The writer of Genesis has given to the first man the name of Adam, thus

personifying in him the human race, which was to descend from him. In all

probability, the Babylonians had the same legends, but, if so, no fragment

of them has as yet come to light. That the Hebrew stories of the Creation

had their origin in Babylonia, will probably be conceded by most people as

probable, if not actually proven, and the fact that the word _a-dam_

occurs, as Delitzsch has pointed out, in a bilingual list would, supposing

the text to which he refers to be actually bilingual, be a matter of

peculiar significance, for it would show that this word, which does not

occur in Semitic Babylonian as the word for “man,” occurred in the old

Akkadian language with that meaning.

And the proof that Delitzsch was right in his recollection of the tablet

of which he speaks, is shown by the bilingual Babylonian story of the

Creation. There, in lines 9, 10, we read as follows—

Akkadian (dialectic): Uru nu-dim, a-dam nu-mun-ia.

Babylonian: Âlu ûl êpuš, nammaššu ûl šakin.

“A city had not been made, the community had not been established.”

Here we have the non-Semitic _adam_ translated by the Babylonian

_nammaššu_, which seems to mean a number of men, in this passage something

like community, for that is the idea which best fits the context. But

besides this Semitic rendering, the word also has the meanings of

_tenišētu_, “mankind,” _amelūtu_, “human beings.”

The word _adam_, meaning “man,” is found also in Phœnician, Sabean, and

apparently in Arabic, under the form of _atam_, a collective meaning

“creatures.”

The possibility that the Babylonians had an account of the Fall similar to

that of the Hebrews, is not only suggested by the legends treated of

above, but also by the cylinder-seal in the British Museum with what seems

to be the representation of the Temptation engraved upon it. We have there

presented to us the picture of a tree—a palm—bearing fruit, and on each

side of it a seated figure, that on the right being to all appearance the

man, and that on the left the woman, though there is not much difference

between them, and, as far as the form of either goes, the sexes might

easily be reversed. That, however, which seems to be intended for the man

has the horned hat emblematic of divinity, or, probably, of divine origin,

whilst from the figure which seems to be that of the woman this head-dress

is absent. Behind her, moreover, with wavy body standing erect on his

tail, is shown the serpent, towering just above her head, as if ready to

speak with her. Both figures are stretching out a hand (the man the right,

the woman the left) as if to pluck the fruit growing on the tree.

Notwithstanding the doubts that have been thrown on the explanation here

given of this celebrated and exceedingly interesting cylinder, the subject

and its arrangement are so suggestive, that one can hardly regard it as

being other than what it seems to be, namely, a Babylonian representation

of the Temptation, according to records that the Babylonians possessed.

The date of this object may be set down as being from about 2750 to 2000

B.C.

Future excavations in Babylonia and Assyria will, no doubt, furnish us

with the legends current in those countries concerning the Temptation, the

Fall, and the sequel thereto. Great interest would naturally attach to the

Babylonian rendering of the details and development of the story, more

particularly to the terms of the penalty, the expulsion, and the nature of

the beings—the cherubim—placed at the east of the garden, and “the flaming

sword turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”

Though the Babylonian version of this Biblical story has not yet come to

light, the inscriptions in the wedge-writing give us a few details bearing

upon the word “cherub.”

The Hebrews understood these celestial beings as having the form which we

attribute to angels—a glorified human appearance, but with the addition of

wings. They are spoken of as bearing the throne of the Almighty through

the clouds (“He rode upon a cherub, and did fly”), and in Psalm xviii. 11

he is also represented as sitting upon them. In Ezekiel i. and x. they are

said to be of a very composite form, combining with the human shape the

face of a cherub (whatever that may have been), a man, an ox, a lion, and

an eagle. It has been supposed that Ezekiel was indebted to

Assyro-Babylonian imagery for the details of the cherubic creatures that

he describes, but it may safely be said that, though the sculptures

furnish us with images of divine creatures in the form of a man with the

face of an eagle, or having a modification of a lion’s head, and bulls and

lions with the faces of men, there has never yet been found a figure

provided with a wheel for the purpose of locomotion, and having four

heads, like those of which the prophet speaks. We may, therefore, safely

conclude, that Ezekiel applied the word _kerûb_ (cherub) to the creatures

that he saw in his vision, because that was the most suitable word he

could find, not because it was the term usually applied to things of that

kind. It is hardly likely that the guardians of the entrance into the

earthly Paradise and the creatures that bore up the throne of the Almighty

were conceived as being of so complicated a form as the cherubim of

Ezekiel.

Whatever doubt may exist as to the original form of this celestial being,

the discussion of the origin of the Hebrew word _kerûb_ may now be

regarded as finally settled by the discovery of the Assyro-Babylonian

records. It is undoubtedly borrowed from the Babylonian _kirubu_, a word

meaning simply “spirit,” and conceived as one who was always in the

presence (_ina kirib_) of God, and formed from the root _qarābu_, “to be

near.” The change from _q_ (qoph) to _k_ (kaph) is very common in

Babylonian, and occurs more frequently before _e_ and _i_, hence the form

in Hebrew, _kerûb_ (cherub—the translators intended that _ch_ should be

pronounced as _k_) for _qerûb_ (which the translators would have

transcribed as _kerub_).

Originally the Assyro-Babylonian word _kirubu_ seems to have meant

something like “intimate friend,” or “familiar,” as in the expression

_kirub šarri_, “familiar of the king,” mentioned between “daughter of the

king,” and “the beloved woman of the king.” An illustration of its

extended meaning of “spirit,” however, occurs in the following lines from

“the tablet of Good Wishes”—

“In thy mouth may there be perfection of speech

(_lû asim dababu_);

In thine eye may there be brightness of sight

(_lû namir niṭlu_);

In thine ear may there be a spirit of hearing”

(_lû_ KIRUB _nišmû_, lit. ‘a cherub of hearing’).”

The cherubim were therefore the good spirits who performed the will of

God, and, in the minds of the Assyrians and Babylonians, watched over and

guarded the man who was the “son of his God,” _i.e._ the pious man.

The cherub upon which the Almighty rode, and upon whom he sat, corresponds

more to the _guzalū_ or “throne-bearer” of Assyro-Babylonian mythology.

They were apparently beings who bore up the thrones of the gods, and are

frequently to be seen in Babylonian sculptures thus employed, at rest, and

waiting patiently, to all appearance, until their divine master, seated on

the throne which rests on their shoulders, should again give them word, or

make known that it was now his will to start and journey forth once more.

The story of Cain and Abel, and the first tragedy that occurred in the

world after the creation of man, has always attracted the attention of the

pious on that account, and because the first recorded murder was that of a

brother. This is a story to which the discovery of a Babylonian parallel

was least likely to be found, and, as a matter of fact, none has as yet

come to light. Notwithstanding this, a few remarks upon such remote

parallels which exist, and such few illustrations of the event that can be

found, may be cited in this place.

These are contained in the story of Tammuz or Adonis, who, though not

supposed to have been slain by his brother, was nevertheless killed by the

cold of Winter, who might easily have been regarded as his brother, for

Tammuz typified the season of Summer, the Brother-season, so to say, of

Winter. As is well known, the name Tammuz is Akkadian, and occurs in that

language under the form of Dumu-zi, or, more fully, Dumu-zida, meaning

“the everlasting son,” in Semitic Babylonian _âblu kênu_. It is very

noteworthy that Prof. J. Oppert has suggested that the name of Abel, in

Hebrew Habel, is, in reality, none other than the Babylonian _ablu_,

“son,” and the question naturally arises, May not the story of Cain and

Abel have given rise to the legend of Tammuz, or _Ablu kênu_, as his name

would be if translated into Semitic Babylonian?

Unless by a folk-etymology, however, the Semitic Babylonian translation of

the name of Tammuz can hardly be a composition of Abel and Cain, because

the first letter is _q_ (qoph) and not _k_ (kaph), the transcription Cain

for Kain or Kayin being faulty in the A.V. Still, we feel bound to

recognize that there is a possibility, though naturally a remote one, that

the legend of Tammuz is connected with that of Cain and Abel, just as the

division of the Dragon (in the Babylonian story of the Creation) by the

god Merodach into two halves, with one of which he covered the heavens,

leaving the other below upon the earth, typifies the division of the

waters above the earth from those below in the Biblical story of the same

event.

There is a legend, named by me (for want of a more precise title) “The

Lament of the Daughter of the god Sin,” in which the carrying off (by

death?) of “her fair son” is referred to. Here we have another possible

Babylonian parallel to the story of the death of Abel, in which the

driving forth of her who makes the lament from her city and from her

palace might well typify the expulsion of Eve from Paradise, and her

delivery into the power of her enemy, who is, to all appearance, the king

of terrors, into whose hands she and her husband were, for their

disobedience, consigned. In this really beautiful Babylonian poem her

“enemy” seems to reproach her, telling her how it was she, and she alone,

who had ruined herself.

Though there may be something in the comparisons with the story of Cain

and Abel which are quoted here, more probably (as has been already

remarked) there is nothing, and the real parallels have yet to be found.

In any case, they are instances of the popularity among the Babylonians

and Assyrians of those stories of one, greatly beloved and in the bloom of

youth, coming, like Abel, to an untimely end through the perversity of

fate, and by no fault of his own. Though neither may be the original of

the Biblical story nor yet derived from it, they are of interest and value

as beautiful legends of old time, possibly throwing light on the Biblical

story.

As yet the Babylonian and Assyrian records shed but little light on the

question of the patriarchs of the early ages succeeding Adam, the details

that are given concerning them, and their long lives. Upon this last point

there is only one remark to be made, and that is, that the prehistoric

kings of Babylonia likewise lived and reigned for abnormally long ages,

according to the records that have come down to us. Unfortunately, there

is nothing complete in the important original of the Canon of Berosus

first published by the late G. Smith, and the beginning is especially

mutilated.

The likeness between Enoch and the Akkadian name of the city of Erech,

Unug, has already been pointed out, and it has been suggested that the two

words are identical. This, however, can hardly be the case, for the Hebrew

form of Enoch is Ḫanôḳ, the initial letter being the guttural _ḫeth_,

which, notwithstanding the parallel ease of Hiddekel, the Akkadian Idigna

(the Tigris), weakens the comparison. The principal argument against the

identification, however, is the fact that, in the bilingual story of the

Creation, the god Merodach is said to have built the city, and such was

evidently the Babylonian belief.(6)

The name of Enoch’s great-grandson, Methusael, finds, as has many times

been pointed out, its counterpart in the Babylonian Mut-îli, with the same

meaning (“man of God”).

[Plate IV.]

Lower part of the obverse of a terra-cotta tablet from Nineveh, inscribed

with the names of Babylonian kings in Sumerian and Semitic Babylonian. The

13th line (that running across two columns) has the statement, "These are

the kings who were after the Flood. They are not written in their proper

order." The names of Sargina (Sargon of Agadé) and Hammurabi (Amraphel)

also occur. Found by Sir A. H. Layard and Hormuzd Rassam.

CHAPTER III. THE FLOOD.

The Biblical account—Its circumstantial nature and its great

length—The Babylonian account—The reason of the Flood and why

Pir-napištim built the Ark—His devotion to the God Ea—Ea and

Jah—Ea’s antagonism to Bêl—The bloodless sacrifice—Ea’s gift of

immortality—Further observations—Appendix: The second version of

the Flood-story.

Noah, son of Lamech, had reached the age of five hundred years, and had

three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japhet; and at this time men had begun to

multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them; then

“the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they

took them wives of all that they chose.”

The question naturally arises, “Who were these sons of God?” According to

Job xxxviii. 7, where we have the statement that “The morning stars sang

together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy,” it would seem to be

the angels that are intended by these words, and this is apparently the

opinion generally held by scholars and divines on the subject. This view

seems to be favoured by the Second Epistle of Peter (ii. 1), though, as

the words do not actually agree with those of the text of Genesis quoted

above, nothing very positive can be maintained concerning the apostle’s

dictum—in fact, his words in the passage referred to, “for if God spared

not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them

into chains and darkness, to be reserved unto judgment,” can much more

reasonably be regarded as referring, and therefore giving authority to,

the story of the fall of the angels, as indicated in Avitus, Caedmon, and

Milton, a legend of which the germs are found in the Babylonian account of

the Creation, referred to in Chapter I. The other passages of Job where

this expression occurs (i. 6, and ii. 2) are not conclusive as to the

meaning “angels,” for the expressions “sons of God,” in those passages,

who are said to have come before the Almighty, may very well have been

merely men.

However the matter may stand, for the passages in Job, there is every

probability that it is not the angels that are intended in the description

we are examining as to the reasons of the coming of the Flood. As the late

George Bertin was the first to point out, the Babylonians often used the

phrase “a son of his god,” apparently to designate “a just man,” or

something similar. The connection in which this expression occurs is as

follows—

“May Damu, the great enchanter, make his thoughts happy,

May the lady who giveth life to the dead, the goddess Gula, heal

him by the pressure of her pure hand,

And thou, O gracious Merodach, who lovest the revivification of

the dead,

With thy pure incantation of life, free him from his sin, and

May the man, the son of his god, be pure, clean, and bright.”

In this passage the phrase in question is (in Akkadian) _gišgallu dumu

dingirana_, and (in Assyrian) _amēlu mâr îli-šu_. It is a frequent

expression in documents of this class, and always occurs in a similar

connection. In some cases, instead of “the man, the son of his god,” the

variation “the king, the son of his god” occurs, and is apparently to be

paraphrased in the same way, and understood as “the pious king.”

May it not be, then, that “the sons of God,” who saw that the daughters of

men were fair (lit. good), and took of them as many wives as they wanted,

were those who were regarded as the pious men of the time? For who among

the angels would at any time have thought of allying himself with an

earthly and mortal spouse, and begetting children—offspring who should

turn out to be “mighty men which were of old, men of renown,” as verse 4

has it? In this case, the “daughters of men” would be children of common

people, not possessing any special piety or other virtue to recommend

them, the only thing being that their daughters were fair, and good

enough, in the opinion of those “sons of God,” to have as their wives.

It is apparently given as the result of these unions between the pious men

and the daughters of the people that wickedness became rife in the earth,

and man’s imagination continually evil; and this was so to such an extent

that the Almighty repented of having created man, and decided to destroy

the wicked generation—both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of

the air—dwelling upon the earth—all except Noah, who found favour in the

eyes of Yahwah.

Having decided to destroy the life of the world by means of a flood, God

communicated His intention and the reason thereof to the patriarch, and

instructed him to build an ark in which he was to save both himself and

his family from the impending destruction. The vessel is to be built of

gopher-wood, to have rooms in it, and to be pitched within and without

with pitch. The dimensions also are specified. Its length was to be three

hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. He

was to make the ark “with light” (צהר or רהצ), that is, with windows, and

their length or height, apparently, was to be a cubit. The vessel was to

have a door, and to be built with three stories, lower, second, and third.

In accordance with God’s covenant with the patriarch, he, his sons, and

his sons’ wives were to be saved, along with every living thing, male and

female of each kind. For all this great multitude a sufficiency of food

was directed to be provided.

Then comes the command (the ark having been duly built, and all the

directions followed) to enter into the vessel, and further instructions

are given with regard to the creatures that are to be saved, with a slight

modification in the numbers, for the clean beasts are to be taken in “by

sevens,” and all the rest, “the unclean,” by pairs. God then announces

that in seven days’ time He will cause rain to come upon the earth for

forty days and forty nights. “All the fountains of the great deep” were

broken up, and the Lord shut up those upon whom He had favour in the ark.

Then, as the rain continued, the waters “prevailed exceedingly” upon the

earth, and the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered,

the depth of the waters being “fifteen cubits and upwards.” Everything was

destroyed, “Noah alone remained alive, and those who were with him in the

ark.”

“And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.”

The “fountains of the deep” and “the windows of heaven” having been

stopped, and the “rain from heaven” restrained, the waters abated, leaving

the ark high and dry upon the mountains of Ararat; and after the tops of

the mountains were seen, Noah looked out of the window that he had made.

He then sent forth a raven and a dove, and the latter, not finding a

resting-place, returned to him, to be sent forth again at the end of

another week. The dove again returned bearing in her beak an olive-leaf.

Seven days more passed, and the dove, having been sent out a third time,

returned to him no more. Recognizing that the waters were now all returned

into their old channels, and that the land was dry enough for him and his,

Noah removed the covering of the vessel, and saw that his supposition was

correct, and having received the command to come forth from the ark, which

had been his abiding-place for so long, and to send forth the living

creatures that were with him, the patriarch obeyed, and, when on dry land,

built an altar to Yahwah, and offered burnt offerings thereon of every

clean beast and every clean fowl.

“And the Lord smelled a sweet savour (lit. a savour of rest); and the Lord

said in His heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s

sake, for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.... While

the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer

and winter, and day and night shall not cease.”

Then comes, in the ninth chapter, the blessing of God, with a charge

concerning the shedding of blood. He makes also a covenant with Noah, by

the sign of the rainbow, declaring that a like calamity shall never again

come upon the earth to destroy all life that is upon it.

Such is, in short, the Bible story of the great flood that destroyed, at a

remote age of the world, all life upon the earth. It is a narrative

circumstantially told, with day, month, and year all indicated, and it

forms a good subject for comparison with the Babylonian account, with

which it agrees so closely in all the main points, and from which it

differs so much in many essential details.

As in the case of the Babylonian story of the Creation, it has been

thought well not only to give a fairly full translation of the Babylonian

story of the Flood, but also to indicate under what circumstances that

story appears in the series of tablets in which it is found.

The first to detect the nature of the series of tablets giving the story

of the Flood was the late George Smith, who had unrivalled opportunities

of making himself thoroughly acquainted with the treasures of the British

Museum in the matter of Assyrian records. As the story runs, it was whilst

searching for the fragments of the Creation-series that he came across a

fragment of a tablet mentioning that “the ship rested on the mountain of

Niṣir,” and this at once suggested to him that this was a reference to the

Flood, as, in fact, it turned out to be. Continued and unremitting

research among the treasures of the Department in which he was employed

enabled him to bring together a large number of other fragments of the

series, leaving, in fact, very little indeed for any future student to do

in the way of collecting together texts from the fragments that he had an

opportunity of examining. The _Daily Telegraph_ expedition to Assyria,

which was conducted by Mr. Smith himself, enabled him to add many other

fragments to those which he had already recognized in the Oriental

Department of the British Museum, and Mr. Rassam’s very successful

excavations in the same place have since very considerably increased the

list of additions.

The story of the Flood, as known to the Babylonians and Assyrians, is one

chapter or book of a legend consisting of twelve similar divisions, the

first line of the series beginning with the words _Ša naqba imûru_, “He

who saw everything,” and to this is added in the colophons, “the legend of

Gilgameš.” The number of fragments extant is large, but the individual

tablets are very imperfect, that giving the account of the Flood being by

far the most complete, though even that has very regrettable lacunæ.

Incomplete as the legend is as a whole, an attempt will nevertheless be

made here to give some sort of a connected story, which may be regarded as

accurate in all its main details.

The first tablet begins with the words that have been quoted above, “He

who saw everything, [who] ... the land.” This is followed, it would seem,

by a description of the hero, who, apparently, knew “the wisdom of the

whole (of the lands?),” and “saw secret and hidden things.... He brought

news of before the flood, went a distant road, and (suffered) dire fatigue

(?).” All his journeyings and toils were, apparently, inscribed on tablets

of stone, and records thus left for future ages.

Gilgameš, as we learn in the course of the narrative, was lord or king of

_Uruk supuri_, or “Erech the walled,” and at the time when the story

begins, the fortifications were in a ruinous state, and the treasury (?)

of the sanctuary Ê-anna, the temple of the goddess Ištar, which is

mentioned in the legend immediately after, was, we may suppose, empty.

Other details of the desolation of the temple are given, and the ruinous

state of the walls of the city are spoken of, together with the decay of

their foundations.

No other fragment of Col. I. of the first tablet of the Legend of Gilgameš

seems to have been recognized, so that the further references to the city

are lost. An interesting piece that Mr. G. Smith thought to be part of the

third column of this text refers to some misfortune that came upon the

city when the people moaned like calves, and the maidens grieved like

doves.

“The gods of Erech the walled

Turned to flies, and hummed in the streets;

The winged bulls of Erech the walled

Turned to mice, and went out through the holes.”

The city was, on this occasion, besieged for three years, until at last

the god Bêl and the goddess Ištar interested themselves in the state of

things. As to who the enemy was who brought the people into such distress,

there is no means at present of finding out, but Mr. G. Smith suggested,

with at least some show of probability, that they were the Elamites under

Ḫumbaba, who appears later as the opponent of our hero. The indifference

of the gods and the divine bulls that were supposed to protect the city is

well expressed in the statement that they respectively turned into flies

and mice, buzzing about and active, but doing no good whatever.

After the reference to the state of Erech, the text is exceedingly

mutilated, and the sense difficult to gather, but it would seem to have

contained a further description of the hero, who, according to Jensen’s

translation, is described as “two parts god and the third part man.” To

all appearance there was none in all his realm like him, and also no

consort suitable for him, though he collected to him all the young men and

maidens in the land. This was a matter for grief, which the (divine powers

?) heard, and they called upon the goddess Aruru to make another in his

likeness. This being was Êa-banî,(7) the mighty one, to all appearance

made to be the rival of Gilgameš, but if this be the case, he did not

fulfil his destiny, for his delight was to remain with the beasts of the

field. All his body was covered with hair, and he had long tresses on his

head, like those of a woman (recalling Samson’s luxuriant locks). Far,

too, from being the rival of Gilgameš, he became his most devoted friend

and companion.

“ ‘Thou, Aruru, hast created (mankind),

Now make thou (one in) his likeness.

The first day let his heart be (formed?),

Let him rival (?) and let him overcome (??) Erech.’

Aruru hearing this,

Made the likeness of Anu in the midst of her heart.

Aruru washed her hands,

She pinched off some clay, she threw it on the ground—

(Thus?) Êa-banî she made, the warrior,

The offspring, the seed, the possession of Ninip.

Covered with hair was all his body,

He had tresses like a woman,

The amount (?) of his hair grew thick like corn.

He knew not (?) people and land.

Clothed with a garment like the god Gira.

With the gazelles he eateth the grass,

With the wild beasts he drinketh drink,

With the dwellers in the water his heart delighteth.

The hunter, the destroyer, a man,

Beside the drinking-place he came across him,

The first day, the second day, the third day, beside the

drinking-place he came across him.

The hunter saw him, and his (Êa-banî’s) countenance became stern,

(He) and his wild beasts entered his house,

(He became an)gry, stern, and he called out.”

Apparently he did not like being watched so long by the hunter, and

becoming suspicious of his intentions, showed resentment, and tried to

drive him away. It may be noted by the way, that this description of

Êa-banî would answer excellently to the state attributed for a time to

Nebuchadnezzar in the Book of Daniel.

The hunter has a conversation with his father, who was with him, and the

upshot of it is that they decide to communicate to Gilgameš an account of

the terrible man whom they had seen. It was therefore decided to try to

catch or, rather, entice him to Erech by means of a female named Samḫat.

In accordance with the instructions received, therefore, the hunter took

with him the woman who was intrusted to him, and they awaited Êa-banî in

the same place, by the side of the water. After watching for him for two

days, they got into communication with him, and the woman asked him why he

dwelt with the wild animals, depicting at the same time all the glory of

Erech the walled and the nobility of Gilgameš, so that he soon allowed

himself to be persuaded, and, in the end, went and took up his abode

there.

Various things are then narrated, the most important of them being the

episode of the Elamite Ḫumbaba, the same name, though not the same person,

as the Kombabos of the Greeks.

Gilgameš seems to have gone to a place where there was a forest of

cedar-trees, accompanied by Êa-banî. Near this place, apparently, there

was a splendid palace, the abode (?) of a great queen. Judging from what

remains of the text, they ask their way of her, and she it is who seems to

tell them how to reach the dominions of the potentate whom they seek.

“A distant road is the place of Ḫumbaba.

A conflict that he (Gilgameš) knoweth not he will meet,

A road that he knoweth not he will ride,

As long as he goeth and returneth,

Until he reach the forest of cedars,

Until the mighty Ḫumbaba he subdueth,

And whatever is evil, what ye hate, he shall destroy in the

l(and).”

Evidently, from the extent of the record in this place, many adventures

befell them, but the fragmentary lines and the numerous lacunæ make a

connected narrative absolutely impossible, and it is not until we reach

the first column of what Mr. G. Smith regarded as the fifth tablet that we

get something more satisfactory than this. The hero has apparently come

within measurable distance of his goal—

“They stood and looked on the forest,

They regarded the height of the cedar,

They regarded the depth of the forest,

Where Ḫumbaba walked, striding high (?),

The roads prepared, the way made good.

They saw the mountain of the cedar, the dwelling of the gods, the

shrine of the god Irnini,

Before the mountain the cedar raised its luxuriance—

Good was its shade, full of delight.”

They had still a long way to go, however, and many things, seemingly, to

overcome, before they should reach the abode of the dreaded Elamite ruler,

but unfortunately, the details of their adventures are so very fragmentary

that no connected sense whatever is to be made out. The last line of the

tablet referring to this section, mentioning, as it does, the head of

Ḫumbaba, leads the reader to guess the conclusion of the story, whatever

the details may have been.

It is with the sixth tablet that we meet, for the first time, almost, with

something really satisfactory in the matter of completeness, though even

here one is sometimes pulled up sharp by a defective or doubtful passage.

Apparently, Gilgameš had become, at the time to which this tablet refers,

very prosperous, and that, combined with his other attractions, evidently

drew upon him the attention of the goddess Ištar—

“Come, Gilgameš, be thou the bridegroom,

Give thy substance to me as a gift,

Be thou my husband, and let me be thy wife.

I will cause to be yoked for thee a chariot of lapis-lazuli and

gold,

Whose wheels are gold and adamant its poles.

Thou shalt harness thereto the white ones, the great steeds.

Enter into our house mid the scent of the cedar.”

At his entering, the people were to kiss his feet, and kings, lords, and

princes do him homage, and lastly, he was to have no rival upon the earth.

In the mutilated passage that follows, Gilgameš answers the goddess,

reproaching her with her treatment of her former lovers or husbands, which

seems to have been far from satisfactory. Reference to a “wall of stone,”

and to “the land of the enemy,” seem to point to imprisonment and

expulsion, and the words “Who is the bridegroom (whom thou hast kept?) for

ever?” indicate clearly the opinion in which the hero held the goddess.

From generalities, however, he proceeds to more specific charges—

“To Tammuz, the husband of thy youth,

From year to year thou causest bitter weeping.

Thou lovedst the bright-coloured Allala bird,

Thou smotest him and brokest his wings,

He stayed in the forests crying, ‘My wings!’

Thou lovedst also a lion, perfect in strength,

By sevens didst thou cut wounds in him.

Thou lovedst also a horse, glorious in war,

Harness, spur, and bit (?) thou laidest upon him,

Seven _kaspu_ (49 miles) thou madest him gallop,

Distress and sweat thou causedst him,

To his mother Silili thou causedst bitter weeping.

Thou lovedst also a shepherd of the flock,

Who constantly laid out before thee rich foods (?),

Daily slaughtering for thee suckling kids,

Thou smotest him and changedst him to a jackal,

His own shepherd-boy drove him away,

And his dogs bit his limbs.

Thou lovedst also Išullanu, thy father’s gardener,

Who constantly transmitted (?) thy provisions (?),

Daily making thy dishes bright.

Thou raisedst thine eyes to him, and preparedst food.

‘My Išullanu, divide the food, let us eat,

And stretch forth thine hand, and taste of our dish.’

Išullanu said to thee:

‘Me, what (is this that) thou askest me?

My mother, do not cook (this), I have never eaten (of it)—

For should I eat foods of enchantments and witcheries?

[Food bringing?] cold, exhaustion, madness (?)?’

Thou heardest this [the speech of Išullanu],

Thou smotest him, and changedst him into a statue (?),

Thou settest him in the midst of (thy) dom(ain?),

He raiseth not the libation-vase, he descendeth (?) not....

And as for me, thou wouldst love me and (make me) even as these!”

Ištar being angry at these reproaches and accusations of the Babylonian

hero, immediately ascended to heaven and complained to her father Anu and

her mother Anatum that Gilgameš had reproached her with her enchantments

and witcheries, and after a long conversation, a divine bull is sent

against the hero and his friend. The heavenly animal is overcome,

principally by the activity of Êa-banî, who after its death, when the

goddess Ištar was lamenting its overthrow, cut off a portion of the body,

and threw it at her. Great were the rejoicings at Erech the walled at the

triumph of the hero and his counsellor, and after the feast that was held,

they all lay down to sleep. Êa-banî also lay down with the rest, and

during the night he saw a dream, of the details of which nothing is known,

though, from the words with which it seems to be introduced, “My friend,

on account of what do the gods take counsel,” it may be supposed that the

defiance and opposition which these mortals had offered to the goddess

Ištar was engaging the attention of the heavenly powers with a view to

some action being taken. As it is with these words that Êa-banî begins to

tell his dream to Gilgameš, there is no doubt that the Babylonians

regarded the former as having been admitted, whilst asleep (as in the case

of the Babylonian Noah), into the councils of the gods. The solitary line

that is quoted above is the first of the seventh tablet.

The details of the legend now again become obscure, but thus much can be

gathered, namely, that Gilgameš in his turn had a dream, and that, all

appearance, Êa-banî interpreted it. Later on, Êa-banî falls ill, and lies

without moving for twelve days. Though unwilling to regard his friend as

dead, Gilgameš mourns for him bitterly, and decides to make a journey,

apparently with the object of finding out about his friend Êa-banî, and

ascertaining whether there were any means of bringing him back to earth

again.

He sets out, and comes to the place where the “scorpion-men,” with their

heads reaching to heaven, and their breasts on a level with Hades, guarded

the place of the rising and the setting sun. The horror of their

appearance, which was death to behold, is forcibly described on the

tablet. The hero was struck with terror on seeing them, but as he was of

divine origin (“his body is of the flesh of the gods,” as the scorpion-man

says to his female), death has no power over him on account of them. He

seems to describe to them his journey, and the object he had in view.

Pir-napištim, the Babylonian Noah, is mentioned in the course of the

conversation, and it may be supposed that it is on account of his desire

to visit him that he asks these monsters for advice. He afterwards comes

into contact with the goddess Siduri, “who sits upon the throne of the

sea,” and she, on seeing him, shuts her gate. He speaks to her of this,

and threatens to break it open. Having gained admission, he apparently

tells the goddess the reason of his journey, and she, in return, describes

to him the way that he would have to take, the sea that he would have to

cross, and of the deep waters of death that bar the way to the abode of

the Babylonian Noah, who had attained unto everlasting life, and whose

pilot or boatman, Ur-Šanabi, was to take the Erechite hero to his

presence.

After a long conversation with Ur-Šanabi, concerning the road that they

will take, they start together, and after passing through a forest, they

embark in a ship, and reach, at the end of a month and ten days, the

“waters of death.” There Gilgameš does something a number of times, and

afterwards sees afar off Pir-napištim, the Babylonian Noah, who apparently

communes with himself concerning the visitor who has come to his shores.

The conversation which follows is very mutilated, but in the course of his

explanation of the reason of his visit, Gilgameš relates all his

adventures—how he had traversed all the countries, and crossed difficult

mountains, his visit to Siduri, and her refusal to open the door to him,

with many other things. The conversation apparently, after a time, becomes

of a philosophical nature, for, in the course of it, Pir-napištim says—

“Always have we built a house,

Always do we seal (?) (the contract).

Always have brothers share together,

Always is the seed in (the earth?),

Always the river rises bringing a flood.”

He then discourses, apparently among other things, of death, and says—

“The Anunnaki, the great gods, are assembled (?).

Mammitum, maker of fate, sets with them the destinies.

They have made life and death,

(But) the death-days are not made known.”

With these words the tenth tablet of the Gilgameš series comes to an end.

The Eleventh Tablet Of The Gilgameš Series, Containing The Story Of The

Flood.

As this tablet is the most complete of the series, it may not be

considered out of place to give here a description of the outward

appearance of the document—or, rather, of the documents, for there are

many copies. This description will serve, to a certain extent, for all the

other tablets of the series, when in their complete state.

The size of the document which best shows the form is about 8-½ inches

wide, by 5-7/8 inches high. It is rectangular in form, and is inscribed on

both sides with three columns of writing (six in all). The total number of

lines, as given in the text published in the second edition of the fourth

vol. of the _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, is 293, including

the catch-line and colophon, but as many of these lines are, in reality,

double ones (the scribes frequently squeezed two lines into the space of

one, so as to economize space), the original number of the lines was

probably nearer 326, or, with the catch-line and colophon, 330. It is

probable that the other tablets of the series were not so closely written

as this, and in these cases the number of lines is fewer.

The tablet opens with the continuation of the conversation between

Gilgameš and “Pir-napištim the remote”—

“Gilgameš said also to him, to Pir-napištim the remote:

‘I perceive thee, O Pir-napištim,

Thy features are not changed—like me art thou,

And thou (thyself) art not changed, like me art thou.

Put an end in thine heart to the making of resistance,

(Here?) art thou placed, does that rise against thee,

(Now?) that thou remainest, and hast attained life in the assembly

of the gods?’

Pir-napištim said also to him, to Gilgameš:

‘Let me tell thee, Gilgameš, the account of my preservation,

And let me tell thee, even thee, the decision of the gods.

Šurippak, the city which thou knowest,

Lies (upon the bank) of the Euphrates.

That city was old, and the gods within it.

The great gods decided in their hearts to make a flood.

There (?) was (?) their father Anu,

Their counsellor, the warrior Ellila,

Their throne-bearer, Ninip,

Their leader, En-nu-gi.

Nin-igi-azaga, the god Ae, communed with them, and

Repeated their command to the earth:

“Earth, earth! Town, town!

O earth, hear: and town, understand!

Surippakite, son of Umbara-Tutu,

Destroy the house, build a ship,

Leave what thou hast (?), see to thy life.

Destroy the hostile and save life,

Take up the seed of life, all of it, into the midst of the ship.

The ship which thou shalt make, even thou,

Let its size be measured,

Let it agree (as to) its height and its length;

(Behold) the deep, launch her (thither).”

I understood and said to Ae, my lord:

“[Behol]d, my lord, what thou, even thou, hast said, verily (?)

It is excellent (?), (and) I will do (it).

(How?) may I answer the city—the young men and the elders?”

Ae opened his mouth and spake,

He said to his servant, to me:

“Thus, then, shalt thou say unto them;

‘It has been told me (that) Ellila hates me,

I will not dwell in ... and

In the territory of Ellila I will not set my face—

I will descend to the deep, with (Ae) my lord I shall (constantly)

dwell.

(As for) you, he will cause abundance to rain down upon you, and

(Beasts and?) birds (shall be) the prey (?) of the fishes, and

... he will enclose, (?), and

... of a storm (?),

(In the night) the heavens will rain down upon (y)ou

destruction.” ’ ”

With these words the second paragraph comes to an end, the total number of

lost or greatly mutilated lines being about nine. Very little of the

contents of these lines can be made out, as not much more than traces of

words remain. Where the lines begin to become fairly complete, the text

seems to refer to the building of the ship, upon which four days had

already been spent, its form being laid down on the fifth day. The

description of the building, which is somewhat minute, is exceedingly

difficult to translate, and any rendering of it must therefore, at the

present time, be regarded as tentative. Its bulwarks seem to have risen

four measures, and a deck (apparently) is mentioned. Its interior was

pitched with six _šar_ of bitumen, and its outside with three _šar_ of

pitch, or bitumen of a different kind. The provisionment of the vessel is

next described, but this part is mutilated. A quantity of oil for the crew

and pilot is referred to, and oxen were also slaughtered, apparently as a

propitiatory sacrifice on the completion of the vessel. Various kinds of

drink were then brought on board, both intoxicating and otherwise,

plentiful (this may be regarded as the word to be supplied here) “like the

waters of a river.” After this we have references to the completion of

certain details—holes for the cables above and below, etc., and with this

the third paragraph comes to an end.

In the next paragraph Pir-napištim collects his goods and his family, and

enters into the ark:—

“All I possessed I transferred thereto,

All I possessed I transferred thereto, silver,

All I possessed I transferred thereto, gold;

All I possessed I transferred thereto, the seed of life, the whole

I caused to go up into the midst of the ship. All my family and

relatives,

The beasts of the field, the animals of the field, the sons of the

artificers—all of them I sent up.

The god Šamaš appointed the time—

_Muir kukki_—In the night I will cause the heavens to rain

destruction,

Enter into the midst of the ship and shut thy door.”

“That time approached—

_Muir kukki_—In the night the heavens rained destruction.

I saw the appearance of the day:

I was afraid to look upon the day—

I entered into the midst of the ship, and shut my door.

For the guiding of the ship, to Buzur-Kurgala, the pilot,

I gave the great house with its goods.

At the appearance of dawn in the morning,

There arose from the foundation of heaven a dark cloud:

Rimmon thundered in the midst of it, and

Nebo and Šarru went in front

Then went the throne-bearers (over) mountain and plain.

Ura-gala dragged out the cables,

Then came Ninip, casting down destruction,

The Anunnaki raised (their) torches,

With their brilliance they illuminated the land.

Rimmon’s destruction reached to heaven,

Everything bright to darkness turned,

... the land like ... it ...

The first day, the storm (?) ...

Swiftly it swept, and ... the land (?)....

Like a battle against the people it sought....

Brother saw not brother.

The people were not to be recognized. In heaven

The gods feared the flood, and

They fled, they ascended to the heaven of Anu.

The gods kenneled like dogs, crouched down in the enclosures.

Ištar spake like a mother.(8)

The lady of the gods(9) called out, making her voice resound:

‘All that generation has turned to corruption.

Because I spoke evil in the assembly of the gods,

When I spoke evil in the assembly of the gods,

I spoke of battle for the destruction of my people.

Verily I have begotten (man), but where is he?

Like the sons of the fishes he fills the sea.’

The gods of the Anunnaki were weeping with her.

The gods had crouched down, seated in lamentation,

Covered were their lips in (all) the assemblies,

Six days and nights

The wind blew, the deluge and flood overwhelmed the land.

The seventh day, when it came, the storm ceased, the raging flood,

Which had contended like a whirlwind,

Quieted, the sea shrank back, and the evil wind and deluge ended.

I noticed the sea making a noise,

And all mankind had turned to corruption.

Like palings the marsh-reeds appeared.

I opened my window, and the light fell upon my face,

I fell back dazzled, I sat down, I wept,

Over my face flowed my tears.

I noted the regions, the shore of the sea,

For twelve measures the region arose.

The ship had stopped at the land of Niṣṣir.

The mountain of Niṣir seized the ship, and would not let it pass.

The first day and the second day the mountain of Niṣir seized the

ship, and would not let it pass,

The third day and the fourth day the mountain of Niṣir, etc.,

The fifth and sixth the mountain of Niṣir, etc.,

The seventh day, when it came

I sent forth a dove, and it left,

The dove went, it turned about,

But there was no resting-place, and it returned.

I sent forth a swallow, and it left,

The swallow went, it turned about,

But there was no resting-place, and it returned.

I sent forth a raven, and it left,

The raven went, the rushing of the waters it saw,

It ate, it waded, it croaked, it did not return.

I sent forth (the animals) to the four winds, I poured out a

libation,

I made an offering on the peak of the mountain,

Seven and seven I set incense-vases there,

In their depths I poured cane, cedar, and rosewood (?).

The gods smelled a savour,

The gods smelled a sweet savour,

The gods gathered like flies over the sacrificer.

Then the goddess Maḫ, when she came,

Raised the great signets that Anu had made at her wish:

‘These gods—by the lapis-stone of my neck—let me not forget,

These days let me remember, nor forget them forever!

Let the gods come to the sacrifice,

But let not Ellila come to the sacrifice,

For he did not take counsel, and made a flood,

And consigned my people to destruction.’

Then Ellila, when he came,

Saw the ship. And Ellila was wroth,

Filled with anger on account of the gods and the spirits of

heaven.

‘What, has a soul escaped?

Let not a man be saved from the destruction.’

Ninip opened his mouth and spake,

He said to the warrior Ellila:

‘Who but Ae has done the thing

And Ae knows every event.’

Ae opened his mouth and spake,

He said to the warrior Ellila:

‘Thou sage of the gods, warrior,

Verily thou hast not taken counsel, and hast made a flood.

The sinner has committed his sin,

The evildoer has committed his misdeed,

Be merciful—let him not be cut off—yield, let (him) not perish.

Why hast thou made a flood?

Let the lion come, and let men diminish.

Why hast thou made a flood?

Let the hyæna come, and let men diminish.

Why hast thou made a flood?

Let a famine happen, and let the land be destroyed (?).

Why hast thou made a flood?

Let Ura (pestilence) come, and let the land be devastated (?).

I did not reveal the decision of the great gods—

I caused Atra-ḫasis to see a dream, and he heard the decision of

the gods.’

When he had taken counsel (with himself),

Ae went up into the midst of the ship,

He took my hand and he led me up, even me

He brought up and caused my woman to kneel (?) at my side;

He touched us, and standing between us, he blessed us (saying):

‘Formerly Pir-napištim was a man:

Now (as for) Pir-napištim and his woman, let them be like unto the

gods, (even) us,

And let Pir-napištim dwell afar at the mouths of the rivers.’

He took me, and afar at the mouths of the rivers he caused me to

dwell.

Now as for thee, who of the gods shall restore thee to health?

That thou see the life that thou seekest, even thou?

Well, lie not down to sleep six days and seven nights,

Like one who is sitting down in the midst of his sorrow (?),

Sleep like a dark cloud hovereth over him.

Pir-napištim then said to his wife:

‘See, the hero who desireth life,

Sleep like a dark cloud hovereth over him.’

His wife then said to Pir-napištim the remote:

‘Touch him, and let him awake a man—

Let him return in health by the road that he came,

Let him return to his country by the great gate by which he came

forth.’

Pir-napištim said to his wife:

‘The suffering of men hurteth thee.

Come, cook his food, set it by his head.’

And the day that he lay down in the enclosure of his ship,

She cooked his food, she set it by his head:

And the day when he lay down in the enclosure of his cabin

First his food was ground,

Secondly it was sifted,

Thirdly it was moistened,

Fourthly she rolled out his dough,

Fifthly she threw down a part,

Sixthly it was cooked,

Seventhly he (or she) touched him suddenly, and he awoke a man!

Gilgameš said to him (even) to Pir-napištim the remote:

‘That sleep quite overcame me

Swiftly didst thou touch me, and didst awaken me, even thou.’ ”

Pir-napištim, in answer to this, tells Gilgameš what had been done to him,

repeating the description of the preparation of his food in the same words

as had been used to describe the ceremony (for such it apparently is), and

ending by saying, “Suddenly I touched thee, (even) I, and thou awokest,

(even) thou.” Thus putting beyond question the personality of the one who

effected the transformation which was brought about, though he leaves out

the word “man,” which hid from the hero the fact that a transformation had

in consequence taken place in him. The ceremonies were not by any means

finished, however, for the boatman or pilot had to take him to the place

of lustration to be cleansed, and for the skin, with which he seems to

have been covered, to fall off. The Babylonian patriarch then tells him of

a wonderful plant which would make an old man young again, and Gilgameš

gets possession of one of these. On his way to his own country in the

company of the boatman or pilot, he stops to perform what seems to be a

religious ceremony, at a well, when a serpent smells the plant,(10) and,

apparently in consequence of that, a lion comes and takes it away.

Gilgameš greatly laments his loss, saying that he had not benefited by the

possession of this wonderful plant, but the lion of the desert had gained

the advantage. After a journey only varied by the religious festivals that

they kept, they at length reached Erech, the walled. Here, after a

reference to the dilapidation of the place, and a statement seemingly

referring to the offerings to be made if repairs had not, during his

absence, been effected, the eleventh and most important tablet of the

Gilgameš series comes to an end.

Of the twelfth tablet but a small portion exists, though fragments of more

than one copy have been found. In this we learn that Gilgameš still

lamented for his friend Êa-banî, whom he had lost so long before. Wishing

to know of his present state and how he fared, he called to the spirit of

his friend thus—

“Thou restest not the bow upon the ground,

What has been smitten by the bow surround thee.

The staff thou raisest not in thine hand,

The spirits (of the slain) enclose thee.

Shoes upon thy feet thou dost not set,

A cry upon earth thou dost not make:

Thy wife whom thou lovest thou kissest not,

Thy wife whom thou hatest thou smitest not;

Thy child whom thou lovest thou kissest not,

Thy child whom thou hatest thou smitest not.

The sorrowing earth hath taken thee.”

Gilgameš then seems to invoke the goddess “Mother of Nin-a-zu,” seemingly

asking her to restore his friend to him, but to all appearance without

result. He then turned to the other deities—Bêl, Sin, and Ea, and the

last-named seems to have interceded for Êa-banî with Nerigal, the god of

the under-world, who, at last, opened the earth, “and the spirit of

Êa-banî like mist arose (?).” His friend being thus restored to him,

though probably only for a time, and not in bodily form, Gilgameš asks him

to describe the appearance of the world from which he had just come. “If I

tell thee the appearance of the land I have seen,” he answers, “... sit

down, weep.” Gilgameš, however, still persists—“... let me sit down, let

me weep,” he answers. Seeing that he would not be denied, Êa-banî complies

with his request. It was a place where dwelt people who had sinned in

their heart, where (the young) were old, and the worm devoured, a place

filled with dust. This was the place of those who had not found favour

with their god, who had met with a shameful death (as had apparently

Êa-banî himself). The blessed, on the other hand—

“Whom thou sawest [die] the death (?) [of] . .[I see]—

In the resting-place of .... reposing, pure water he drinketh.

Whom in the battle thou sawest killed, I see—

His father and his mother support his head

And his wife sitteth [? beside him].

Whose corpse thou hast seen thrown down on the plain, I see—

His spirit on earth reposeth not.

Whose spirit thou sawest without a caretaker, I see—

The leavings of the dish, the rejected of the food,

Which in the street is thrown, he eateth.”

And with this graphic description of the world of the dead the twelfth and

concluding tablet of the Gilgameš series comes to an end.

With the Gilgameš series of tablets as a whole we have not here to concern

ourselves, except to remark, that the story of the Flood is apparently

inserted in it in order to bring greater glory to the hero, whom the

writer desired to bring into connection with one who was regarded as the

greatest and most renowned of old times, and who, on account of the favour

that the gods had to him, had attained to immortality and to divinity.

Except the great Merodach himself, no divine hero of past ages appealed to

the Babylonian mind so strongly as Pir-napištim, who was called

Atra-ḫasis, the hero of the Flood.

The reason of the coming of the Flood seems to have been regarded by the

Babylonians as two-fold. In the first place, as Pir-napištim is made to

say (see p. 100), “Always the river rises and brings a flood”—in other

words, it was a natural phenomenon. But in the course of the narrative

which he relates to Gilgameš, the true reason is implied, though it does

not seem to be stated in words. And this reason is the same as that of the

Old Testament, namely, the wickedness of the world. If it should again

become needful to punish mankind with annihilation on account of their

wickedness, the instrument was to be the lion, or the hyæna, or

pestilence—not a flood. And we have not to go far to seek the reason for

this. By a flood, the whole of mankind might—in fact, certainly would—be

destroyed, whilst by the other means named some, in all probability, would

escape. There was at least one of the gods who did not feel inclined to

witness the complete destruction of the human race without a protest, and

an attempt on his part to frustrate such a merciless design.

Little doubt exists that there is some motive in this statement on the

part of the Babylonian author of the legend. It has been already noted

that Merodach (the god who generally bears the title of _Bêl_, or “lord”)

was, in Babylonian mythology, not one of the older gods, he having

displaced his father Ea or Ae, in consequence of the predominance of

Babylon, whose patron god Merodach was. Could it be that the Babylonians

believed that the visitation of the flood was due to the vengeful anger of

Merodach, aroused by the people’s non-acceptance of his kingship? It seems

unlikely. Pir-napištim was himself a worshipper of Ae, and on account of

that circumstance, he is represented in the story as being under the

special protection of that god. To all appearance, therefore, the reason

which Pir-napištim is represented as having given, for the building of the

ship, to his fellow-townsmen, was not intended to be altogether false. The

god Ellila hated him, and therefore he was going to dwell with Ae, his

lord—on the bosom of the deep which he ruled. An announcement of the

impending doom is represented as having been made to the people by the

patriarch, and it is therefore doubly unfortunate that the next paragraph

is so mutilated, for it doubtless gave, when complete, some account of the

way in which they received the notice of the destruction that was about to

be rained down upon them.

It has been more than once suggested, and Prof. Hommel has stated the

matter as his opinion, that the name of the god Aê or Ea, another possible

reading of which is Aa, may be in some way connected with, and perhaps

originated the Assyro-Babylonian divine name Ya’u, “God,” which is cognate

with the Hebrew Yah or, as it is generally written, Jah. If this be the

case, it would seem to imply that a large section of the people remained

faithful to his worship, and the flood of the Babylonians may symbolize

some persecution of them by the worshippers of the god Ellila, angry at

the slight put upon him by their neglect or unwillingness to acknowledge

him as the chief of the Pantheon. Some of the people may, indeed, have

worshipped Ae or Aa alone, thus constituting a kind of monotheism. This,

nevertheless, is very uncertain, and at present unprovable. It is worthy

of note, however, that at a later date there was a tendency to identify

all the deities of the Babylonian Pantheon with Merodach, and what in the

“middle ages” of the Babylonians existed with regard to Merodach may very

well have existed for the worship of Ae or Ea at an earlier date. The

transfer, in the Semitic Babylonian Creation-story, of the name of Aê to

his son Merodach may perhaps be a re-echo of the tendency to identify all

the gods with Ae, when the latter was the supreme object of worship in the

land. There is one thing that is certain, and that is, that the Chaldean

Noah, Pir-napištim, was faithful in the worship of the older god, who

therefore warned him, thus saving his life. Ae, the god who knew all

things, knew also the design of his fellows to destroy mankind, and being

“all and always eye,” to adopt a phrase used by John Bunyan, he bore, as a

surname, that name Nin-igi-azaga, “Lord of the bright eye,” so well

befitting one who, even among his divine peers, was the lord of

unsearchable wisdom.

It is unfortunately a difficult thing to make a comparison of the ark as

described in Genesis with a ship of the Babylonian story. It was thought,

by the earlier translators of the Babylonian story of the Flood, that its

size was indicated in the second paragraph of the story (p. 102, ll. 11,

12), but Dr. Haupt justly doubts that rendering. If the size of the vessel

were indicated at all, it was probably in the next paragraph, where the

building of the ship is described. This part, however, is so very

mutilated, that very little clear sense can be made out of it. The

Babylonian home-land of the story seems certainly to be indicated by the

mention of two kinds of bitumen or pitch for caulking the vessel,

Babylonia being the land of bitumen _par excellence_. Those who were to

live on board were to sustain themselves with the flesh of oxen, and to

all appearance they cheered the weary hours with the various kinds of

drink of which they laid in store. They were not neglectful, either, of

the oil that they used in preparing the various dishes, and with which

they anointed their persons. All these points, though but little things in

themselves, go to show that the story, in its Babylonian dress, was really

written in the country of that luxury-loving people. The mention of holes

for the cables, too, shows that the story is the production of maritime

people, such as the Babylonians were.

Apparently the Babylonians found there was something inconsistent in the

patriarch being saved without any of his relatives (except his sons), and

the artificers who had helped him to build the ship which was to save him

from the destruction that overwhelmed his countrymen and theirs. For this

reason, and also because of the relationship that might be supposed to

exist between master and servant, his relatives and the sons of the

artificers(11) are saved along with his own family, which, of course,

would not only include his sons, but their wives also. On this point,

therefore, the two accounts may be regarded as in agreement.

When all was ready, the Sun-god, called by the usual Semitic name of

Šamaš, appointed the time for the coming of the catastrophe. This would

seem to be another confirmation of the statement already made, that the

Babylonians, like the Hebrews (see Gen. i. 14-18), regarded one of the

uses of the sun as being to indicate seasons and times. It was a great and

terrible time, such as caused terror to the beholder, and the patriarch

was smitten with fear. Here, as in other parts of the Babylonian version,

there is a human interest that is to a large extent wanting in the precise

and detailed Hebrew account. Again the maritime nation is in evidence,

where the consigning of the ship into the care of a pilot is referred to.

Of course such an official could do but little more than prevent

disastrous misfortune from the vessel being the plaything of the waves. In

the description of the storm, the terror of the gods, Ištar’s grief, and

Maḫ’s anger at the destruction of mankind, we see the production of a

nation steeped in idolatry, but there are but few Assyro-Babylonian

documents in which this fact is not made evident.

We have a return to the Biblical story in the sending forth of the birds,

and the sacrifice of odoriferous herbs, when the gods smelled a sweet

savour, and gathered like flies over the sacrificer. In the signets of

Maḫ, “the lady of the gods,” by which she swears, we may, perhaps, see a

reflection of the covenant by means of the rainbow, which the Babylonians

possibly explained as being the necklace of the goddess. Instead of the

promise that a similar visitation to destroy the whole of mankind should

not occur again, there is simply a kind of exhortation on the part of the

god Ae, addressed to Ellila, not to destroy the world by means of a flood

again. To punish mankind for sins and misdeeds committed, other means were

to be employed that did not involve the destruction of the whole human

race.

Noah died at the age of 950 years (Gen. ix. 29), but his Babylonian

representative was translated to the abode of the blessed “at the mouths

of the rivers,” with his wife, to all appearance immediately after the

Flood. In this the Babylonian account differs, and the ultimate fate of

the patriarch resembles that of the Biblical Enoch, he who “was not, for

God took him” (Gen. v. 24).

Appendix. The Second Version Of The Flood-Story.

This was found by the late George Smith at Nineveh when excavating for the

proprietors of the _Daily Telegraph_, and was at first supposed to belong

to the text translated on pp. 101-109. This, however, is impossible, as

the narrative is in the third person instead of the first, and in the form

of a conversation between Atra-ḫasis (= Pir-napištim) and the god Aê—

Tablet D. T. 42.

......................

....... may it be

....... like the vault of

....... may it be strong above and below.

Enclose the ... and ...............

[At] the time that I shall send to thee

Enter [the ship] and close the door of the ship,

Into the midst of it [take] thy grain, thy furniture, and [thy]

goods,

Thy . . ., thy family, thy relatives, and the artisans;

[The beasts] of the field, the animals of the field, as many as I

shall collect (?),

[I will] send to thee, and thy door shall protect them.

[Atra]-ḫasis opened his mouth and spake,

Sa]ying to Aê, his lord:

“...... a ship I have not made .......

Form [its shape (?) upon the gr]ound.

Let me see the [plan], and [I will build] the ship.

[Form] ...... on the ground ........

........ what thou hast said .......

.........................

It is not improbable that the fragment published by the Rev. V. Scheil, O.

P., belongs to this legend (see _The King’s Own_,(12) April 1898, pp.

397-400).

CHAPTER IV. ASSYRIA, BABYLONIA, AND THE HEBREWS, WITH REFERENCE TO THE

SO-CALLED GENEALOGICAL TABLE.

The Akkadians—The Semitic Babylonians—The Hebrews—Nimrod—Assur—The

Tower of Babel and the confusion of tongues—Babylonian

temple-towers—How the legend probably arose—The Patriarchs to the

time of Abraham.

“And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.

“He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as

Nimrod, the mighty hunter before the Lord.

“And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and

Calneh, in the land of Shinar.

“Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city

Rehoboth (or, the streets of the city), and Calah.

“And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city.”

Such is the Biblical account of the origin of the two most powerful states

of the ancient East, Babylonia and Assyria. It has been many times quoted

and discussed, but there seems always to be something new to say about it,

or to add to it, or what has already been said may be put in another and

clearer way. It is for one or more of these reasons, as well as for the

completeness of this work, that the author ventures again to approach the

well-worn problems that these verses present.

Every reader, on taking up a book dealing with this period of ancient

Eastern history, will probably have noticed, that the word which most

frequently meets his eye (if the book be an English one) is Akkad, the

Semitic equivalent of the Biblical Accad. If, however, it be a continental

work, the equivalent expression will be Šumer—which word, indeed, he will

meet with also in English works, if the writer be at all under German or

other foreign influence.

The reason for this divergence of opinion is very simple, the fact being

that there were two tribes or nationalities, Šumer being before Akkad when

the two countries are mentioned together, and as it is regarded as

identical with the Shinar of Gen. x. 10, Šumer and Šumerian may possibly

be preferable, but in all probability Akkad and Akkadian are not wrong.

As we see from the chapter of Genesis referred to, there were many

nationalities in the Euphrates valley in ancient times, and the expression

“Cush begat Nimrod,” would imply that the inhabitants of Babylonia were

all Cushites. Yet the great majority of the inscriptions found in that

country of a later date than about 2000 B.C. are Semitic.

Large additions have of late years been made to the number of ancient

remains from Babylonia, and most of these are of a very early period. We

are thus in a position to compare not only the different types of that

early period with each other, but also with the sculptures of later date.

The cylinder-seals show us a comparatively slim race, long-bearded, erect

and dignified, and these characteristics are also recognizable among the

various types revealed to us by the still earlier sculptures. The

representations of kings and deities are often heavily bearded, but, on

the other hand, high officials and others are generally clean shaven.

These peculiarities, with the difference of costume, especially the

thick-brimmed hats, would seem to imply distinct foreign influence, or,

rather, in combination with the differences of racial type exhibited,

considerable foreign admixture. Perhaps, however, the true explanation is,

that the plain of Shinar represents the meeting-point of two different

races—one Cushite and the other Semitic.

And this fact, as is well known, is confirmed by the existence of what is

regarded as the language of the Akkadians, and also of a dialect of the

same. This is not the place to discuss the question whether these

non-Semitic idioms be really languages or only cryptographs—the author

holds, in common with Sayce, Oppert, Hommel, and all the principal

Assyriologists, that they are real languages—but a reference to the few

passages where these idioms are spoken of may not be without interest.

One of these is the fragment known as S. 1190 in the British Museum, where

the contents of the tablet of which it formed a part are referred to as

“Two Šumerian incantations used” (seemingly) “for the stilling of a

weeping child.” Another tablet refers to the languages, and states that

the tongue of Šumer was like (the tongue of) Akkad, or assumed a likeness

to it at some time or other. This document also refers to another form of

speech that was the tongue of the prince, chief, or leader. Yet another

fragment refers to Akkad as below (? to the south) and Šumer above (? to

the north),(13) but it is doubtful whether this refers to the position of

the country. A fourth large fragment written partly in the “dialect” is

referred to as a “Šumerian” text.

Both from the ethnographical and the linguistic side, therefore, ample

testimony to the existence of a non-Semitic race (or non-Semitic races) in

the plain of Shinar in ancient times is at hand. As to the language

intended in the expression “Two Šumerian incantations” (spoken of above)

there can be no doubt, the original idiom in question being the

non-Semitic tongue already referred to—that tongue which was like the

tongue of Akkad, of which it was apparently a more decayed form. The title

given cannot refer to the translation into Assyro-Babylonian which

accompanies it, as this is undoubtedly of later date than the composition

itself.

There is then no doubt that the Akkadians and the Šumerians were two

tribes of the same race, probably intermixed to a certain extent with

foreign elements (people with oblique eyes being depicted on at least two

of the sculptures of the early period from Tel-Loh), and speaking a

language differing entirely from that of their Semitic

fellow-countrymen,—a language which was of an agglutinative nature,

introducing into its verbal forms whole rows of analytical particles,

which sometimes gave to the phrase a precision of meaning to which the

Semitic Babylonian has but little pretension, though Šumero-Akkadian is

generally difficult enough in other respects, in consequence of the

excessive number of the homophones that it contains. Indeed, it is

sometimes difficult to see how the speakers of the latter language could

have understood each other without resorting to some such distinctive aids

similar to the tones used in modern—as probably also in ancient—Chinese,

of which Šumero-Akkadian is regarded by the Rev. C. J. Ball as an

exceedingly ancient form.

The question of the origin of the Akkadians is one concerning which there

has been and is still much uncertainty, and which presents many problems

for the future. It has been remarked that the fact that there is no

special ideograph for “river,” and the fact that “mountain” and “country”

are represented by the same character, imply that the people with whom the

cuneiform script originated came from a mountainous country—probably the

tract to the east or the north-east. This assumption, however, is not

wholly dependent on what is here stated, for it is a well-known and

admitted fact that the ideograph generally used for “Akkad” stands also

for other tracts that are largely mountainous, namely, Phœnicia and

Ararat.

It may be of interest here to quote the passage referring to this.

The text in question is the exceedingly important syllabary designated by

Prof. Fried. Delitzsch “Syllabary _B_.” The text is unfortunately

defective in the British Museum copy, but a duplicate found at Babylon by

the German explorers completes it as follows:—

Uri [Cuneiform] Akkadū

Ari [Cuneiform] Amurrū

Tilla [Cuneiform] Urṭū.

From this we see that the ideograph for Akkad not only stood for that

country, but also for the land of the Amorites (Amurrū), and for Ararat

(Urṭū), both of them being more or less mountainous districts. That the

ancient home of the Akkadians was of the same nature is, therefore, more

than probable.

That the Akkadians were a conquering race is indicated by the legend of

the god Ura, generally called “the Dibbara Legend,” where the hero, “the

warrior Ura,” is represented as speaking prophetically as follows—

“Tâmtu with Tâmtu,

Subartu with Subartu,

Assyrian with Assyrian,

Elamite with Elamite,

Kassite with Kassite,

Sutite with Sutite,

Qutite with Qutite,

Lullubite with Lullubite,

Country with country, house with house, man with man,

Brother with brother, shall not agree: let them annihilate each

other,

And afterwards let the Akkadian come, and

Let him overthrow them all, and let him cast down the whole of

them.”

The Akkadians had dominion, at one time or another, over all the above

nationalities, some of whom were permanently subjected. Tâmtu, the region

of the Persian Gulf, was under their domination constantly, though the

inhabitants were apparently rather turbulent, and unwilling subjects. The

Assyrians were apparently for a time under Akkadian (Babylonian) rule, but

threw it off at a very early period, and later on conquered Akkad itself.

The Elamites, too, were for a while conquered by the inhabitants of

Babylonia, and the Sutites (people of Sutî) are said to have been all

transported by Kadašman-Muruš (he reigned about 1209 B.C., according to

Hilprecht). It will thus be seen that they played an important part in the

history of the plain of Shinar where they settled, and to all appearance

introduced their civilization.

In the earliest ages known to us, the land of Akkad was a collection of

small states resembling the Heptarchy. These states differed considerably

in power, influence, and prosperity, and the passing centuries brought

many changes with them. From time to time one of the kings or viceroys of

these small states would find himself more powerful than his

contemporaries, and would gradually overcome all the others. One of the

earliest instances of this is the ruler Lugal-zag-gi-si, whose reign is

placed by Hilprecht at about 4500 B.C. He was son of Ukuš (the reading is

doubtful), viceroy (_patesi_) of a district which seems to be that of

which Kis was capital. “He had conquered all Babylonia and established an

empire extending from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea”

(Hilprecht).

Whether he and his successors were able to maintain real dominion over all

this extensive tract or not, we do not know, but a few hundred years later

we find Sargon of Agadé (known as “Šargani king of the city”) subduing the

land of the west in the 11th year of his reign, and placing the districts

under one control, whilst his son, Naram-Sin, apparently added Elam to his

dominions, and Uruwuš (whom Prof. Sayce suggests as the original of the

Horus of Pliny), at a later date, led a warlike expedition thither, and

brought away much spoil, some of which is still extant as a lasting

testimony to the reality of this historical fact.

Among the states which existed in Akkad before the whole country was

united under one king may be mentioned Isin or Karrak, Ur (the supposed Ur

of the Chaldees), Kêš, Nippur (or Niffur), the modern Niffer, Lagaš,

Êridu, Êrech, and Larsa (identified with Ellasar), with some others. Akkad

and Babylon were always important centres, the former being supreme before

the date of the dynasty of Babylon (about 2200 B.C.), and the latter

afterwards.

Until about the time of the dynasty of Babylon, the language principally

used was to all appearance the non-Semitic Babylonian or Akkadian—in any

case, the numerous texts (mainly temple-accounts) of the period of Dungi,

Bûr-Sin, Gimil-Sin, and Ibi-Sin are written in that tongue. Nevertheless,

Akkadian seems to have been the official language of the country for a

considerable time after, if we may judge from the contracts, and

especially the historical dates of these documents, which are always

written in Akkadian. The names, too, which were before this period wholly

Akkadian, gradually become more and more Semitic (Assyro-Babylonian), and

finally the Akkadian element only exists as a remnant of the non-Semitic

tongue which prevailed before the Semitic Dynasty of Babylon—that to which

Ḫammurabi or Amraphel belonged—made the Semitic tongue, spoken by Sargon

of Agadé more than 1500 years before, the official language of the

country.

Such, then, is the history of the ancient Akkadians, from whose

intermingled stock the later Semitic Babylonians sprang, and who

inherited, at the same time, their method of writing, their literature,

their arts and sciences, and also, to a great extent, their manners,

customs, and religion. It was to all appearance with the Semitic dynasty

of Ḫammurabi that the change from non-Semitic to Semitic predominance took

place. This change must have been slow enough, and in all probability it

occurred without any national upheaval, and without any interruption of

the national life. Semitic names gradually replaced the Akkadian ones,

most of the religious works, incantations, national histories, bilingual

lists, and syllabaries were supplied with Semitic translations, and legal

precedents in Semitic Babylonian for the information of the judges of

later times were drawn up, whilst the old Akkadian laws, though retained,

were translated for the use of students who no longer learned Akkadian as

their mother-tongue, and who committed them to memory at the same time as

they learned the set phrases they would have to use when, their education

completed, they should attain to the dignity of full-fledged ministers to

the legal needs of the community. By this time, or somewhat later, the

racial type must have become fixed, for the sculptures from the thirteenth

century B.C. downwards no longer show the slim, elegant form of the

Akkadians, but the thick-set, well-developed figure of the Semites, such

as at least some of the native Christians of Baghdad and the neighbourhood

show at the present day.

As has been already noticed, the Assyrians spoke the same language, and

had practically the same religion and literature (including the ancient

Akkadian classics) as the Babylonians, whom they resembled in manners,

customs, and outward appearance. The old translation of the verse

referring to Assyria, “Out of that land (Babylonia) went forth Assur,” is,

in all probability, perfectly correct, whatever may be the arguments in

favour of the rendering, “He (Nimrod) went out into Assyria,” for it is

exceedingly likely that the Babylonian civilization of Assyria is wholly

due to emigration of settlers from Babylonia. Moreover, as will be seen

later on, the enigmatical Nimrod is none other than the well-known head of

the Babylonian Pantheon, Merodach, who is actually stated to have built

Babel (= the city Babylon), Erech, and Niffer (identified in Rabbinical

tradition, which in this case is probably correct, with Calneh). The

Babylonian tradition as to the foundation of the city of Akkad is still

wanting, but that its origin was attributed to Merodach is more than

probable. If, however, there had been any grounds for honouring Calah,

Nineveh, and Resen with the same divine origin, the Assyrians would

certainly not have allowed the tradition to go unrecorded. Properly

speaking the “land of Nimrod” (Micah v. 6) is Babylon, notwithstanding all

arguments to the contrary, for that was the land which he loved, the land

whose great cities he was regarded as having founded and as still

favouring, and the land where, if we may trust the language of his name

(in Akkadian it means “the brightness of day”), he ruled when he was king

upon earth—the land, in fact, which gave him birth.

At first governed by _patesis_, or viceroys (many Assyriologists call them

priest-kings or pontiffs), this title was abandoned for that of _šarru_,

“king,” between 1600 and 1800 B.C. The use of the title _patesi_ (in

Assyrian _iššaku_, “chief”) implies that the earlier rulers of Assur

acknowledged some overlord, and in all probability this overlord was the

paramount king of Babylonia at the time. If we regard Nimrod (Merodach) as

the first king of Babylonia (or the first really great ruler of the

country), then it is certain that it was not he who founded the great

cities of Assyria, for they can have no pretensions to the same antiquity

as the great cities of Babylonia, any more than Assyrian civilization can

be of the same period. Of course it is probable that the cities of Assyria

were founded at an exceedingly early date, perhaps many of them are as old

as any Babylonian foundation, but their importance was nothing like so

great as those of Babylonia until the latter had already been renowned

many hundreds—perhaps many thousands—of years, and to attribute the origin

of these unimportant places to Nimrod would bring him no honour, even if

it were probable that he had founded them.

The founder of Nineveh, Calah, Rehoboth Ir, and Resen was either a

Babylonian emigrant named Asshur, the first viceroy of the district, or

else Asshur, in the tenth chapter of Genesis, stands for the Assyrian

nation. It is noteworthy that, in the verse in question, there is no

mention of the foundation of the old capital, the city of Aššur. This is

probably to be explained by the fact that the book of Genesis was compiled

at a time when the primæval capital had already fallen into the

background, and Nineveh, the city first mentioned in the enumeration, had

assumed the first place—indeed, the fact that it is mentioned first seems

to prove this contention.

Being far away from the centre of civilization, and apparently mingling

with barbarous races to the north—the people of Urarṭu (Ararat), Van,

Ukka, Muṣaṣir, etc.—in all probability the ancient Assyrians lost what

polish they had brought with them from Babylonia, and, like all pioneers,

developed into hardy, fearless, and cruel warriors, constantly striving

for the mastery over all the other tribes and nationalities around. Thus

it came to pass that, having ascertained her strength, Assyria refused to

acknowledge the overlordship of the kings of Babylonia, and the rulers of

the country abandoned the title of _patesi_ or _iššaku_ for that of

_šarru_ or “king.” The country from which the Assyrians had sprung did not

long remain secure from the attacks of her offspring, and the conquest of

Babylonia by the Assyrians took place more than once. Brave, warlike, and

cruel, the Assyrians at last possessed for a time not only Babylonia, with

the overlordship of Elam, but also the whole of Western Asia as far as the

Mediterranean and Cyprus, and a large part of Egypt. Notwithstanding the

polish that they had attained during the last years of the empire, the

nations around remembered against them all the cruelties that they had

committed during the foregoing centuries, and when the time of weakness

came, when the ruling mind that should have held the empire together, and

turned the tide of disaster into the channel of success, was wanting, then

came the chance of the nations that had known the Assyrian empire in

former ages, and the end of the seventh century before Christ saw the last

of the power that had dominated Western Asia so long and so successfully.

Yet Assyria was a most remarkable power, and produced a number of really

great rulers and generals. The Assyrian kings retained for a long time

their dominion over fairly distant tracts, and made themselves greatly

feared by all the nations around. As is well known, they had made great

advances in the art of sculpture, so much so that visitors to the British

Museum, on seeing the wonderful hunting-scenes in the Assyrian

side-gallery, have been heard to express the opinion that Greek artists

must either have originated them, or influenced their production. Their

literature was naturally influenced by that of Babylonia, but one has only

to read the historical records of Tiglath-pileser I., who declaims his

successes in forceful and elegant paragraphs; Sennacherib, with his wealth

of words; or Assur-banî-âpli, who in moderate and elegant phrases tells of

the successes of his soldiers and generals, to see that, when occasion

arose, they could produce literary works as good as the best of ancient

times.

It will probably be a matter of regret to many people, but the name of

Nimrod, which we have been accustomed to associate with the pleasures and

perils of the chase for so many hundred years, must now be relegated to

the domain of words misunderstood or purposely changed for reasons that

can without much difficulty be divined.

It is not Nimrod alone that comes under this category—Nibhaz (2 Kings

xvii. 31), judging from the Greek, is in the same case, Nisroch (2 Kings

xix. 37) is certainly so, and Abed-nego for Abed-nebo is a well-known

instance.

But why, it will be asked, should these names have been intentionally

changed? The answer is simple. All these names were, or contained, the

names of heathen deities, and this offended the strongly monotheistic

Hebrew scribe who, at a certain period, was copying the portions of the

Hebrew Bible in which they occur, so he defaced them, adding or changing a

letter, and thus making them unrecognizable, and in all probability

ridiculous as well. A different punctuation (vowelling) completed the

work, and the names were then in such a form that pious and orthodox lips

could pronounce them without fear of defilement.

Nibhaz is probably for some such name as Aba-hazar, Nisroch is for Assur

or Assuraku, and Nimrod is, by similar changes, for Amaruduk or Amarudu

(original Akkadian), Maruduk or Marduk (Assyro-Babylonian). The change was

brought about by making the root triliteral, and the ending _uk_ (_ak_ in

Merodach-baladan) disappearing first, Marduk appeared as Marad. This was

connected with the root Marad, “to be rebellious,” and the word was still

further mutilated, or, rather, deformed by having a (_ni_) attached,

assimilating it to a certain extent to the “niphal forms” of the Hebrew

verbs, and making a change altogether in conformity with the genius of the

Hebrew language. This alteration is also clearly visible in Nibhaz and

Nisroch, which fully confirm the explanation here given.

From a linguistic point of view, therefore, the identification of Nimrod

as a changed form of Merodach is fully justified.

But there is another and a potent reason for eliminating Nimrod from the

list of Babylonian heroes, and that is, the fact that his name is nowhere

found in the extensive literature which has come down to us. His

identification with Gišdubar was destroyed when it was discovered that the

true reading of that doubtful name was not, as it was expected that it

would be, a Babylonian form of Nimrod, but something entirely different,

namely, Gilgameš. Moreover, there is some doubt whether the personage

represented on the cylinder-seals struggling with lions and bulls be

really Gilgameš (Gišdubar)—his prowess in hunting does not seem to be

emphasized in the legend recounting his exploits (see pp. 92-111)—he is in

all probability the wild man of the woods who became his great friend and

counsellor, the satyr-like figure who is represented as accompanying and

imitating the hunter being simply one of those beings who, the Babylonians

imagined, existed in wild and waste places, for that this creature is not,

as was at first supposed, Êa-banî, the friend of Gilgameš, is not only

proved by the fact that in the legend he is described as a man with hairy

body and hair long like that of a woman, but also by the incontestable

circumstance that this satyr-like creature is, on certain cylinders,

represented more than once, and in such a way that the repetition cannot

be attributed to the exigencies of the design. Moreover, he is sometimes

represented in positions that seem to have no connection with the

Gilgameš-legend at all.

It would seem therefore to be certain that Gilgameš is not Nimrod; that as

he had little or no fame as a “great hunter before the Lord,” it cannot be

he who is represented on the cylinder-seals; and that, in all probability,

the hunter there represented is Êa-banî, who overcame the divine bull

before Erech, and a lion after the defeat of Ḫumbaba, in both cases,

however, assisted by his royal patron.

But, it may be asked, how is it that Nimrod, otherwise Merodach, is

described as “the mighty hunter before the Lord”?

The explanation is very simple, and remarkably conclusive in its way.

Merodach, in the legend of the Creation, there appears as the greatest

hunter (using the word in the Hebrew sense of “entrapper”) that ever

lived. For did he not, when Tiamtu, the great dragon of chaos and

disorder, tried to usurp the dominion of the gods, and bring ruin on their

fair work, chase and entrap her, thereby winning the throne of the kingdom

of heaven, and laying the universe under an everlasting debt to him? With

his net he caught and held her fast, and, standing on her body, slew her.

This was the feat of a real _gibbor ṣayid_, a “hero in hunting,” or

entrapping with a net, for _ṣayid_, “hunting,” is from the same root as

Sidon, the name of the ancient “fishing town,” renowned of old, and still

existing at the present day.

The Tower Of Babel.

There is no doubt that one of the most striking and attractive episodes of

the sacred narrative of Genesis is the Tower of Babel. It has attracted

the attention of all from its circumstantial details, and has, as an

authoritative narrative, had the full belief of all the faithful for many

thousand years. This being the case, it is needful to go rather carefully

into the matter, not only to try to account for its origin, but also to

satisfy the believer of to-day with regard to the story being a real

historical fact.

“Of these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands,”—“These

are the sons of Ham, after their families,”—“These are the sons of Shem,

after their families,” says the author of Genesis in ch. x. 5, 20, and 31,

and then he adds, in slightly varying words, “after their tongues, in

their lands, in their nations.”

Yet, after this (ch. xi. 1) we have the statement, “And the whole earth

was of _one_ language, and of _one_ speech.” Moreover, how was it possible

that the whole of the nations of the earth there enumerated in the tenth

chapter should have had their origin at Babel, the beginning of Nimrod’s

(Merodach’s) kingdom, coeval with Erech, Akkad, and Calneh, in the land of

Shinar? The effect of such a statement as this would surely be to make the

language of Nimrod the primitive language of the world, unless, indeed,

all the languages of the earth resulting from the confusion of tongues

were regarded as new, the primitive speech of man having been destroyed on

that occasion. Then, again, as we know, the building of the city was not

stopped, for it continued until it became the greatest and most important

centre in the known world when it was at the height of its glory.

With the best will in the world, therefore, there seems to be no escape

from regarding both the story of the Tower of Babel, and the reference to

Nimrod and Asshur in the foregoing chapter as interpolations, giving

statements from ancient and possibly fairly well-known records, recording

what was commonly believed in the ancient East in those early ages. It is

also noteworthy, that both extracts, referring as they do, to Babylonia,

are probably on that account from a Babylonian source. May it not be

possible, that they have been inserted in the sacred narrative as

statements of what was the common opinion among the more well-informed

inhabitants of Western Asia at the time, without any claim to an inspired

authority being either stated or implied? This would seem to be the most

reasonable way of looking at the matter, and would take away what might

well be regarded as a great difficulty to the believer in good faith.

If this be conceded, we can with the greater ease analyze this portion of

the eleventh chapter of Genesis, and estimate it at its true value.

In any case, there is great improbability that the statement that the

whole earth was of one language and of one speech, was ever believed, by

thinking men at the time as an actual historical fact. A better

translation would be “the whole land,” that is, the whole tract of country

from the mountains of Elam to the Mediterranean Sea, rather than “the

whole earth.” The same word is used when the “land” of Israel is spoken

of, and also when “the land of Egypt” is referred to. It will thus be seen

that no violence whatever is done to the text if the restricted use of the

word be accepted.

That this is, in a sense, provable as an historical fact, we shall see in

the sequel.

Having thus in a measure cleared the way, the various points of the first

nine verses of the eleventh chapter of Genesis may be taken in order.

“As they journeyed in the east” apparently refers to the remembrance of

the migrations that many a nation, handing down its traditions from mouth

to mouth, must have preserved in ancient times. Whilst thus engaged, “they

found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there”—a statement

which would seem to point to the migrants having been wandering about in

various districts, some of them mountainous—like Armenia on the north of

Assyria, and Elam and other mountainous tracts on the east. This would

seem to agree with the migration which, from the evidence of the monuments

of Babylonia, the Akkadians apparently made before they settled in that

country. And here it may be noted, in support of that fact, that the

ideograph(14) for Akkad, Uri or Ura in Akkadian, and Akkadū in Semitic

Babylonian, not only stood for Akkad, but also (often used in the Assyrian

letters) for Ararat (Urṭū), and likewise (this in a syllabary only) for

Amurrū, the land of the Amorites, or Phœnicia. Both these being districts

more or less mountainous, it is only reasonable to suppose that the

original home of the Akkadians was likewise of the same nature, and that

they were not aborigines of the Babylonian plain. The Akkadians at least,

therefore, “journeyed in the east.”

In the expression “they found a plain in the land of Shinar,” we have a

reference to the old name of a district of Babylonia, generally regarded

as the Šumer of the Babylonian inscriptions, called Kingi or Kengi “the

country” _par excellence_ in the native tongue of the inhabitants. The

land of Shinar here spoken of, if this explanation be correct, not merely

contained a plain—it was, in fact, itself a large plain, through which the

rivers Tigris and Euphrates ran, and it was covered, when the land had

been brought into a really good state of cultivation, by a network of

canals connected with them. It must, when the ancient Akkadians first

settled there, have been a land of remarkable fertility, and would be so

still were it brought into the same efficient state of cultivation, with

irrigation and drainage, such as the old inhabitants effected.

Here, having settled down, they built a city and a tower, using brick for

stone, and bitumen for mortar—just as they are proved to have done from

the remains of cities found in the country at the present day. That

Babylon was the site of the first settlement of the nature of a city is

conceivable, and it is very possible that the first tower in Babylonia,

which in later times had many towers, as had also Assyria, was situated in

that ancient city. Everything points, therefore, to the correctness of the

statements made in this portion of the sacred narrative. According to

native tradition, however (and this seems to be supported by the

statements in ch. x. 10), there were other important cities on the

Babylonian plain of almost equal antiquity, namely, Erech, Akkad, and

Calneh, which last is identified with Niffer (see p. 126). Notwithstanding

the extensive ruins, proof of the same remote date for Babylon will

doubtless be difficult to obtain, on account of the country around and a

large portion of the site of the city being so marshy. The result of this

condition of things will in all probability be, that very few remains of a

really ancient date will be discovered in a condition to render services

to archæology. To this must also be added the fact, that the city, being

the capital for some thousands of years, underwent many changes at the

hands of its various kings, partly from the necessity of keeping in good

repair the many comparatively perishable brick monuments that the city

contained, and partly from a desire to add more to the glories of the city

than any of their predecessors had done.

“And they said, Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, and its top

(lit. head) shall be in the heavens.” To all appearance, this means simply

that they would build a very high structure,—to many a student of the

sacred text it has seemed that the writer only intended to say, that the

tower (_migdol_) that they were about to build was to be very high. The

mountains of Elam were not so very far off, and travellers from that part

would have been able to assure them that the heavens would not be

appreciably nearer on account of their being a few hundred cubits above

the surface of the earth, even if traditions of their fathers’ wanderings

had not assured them of the same thing. They wished simply to make them a

name and a rallying-point, “lest,” as the sacred text has it, “we be

scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”

And here a few remarks upon the temple-towers of the Babylonians might not

be out of place.

As has already been stated, most of the principal towns of Babylonia each

possessed one. That of Babylon (called Šu-ana in the list published in the

_Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. ii., pl. 50) was named

Ê-temen-ana, “the temple of the foundation-stone of Heaven”; that of

Borsippa, near to Babylon, was called Ê-ur-imina-ana, generally translated

“the temple of the seven spheres of heaven,” on account of its being

dedicated to the sun, moon, and planets. This was a high and massive tower

in seven stages, each coloured with an emblematic tint indicating the

heavenly body with which each stage was associated. At Niffer the tower

seems to have had three names, or else there were three towers (which is

unlikely), the principal one being Im-ur-sag. Agade, the Akkad of Gen. x.

10, had two of these temple-towers, Ê-Dadia, apparently meaning “the

temple of the (divine) Presence,” and Ê-šu-gala or Ê-igi-ê-di, the latter

apparently meaning “the temple of the wonder (of mankind),” which was

dedicated to the god Tammuz. At Cuthah there was the temple of Nannara

(Nan-naros); at Ur the temple Ê-šu-gan-du-du; at Erech Ê-gipara-imina,

“the temple of the seven enclosures”; at Larsa Ê-dur-an-ki, “the Temple of

the bond of heaven and earth.”

The only temple-tower that contains in its name a distinct reference to

the seven stages of which it was composed, is that at Borsippa, though

that at Erech may possibly have in its name “seven enclosures” a

suggestion of something of the kind. As, however, the ruins of the towers

at Dûr-Sargina (Khorsabad) in Assyria, Erech, Niffer, and elsewhere, show

distinctly this form of architecture, there is every probability that they

were all, or almost all, built on the same plan. In his description of the

glories of Babylon, Herodotus gives details, in his usual minute way, of

the temple of Belos (Ê-sagila) there. He describes it as having eight

stages (the platform upon which the tower proper was built being counted

as one), and judging from his description, this building must have

differed somewhat from the others, the various platforms being connected

by a gradually rising ascent, arranged spirally as it were, so that by

constantly walking upwards, and turning at the corners of the edifice, one

at last reached the top. About the middle of this long ascending pathway

there was a stopping-place, with seats to rest upon. Having reached the

top of the structure, the visitor came upon a cell, within which there was

a couch and a golden table. Here it was supposed that the god descended

from time to time to dwell. Below, he relates, there was another cell,

wherein was a large statue of Zeus (Belos) sitting. This image was of

gold, as were also the table in front of it, the god’s footstool, and his

seat. It is probable that at the time to which the narrative in Genesis

refers, the tower was neither so high, nor the workmanship so splendid and

valuable, as in later times.

But was this the Tower of Babel? We do not know. The general opinion is

that the great and celebrated temple-tower at Borsippa, extensive remains

of which still exist, was that world-renowned erection. Its name, however,

was Ê-zida, and it was not situated within Babylon. Notwithstanding the

fact, therefore, that Borsippa, the town on the outskirts of the great

city, was called “the second Babylon,” and that tradition associates the

site of the Tower of Babel with that spot, it must still be held to be

very doubtful whether that was really the place. Neither the renown of

Ê-zida nor that of Ê-sagila prove that either of them must have been the

place, for the populace is fickle-minded in this as in other matters, and

holy fanes have the periods when they are in fashion, just like anything

else.

This being the case, the question is, what was that Ê-temen-ana-kia which

is apparently mentioned in the list of temple-towers quoted above? In many

an inscription of Nebuchadnezzar, this temple-tower is referred to, though

very shortly, as having been restored by him. Thus, in the great cylinder

of Nebuchadnezzar, 85-4-30, I, the following occurs—

“I caused the fanes of Babylon and Borsippa to be rebuilt and

endowed.

Ê-temen-ana-kia, the temple-tower of Babylon;

Ê-ur-imina-ana-kia, the temple-tower of Borsippa, all their

structure with bitumen and brick

I made, I completed.”

In the above Ê-temen-ana-kia takes the place of Ê-sagila, and

Ê-ur-imina-ana-kia that of Ê-zida, implying that they respectively

belonged to each other. The passage corresponding to the above in the

India House Inscription is greatly expanded, and recounted with much

detail. The portion referring to Ê-temen-ana-kia is as follows—

“The vessels of the temple Ê-sagila with massive gold—

the bark Ma-kua (Merodach’s shrine) with electrum and stones—

I made glorious

like the stars of heaven.

The fanes of Babylon

I caused to be rebuilt and endowed.

Of Ê-temen-ana-kia

with brick and bright lapis stone

I reared its head.

To rebuild Ê-sagila

my heart urged me—

constantly did I set myself,” etc., etc.

According to the plan of Babylon drawn up by Weissbach, one of the German

explorers, Ê-temen-ana-kia was situated to the north of Ê-sagila, which

latter was evidently the temple connected with it. As both were dedicated

to Merodach (Bel), they practically formed one centre of worship, and it

is possibly on this account that the Tower is called “the Temple of Belus”

in Herodotus. The description, from a Babylonian tablet probably in

private hands, published by the late George Smith, agrees well with that

given by Herodotus, but has some noteworthy differences—the great height

of the lowest stage, the sloping (?) sides of the second stage, and the

buildings grouped near it. Unfortunately, the baked brickwork of

Ê-temen-ana-kia has been cleared away, practically destroying the remains.

Concerning the miracle of the confusion of tongues, there is, of course,

no historical reference. The Babylonian inscriptions know nothing of it.

Yet the stranger visiting Babylon could not have been otherwise than

struck by the number of languages spoken there. There was the religious

tongue, which is called by modern scholars Akkadian or Šumerian, and its

dialect, together with the language known as Assyrian, or, more correctly,

Semitic Babylonian. Besides this, there were various Aramaic

dialects—Chaldee, Aramean (Syriac), and the language of the dockets on the

trade-documents, which is also found in Assyria. In addition to these, the

Elamite and Kassite conquerors of Babylonia brought with them large

numbers of people, and each of these nations naturally introduced, in

larger measure than before, the use of their respective languages.

Speakers of other tongues long since dead must also have visited the city

for the purposes of trade, and of this the so-called Hittite is in all

probability an example (in the researches of Profs. Sayce and Jensen we

shall, perhaps, see the beginnings of the recovery of this tongue), and a

docket in an unknown script implies that yet another language heard there

in later times has to be discovered, though this may simply be some other

way of writing one of the tongues spoken there that is already known to

scholars. With regard to the oneness of the language of the rest of the

earth, in all probability this expression referred, as has been already

remarked, to the tract enclosed between the mountains of Persia on the

east, the Mediterranean on the west, Asia Minor and Armenia on the north,

and Arabia on the south—a tract in which the _lingua franca_ of diplomacy

was, as is proved by the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, the tongue now called

Assyrian, which could easily have been regarded as the proofs and the

remains of the thing that had been.

To recapitulate: The story of the Tower of Babel is a break in the

narrative of the genealogies, so striking that any thinking man must have

been able to recognize it easily. It is a narrative that practically

glorifies Babylonia, making it the centre of the human race, and the spot

from which they all migrated after the dispersion caused by the confusion

of tongues. It was probably given for, and recognized as, the legend

current in Babylonia at the time, and must, therefore, have been

recognized and valued by the people of the time at its true worth.

The Patriarchs To Abraham.

Little information is unfortunately to be obtained from Assyro-Babylonian

sources concerning the patriarchs from Shem to Abraham. It is true that

certain comparisons can be made in the matter of the names, but these,

when more precise information comes to light, may be found to be more or

less erroneous. As a matter of fact, with one or two exceptions, it is

probable that we have nothing from Babylonian sources bearing on the

patriarchs who preceded Abraham at all.

Nevertheless, there are one or two things that may be put forward in a

more or less tentative way, and these may well be discussed with this

reservation in this place.

As we have seen, it was the custom of the early Babylonians to deify the

early rulers of their race, and as a well-known example of this, the case

of the god Merodach will at once occur to the mind. As has been shown,

this deity is none other than the long-known and enigmatical hero Nimrod,

and it is probable that, if we had more and more complete sources of

information, other instances would be found. This being the case, it may

be permitted to the student to try to find similar instances of

deification by the Babylonians of the men of old who were their ancestors

in common with the Jews and other nations of the ancient East.

To begin with Shem, the name of the ancestor of the Semitic race. As a

word, this means, in Hebrew, “name.” Now, the Assyro-Babylonian equivalent

and cognate word is _šumu_, “name,” and this naturally leads one to ask

whether Shem may not have been designated “He of the Name” _par

excellence_, and deified under that appellation. If this be the case, we

may perhaps see the word Shem in certain names of kings and others of the

second dynasty of Babylon (that to which Ḫammurabi or Amraphel belonged,

and which held the power from about 2230 to 1967 B.C.). Sumu-abi, the name

of the first ruler of the dynasty, would then mean “Shem is my father,”

Sumu-la-ili would mean “a name to his god,” with a punning allusion to the

deified ancestor of the Semitic nations.

Other names, not royal, are Sumu-Upê, apparently, “Shem of Opis”;

Sumu-Dagan, “Shem is Dagon,” or “Name of Dagon”; Sumu-ḫatnu, “Shem is a

protection”; Sumu-atar, “Shem is great,” and the form Samu-la-ili for

Sumu-la-ili leads one to ask whether Samia may not be for Sumia, “my

Shem,” a pet name abbreviated from a longer one similar to those already

quoted; Sumu-ya (= Sumia) also occurs. All these forms, being written with

s, instead of š, like Samsu-iluna for Šamšu-iluna, betray foreign

(so-called Arabic) influence, and are not native Babylonian. That the

Babylonians had at this time names compounded with the native

representative of Sumu is shown by the contracts of that time, where the

name Šumum-libši, “let there be a name,” occurs. Many later instances of

this are to be found.(15)

From other than Bible sources there is but little that can be gathered

concerning the descendants of Shem, though in this, as in many other

things, one lives in hopes of something coming to light later on. And such

a record, as may readily be imagined, would be of the greatest interest

and value. Shem, as one of those born before the Flood, must certainly on

that account have been renowned (as we have just seen he was, if it be

true that he was deified) among other nations of Semitic stock than the

Hebrews. To all appearance, the lives of the patriarchs decreased greatly

after the Flood, and are represented, in the Bible narrative, as gradually

assuming the average duration of those who attain a hoary old age at the

present day. It is noteworthy that his eldest son was born two years after

the Flood, and if this have any ethnic meaning, it ought to point to the

foundation of the settlement known as Arpachshad at about that period,

though it could not have attained to the renown of a well-known and

recognized community until some time after that date.

The theory that Arpachshad represents a community is rather supported by

the fact that it is mentioned in Gen. x. 22, where it is accompanied by

the names of Elam, Asshur, Lud, and Aram, which were later, as we know,

names of nationalities. Indeed, the long lives of the patriarchs of this

exceedingly early period are best explained if we suppose that they

represent a people or community.

There is a considerable amount of difference of opinion as to the correct

identification of the Arpachshad of Gen. ix. 10, though nearly every

critic places the country it represents in the same tract. It has been

identified with Arrapkha, or Arrapachitis, in Assyria. Schrader makes it

to be for Arpa-cheshed, “the coast of the Chaldeans.” Prof. Hommel, who is

always ready with a seductive and probable etymology, suggests that

Arpachshad is an Egyptianized way of writing Ur of the

Chaldees—Ar-pa-Cheshed, for Ur-pa-Cheshed.

This, it must be admitted, is a possible etymology, for Egyptianized words

were really used in that district in ancient times. This is shown in the

name of Merodach, Asari, which is apparently connected with the Egyptian

Osiris, just as one of the names of the Sun-god Šamaš, Amna, is probably

an Akkadianized form of the Egyptian Ammon, and even the Egyptian word for

“year,” _ronpet_, made, probably by early Babylonian scribes, into a kind

of pun, became, by the change of a vowel, _ran pet_, “name of heaven,”

transcribed, by those same scribes, into _mu-anna_, which, in its ordinary

signification, means likewise “name of heaven,” in Akkadian; the whole

being used with the meaning of _ronpet_, _i.e._ “year.” It will thus be

seen that there is but little that is unlikely in Prof. Hommel’s etymology

of Arpachshad, and that the explanation which he gives may turn out to be

correct.(16)

In any case, we may take it that the consensus of opinion favours the

supposition that the name in question refers to Babylonia, and if this be

the case, Abraham, the father of the Hebrew nation, as well as of other

peoples, was really, as has been supposed, of Babylonian or Chaldean

origin. This is also implied by the statement in Gen. xi. 28, that Ur of

the Chaldees was the land of the nativity of Haran, Abraham’s brother, who

died in the country of his birth before the family of Terah went to settle

at Haran, on the way to Canaan. The theory of the identity of Arpachshad

is moreover important, because it is contended that Ur of the Chaldees was

not in Babylonia, but is to be identified with the site known as Urfa, in

Mesopotamia.

Concerning the names of Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, and Nahor, there

is not much that can be said. To all appearance they are not Babylonian

names, or, rather, they receive little or no illustration from Babylonian

sources. Nothing is recorded concerning these patriarchs except their ages

at the time their eldest sons were born, and at what age they died. The

question whether the Hebrews derived their name from their ancestor Eber

is not set at rest by any passage in the Bible, nor is there any statement

in secular literature which would enable this to be decided. To all

appearance, it is needful to keep the name of Eber distinct from that of

the Hebrews, notwithstanding that they are from the same root. If,

however, the Hebrews were “the men from beyond,” then Eber may well have

been “the man from beyond,” indicating for his time a migration similar to

that of Abraham. In this way, if in no other, the names may be connected.

We have seen that in many cases the names of these “genealogical tables”

are regarded as nationalities, and, indeed, there is sufficient

justification for such a theory on account of many of the names appearing

as those of well-known nations. This being conceded, it would probably not

be too much to regard the names of the patriarchs from Shelah to Serug as

indicating ethnical historical events. Thus Shelah might mean “extension,”

indicating the time when the Semitic race began to go beyond its ancient

borders. Treating the other names in the same way, Eber would mean the

period when that race crossed some river into another district; Peleg

would mean that, at the time referred to, that race, or a portion of it,

was divided into small states, as Babylonia was at the period preceding

that of the dynasty of Amraphel; whilst Reu would mean “friendliness,”

denoting the time when those states were united under one head, and the

old dissensions ceased. Serug would then mean something like

“interweaving,” perhaps referring to the time when the various races (? of

Babylonia) intermingled. These explanations of the names receive a certain

amount of confirmation from the parallel list in Gen. x. 25, where to the

name Peleg the note is added, “for in his days was the earth divided.”

With regard to Nahor and his son Terah the Jews had other traditions, and

they speak thus concerning them—

“Terah, son of Nahor, was the chief officer of king Nimrod, and a great

favourite with his royal master. And when his wife Amtheta, the daughter

of Kar-Nebo, bare him a son, she called his name Abram, meaning ‘great

father.’ And Terah was seventy years old when his son Abram was born.”

Here we have, in Amtheta, a doubtful Babylonian name, in Kar-Nebo a

possible Babylonian name, and in the meaning of Abram a signification that

does not militate against the indications given by the tablets of

Babylonia and Assyria. This being the case, it would seem that there were

trustworthy data to go upon for certain facts connected with Abraham’s

ancestors, and that these facts were known to the Jews of earlier ages.

The Talmudic account of the wonders seen at the birth of Abram, however,

are not sufficiently worthy of credence to allow of repetition here,

notwithstanding their reference to Terah and Abraham’s youth.

Eusebius quotes the following from Eupolemus concerning Abraham—

“He saith, moreover, that in the tenth generation in a city of Babylonia,

called Camarina (which, by some, is called the city of Urie, and which

signifyeth a city of the Chaldeans), there lived, the thirteenth in

descent, (a man named) Abraham, a man of a noble race, and superior to all

others in wisdom.

“Of him they relate that he was the inventor of astrology and the Chaldean

magic, and that on account of his eminent piety he was esteemed by God. It

is further said that under the directions of God he removed and lived in

Phœnicia, and there taught the Phœnicians the motions of the sun and moon,

and all other things; for which reason he was held in great reverence by

their king” (_Praep. Evan._ 9).

Nicolas of Damascus, apparently wishing to glorify his own city, states

that Abram was king of Damascus, and went there, with an army, from that

part of the country which is situated above Babylon of the Chaldeans,

afterwards transferring his dwelling to the land which was at that time

called Canaan, but is now called Judea. Justin also states that Abraham

lived at Damascus, from which city he traces the origin of the Jews.

According to the most trustworthy traditions, therefore, as well as from

the Bible itself, Abraham was of Chaldean or Babylonian origin. If the

city of Urie or Ur be, as he says, that which was also called Camarina,

this would in all probability be the Aramean form of the Arabic _qamar_,

“the moon,” and the name Camarina would be due to the fact that the

Moon-god, Sin or Nannara, was worshipped there. It is also noteworthy that

the city whither the family of Terah emigrated, Haran (in

Assyro-Babylonian, Ḫarran), was likewise a centre of lunar worship, and

some have sought to see in that a reason for choosing that settlement. In

connection with this it may be remarked, that in the Talmud Terah, the

father of Abraham, is represented as an idolater, reproved by his son

Abraham for foolish and wicked superstition.

We see, therefore, from the eleventh chapter of Genesis, that Abraham was

a Babylonian from Ur, now known as Mugheir (Muqayyar), or (better still)

from that part of the country which lay north of Babylon, known by the

non-Semitic inhabitants as Uri, and by the Semitic population as Akkad. As

the family of Terah was a pastoral one, they must have pastured their

flocks in this district until they heard of those more fruitful tracts in

the west, and decided to emigrate thither. And here it may be noted that

they did not, by thus quitting their fatherland, go to swear allegiance to

another ruler, for the sway of the king of Babylon extended to the

farthest limits of the patriarch’s wanderings, and wherever he went,

Babylonian and Aramean or Chaldean would enable him to make himself

understood. He was, therefore, always as it were in his own land, under

the governors of the same king who ruled in the place of his birth.

The name of the patriarch, moreover, seems to betray the place of his

origin. The first name that he bore was Abram, which has already been

compared with the Abu-ramu, “honoured father,” of the Assyrian

eponym-lists (in this place an official by whose name the year 677, the

5th year of Esarhaddon, was distinguished). At an earlier date than this

the name has not been found, and the element _ram_, _ramu_, _rame_, etc.,

seems to be rare. Ranke’s list gives only _Sumu-ramê_, “the name is

established,” or “Sumu (? Shem) is established,” or something similar, but

_ramê_ here is probably not connected with the second syllable of Abram’s

name. The name of Sarah has been compared with the Assyro-Babylonian

_šarratu_, “queen,” but seems not to occur in the inscriptions. Isaak is

also absent, but Ishmael, under the form of _Išme-îlu_ (meaning “(the) god

has heard”) occurs, as well as others in which _îlu_ is replaced by Êa,

Sin, and Addu or Adad (Hadad).

When, however, it was revealed to Abram that he was to stay in the

Promised Land, a change was made in his name—he was no longer known by the

Assyro-Babylonian name Abram, “honoured father,” but, in view of the

destiny appointed for him, he was to be called Abraham, “father of a

multitude of nations.”

The first stratum of the Hebrew nation was, therefore to all appearance,

Babylonian, the second stratum Aramean, probably a kindred stock, whilst

the third was to all appearance Canaanitish. All these must have left

their trace on the Hebrew character, and, like most mixed races, they

showed at all times superior intelligence in many ways. They were good

diplomates, brave warriors, divine lawgivers, and they excelled in

literary skill. One great defect they had—among their many defects—they

were stiffnecked to a fatal degree. Had their kings been less obstinate

and better rulers, conciliating their subjects instead of exasperating

them, the nation might have outlasted the power of Rome, and built upon

its ruins in their land a kingdom dominating the Semitic world in the

nearer East to the present day.

Of all the characters of early Bible history, there is hardly one which

stands out with greater prominence than the patriarch Abraham. And not

only is it his history and personality that is important—the historical

facts touched upon in the course of his biography are equally so. Facts

concerning the ancient East, from Babylonia on the east to Egypt on the

west, face the reader as he goes through that attractive narrative, and

make him wonder at the state of society, the political situation, and the

beliefs of the people which should have made his migrations possible,

brought about the monotheistic belief which characterizes his life and

that of his descendants, and enabled him and his sons after him to attain

such a goodly store of the riches of this world.

To begin with Babylonia, his native place. As is well known, that country

had already been in existence as a collection of communities far advanced

in arts, sciences, and literature, at an exceedingly early date, and many

of the small kingdoms of which it consisted had become united under

Ḫammurabi (Amraphel) into one single state, making it one of the greatest

powers at the time. Of course, it is not by any means improbable that

something similar to this had existed before, but if so, we have no record

of the fact, though it is certain that different states had from time to

time become predominant and powerful to an extent hardly conceivable. The

influence, if not the sway, of Sargon of Agadé, who reigned about 3800

years before Christ, for example, extended from Elam on the east to the

Mediterranean on the west—a vast tract of territory to acknowledge the

suzerainty of so small a state.

Babylonia, therefore, with a long history behind it, was beginning to

feel, to all appearance, a new national life. It had passed the days when

the larger states boasted strength begotten of mere size, and when the

smaller states sought mutual protection against the larger, finding in

that alone, or in the acknowledgment of an overlord, the security upon

which their existence as separate states depended. There is every

probability that it was at this time that the legends which formed the

basis of Babylonian national literature were collected and copied, thus

assuring their preservation. It is also probable that the translations

from Akkadian of the numerous inscriptions written in that language, and

the bilingual lists, syllabaries, and other texts of a similar nature,

belong to this period.

The social condition of Babylonia itself at this time is now fairly well

known. The ancient Akkadian laws were still in force, but as they did not

provide for all the possibilities that might arise, a large series of

legal enactments was compiled, in which points were decided in a very

common-sense and just manner. It is noteworthy that the number of tablets

of a legal nature is very numerous, and arouses the suspicion that the

Babylonians were exceedingly fond of litigation, due, no doubt, to the

tendency they had to overreach each other. It is therefore very probable

that this is the reason why we meet with that remarkable contract of the

purchase of the field of Machpelah from the children of Heth. One would

have imagined that the frequent protestations, made by the head of the

tribe there located, to the effect that he gave the field and the cave to

Abraham, would have been sufficient, especially at that solemn moment of

the burial of Sarah, and that the matter could have been put upon a legal

footing later on. But no, the patriarch was determined to have the matter

placed beyond dispute there and then, and knowing how prone the

Babylonians (with whom he had passed his youth) were to deny a contract,

and try to get back again, by perjury, what they had already parted with

for value, the matter was at once placed beyond the possibility of being

disputed in any court of law.(17)

CHAPTER V. BABYLONIA AT THE TIME OF ABRAHAM.

The first dynasty of Babylon—The extent of its dominion—The

Amorites—Life in Babylonia at this time—The religious element—The

king—The royal family—The people—Their manners and customs as

revealed by the contract-tablets—Their laws.

Much has been learnt, but there is still much to learn, concerning the

early history of Babylonia.

During the period immediately preceding that of the dynasty of Babylon—the

dynasty to which Amraphel (Ḫammurabi) belonged—there is a gap in the list

of the kings, which fresh excavations alone can fill up. Before this gap

the records, as far as we know them, are in the Akkadian language. After

this gap they are in the Semitic-Babylonian tongue. To all appearance,

troublous times had come upon Babylonia. The native rulers had been swept

away by the Elamites, who, in their turn, had been driven out by the

Semitic kings of Babylonia, but those Semitic kings were not Babylonians

by origin, notwithstanding that the native scribes, who drew up the lists

of kings, describe them as being a Babylonian dynasty.

[Plate V.]

Envelope (Printed upside down on account of seal-impressions 2 to 4) of a

contract-tablet recording a sale of land by Sin-êribam, Pî-sa-nunu, and

Idis-Sin, three brothers, to Sin-ikîsam. Reign of Immerum, contemporary

with Sumula-îlu, about 2100 B.C. Seal Impressions. 1. (Here reversed.) Two

deities, one (in a flounced robe) holding a sceptre. On the left, a

worshipper; on the right, a man overcoming a lion. This scene is repeated,

less distinctly, on the left. 2. Left: Two deities, one holding a sceptre

and a weapon; right: deity, divine attendant adoring, and worshipper (?).

3. Men overcoming lions; winged creature devouring a gazelle. 4. Figure on

plinth, holding basket and cup; worshipper; deity, holding sword; lion (or

dog); deity, holding weapon. Inscription: Aa (the moon-goddess), Samas

(the sun-god). (Tablet 92,649 in the British Museum (Babylonian and

Assyrian Room, Table-case A, No. 62). The edges have also some very fine

impressions.)

The change may have been gradual, but it was great. Many of the small

states which had existed at the time of Dungi, Bûr-Sin, Gimil-Sin,

Ibi-Sin, and their predecessors had to all appearance passed away, and

become part of the Babylonian Empire long before the dynasty of Babylon

came to an end, though some at least were in existence in the time of the

great conqueror Ḫammurabi. But the change was, as it would seem, not one

of overlordship only—another change which had been gradually taking place

was, by this, carried one step farther, namely, the Semiticizing of the

country. Before the period of the dynasty of Babylon, the two races of

Akkadians and Semitic Babylonians had been living side by side, the former

(except in the kingdom of which Sippar was the capital) having the

predominance, the records being written in the Akkadian language, and the

kings bearing mainly Akkadian names, though there were, for the Semitic

inhabitants, translations of those names. Translations of the inscriptions

and legends, as well as the old Akkadian laws, probably did not (except in

the Semitic kingdom of Agadé) exist.

How it came about is not known, but it is certain that, about 2200 years

B.C., a purely Semitic dynasty occupied the throne of the chief ruler in

Babylonia. The first king was Sumu-abi, who reigned 14 years. This monarch

was followed by Sumu-la-ili and Zabû, 36 and 14 years respectively. Then

come two rulers with Babylonian names—Abil-Sin and Sin-mubaliṭ, 18 years

and 20 years. These are followed, in their turn, by Ḫammurabi (43),

Samsu-iluna (38), Ebišum (25), Ammi-ṭitana (25), Ammi-zaduga (21), and

Samsu-ṭitana (31 years). This dynasty, therefore, lasted about 285(18)

years, and with two exceptions, Abil-Sin and Sin-mubaliṭ, the names,

though Semitic, are not Babylonian.

Yet it was called by Babylonians “the dynasty of Babylon!”

And this, in all probability, is correct. The dynasty must, on account of

the name given to it, have come from that city, but was, at the same time,

of foreign origin, its kings being descended from another dynasty which

came from some other part of the Semitic world of that time. This is

indicated by the following facts.

Three of the tablets of which we shall learn something more farther on,

and which are preserved in the British Museum, have invocations of a

personage, apparently a king, named Anmanila. The name of this ruler

naturally recalls the Anman of the dynasty following that of

Babylon—namely, the dynasty of Uru-ku; but the style of the writing of

these three documents is not that of the later period, but of the

beginning of the dynasty of Babylon, and there is, on that account, every

probability that Anmanila was one of the predecessors of Sumu-abi, the

first king of the dynasty of Babylon. It is, of course, possible that this

ruler was simply a co-regent with one of the kings already known, like

Immerum, who lived at the time of Sumu-la-îla, or Buntaḫun-îla,(19)

another associate with Sumu-la-îla on the throne, but there is a certain

amount of improbability in this, as Anmanila is named alone, and not in

connection with any other. Moreover, it is probable that, in the case of

the two co-regents here mentioned, we have examples of sons associated

with their father, and one replacing the other on account of the early

death of his brother. Another ruler, probably of the period preceding that

of the dynasty of Babylon, is Manamaltel, whose name is found on a tablet

belonging to the Rev. Dr. J. P. Way, head-master of Rossall School, and it

is noteworthy that one of the tablets bearing the name of Anmanila gives,

among the witnesses, a certain Sumuentel,(20) a name having the same

termination as Manamaltel, a component which seems to have been common at

this early period, and rare or non-existent later. Most, if not all, the

above are foreign names.

The next question that arises is, what was the nationality of these

rulers, who, though belonging to what was called “the dynasty of Babylon,”

were not really of Babylonian origin?

The key to the matter is probably furnished by the following inscription

of Ammi-ṭitana, the ninth king of the dynasty—

“Ammi-ṭi(tana), his(?) ...

the powerful king, (in) a seat of gladness

king of Babylon, he has made him sit.

king of Kiš,

king of Šumer and (Akkad),

king of the vast land of

Amoria,

am I; its wall.

descendant Asari-lu-duga (Merodach)

of Sumu-la-îli, has revealed him as his

worshipper—

eldest son(21) may his name be established

of Abēšu’,(22) am I, in heaven and earth.

Obedient(?) (to) Bel “(Inscription) of Bêl-ušallim,

the seat(?)” son of ... -bi, the

enchanter.”