u2014Merodach\u2019s city was Babylon. Prof. Hommel\u2019s acute suggestion, that\nNamra-\u1e63it may be a Babylonian form of Nimrod, would seem to be doubtful.\n\nP. 131 (Merodach\u2019s net). The bow of Merodach, after his fight with Tiamtu,\nwas placed in the heavens, and seemingly became one of the constellations,\nbut we do not hear of any similar honour having been conferred on his net,\nnotwithstanding the great service which it had rendered him. In Habakkuk\ni. 15-17 there is a curious passage in which \u201cthe Chaldean\u201d is described\nas catching men with his angle and his net, as fishes are caught, and\nmaking sacrifice to his net and his drag on account of his success with\nthem. Heuzey, the well-known French Assyriologist and antiquarian, makes a\ncomparison between this passage and the Vulture-stele, on which an ancient\nBabylonian prince is represented as having placed his conquered foes in a\ngreat net. This, however, does not explain the statement that the Chaldean\nsacrificed and offered incense to his net and his drag, and it is doubtful\nwhether the Prophet had either that or any similar sculpture or picture in\nhis mind. There is, nevertheless, just the possibility that the\nBabylonians were accustomed to pay divine honours to the net of Merodach,\nand this may have given rise to the statement in the passage quoted.\nWhether the relief on the Vulture-stele be derived from the legend of\nMerodach or not, is doubtful\u2014in all probability it merely expresses a\nsimile derived from catching wild animals with a net, as exhibited by the\nsculptures of A\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli in the Assyrian Saloon of the British\nMuseum.\n\nPp. 132-133. With regard to the statements on these pages, the Rev. John\nTuckwell writes: \u201cGen. xi. 1 must in all fairness be regarded as going\nback prior to ch. x, in order to tell the history of Babylon from its\nfoundation. Again:\u2014Why contradict Genesis? We do not know who \u2018began\u2019 to\nbuild Babylon\u2014Sayce suggests \u2018Etana.\u2019 It is quite possible that \u2018they left\noff to build the city,\u2019 and resumed the work under Nimrod. There is no\nneed to regard any of the statements as \u2018interpolations\u2019 if thus read. If\nall mankind perished by the Flood, as both stories appear to teach, there\nmust surely have been a time when \u2018the whole earth was of one language.\u2019 \u201d\n\nP. 134. For the derivation of Shinar, see the note to p. 119.\n\nP. 136. The Mohammedan legend of the Tower of Babel, as told in the\nPersian work, _Rauzat-us-Safa_,(336) may be interesting. It is as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n\u201cWhen Nimrud had witnessed the extinction of the pile of fire, and had\nbeheld the roses produced therein by the benign Creator, he aspired to\nascend to heaven.... Nimrud ... spent many years in erecting a tower,\nwhich was so high that the bird of imagination could not reach its summit.\nWhen it was completed, he ascended to the pinnacle of the spire, but the\naspect of the heavens remained precisely the same as from the surface of\nthe earth. This astonished and perplexed him. The next day the tower fell,\nand such a fearful noise struck the ears of the inhabitants of Babel that\nmost of them fainted from the effects thereof; and when they had recovered\ntheir senses they forgot their own language, so that every tribe spoke a\ndifferent idiom, and seventy-two tongues became current among them.\u201d\n\nP. 136, l. 3 from below. Nannara was the moon-god, the same as Sin. L. 6\nfrom below, read _\u00ca-bar-igi-\u00ea-di_.\n\nP. 144, l. 9 from below. The Rev. C. H. W. Johns, in his Assyrian deeds\nand documents, has pointed out the likeness of the names _Na\u1e2biri_ and\n_Na\u1e2barau_ (or _Na\u1e2bar\u00e2u_) to Nahor, referred to by Kittel in his little\nbook upon Delitzsch\u2019s _Babel und Bibel_.(337) _Na\u1e2biru_, however, is the\ncommon Assyro-Babylonian word for \u201cnostril,\u201d and is also the name of a\ncreature of the sea supposed to be the dolphin. _Na\u1e2bar\u00e2u_ it may be noted,\nnotwithstanding the absence of the prefix of divinity, bears every\nappearance of being a name like _B\u00eal-Yau_ on p. 59, the initial _y_ or _i_\nbeing omitted as in the case of _Au-Aa_ seven lines lower down. Judging\nfrom analogy, _Nahar\u00e2u_ should mean \u201cNa\u1e2bar is Jah,\u201d but whether this has\nanything to do with the name Nahor or not is doubtful\u2014as Assyrian\nequivalent we should rather expect _Na\u1e2buru_.\n\nP. 145, l. 11 from below. The name of a Babylonian district called Pulug\noccurs in a Babylonian geographical list, and may be the same as Peleg.\nThough the ideogram is different, this is possibly the same as the Pulukku\nof the _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. II., pl. 52, l. 53,\nwhere it is explained as _B\u00eet \u1e2bar\u00ea_, \u201cthe house of the cutting,\u201d or\n\u201cexcavation.\u201d The Babylonians would therefore seem to have regarded Pulug\nor Pulukku as referring to the division of the land of Babylon by the\ncutting of the irrigation-channels which gave it its fertility.\n\nP. 146, l. 4. There is no great probability that the name Terah has\nanything to do with _Tar\u1e2bu_, which occurs in certain names found in\nAssyrian contracts (Johns, _Assyrian Deeds_, pp. 127, 458, etc.).\n\nP. 147, l. 4 from below. The family of Terah may, however, have become\npastoral on leaving Ur of the Chaldees.\n\nP. 148 (Abram). According to Prof. Breasted (_American Journal of Semitic\nStudies_, Oct. 1904) mention is made in the geographical list of Shishak\nat Karnak of \u201cthe field of Abram,\u201d and if this identification be correct,\nit is the earliest reference to the great ancestor of the Hebrews and the\nnations associated with them, though it cannot be said that the date (time\nof Jeroboam and Rehoboam) is a very remote one. Owing to the same Egyptian\ncharacter being used for both _r_ and _l_, Masp\u00e9ro read the word as the\nplural of _\u2019abel_, \u201cmeadow.\u201d\n\nP. 150, l. 23. Illustrations of the old Akkadian (or Sumerian) laws will\nbe found in the contracts of adoption of B\u00eal-\u00eazzu and Arad-I\u0161\u1e2bara on pp.\n176 and 177. The laws themselves are given on p. 190.\n\nP. 152, second paragraph. It is needful to state that a few Semitic\nBabylonian inscriptions of an exceedingly early date (seemingly before\n3000 B.C.) exist, likewise a few Sumero-Akkadian texts after 2300 B.C.,\nand the periods of the two languages therefore overlap. Judging from the\ninscriptions, however, Sumero-Akkadian goes back to a date much earlier\nthan the earliest Semitic, but it was to all appearance hardly used after\nthe period of the dynasty of \u1e2aammurabi.\n\nP. 158, l. 11. The Gutites were probably Medes.\n\nP. 161, l. 11. It is not improbable that Sippar-Amnanu means simply\n\u201cAmonite Sippar,\u201d the second word of the compound being apparently from\nAmna,(338) which is possibly the Babylonian form of the name of the\nEgyptian sun-god, Amon. _Ya\u2019ruru_ is seemingly the old form of Aruru, one\nof the names of I\u0161tar, who was also worshipped there.\n\nP. 166. The wedding-gift was to all appearance the price paid by the\nbridegroom for the bride, in this case handed to the bride\u2019s brother and\nsister. For the laws concerning this payment, see \u1e2aammurabi\u2019s Code,\nsections 163 and 164 (p. 505). It was generally handed to the bride\u2019s\nfather (upon a dish, according to _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western\nAsia_, vol. v., pl. 24, ll. 48-51_cd_).(339) Instead of \u201cAmmi-\u1e6ditana the\nking,\u201d Dr. Schor reads Ammi-\u1e6ditana-\u0161arrum, _i.e._ as the name of a man,\nmeaning \u201cAmmi-\u1e6ditana is king.\u201d If this be correct, the document is not a\nrecord of the marriage of a princess.\n\nP. 168. The grain given to \u0160eritum was probably of the nature of a\ndeposit\u2014according to \u1e2aammurabi\u2019s Code, sect. 257, the wages of a reaper\nwere not one _gur_ of grain, but eight.\n\nP. 173-174. Upon the question of adoption, see \u1e2aammurabi\u2019s Code, sections\n185-193. As there is no indication, in these enactments, that female\nchildren were included, it is doubtful whether Ana-Aa-uzni and A\u1e2b\u1e2b-ayabi\nhad any remedy in case of repudiation, or refusal to perform all the\nconditions. Calling the gods to witness was probably regarded as being a\nsufficient safeguard. Nevertheless, the usage of the language was such\nthat \u201cdaughtership\u201d could be included in \u201csonship.\u201d\n\nPp. 174 ff. It is noteworthy that, in this contract, there is no\nindication of the second wife having been taken to vex the first (Lev.\nxviii. 18, A.V.), and as the second was to be subordinate to the first,\nrivalling (as the R.V. translates) was as far as possible prevented. As\nthe children already born are referred to (p. 175, l. 20), the second\nmarriage could not have been due to the absence of offspring, and it may\ntherefore be supposed that the second wife was taken on account of the\nill-health of the first (\u1e2aammurabi\u2019s Code, sect. 148). This is supported\nby the clauses referring to the services which Iltani was to perform for\nher \u201csister.\u201d\n\nP. 176. The adoption of B\u00eal-\u00eazzu illustrates section 191 of \u1e2aammurabi\u2019s\nCode. Both are based upon the Sumerian laws translated on pp. 190 and 191.\nThe word translated \u201cdeep\u201d (line 19) is one generally used for the ocean,\nthe abode of Ea (Aa), god of the waters. It may have been something\nsimilar to \u201cthe brazen sea\u201d in the temple at Jerusalem.\n\nP. 177. Arad-I\u0161\u1e2bara was evidently adopted under the same law and enactment\nas the foregoing. The declaration of the foster-father of his right to\nhave children is interesting.\n\nUpon the adoption of Karanatum, compare pp. 173 and 174, with the note\nthereon.\n\nPp. 178 and 179. The three tablets giving equal portions to each of the\nthree brothers, illustrate sections 165 and 167 of the Code, which enacts\nthat all brothers shall share equally. Any gift or share in the property\nleft by the mother would probably be recorded on another document.\n\nP. 180. Laws 178 ff. of \u1e2aammurabi\u2019s Code show that votaries and\npriestesses had special privileges in the matter of inheriting property,\nand it would seem from the tablet of Eri\u0161tum, the sodomite or public\nwoman, that her station did not allow her the choice, that being the right\nof her sister, Amat-\u0160ama\u0161, priestess of the sun.\n\nP. 181. Naramtum apparently had no children, and seems to have been\ndivorced in accordance with section 138 of \u1e2aammurabi\u2019s Code.\n\nP. 185. The case of \u0160ama\u0161-n\u00fbri is illustrated by sections 144-146 of\n\u1e2aammurabi\u2019s Code.\n\nPp. 187 and 188. The conditions of the hiring of a slave were probably\nthose of the old Sumerian law translated on p. 191.\n\nP. 199, l. 26. Elamite overlordship was naturally coextensive with that of\nBabylon as long as the latter power acknowledged Elamite supremacy.\n\nP. 201, l. 5 from below. _Qanni_ is probably one of the Assyro-Babylonian\nwords for \u201csanctuary.\u201d\n\nP. 203. In addition to the deities mentioned, A\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli\n(Assurbanipal) speaks of the goddess Nin-gala, the \u201cgreat lady\u201d or\n\u201cqueen,\u201d as having a temple called \u00ca-gipara at Haran. She is mentioned\nwith Nusku (p. 202) and is called \u201cthe mother of the gods,\u201d \u0160ama\u0161, the\nsungod, being described as her firstborn. To all appearance she was the\nconsort of the Moongod, Nannar.\n\nP. 208, last line. \u201cYoke of the _Elamites_\u201d would probably have been the\nbetter term. (See the note to p. 199.)\n\nP. 209, l. 8 from below. Oppert always refused to accept the\nidentification of Amraphel with \u1e2aammurabi.\n\nP. 222, l. 4 from below. It would appear from the Babylonian lists that\nTud\u1e2bula may be read simply Tud\u1e2bul, notwithstanding the final _a_ at the\nend.\n\nP. 243, ll. 25 ff. The name Aqabi-\u00eelu (p. 463, l. 15) is similarly formed\nto that of Ya\u2019kubi-\u00eelu, and from the same root, but it is not identical\nwith it. There is no probability that Egibi (p. 439, l. 2, etc.) has any\nconnection with the name Jacob, as has been suggested. Its connection with\nthe (? Assyrian) name \u1e2aakkubu seems to be still more unlikely. Upon these\nand similar names, see Hommel, \u201c_Ancient Hebrew Tradition_,\u201d(340) p. 112.\n\nP. 246, l. 5. If my memory serves me, the name Gadu-\u1e6d\u00e2bu, \u201cthe fortune is\ngood,\u201d occurs on a contract-tablet in the British Museum. (I unfortunately\nforgot to make note of it at the time, hence my inability to give the\nreference.)\n\nP. 249, after the first paragraph. Jacob\u2019s wrestling with \u201ca man\u201d (Gen.\nxxxii. 24 ff.) brings out the interesting name Peniel or Penuel (vv. 30\nand 31), explained as \u201cthe face of God,\u201d so called because he had there\n\u201cseen God face to face.\u201d A similar name to this is the Babylonian\n_Ana-p\u00e2ni-\u00eeli_, \u201cto the face of God,\u201d sometimes shortened to _App\u00e2ni-\u00eeli_.\nThe documents bearing the latter are of the time of Samsu-iluna, and are\ntherefore rather earlier than the time of Jacob. Besides the meaning given\nabove, other renderings are possible, and the question arises, whether\n_Ana-p\u00e2ni-\u00eeli_ means \u201c(let me go) to the presence\u201d or \u201cbefore the face of\nGod,\u201d or that its bearer was asked for by his father \u201cat the presence of\nGod.\u201d Many other possible renderings will also, in all probability, occur\nto the reader, but it is noteworthy, that in this case, the Biblical\nnarrative may, by chance, serve to explain this Babylonian compound, for\nas \u201cthe man\u201d with whom Jacob wrestled was the representative of the\nAlmighty, so _p\u00e2ni_ in the Babylonian name may be interpreted in the same\nway, and the person bearing it may have been offered or dedicated to the\nface, or presence (that is, the representative) of God. It is to be noted\nthat the owner of the name on Mr. Offord\u2019s cylinder (pl. vi. no. 2) was a\nworshipper of the god Hadad or Rimmon, and was not, therefore, a\nmonotheist.\n\nP. 273, l. 8. The date of Amenophis II., according to Petrie, was about\n1449 to 1423.\n\nP. 278. The non-Semitic pronunciation of _Ninip_ was possibly _Nirig_, and\nthe Semitic reading _En-ma\u0161ti_ (so Prof. A. T. Clay). An earlier reading\nof the Aramaic character regarded as _m_ was _n_, which would give\n_\u00canu-r\u00ea\u0161t\u016b_, \u201cthe prim\u00e6val lord,\u201d or the like, a title of Ninip and of\nother gods. For other suggestions, see Hrozn\u00fd in the _Revue S\u00e9mitique_,\nJuly 1908.\n\nP. 279, l. 2. The name Bidina may also be read Ka\u0161tina, apparently a\nvariant of the Babylonian Bidinnam or Ka\u0161tinnam.\n\nL. 12 ff. The mention of _Dumu-zi_, _i.e._ Tammuz or Adonis, goes back to\nabout 3500 B.C., or earlier. Hymns to Tammuz in the dialect of the\nSumerian language exist, dating from about 2000 years before Christ, the\nmost noteworthy of these compositions at present known being that\npreserved in the Manchester Museum.\n\nL. 27. Mutzu\u2019u. It is doubtful whether this name is complete on the tablet\nwhere it occurs. Possibly Mutzuata, a name occurring on the Bronze Gates\nfound by Mr. Rassam at Balawat, furnishes an indication as to the way in\nwhich it should be completed. (Knudtzon reads _Mut-ba\u1e2blu_, written for\nMut-ba\u2019la, possibly meaning \u201cthe man of his lord.\u201d)\n\nL. 31. Yabitiri. The inscription referring to his early life is translated\non pp. 284-285.\n\nL. 37. For Addu-nirari, read Adad-nirari, the Assyrian form.\n\nP. 280, line 4 and note. Nin-Urmuru (?) Knudtzon reads as B\u00ealit(=\nBa\u2019lat)-Ur-Ma\u1e2b-Me\u0161. In Assyro-Babylonian this would probably be read\n_B\u00ealit-n\u00ea\u0161i_, a name meaning \u201cthe lady of the lions.\u201d\n\nP. 286, note 1. For the name Mut-zu\u2019u, compare the note to p. 279, l. 27,\nabove. Knudtzon\u2019s new translation differs somewhat from that given here.\n\nP. 293, l. 26. Another Zimr\u00eada (to all appearance) is mentioned in an\ninscription in the British Museum. This text comes from Babylonia, and is\npossibly of an earlier date. It apparently refers to the affairs of the\nBabylonian principality of Su\u1e2bu and Ma\u00ebr.\n\nP. 319, l. 14. Su\u1e2bi and Ma\u00ebr are mentioned together in the document\nreferred to above, note to p. 293, and in the inscription of\n\u0160ama\u0161-r\u00ea\u0161-u\u1e63ur, governor of that district, published by Dr. Weissbach in\nhis _Babylonische Miscellen_. This district lay, according to that\nscholar, somewhere near the point where the Hab\u00fbr runs into the Euphrates.\nAs the western boundary of this state is entirely unknown, the full value\nof Tiglath-pileser I.\u2019s boast cannot be estimated, but the district\nravaged must have been a considerable stretch of country.\n\nP. 325. The inscription referring to Gazz\u0101ni probably forms part of one of\nthose in which the ruler asks the gods (generally \u0160ama\u0161 and Hadad) for\nsuccess against the countries which he intended to invade. Sargon of\nAssyria, Esarhaddon, and A\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli (Assurbanipal) all had similar\ninscriptions composed for them. From the manner in which the text is\nwritten, however, it is probable that it antedates these.\n\nP. 329, l. 4 from below. Instead of \u201cadvanced,\u201d another possible\ntranslation is \u201crose up.\u201d\n\nP. 330, l. 3. Instead of Gilzau, Kirzau and several other readings are\npossible.\n\nThe \u201cbattle of Qarqara,\u201d as it is generally called, is illustrated by\nstrip I (old mark C) of the Bronze Gates of Shalmaneser II.(341) The\nscenes only represent the capture of the cities Parg\u00e2, Ad\u00e2, and Qarqara of\nUr\u1e2bil\u00eani (= Ir\u1e2bul\u00eani) of the land of the Hamathites, there being no\nreference either to Ahab, or to his allies. The city of Qarqara was later\non taken by Sargon (see p. 363).\n\nP. 341, l. 4. Instead of _Persia_, read _Pahlav_ as the identification of\nParsua (Hommel).\n\nP. 343, l. 22. As the character translated \u201clady\u201d means also \u201csister,\u201d it\nmay in reality indicate the relationship of Sammu-ramat to\nB\u00eal-tar\u1e63i-\u00eeli-ma.\n\nP. 346, l. 22. Tiglath-pileser \u201cIII.,\u201d or \u201cIV.\u201d\n\nP. 347, l. 25. Sardurri of Ararat is the Sardaris (II.) of the Armenian\ncuneiform texts.\n\nP. 349, l. 6. \u1e2aatarikka is also spelled with one _k_, as on pp. 344 and\n345.\n\nP. 374, l. 20. In Kammusu-nadbi we have an instance of the occurrence of\nthe name of Chemosh, the national god of the Moabites. This name is also\nfound in that of Kamu\u0161u-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur, apparently a Babylonian, perhaps of\nMoabite origin (see the note to p. 466).\n\nP. 376, l. 21. Urbi occurs as the name of a city or district in a\nBabylonian geographical list, from which we learn also that there was an\n\u201cupper\u201d and a \u201clower\u201d Urbi. It is immediately followed by Pulug (see the\nnote to p. 145).\n\nL. 8. from below. Kallima-Sin is now read Kada\u0161man-\u1e2aarbe (or Muru\u0161).\n\nP. 381, foot-note. According to Prof. W. Max M\u00fcller, _Orientalische\nLiteraturzeitung_, Nov., 1902, Mer-en-Ptah and \u201cthe great sorcerer and\nhigh-priest of Memphis\u201d were brothers, and the incident of the vision took\nplace before Mer-en-Ptah\u2019s battle with the Libyans, when, as he himself\nstates, he saw in a dream a figure like that of Ptah, who said to him\n\u201cTake,\u201d giving him the sword, and \u201cPut away from thee thy\nfaintheartedness.\u201d Max M\u00fcller attributes the chronological error neither\nto Herodotus nor to the Egyptian scribes who supplied him with\ninformation, but to Hecataeus of Miletus, whose work Herodotus used\u2014\u201can\nEgyptian would not have made such a chronological blunder.\u201d This,\nnaturally, much diminishes the value of the extract as a parallel to the\naccount of the destruction of Sennacherib\u2019s army before Jerusalem.\n\nP. 384, l. 1 ff. The following is Nabonidus\u2019s account of the murder of\nSennacherib and the events which led up to it, from the inscription\npublished by the Rev. V. Scheil in the _Recueil des Travaux relatifs \u00e0 la\nPhilologie et \u00e0 l\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie \u00e9gyptiennes et assyriennes_, vol. XVIII.,\npp. 1 ff.:\u2014\n\n\u201cHe (this must be Sennacherib) went to Babylon, he laid its sanctuaries in\nruin, he destroyed the reliefs,(342) the statues he overthrew. He took the\nhands of the prince, Merodach, and caused him to enter within\nA\u0161\u0161ur(343)\u2014according to the anger of the god then he treated the land. The\nprince, Merodach, did not cease from his wrath\u2014for 21 years he set up his\nseat within A\u0161\u0161ur. (In) later days a time arrived, the anger of the king\nof the gods, the lords, was then appeased. He remembered E-sagila and\nBabylon, the seat of his dominion. The king of Mesopotamia,(344) who\nduring the anger of Merodach had accomplished the ruin of the land, the\nson born of his body slew him with the sword.\u201d\n\nFor the Babylonians, the Assyrian king was the instrument of Merodach\u2019s\nwrath.\n\nP. 385. The British Museum \u201cblack stone\u201d mentions Esarhaddon\u2019s elder\nbrothers: \u201cI, Esarhaddon, whom thou (O Merodach) hast called, in the\nassembly of my elder brothers, to restore those buildings\u201d (_i.e._ the\ntemples, etc., damaged by floods).\n\nP. 393. Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, in an\ninscription found by the German expedition, and published by Dr. Weissbach\nin his _Babylonische Miscellen_, refers to the downfall of Assyria in the\nfollowing words:\u2014\n\n\u201cThe Assyrian, who from remote days ruled all people, and with his heavy\nyoke oppressed the people of the land,(345) I, the weak, the humble, the\nworshipper of the lord of lords, by the mighty force of Nebo and Merodach,\nmy lords, cut off their feet from the land of Akkad, and caused their yoke\nto be thrown off.\u201d\n\nAs the text is not of any great length, Nabopolassar could not give\ndetails, but notwithstanding his humility, it is noteworthy that he takes\nall the credit to himself. The inscription is written on four cylinders\nfrom \u00ca-\u1e2batta-tila, the temple of Ninip in \u0160u-anna.\n\nP. 399, l. 8. The spelling of the name of Nebuchadnezzar differs somewhat\nin the various inscriptions, but the meaning is always practically the\nsame\u2014\u201cNebo, protect the boundary\u201d or \u201cmy boundary,\u201d according as the\nsecond component ends in _a_ or _i_. In Nabium (p. 398, l. 7 from below)\nwe have an old form fully spelt out.\n\n [Plate XVI.]\n\n Emblems used by Esarhaddon, and carved on the upper surface of the black\n stone presented to the British Museum by Lord Aberdeen. It represents a\ndivine tiara upon an altar, a priest, the sacred tree of the Assyrians, a\n bull, a mountain (?), a plough, a date-palm, and a rectangular\n object\u2014perhaps the walls of a town. The same emblems, arranged in a\n circle, are found on the cylinders from Babylon inscribed with his\n architectural works in that city.\n\n\nP. 400, l. 25. The name of at least one Nab\u00fb-zer-iddina (son of Ab[laa?],\ndescendant of Irani) occurs in the contracts of the time of\nNebuchadnezzar. This man, however, was a scribe, and there is no\nindication that he had ever been captain of the guard.\n\nP. 403, ll. 7 ff. The penalty of death by fire, inflicted on Shadrach,\nMeshach, and Abednego, receives illustration from the notes to p. 480.\n\nP. 405, l. 21. The German excavations at Babylon have revealed the\nappearance of the gate of I\u0161tar as a plain opening in a wall of the city,\ncovered with glazed brickwork, ornamented with bulls and dragons\nalternately, arranged in vertical rows, a decoration which is repeated in\nthe thickness of the wall and in the inner recesses. (See Delitzsch\u2019s _Im\nLande des einstigen Paradieses_, figures 25 and 26.) For the position of\nthe gate, see the note to pp. 471, 472.\n\nP. 406, ll. 2 and 3 from below. \u201cThe House of the Foundation of Heaven and\nearth\u201d is the \u00ca-temen-ana-kia of p. 138.\n\nP. 413, above. As an example of the sending of the statues of deities\ntemporarily away from their shrines, see p. 278, where mention is made of\nthe image of I\u0161tar of Nineveh, sent to Egypt by king Du\u0161ratta.\n\nP. 415, l. 23, and four following pages. Ugbaru and Gubaru are generally\nregarded as two forms of the name Gobryas, and though this seems certain,\nthere is just the possibility, that they are the names of two different\npersons.\n\nP. 425, l. 10 from below. The tablet mentioning Z\u0113ru-B\u00e2b\u00eeli son of\nMut\u00eari\u1e63u exists in two examples, one being in the British Museum, and the\nother (which has an Aramaic docket) in the possession of Mr. Joseph\nOfford. It is translated in the _Quarterly Statement_ of the Palestine\nExploration Fund, July, 1900, pp. 264 ff.\n\nP. 439, l. 26. The _raqundu_ was probably a weaver\u2019s or embroiderer\u2019s\ntool, returned in exchange for that lent.\n\nP. 446, ll. 8 ff. from below. The inscription referred to is published in\nthe _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology_, Dec. 1895, pp.\n278, 279.\n\nP. 453, ll. 6-8. Prof. Campbell Thompson translates: \u201cI send this as a\n_trouble_ to my brothers\u201d\u2014_i.e._ \u201cI am sorry to trouble you, but I hope\nyou will do what is right.\u201d\n\nP. 457, l. 19. Arad-Mede may also be read Arad-Gula. In the next line\n\u0160ubabu-sara\u2019 may be \u0160umabu-sara\u2019.\n\nP. 466 (the sale of an Egyptian slave). Another text of the same nature,\ndated in the same year, is in the De Clercq collection. It refers to the\nsale of an Egyptian slave-woman named Tam\u016bnu (\u201cshe of Amon\u201d). The text is\npublished, with a translation by Prof. J. Oppert, in the second vol. of\nthe _Catalogue_.(346) The slave in question belonged to Itti-Nab\u00fb-bala\u1e6du,\nson of Kamu\u0161u-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur, \u201cChemosh, protect the king\u201d\u2014probably indicating\nthat the bearer of the name was of Moabite origin, or the introduction of\nthe god of the Moabites into Babylonia.\n\nPp. 471-472. The German excavations have already settled many doubtful\npoints concerning the topography of Babylon, and it is certain that, after\nthe destruction of the city, exaggerated accounts of its enormous extent\nobtained credence. According to Delitzsch, it was not larger than Munich\nor Dresden, though even that is a good size for an Oriental city. The\nprincipal ruins are on the right bank of the river, and included Babil\n(\u201cProbably a palace\u201d), to protect which the city-wall makes a considerable\nangle on the north. From this point the wall continues its course in a\nsouth-easterly direction for a considerable distance, and turning at a\nright angle at its farthest point from the river, runs back in a\nsouth-westerly direction to meet it again. About a mile south of Babil the\nvisitor comes upon the great ruin known as the Kasr, where stood\nNebuchadnezzar\u2019s second palace. On the eastern side of this is the\n\u201cprocession-street\u201d of the god Merodach, from which came some very fine\nreliefs of \u201cthe Lion of Babylon,\u201d beautifully wrought in coloured and\nenamelled brick. The temple of the goddess Nin-ma\u1e2b lay to the south-east\nof the southern end of the street, and between the two was situated the\ncelebrated Gate of I\u0161tar, adorned with lions and strangely-formed dragons,\nalready referred to (p. 551). Proceeding to the south-west from the temple\nof Nin-ma\u1e2b, we reach Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s earlier palace, a very extensive\nstructure, with a spacious court-yard and a large hall used as a\nthrone-room, on the south side of which the recess for the throne is still\nvisible. The palace of his father Nabopolassar, which adjoined it on the\nwest, has not yet been excavated. About half-a-mile to the south of these\npalaces lie the ruins of the great temple of Belus, in the mound now known\nas Amran-ibn-Ali (see pp. 137 ff., 476, 480, ff.). The German excavations\nhave thus confirmed the identification of the site, as indicated in the\n_Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. I., pl. 48, no. 9\n(published in 1861). This text, which is a brick-inscription of\nEsarhaddon, reads as follows:\u2014\n\n\u201cEsarhaddon, king of Assyria, king of Babylon, has caused the brickwork of\n\u00ca-saggil, \u00ca-temen-ana-kia, to be built anew for Merodach his lord.\u201d\n\nAccording to the German plan, the portion of the city on the west of the\nriver was of exceedingly small extent.\n\nArtists will soon be able to depict the scenery of Babylon as a background\nfor pictures of this world-renowned city with considerable accuracy.\n\nP. 478, l. 24. An alternative rendering instead of \u201csculptor,\u201d is\n\u201cseal-engraver.\u201d\n\nP. 480. On account of the Greek words, I give here a transcription of the\nlate Babylonian text of the extract printed on this page:\u2014\n\n_An(tiukkusu) \u0161arru ina \u00e2l\u0101ni \u0161a m\u00e2t Melu\u1e2b\u1e2ba \u0161al\u1e6dani\u0161 itta-luku-ma ...\n(am\u0113lu) puli\u1e6d\u00ea pupp\u00ea u \u00eap\u0161\u0113tam \u0161a kima u\u1e63urtu (am\u0113lu) Y\u0101wannu...._\n\n_U\u1e63urtu_ may be translated \u201cbas-relief\u201d instead of \u201cshrine,\u201d but the\nrendering would not be materially changed thereby.\n\nThe remainder of the inscription, which is exceedingly interesting, is\nrather mutilated, and a trustworthy translation of it is at present\nexceedingly difficult. Certain thieves (_\u0161arraqa_), however, seem to be\nmentioned, and had to all appearance stripped (_iqlub\u016b_) the image of\nUru-gala and another, \u201ca deity whose name was called Ammani\u2019ita.\u201d On the\n10th of Marcheswan these thieves were captured and imprisoned, and on the\n13th to all appearance judged and condemned. _\u00dbmu \u0161uati ina i\u0161ati qal\u00fb_,\n\u201cThat day they were burnt in the fire\u201d\u2014such is the end of the story.\n\nThis seems not to be in accordance with the laws of sacrilegious theft, as\nstated in sections 6 and 8 of \u1e2aammurabi\u2019s code. Perhaps the law had\nchanged in the 1800 years which had elapsed since the time of that ruler;\nor stripping a sacred image was a much more heinous crime than mere theft\nfrom a temple, which, in the first degree, was punishable with death.\n\nIt is noteworthy that refusal to worship the image set up by\nNebuchadnezzar was visited, in Dan. iii, with the same penalty, probably\nas showing contempt for the divinity.\n\nP. 484, l. 13. The river \u1e62il\u1e2bu is probably the Sellas in Messinia, where\none of the numerous cities named Apameia (Apam\u2019(i)a) lay.\n\nPp. 489-491. Not the least interesting of this long list of temples and\ncities are A\u0161\u0161ur and Nineveh, of which we have here the earliest mention.\n\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\nAa, A\u00ea, Ea (Aos), 17, 26, 56, 61, 77;\n ? the same name as Y\u00e2, 59, 112;\n transferred to Merodach, 32, 113;\n his other names and titles, 62;\n abode and form, 62, 63;\n offspring, attendants, and consort, 63, 64;\n parentage, 17, 64;\n god of handicrafts, rivers, and water, the sea and life therein, 62, 63;\n ever ready with counsel, 64;\n warns Pir-napi\u0161tim of the coming of the Flood, commands him to build a\n ship, and tells him what to say to the people, 102;\n reproaches Ellila, 107;\n deifies Pir-napi\u0161tim, 107, 108;\n worshipped at Eridu, 160;\n month Iyyar dedicated to him, 65;\n figures of Aa, 247\n\nAa (A\u00ea, Ea), Y\u00e2, Ya\u2019u, names containing, 59, 546\n\nAa (goddess), 160\n\nAah-mes, Egyptian captain of marines, 270\n\nAah-mes, Pharaoh, 269, 270\n\nAa-ibur-sab\u00fb, Babylon\u2019s festival street, 405, 472\n\nAa-rammu of Edom, 374\n\n_Abarakku_, 258\n\nAbdi-A\u0161irta (Abdi-A\u0161irti, Abdi-A\u0161ratum, Abdi-A\u0161tarti), the Amorite, 278,\n 293;\n the forms of his name, 313;\n writes to the king of Egypt, 314\n\nAbdi-\u00eeli (Abdeel), 157\n\nAbdi-li\u2019iti of Arvad, 374\n\nAbdi-milkutti of Sidon beheaded, 386\n\nAbdi-t\u00e2ba of Jerusalem, 233;\n in a different position from Melchizedek, 235;\n writes to the king of Egypt, 294, 295, 297-299;\n see also 293\n\nAbed-nego (Abed-nebo), the Babylonian name of Azariah, 129, 403\n\nAbel-Beth-Maachah, 352, 353\n\nAb\u0113\u0161u\u2019 (Ebisum), king, 153, 155;\n his daughter hires a field, 167\n\nAbi-baal of Samsimuruna, 386\n\nAbil-Addu-nath\u0101nu, life of, 459 ff.\n\nAbil-akka, 352\n\nAbil-Sin, king, 153\n\nAbi-nadib (Abinadab), 438, 439\n\nAblum, \u201cson,\u201d as a personal name, 547\n\nAbram, Abraham, his parentage, meaning of his first name, and traditions\n concerning him, 146, 147, 196;\n a Chaldean or Babylonian, 147;\n probable Assyrian form of his name, 148;\n the importance of his period, 149 ff.;\n his seeming mistrust of the sons of Heth, 150, 151;\n was there a movement towards monotheism in his time? 198, 199;\n the Sabeans dedicate a chapel to him, 203;\n the field of Abram, 552\n\n_Abrech_, Sayce\u2019s explanation of, 258\n\n_Abriqqu_, 258\n\nAbsence of names of Egyptian kings, 250\n\n_Abubu_, one of the weapons of Merodach, 24\n\nAbu-habbah (Sippar), 158, 411\n\nAbu-ramu, 148\n\nAbydenus, 63, 384, 385, 393\n\nAbyss, the, measured by Merodach, 26.\n _See_ Aps\u016b, Apason\n\nAccad, a city of Nimrod\u2019s kingdom, 118.\n _See_ Akkad\n\nAccho, 277;\n lawless acts of the people, 281, 282, 360, 374\n\nAccusation, false, 501 (127)\n\nAchzib (Akzibi), 374\n\nAct of God, 513, 523\n\nAdad-\u2019idri, 329;\n resists the Assyrian king, 334, 335;\n = Ben-Hadad, 337\n\nAdad-nirari of Assyria, 279\n\nAdad-nirari, king of Nu\u1e2ba\u0161\u0161e, 317\n\nAdad-nirari III., king, 339, 342, 344;\n inscriptions of, 340, 341, 343\n\nAdam, various etymologies of the word, 78;\n _adam_ in the bilingual story of the Creation, 78, 79\n\nAdamah, 292\n\nAdaya, 297\n\nAddu (Hadad), 157, 170, 277\n\nAdini of Til-barsip, 328\n\nAdministration, 493, 494\n\nAdonis (_see_ Dumuzi, Tammuz), 82, 279\n\nAdoni-zedek, 324\n\nAdoption, 173, 175 177, 463, 465, 508, 509, 525, 553 ff.\n\nAdram(m)elech, 378, 384, 385\n\nAdultery, 501, 502\n\nAesculapius, the serpent, and the magic herb, 109 _n._\n\nAgad, Agad\u00e9, 124, 412, 422;\n its temple-tower, 136;\n misfortunes sung, 477.\n _See_ Akkad\n\nAgaditess, lamentation of the, 477\n\nAgents and travelling merchants, laws concerning, 495\n\nAgricultural implements, theft of, 513\n\nAhab (Ahabbu of the Sir\u2019il\u00e2a), 329-331, 335, 337, 338\n\nAhaz and Tiglath-pileser, 353, 356\n\nA\u1e2bi-milki of Ashdod, 386\n\nA\u1e2bi-miti of Ashdod, 369\n\nA\u1e2bi-t\u00e2bu (Ahi\u1e6dub), 281\n\nAhuni of Til-barsip, 328\n\nAhuramazda, 426, 427\n\nAin-anab, 293\n\nAinsworth, W. F., his description of the ruins of Haran, 200\n\nAjalon, 280, 297\n\nAkizzi, king of Qatua, 289-290, 317\n\nAkkad (Accad), 119;\n references to the country and its language, 121, 412;\n the ideograph for, 122;\n in early times a collection of small states, 123;\n names of their capitals, 124;\n the gods of, 415;\n revolt in, 415;\n weeping in, 416\n\nAkkad, the city (Agad\u00e9), 124, 135\n\nAkkadian, Akkadians, 119, 120, 121;\n probably migrants, 134;\n will overthrow the nations, 123;\n their language that of most of the earlier inscriptions, 124;\n its gradual disuse, 125;\n disappearance of their specific racial type, 125;\n their literature current also in Assyria, 126;\n their laws retained, 125;\n transcription and translations of inscriptions, 219-221\n\nAkk\u00fb (Accho), 374\n\nAla\u0161ia (? Cyprus), 277\n\nAl A\u0161tarti, city, 278\n\nAl b\u00eath Ninip, \u201cthe city of the temple of Ninip,\u201d 278\n\nAleppo, 304, 329\n\nAllala-bird, I\u0161tar breaks his wings, 96\n\nAllat, the temple of, 182\n\nAlliance by marriage, 276\n\nAmadeh, 273\n\nAm\u0101na, the god Ammon, 278\n\nAma-namtagga, \u201cthe mother of sin,\u201d 532\n\nAmanus mountains, 349, 368\n\nAmaru, a name of Merodach, 54\n\nAmar-uduk (Merodach), 54\n\nAmasis, pharaoh, Babylonian vassal, 401\n\nAmattu (Hamath), 363\n\nAmedi, city, 372\n\nAmen-em-heb, officer of Thothmes III., 272\n\nAmeni (Amen-em-ha), inscription of, 261\n\nAmenophis II., 273;\n Amenophis III., 274, 316;\n Amenophis IV., 269, 293, 299, 302;\n his names, 303\n\nAmherst of Hackney, Lord, his tablet mentioning Ostanes, 544\n\nAmki, the cities of, 288, 289, 317\n\nAmmani\u2019ita, goddess, 561\n\nAmminadab (Ammi-nadbi) of Beth-Ammon, 389\n\nAmmi-\u1e6ditana, king, 153;\n extent of his dominions, 155;\n letter from, 165;\n lord of Amurr\u016b, 215\n\nAmmi-zaduga, king, 153;\n tablet dated in his reign, 168, 332\n\nAmmonites (Amanians), 329, 333\n\nAmmurabi, a form of the name Hammurabi, 209\n\nAmmurapi (Hammurabi), 210\n\nAmna, a name of the sun-god, 144\n\nAmon (the god Ammon), 278\n\nAmoria (the land of the Amorites), 155, 205, 206, 207, 208, 374, 422\n\nAmorite, Amorites, 156, 157, 300;\n in Babylonia, 169, 277, 310;\n tribute from the, 328, 341;\n their kings do homage to Cyrus, 422;\n their deities, 156, 170 _n._;\n names, 170\n\nAmorite tract, the, 169, 312\n\nAmorite, an, the father of Jerusalem, 316\n\nAmosis, the prince who knew not Joseph, 307\n\n\u2019Amq, identified with Amki, 289\n\nAmraphel (Hammurabi), 125, 152;\n identified with Hammurabi by Prof. Schrader, 209;\n explanations of the final _l_, 211;\n colophon-dates of his reign, 211-214;\n his successor, 153, 187, 188\n\nAmtheta, mother of Abram, 146\n\nAmu, the ethnic name of the \u201cimpure\u201d Hyksos kings, 265\n\nAmurr\u016b (the land of the Amorites), 122, 134, 155, 205, 206 (207), 208,\n 328, 341;\n ruled over by Sargon of Agad\u00e9, 215;\n claimed by \u1e2aammurabi, 215;\n ruled by Ammi-\u1e6ditana, 311;\n the cuneiform ideographs for, 122, 311, 312;\n used for \u201cwest,\u201d 311\n\nAmurr\u016b (the god), 156, 312\n\nAmurr\u016b (personal name), 157\n\nAmytis, 407\n\nAnab, 293\n\nAnamimi, the spring of, 305\n\n\u201cAn eye for an eye,\u201d etc., 509, 522\n\nAnimals created by Merodach, 40;\n animals sent into the ark, 103, 117;\n animals held in honour at On, 264, 265\n\nAnkh-kheperu-Ra, \u201cthe beloved\u201d of Amenophis IV., 303\n\nAnman-ila, king, 54 _n._, 154\n\nAnnihilation, the, of Assyria, 393\n\nAnnunit, 224. _See_ Anunitum\n\nAnos (= Anu), 17\n\nAnsan, city, 411, 420, 421\n\nAn\u0161ar and Ki\u0161ar, production of, 16;\n their names, 65;\n connection of An\u0161ar with Asshur, 66;\n identity of the two deities, 66;\n similar names, 67\n\nAn\u0161ar and the revolt of Tiamtu, 20\n\nAntiochus (Epiphanes), tablet referring to his reign, 480, 561\n\nAnu, god of the heavens, 16;\n asked to subdue Tiamtu, 20;\n fails, 21;\n mentioned with I\u0161tar, 41;\n worshipped at Erech, 160, 231;\n Merodach founds a place for him, 26;\n he joins with other deities to send a flood, 101\n\nAnu-B\u00eal, the god, 482, 483\n\nAnunitum, goddess of Sippar, 160;\n Nabonidus\u2019 and Belshazzar\u2019s offerings to her temple, 445, 450\n\nAnunnaki (spirits or gods of the earth), creation of, 40;\n present at the Flood, 104\n\nAos (Aa, A\u00ea, or Ea), 17. _See_ Aa\n\nApam\u2019a (Apameia), city, 484\n\nApason (Aps\u016b, the prim\u00e6val ocean), 16;\n husband of Tauth\u00e9 (Tiamtu), 17\n\nApharsathchites, the, 391\n\nApharsites, the, 391\n\nAphek, city, 330\n\nApophis (\u2019Apop\u2019i), 262\n\nApparazu, city, 334\n\nApprenticeage, 508\n\nAps\u016b (= Apason), the prim\u00e6val ocean, the abyss, 17;\n non-existent at the beginning, 39;\n its fountain, 41, 44;\n E-sagila there, 40, 43;\n the abode of Tammuz, 43\n\nArabia, Sennacherib, king of, 378, 381\n\nArabians (Arb\u00e2a), 329, 333, 388, 391;\n help Sennacherib, 382\n\n\u201cArabic\u201d dynasty, the, 169\n\nArabs, 347\n\nAra\u1e2btu, the canal, 70\n\nAramaic dialects, 140;\n papyri, 539 ff.\n\nArame, king, 334\n\nAramean tribes, 347, 356\n\nArameans, 371\n\nAram-naharaim, 207\n\nAranda\u0161, Hittite king, 537\n\nArarat (Urar\u1e6du), 127, 336, 347, 351, 367, 368\n\nArareh, 293\n\nArarma (Larsa), 218\n\nAraske (Nisroch, the god Assur), 378\n\nArazias, land of, 341\n\nArbaces, the Scythian, 393\n\nArbela, 412\n\nArchevites, the, 391\n\nArgan\u00e2, city, 329\n\nArgob, 313\n\nAri, the land of the Amorites in Sumerian, 312\n\nArioch, 164;\n identified with Eri-Aku, 209\n\nArioch, the king\u2019s captain, 403\n\nArk (ship), command to build the, given by A\u00ea (Ea, Aa), 102, 117;\n description of the, 103;\n entered by Pir-napi\u0161tim, his family, etc., 103;\n given into the hands of a pilot, 104;\n stopped by the mountain of Ni\u1e63ir, 105;\n Bel\u2019s anger on seeing it, 106;\n its building and provisionment, 103, 115\n\nArmenia, 311, 344, 373;\n Sennacherib\u2019s sons take refuge there, 378\n\nArmenians (Mann\u00e2a), 387\n\nArnon, 313\n\nArpachshad, possible etymologies of, 143, 144 _n._\n\nArpad, 340, 345, 347\n\nArqania, city, 484\n\nArrapha (Arrapachitis), 345, 346\n\nArsak\u0101 (Arsaces), departs to Arqania, 484\n\nArs\u00e2m (Arsames), 539, 542\n\nArt of the Hittites, 323\n\nArtaxerxes, friendly to the Jews, 428;\n his death, 429\n\nArtificers of the ark saved in the vessel, 103, 115, 117\n\nAruada (Arvad), 386, 390\n\nAruru, the goddess of Sippar-Aruru, 43, 44;\n aids Merodach to create the seed of mankind, 40;\n creates Ea-ban\u00ee, 93;\n her names, 546\n\nArvad, city, 272, 322, 328, 386, 390\n\nArvadites (Arud\u00e2a), 329, 374\n\nArzauya of Ruhizzu, 289\n\nArzawa, 298\n\nA\u0161aridu, letter of, 210\n\nAsari-lu-duga (Merodach), 54, 155\n\nAsaru or Asari (Merodach), 54, 143\n\nAsdudimma, city, 369\n\nAsenath, the name, 258;\n legend concerning her, 259\n\nAshdod, 322, 369, 370, 376, 386\n\nAshdodites (Asdud\u00e2a), 374\n\nAsherah, the, 278, 314\n\nAshtoreth, Ashtaroth, 156, 157, 278, 313\n\nAskelon, 277, 297;\n conquered by Meneptah II., 306, 374, 386\n\nAsnapper (Assur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli), 391;\n letter apparently addressed to him, 210\n\nAsp\u0101sin\u0113 (Hyspasines), Kharacenian king, 482, 483\n\nAssarachoddas (Esarhaddon), 378\n\nAsshur, builder of the cities of Assyria, 118\n\nAsshur (A\u0161\u0161ur), city, creation or foundation of, 28, 38, 374, 422;\n earliest mention of, 490;\n revolts, 345, 346;\n land of, 340\n\nAssignment for loan, 498\n\nA\u0161\u0161ur, the national god of the Assyrians, 202, 329, 340;\n Delitzsch\u2019s etymology of, 66\n\nA\u0161\u0161ur\u00e2aitu, queen, 392\n\nA\u0161\u0161ur-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00e2-iddina (Esarhaddon), 392\n\nA\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli, 129;\n letters to, 201, 410;\n restores the temple of Nusku at Haran, 202;\n see also 251;\n refers to Sennacherib, 382;\n his reign, 388-392;\n his palace discovered, 394\n\nA\u0161\u0161ur-dan, king, 344;\n wars in Babylonia, etc., 345\n\nA\u0161\u0161ur-\u00eatil-\u00eel\u0101ni-uk\u00eenni, 392\n\nA\u0161\u0161ur-mulik (A\u0161\u0161ur-munik), 385\n\nA\u0161\u0161ur-nadin-\u0161um, son of Sennacherib, made king of Babylon, 379;\n his deposition, 380\n\nA\u0161\u0161ur-na\u1e63ir, eponym, 410\n\nA\u0161\u0161ur-na\u1e63ir-apli, I., 327\n\nA\u0161\u0161ur-na\u1e63ir-\u00e2pli II., 327;\n attacks Carchemish, 321;\n marches to the Mediterranean, 328\n\nA\u0161\u0161ur-nirari II. marches to Hatarika, Arpad, 345;\n and Namri, 346\n\nA\u0161\u0161ur-uballi\u1e6d to Amenophis III., 282\n\nA\u0161\u0161ur-uttir-a\u1e63bat = Pitru, 329\n\nAssyria, Assyrians, 122, 123;\n spoke the same language as the Babylonians, 126;\n their origin, 126;\n character, rulers, artistic skill, 128;\n invasion by, 331;\n revolt of, 345, 374;\n downfall of, 391 ff., 395;\n Christians of, 485\n\nAssyro-Babylonian language, the, widely known, 140, 275\n\nAstamaku, city, 334\n\nA\u0161tarte (Istar) and the Asherah, 314\n\nAstyages captured by Cyrus, 411\n\nA\u0161ur-nadin-\u00e2\u1e2bi of Assyria, 283\n\n\u2019Atar-\u2019ata (\u2019Atar-ghata), Tar-\u2019ata, Atargatis, or Derketo, 203\n\nAtargatis, goddess of Haran, 203\n\nAten, the sun\u2019s disc, its suggested etymology, 303\n\nAthribis, 389\n\nAtra-\u1e2basis (Gk. Xisuthrus), a name of Pir-napi\u0161tim, 107, 117;\n the coming of the Flood revealed to him in a dream, 107\n\nAugury from entrails, 240\n\nAvaris, the Hyksos shut up in, 252;\n the centre of their rule, 254;\n taken by the Egyptians, 270\n\nAvitus of Vienne, Bishop, 47\n\nAy, pharaoh, 303\n\nAzariah, 338, 348\n\nAziru, 279, 293, 313, 315\n\nAzor (Azuru), 375\n\nAzriau or Izriau (Azariah), 348, 349\n\nAzuri of Ashdod, 369\n\nAzzati (Gaza), 285\n\nBa\u2019ali, city, 340\n\nBa\u2019ali-ra\u2019asi, 337\n\nBa\u2019al(u) of Tyre, 386\n\nBaal-zephon (Ba\u2019ali-\u1e63apuna), 349;\n (Ba\u2019il-\u1e63apuna), 369\n\nBa\u2019asa (Baasha), 333\n\nBaba (Beby), 261;\n his inscription, 262\n\nBabel = Babylon, 118, 135\n\nBabel, Tower of, supposed, 44, 132-141, 398\n\nB\u00e2b\u00eea, name, 456\n\nBabylon, founded by Merodach, 40;\n principal centre, 124;\n Dynasty of Babylon, 142, 152, 153;\n city destroyed by Sennacherib, 380, 381;\n Jehoiachin carried to, 399;\n the gods of Akkad enter, 415;\n at the time of the Captivity, 471-473;\n the proposed new capital under Alexander the Great, 476;\n its walls dismantled under the Seleucid\u00e6, 418;\n as revealed by the German excavations, 560;\n the Church at, 485;\n tablets dated at, 432, 440-444, 448, 449, 459, 460, 464, 466, 478\n\n\u201cBabylon and the Bible,\u201d 525, ff.\n\nBabylonia (Sumer and Akkad, Shinar), 118, 119;\n majority of inscriptions Semitic, 119;\n federated under \u1e2aammurabi, 149;\n change in its rule, 152;\n under Assyrian rule, 327, 356, 357, 371, 379, 380, 386, 391;\n under Cyrus, 419 ff.;\n Darius and his successors, 424 ff.;\n the Greeks, 475 ff.;\n Kharacenians, 481;\n Parthians, 484\n\nBabylonia at the time of Abraham, 171, 347\n\nBabylonian, Babylonians, character, 150;\n dress, 171;\n manners, 172, 391;\n racial characteristics, 119, 120;\n downfall of their empire, 415;\n fought in the army of Cambyses, 467;\n their religion, 49 ff., 159 ff.;\n gods worshipped at a late date, 479\n\nBabylonian Chronicle, the, 361, 383, 385\n\nBactrian slave-girl, the, 471\n\nB\u0101g\u0101-as\u0101, brother of Hyspasines, 483\n\nBaghdad, the Christians of, 126\n\nBagohi (Bagoas, Bagoses), 539 ff.\n\nBa\u1e2biani, 322\n\nBalawat, gates of, 405\n\nBall, the Rev. C. J., 54;\n compares Akkadian with Chinese, 121\n\nBarbers and slave-marking, 511\n\nBardes (Barzia), 424\n\nBaru\u1e2bi-\u00eelu (? Baruchiel), 458\n\nBashan, the plain of, 277\n\nBashmurites, origin of the, 266\n\n\u201cBattle,\u201d the, 530\n\nBehistun (rock), 426\n\nB\u00eal, \u201cthe lord,\u201d a name given to Merodach, 32, l. 116, 54;\n = Baal, Beecl, etc., 55;\n as god of lordship and dominion, 58;\n his dislike for Pir-napi\u0161tim, 102;\n his anger at the escape of the patriarch and his people from the Flood,\n 107.\n _See_ Anu-B\u00eal\n\nB\u00eal, \u201cthe lord\u201d = Ellila (Illil) = Illinos, 17;\n called \u201cthe father,\u201d 32, l. 116\n\nBel and the Dragon, story of (= the Semitic Babylonian story of the\n Creation), 20\n\nB\u00eal-\u00e2bla-iddina, captain of Babylon, 469\n\nB\u00eal-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00ea-iddina, one of Neriglissar\u2019s captains, 444\n\nB\u00eal-bulli\u1e6d-su (a scribe), 478\n\nB\u00eal-\u00ea\u1e6diranni, major-domo of Neriglissar, 438\n\nB\u00eal-ibn\u00ee (Belibus), 379\n\nBelichus (river), 328\n\nBel-Merodach, 18\n\nBelos (Bel-Merodach), 17, 18;\n his temple, 471, 472, 552\n\nB\u00eal-r\u00ea\u1e63u\u0101, Belshazzar\u2019s servant, 447\n\nB\u00eal-\u0161arra-bulli\u1e6d, agent of Nabonidus and Belshazzar, 450\n\nB\u00eal-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur, chief of a Median province, 367\n\nBel-shamin worshipped at Haran, 203\n\nBelshazzar (B\u00eal-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur), son of Nabonidus, 414;\n was he descendant of Nebuchadnezzar? 339, 407;\n as crown prince, 412, 447 ff.;\n in Akkad, 412, 449;\n his position, 414;\n though heir to the throne, 447; never mentioned as king, 419;\n a sale of clothes, 449;\n his appointment of Daniel, 419;\n a letter apparently from, 538;\n his death, 417-419\n\nB\u00eal-\u0161um-i\u0161kun, father of Neriglissar, 409, 438\n\nB\u00eal-tar\u1e63i-\u00eeli-ma, of Calah, 343\n\nBelteshazzar (Daniel), explanation of the name, 402\n\nBeltis, goddess, 415\n\nB\u00eal-u\u0161allim, the enchanter, tablet of, 155\n\nB\u00eal-Yau, \u201cBel is Jah,\u201d name, 59\n\nB\u00eal-z\u0113r-l\u00ee\u0161ir, copy of an old lamentation made for, 447, 478\n\nBene-berak (Ban\u00e2a-barqa), 375\n\nBen-Hadad II. (son of Ben-Hadad I.), 330;\n restores cities, 331;\n besieges Samaria, 333;\n meets Shalmaneser, 335;\n see also 329, 337, 338, 342;\n Ben-Hadad (god), 317\n\n_Bennu_, the bird of R\u00e2 or R\u00ea, 265\n\nBerechiah, 471\n\nB\u00eari, the \u1e2aa\u0161abite, to the king of Egypt, 288\n\nBerlin Museum, 372\n\nBerosus, the Babylonian author, 63, 378, 379 (siege of Jerusalem), 384,\n 385 (death of Sennacherib), 406, 408, 409, 410, 418, 422\n\nBertin, George, his suggestion with regard to the \u201csons of god,\u201d 86\n\nBeth-Ammon, 322, 386, 389\n\nBeth-Ammonites, the, 374\n\nBeth-arbel, 361\n\nBeth-Dagon (B\u00eet-Daganna), 375\n\nBethel (_b\u00eat-\u00eeli_), the, at Haran, 201;\n division of property declared in the, 180\n\nBeth-Ninip, the city, 235, 299\n\nBethuel, the name, 245\n\nBeyrout, 293\n\nBiamites, origin of the, 266\n\nBigamy, 503\n\nBilingual Creation story, 38-41\n\nBin-Addu, 317\n\nBin-Addu-\u2019idri, 329.\n _See_ Ben-Hadad\n\nBirch, Dr. S., 253\n\nBirds, sending forth of the, 106, 116\n\nBirejik, 207\n\nBirs-Nimroud (Tower of Nimrod), services in, 485.\n _See_ E-zida\n\nB\u00eet-Amukk\u0101ni (Chaldean tribe), 356\n\nB\u00eet-Ba\u1e2biani, 322\n\nB\u00eet \u1e2aumr\u00ee, B\u00eet \u1e2aumr\u00eea (Israel), 332, 352, etc.\n\nB\u00eet Ninip in the province of Jerusalem, 2, 235, 299\n\nB\u00eet-Yakin, 371\n\nBlack Obelisk, 332, 337\n\nBlessed, the abode of the, at the mouths of the rivers, 73\n\nBlessing of Aaron, Delitzsch\u2019s parallel to, 526\n\nBoatmen\u2019s wages and penalties, 511-512\n\nBoats and ships, hire of, 514, 515;\n boats of skins, 319\n\nBody, the, of Joseph not taken at once to Canaan, 266, 267\n\nBoghaz Keui (K\u00f6i), 205, 317, 537, 538\n\nBond and free, marriages between, 506, 507, 525\n\nBorrowers, liabilities and rights of, 495, 496\n\nBorsippa, the temple tower at, 137;\n tablets dated at, 461, 462.\n _See_ Birs-Nimroud, E-zida\n\nBosanquet (Mr.), 345\n\nBow of Merodach, 28\n\nBranding of animals, 457\n\nBreasted, Prof., 552\n\nBrick in Babylonia, 135\n\nBrigandage, 493\n\nBrugsch, Prof., 253, 304, 305;\n his translation of the inscription of Baba, 262\n\nBubastis, 263\n\nBudu-\u00eelu of Beth-Ammon, 374, 386\n\nBuilders, their pay and liabilities, 511;\n Babylonian kings as, 398\n\nBuilding of the ship or ark, 102, 103, 117\n\nBull, divine, sent against Gilgame\u0161 and his friend, 97;\n killed and mutilated by the latter, 97, 98\n\nBunta\u1e2btun-ila, king, 54 _n._, 154\n\nBurial of Seqnen-R\u00ea, 269\n\nBurra-buria\u0161 (Burna-burias), king, 276, 293;\n speaks of Canaan, 205;\n his letter to Amenophis III., 281\n\nB\u00fbr-Sin, king, 124, 164;\n meaning of his name, 217, 218\n\nBuzu, city, 182\n\nBuzur-Kurgala, the pilot or boatman of the ship (ark), 104\n\nCaedmon, 47\n\nCain and Abel, parallel to the story of, 82-84\n\nCalah (Nimroud), built by Asshur, 118, 126, 341;\n statues at, 343;\n revolt in, 346\n\nCalne, 348\n\nCalneh, one of the cities of Nimrod\u2019s kingdom, 118;\n identified with Niffer, 126, 135\n\nCamarina (Urie), 146;\n its probable etymology, 147, 197\n\nCambyses (Kambuz\u00eea), performs ceremonies, 416;\n becomes king, 424;\n tablet of his reign, 466;\n his campaign in Egypt, 467\n\nCanaan, 204, 205;\n mentioned by the Pharaoh, 301, 304, 306;\n \u201ca domain of Babylonian culture,\u201d 526\n\nCanaanites, Rameses II. and the, 305\n\nCanals, the Babylonian, 159\n\nCanon, the Babylonian, agrees with that of Ptolemy in naming P\u00fblu or\n Poros, 357, 358\n\nCanon of Ptolemy, 358, 398\n\nCanons, the eponym, 352, 353, 358\n\nCappadocia, 318\n\nCaptives asked for, 301, 302\n\nCaravans, attacks on, 281, 285, 286\n\nCarchemish, 272, 304, 319, 321, 329-334, 339, 367\n\nCarchemishites, 350\n\nCarmania, Nabonidus exiled to, 418\n\nCarmel, Thothmes III. at, 271\n\n\u201cCedar, beloved of the great gods,\u201d the, 76\n\nCarrier\u2019s responsibility, 499\n\nCart, oxen and driver, hire of, 514\n\nChaboras (Habor), river, 364\n\nChaldean, Chaldeans, the tribes, 341, 347, 356;\n not liked by the Babylonians, 371;\n Esarhaddon and the, 388;\n Nabopolassar supposed to be a, 396\n\nChaldean Christians, the, 394\n\nCharacters, Assyrian, 312;\n Babylonian, 122\n\nChangelings, 509\n\nChariots of the Hittites, 319\n\nChedor-, 209.\n _See_ Kudur-\n\nChedorlaomer, 209, 215;\n at first identified with Kudur-mabuk, 222;\n probably the Kudur-la\u1e2bmal, or Kudur-la\u1e2bgumal of the inscriptions, 223,\n 232\n\nChemosh, the god of the Moabites, 557, 559 ff.\n\nCherub, cherubim, 80-82, 533, 547\n\nChiefs of Takhsi made captive, 273\n\nChinzeros (Uk\u00een-z\u0113r), 356, 357\n\nChnub, Chnum, priests of, plot against Jews, 539, 542, 543\n\nChoosing the inheritance, 180\n\nChristians, of Mossoul and its neighbourhood, 394;\n of Baghdad and Irak, 485\n\nChronological trade-document, a 398\n\nCilicia (Kefto), 274, 368;\n places near, conquered by Sennacherib, 379\n\nCilicians, the, 390\n\nCities, creation of, in Babylonia, 28;\n their growth, 171;\n invoked as deities, 181;\n those benefited by \u1e2aammurabi, 489, 491\n\nCities, etc., of the western states, before the Hebrews, 277\n\nCittaeans, 360\n\nCivilization in Babylonia, antiquity of, 170\n\nClay, Prof. A. T., 555\n\nCleopatra\u2019s Needle, 265\n\nCoast-lands, Mediterranean, pay tribute to A\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli, 388\n\nCode of \u1e2aammurabi, 491-515;\n notes upon, 519, ff., 545, 546;\n illustrations of, 166, 168, 173 ff., 176, ff., 179, ff.\n\nCollisions at sea, 512\n\nColophon-dates, 178-182, 184, 185, 187, 188, 211-214\n\nCombat with the Dragon, 18 ff.\n\nCommagene, 319, 329, 372\n\nCommissariat, letter concerning the, 287\n\nCommissioner and agent, relations between, 498, 499\n\nCompensation for slaves, 458, 459, 513, 523\n\nConciliation, Elamite policy of, 233\n\nConcubines, 502, 503, 508\n\nConfusion of tongues, the, 132, 133, 139, 140, 170\n\nCongregation, the, of, E-saggil, 126 B.C., 482\n\nConstellations, Merodach sets the, 27\n\nConsulting the teraphim, 247\n\nContempt for gods, 553, (480)\n\nCossaeans (Ka\u0161\u0161\u00fb), 373, 537\n\nCostume of the people in Babylonia 2000 B.C., 171\n\nCountries known to the Babylonians and Assyrians, list of, 206\n\nCourts of Justice in the temples and at the gates of cities, 163\n\nCreation, the Hebrew story of, 11 ff.;\n how it grew, 9 ff.;\n differences between it and the Babylonian accounts, 34 ff., 48-49\n\nCreation-legend, the Semitic, an heroic poem, 10;\n extracts from, 18, 19, 21-23, 35, 36;\n remarks upon, 20, 33-38\n\nCreation-legend, the bilingual, 38-45;\n why compiled, 39\n\nCreation-legends, though differing, contain similar ideas, 10\n\nCreation-tablet, the first, 16;\n Damascius\u2019 version, 16;\n remarks thereon, 20;\n the second, 20, 21;\n third, 22;\n fourth, 22-26;\n fifth, 26-28;\n sixth, 28, 29;\n last, 29-33\n\nCruelty of the Egyptians to captives, 273\n\nCultivation, tablet referring to, 456, 457\n\nCure of Gilgame\u0161, the, 108, 109\n\nCush, the father of Nimrod, 118, 204\n\nCuthah, the temple-tower at, 136;\n tribute from, 341;\n its site found by Rassam, 394\n\nCylinder-seal with supposed representation of Adam\u2019s fall, 79\n\nCyprus (Yatnana or Ya(w)anana), 128, 304, 373;\n its kings, 386, 387;\n tributary to Egypt, 272;\n aids A\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli, 389\n\nCyrus, his operations against Astyages, 411;\n crosses the Tigris, 412;\n subjugates Babylonia and enters the capital, 415;\n helped by the Jews, 416;\n his treatment of Nabonidus, 418;\n master of Babylonia, 419;\n his inscription, 420 ff.;\n champion of the Babylonian gods, 422;\n restores exiles to their homes, 423;\n his death, 424\n\nDach\u00e9 and Dachos, miswritten for Lach\u00e9 and Lachos, 17\n\nDagon (Dagunu), 59;\n (Dagan), 142, 279\n\n_Daily Telegraph_ expedition, the, 90;\n finds a fragment of a second story of the Flood, 117\n\nDamage by herdsmen, 514\n\nDamascius, his version of the Babylonian Creation-story, 16, 17, 63\n\nDamascus, the city (Dimasqu, Dimasqa), Israelites build streets there,\n 331;\n Mari\u2019u, the king besieged there, 341;\n \u201cland of,\u201d 353;\n Ahaz goes there, 356, 363\n\nDamascus, the country (\u0160a-im\u0113ri-\u0161u, Im\u0113ri-su), 329, 334, 336-338;\n Mari\u2019u, king of, 341;\n subdued by Assyria, 348 (353);\n Rezon of, 354\n\nDamu, goddess, \u201cthe great enchanter,\u201d 16\n\nDaniel, 402, 417\n\nDaos, the shepherd of Pantibiblon, his long reign, 63\n\nDapur (Tabor), 305\n\nDarius Hystaspis, mounts the throne of Babylon, 424;\n the contract-tablets of his reign, 425, 468-471;\n his monotheism, 426, 427;\n the extent of his dominions, 427\n\nDarius II., 539, 542\n\nDark head, people of the, 420\n\n\u201cDark vine,\u201d the, of the Babylonian Paradise, Eridu, 71, 75\n\nD\u00e2-\u0161art\u00ee, a captive, 302\n\nDate, probable, of the Hyksos invasion, 265;\n of the Exodus, 306\n\n\u201cDaughter for daughter,\u201d 510, 522\n\nDaughter (? adopted), sale of a, 185\n\nDauk\u00e9 (= Damkina), 17, 18;\n consort of Aa or Ea, 64\n\nDay, the evil, 528\n\nDays of creation, no reference to, 49;\n days of the month, 526, ff.\n\nDead slave, the, 458, 459\n\nDeath of Shalmaneser II., 339;\n IV., 361;\n Sargon, 372;\n Sennacherib, 383;\n Esarhaddon, 388;\n the last king of Assyria, 393;\n Belshazzar, 419\n\nDeath-penalty for adultery, 501, 521\n\nDebt, working off of, 500, 521;\n responsibility of husband and wife for, 503, 504\n\nDe Clercq collection, the, 560\n\nDecoration, Babylonian, 551 (405), 552 (471-472)\n\nDefamation, 501\n\nDehavites, the, 391\n\nDeified kings, 164\n\nDeities as witnesses, 187\n\nDeities of Mitanni, 277, 278\n\nDeities of west Asian origin, 156\n\nDeities probably foreign, 157\n\nDelaiah, son of Sanballat, 541\n\nDelitzsch, Prof., Friedrich, 14, 15, 36, 78;\n restorations by, 122, 361;\n his etymology of _sad\u00fb_, 248;\n _Babel und Bibel_, etc., 525, ff., 546, 559\n\nDeposit, goods on, 499, 500, 501, 521\n\nDerketo (Atargatis), goddess, 203\n\nD\u00earu, Babylonian city, 363\n\nDesertion, 502\n\nDevotees, recluses, priestesses, and public women, 161, 499, 507, 508\n\n\u201cDibbara Legend,\u201d the, 122\n\nDigging of canals, dating by the, 159\n\nDimasqa, Dimasqu (Damascus), 336, 341, 353, 363\n\nDinaites, the, 391\n\nDiodorus Siculus upon the taking of Nineveh, 393\n\nDisaster, the Assyrian, at the siege of Jerusalem, 378\n\nDisowning of a son, 176, 177, 505\n\nDistraint, 500;\n a parallel to the case of the Egyptian farmers, 525\n\nDivination, 247\n\n\u201cDivine Daughters,\u201d the, 160\n\nDivine honours paid to Egyptian rulers, 270\n\nDivision of property, 178-181\n\nDivorce, 181, 502\n\nDouble-formed and bull-like monsters, Ea and his attendants, 63, 64\n\nDove, swallow, and raven sent forth from the ship (ark), 106\n\nDower, return of, 502, 504\n\nDowers and gifts to virgins, priestesses, etc., 508\n\nDownfall of Assyria, the, 392, 393;\n Nabopolassar upon the, 550\n\nDragon of Chaos, the, 18;\n dragon and the serpent-tempter, 529 ff.\n\nDreams, royal, 390, 411\n\nDress of the scribes in early Babylonia, 171, 172\n\nDriver, Prof., 260 _n._\n\nDu-azaga, \u201cthe holy seat,\u201d 405\n\nD\u00fbdu, name, 315\n\nDud\u1e2balia, 537\n\n\u201cDue of the Sun-god,\u201d the, 167\n\nD\u016b-ma\u1e2ba, a sacred place, 228\n\nDumuzi-Abzu, \u201cTammuz of the Abyss,\u201d 43, 63\n\nDungi, Babylonian king, 124, 152, 164\n\nDunip (Tenneb), city, 277;\n resists the enemies of Egypt, 294\n\nDunnaitess, lamentation of the, 477\n\nDura, plain of, 403, 404\n\nD\u00fbr-Ammi-zaduga, city, 172\n\nD\u00fbr-Dungi, 325\n\nD\u00fbr-\u00eelitess, lamentation of the, 478\n\nD\u00fbr-Kuri-galzu, 347\n\nD\u00fbr-Ladinna, 371\n\nD\u00fbr-ma\u1e2b-\u00eel\u0101ni, son of Eri-Eaku, 223, 224, 226, 227, 231, 233\n\nD\u00fbr-Sargina (Khorsabad), the temple-tower there, 137, 369\n\nDusratta, king of Mitanni, 276, 278, 304, 316\n\nDynasty of Babylon, 142, 152, 153;\n Babylonia at the period of the, 169 ff.\n\nEa, the god, 17, 26, 56, etc.\n _See_ Aa\n\nEaa\u0161arri, 278 _n._\n\nEa-ban\u00ee (A\u00ea-ban\u00ee, Aa-ban\u00ee), the man of the wilds, 92;\n his creation and appearance, 93;\n is seen by a hunter, enticed, and induced to go to Erech, 94;\n he accompanies Gilgame\u0161 against \u1e2aumbaba, 94, 95;\n kills a divine bull, 97, 98;\n his dreams and death, 98;\n his resurrection, 110 (Ea-du, Enki-du)\n\nEa-du or Enki-du, 92 _n._, 548\n\nE-ana, E-anna, the temple at Ecrech, 39, 229;\n its sanctuary, 91\n\nEarly life of a Syrian prince, 285\n\nE-babbara (the temple at Sippar), 160, 434;\n expenditure of, 446;\n (the temple at Larsa), 218\n\nE-bara. _See_ E-babbara\n\nEbed-tob (Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba), 291\n\nEbers, Prof., his translation of the inscription of Ameni, 261;\n upon Apophis, 263\n\nEbisum (Ab\u0113\u0161u\u2019), king, 153, 155\n\nEden, Garden of 13, 69;\n the native land of the Babylonians, 14;\n Sippar of Eden, 70, 72;\n Eden not referred to as the earthly paradise in the Babylonian\n inscriptions, 72\n\nEdina, \u201cthe plain\u201d (Eden), 43, 72\n\nEdom (Udumu), 322, 341, 370, 374, 386\n\nEdrei, 313\n\nEgypt (Musuru, Musru, Musur, Mi\u1e63ir), 249-309;\n the Hyksos invasion, 251;\n gradually loses Palestine, 290;\n governors still faithful to, 293;\n invaded by Sennacherib, 381;\n an Assyrian province;\n see also 363, 365, 375\n\nEgypt, the brook (? river) of, 388\n\nEgypt Exploration Fund, the, 305\n\nEgyptian civilization, 250\n\nEgyptian king, the, to the prince of the Amorites, 300\n\nEgyptian loan-words, 143, 144\n\nEgyptian slave, sale of an, 466, 551;\n testifies to Cambyses\u2019 campaign in Egypt, 467\n\nEgyptians (Mu\u1e63ur\u00e2a), 375;\n their decision with regard to the Israelites, reason of, 268\n\nE-\u1e2bul\u1e2bul, the temple of Sin or Nannara at Haran, 202\n\nEjectment before the end of the term, 498\n\nE-kidur-kani, temple at Babylon, 433\n\nEkron (Amqarruna), 375, 376, 377, 386\n\nE-kua, sanctuary of Merodach, 472\n\nElah, 355\n\nElam, a mountainous country, 206;\n firstborn of Shem, 549;\n its power, 209;\n conquered by Sargon, 362 (363);\n Merodach-baladan in, 373;\n ravaged by Sennacherib, 380;\n conquered by A\u0161\u0161ur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli, 391;\n acknowledges the sway of Darius, 427\n\nElamite, Elamites: \u1e2aumbaba, 94, 95;\n Chedorlaomer, 209, 215, 222, 224, 227;\n Kudur-mabuk, Kudur-la\u1e2b(gu)mal, etc., 222-225, 230, 232;\n hostile to Assyria, 372, 379, 380, 391;\n their incursions near the Tigris, 483;\n see also 122, 140, 170, 229\n\nElath, 353\n\nElders, rule of, 280\n\nElephantine, the Aramaic papyri from, 539 ff.\n\nElephants killed by Tiglath-pileser I. in the land of Haran, 200;\n and in Lebanon, 201;\n elephants in the district of Niy, 273\n\nElephants\u2019 tusks, 321\n\nEl-K\u00e2b, 261\n\nEllasar, city, 124\n\nEllila (v. Bel)\n\nEllipu, country of, 341, 372\n\nElmesum, princess, marriage-contract of, 166\n\nElme\u0161um\u2019s letter to his father, 172\n\nEltekah (Altaq\u00fb), 375\n\nElulaeus of Tyre, 360\n\nE-ma\u1e2b (temple), 161\n\nEmbankment of the Sun-god, the 213\n\nE-melam-anna, the temple of Nusku at Haran, 202\n\nEmutb\u0101lu or Yamutb\u0101lu, conquered by \u1e2aammurabi, 211, 212, 213, 216, 217,\n 219, 220\n\nEnchantments, Istar\u2019s, 97\n\nEndowment of an adopted daughter, 173\n\nEngur, mother of Aa or Ea, 64\n\nEnki-du, the friend of Gilgame\u0161, 92 _n._, 540\n\nEn-nu-gi and the Flood, 101\n\nEnnun-dagalla, 228\n\nEnoch, 84\n\nEn\u0161ara and Nin\u0161ara, 67\n\nEnweduranki (Euedoreschos), 63, 77, 538, 539\n\nEphron, 315\n\nEponym dates in the reign of Shalmaneser IV., 358\n\nErech non-existent at the beginning, 39;\n built by Merodach, 41;\n called \u201cErech the walled,\u201d and ruled over by Gilgame\u0161, 91;\n besieged, 91;\n other references to the city, 92, 93, 94;\n rejoicing there on the death of the divine bull, 98;\n Gilgame\u0161 returns thither after seeing Pir-napi\u0161tim, 110;\n one of the cities of Nimrod\u2019s kingdom, 118, 124, 135;\n its temple-tower, 136;\n the city delivered to R\u00eem-Sin, 221;\n lamentation over its misfortunes, 477, 478;\n tablet dated at, 456\n\nEre\u0161-ki-gala (Persephone), 279\n\nEri-Aku (Eri-Sin), 216, 217, 218, 233;\n inscription of, 219\n\nEridu, the Babylonian Paradise, 71, 72, 73;\n non-existent at first, 39, 42;\n made, 40;\n not the earthly city of that name, 43;\n a type of Paradise, 43;\n the incantation of, 44;\n one of the principal cities of Babylonia, 124\n\nEs\u00e2 (? = Esau), 157, 245\n\nE-saggil, 223, 224. _See_ E-sagila\n\nE-sagila (E-saggil, E-sangil), completed by Merodach, 40, 43;\n meaning of the name, 43, 139;\n the temple of Belus, 137, 246, 472;\n restored by Samsu-iluna, 161;\n restoration attempted under Alexander and Philip, 476;\n offerings at, 412, 480;\n its congregation, 482;\n see also 409, 415\n\nE-sagila, the temple \u201cwithin the Abyss,\u201d founded by Lugal-du-azaga, 40, 73\n\nE-sagila-r\u00e2mat and her father-in-law\u2019s slave, 465, 466\n\nEsarhaddon (A\u0161\u0161ur-\u00e2\u1e2b\u00e2-iddina), 383, 384-388;\n apparently crowned at Haran, 201-202;\n in \u1e2aanigalbat, 384, 385;\n in Babylonia and the Mediterranean states, 386, 387;\n in Armenia, and on the east of Assyria, 388;\n in Egypt, 251, 388;\n he restores the temple of Belos, 560;\n mentions his brothers, 558, and his father\u2019s campaign against the Arabs,\n 382;\n his death, 388\n\nE-\u0161arra, the heavens, 26\n\nE-\u0161arra, an Assyrian temple, 328, 340\n\nE-\u0161a-turra, a temple at Su-anna, 433\n\nEsau, the name, 157, 245\n\nEscaped slaves, 493\n\nEsdraelon, defeat of Syrians at, 271\n\nE\u0161nunna(k) (Umlia\u0161), soldiers of, defeated by \u1e2aammurabi, 213;\n destroyed by a flood, 214;\n its gods restored by Cyrus, 422\n\nEtakama (Edagama), of Kinza and Kadesh, 279;\n pretending to be faithful to Egypt, attacks Amki, 288, 289;\n hostile to Egypt, 293\n\nE-temen-ana(-kia), the tower of Babylon, 136, 138, 139, 406, 559;\n and shrine of E-sagila, 398, 560\n\nE-temena-ursag, temple, 213\n\nEtham, 304\n\nEthobaal (Tu-ba\u2019alu), 374\n\nE-tur-kalama, a Babylonian temple, 214, 415\n\nEuedoreschos, 63, 546, 547\n\nE-ur-imina-ana(-kia), the tower of Borsippa, 136, 138\n\nEuphrates, creation of, 40;\n mentioned, 329, 334, 335, 336, 339, 341, 344, 471, etc.\n\nEupolemus concerning Abraham, 146, 196\n\nEusebius, 396\n\nEve, a Babylonian type of, 532\n\nEvents chosen to date by, 159\n\nEvetts, Mr. B. T. A., 408\n\nEvil-Merodach (Awel-Maruduk), 408;\n murdered, 409;\n tablets dated in his reign, 440, 441\n\nEvil spirit, the, driven from the temple, 530\n\nEvolution in the Babylonian story of the Creation, 33, 34\n\nExodus, date of the, 306;\n pharaoh of the, 309\n\nExpulsion of Eve, a parallel to, 83\n\nExpulsion of the Egyptians from Palestine, 302\n\n\u201cEye for an eye,\u201d 509, 522\n\nE-zida, the temple-tower at Borsippa, restored by Nebuchadnezzar, 138,\n 139, 406;\n Evil-Merodach, 409;\n its people resist Kudur-la\u1e2bgu(mal), 229, 230;\n its bronze doorstep, 405;\n incantation concerning, 41;\n see also 412, 415, 485\n\nEzra, Sir H. Howorth upon, 427, 429\n\n\u201cFair son,\u201d the, his carrying off, 83\n\nFaithlessness, 503\n\nFall? did the Babylonians possess the legend of the, 79, 531, 532\n\nFalse witness, 491\n\nFamily of the hero of the Flood saved with him, 103, 115, 117\n\nFamines in Egypt, 260, 261\n\nFather\u2019s lawsuit, a, 182\n\nFear of God, lines upon, 50\n\nFemale rule, 280\n\nFifteenth day = Sabbath, 527\n\nFire, penalty of death by, 480\n\nFlood, the Biblical story, 87 ff.;\n the Babylonian story, 100 ff.;\n introduction to, 89, ff.;\n first read by G. Smith, 90;\n a chapter of the Legend of Gilgame\u0161, 90;\n related to him by Pir-napi\u0161tim, 101;\n decided upon by the gods, 101, 102;\n its approach, arrival, and effect, 104, 105;\n duration and subsidence, 105, 106;\n due to the god Bel, 106;\n why sent, 107, 112;\n Pir-napi\u0161tim dreads its coming, 104, 116;\n the second Babylonian story of the, 117;\n was it a \u201cSin Flood\u201d? 529;\n description of the tablets recording, 100, 101\n\nFollowers of Tiamtu, the, 530\n\nFood, incantation in which it is used, 540\n\nFoster-children and their disowning, 176, 177, 505\n\nFour kings against five, the, 208\n\nFraudulent practices, 513\n\nFurious cattle, laws concerning, 512, 523\n\nFurniture, lists of, 189\n\nFuture life, 111\n\nGad, the name, 246 (Gadu-\u1e6d\u00e2bu)\n\nGadlat, goddess of Haran, 203\n\nGadu-\u1e6d\u00e2bu, name, 547\n\nGala-Aruru = Istar the star = the planet Venus, 44\n\nGalilee, attacked by Tiglath-pileser, 353\n\nGalilee, South, invaded by Amenophis II., 273\n\nGarden of Eden, 69\n\nGarizim, temple at, re-dedicated to Jupiter, 481\n\nGarment, the vanishing, 23\n\nGaru, Petrie\u2019s identification of, 292\n\nGate of Istar at Babylon, 551, 552\n\nGates of city, judgment in the, 163\n\nGath (Gimti), 299\n\nGath-Carmel, 296\n\nGauzanitis, 304\n\nGaza (\u1e2aazitu), 277, 376 386, 411;\n Thothmes III. at, 271;\n Yabitiri guards, 285;\n Hanon of, 352, 363, 365, 366\n\nGazz\u0101ni (a ruler), 224, 325, 556\n\nGebal (Gublu), 278, 293, 313, 317, 322, 339, 386\n\nGebalite, whose brother drove him from the gate, 300\n\nGebalites (Gubl\u00e2a), 350, 374\n\nGedaliah, governor of Jerusalem, put to death, 400\n\nGemariah, 471\n\nGergesa, 324\n\nGezer, 297, 299, 306\n\nGiammu, prince, 328\n\nGift to a son, 505\n\nGig\u00eetum, Neriglissar\u2019s daughter, 442\n\nGihon, river, 69, 70\n\nGilead, 353\n\nGilgame\u0161, ancient hero, king of Erech, 73, 91;\n the legend concerning him, 90 ff.;\n and his friend Ea-ban\u00ee, 92;\n who consents to go to him, 94;\n he seeks the place of \u1e2aumbaba, 94;\n who is killed, 95;\n I\u0161tar makes love to him, 95, 96;\n he reproaches her, 96, 97;\n and she sends a divine bull against them, 97;\n dreams concerning him, 98;\n he mourns for Ea-ban\u00ee and sets out on his great journey, 98;\n he meets Ur-Sanabi, the pilot, and Pir-napi\u0161tim, 99;\n who tells him the story of the Flood, 101 ff.;\n he is restored to health, 108, 109;\n finds the magic plant, 109;\n loses it, and reaches Erech, 110;\n sees the spirit of Ea-ban\u00ee, 111;\n the new version of the legend referring to him, 547 ff.\n\nGilgame\u0161-series, the getting together of the, 90\n\nGilu-\u1e2b\u00eapa, wife of Amenophis II., 276\n\nGimil-Sin, king, 124, 164\n\nGimmirr\u00e2a, the, 390\n\nGimti (Gath), 299\n\nGimtu (Gath?), 369\n\nGindibu\u2019u, an Arabian tribe, 333\n\nGirgashites, the, 310, 324-326\n\nGi\u0161dubar, Gi\u0161\u1e6dubar, Gisdhubar. _See_ Gilgame\u0161\n\nGlosses in the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, 234 _n._\n\nGobryas (Gubaru, Ugbaru) of Gutium, enters Babylon, and appoints governors\n there, 415, 417, 418, 419;\n (goes) against ..., 416, 417;\n receives the kingdom for Cyrus, 419\n\n\u201cGod,\u201d names for, in the chief tongues of the ancient East, 170, _n._\n\nGods and their seats, 160, 415;\n tithe granted to, 448;\n processions of, 526;\n they fear the Flood, 105;\n those who joined Tiamtu, 20, 25;\n their punishment, 25\n\nGods, figures of, found under the pavement of palaces, 247\n\nGods identified with Merodach, 58\n\nGods of On (Heliopolis), 264\n\nGods of the west of Asia, 277\n\nGog, 391\n\n\u201cGold, much gold,\u201d 277, 283\n\nGomer, people of, 390\n\n\u201cGood wishes,\u201d the tablet of, 81\n\nGoshen, 268\n\nGovernment of states, 279\n\nGozan, 345, 364\n\nGreek words in Babylonia, 480\n\nGreetings, Babylonian, 172, 452, 453, 454\n\nGublu (Gebal), 313\n\nGuites, 329;\n (= Goim?), 332, 333\n\nGula, goddess of healing, 86, 472\n\nGutians, Gutites, 158, 170, 552\n\nGuti-kirmil, 296\n\nGut\u00fb or Gutium, 206, 207, 415\n\nGyges\u2019 son, the dream of, 390\n\n_\u1e2aabati_, the, 292, 299\n\n_\u1e2aabbatu_, 291. _See_ Habati\n\n_\u1e2aabiri_, the, 269, 291, 295, 296, 297, 538;\n they possess the land, 299\n\n\u1e2aaburu, city in Babylonia, 446\n\nHadad, 160, 277, 330;\n of Aleppo, 329.\n _See_ Addu\n\n\u1e2a\u0101dara, Rezon\u2019s birthplace, 354\n\nHades, \u201cthe land of no-return,\u201d 65\n\nHagar, her position, 186;\n parallels (with differences) to the case of, 174, 175, 185, 236, 524\n\n\u1e2a\u00e2i, 315\n\nHalah (\u1e2aala\u1e2b\u1e2ba), 364\n\n\u1e2aalman, 325\n\nHamah (Hamath), 317\n\n\u1e2aamanu (Amanus), mountains, 328, 334, 336, 349\n\nHamath (Amatte), Hamathites (Amat\u00e2a), Irhul\u00eani of, 329, 334;\n districts of, 349;\n Yau-bi\u2019idi (Ilu-bi\u2019idi) of, 322, 363;\n see also 348\n\n\u1e2aammatites (? = Hamathites), Eni-\u00eelu of the, 350\n\n\u1e2aammurabi (Amraphel), changes during his reign, 125;\n its length, 153;\n tablets dated therein 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187;\n references to his conquest of \u201cMair and Malgia,\u201d 187;\n other references to him, 209-215, 238;\n his code of laws, 491-515;\n his image on the stele, 487;\n the benefits he had conferred on the cities of Babylonia, 488-491;\n his opinions of his reign, 515, 516;\n his curse upon any destroying or changing his record, 517-519\n\n\u1e2aammurabi-\u1e2b\u00eagalla, canal, 211\n\n\u1e2aammurabi-nu\u1e2bu\u0161-ni\u0161i, canal, 212\n\n\u1e2aammurabi-Sam\u0161i, name, 164, 187\n\n\u1e2aana-galbat, \u1e2aani-galbat, king of, 283;\n the caravans of, 286;\n Esarhaddon fights (? against his brothers) there, 384, 385\n\n\u1e2aanni, messenger of Egypt, 301\n\nHanon of Gaza, 352\n\n\u1e2aan\u00fb, land of, 206\n\nHaran born at Ur of the Chaldees, 144\n\nHaran (city, the Bab. \u1e2aarran), a centre of lunar worship, 147, 195;\n Terah and his family migrate thither, 192, 195;\n its probable origin, 199, 200;\n its ruins, 200;\n elephants in the neighbourhood in early times, 200, 201;\n its gods and temples, 201, 202, 534;\n Esarhaddon (?) crowned there, 201, 202;\n Nabonidus restores the temple of Sin, 202;\n its renown in later days, 202, 203;\n the city besieged, 411;\n deities restored, 414\n\n\u1e2aar\u1e2bar, called by the Assyrians Kar-Sarru-uk\u00een, 367, 368\n\n\u1e2aarri-si\u2019isi, 325\n\n\u1e2aat\u0101nu, servant of Neriglissar, 439\n\n\u1e2aatarika, \u1e2aatarikka, 344, 345, 349\n\nHatred of Bel for the hero of the Flood, 102, 113\n\nHatshepsut, queen regent, 271\n\n\u1e2aatta, 288. _See_ Hatti\n\n\u1e2aatti, \u1e2aatt\u00ee (Hittites, Kheta, people of Heth), 205, 288, 319, 341;\n their depredations, 317;\n ships of, used by Sennacherib, 379;\n Syria and the Holy Land, 386.\n _See_ Heth, Hittites\n\n\u1e2aattu, city, 205\n\n\u1e2aattu-\u0161il, (Kheta-sir), 320, 537\n\nHaupt, Prof. Paul, upon the description of the ship or ark, 114\n\nHauran, the (\u1e2aauranu), 336\n\n\u1e2a\u00e2ya, a messenger, 286\n\n\u1e2aaza, 340\n\nHazael of Arabia, 382\n\nHazael of (\u0160a-)Iam\u0113ri-\u0161u (Damascus), 337, 338, 342\n\n\u1e2aaza-\u00eelu, 336, etc. _See_ Hazael\n\nHazor, 277, 353\n\nHeathen images, the, of Jacob\u2019s household, 247, 248\n\nHeavens, Merodach arranges the, 27\n\nHebrews, their ancestor and his language, 204;\n in Egypt, 268;\n did not leave with the Hyksos, 267;\n their commonwealth, 327;\n were they the _\u1e2aabiri_? 538\n\nHeliopolis, 258\n\nHelios (Samas), 203\n\nHellenizing influence, the, of Antiochus Epiphanes, 480\n\nHelpers of Rahab, the, 530\n\nHephaistos (Sethos), 381, 382\n\nHerdsmen, their duties and liabilities, 213, 214, 524\n\nHereditary chiefs, 279\n\nHerodotus upon the Temple of Belus, 137, 405;\n Sennacherib\u2019s expedition to Egypt, 381, 382;\n Nitocris\u2019 architectural works, 407;\n see also 342, 443\n\nHeth, 368, 369; the sons of, 315.\n _See_ \u1e2aatti, Hittites\n\nHezekiah (\u1e2aazaqiau), 375, 376, 377, 395\n\nHiddekel, the Tigris, Babylonian form of the name, 84\n\nHiding heathen images, 248\n\nHieroglyphic inscriptions of the Hittites, 317\n\nHilprecht, Prof. H. V., 124\n\nHire of animals for agricultural work, 514;\n field labourers and herdsmen, 513;\n fields, 495;\n of a ship (by Belshazzar), 450;\n (by Sirku), 470\n\nHired \u201cfrom himself,\u201d 188\n\nHired men, their responsibilities, 513\n\nHiring of slaves and freemen, for money, 187, 188;\n for produce, 188;\n risks of the hirer, 191\n\nHirom (\u1e2airummu) of Tyre, 350\n\nHittite, Hittites, 140, 205, 274, 277, 315-323, 341;\n attack Tuneb, 316;\n tributary, 272, 316, 320;\n their architecture borrowed by the Assyrians, 323;\n inscriptions, where found, 317;\n their language, 537\n\nHittite, a, the mother of Jerusalem, 316\n\nHoly Land, 340;\n its state before the entry of the Israelites, 277\n\nHome, the, of the Hittites, 318\n\nHommel, Prof., 14, 54;\n suggests a connection of Ea, A\u00ea, or Aa, with Ya\u2019u (Jah), 113;\n his early etymology of Arpachshad, 143;\n his work upon Egyptian culture 144 _n._;\n the Hittite inscriptions, 318;\n Gilgame\u0161, 547;\n Shinar, 549;\n early names, etc., 555, 557\n\nHophra encourages Zedekiah against Nebuchadnezzar, 399;\n marches to support him, 400;\n deposed, 401\n\nHor-em-heb, 303\n\nHorner, Rev. J., 331\n\nHorse, glorious in war, loved by Istar, 96\n\nHorus, 264\n\nHosea, Hoshea (Ausi\u2019a), king, 354, 355, 359;\n the prophet, 361\n\nHouse of Belshazzar, its situation, 447\n\nHousehold goods, 189;\n gods, 247\n\nHousebreaking, 493, 521\n\nHouses and cities, built by Merodach, 40\n\nHouses, private, 188, 189\n\nHoworth, Sir H., 427, 429\n\nHui, his tomb at Thebes, 303\n\n\u1e2aul\u1e2but\u1e2bulitess, lamentations of the 477\n\n\u1e2aumbaba, apparently an Elamite, 94;\n Gilgame\u0161 and Ea-ban\u00ee seek his domain, 94, 95;\n his end, 95\n\n\u1e2aursag-kalama, Babylonian city, 415\n\n\u1e2aursag-kalamitess, lamentations of the, 477\n\nHusband, causing death of, 504\n\n\u1e2au\u1e63\u1e63iti-\u0161a-Mu\u0161allim-Marduk, tablet dated at, 436\n\nHyksos, or shepherd-kings, legends concerning, 252;\n their fear of an Assyrian (Babylonian) invasion, 251;\n their policy in time of famine, 260;\n quit Egypt, 252, 270;\n at Tanis, 264;\n those who remained reduced to subjection, 270;\n their descendants, 266\n\nHyspasines, 481. _See_ Asp\u0101sin\u0113\n\nIan-Ra (Ra-ian), was he the pharaoh of Joseph? 263\n\nI\u0101wa, the ending of names, 470, 471.\n _See_ -y\u0101wa\n\nIbi-S\u00e2n sells his daughter, 185\n\nIbi-Sin, king, 124, 152, 164\n\nIbi-Tutu, king (?), 230, 231\n\nIbscher, Herr, 544\n\nIdalium, 386\n\nIdigna, Akkado-Babylonian form of the name of the Tigris, 84\n\nIgigi, address to Merodach by the, 29-33;\n his title among them, 32\n\nIjon, 353\n\nIkausu of Ekron, 386\n\nIli-milki (Elimelech), 295\n\nIli-rabi\u1e2b, 288, 289\n\nIllegitimate children, acknowledgement of, 505, 506\n\nIllinos (Illil, the god Bel), 17\n\nIltani, princess, hires a field, 167\n\nIltani, princess, sun-devotee, hires a reaper, 168\n\nIlu-bi\u2019idi (Yau-bi\u2019idi) of Hamath, 322, 363, 366\n\nIlu-d\u00e2ya, the Hazite, writes to the king of Egypt, 288\n\nImgur-B\u00eal, wall of Babylon, 405\n\nImmerum, king, 154\n\nImmortality, the Chaldean Noah attains, 101, 108\n\n\u201cImpure,\u201d the name given by the Egyptians to the Hyksos, 254\n\nInaction of the Egyptian king, 296, etc.\n\nIna-E-sagila-r\u00eamat, daughter of Nabonidus, 450\n\nIna-\u00ea\u0161i-\u00ea\u1e6dir, Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s agent, 432\n\nIncantation for E-zida (the Birs-Nimroud), 41;\n against \u201csickness of the head,\u201d 55;\n to purify, 86\n\nIncest, 504, 521, 522\n\nIndia-House Inscription, extract from the, 138, 139;\n references to Babylon, 405, 406\n\nInheritance, 178-181, 503-507;\n of virgins, priestesses, etc., 508\n\nInjuries, penalties for, to slaves, 509, 522;\n to a woman, 510, 522;\n in a quarrel, 509, 510, 522\n\nInscriptions, the Hittite, 317, 318\n\n_\u2019Ir_, the Hebrew for \u201ccity,\u201d and _uru_, 241\n\nIr\u1e2bul\u0113ni of Hamath, 329; = Urhi-l\u0113ni, 332;\n resists the Assyrian king, 334, 335\n\nIrnini, a god, 95\n\nIrqata, rule of, 280\n\nIsaac, Jacob, and Joseph, 242\n\nI\u0161\u1e2bara, goddess, invoked, 433\n\nIsidore of Charax, 192\n\nIsin, Isinna (Karrak), city, 124, 211\n\nIsis, 264\n\nIsis-Hathor (Venus Urania), 264\n\nIsqal(l)una (Askelon), 374, 386\n\nIsrael, 351, 352, 355;\n on the monolith of Meneptah, 306\n\nIsrael, the name, probable Assyro-Babylonian forms, 157, 245\n\nIsraelites, allied with Ben-Hadad, 329-333, 337;\n subject to Hazael, 342\n\n_I\u0161\u0161aku_, \u201cchief\u201d (= _patesi_), 127\n\nI\u0161tar, 55;\n her search for Tammuz in Hades, 65;\n makes love to Gilgame\u0161, 96;\n her cruelty to her lovers, 96, 97;\n sends a divine bull against Gilgame\u0161 and Ea-ban\u00ee, 97;\n which they kill, 98;\n her grief on account of the Flood, 105, 116;\n worshipped at Erech, 160;\n her spouse Tammuz, 279;\n I\u0161tar\u2019s gate, at Babylon, 405, 559, 560\n\nI\u0161tar and the _asherah_, 278\n\nI\u0161tar of Babylon, 212;\n Haran, 203;\n Nineveh, 278, 491, 551\n\nI\u0161tara, goddess, 156\n\nI\u0161ullanu, I\u0161tar\u2019s treatment of, 97\n\nItu\u2019u, on the Euphrates, 344\n\nIyyar, the month of Ea (Aa, A\u00ea), 65\n\nIzdubar. _See_ Gilgame\u0161\n\nJabesh, 293\n\nJacob, Jacob-el, 157, 183, 243, 244, 547\n\nJaffa, Yabitiri guards, 285\n\nJah, 113, 535\n\nJahweh (Jehovah), 535\n\nJanoah, 353\n\nJebus (Jerusalem), 323\n\nJebusites, 312, 323, 324\n\nJehoahaz, 342\n\nJehoiachin, captive in Babylon, 399;\n released by Evil-Merodach, 408\n\nJehoiakim, 399\n\nJehoram, 338, 339\n\nJehu, \u201cson of Omri,\u201d 332, 337-339\n\nJensen, Prof., 140, 318, 546, 548\n\nJerabis (Carchemish), 317\n\nJerusalem (Uru-salim, Ursalimmu), 234, 277, 280, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379;\n legend attributing its foundation to the Hyksos, 252;\n Ahaz besieged there, 353;\n invested twice by the Babylonians, 399, 400;\n Temple destroyed, 400;\n Temple polluted, 481\n\nJesus, brother of Johanan, murdered, 542\n\nJews (Yaud\u00e2a), 375;\n at Damascus, 331;\n last vestiges of their rule, 400;\n Cyrus helped by, 416;\n probably thought him a monotheist, 419;\n names of Jews at Babylon, 470, 471;\n why did they remain in the cities of their exile? 474 ff.\n\nJezreel, 338\n\nJilting, 504\n\nJoash, king of Israel, 340, 342\n\nJohns, the Rev. C. H. W., 551, 552\n\nJoppa (Yapp\u00fb). _See_ Jaffa, Yapu\n\nJoseph, the name, 243;\n its probable meaning, 244\n\nJoseph in Egypt, 255 ff.;\n as viceroy, 260;\n no native record of his administration, 253;\n his death, 266, 267\n\nJosephus, 359, 382, 408-410;\n upon the Hyksos, 251;\n the period of Joseph, 262;\n the Amorites, 313;\n the siege of Jerusalem, 377, 378;\n the murder of the high-priest\u2019s brother, 542\n\nJotham, 355\n\nJudah, 353;\n one of the states regarded by the Assyrians as Hittite, 322, 386 (Yaudu)\n\nJudeans (Yaud\u00e2a), 375. _See_ Jews\n\nJustin upon Abraham, 147\n\nKada\u0161man-\u1e2barbe or Kada\u0161man-Murus, 123;\n transports the Sutites, 291\n\nKadesh, 279;\n (Kid\u0161a), 300;\n conquered by Seti I., 304;\n (Kidi\u0161), 401\n\nKa-dumu-nuna, the gate of E-saggil, 484\n\nKaldu (the Chaldean tribes in Babylonia), 341\n\nKalisch, 266\n\nKallima-Sin (now read Kada\u0161man-\u1e2barbe), king, 276\n\nKames, king of Egypt, 269\n\nKamid-el-Lauz, 293\n\nKammusu-nadbi of Moab, 374\n\nKan\u2019ana (Canaan), 304\n\nKaranatum, her adoption, 177;\n her name and that of Ashteroth Karnaim, 157\n\nKar-Adad (fortress of Hadad), 349\n\nKar-Dunia\u0161, Kara-Dunias, Karu-Dunias (Babylonia), 120 _n._;\n ruled by Kudur-la\u1e2bgumal, 225;\n _see also_ 281, 286\n\nKar-Nebo, maternal grandfather of Abram, 146\n\nKar-Shaimaneser (-Shalmanu-a\u0161a-rid), city, 339\n\nKar-Sippar, 167\n\nKa\u0161i (= Ka\u0161\u0161i), 297, 298\n (_see_ Kassite)\n\nKassite, Kassites, 122, 140, 170, 537\n\nKedesh, 272, 353\n\nKefto, identification of, 274\n\nKeilah, 299\n\nKemi (Egypt), 271\n\nK\u00ea\u0161, a Babylonian city, 124\n\nK\u00ea\u0161itess, lamentations of the, 477\n\nKheta (Hittites), 274;\n their treaty with Egypt, 304;\n Meneptah\u2019s reference to, 306\n\nKheta-sir = \u1e2aattu-\u0161il, 320, 537\n\nKhorsabad (D\u00fbr-Sargina), 137, 369\n\nKidnapping, 492, 493, 520\n\nKidi\u0161 (Kadesh), 401\n\nKili(gug ?), Neriglissar\u2019s servant, 438\n\nKili-Te\u0161ub son of Kali-Te\u0161ub, 319\n\nKilling and mutilating hired animals, 512, 523\n\nKina\u1e2b\u1e2bi (Canaan), 281, 301\n\nKing, Mr. L. W., 28, 545, 546\n\nKing, the, 164-168\n\nKingi or Kengi (a part of Babylonia), 134, 351\n\nKingi-Ura or Kengi-Ura = Sumer and Akkad (Babylonia), 206\n\nKingu, Tiamtu\u2019s husband, exalted, receives the Tablets of Fate, 19;\n is overcome by Merodach and deprived of them, 25;\n bound, 36\n\nKirbi\u0161 Tiamtu, 24, 31\n\nKirki\u0161\u00e2ti, 324, 325\n\n_Kirubu_ = Heb, _ker\u00fbb_, \u201ccherub\u201d;\n _kirub nism\u00fb_, _kirub \u0161arri_, 81\n\nKi\u0161, a Babylonian city, 415\n\nKi\u0161ar, \u201chost of earth,\u201d 16\n\nKi\u0161ara-gala, 66\n\nKisi, Aramean leader, 349\n\nKi\u0161kan\u016b-tree in Eridu, 75;\n its fruit, 76\n\nKissar\u00e9 and Assoros (Ki\u0161ar and An\u0161ar), 17\n\nKizirtum, princess, 166\n\nKnudtzon, Prof., 556\n\nKtesias, 203\n\nKudma-bani, district, 179, 180\n\nKudur in Elamite names, 209, 222\n\nKudur-la\u1e2bgumal, 230, 231\n\nKudur-mabuk, inscription of, 219;\n his sons Eri-Aku and R\u00eem-Sin, 216\n\nK\u00fbites, the, 350\n\nKullan\u00fb, city, 348\n\nKulummite(s), 372\n\nKummuhi (Commagene), 319, 320, 329\n\nKundaspu of Commagene, 329\n\nKurium, 387\n\nLaban, the name, 245\n\nLabaya, father of Mut-zu\u2019u, 286;\n his sons, 293, 297, 298\n\nLaborosoarchod (Lab\u0101\u0161i-Marduk), son of Neriglissar, 410;\n lends money, 443, 444\n\nLabynetus, Cyrus marches against, 407.\n _See_ Nabonidus\n\nLachish, 277, 297, 377\n\nLachish epigraph, the, 382\n\nLagamal (Lagamar, Lagamaru), 222\n\nLaga\u0161, a Babylonian city, 124\n\nLa\u1e2bamu, consort of La\u1e2bmu, 16\n\nLa\u1e2bamu, creatures produced by Tiamtu, 19\n\nLa\u1e2bmu and La\u1e2bamu, production of, 16;\n these names in Damascius, 17\n\n\u201cLake of Abraham the Beloved,\u201d 192, 193\n\n\u201cLament of the Daughter of Sin,\u201d 83\n\nLamentations, Babylonian, 194, 195, 477, 478\n\n\u201cLand of the city of Jerusalem,\u201d 297\n\nLanded property acquired by Neriglissar, 440-442\n\nLands, etc., created by Merodach, 40\n\nLanguage of Canaan, 204\n\nLarancha, lamentation of, 477, 478\n\nLarsa (Ellasar), 124;\n the temple-tower at, 137;\n a centre of sun-worship, 160\n\nLaws, Sumero-Akkadian, 190, 191, 550;\n \u1e2aammurabi\u2019s, 491-515, 553, 554\n\nLawsuit of Bunanitu, the, 462-464\n\nLawsuits, 182, 184\n\nLayard, Sir A. H., discoverer of the palaces of Nineveh and Calah;\n and Rassam, his helper and successor, 394\n\nLaz (goddess), 211\n\nLeasehold system, the, 190\n\nLebanon, elephants in, 201;\n Saniru (Shenir) before, 336;\n _see also_ 387\n\nLegal precedents, 190, 191\n\nLegend of Asenath, 259\n\nLegend of Chedorlaomer, 227-230\n\nLegend of R\u00e2-\u2019Apop\u2019i, 254\n\nLenormant, inscription published by, 216\n\nLetter concerning an inscription of Ammurapi (Hammurabi), 210\n\nLetters from Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba (Ebed-\u1e2biba, Ebed-\u1e6d\u00e2ba, Ebed-tob), 294-299;\n Ammi-\u1e6ditana, 165;\n Akizzi of Qatna, 289;\n A\u0161ur-uballi\u1e6d, 382;\n B\u00eari, 288;\n Burra-buria\u0161, 281;\n Ilu-dayan, 289;\n Mut-zu\u2019u, 286;\n Yabitiri, 284;\n Yidia, 286, 287;\n the king of Egypt, 300;\n the king\u2019s daughter to Queen A\u0161\u0161u-r\u00e2aitu, 392\n\nLeviathan, 530\n\nLeviticus xviii. 18, the tablet illustrating, 545\n\n_Lex talionis_, 509, 522\n\nL\u00eaya, a captive, 302\n\nLibation, the, of the Babylonian Noah, 106\n\nLieblein upon the pharaohs of the Oppression and the Exodus, 269\n\nLife at Tanis in Egypt, 264\n\n_Lingua franca_, the, of Western Asia, 140\n\nLion (divine), loved by I\u0161tar, 96\n\nLiver, the, in divination, 247\n\nLoan to make up purchase-money and its repayment by instalments, 460, 461,\n 464, 465\n\n\u201cLord and Lady, my,\u201d 479\n\nLud, 391\n\nLudlul the Sage, lines by, 50\n\nLugal-zag-gi-si, early Akkadian king, 123, 124\n\nLuli of Sidon, 373\n\nLullubite, Lullubites, 123, 325\n\nLulub\u016b (Lullub\u016b), country, 206, 208\n\nLulumu (Lulub\u016b), 207, 351\n\n_Luluppu_-tree, the legend of the, 76\n\n_Luma\u0161i_-constellation, 545\n\nLuxor, 326\n\nLydia (Luddu), 390, 391\n\nMachpelah, differences between Babylonian contracts and that referring to,\n 236-238, 524\n\nMad bull or vicious ox, death or injury from, 512, 513\n\nMa\u00ebr (and Su\u1e2bi), principality, 548\n\nMagdala, 293\n\nMa\u1e2b, Babylonian goddess, 105, 106, 116\n\nMahler, Dr. Edouard, upon the stele of Meneptah II. and the Exodus, 306\n\nMair, city, 213, 214\n\nMajesty, plural of, in addressing the king, 284;\n (in the Chedor-laomer-legend it refers to the god)\n\nMalgia, city, 211, 213, 214\n\nMalik (Moloch), 156;\n Maliku, 170 _n._\n\nMamre, 315\n\nMamun, khalif, 266\n\nMan, creation of, 28, 40, 45, 47\n\nManamaltel, king, 154, 155\n\nManasseh (Mins\u00ea, Minas\u00ea), 340;\n pays tribute to Esarhaddon, 386;\n to Assur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli, 389\n\nManda barbarians, Medes, 420\n\nMan\u00ea, a messenger, 276\n\nManetho, 251, 274\n\nMankind, destruction of, in the Flood, 105;\n in future other means to be used, 107, 112, 116\n\nMan\u2019s duties, 45\n\nMarad, city, 415;\n its patron-deity, 542\n\nMarduk (Merodach), 33, etc.\n\nMarduk-\u00e2bla-iddina (Merodach-baladan) of Babylonia, 379\n\nMarduk-\u00eeriba, one of Belshazzar\u2019s neighbours, 447\n\nMarduk-nadin-a\u1e2bi, son of Nebuchadnezzar, 435\n\nMarduk-na\u0161\u1e63i-abli. _See_ Sirku\n\nMarduk-\u0161um-u\u1e63ur, son of Nebuchadnezzar, 434\n\nMarduk-zakir-\u0161umi of Babylonia, 379\n\nMaritime nation, Babylonia a, 115, 116\n\nMari\u2019u of \u0160a-\u00eem\u0113ri-\u0161u, 341, 342\n\nMarking of slaves, 469\n\nMarriage, 173-175, 186\n\nMarriage-contracts, 173, 174;\n of Princess Elme\u0161u, 166;\n of Neriglissar\u2019s daughter, 442;\n indispensable, 501\n\nMartu = Amurr\u00fb, 312\n\nMa\u0161itess, lamentation of the, 477\n\nMaspero, Prof., 253;\n upon the Sallier Papyrus, 255 _n._\n\nMatan-ba\u2019al of Arvad, 386\n\nMattaniah (Zedekiah), 399\n\nMax M\u00fcller, Prof. W., 274\n\nMedes, the (Mad\u00e2a, Umman-manda), in alliance against Assyria, 392;\n at Haran, 411, 414;\n _see also_ 341, 351, 364, 388\n\nMedia, 206, 346, 351, 368\n\nMediation, 53\n\nMediterranean, the, 340, 341;\n states of, 365\n\nMegasthenes, 401\n\nMegiddo, 274;\n Thothmes III. at, 271\n\nMeissner, Dr., 547\n\nMelakiyin, the, 266\n\nMelchizedek, 324;\n in Heb. vii. 3, 234\n\nMelu\u1e2b\u1e2ba, 370, 375, 480, 481\n\nMemphis, 263;\n captured by Esarhaddon, 388, 389 _n._\n\nMenahem (Meni\u1e2bimme, Min\u1e2bimmu), 350, 351, 374\n\nMenander, 360\n\nMenanu of Elam, 380\n\nMenant, M. J., 560\n\nMenas\u00ea (Manasseh), 386\n\nMeneptah II. (Merenptah), the pharaoh of the Exodus, 269, 305\n\nMentiu (Bedouin), 270\n\nMer, Merri, a name of Hadad or Rimmon, 207, 212\n\nMerchants of Babylonia killed, 281\n\nMerodach, the god, his parentage, 33, 63;\n the same as Nimrod, 126;\n the gods\u2019 champion against Tiamtu, 21, 22;\n installed as king, 23 (163);\n prepares for the fight, 23, 24;\n attacks and conquers Tiamtu, 25, 537;\n takes the Tablets of Fate, 25;\n cuts Tiamtu asunder, 26;\n orders the universe anew, 26 ff.;\n receives new names, etc., 29-33;\n his \u201cincantation,\u201d 41;\n founds Babylon, Niffer, and Erech, 40, 41, 42, 126;\n creator of the gods, 43;\n his titles, 44;\n explanations of some of his names, 45, 54, 56;\n identified with other gods, 47, 58;\n glorified above them all, 49;\n prayer to be delivered into his gracious hands, 51;\n the other deities mediators with him, and his manifestations, 53, 58;\n heavenly bodies, identified with him, 55;\n the benefactor of mankind, 56, 57;\n the begetter of the gods, 533, 534;\n his description, 529;\n his weapons, 550;\n names compounded with his, 57;\n which in the end was almost = _\u00eelu_, 58, 61;\n he was the \u201cgreat hunter,\u201d 131;\n worshipped especially at Babylon, 160, 407;\n his yearly procession, 405;\n his vengeance, 392;\n his merciful nature, 486;\n replaced in the end by Anu-Bel, 483\n\nMerodach in West Asia, 279\n\nMerodach-baladan, king of Babylon, 357, 361, 364, 370, 371, 373, 379, 380,\n 395\n\nMerom, 305\n\nMerw\u00e2n II., khalif, 266\n\nMesech, 230\n\nMesha of Moab, 338\n\nMesopotamia, 204, 207, 336, 351\n\nMessengers dying abroad, concerning, 283, 284\n\nMesu, the land of, 341\n\nMethusael, 84\n\nMiddle class, the, 171\n\n\u201cMighty king,\u201d the, 234, 280\n\nMilki-asapa of Gebal, 386\n\nMilki-idiri, governor of Kedesh, 401\n\nMilki-\u00eeli, Milk\u00eeli, 293, 297, 298, 299\n\nMilku (Melech, Moloch), 279\n\nMilton, 47\n\nMins\u00ea (Manasseh), 389\n\nMit\u00e2 of Musku (Mesech), 367\n\nMitanni (Naharain, Naharaim), 276, 277, 304;\n its language not Semitic, 275;\n vassal state, 537\n\nMitinti of Ashdod, 374, 376\n\nMitinti of Askelon, 355, 386\n\nMitunu, the eponyme of, Sennacherib\u2019s campaign against Hezekiah, 378\n\nMnevis, the bull, 265\n\nMoab (Ma\u2019ab, Ma\u2019abi), 322, 338, 370, 386\n\nMoabites, the, 326, 374;\n driven out, 313\n\nMoloch, 279\n\nMond, Mr., his papyri, 539\n\nMonotheism and polytheism in Babylonia, 47, 198, 533\n\nMonotheistic names, 534;\n systems, 541\n\nMonster, the, 530\n\nMonsters, produced by Tiamtu, 18 ff.\n\nMonth, Egyptian god, 262\n\nMonths and stars, 27\n\nMoon, purpose of the, 27, 37\n\nMoph or Noph (Men-nofr, Memphis), 264\n\nMordecai (Mardecai), 61, 436, 471\n\nMoses, notes upon his date, 306;\n was he saved by Teie\u2019s daughter? 307\n\nMosque of Abraham at Urfa (Orfa or Edessa), 192\n\n\u201cMother of Sin,\u201d the, 532\n\nMoumis (= Mummu), son of Tauth\u00e9 and Apason, 17\n\nMouths of the rivers, a sacred place, 71, 108\n\nMugallu of Tubal, 290\n\nMugheir, regarded as Ur of the Chaldees, 147, 193;\n but not altogether certain, 197\n\nM\u00fcller, Prof. W. Max, 557\n\nMummu Tiamtu, the first producer.\n _See_ Tiamtu\n\nMur\u0161il, Hittite king, 537\n\nMuru, a centre of the worship of Hadad, 490\n\nMu\u1e63a\u1e63ir, 127\n\nMu\u0161\u00eazib-Marduk of Babylonia, 380\n\nMushtah, 293\n\n_Mu\u0161kinu_, 536\n\nMusku (Mesech), 371\n\nMu\u1e63rites, 329;\n (Mu\u1e63r\u00e2a), 333\n\nMu\u1e63ru, the land of, 354\n\nMu\u1e63ur\u2019i of Moab, 386\n\nMu\u1e63uru, Mu\u1e63ur, Mi\u1e63raim (Egypt), 366, 370\n\nMut-Addu to Yanhama, 292\n\nMutallu, Hittite king, 537\n\nMut-\u00eeli = Methusael, 84, 245\n\nMut-zu\u2019u, 279;\n letter from, 286\n\nNabonassar, 347;\n his death, 356\n\nNabonidus, \u201cwho is over the city,\u201d witness to a contract, 436;\n described on one copy as the son of the king, 436 _n._, 437\n\nNabonidus, king, his parentage, 410;\n expeditions, and reference to Cyrus, 411;\n said to have neglected the gods, 412;\n and brought strange deities, 413;\n his antiquarian researches, 413;\n his son Belshazzar, 414, 447 ff.;\n his daughters, 450, 451;\n his flight before the army of Cyrus, and capture, 415;\n sent to Carmania, 418;\n his record of the downfall of Assyria, 392;\n of the death of Sennacherib, 537 ff.;\n other inscriptions, 411, 414;\n tablets dated in his reign, 444-451;\n his pious works, 445, 446;\n Berosus upon his reign, 410\n\nNabopolassar, king, supposed to have been a Chaldean, 396;\n his alliance with the Medes, 392, 397;\n marches against Nineveh, 392, 393, 397;\n his connection with Syria, 397;\n he builds the two great walls of Babylon, 410;\n his guardian-god, 533;\n frees Akkad from Assyrian yoke, 558\n\nNab\u00fb-bala\u1e6d-su-iqb\u00ee, the father or ancestor of Nabonidus, 410, 437\n\nNab\u00fb-b\u00eal-u\u1e63ur, governor, 346\n\nNab\u00fb-kain-\u00e2\u1e2bi, secretary of Belshazzar, 447, 448\n\nNab\u00fb-nadin-z\u0113ri, 356\n\nNab\u00fb-\u1e63abit-q\u00e2t\u00e2, servant of Neriglissar, 438;\n Laborosoarchod, 443;\n and Belshazzar, 448 ff.\n\nNab\u00fb-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur, one of Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s captains, 434;\n a secretary of Nabonidus, 445\n\nNab\u00fb-\u0161um-iddina, secretary of Neriglissar, 440\n\nNab\u00fb-\u0161um-uk\u00een, Babylonian king, 356;\n a priest of Nebo, 442\n\nNagitu, the three cities called, 373, 380\n\nNaharaina, Naharaim (Upper Mesopotamia), 270, 271, 272, 274, 288, 296,\n 304.\n _See_ Nahrima, Narima, Na\u2019iru\n\nNa\u1e2bar\u00e2u and Nahor, 551\n\nNahor, the city of, 204\n\nNahor, 551;\n traditions concerning, 146\n\nNahrima (Naharaim), 296.\n _See_ Naharaina\n\nNahr-Malka, 158;\n referred to by Mr. Rassam, 159\n\nNahum upon the fall of Nineveh, 393\n\nNa\u2019iru (Mesopotamia), 341, 351\n\nNal mountains, 351\n\nNames given to Merodach, 30-32\n\nNames of captives, 302\n\nNammu, a river-god, 43\n\nNamri, 336, 346, 347\n\nNamyawaza, an Egyptian vassal, 290, 293\n\nNannar(a), worshipped at Ur and Haran (\u1e2aarran), 147, 160, 219 ff.;\n hymns referring to him, 194, 195\n\nNaphtali, 353\n\nNap\u1e2bu\u2019ruria, Nap\u1e2buri (Amenophis IV.), 281, 282\n\nNaram-Sin conquers Elam, 124\n\nNarima (Naharaim), 288\n\nNavigation, Babylonian, 470, 512\n\nNaville, Prof. E., 253, 305;\n upon the stele of Meneptah II., 306\n\nNebo identified with Merodach, 58;\n takes part at the coming of the Flood, 104;\n worshipped at Borsippa, 160, 409, 415;\n named also Lag-gi, 370;\n his titles, 343\n\nNeb-mut-R\u00e2 (Amenophis III.), 276\n\nNebuchadnezzar (Nebuchadrezzar), son of Nabopolassar, 392;\n marries Amytis, sent against the army of Egypt, 397;\n aids, with his brother, in the restoration of the temple E-sagila, 398;\n mounts the throne, 398, 399;\n affairs in Palestine, Syria, Egypt, etc., 399-402;\n his dreams and the golden image, 403, 404;\n his buildings, 405-407;\n his sons, 408;\n was Nabonidus his son-in-law? 407, 437, 438;\n tablets dated in his reign, 432-440;\n his offerings, 433;\n his use of divination, 247;\n his name, 558\n\nNebuzaradan, 400, 558 ff.\n\nNecho of Memphis and Sais, 389 _n._\n\nNefer-titi, the Egyptian name of T\u00e2du-\u1e2b\u00eapa, 276\n\nNegeb, the, 272\n\nNegligence, loss or damage from, 496, 513\n\nNemitti-B\u00eal, wall of Babylon, 405\n\nNephayan, commander-in-chief at Syene, 539 ff.\n\nNergal, Nerigal, god of war, etc., 279, 330;\n identified with Merodach, 58;\n worshipped at Cuthah, 160;\n and in Ala\u0161ia, 278\n\nNergal-sharezer, 408, 409\n\nNergal-u\u0161\u00eazib of Babylonia, 380\n\nNeriglissar (Nergal-\u0161arra-u\u1e63ur), son of B\u00eal-\u0161um-i\u0161kun, 409, 438;\n cattle-owner, 339;\n trader, 440;\n banker, 441;\n mounts the throne, 408, 409;\n his daughter\u2019s marriage, 442;\n tablets dated in his reign, 441-444;\n his death, 410\n\nNet, Merodach\u2019s, wherewith he catches Tiamtu, 24, 131, 550\n\nNibhaz, god of the Avvites, 129\n\nN\u00eebiru, planet Jupiter, 27\n\nNicolas of Damascus upon Abraham, 147\n\nNiffer (Calneh), non-existent at the beginning, 39;\n built by Merodach, 41;\n called Nippur (Niffer), 124;\n its temple-tower, 136;\n its streets and houses, 188, 189;\n the daughter of Niffer laments, 477, 478\n\nNimmal\u1e2b\u00ea, an Amorite captive, 302\n\nNimmuaria (Neb-mut-R\u00e2, Amenophis III.), 276\n\nNimrod, son of Cush, his power and kingdom, 118, 119;\n the same as Merodach, 126, 127, 129, 130;\n \u201cthe mighty hunter,\u201d 131;\n his land, 126;\n how his name assumed this form, 129, 550;\n Arabic Nimrud, 551\n\nNina, goddess, 64\n\nNin-a\u1e2ba-kudu, goddess, 41\n\nNin-edina, 77\n\nNineveh (Ninua), 376, 378, 387;\n probably named after Nina, daughter of Ea or Aa, 64;\n built by Asshur, 118, 126, 127;\n earliest mention of, 491;\n its destruction, 393\n\nNineveh-road, the, 384, 385\n\nNina-gala, goddess of Haran, 546\n\nNin-igi-azaga (Aa or Ea), 114\n\nNinip identified with Merodach, 58;\n his names, 235, 236, 555;\n worshipped near or at Jerusalem and in the west, 235, 278;\n in the Flood-story, 101, 104, 107\n\nNin\u0161a\u1e2b inscription dedicated to, 220\n\nNin-Urmuru (?), 280;\n possible reading _B\u00ealit-n\u00ea\u0161i_, 548\n\nNippuru, 28, 37.\n _See_ Calneh, Niffer\n\nNisaba, the legend of, 76\n\nNi\u1e63ir, the mountain on which the \u201cship\u201d rested, 90, 106\n\nNisroch, the god Asshur, 129\n\nNitocris, queen, 407\n\nNiy, city, 271;\n elephant-hunting near, 273\n\nNon-existent things at the beginning, 16, 39\n\nNudimmud (= Aa, A\u00ea, or Ea), 18;\n asked to subdue the Dragon, fails, 21;\n an abode made for him, 26\n\nNu\u1e2ba\u0161\u0161e, 317;\n an Assyrian district, 280\n\nN\u00fbr-\u00eeli-\u0161u, builds and dedicates a temple, 162\n\nN\u00fbr-Ramm\u0101ni (N\u00fbr-Addi), king of Larsa, 218\n\nNusku, one of the gods of Haran, 202\n\nObelisk, the, emblematic, 265\n\nOfferings, royal, to the gods, 433, 444-446\n\nOfficials\u2019 rights, duties, and responsibilities, 493, 494\n\nOfford, Mr. J., his cylinder, pl. vi. and p. 548;\n his tablet, 559\n\nOg of Bashan, 313\n\nOmri (\u1e2aumr\u00ee), the \u201chouse of Omri,\u201d 332;\n \u201cson of Omri,\u201d 337, 339;\n \u201cland of Omri,\u201d 341\n\nOn (Heliopolis), 258, 264;\n the shrine of, 265\n\nOpis on the Tigris, the battle of, 415, 416;\n tablets dated at, 439, 450, 459\n\nOppert, Prof., 14;\n his suggested Babylonian etymology of Abel, 82, 83;\n dates from Hebrew sources, 332\n\nOppolzer upon the Sothis period, 307\n\nOracles (for Esarhaddon), 385;\n (concerning Nineveh), 393\n\nOsah (U\u0161\u00fb), 374\n\nOsiris, Merodach identified with, 54;\n worshipped at On, 264\n\nOst\u00e2u (Ostanes), 540, 543 ff.\n\nOxen, the hire of, 512\n\nPad\u00ee of Ekron, 375, 376, 377\n\nPalace, house bought for a, 441;\n theft from a, 491, 492, 525\n\nPalaces of Nebuchadnezzar at Babylon, 552\n\nPalastu (Philistia), 341 (_see_ Pili\u0161ta)\n\nPalestine, Egyptian successes in, 270;\n Assyrian do., 329, 336, etc. (Amurr\u016b, \u1e2aatt\u00ee)\n\nPallukatu (the Pallacopas), 70\n\nP\u00e2l\u00fbma, a captive, 302\n\nPanbesa, letter of, 305\n\nPantibiblon, supposed to be Sippar, 63\n\nPaphos, 387\n\nPap-sukal, the god, 433\n\nPapyri of Elephantine, the, 539-544\n\nParadise, the Babylonian, description of, 71, 72;\n its inaccessibility, 72\n\nPariktum (canal), 167\n\nPartnership, 183\n\nParty-walls or fences, 190\n\nPasturing, 496, 497\n\n_Patesi_ (priest-kings or viceroys), 126\n\nPatinians, Kalparundu of the, 334\n\nPatriarchs before Abraham, 141 ff.\n\nPaura (Pauru, Puuru), the king\u2019s commissioner, 297, 298\n\nPeek, Sir Cuthbert, 179\n\nPekah, 352-355\n\nPekod, 458\n\nPekodites, the, 347\n\nPeleg, 145, 552\n \" 544 (note to p. 145)\n\nPelusium besieged, 378, 381\n\nPenalties, for changing the words of a contract, 174;\n for divorcing a wife, or denying a husband, and denying sisterhood (by\n adoption), 175;\n for denying an adopted son, an adopted father, 176, 177;\n for denying a mistress (by a female slave), 185;\n _see also_ 190, 191\n\nPeniel or Penuel, 547\n\nPen-nekheb, officer of Thothmes I., 270\n\nPentaur, Egyptian poet, 304\n\nPeople, the, in early Babylonia, 169-191\n\nPersian rule in Babylonia, 423 ff.\n\nPethor (Pitru), 329\n\nPetrie, Prof. Flinders, 250, 253, 274, 275, 292, 293, 297, 303, 312, 313;\n upon the revival of native Egyptian power, 269;\n on Amenophis II., 273;\n monolith found by, 305\n\nPharaoh not drowned in the Red Sea, 307\n\nPhilistia (Pili\u0161ta, Palastu), 341, 352, 353, 361, 370\n\nPh\u0153nicia, 272, 360\n\nPh\u0153nix, the, 265\n\nPhysicians\u2019 fees and liabilities, 510, 511\n\nPi-Beseth (Pi-Bast, Bubastis), 263\n\nPiercing of Rahab, the, 530\n\nPilinussu, general of Hyspasines, 483\n\nPili\u0161ta (Philistia), 352, 353, 361\n\nPilot or boatman (of Gilgame\u0161), 99;\n (of the ship or ark), 104, 116\n\n_Pirke di Rabbi Eliezer_, 307\n\nPir-napi\u0161tim, the Babylonian Noah, 73;\n Gilgame\u0161 sees him afar off, 99;\n they converse, 100;\n tells Gilgame\u0161 the story of the Flood, 101-108;\n directs his wife to cure Gilgame\u0161, 108;\n tells him of a wonderful plant, 109;\n he was a worshipper of Ea (A\u00ea, Aa), 113, 114;\n and was called also Atra-\u1e2basis, 107, 112, 117;\n his faithfulness to the old deity A\u00ea, 114;\n his name probably Ut-napi\u0161tim, 547\n\nPir\u2019u of Musuri or Musri, 366, 370;\n one of the kings of the sea-coast and the desert, 368\n\nPishon, river, 69, 70\n\nPisiris of Carchemish, 350, 367\n\nPithom, 305\n\nPittit, an Elamite, 483\n\nPlace of fate, the, 472\n\nPlague of darkness, the, 309\n\nPlantation, concerning a, 456, 457\n\nPlanting and plantations, 497\n\nPlant making the old young, the, 75\n\nPlants, Merodach creates, 40\n\nPliny, his reference to king Horus, 124\n\nPolyhistor, 393\n\nPolytheism, the difficulty of escaping it, 246\n\nPotiphar, 255;\n the name, 258\n\nPoti-phera, meaning of, 258\n\nPrayer to be freed from sin, 50-52\n\nPresents, interchange of, 276\n\nPriestesses and votaries, privileges of, 507, 508, 546 (180)\n\nPriest of Nebo marries the daughter of Neriglissar, 442\n\nPriests of On, the, 265\n\nPrim\u00e6val Ocean, the, 16\n\nPrincipal cities, the, of Babylonia, 124\n\nProcession-street at Babylon, the, 552\n\nProfaning herself, of a temple-devotee, 499, 521\n\nProperty of officials, 493-495\n\nProstitution probably not compulsory, 443\n\nProtection of caravans, the, 282\n\nProve purchase and gift, contracts to, 438, 439, 458\n\nPtolemy, 357, 358\n\nPul (= P\u00fblu, Poros), 357, 358\n\nPulug, Pulukku, or Peleg, 544\n\nPura-nunu (the Euphrates), 158\n\nPurattu (Phuraththu), the Euphrates, 158\n\nPurchase of a house, 460\n\nQarqara, royal city, 329, 330, 363;\n the battle there, 556 ff.\n\nQatna, 290, 317\n\nQau\u0161-gabri of Edom, 386\n\nQu\u00ea, 371\n\nQutite, Qutites, 123, 170\n\nQut\u00fb, the land of, 420, 422;\n old lamentation referring to the, 477.\n _See_ Qutite\n\nR\u00e2 or R\u00ea, the Egyptian Sun-god, 254, 264\n\nR\u00e2-\u2019Apop\u2019i and the king of the south, 254\n\nRabb\u0101tum, land of, 224\n\nRabi-mur of Gebal, 288\n\nRab-mag (? = Rab-mugi), 408\n\nRaces, many, in Babylonia, 119, 169, 170, 541, 542\n\nRahab, 68, 530\n\nR\u00e2-Harmachis, 264\n\n\u201cRaian ibn el-Walid,\u201d pharaoh, 263\n\nRaising the spirit of Ea-ban\u00ee, 110\n\nRameses I., 303\n\nRameses II., the pharaoh of the Oppression, 269, 304, 305, 307, 537\n\nRamm\u0101nu (Rimmon), 160, 277\n\nRamoth-Gilead, 338\n\nRanke, Dr. Hermann, 148, 154 _n._\n\nRaphia (Rapi\u1e2bu), 363\n\nR\u00e2-seqenen (Seqenen-R\u00ea) III., 261\n\nRassam, Mr. Hormuzd, 38;\n finds the gates of Balawat, 405, 556;\n his reference to the Nahr-Malka, 159;\n finds bas-relief and inscription of \u1e2aammurabi, 215;\n cylinder of Cyrus, 411, 419;\n his family in the East, 394\n\nRaven, sending forth of the, 106\n\nRawlinson, Sir Henry, recognizes Eridu as a type of Paradise, 71;\n his identification of Ur (Mugheir), 193;\n and Kudur-mabuk, 222\n\nReaper, hire of a, 168\n\nReceiver, liabilities of a, 492, 520\n\nRehoboth, Rehoboth-Ir, built by Asshur, 118, 127\n\nReisner, Dr. G. A., 156\n\nReligion of the Western states, 277-279\n\nReligious element, the, 159 ff.\n\nRent, 448\n\nReproaching the Amorite, 300\n\nRepudiation of master by slave, 515 (law 282)\n\nResen, its origin, 126, 127\n\nRespect for parents, 509, 522\n\nRetaliation, the law of, 509, 510\n\nRezin, Rezon (Rasunnu), 350, 353, 355\n\nRia (the Egyptian R\u00e2 or R\u00ea), 254\n\nRianappa, the representative of Egypt, 287\n\nRib-Addi of Gebal, etc., 293, 313\n\nRieu, Dr., 263\n\nRight of way, tablet concerning, 459\n\nRim-Anu, king, 217\n\nRimmon (or Hadad), god of the atmosphere, identified with Merodach, 58;\n in the Flood-story, 104, 277 (Addu, Ramm\u0101nu)\n\nR\u00eem-Sin, 164;\n connection of this name with Eri-Aku, 216, 217;\n capture of, 213, 214, 217;\n inscription of, 220, 221\n\nRivers, the mouths of [which are on] both sides, 73;\n the place of the Babylonian Paradise, 71, 72\n\nRost, Dr. P., 347, 348, 352\n\nRoyal family, the, among the people, 166-168\n\nRoyal letters, 165\n\nRubenstein, Dr. Otto, 544\n\nRubute, city, 299\n\nR\u00fbkipti of Askelon, 355, 356\n\nRutennu (Syrians), 303;\n the Upper, 274;\n Upper and Lower, 304;\n conquered by Thothmes I., 270\n\nSabbath, the Babylonian, 27, 527, 528, pl. ii.\n\nSabeans, the, 203, 363\n\nSachau, Prof. E., 539 ff., 542\n\nSacrifice, the, on coming out of the ship (ark), 106\n\nSacrilegious theft, the punishment of, 553\n\nSadi-Tesub, son of Hattu-\u0161ar, 320\n\n_\u0160ad\u00fb_, _\u0160addu_, \u201cmountain,\u201d \u201clord,\u201d \u201ccommander,\u201d 248\n\nSA-GAS = _\u1e2babatu_, _\u1e2babbatu_, 291, 292, 538\n\n\u0160a-im\u0113ri\u0161u, Im\u0113risu (Syria of Damascus), 329, 334, 336, 337, 341, 354, 356\n\nSajur (river), 329\n\n\u0160ala, consort of Rimmon or Hadad, 212\n\nSalatis, Hyksos king, 251\n\nSalem, 239-241\n\nSale of a son by his parents, 435, 436\n\nSales of land, 237, 238;\n slaves, 466, 559 ff.\n\n_\u0160alim_, _\u0161alimmu_, _\u0160ulmanu_ (_Salmanu_), _\u0160almanu nunu_, _\u0161al\u0101mu_,\n 239-241\n\nSalmay\u0101tu, worshipped at Tyre, 278\n\nSalvation, Babylonian desire for, 52\n\nSamaria, 322;\n Ben-Hadad\u2019s attempts upon, 330, 333, 338;\n Pekah\u2019s flight from, 354, 355;\n revolts, 363;\n Menahem of, 350\n\nSamarians, city of the, 350\n\n\u0160ama\u0161, the Sun-god, 77;\n identified with Merodach, 58;\n monsters guard him, 98;\n appoints the time for the coming of the Flood, 103, 104, 115;\n in Mitanni, 278\n\n\u0160ama\u0161-\u0161um-uk\u00een, king of Babylon, 388\n\nSammu-ramat (Semiramis), 342, 343\n\nSams\u00ea, Samsi, queen of Arabia, 354, 363\n\nSamsi-Adad III., king, 339\n\nSamsimuruna, city, 386\n\nSamsimurun\u00e2a, Menahem, the, 374\n\nSamsu-iluna (king), 142;\n length of his reign, 153;\n tablets dated therein, 179, 180, 187, 188\n\nSamsu-\u1e6ditana, king, 153\n\nS\u00e2n (deity), 156\n\nS\u00e2n (Zoan), 263;\n the inhabitants said to be of a different type from those of other\n places in Egypt, 266\n\nSanaballat (Sinuballi\u1e6d), governor of Samaria, 541, 543\n\nSanacharib (Sennacherib), 378, 381\n\nSangara of Carchemish, 329, 334;\n called king of the Hatt\u00ea, 321\n\n\u0160ani\u0101wa, name, 458\n\nSaniru (Shenir), 336\n\nSaosduchinos (Sama\u0161-\u0161um-uk\u00een), 388;\n refuses to acknowledge his brother\u2019s suzerainty, 391\n\nSap\u00eea, city, 357\n\nSaracos (Sin-\u0161arra-i\u0161kun), 392, 396\n\nSarah, 148\n\nSarasar (Shareser), 378\n\nSardurri of Ararat, 347\n\n\u0160argani (Sargon of Agad\u00e9), 124\n\nSargon of Agad\u00e9, 124, 313;\n ruler of Amurr\u016b, 215;\n period and extent of his rule, 150;\n _see also_ 549 ff.\n\nSargon (Sargina) the later, the Arkeanos of Ptolemy, 362;\n his annals, 367;\n his conquests, 322, 363-372;\n his death, 372\n\nSar\u1e2ba (Zorah), 280\n\nSar-\u00eeli, name, 157, 245\n\n\u0160arru and \u0160ullat, foundation of a temple to, 162\n\n\u0160arru, a captive, 302\n\nSarru-d\u00fbri, one of Darius\u2019s captains, 456\n\n\u0160arru-\u00eel\u00fba, servant of Neriglissar, 439\n\n\u0160arru-l\u00fb-d\u00e2ri of Askelon, 374\n\n\u0160arru-l\u00fb-d\u00e2ri of Zoan, 389 _n._\n\nSau\u00ea mountains, 349\n\nSayce, Prof., 14;\n identifies the Babylonian story of Paradise, 71; 124;\n researches in Hittite, 140, 318;\n upon the Amorites and Tidalum, 311, 312;\n his analysis of a Hittite name, 321;\n see also 283 _n._, 332, 539 _n._\n\nScape-goat, Babylonian parallel to the, 53\n\nScheil, the Rev. V., 117, 487 ff., 536, 549, 558\n\nSchrader, Prof. Eberhard, 143;\n identifies Amraphel with \u1e2aammurabi, 209;\n _see also_ 341, 342\n\nSea, the, personified by Tiamtu, 16, 67;\n the abode of the god of knowledge, 62\n\nSea-coast, kings of the, 334, 335, 340\n\nSeir, 296\n\nSeizing the person for debt, 500, 521\n\nSeleucia upon the Tigris, 476, 483, 484\n\nSeleucus and the Babylonians, 476;\n Seleucus and Antiochus, tablet dated in the reign of, 477, 478\n\nSellas river. _See_ \u1e62il\u1e2bu\n\nSemiramis, 342, 344\n\nSemitic names replace the Akkadian, 125;\n Semitic inscriptions more numerous, 119\n\nSennacherib, 129, 372, 373-384;\n in Armenia, against Merodach-baladan, the Cosseans and Yasubigalleans,\n \u1e2aatti (Sidon, Ekron, Hezekiah, etc.), 373-376;\n before Lachish, 377, 382;\n in Babylonia, 379;\n Elam, 380;\n against Egypt, 381;\n his treatment of the Babylonians, 396;\n his death, 383, 384, 550\n\nSeqnen-R\u00ea, the death of, 255 _n._\n\n\u0160\u00eari (Seir), 296\n\nSerpent and magic plant, 109;\n serpent-god and the abode of life, 532;\n serpent-tempter, the 531\n\nSer\u00fb-\u00ea\u1e6dirat, princess, 392\n\nSethos and Hephaistos, 549 (381)\n\nSeti I., Meneptah, 304\n\n\u201cSeven\u201d a round number, 263\n\nSeven kings of Cyprus send tribute, 372\n\nSeventh day, the Flood stops on the, 105;\n the birds sent forth seven days later, 106;\n duties of the, 528 (_see_ Sabbath)\n\nShaaraim, 297\n\nShaddai, a possible etymology of, 248\n\nShalam (Salamis), 305\n\nShalman, 239\n\nShalmaneser II., his accession, 328;\n refers to Ahab and Ben-Hadad, 331 ff.;\n Jehu son of Omri, 332, 337-339;\n his death, 339\n\nShalmaneser III., his accession and expeditions, 344\n\nShalmaneser IV., his accession and expeditions, 357, 358-362\n\nShare of the cultivator, the, 495, 525\n\nShareser, Sarasar, 378, 384, 385\n\nShasu Bedouin, the, 271, 304\n\nShaving the head in Egypt and Western Asia, 257\n\nSheep, the, of Neriglissar\u2019s servant, 438\n\nShelemiah, son of Sauballa\u1e6d, 541\n\nShem, 141\n\nShepherd kings, the, in Egypt, 251, 252 ff.\n\nShepherd loved by I\u0161tar, her treatment of him, 96, 97\n\nSheshonq of Busiris, 389 _n._\n\nShinar (Babylonia), 118;\n regarded as equivalent to Sumer, 119, 134;\n its etymology, 548 ff.\n\nShip, Gilgame\u0161 and Ur-\u0160anabi embark in a, 99;\n Gilgame\u0161 lies down in its \u201cenclosure,\u201d 108\n\nShip, Pir-napi\u0161tim commanded to build one to escape the Flood, 102, 113;\n its building and provisionment, 103, 114;\n the embarkation, 103, 104, 115;\n the pilot, 104, 116;\n the god Uragala, 104;\n Pir-napi\u0161tim looks forth, 105;\n the mountain of Ni\u1e63ir, and the sending of the birds, 105;\n Ellila\u2019s anger and A\u00ea\u2019s kindness, 106, 107\n\nShrine of R\u00e2 at On, 265\n\nShrines of the gods at Babylon, 472\n\nShuhites, 319\n\n_Shulchan Aroch_, the, 306\n\nSibitti-bi\u2019ili of Gebal, 350\n\nSickness of the head, incantation against, 55, 56\n\nSidon in the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, 277, 300;\n its tribute to Shalmaneser II. (337), 338, 339;\n conquered by Adad-nirari, 341;\n Tiglate-pileser III., 360;\n Sennacherib, 373;\n Esarhaddon, 386;\n Great and Little Sidon, 374\n\nSidonians (\u1e62idun\u00e2a), 328, 337, 374\n\n\u1e62idq\u00e2 of Askelon, 374\n\nSiduri, goddess, consulted by Gilgame\u0161, 99\n\nSihon, 313\n\n\u1e62il\u1e2bu, river (the Sellas ?), 484, 561\n\n\u1e62ili-I\u0161tar and Iribam-Sin, their dissolution of partnership and the\n lawsuit following, 183-185\n\nSilili, mother of the horse beloved of I\u0161tar, 96\n\n\u1e62illi-b\u00eal of Gaza, 376, 386\n\nSiluna, country of, 340\n\nSimiles, Babylonian, 52\n\n\u1e62imirra (Simyra), 348, 351\n\nSimti-\u0160ilhak, king, 219\n\nSimyra (\u1e62imirra, \u1e62umuru), 277, 293, 313, 348, 351, 363\n\nSin, the Moon-god, identified with Merodach, 58;\n worshipped at Ur and Sippar, 160, 194, 195;\n also at Haran, 201, 202, 411\n\nSin-idinnam of Larsa, 165, 169, 218\n\nSinjar, 304\n\nSin-m\u00e2r-\u0161arri-u\u1e63ur, servant of one of Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s sons, 435\n\nSin-mubali\u1e6d, king, 153;\n tablets of his reign, 178, 179, 180, 181\n\nSin-\u0161arra-i\u0161kun (Saracos), the last king of Assyria, 392, 396\n\nSippar or Sippara (now Abu-Habbah), discovered by H. Rassam, 394;\n its four names, 70;\n supposed to be Sepharvaim, 158;\n dated tablets from, 211;\n captured by Tiglath-pileser, 347;\n by Cyrus, 415, 416;\n its gods, 415;\n _see also_ 38, 63, 484\n\nSippara of Eden, 70\n\nSippar-Amnanu(m), 161, 552 ff.\n\nSippar-Ya\u2019ruru (Aruru), 161, 165, 553\n\nSirara, forests of, 387\n\nSir\u2019ilites (Sir\u2019il\u00e2a, Israelites), 329, 330, 332, 335, 337\n\nSirku, a Babylonian magnate, 454, 467 ff.\n\n\u0160irru, land of, 206, 207\n\nSir\u00fb, land of, 206, 207\n\nSisters, the, of Belshazzar, 450, 451\n\nSlander, 504 (law 161)\n\nSlavery, 182, 185-187, 515\n\nSmall Hittite states, 322\n\nSmerdis, 424\n\nSmith, George, publishes the Babylonian Creation-story, 14;\n the original of Berosus\u2019 Canon, 84; the Gilgame\u0161-series, 90;\n conducts the _Daily Telegraph_ expedition, 90;\n and finds a fragment of the second Flood-story, 117;\n arranges the series, 91, 93, 95;\n identifies Arioch, 209;\n concerning Shalmaneser IV., 359, 362\n\nSmiting a father, 509 (law 195)\n\nSo, king of Egypt, 359, 365, 366\n\n\u201cSon of his God,\u201d the, 86\n\n\u201cSons of God,\u201d the, 85\n\nSons of Syrian chiefs educated in Egypt, 274\n\nSons, the, of Yakinl\u00fb of Arvad, 390\n\nSothis period, 307\n\nSpells, 491 (laws 1 and 2)\n\nSphinxes, Hyksos, 264\n\nSpiegelberg upon the stele of Meneptah II., 306\n\nSpirit of Ea-ban\u00ee, the raising of, 110\n\nSpirits of heaven and earth, invocation of, 56\n\nSpirits of the departed, their lot, 111\n\nStars, creation of, 27\n\nStates regarded by the Assyrians as Hittite, 322\n\nSteindorff\u2019s translation of Zaphnath-paaneah, 257\n\nStele of Meneptah II., extract from the, 306\n\nStephen, Saint, 192\n\nStorage and deposit, 500 (laws 120 ff.)\n\nStorm at the coming of the Flood, description of the, 104, 105\n\nStreets of Babylonian cities, 188, 189\n\n\u0160u-anna (Su-ana), a part of Babylon, foreign gods taken thither, 414, 420;\n Cyrus enters and receives tribute there, 420, 422;\n _see also_ 433\n\n\u0160u-ardatum, 299\n\n\u1e62uba\u2019 or \u1e62uma\u2019, city of the land of, tablet dated at, 457\n\nSubarte, 318\n\n\u0160ubbiluliuma, Hittite king, 537\n\nS\u016b\u1e2bu and Ma\u00ebr, states, 319, 556\n\n\u0160ulmanu-a\u0161arid (Shalmaneser), 239\n\n\u1e62uma\u2019, land of. _See_ \u1e62uba\u2019\n\n\u0160um-Addu (\u0160amu-Addu) of \u0160am-\u1e2buna, 279\n\nSuma-\u00eelu, king, 162, 163\n\n\u0160umer (= Kengi), Sumerian, 119, 134;\n texts (incantations), 39 ff., 55, 86, 120, 121\n\n\u0160umer and Akkad, 541;\n mentioned by Cyrus, 420;\n in titles, 347, 421\n\nSumero-Akkadian, its nature, 120, 121;\n early period, 552\n\nSumu, apparently a deity, 142;\n names compounded with his, 142\n\nSumu-\u00e2bi, king, 153, 154\n\nSumu-Dagan, name, 142\n\nSumu-la-\u00eeli (king), his name, 142, 153, 154;\n tablet dated in his reign, 173, 174;\n (Sumulel), 181\n\nSumulel (= Sumu-la-\u00eeli), 181\n\n\u0160umu-lib\u0161\u00ee, a witness, 167\n\nSun, a title of the kings of Egypt, 284, 286, 287, 289, 295\n\nSun, the city of the, 446\n\nSun the indicator of the seasons, 115\n\nSun-devotees, Babylonian, 161, 168\n\nSun-god, the, 58, 77, 92, 103, 115;\n (_see_ \u0160ama\u0161), worshipped at Sippar and Larsa, 160;\n the centre of his worship in Egypt, 258\n\nS\u00fbq\u00e2ain, tablet dated at, 457\n\nSurgeons\u2019 fees and penalties, 510\n\nSurippak, where the gods decided to make a flood, 101;\n the native place of Pir-napi\u0161tim, 102\n\nSuri or North Syria, the king of, 347\n\nSur-\u0160anabi (Ur-\u0160anabi), 540\n\nSuru, land of, 206, 207\n\nSusa, city of, 422\n\nSusanchites, the, 391\n\n\u0160\u00fbta, royal commissioner, 296\n\n\u0160utadna of Akka (Accho), 281\n\nSutekh, the god of the Hyksos, 254\n\nSut\u00ee (Sutite, Sutites), 123, 158, 170, 291, 292, 368;\n brigands, 283\n\n\u0160\u00fbzubu (Nergal-us\u00eazib), 380\n\nSwallow, the, sent forth, 106\n\nSwearing by the gods and the king, 162, 163, 174 ff.\n\nSyncellus, 393\n\nSyria, Egyptian successes in, 270, 271;\n (Rameses II.), 304;\n Syria in the time of Amenophis III., 274;\n on the stele of Meneptah, 306;\n Shalmaneser II. there, 336 ff.;\n Adad-nirari, 341;\n Shalmaneser III., 344;\n Tiglath-pileser, 347, 351;\n Sargon, 367;\n Sennacherib, 373 ff.\n\nSyrian campaigns, Thothmes I., 270\n\nTabal (Tubal), 367\n\nTablet of Good Wishes, the, 81\n\nTablets of Fate given to Kingu, 19;\n taken by Merodach, who presses his seal upon them, 25\n\nTablets referring to Chedorlaomer, Tidal, and Arioch, 223 ff.\n\nT\u00e2du-h\u00eapa, princess of Mitanni, asked in marriage (? for Amenophis IV.),\n 276\n\nTakhsi, near Aleppo, 273\n\nTakr\u0113ta_in_ (?), tablet dated at, 439\n\nTalents, parable of the, 525\n\nTalmud, the, 195 _n._, 203\n\nTamessus, 387\n\nTamar, the case of, 525\n\nTammuz, in Akk. Dumu-zi or Du-mu-zida, 72, 82;\n his names, 539;\n possible parallel to the story of Cain and Abel, 83;\n his wife, I\u0161tar, causes him grief, 96;\n his temple-tower at Agad\u00e9 (Akkad), 136;\n worshipped also at Eridu, 160;\n in the west, 279;\n early date of his worship, 555;\n _see also_ 547\n\nTammuz of the Abyss, 43, 63, 65\n\nT\u00e2mtu, the coast-land, 122, 123\n\nTanis (Zoan), 264.\n _See_ S\u00e2n\n\nTaribu, queen, 173\n\nTarpelites, the, 391\n\nTa\u0161m\u00eatum, spouse of Nebo, 213\n\nTauth\u00e9 (= Tiamtu), 16, 67\n\nTaylor Cylinder, 373\n\nTeie (Teyi), the first wife of Amenophis III., 275, 276\n\nTel-A\u0161\u0161ur (Til-A\u0161urri), 388\n\nTel-Basta (Bubastis), 264\n\nTel-el-Amarna tablets, 249, 275-302\n\nTel-Sifr ruin-mound, 176, 211, 214\n\nTem\u00e2, Babylonian city, 412\n\nTemeni, land of, 343\n\nTemple, gift of a, 162\n\nTemple (Jewish) at Elephantine, 539 ff.;\n destroyed, 540\n\nTemple of Belus, the, 552\n\nTemple of the Sun-god, declaration made in the, 184\n\nTemples restored by the early kings, 161, 162;\n benefited by \u1e2aammurabi, 489-491\n\nTemple-towers, Babylonian, 136 ff.\n\nTenneb (Tunep, Dunip), 277;\n its government, 280\n\nTerah, traditions concerning, 146;\n stated to have been an idolater, 147, 195;\n his journey from Ur to Haran, 192, 195, 196;\n his name compared, 544\n\nTeraphim, the, 246, 524\n\nTe\u0161upa or Te\u0161ub, Hadad of Mitanni, 277\n\nTeuwatti of Lapana, 289\n\nThargal, for Thadgal = Tidal, 232.\n _See_ Tud\u1e2bula\n\nThebais, kings of, 252\n\nThebes and the Thebans, their aid in expelling the Hyksos, 269, 270;\n the birthplace of Thothmes III., 271;\n stronghold of Tirhakah, 389\n\nTheft (death-penalty for), 491, 492;\n by an _employ\u00e9_, 513;\n of things deposited, 501, 521;\n _see also_ 520, 561\n\nThompson, Prof. Campbell, 559\n\nThoth, 264\n\nThothmes I., 270\n\nThothmes II., 271\n\nThothmes III., 271, 316\n\nThothmes IV., 274, 316\n\n\u201cThrone-bearers\u201d of the gods, 82\n\nThureau-Daugin, Morsiem F., 218\n\nTiamat, 67. _See_ Tiamtu\n\nTiamtu or Tiawthu (= Tauth\u00e9), 16, 17, 33;\n being joined by certain gods, prepares to fight, 18 ff.;\n her husband Kingu, 19, 20;\n terrifies the gods Anu and Nudimmud, 21;\n caught by Merodach, 24, 131;\n conquered, 25;\n cut asunder, 26;\n her head pierced, 31;\n meaning of her name, 33, 67;\n why applied, 68;\n her desire to be the creator or producer, 34, 35;\n how typified in the O. T., 68\n\nTiamtu, the sea-coast, 230\n\nTidal, 222.\n _See_ Tud\u1e2bula\n\nTidalum = Tidnu = Amurr\u016b, 312\n\nTidnu, the Akkadian name of Amurr\u016b (the land of the Amorites), 206, 208,\n 312;\n ideograph for, 312\n\nTiglath-pileser I., 129;\n kills elephants in Mesopotamia and Lebanon, 200, 201;\n attacks the Hittites, 318\n\nTiglath-pileser III., 346;\n \u201cking of Sumer and Akkad,\u201d 347;\n captures Arpad, 347;\n Kullan\u00fb, etc., 348;\n tribute from Syria, 350;\n marches to Mad\u00e2a, Nal, and Ararat, 351;\n takes Gaza, 352;\n marches to Damascus, helps Ahaz, 353;\n describes the flight of the Syrian king, 354;\n his conquests, 355, 356;\n submission of Chaldean tribes, entry into Babylon, death, 357;\n = Pul, 357, 358\n\nTigris and Euphrates, creation of, 40;\n mentioned in Gen. i., 69;\n rivers of the district of Sippar, 158;\n and of Babylon, 471\n\nTigris, the, flows close to Nineveh, 393;\n Cyrus and the districts of, 422;\n Elamite incursions thither, 483.\n _See_ Seleucia\n\nTi\u2019im\u016b\u1e6dusu, son of Asp\u0101sin\u0113, 483\n\nTil-barsip, 328\n\nTil-garimme (Togarmah), 271, 368\n\nTilla (= Ararat), 122, 208\n\nTima\u0161gi (regarded as Dima\u0161ki = Damascus), 290\n\nTimnah (Tamn\u00e2), 375\n\nTindir (Babylon), 420, 421\n\nel-Tireh, 293\n\nTirhakah, 383, 388, 389\n\nTithes, payments of, 434\n\nTitle of the Gilgame\u0161 legend, 91\n\nTogarmah (Tilgarimme), 271, 368\n\n\u201cTooth for tooth,\u201d 509\n\nTopography of Babylon, 552\n\nTower of Babel, the Mohammedan legend of the, 551\n\nTranscription of lines referring to Antiochus\u2019s rule in Babylonia, 553\n\nTree-felling, 497 (law 59)\n\nTowns in the ancient East, 188\n\nTrade between Canaan and Babylonia, 281\n\nTranslation of the hero of the Flood, 108, 116\n\nTranslation, Semitic, inserted in the divided Akkadian lines, 38\n\n\u201cTree of the drink of life\u201d = the vine, 75\n\n\u201cTree of knowledge,\u201d 73;\n the Babylonian parallel of the, 77\n\n\u201cTree of life,\u201d 73;\n a Babylonian parallel of the, 75\n\nTrees, sacred, of the Babylonians and Assyrians, 74-77, pl. III.\n\nTribes classed as Amorites, 311\n\nTribute of Carchemish of the Hittites, 321\n\nTubal, 367, 390\n\nTuckwell, the Rev. J., 551\n\nTud\u1e2bula, the probable Babylonian form of Tidal, 222, 223, 224, 227, 231,\n 232, 537, 554\n\nTukulti-Ninip I. annexes Babylonia, 327, 371\n\nTum or Tmu, 264\n\nTunep, Syrian town, 272;\n its resistance, 305\n (Dunip, Tenneb)\n\n\u1e6cpa\u0161u, canal, 468\n\nTurbazu killed, 296\n\nTu\u0161amilki of Mu\u1e63ur, 390\n\nTutam\u00fb, king of Unqu, 348\n\nTutu, a name of Merodach, 30;\n the explanation given, 45\n\nT\u00fbya, a captive, 302\n\nTwo wives, marriage-contracts for, 174, 175\n\nTy, Ay\u2019s queen, 303\n\nTyre (\u1e62urru), 277, 338, 339, 360, 373, 386, 400;\n blockaded by Nebuchadnezzar, 490;\n \u1e62\u00fbru =? Tyre, 401;\n contract dated at, 401\n\nTyre, the land of, conquered by Adad-nirari, 341\n\nTyre, Old (Palaetyrus), 360\n\nTyrians, the land of the, pays tribute, 328, 337, 350;\n resists Shalmaneser IV., 360\n\nUbe, Syria of Damascus, 290\n\nUdumu, 310;\n (Edom), 322, 341, 370, 374, 386\n\nUgga, the god of Death, 36\n\nUkabu\u2019\u0161ama, daughter of Nabonidus, 451\n\nUk\u00een-z\u0113r (Chinzeros), 356, 357\n\nUkka, 127\n\nUkus, patesi, 124\n\nUl-\u0160ama\u0161, city, 213\n\nUmbara-Tutu, father of Pir-napi\u0161tim, 102\n\nUmmanaldas of Elam, 391\n\nUmman-manda, the, 230, 392\n\nUmmu \u1e2aubur, a designation of Tiamtu, 18\n\nUnknown tongue, an, 140\n\nUnlawful pasturing, 496, 521\n\nUnqu, 348\n\nUnskilful surgical treatment, penalties for, 510, 511\n\nUnug, Akkadian form of the name of Erech, 84\n\nUpa\u1e2b\u1e2bir-b\u00ealu, eponymy of, 372\n\nUp\u00ea, Upia (Opis), 439, 458, 459\n\nUp\u00ea-rabi, \u201cOpis is great,\u201d name, 182\n\nUp\u0161ukenaku, the place of assembly of the gods, 21\n\nUr (of the Chaldees), 124;\n its temple-tower, 136, 193-195;\n = Urie or Camarina, 146, 147, 196, 197;\n identified with Mugheir, 193;\n possibly really Uri or Ura (Akkad), 197;\n rebels against Assyria, 386;\n Nabonidus\u2019s inscriptions at, 414, 415;\n name of its wall or fortification, 220\n\nUra, god of pestilence, 107;\n legend of Ura, 122;\n \u201cUra the unsparing,\u201d 228;\n invoked by Evil-Merodach, 409\n\nUra-gala and the ship (ark), 104\n\nUrar\u1e6du (Ararat), 127.\n _See_ Urt\u016b\n\nUra\u0161, god of Dailem, 279;\n the great gate of, 468\n\nUrbi, the, 376, 557\n\nUrdaman\u00ea, son of Sabaco, 389\n\nUrfa (Orfa), the traditional Ur of the Chaldees, 192, 193\n\nUri or Ura = Akkad, 122, 134\n\nUrie (Ur of the Chaldees), 146;\n a centre of lunar worship, 147\n\nUrikku of the K\u00fbites, 350\n\nUriwa, the Akkadian form of Ur (Mugheir), 193 ff.\n\nUr-kasdim (Ur of the Chaldees), 193.\n _See_ Ur of the Chaldees\n\nUrra\u1e2bina\u0161, Hittite city, 320\n\nUrsalimmu (Jerusalem), 375, 376\n\nUr-\u0160anabi, the pilot or boatman, accompanies Gilgame\u0161 to see Pir-napi\u0161tim,\n 99;\n takes the hero to be cleansed, 109;\n returns with him to Erech, 109, 110;\n Sur-\u0160anabi, 548\n\nUr\u1e6d\u016b (apparently short for Urar\u1e6du), Ararat, 122, 208\n\nUru (in Uru-salim), probably from the Akkadian, 241\n\nUru-gala, the image of, 480, 561\n\n_Uruk supuri_, \u201cErech the walled,\u201d 91\n\nUru-ku, the dynasty of, 154\n\nUrumaians (Hittites), 318\n\nUru-milki of Gebal, 374\n\nUru-salim (Jerusalem), 234, 239\n\nUruwu\u0161 (king), 124\n\nUsertesen I., 261\n\nU\u0161tan(n)u (Ostanes), 543 ff.\n\nUt-napi\u0161tim, 548\n\nVan, 127, 367\n\nVannites, 391\n\nVenus, 203.\n _See_ Istar\n\nVeterinary surgeons\u2019 fees and penalties, 511\n\nVicious cattle, laws concerning, 512, 523\n\nVillage settlements, growth of, 171\n\nVine, the, 75\n\nVine of the Babylonian Paradise, 71\n\nViolation, penalty for, 501, 521\n\nVirgins, priestesses, and hierodules, 508\n\nVowel-changes in the Akkadian dialects, 241\n\nWaidrang, governor of Elephantine, 539\n\nWall built at Ur (Uriwa) by Eri-Aku, 220\n\nWard, Dr. W. Hayes, conductor of the Wolfe expedition, 70\n\n\u201cWarehouse of the king\u2019s gifts,\u201d the, 445\n\nWater, concerning the king\u2019s, etc., 446\n\n\u201cWaters of death,\u201d the, 99\n\nWay, the Rev. Dr. J. P., 155\n\nWeissbach, Dr., 556, 558\n\nWedding-gift, the bridegroom\u2019s, 553\n\nWest called Amurr\u016b (Amoria, the land of the Amorites), 205\n\nWest-land, no record of an expedition to, in the reign of \u1e2aammurabi, 214,\n 215;\n his claim to this tract, 215\n\nWest-Semitic deities, 156;\n names, 157\n\nWhitehouse, Mr. F. Cope, 263\n\nWiedemann, Prof., 253\n\nWife of Pir-napi\u0161tim prepares the magic food, 108, 109\n\nWife-seeking, Abraham\u2019s, for his son, parallels to, 524\n\nWild animals damage by, 512, 523\n\nWinckler, Dr. Hugo, 235, 297, 537, 538\n\nWine-women, 499 (laws 108 ff.)\n\nWi\u0161yari, a captive, 302\n\nWitnesses necessary, 500, 501;\n names of, 162, 237, 238, etc.\n\nWorking an ox unlawfully, 512, 523\n\nWorking-off debt, 500 (law 117)\n\nWorkmen, hire of, 188, 514\n\nWorship, lines upon, 49\n\nXenophon, 422\n\nXerxes, forms of his name, 428\n\nYaana or Yawani, a Hittite, 369, 370\n\nYaanana. _See_ Yatnana.\n\nY\u00e2, Ya\u2019u, Au, Aa, names containing, 59\n\nY\u00e2-ab\u00ee-ni, name, 60\n\nYabitiri, governor of Gaza and Jaffa, 279;\n to the king of Egypt, 284\n\nYabu\u0161u, name, 324\n\nYa-Dagunu, name, 59\n\nYa\u2019en\u1e2bamu (Yan\u1e2bamu), 298\n\nYahu (Jah, Jehovah), temple of, at Elephantine, 539 ff., 544\n\nYahwah, 342.\n _See_ -y\u0101wa\n\nYakinl\u00fb of Arvad, 389;\n sends his sons to Assur-ban\u00ee-\u00e2pli, 390\n\n_Yakubu_, _Yakubi_, _Yakub-\u00eelu_, _Ya\u2019kubi-\u00eelu_ (Jacob, Jacob-el), and\n other similarly-formed names, 157, 183, 243-245, 554\n\nYamutb\u0101lu, Emutb\u0101lu, conquered by \u1e2aammurabi, 211, 212, 214, 216\n\nYan\u1e2bamu, an Egyptian official, 285, 295, 298\n\nYanz\u00fb, king of Na\u2019iri or Mesopotamia, 367\n\nYapa-Addu, 293\n\nYapti\u2019-Addu killed, 296\n\nYapu, Yappu (Jaffa), 285, 375\n\nYaraqu traversed by Shalmaneser, 334, 349\n\nYasubigalleans, 373\n\n_Ya\u0161upum_, _Ya\u0161up-\u00eelu_ (Joseph, Joseph-el), and other similarly-formed\n names, 157, 243\n\nYatnana (Yaanana), Cyprus, 387\n\nYa\u2019u, Yaum, etc., 535, 536;\n suggested etymology of, 113;\n supposed to have been identified with Aa or Ea, 18\n\nYaua (Jehu), 337, 339\n\nYau-bi\u2019idi (= Ilu-bi\u2019idi) of Hamath, 322, 363, 366\n\nYaudu, Yaudi (Judah), 370, 386, 389\n\nYaum-\u00eelu, name, meaning \u201cJah is God\u201d (Joel), 199 _n._\n\nYa\u2019wa, Y\u00e2wa, 535\n\n-y\u0101wa, names ending in, 458, 465, 470, 471\n\nYa(\u2019)we-\u00eelu, name, 535\n\nYeb (Elephantine), 539 ff.;\n meaning of the name, 544\n\nYedoniah of Elephantine, 539 ff.\n\nYehohanan (Johanan or John), 540, 542\n\nYidia of Askelon to the king of Egypt, 286, 287\n\nYoke of Assyria thrown off by Nabopolassar, 550\n\nYoung, plant to make the old, 109\n\nZabib\u00e9, queen of Arabia, 350\n\nZab\u00fb, Zabium (king), 153;\n tablets dated in his reign, 174, 183, 237\n\nZagaga, god of battle, identified with Merodach, 58;\n temple of, at Ki\u0161, 213, 214, 415, 489\n\nZahi (Ph\u0153nicia), 270\n\nZaphnath-paaneah, Steindorff\u2019s translation of, 257\n\nZarephath (Sareptu), 374\n\nZedekiah, captured, 400.\n _See_ Mattaniah\n\nZelah, 297\n\nZ\u0113ru-k\u00eanu-l\u00eesir, son of Merodach-baladan, 386\n\nZ\u0113r-panitum, consort of Merodach, 160, 212;\n swearing by, 433;\n invocation of, 466;\n _see also_ 472, 479\n\nZ\u0113r\u00fb-B\u00e2b\u00eeli (Zerubbabel, better Zeru-Babel), a frequent name, 425, 441,\n 559\n\nZeus (Belos), 137\n\n_Zikurat Babili_, 139\n\nZil\u00fb city, 296\n\nZimmern, Prof. H., 68, 536, 546\n\nZimr\u00eada of Sidon, hostile to Egypt, 293;\n Zimr\u00eada of Lachish, threatened, 296;\n another Z., 556\n\nZiri-Ba\u0161ani (field of Bashan), 277\n\nZoan, supposed place where Joseph met Pharaoh, 253\n\nZubuduru, messenger of Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s son, 434\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n 1 Written on the edge of the tablet in the Assyrian copy.\n\n 2 Cf. the royal names, Anman-ila, Bunta\u1e2btun-ila, etc., in the\n so-called Arabic Dynasty of Babylon. (P. 154.)\n\n 3 Literally \u201che who feareth not his god.\u201d\n\n 4 The Akkadian line has \u201cthe sickness (disease) of the head.\u201d\n\n_ 5 Cuneiform Inscriptions and the O.T._, 2nd edit. vol. i. p. 28.\n\n 6 A later explanation by Prof. Sayce is, that Enoch may be \u1e2aana, \u201con\n the east side of Babylonia,\u201d with the determinative suffix _ki_\n (making \u1e2aanaki) added. See _Expository Times_, Jan. 1902, p. 179.\n\n 7 In this description of the contents of the 12 tablets referring to\n Gilgame\u0161, the common reading of the name of his friend and companion\n has been retained, partly to keep a form which was more or less\n familiar, and partly because the reading is doubtful. From the new\n text discovered by Meissner, however, the name would seem not to be\n \u00caa-bani, but \u00caa-du or Enki-du. Future discoveries may ultimately\n give us the true reading.\n\n 8 Variant, \u201cwith loud voice.\u201d\n\n 9 Variant, \u201cMa\u1e2b.\u201d\n\n 10 Compare the story of Aesculapius, who, when in the house of Glaucus,\n killed a serpent, upon which another of these reptiles came with a\n herb in its mouth, wherewith it restored its dead companion to life.\n Aesculapius was to all appearance luckier than Gilgame\u0161, for it was\n with this herb that he restored the sick and dead, whereas the\n Babylonian hero seems to have lost the precious plant.\n\n 11 Apparently meaning the same as if the word \u201cartificers\u201d only had\n been used. Compare the expression \u201ca son of Babylon\u201d for \u201ca\n Babylonian.\u201d\n\n 12 Marshall Brothers, Paternoster Row.\n\n 13 The Assyrians, when referring to Babylonia, generally call it\n \u201cAkkad,\u201d which ought rather, therefore, to be the district nearest\n to them\u2014that is, the northern part of the country, immediately south\n of their own borders. They also called this part Kardunia\u0161, one of\n the names by which it was known in Babylonia.\n\n 14 See p. 122.\n\n 15 Other possible instances of the occurrence of this element in names\n of this time are Zumu-rame, \u0160umu-\u1e2bammu (apparently for Sumu-\u1e2bammu),\n Sumu-\u1e2bala, Samu-abum, Samukim, Sumu-entel (so probably to be read\n instead of Sumu-ente-al), Sumu-ni-Ea, \u201cOur Shem is Ea,\u201d and in all\n probability many others could be found. (See Hommel, _Ancient Hebrew\n Tradition_.)\n\n 16 For further information upon Babylonia and Egypt, compare Prof. F.\n Hommel\u2019s \u201cDer babylonische Ursprung der \u00e4gyptischen Kultur,\u201d\n M\u00fcnchen, G. Franz, 1892. A new etymology of Arpachshad, very similar\n to that of Prof. Schrader, has, however, lately been suggested by\n Prof. Sayce, and afterwards by Prof. Hommel, who has apparently\n abandoned that given above.\n\n 17 See the tablet translated on pp. 182-183, and compare the documents\n quoted on pp. 174, 178 ff., 180, 184, 185, 186-7.\n\n 18 In consequence of variations in the lists, there is doubt as to the\n total of the reigns of the above kings. The shorter indications have\n been given above, as far as the reign of Samsu-iluna. A small tablet\n from Babylon (Rassam excavations) gives Sumu-abi 15, Sumu-la-ila 35,\n Zab\u00fb 14, Abil-Sin 18, Sin-mubali\u1e6d 30, \u1e2aammurabi 55, and Samsu-iluna\n 35\u2014total, with the others, 304 years instead of 285. Perhaps there\n were usurpers, whose reigns have not been included. There seems to\n have been an interregnum after the reign of Samu-abi (_Proceedings\n of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology_, 1899, p. 161).\n\n 19 Or _Bunta\u1e2btun-ila_, in an inscription published by Hermann Ranke\n (_Pennsylvania Expedition_, vol. VI., part 1, 1906).\n\n 20 The name really seems, however, to be Sumuenteal, probably a\n scribe\u2019s error.\n\n 21 Or \u201cheroic son\u201d\u2014_dumu ursa[ga?]_.\n\n 22 The Ebi\u0161um of the chronological lists.\n\n 23 Yosephia and Habe-Ibraheem.\n\n 24 See the _Quarterly Statement_ of the Palestine Exploration Fund,\n July 1900, pp. 262, 263.\n\n 25 An interesting commentary on this is furnished by the British Museum\n tablet K, 2100, which informs us that the god Rimmon or Hadad was\n called _Addu_ or _Dadu_ in Amorite, _Te\u0161sub_ in the language of _Su_\n (Mesopotamia), _Maliku_ in the language of _Su\u1e2b_, (the Shuites),\n _Kunzibami_ in Elamite, and _Buria\u0161_ in Kassite. The same\n inscription also states that the word for \u201cGod\u201d was _ene_ in _Su_,\n _nab_ in Elamite, _mala\u1e2bum_ in Amorite, _kiurum_ in Lulubite,\n _ma\u0161\u1e2bu_ in Kassite, and gives the additional synonyms (? in\n Babylonian) _qadmu_, \u201che who was first,\u201d _digir\u016b_ (from the Akkadian\n _dingir_, \u201cgod\u201d), and also, seemingly, _\u1e2bilibu._\n\n 26 To all appearance letters were originally read out to the person\n addressed by a professional reader.\n\n 27 This often happens, the most interesting case being the tablets\n referring to Bunanitum, four in number, acquired in 1876, 1877, and\n a year or two later. Another of the series is in New York. Cf. pp.\n 459-465.\n\n 28 I have purposely given the translation of the inner tablet, that of\n the envelope being less simply worded, and therefore not quite so\n easy to understand. The list of witnesses, however, is from the\n envelope, this being much more satisfactory in that it gives the\n father\u2019s name and the title of the person in some cases.\n\n 29 The envelope here adds: \u201cAt no future time shall he make a claim.\u201d\n\n 30 This is apparently an expression taken from the contracts referring\n to the purchase of houses, in which the same set phrases were used.\n\n 31 In the list of household goods inscribed on the tablet Bu. 91-5-9,\n 337, are enumerated 1 bed, 1 couch, 2 tables, other objects, mostly\n of wood, to the number of 42; 7 pots, 1 chair, 4 _u\u0161ratum_ (probably\n vessels containing the tenth part of some measure), 5 _hamsatum_\n (probably vessels containing the fifth part of a measure), 31 _qa_\n of sesame, and a few other things.\n\n 32 Generally read \u00ca-gi\u0161-\u0161ir-gal.\n\n 33 Probably the first line of the next tablet.\n\n 34 The Talmud says that Terah worshipped twelve divinities, one for\n each month of the year.\n\n 35 There was a temple of the sun and the moon at a town at no great\n distance from Ur [Mugheir], now represented by the mounds of\n Tel-Sifr, where a number of tablets with envelopes were found.\n\n 36 One of the most interesting names found in the texts of this period\n is that of Yaum-\u00eelu, \u201cJah is God,\u201d occurring in a letter. Yau (Jah)\n was one of the Babylonian words indicating the Supreme God, only\n used, however, in special cases. (Cf. pp. 58 ff.)\n\n 37 See the inscription translated on p. 155.\n\n 38 In inscriptions referring to Haran the Moon-god bears this name.\n\n 39 Apparently the god Sin, through the priest, his representative. For\n Esarhaddon\u2019s successes in Egypt, see p. 388.\n\n 40 The _ayin_ of the second element must have been pronounced like the\n Arabic _ghain_, making \u2019Atar-ghata, which would probably be a better\n transcription.\n\n 41 A corrupt form of the same name.\n\n 42 This is probably not the land of \u1e2aana referred to on p. 84, note,\n which was apparently a Babylonian principality, and retained its\n independence to a comparatively late date. It was a district which\n had especially skilful stone- and metal-workers.\n\n 43 A doubtful rendering.\n\n 44 Or \u201cYear of the images of the 7 gods.\u201d\n\n 45 Or \u201cYear of (the temple) \u00ca-nam\u1e2be.\u201d\n\n 46 It may just be mentioned that date 30, \u201cYear of the army of Elam,\u201d\n if correctly rendered, may refer to the Elamite expedition to the\n West, but it seems more likely that it records a disaster to the\n Elamite arms, which enabled \u1e2aammurabi to overthrow R\u00eem-Sin of\n Emutb\u0101lu next year.\n\n 47 A deity, probably the god of destruction.\n\n 48 Further details will be found in the paper, _Certain Inscriptions\n and Records_, etc. in the _Journal of the Victoria Institute_,\n 1895-96, pp. 43-90. Published also separately.\n\n 49 The word _\u1e33\u00e2tu_, \u201chand,\u201d in Semitic Babylonian, means also \u201cpower,\u201d\n and as an explanatory gloss, the scribe has introduced the Hebrew\n \u05d6\u05e8\u05d5\u05e2 or \u05e2\u05d5\u05e8\u05d6, _zuru\u1e2b_ in Assyrian transcription, meaning \u201carm,\u201d or,\n here, \u201cpower.\u201d Apparently he was afraid that _\u1e33\u00e2tu_ would not be\n understood.\n\n 50 In this connection Maspero\u2019s remarks upon this fragment (_Records of\n the Past_, 2nd series, vol. ii. p. 43) are worth repeating. He\n points out that there were three Pharaohs named Soqnun-r\u00ee (=\n Seqnen-R\u00ea), and he implies that it was in all probability the last\n of these which is referred to. He perished by a violent death,\n perhaps in battle against the Hyksos themselves. \u201cHe had shaved his\n head the morning before, \u2018arraying himself for the combat like the\n god Montu,\u2019 as the Egyptian scribes would say. His courage led him\n to penetrate too far into the ranks of the enemy; he was surrounded\n and slain before his companions could rescue him. The blow of an axe\n removed part of his left cheek and laid bare the teeth, striking the\n jaw and felling him stunned to the ground; a second blow entered far\n within the skull, a dagger or short lance splitting the forehead on\n the right side a little above the eye. The Egyptians recovered the\n body and embalmed it in haste, when already partly decomposed,\n before sending it to Thebes and the tomb of his ancestors.... The\n author of the legend may probably have continued the story down to\n the tragic end of his hero. The scribe to whom we owe the papyrus on\n which it is inscribed must certainly have intended to complete the\n tale; he had recopied the last lines on the reverse of one of the\n pages, and was preparing to continue it when some accident\n intervened to prevent his doing so.... It is probable, however, that\n it went on to describe how Soqnun-r\u00ee, after long hesitation,\n succeeded in escaping from the embarrassing dilemma in which his\n powerful rival had attempted to place him. His answer must have been\n as odd and extraordinary as the message of \u2019Ap\u00f4pi, but we have no\n means even of conjecturing what it was.\u201d\n\n 51 Compare the name of the well near which Hagar the Egyptian woman\n fell down exhausted when fleeing from Sarai, Abraham\u2019s wife: \u201cThe\n well of _the living one_ who seeth me.\u201d\n\n 52 Driver, in Hastings\u2019s _Dictionary of the Bible_, under Joseph.\n\n 53 Or \u201cto each hungry person.\u201d\n\n 54 This and other transcriptions of the name into cuneiform character\n suggests that it was generally pronounced Neb-mu\u2019a-Re\u2019a.\n\n 55 Another god of Mitanni seems to have been Eaa\u0161arri, probably from\n the Babylonian _\u00caa \u0161arru_, \u201c\u00caa (A\u00ea) the king.\u201d Other Mitannian\n deities are \u0160im\u00eegi and Su\u0161bi.\n\n 56 Compare the Arabic _esh\u0101ra_, \u201csign.\u201d\n\n 57 Nin-urmuru (?) is only a provisional transcription, being at least\n partly Akkadian. Her name in all probability began with _B\u00ealit_,\n \u201clady of\u201d = _B\u00e2alat_. As the name ends with the plural sign, the\n question naturally arises whether it may not be practically a\n title\u2014\u201cLady of the Urmuru\u201d (?), or something of the kind.\n\n_ 58 I.e._ to king Amenophis, to whom he was writing.\n\n 59 In all probability this is metaphorically spoken, and means simply\n that he captured him. The feet of those vanquished in battle were\n sometimes cut off, but it is hardly likely that a man would survive\n this without medical treatment.\n\n 60 Lit. \u201cstood before him.\u201d\n\n 61 Lit. \u201ca servant of faithfulness.\u201d\n\n 62 Lit. \u201cI look thus, and I look thus.\u201d\n\n 63 It is doubtful whether the full form of the name is preserved, the\n tablet being broken at this point.\n\n 64 \u1e2aani-galbat is identified with northern Mesopotamia (Aram-Naharaim),\n and was the land ruled over by Du\u0161ratta, king of Mitanni, a synonym\n of which, at least in part, the district known as \u1e2aani-galbat was.\n \u1e2aana-galbat is apparently a variant spelling.\n\n 65 Or \u201cthe keeper of thy horses.\u201d The dual sign before the word\n \u201chorses\u201d suggests that \u201cattendant,\u201d \u201cguardian,\u201d or \u201cdriver\u201d of the\n two horses of the king\u2019s chariot is meant. The expression is\n apparently intended merely to indicate the writer\u2019s position as\n vassal.\n\n 66 Lit. \u201cto whose head,\u201d apparently meaning \u201cto whose self\u201d = \u201cto\n whom.\u201d\n\n 67 Thus in the original\u2014apparently Abdi-\u1e6d\u00e2ba thought that \u201cthey\n backbite\u201d (_\u00eekalu karsi_) might not be understood.\n\n 68 The name is lost.\n\n 69 The number is lost.\n\n 70 This number is incomplete.\n\n 71 Lit. \u201ctaken hostility against me.\u201d\n\n 72 Lit. \u201cthere is alliance to all the governors.\u201d\n\n 73 The scribe has left out a wedge in the middle character, making the\n name _Kapasi_.\n\n 74 Apparently meaning that Milki-\u00eeli, pretending to be faithful to the\n king of Egypt, intended to ask him, later on, for the territory\n governed by Lab\u2019aya and Arzawa, in order to give it back to them,\n they having forfeited it by their rebellion.\n\n 75 So Naville and others.\n\n 76 Sothis rose heliacally on the 9th of Epiphi of the 9th year (1545\n B.C.) of Amenophis I. Amosis, his predecessor, ruled twenty-two\n years, so that his first year must be 1575 B.C. Subtract 240 years,\n the period of oppression, from 1575, and we obtain 1335 as the date\n of the Exodus.\n\n 77 Mahler suggests that it was one of the sons of Rameses II. who met\n with his death in the Red Sea when pursuing the departing\n Israelites.\n\n 78 Also Abdi-A\u0161irta, Abdi-A\u0161ratum.\n\n 79 Lit. \u201cchariots of the harness of their yoke.\u201d\n\n 80 Prof. Sayce translates \u201clike moon-stone I laid low.\u201d\n\n 81 Or \u201cfear which dreaded.\u201d\n\n 82 These words _(\u0161a m\u00e2t \u1e2aat-ta-a-a_) are inserted in this place in\n squeeze 84.\n\n 83 See the list, p. 374 (with 373 and 378). Amurr\u016b (Amoria, p. 374)\n appears as in \u1e2aatti (p. 373), or synonymous with it.\n\n 84 Lit. \u201cof his decision.\u201d\n\n 85 See p. 224.\n\n 86 The land of the Amorites.\n\n 87 Or \u0160izanians.\n\n 88 Only eleven are mentioned.\n\n 89 The god of death and battle.\n\n 90 Thus in the inscription, but translators generally read _Gilzanu_.\n\n_ 91 Guide to the Nimroud Central Saloon_, p. 31. This rendering is\n based on a careful comparison of the inscription with the\n bas-relief.\n\n 92 \u201cSon of \u00ca-saggil\u201d means that he was one of the deities worshipped in\n the temple bearing that name. The god Ninip is called \u201cson of\n E-sarra,\u201d for the same reason. Nebo was especially worshipped,\n however, at \u00ca-zida.\n\n 93 \u201cThe broad (land of) ... li,\u201d however, occurs, and, as Professor\n Hommel actually suggests, may be a reference to _Nap-ta-li_ or\n Naphtali.\n\n_ 94 I.e._ like the ruins of cities which had been swept away by a\n flood. In both Assyria and Babylonia floods were common things, and\n the devastation they caused naturally gave rise to the simile.\n\n 95 According to Fried. Delitzsch, this is incorrectly given for Sewe,\n the Sib\u2019e of the Assyrian inscriptions.\n\n 96 If it be Sargon, then it was naturally he who carried Israel captive\n to Assyria, placing them in Halah, Habor, and the cities of the\n Medes.\n\n_ 97 I.e._ those of the island of Tyre, which still held out.\n\n 98 Lit. \u201cI smote their overthrow.\u201d\n\n 99 See the chapter upon the Tel-el-Amarna letters (p. 281 ff.).\n\n 100 It is noteworthy, however, that Sabaco is elsewhere called Sabaku\n (see below, p. 389).\n\n 101 \u201cThe two borders,\u201d see Sayce. The Assyrian form is singular, as is\n also the Babylonian Mi\u1e63ir, which has _i_ for _u_ in both syllables.\n The Arabic form is Mi\u1e63r. Mu\u1e63ur(u), Misir(u), Mi\u1e63raim, and Misr are\n all forms of the same name.\n\n 102 Compare p. 366, where the earlier payment of tribute is referred to.\n\n 103 See pp. 283, 291, 292.\n\n 104 The land of Heth, Syria in general.\n\n 105 Lit. \u201cwrought anew.\u201d\n\n 106 Or Ya(w)anana. (This is added from the bull-inscription.)\n\n 107 Or _\u1e62idqaa_ (for _\u1e62idqaia = Zedekiah_).\n\n 108 Unknown objects\u2014perhaps gold bangles or similar things.\n\n 109 Lit. \u201cwhatever its name.\u201d\n\n 110 Or \u201cI.\u201d\n\n 111 Elibus in Alexander Polyhistor, as quoted by Eusebius, _Armenian\n Chronicle_, 42.\n\n 112 It is impossible, with our present knowledge, to determine the date\n of Merodach-baladan\u2019s envoy to Hezekiah (2 Kings xx. 12), but if at\n the late period indicated, he must have been in hiding, and waiting\n for the chance to mount the throne again.\n\n 113 This, together with Nagitu, and Nagitu-di\u2019ibina, are apparently\n different from the Nagite-raqqi or Nagitu-raqqu mentioned above.\n Apparently Merodach-baladan had fled from the Nagitu \u201cwithin the\n sea\u201d to the mainland.\n\n 114 The Babylonian Chronicle claims victory for the allies, and\n Sennacherib for the Assyrians. The sequel implies that the latter is\n the more trustworthy.\n\n_ 115 I.e._ Mer-en-Ptah, Seti I. As, however, this king reigned as early\n as 1350 B.C., Herodotus must have been misinformed. Tirhakah, \u201cking\n of Ethiopia,\u201d was Sennacherib\u2019s opponent at the period of the siege\n of Jerusalem (2 Kings xix. 9).\n\n 116 Tel-Assar (Isaiah xxxvii. 12)\u2014Assar probably = Asari (p. 54).\n\n 117 There were twenty provinces in all, including those of Nik\u00fb, king of\n Mempi and S\u00e2a (Necho of Memphis and Sais); \u0160arru-l\u00fb-d\u00e2ri (an\n Assyrian name), king of \u1e62i\u2019anu (Zoan or Tanis), Susinqu (Sheshonq),\n king of Bu\u0161iru (Busiris), and many others.\n\n 118 \u201cTo the long chariot, the vehicle of my royalty.\u201d\n\n 119 As pointed out by Commander Jones in 1852, the river responsible for\n the disaster was not the Tigris, but must have been the Khosr, which\n flows through Nineveh from the N.E., and runs into the Tigris W.S.W.\n of the village of Armushieh.\n\n 120 Apparently Duwair, S.S.E. of Babylon. This, however, is probably not\n a real place-name, the word really meaning \u201cmound.\u201d\n\n 121 A part of Babylon.\n\n 122 Lit. \u201clike as a corpse.\u201d\n\n 123 Lit. \u201cwent round\u201d or \u201cabout.\u201d\n\n 124 Probably meaning Asiatics, in contradistinction to the fair\n inhabitants of Europe.\n\n 125 The old name of Babylon as \u201cthe seat of life\u201d = old Babylon.\n\n 126 Lit. \u201ctheir number cannot be announced.\u201d\n\n 127 Lit. \u201cof the land of Amoria.\u201d\n\n 128 The old capital of Assyria.\n\n 129 An addition by the scribe of the first tablet (the more correct\n copy), seemingly partly erased.\n\n 130 The second copy (the less correct) has, instead of \u201cwho is over the\n city,\u201d the words \u201cthe son of the king ...,\u201d which (judging from the\n word for \u201cman\u201d before \u201cking\u201d) the scribe must have read into the\n traces which he saw.\n\n 131 This must be another Marduka\u2014it is most unlikely that it is the son\n of Adi\u2019\u00eelu and \u1e2aul\u00eetu, concerning whom the document was written.\n\n 132 Variant, Adi\u2019\u00eelu, possibly the seller of Marduka, and if so,\n Uk\u00een-z\u0113ra must have been the brother of the man sold.\n\n 133 See above, p. 445, where the husbandmen are referred to.\n\n 134 Probably = \u201cunder.\u201d\n\n 135 Apparently from the root _par_, \u201cto be bright.\u201d These stones were\n probably sacred to the Sun-god.\n\n 136 Or \u201cthe woollen stuffs.\u201d\n\n 137 Lit. \u201cthou (art) in thy house, in thy heart (there is) good to\n thee.\u201d\n\n 138 It seems to have been sometimes the custom for a man to be known by\n more than one name.\n\n 139 Lit. \u201cgardenership.\u201d\n\n 140 This may mean \u201cthe Egyptian,\u201d but as there were more than one Mi\u1e63ir,\n this is doubtful.\n\n 141 Nabonidus.\n\n 142 Or, perhaps, \u201c(in) the plantation-territory.\u201d\n\n 143 Or, perhaps, \u201cthe territory of the great farther side.\u201d\n\n 144 As the Babylonians had no means of indicating the sound of _o_,\n characters containing _u_ had to be used in such words as these. The\n Babylonian pronunciation of the Greek \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 was, therefore,\n _poli\u1e6d\u0113_. Another form of this plural word, namely, _puli\u1e6dannu\n (poli\u1e6d\u0101nu)_, also occurs.\n\n 145 In 1890, when this inscription was copied, it was in the possession\n of Mr. Lucas, who kindly gave me permission to publish it. I do not\n know who possesses the tablet at present. The seal-impression at the\n end is exceedingly indistinct.\n\n 146 The spirits of the earth.\n\n 147 The Sungod was the god of justice, hence this comparison.\n\n 148 The inhabitants of the land.\n\n 149 The temple-tower of Niffur.\n\n 150 The temple of Bel at Niffur.\n\n 151 The temple of Eridu.\n\n 152 The temple of Bel at Babylon.\n\n 153 See p. 193.\n\n 154 The temple of Ur\u2014see p. 194 ff.\n\n 155 The moon-goddess of Sippar.\n\n 156 The temple of the sun at Sippar.\n\n 157 Ellasar.\n\n 158 The temple of the sun at Larsa (Ellasar).\n\n 159 The god and goddess of \u00ca-anna, the temple of Erech.\n\n 160 The temple of Isin or Nisin.\n\n 161 The temple of Ki\u0161.\n\n 162 Apparently a conflict had taken place here, and the success of the\n Babylonian arms was attributed to the god of the place.\n\n 163 The temple of Cuthah.\n\n 164 Merodach\u2014see p. 30 ff.\n\n 165 The temple of Borsippa.\n\n 166 The modern Dailem.\n\n 167 The god of Dilmu.\n\n 168 The temple at Lagas.\n\n 169 Goddess of \u1e2aallabu.\n\n 170 Lit.: \u201cthe raising of the hand.\u201d\n\n 171 Hadad.\n\n 172 Or, with Scheil: who has rectified the course of the Tigris. As,\n however, the sign for \u201criver\u201d is wanting, the meaning \u201cfamily,\u201d\n \u201crace,\u201d which this word has, is to be preferred.\n\n 173 The temple of I\u0161tar of Nineveh, later called E-masmas.\n\n 174 Lit.: \u201cto the river-god,\u201d and so throughout the clause.\n\n 175 A matter of life and death.\n\n 176 Lit.: \u201cwhich is in that judgment.\u201d\n\n 177 Cf. 126, 131.\n\n 178 Lit.: \u201ca period to the sixth month.\u201d\n\n 179 Lit.: \u201cin the sixth month.\u201d\n\n 180 Lit.: \u201cshall call upon the spirit of God.\u201d\n\n 181 Lit.: \u201cIn the house of a man fire has been kindled.\u201d\n\n 182 Lit.: \u201ca man of substitution.\u201d\n\n 183 The officer, etc.\n\n 184 Lit.: \u201cfor opening.\u201d\n\n 185 Lit.: \u201cthe god Hadad.\u201d\n\n 186 Or, \u201cdid not cover the cost.\u201d\n\n 187 Lit.: \u201cthe god Hadad.\u201d\n\n 188 Lit.: \u201cthe lord of the interest.\u201d\n\n 189 Lit.: \u201cprofit.\u201d\n\n 190 Or, \u201cits interest.\u201d\n\n 191 Lit.: \u201csons,\u201d or \u201cchildren.\u201d\n\n_ 192 I.e._ in the same proportion.\n\n 193 Lit.: \u201cin days not full.\u201d\n\n 194 In the British Museum fragment 80-11-12, 1235, found by Mr. Rassam\n in Babylonia, 100 and 101 form a single section, the last one of the\n 5th tablet.\n\n 195 Lit.: \u201cinvoke the spirit of God.\u201d\n\n 196 In other words, \u201che shall take a receipt for the amount.\u201d\n\n 197 Probably = \u201cshall not be placed to his credit.\u201d\n\n 198 Lit.: \u201cdwells on the road.\u201d\n\n 199 Lit.: \u201cthe possessions of his hand.\u201d\n\n 200 Lit.: \u201cand to whatever its name, as much as he gave, he shall\n renounce.\u201d\n\n 201 Lit.: \u201cthe distraint.\u201d\n\n 202 Apparently the agent who lent him the money, and who is called \u201cthe\n distrainer\u201d in the foregoing lines.\n\n 203 Has not made a contract for her.\n\n 204 Lit.: \u201cIf the wife of a man her husband accuse her.\u201d\n\n 205 Lit.: \u201cshe shall invoke the spirit of God.\u201d\n\n 206 The original text adds \u201cbefore him,\u201d probably meaning \u201cbefore he\n left.\u201d\n\n 207 Or \u201cmay.\u201d\n\n 208 Lit.: \u201cafter him.\u201d\n\n 209 Or \u201cneed.\u201d\n\n 210 Lit.: \u201cshe may take the husband of her heart.\u201d\n\n 211 Lit.: \u201ctake.\u201d\n\n 212 Or \u201ca chain.\u201d\n\n 213 Lit.: \u201cher after (property).\u201d\n\n 214 Lit.: \u201ca lord of interest.\u201d\n\n 215 Lit.: \u201cset her upon a stake.\u201d\n\n 216 There is a mistake in the text here, the most probable reading being\n \u201ccast _him_ into the water.\u201d\n\n 217 Lit.: \u201cmovable(s),\u201d French _du meuble_.\n\n 218 Perhaps \u201cshall add to it an equal amount,\u201d as a kind of\n compensation. Scheil has \u201cil \u00e9galera.\u201d\n\n 219 That is, to the man himself.\n\n 220 In all probability it is an adopted son who is meant\u2014it is doubtful\n whether a man could do more than disinherit his own child.\n\n_ 221 I.e._ decide to marry again.\n\n 222 Lit.: \u201cher sonhood, of her brothers it is.\u201d\n\n 223 The same word is used as in the case of a marriage-gift.\n\n 224 The same word is used as in the case of a marriage-gift.\n\n 225 That is, she must content herself with the marriage-gift.\n\n 226 Lit.: \u201ctaken to childship.\u201d\n\n 227 Or \u201cin his name.\u201d\n\n 228 These were in the position of orphans, having no proper home.\n\n 229 Lit.: \u201cthe son of a worker.\u201d\n\n 230 Or \u201cas a foster-child.\u201d\n\n 231 Here the term would seem to be equivalent to \u201capprentice.\u201d\n\n 232 Evidently such a denial on the child\u2019s part was regarded as the\n height of ingratitude (see the footnote to \u00a7 187).\n\n 233 In the original \u201chis eye.\u201d\n\n 234 Lit.: \u201cprice.\u201d\n\n 235 Or \u201cskull,\u201d Scheil: \u201ccerveau.\u201d Peiser\u2019s rendering, \u201ccheek\u201d (Backe),\n seems to be the best. (This applies to laws 203-205 as well.)\n\n 236 According to Winckler, this expression (\u201cson of a man\u201d) means \u201ca\n free-born man.\u201d\n\n 237 Lit.: \u201cslave like slave.\u201d\n\n 238 Lit.: \u201cthe silver of half his price.\u201d\n\n 239 Lit.: \u201clord of the injury.\u201d\n\n 240 This was regarded as a fraud, and punished as such.\n\n 241 Or \u201cthe boatman shall repair that vessel, and strengthen (it) with\n his own capital, and give the strengthened vessel (back) to the\n owner of the vessel.\u201d\n\n 242 Lit.: \u201cprice.\u201d\n\n 243 Lit.: \u201cox like ox.\u201d\n\n 244 Such is the general translation. An injury of this kind would render\n the animal useless, as it would be unable to bear the yoke, hence\n this enactment.\n\n 245 Or \u201cslit.\u201d\n\n 246 Lit.: \u201cshall invoke the spirit of God.\u201d\n\n 247 As the dog his first bite, so the bull was allowed his first toss\n free.\n\n 248 Or \u201cfailing,\u201d \u201cdefect.\u201d\n\n 249 Or \u201cweakened,\u201d \u201cstarved.\u201d\n\n 250 Lit.: \u201cgiven.\u201d\n\n 251 Lit.: \u201cit is good to his heart.\u201d\n\n 252 Lit.: \u201cthe fate,\u201d _i.e._, divine decree concerning them.\n\n 253 Lit.: \u201cof.\u201d\n\n 254 The character used is the same as that for grain (wheat, etc.), but\n the weight is unknown.\n\n 255 Winckler: \u201cpotter.\u201d\n\n 256 Lit.: \u201cman of linen.\u201d Scheil, Winckler, and Johns translate\n \u201ctailor.\u201d\n\n 257 A part only of the word is preserved.\n\n 258 Lit.: \u201che has had a claim.\u201d\n\n 259 Lit.: \u201cshall answer the claim.\u201d\n\n 260 Lit.: \u201che shall make their freedom without silver.\u201d This law seems\n to indicate that neither owner was regarded as having a right to\n them.\n\n 261 Lit.: \u201csilver.\u201d\n\n 262 The people.\n\n 263 The Ninevite duplicate has a different reading.\n\n 264 Probably = \u201cnorth and south,\u201d or \u201cin mountain and valley.\u201d\n\n 265 Winckler: \u201cput an end to battles.\u201d\n\n 266 Lit.: \u201cproclaimed.\u201d\n\n 267 Apparently meaning the head of the stone bearing this inscription.\n\n 268 The Nineveh duplicate has: \u201cby the command of \u0160ama\u0161 and Hadad,\n judges of justice, deciders of decisions, may justice have power.\u201d\n\n 269 Lit.: \u201ca word.\u201d\n\n 270 Lit.: \u201cgood flesh.\u201d\n\n 271 Lit.: \u201cthoughts.\u201d\n\n 272 Lit.: \u201cthe going forth.\u201d\n\n 273 Lit.: \u201chis dark of head.\u201d\n\n 274 Scheil: \u201cgiven rectitude.\u201d\n\n 275 The future king.\n\n 276 Lit.: \u201ccause another to take (this responsibility).\u201d\n\n 277 Lit.: \u201cwhose name has been proclaimed.\u201d\n\n_ 278 I.e._, his throne.\n\n 279 Lit.: \u201chonourable.\u201d\n\n 280 Lit.: \u201cgo before.\u201d\n\n 281 Lit.: \u201cear.\u201d\n\n 282 Or \u201coblivion.\u201d\n\n 283 Or \u201cvisions.\u201d\n\n 284 Lit.: \u201cspirits\u201d (_utukke_). Perhaps the \u201csoul\u201d and \u201cspirit\u201d are\n meant, the plural being indicated by writing the character twice,\n though nothing certain can be deduced from this.\n\n 285 Scheil and Winckler: \u201csickle\u201d (= crescent), but this seems to be a\n different word.\n\n 286 Scheil: \u201cis in conflict.\u201d\n\n 287 Mounds of an inundation, such as the great Flood was supposed to\n have produced.\n\n 288 Probably repeated by an error of the stone-cutter.\n\n 289 The Nineveh duplicate has: \u201cwhose battle has no equal.\u201d\n\n 290 Or \u201cbind.\u201d\n\n 291 Or \u201cstrength,\u201d apparently meaning the imperfectness of that quality.\n\n 292 Generally referred to under the fuller form Anunnaki.\n\n 293 Or \u201ctemple,\u201d either that of Merodach at Babylon, or \u00ca-babbara.\n\n 294 The temple of the Sun at Sippar or at Larsa\u2014probably the former.\n\n 295 In Ex. xxi. 8 it is presumed that the master of the girl betrothed\n her to himself, as in the case of \u0160ama\u0161-n\u00fbri (p. 185), who, however,\n could be sold as a slave if she denied her mistress.\n\n 296 The old Sumerian law referring to injuries to slaves (p. 191)\n inflicts a fine on the _hirer_, not on the owner.\n\n 297 Isaiah xlv. 20: \u201cThey have no knowledge that carry the wood of their\n graven images.\u201d R. V.\n\n 298 Num. vi. 26: \u201cThe Lord lift up his countenance upon thee,\u201d\n equivalent to \u201cto raise the eyes\u201d in Assyro-Babylonian.\n\n 299 Lit.: \u201cshall not bring his hand to the sick.\u201d\n\n 300 Lit.: \u201cthe raising of his hands.\u201d\n\n 301 This form is due to a false etymology, but it is used by Delitzsch\n as a very convenient compound word.\n\n 302 The word may also be translated \u201cinhabiting,\u201d but this does not seem\n to be so good.\n\n 303 Lit.: \u201cill.\u201d\n\n 304 For parallels to the Babylonian legend of Tiamtu in the Talmud and\n Midrash, see S. Daiches in the _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, xvii.\n (1903), pp. 394-399.\n\n 305 Similar figures are shown on the slabs in the British Museum\n (Nimroud Gallery) standing before the sacred tree.\n\n_ 306 The Religious Ideas of the Babylonians_, in the Journal of the\n Transactions of the Victoria Institute, 1895.\n\n 307 P. 181.\n\n 308 P. 183, where the reading is Ibsina-ili.\n\n 309 P. 184.\n\n 310 For a list of these, see \u201cObservations sur la Religion des\n Babyloniens 2000 ans avant J\u00e9sus-Christ,\u201d by Th. G. Pinches, in the\n _Revue de l\u2019Histoire des Religions_, 1901.\n\n 311 See Hugo Winckler, _Die im Sommer 1906 in Kleinasien ausgef\u00fchrten\n Ausgrabungen_, Orientalische Literatur-Zeitung, Dec. 15, 1906;\n _Vorl\u00e4ufige Nachrichten \u00fcber die Ausgrabungen in Boghaz-K\u00f6i im\n Sommer 1907_, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, Dec.\n 1907 (No. 35).\n\n 312 See pp. 297, 298, where Cassites (_K\u00e2si_) are referred to. The\n Kassites east of Babylonia were the Cosss\u00e6ans of the Greeks. (Cf.\n pp. 122, 140, 170.)\n\n 313 See pp. 275 ff.\n\n 314 See pp. 222 ff.\n\n 315 It will be noticed that the Hittite-Babylonian transcription is of\n considerable value for the pronunciation of Egyptian.\n\n 316 See p. 232.\n\n_ 317 Aramaic Papyri discovered at Assuan_, edited by A. H. Sayce and A.\n E. Cowley. London, 1906.\n\n 318 Lit.: \u201cthey shall remove.\u201d\n\n 319 Sachau suggests that this may be gentilic, and mean \u201cthe Lachite.\u201d\n\n 320 Possibly \u201ccompanions\u201d (Sachau).\n\n 321 Variant: \u201cthe 7 great doors.\u201d\n\n_ 322 QYMu_, a word of doubtful meaning.\n\n 323 Or \u201cbronze.\u201d\n\n 324 Sachau suggests that this may be the name of Waidrang\u2019s tribe\u2014that\n of Caleb, or the like.\n\n 325 Possibly signs of dignity or wealth, made of some precious metal.\n\n 326 In the original _Ostan \u00e2\u1e2b\u00fbhi zi \u2019Anani_, a construction which\n reminds us of the Babylonian _\u00e2bli-\u0161u \u0161a_, \u201cson of.\u201d May we,\n therefore, read \u201cOstanes, brother of \u2019Anani?\u201d\n\n 327 That is, the receivers of Bagohi\u2019s benefits.\n\n 328 As such a reward would be much too small, Sachau suggests that the\n _kinkar_ (? talent) was much below the value of an ordinary talent.\n\n 329 See page 539.\n\n 330 Chnub, the Greek _Chnubis_, _Knuphis_, or _Kneph_.\n\n 331 If this be the case, _Waidareng_ is also a possible reading.\n\n 332 Sanballat in Nehemiah. The transcription here used is that of the\n Septuagint, but the vocalization is in both cases incorrect\u2014it\n should be Sin-uballi\u1e6d. This name, which is Babylonian, means \u201cthe\n moon-god has given life.\u201d He is called a Horonite in Neh. ii. 10,\n 19.\n\n 333 Lit.: \u201cgoing.\u201d\n\n 334 See the Author\u2019s _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ (A. Constable &\n Co., 1906), pp. 43-44.\n\n_ 335 Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1902, I.: _Ein\n Altbabylonisches Fragment des Gilgamosepos_, von Bruno Meissner.\n Berlin, Wolf Peiser Verlag.\n\n 336 Oriental Translation Fund, New Series, I. _The Rauzat-us-Safa; or\n Garden of Purity_, by Mirkhond. Translated by E. Rehatsek. Royal\n Asiatic Society, 1891.\n\n_ 337 The Babylonian Excavations and Early Bible History_, by Prof.\n Kittel, translated by Edmund McClure, M.A., with a preface by Henry\n Wace, D.D. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1903.\n\n_ 338 Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. v., pl. 2, l. 40, and\n _Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets_, part xii., pl. 6. Cf. p.\n 144.\n\n 339 Probably illustrating the Sumerian Laws.\n\n 340 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1897.\n\n_ 341 The Bronze Ornaments of the Palace Gates of Balawat_, with an\n introduction by Walter de Gray Birch, and descriptions and\n translations by Theophilus G. Pinches. Published at the Offices of\n the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology, Bloomsbury, W.C.\n\n 342 Or \u201cimages.\u201d\n\n 343 Assyria.\n\n 344 See p. 207, upper part.\n\n 345 That is, Babylonia.\n\n_ 346 Collection de Clercq. Catalogue m\u00e9thodique et raisonn\u00e9_, par M. de\n Clercq, avec la collaboration de M. J. Menant. Paris, Leroux, 1885,\n etc.","title":"The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":196847}