Theft from a palace (law No. 6) is parallel with Gen. xliv. 9, where the

sons of Jacob admit the justice of a death-penalty if Joseph’s cup were

found in the possession of any of them. Whether the purchase of the

Egyptians and their land for bread by Joseph had any analogy in Western

Asia or not, is uncertain, though law No. 115, as well as those which

precede it, refer to something similar, but in these cases the servitude

was terminable, which does not appear from Gen. xlvii. 19 ff. Thereafter

the Egyptian ruler took from these farmer-thralls a fifth part of the

produce, which compares well with the half or third exacted by the owner

of a field in Babylonia from the hirer (law 46). Finally, the clauses of

the laws of Ḫammurabi referring to adoption (No. 185) might be quoted in

illustration of the adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh by their grandfather

Jacob (Gen. xlviii. 5), especially when read in connection with the

inscriptions translated on pp. 176 and 177, where the sharing of the

adopted son “like a son” is expressly referred to.

In the New Testament, Gal. iv. 30: “Cast out the bondwoman and her son,

for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the

freewoman,” finds illustration in law 171 of Ḫammurabi’s code, and the

parable of the talents (Matt. xxv. 14 ff.) reminds one of the agent

sending forth commissioners to get gain for him by trafficking, as in laws

100-102. 103-107 do not bear directly upon this parallel, but are worth

noting in connection with it.

It will be long ere all that can be said about this noteworthy inscription

finds expression. There is much needing comment, and much to study

therein, and the precise rendering of many a word has still to be found

out.

Babylon And The Bible.

A great deal has been written concerning the two lectures which the

renowned Assyriologist, Friedrich Delitzsch, delivered some time ago

before the German Emperor, under the title of _Babel und Bibel_. These

lectures have now been published, and from their style and contents, one

can easily judge how great was the interest which they aroused. Those who

were privileged to hear them must have enjoyed a true archæological feast,

all the more exquisite in that the subject was that which throws more

light upon the Old Testament than any other known.

His lectures deal, for the most part, with the things which are touched

upon at greater length in this book—the early records of Babylonia and

Assyria, the history, the literature, the arts, and the sciences of those

countries, and of the great cities of which they were so proud. Beginning

with “the great mercantile firm of Murašû and Sons in the time of

Artaxerxes,” about 450 B.C., and the Hebrew names found therein, he speaks

of Ur of the Chaldees, Carchemish, Sargon of Agadé, Ḫammurabi, the Bronze

Gates of Shalmaneser II., Sargon of Assyria, Sennacherib, Assurbanipal

(Aššur-banî-âpli or Sardanapalus), the Laws of Ḫammurabi (translated in

full in this volume), the processions of gods,(297) the blessing of

Aaron,(298) the advanced civilization of Babylonia 2250 years B.C., and

many other things. To touch upon all his points would be to repeat much

that has been treated of in this book, and that being the case, all the

most important of them are referred to in the following pages under

special headings:—

Canaan.

That he is right in calling Canaan at the time of the Exodus “A domain of

Babylonian culture” is indicated by the testimony of the Tel-el-Amarna

tablets, and is fully shown in the present work, Chapters V.-VII. In the

notes appended to the first lecture he refers to the fact that there

existed, in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, a town called Bît (or Beth)

Ninip, after the Babylonian god—“even though there may not have been in

Jerusalem itself a _bît Ninip_, a temple of the god Ninip.”

The Sabbath.

In the present work, the Sabbath is referred to on pl. II., where

photographs of two fragments (duplicates) explaining the word are given.

Prof. Delitzsch calls attention, in the notes to his first lecture, to

this text, together with the British Museum syllabary 82-9-18, 4159, col.

I., l. 24, where _ud_ (weakened to _û_), meaning “day,” is explained by

_šabattum_, “Sabbath,” as “_the_ day” _par excellence_, and from other

passages he reasons that the old rendering of the word as “day of rest,”

_ûm nûḫ libbi_, “day of rest of the heart”—cf. pl. II.—is the correct one.

The following list of Sumerian and Babylonian days of the month will serve

to show exactly how the matter stands:—

Sumerian. Semitic Translation.

Babylonian.

U ûmu day.

U-maš-am [mišil] ûmu half a day.

U-gi-kam [ûmu] kal first day (Sum.),

the whole day

(Sem.).

U-mina-kam ši-na [ûmu] second day.

U-eši-kam šela[štu ûmu] third day.

U-lama-kam irbit fourth (day).

U-ia-kam ḫamil[tu] fifth (day).

U-âša-kam šeš[šitu] sixth (day).

U-imina-kam sib[itu] seventh (day).

U-ussa-kam saman[atu] eighth (day).

U-ilima-kam tilti do. ninth day.

U-ḫu-kam êširti do. tenth day.

U-ḫuia-kam šapatti fifteenth day

(Sum.), Sabbath

(Sem.).

U-mana-gi-lal-kam ibbû twentieth day less

1 (Sum.), the

wrathful (Sem.).

U-mana-kam êšrû twentieth day.

U-mana-ia-kam ârḫu bat[tu] twenty-fifth day

(Sum.), festival

month (Sem.).

U-eša-kam šelašâ thirtieth day.

U-na-am bubbulum rest-day (Sum.),

(day of) desire

(Sem.).

U-ḫul-gala u-ḫulgallum evil day.

U-ḫul-gala ûmu lim[nu] evil day.

U-šu-tua ûmu rimku libation-day.

U-elene ûmu têliltum purification-day.

From the above it will be seen, that the _šapattum_ or Sabbath was the

15th day of the month, and that only. That it was a day of rest, is shown

by the etymology, the word being derived from the Sumerian _ša-bat_,

“heart-rest,” which probably has, therefore, no connection with the

Semitic root _šabātu_, which, as far as at present known, is a synonym of

_gamāru_, “to complete.” It was the day of rest of the heart, but being

the 15th, it was also the day when the moon reached the full in the heart

or middle of the month, and its name may, therefore, contain a play upon

the two ideas which the word _libbu_ contains. In accordance with the

general rule, the consonants of words borrowed from the Sumerian were

often sharpened when transferred to Semitic Babylonian, hence the form

_šapattum_ instead of _šabattum_, though the latter is also found.

The nearest approach to the Sabbath, in the Jewish sense, among the

Babylonians, is the _û-ḫulgala_ or _ûmu limnu_, “the evil day,” which, as

we know from the Hemerologies, was the 7th, 14th, 21st, 28th, and 19th day

of each month, the last so called because it was a week of weeks from the

1st day of the foregoing month. It is this, therefore, which contains the

germ of the idea of the Jewish Sabbath, but it was not that Sabbath in the

true sense of the term, for if the months had 30 days, the week following

the 28th had 9 days instead of 7, and weeks of 8 and 9 days therefore

probably occurred twelve times each year. The nature of this original of

the Sabbath is shown by the Hemerologies, which describe how it was to be

kept in the following words:—

(The Duties Of The 7th Day).

“The 7th day is a fast of Merodach and Zēr-panitum, a fortunate day, an

evil day. The shepherd of the great peoples shall not eat flesh cooked by

fire, salted (savoury) food, he shall not change the dress of his body, he

shall not put on white, he shall not make an offering. The king shall not

ride in his chariot, he shall not talk as ruler; a seer shall not do a

thing in a secret place; a physician shall not lay his hand on a sick

man;(299) (the day) is unsuitable for making a wish. The king shall set

his oblation in the night before Merodach and Ištar, he shall make an

offering, (and) his prayer(300) is acceptable with god.”

For the 14th, 21st, 28th, and 19th, the names of the deities differ, and

on the last-named the shepherd of the great peoples is forbidden to eat

“anything which the fire has touched.” Otherwise the directions are the

same, and though generally described as a lucky or happy day, it was

certainly an evil day for work, or for doing the things referred to. It is

to be noted, however, that there is no direction that the day was to be

observed by the common people.

Was The Flood A “Sin-Flood”?

That the Flood was a “sin-flood” (“dass die Sintflut eine Sündflut(301)

war”) among the Babylonians as among the Hebrews has already been stated

(p. 112—cf. p. 107, I, II ff.), and with this Prof. Delitzsch, answering

the criticisms of Oettli, agrees. Replying to König, he energetically

repudiates the idea that “the Babylonian hero saves his dead and living

property, but in both Biblical accounts there appears, instead of that,

the higher point of view of the preservation of the animal-world.” He then

cites Berosus, according to whom Xisuthros received the command to take

into the ark winged and four-footed animals, and quotes the line

translated on p. 103: “I caused to go up into the midst of the ship ...

the beasts of the field and the animals of the field—all of them I sent

up.”

The Dragon And The Serpent-Tempter.

Prof. Delitzsch’s notes upon the Dragon of Chaos are exceedingly

interesting, as is also the picture which he gives, from a little seal in

the form of a long bead, of the god Merodach “clothed in his majestic

glory, with powerful arm, and broad eye and ear, the symbols of his

intelligence, and at the feet of the god the captive Dragon of the

primæval waters.” From our point of view the deity does not look very

majestic, but it is an exceedingly interesting representation, the more

especially as he bears in his left hand (in the drawing) the circle and

staff of Šamaš, the sun, showing the correctness of the theory which made

Merodach likewise a sun-god. It is noteworthy, however, that a similar

object found by the German expedition to Babylonia shows a figure of

Hadad, the wind-god, as the Babylonians conceived him, and accompanying

him are a winged dragon and another creature—indeed, each deity seems to

have had his own special attendant of this nature. Are we, therefore, to

understand that each deity overcame a dragon or other animal? or may it

not be, that Merodach had a kind of dragon as his attendant, and the one

depicted sitting by his side, close to his feet, is the creature devoted

to him, and not the Dragon of Chaos at all?

The Dragon of Chaos, Tiamtu or Tiawthu, appears in the inscriptions as the

representative of the Hebrew _tehôm_, which is the same word without the

feminine ending. It is also regarded, however, as being represented in the

Old Testament by _liwyāthān_ (leviathan), _tannîn_, and _rahab_, explained

as “the winding one,” “the dragon,” and “the monster” respectively. As far

as our knowledge at present goes, none of these names occur in the

Babylonian inscriptions, but there is sufficient analogy between the

Biblical passages which contain them and the story of Tiamtu to establish

an identity between the two sources.

In the passage “Awake, awake,” etc. (Is. li. 9), the cutting of Rahab in

pieces, and the piercing of the dragon, are made into similes typifying

the drying up of the Red Sea, so that the Israelites might pass over, and

on this account the words standing for these creatures seem to have become

an allegorical way of referring to Egypt, caught, like Tiamtu, in a net

(Ezek. xxxii. 2, 3). In Job ix. 13 the “helpers of Rahab” are mentioned,

recalling the gods who aided Tiamtu, and in xxvi. 12 “he smiteth through

Rahab” is a reminiscence of the piercing of the head of Merodach’s

opponent.

In Job xli. 3 the words “Lay thine hand upon him; remember _the battle_,

and do so no more,” evidently refer to leviathan in v. 1, here typical of

Tiamtu, the battle being that which Merodach fought with her. “Shall not

one be cast down even at the sight of him?” in verse 9, recalls the

dreadful appearance of Tiamtu and her helpers, whose aspect filled the

gods of the Babylonians with fear. Still another parallel is to be found

in the verse “Their (the enemies’) wine is the poison of dragons

(_tanninim_),” Deut. xxxii. 33, reminding us of the monsters created by

Tiamtu, whose bodies were filled with poison like blood.

All these passages naturally prove that the legend was well known to the

Hebrews, and must also have been current among their neighbours. Though

they identified her with the sea (_tehom_), they did not, to all

appearance, use that word to indicate the Dragon of Chaos, as did the

Babylonians—she was a serpent, a dragon, or a monster. Though she may be

the type of the serpent-tempter (the difference of sex makes a little

difficulty), the compiler of the first two chapters of Genesis rigorously

excluded her from the Hebrew Creation-story. The story of leviathan, the

dragon, or the monster, was a legend current among the people, and used by

the Hebrew sacred writers as a useful simile, but it seems to have formed

no part of orthodox Hebrew religious belief.

Prof. Delitzsch has boldly reproduced, on p. 36 of his _Babel und Bibel_

(German edition), what has been regarded in England as the driving of the

evil spirit from the temple built at Calah by Aššur-naṣir-âpli (885 B.C.),

but he calls it “Fight with the Dragon.” The evil spirit represented is

certainly a kind of dragon, but on the original slab in the British Museum

the creature is a male, and not a female, as in the Babylonian

Creation-story. Identification with the Dragon of Chaos is therefore in

the highest degree improbable, and as it would seem from his answer to

Jensen, Delitzsch does not regard it as having anything to do with the

Creation-story, but a representation of “a fight between the power of

light and the power of darkness in general.” This seems exceedingly

probable, as is also his statement that in such a conception as that of

Tiamtu, it may easily be imagined that plenty of room for fancy existed.

The serpent-tempter in Gen. iii. 1 is an ordinary serpent, _naḫas_, the

type of the evil one. He had no part in the creation, and was to all

appearance one of the beasts of the field created by God. Tiamtu, his

Babylonian parallel, on the other hand, does not seem to have been in any

sense a tempter—she simply tried to overcome the gods of heaven, aided by

her followers and offspring, among whom were some of the divine beings

created by the gods. That in consequence of this, she may have been

regarded as having tempted those of her followers who were the offspring

of the gods of heaven, is not only possible, but probable, and if

provable, we should have here the identification of the Dragon of Chaos

with the serpent-tempter.

And this leads him to the question as to whether the celebrated

cylinder-seal referred to on p. 79 is really intended to be a picture of

the circumstance of the fall of man. Delitzsch points out, that the

clothed condition of the figures prevents him from recognizing in the tree

the tree “of knowledge of good and evil”—perhaps there glimmers through

the Biblical account in Gen. ii. and iii. another and older form of the

story, in which only one tree, the tree of life, appeared. The words in

ii. 9: “and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” seem, as it were,

patched on, and the narrator completely forgets this newly-introduced

“tree of the knowledge of good and evil” to the extent, that he even, by

oversight, makes God allow man, in contradiction to iii. 22, to eat of the

Tree of Life (ii. 16). All this seems very plausible, but may it not be,

that man, before eating of the tree of knowledge, was permitted to eat of

the tree of life, which was denied to him after the Fall? If this be the

case, there was probably no forgetfulness on the part of the narrator, and

the story hangs excellently together. And here it is to be noted that both

the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, were in

the midst of the garden (ii. 9), that the woman seems to be aware of the

existence of one tree only (iii. 3), and there is no statement that the

man knew the nature of the fruit which his wife handed to him (6), though

it may be surmised that, with the prohibition with regard to one of them

in his mind, he ought to have inquired. The heaviest punishment therefore

falls upon the tempter, the woman coming next, and the man having the

lightest though even his is sufficiently severe.

In the design on the cylinder Delitzsch sees a male and a female figure,

with a serpent, and in this both Hommel and Jensen agree. Delitzsch,

moreover, says: “The distinguishing of the one figure by horns, which was,

in Babylonia, as in Israel, equally the common symbol of strength and

victoriousness, I regard as a very delicate device of the artist to

introduce into the two clothed human figures the sex-distinction in an

unmistakable manner.” He is of opinion that nothing very decisive can as

yet be pronounced concerning the serpent, but one might connect therewith

the appearance of Tiamtu, who also, like leviathan in Job iii. 8 and “the

old serpent” in the Apocalypse, may be assumed to have been still

existing. (Compare p. 32 of the present work, lines 112 and 113.)

He points out that in a list of rivers, etc., there is one called “the

river of the Serpent-god destroying(302) the abode of life”

(_Id-Sir-tindir-duba_), which is also a confirmation of the theory that

the Babylonians possessed the legend of the serpent-tempter. Noteworthy

also is the following text, which he refers to “by the way,” with a slight

indication of the contents:—

“... sin, fixing the command.

... of the ordinance, the man of lamentation.

... the maid, has eaten the evil thing—

... Ama-namtagga has done what is evil

The fate of Ama-namtagga is hard(303)—

Her fate is hard, her face is troubled with a tear.

She has sat on a glorious throne,

She has lain on a glorious couch,

She has learned to love aright,

She has learned to kiss.”

The mutilation of this inscription renders the true interpretation

doubtful, but it would seem to be exceedingly probable that there is in it

some reference to the fate of our first mother, inherited by all her

daughters to the end of time.

Ama-namtagga means “The Mother of Sin,” and her having eaten and done what

is evil makes an interesting parallel with the case of Eve.(304)

The Cherubim.

Concerning the Cherubs something has been said in this book, pp. 80-82,

and to this Prof. Delitzsch adds a few more instances. As others have

done, he regards the cherubim of the Babylonians and Assyrians as being

the winged bulls, with heads of men. As an angel he gives a picture of a

winged female figure holding a necklace(305); the demons he depicts are

from the slabs in the Assyrian Saloon of the British Museum, where two of

these beings are fighting with each other; and devils he regards as being

typified by a small but mutilated statuette of a creature with an animal’s

head, long erect ears, and open mouth with threatening teeth. For the

existence of guardian-angels he quotes the letter of Ablâ to the

queen-mother: “Bel and Nebo’s messenger of grace (_âbil šipri ša dunqi ša

Bêl u Nabû_) will go with the king of the countries, my lord.” Of especial

interest, however, is his reference to the inscription of Nabopolassar, in

which that founder of the latest of the Babylonian empires states that

Merodach “called him to rule over the land and the people, caused a

guardian-god (cherub) to go by his side, and caused all the work which he

undertook to succeed.” Besides the cherubs or guardian-angels, the

Babylonians believed in numerous evil gods and devils, besides Tiamtu and

the serpent-tempter of mankind.

Babylonian Monotheism.

The question of Babylonian monotheism, and of the antiquity of the name

Yahweh (Jehovah) attracted a considerable amount of attention, and has

been supplemented by Delitzsch very fully in the notes to his first

lecture. Upon this point something was said in the present volume (pp. 47

and 58-61), and the author is practically at one with Prof. Delitzsch. As

the inscription translated on p. 58 shows, the Babylonians were

monotheists, and yet they were not. They believed in all their various

gods, and at the same time identified those gods with Merodach. Just as,

in the beliefs of India, each soul may be regarded as emanating from, and

returning to, the Creator, and forming one with Him at the final death of

the body, so the gods of the Babylonians were apparently regarded as parts

of, and emanations from, Merodach, the chief of the gods, who, when they

conferred upon him their names, conferred upon him in like manner their

being. It is in this way alone that Merodach, the last-born of the great

gods, can be regarded as the father and begetter of the gods (see pp. 45,

46).

Prof. Delitzsch has therefore done a service in bringing more prominently

to the notice of students and scholars the text of which the obverse is

printed on p. 58, and mentioning the paper where it first appeared.(306)

The study of the religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians has been

greatly furthered thereby.

With regard to the question, whether besides this tablet, there be other

indications that the Babylonians—or a section of them—believed in one god,

Delitzsch quotes, as did also the present author, many names supporting

this idea. Thus he gives the following:—

Ilu-ittîa, “God is with me.”

Ilu-amtaḫar, “I called upon God.”

Ilu-âbi, “God is my father.”(307)

Ilu-milki, “God is my counsel.”

Yarbi-îlu, “God is great.”

Yamlik-îlu, “God rules.”

Ibšî-ina-ili, “He existed through God.”(308)

Awel-ili, “Man of God.”(309)

Mut(um)-ili, “Man of God.”

Ilûma-le’i, “God is mighty.”

Ilûma-âbi, “God is my father.”

Ilûma-ilu, “God is God.”

Šumma-îlu-lâ-îlîa, “If God were not my god?”

And if more be wanted, to these may be added Ya’kub-îlu, Yasup-îlu,

Abdi-îlu, Ya’zar-îlu, and Yantin-îlu, on p. 157; Ili-bandi, “God is my

creator,” p. 166; Sar-îli, “Prince of God,” p. 170; Uštašni-îli, “My God

has made to increase twofold,” p. 178; Nûr-ili, “Light of God,” p. 184;

Arad-îli-rêmeanni, “The servant of God, (who) had mercy on me,” p. 187;

Yabnik-îlu, “God has been gracious (?),” p. 243; and many others. Remarks

upon some of these names will be found on pp. 244, 245. Similar names

occurring during the time of the later Babylonian empire will be found on

pp. 434, 463 (Aqabi-îlu), 435, 436 (Adi’-ilu and Yadi’îlu), 458

(Baruḫi-ilu, probably a Jew, and Idiḫi-îlu). It will therefore be seen

that names of a monotheistic nature were common in Babylonia at all

periods, but as they are greatly outnumbered by the polytheistic

ones,(310) their exact value as testimony to monotheism, or to a tendency

to it, is doubtful. In certain cases, the deity intended by the word _îlu_

is the family god, but in the above examples, names implying this have

been as far as possible avoided.

“Of what kind and of what value this monothesis was, our present sources

of knowledge do not allow us to state, but we can best conclude from the

later development of Jahvism.” (Delitzsch.)

Jahweh (Jehovah).

Most important of all, however, from the point of view of the history of

the religion of the Jews, is what Delitzsch states concerning the name

Jahweh (Jehovah). On p. 46 of his first lecture (German edition) he gives

half-tone reproductions of three tablets preserved in the British Museum,

which, according to him, contain three forms of the personal name meaning

“Jahwe is God”—_Ya’we-îlu_, _Yawe-îlu_, and _Yaum-îlu_. The last of these

names we may dismiss at once, the form being clearly not that of Yahweh,

but of Yah, the Jah of Ps. civ. 35 and several other passages. The other

two, however, are not so lightly dealt with, notwithstanding the

objections of other Assyriologists and Orientalists. It is true that

Ya’pi-îlu and Yapi-îlu are possible readings, but Delitzsch’s objections

to them are soundly based, and can hardly be set aside. The principal

argument against the identification of Ya’we or Yawe with Yahwah is, that

we should have here, about 2000 years before Christ, a form of the word

which is really later than that used by the Jewish captives at Babylon 500

years before Christ, when it was to all appearance pronounced Ya(’)awa or

Yâwa (see pp. 458, 465, 470, 471). If, however, we may read the name Ya’wa

(Ya’awa) or Yâwa, as is possible, then there is nothing against the

identification proposed by Delitzsch. That [Cuneiform] was used with the

value of _wa_ is proved by such words as _warka_, “after,” where the

reading _wearka_ seems to be impossible, and the necessary distinction

between _ma_ and _wa_ (the former was written with a different character)

would be maintained. It is worthy of note that Ya’wa must have been more

of a name than Yau, which was a primitive Babylonian word for “God,” it is

doubtful whether it could always be written without the divine prefix. As,

however, the divine name Ae or Ea, with others, is often written so

unprovided, such an objection as this could not be held to invalidate

Delitzsch’s contention.

The probability therefore is, that Delitzsch is right in transcribing the

name as he has done, if we may change the final _e_ to _a_, and he is also

probably right in his identification. Nevertheless, we require more

information from the records of ancient Babylonia before we can say, with

certainty, that the first component of the name Ya’wa-îlu is the Yahweh of

the Hebrews, though we are bound to admit that the identification is in

the highest degree probable. Delitzsch speaks of the possibility of

_ya’ve_ being a verbal form (it would be parallel to names like

Yabnik-îlu), only to reject it, as a name meaning “God exists” (Hommel and

Zimmern) is certainly not what one would expect to find. On the other

hand, Zimmern admits the possibility that Yaum may be the name of a god,

and possibly the name Yahu, Yahve may be present in it. As he is against

Delitzsch on the whole, this is an important admission.

Additional Notes To Ḫammurabi’s Laws.

P. 492, §. 8. The “poor man” who is mentioned here and in several other

places, is referred to under a Sumerian term translated by the Semitic

_muškinu_, Arabic _miskīn_, from which the French _mesquin_ is derived

(through the Spanish _mezquino_). With the Babylonians, however, the “poor

man,” as expressed by this term, was only one who was comparatively

wanting in this world’s goods. That he was able to pay a fine, presupposes

that he was the possessor of property, and this is confirmed by a

bilingual explanatory list, which reads as follows:

Giš šar kirû Plantation.

giš šar êgal kirû êkalli plantation of the

palace.

giš šar lugal kirû šarri plantation of the

king.

giš šar mašdu kirû muškini plantation of a

poor man.

_Muškinu_ is rendered by Winckler “freedman.”

P. 493, § 26 ff. It is difficult to find a satisfactory rendering for the

words translated “army-leader” and “soldier.” Winckler translates

“soldier” and “slinger.” Perhaps the latter should be rendered “scout.”

P. 495, §§ 43 and 44. The word translated “shall enclose (it)” is in

accordance with the meaning given for the root _šakāku_ in Delitzsch’s

_Handwörterbuch_. If, however, the rendering “plough” in § 260 (p. 513),

first proposed by Scheil, be correct, then in all probability the

translation in the two sections should be “shall plough (it).”

P. 498, l. 12. Literally, “the man the tenancy, the silver of his rent

complete for a year, to the lord of the house has given.”

P. 499, § 108. The “large stone” was seemingly large only by comparison

with the “small stone” which weighed 1/3 of a shekel.

P. 500, § 116, etc. “The son of a man” Winckler translates as “a free-born

person.”

P. 501, § 126. Or “As (in the case of) his property (which) has not been

lost, he shall state his deficiency before God.”

P. 510, §§ 215, 218, 220. Instead of “cataract” Winckler translates

“tumour,” but thinks “lachrymal fistula” still better, though “cataract”

is possible.

P. 513, § 257. Here, as in other places, the character for field-labourer

is the archaic form of [Cuneiform] _ikkaru_ or _îrrišu_.

APPENDIX TO THE THIRD EDITION.

The Hittites.

In consequence of the very important discoveries of the German explorers

at Boghaz-Köi, the site of the ancient Hittite capital Ḫattu,(311) much

light will be thrown on the ancient history, religion, manners, and

customs of that portion of Western Asia, and Syria as well, together with

the relations of the empire of the Hittites with Egypt. As far as can at

present be judged, the language of the Hittites was Aryan, and the similar

terminations in such Kassite(312) words as are known point to its being of

the same family, and the same may, perhaps, be said of Mitannian.(313) The

excavations at Boghaz-Köi began where fragments of tablets had already

been found, namely, on the slope of the hill at Böyük-kale, the documents

becoming more complete as the explorers went higher. Another mass of

records was found at the foot of the hill, by the ruins of the temple. It

was in the upper find that the Babylonian version of the treaty between

Rameses II. and the Hittite king Ḫattušil was found. The founder of the

dynasty was Šubbiluliuma, the name read _Sapalulu_ in the Egyptian version

of the treaty. He was evidently a warrior-king, whose overlordship the

state of Mitanni acknowledged, and seems to have been succeeded by his son

Arandaš. The next ruler was Muršil, the _Maurasar_ of Egyptologists, who

appears to have been a great conqueror. Muršil’s successor was his brother

Mutallu (_Mautenel_), who, however, was apparently killed in a revolt,

whereupon the renowned Ḫattušil (the _Khetasir_ of Egyptologists) mounted

the throne. His queen was Pudu-ḫipa, and they had a son Dudḫalia, whose

name recalls the Tidal (Tid’al) of the 14th chapter of Genesis, and the

Tudḫula (or Tudḫul) of the tablets which apparently refer to Chedorlaomer

and his allies.(314) In the Babylonian version of the treaty of Ḫattušil

with Rameses II., we learn that the titles of the Egyptian king were

_Wašmua-ria šatepuaria Ria-mašeša mâi Amana mâr Mim-mua-Ria binbin

Min-paḫirita-Ria_, _i.e._ User-maat-ra Ra-messu Mery Amen, son of

Men-maat-ra (Seti I.), grandson of Men-peḫti-ra (Rameses I.).(315)

The Ḫabiri.

Dr. Hugo Winckler, the explorer of Boghaz-Köi, who has published many

interesting details of the result of his researches, states that parallel

passages prove the identity of the Sa-gas (_see_ pp. 291, 292) of the

Tel-al-Amarna tablets with the Ḫabiri, and that not only the Sa-gas

people, but also the Sa-gas gods are referred to. For these latter, he

says, compare the image of the “valley of the _’oberim_” (translated “them

that pass”) in Ezekiel (xxxix. 11), in which further justification of the

comparison of _ḫabiri_ and _’eber_ (Eber, regarded as the ancestor of the

_’Ibrim_ or Hebrews) results. One would like to have further details of

the learned explorer’s opinions upon this point. To all appearance the

connection of _’oberim_ with _’eber_ would involve a change in the

vocalization. For the author, the difficulty of connecting _ḫabiri_ with

_’Ibrim_ (Hebrews) still continues to exist. The connection of _ḫabiri_

with _’Ibri_ (Hebrew) requires that the _ain_ should have been pronounced

as _ghain_, and the Septuagint generally gives _gh_ when it was so

pronounced.(316) In _’Ibrim_, however, this is not the case, and Prof.

Swete has only the soft breathing in his edition.

A Letter Apparently From Prince Belshazzar (_see_ pp. 446-451).

This is evidently one of the documents obtained by Mr. Hormuzd Rassam at

Sippar (Abu-habbah), as the reference to Bunene, one of the deities of the

city, shows. Unfortunately, it is very defective, there being only eight

lines (five of them incomplete) on the obverse, and the remains of the

last three lines of the communication on the reverse. What makes it

probable that the Belshazzar who sent the letter is the son of Nabonidus,

and the hero of the fall of Babylon, is, that no honorific expressions are

used with reference to the person to whom it is addressed—he does not call

Mušêzib-Marduk his lord, or father, or brother, as was the custom in

private correspondence. As far as it is preserved, the following is a

rendering of this document, which is of interest mainly on account of the

personality of its assumed writer—

“Letter of Bêl-šarra-uṣur to Mušêzib-Marduk. May the gods grant thee

prosperity. Behold, I have sent Bêl-šunu and ... the (two) _mašmašē_,

to.... Send the requirements for the robes (?) of the deity Bunene....

(Several lines are wanting here.)

... I have caused ... to be ... the threshold ... may all....”

The documents referring to Belshazzar’s residence at Sippar, are mentioned

on pp. 414, 449, 450.

The Aramaic Papyri From Elephantine.

These noteworthy documents, which have attracted considerable attention,

were found in the ruins of the city which lie at the southern point of the

island. Almost all the brick-built private houses of Elephantine are in a

ruinous state, partly due to the ravages of time, but principally to the

Fellahin, who have for many years dug there for garden-mould. To the south

of the place where Mr. Mond’s Aramaic papyri(317) are said to have been

found, Greek papyri were discovered, but proceeding north of that point,

the German explorers soon came upon the Aramaic fragments. Those first

found are said to have been in earthen vessels, but the most important of

them (the texts translated below) were buried, without any protective

covering, close to the eastern and southern walls of the room in which

they lay. To all appearance these last had escaped the notice of the

earlier excavators, who had thrown them away with the rubbish cast aside

as containing nothing more worth carrying off.

The text of the most perfect of them reads as follows—

“To our lord Bagohi, governor of Judea, thy servants Yedoniah and his

companions, the priests in the fortress of Yeb, salutation! May our Lord,

the God of heaven, grant (thee) prosperity at all times, and set thee in

favour before Darius the king, and the sons of the (royal) house a

thousandfold more than now, and may He give thee long life. Be at all

times joyful and firm. Now speak thy servants Yedoniah and his companions

as follows—

“In the month Tammuz in the 14th year of Darius the king, when Arsâm

(Asames) had marched forth and gone to the king, the priests of the god

Khnub, who are in Yeb, the fortress, [made] with Waidrang, who is the

governor here, a secret union of the following nature—

“ ‘The temple of Yahû, the god who is in Yeb, the fortress, shall be

removed(318) from that place.’

“Thereupon that Waidrang, the _laḫya_,(319) sent letters to Nephayan, his

son, who was commander-in-chief in Syene, the fortress, saying—

“ ‘The temple which is in Yeb, the fortress, they shall destroy.’

“Thereupon Nephayan brought in Egyptians, together with other warriors;

they came to the fortress of Yeb together with their _tali_,(320)

penetrated into that temple, destroyed it down to the ground. And they

shattered the stone columns which were there. It also happened, (that)

they shattered the seven stone doors,(321) built out of a hewn block of

stone, which were in that temple, and their heads, they ...(322) and their

hinges which were in the marble, those were of brass,(323) and the

roofing, consisting wholly of cedar beams, together with the plaster

pavement (?) of the forecourt (?) and other (things) which were there—all

this have they burned with fire. And the sacrificial dishes of gold and

silver, and the things which were in that temple, all have they taken and

have used as their own. And since the days of the kings of Egypt have our

fathers built that temple in Yeb, the fortress. And when Cambyses came up

to Egypt, he found that temple (already) built, but they pulled all the

temples of the gods of Egypt down. In that temple, on the contrary, no one

had destroyed anything.

“And after they had done this, we, with our wives and children, wore

mourning-garments, fasted, and prayed to Yahû, the lord of heaven, who had

given us warning concerning that Waidrang, the _kalbya_.(324) They have

taken the chains(325) away from his feet, and all the treasures, which he

had acquired, have gone to ruin. And all the men who wished evil to that

temple, have all been killed, and we have been witnesses thereof.

“Also before this, at the time when this evil was committed upon us, did

we send a letter to our lord, and to Yehoḥanan, the high-priest, and his

companions, the priests who were in Jerusalem, and to Ostan (Ostanes), his

brother, that is, ’Anani,(326) and the free ones (princes) of the Jews.

They have not sent us one letter (in reply).

“Also since the days of Tammuz of the 14th year of Darius the king, and

until this day, we wear mourning-garments and fast, our wives have been

made as a widow, we have not anointed (ourselves with) oil nor drunk wine.

Also since then and until (this) day of the 17th year of Darius the king

they have not made food-offerings, incense-offerings, and burnt-offerings

in that temple.

“Moreover, thy servants, Yedoniah and his companions, and the Jews, all

citizens of Yeb, speak as follows—

“ ‘If it be good to our lord, mayest thou consider upon that temple, for

its rebuilding, as they do not allow us to rebuild it. Look to the

receivers of thy benefits and favours, who are here in Egypt. Let a letter

be sent from thee to them with regard to the temple of the god Yahû, to

rebuild it in Yeb, the fortress, even as it was heretofore built. And they

shall offer food-offerings and incense-offerings and burnt-offerings upon

the altar of the god Yahû in thy name. And we will pray for thee at every

time—we and our wives and our children and all the Jews who are here, if

they(327) have then worked until that temple is rebuilt.

“ ‘And a share shall be thine before Yahû the god of heaven from the man

who offers to him a burnt-offering and a sacrifice, a value equal to the

worth of a silver (shekel) for (every) 1000 talents.(328) And with regard

to the gold, concerning that we have sent and given instruction. We have

also sent everything in a letter in our name to Delaiah and Shelemiah,

sons of Sanaballat, governor of Samaria. Also Arsames had no knowledge of

all that which has been done unto us.’

“On the 20th of Marcheswan in the year 17 of Darius the king.”

A fragment of a duplicate gives some instructive variants of this

exceedingly interesting document, from which it would appear that gold and

treasure was given to Waidrang to induce him to act against the temple of

Yahû at Yeb.

To this plea on the part of Yedoniah and the Jewish congregation at Yeb a

favourable answer was given, as the following document shows—

“Memorandum of what Bagohi and Delaiah said to me—Memorandum as follows—

“ ‘Thou shalt speak in Egypt before Arsames concerning the temple of the

sacrificial altar of the God of Heaven which is in Yeb, the fortress,

before our time, before Cambyses, which Waidrang, that _lahia_,(329)

destroyed in the 14th year of Darius the king, to rebuild it in its place,

as it was formerly. And they shall offer food-offerings and incense upon

that altar, even as was wont to be done formerly.’ ”

Nothing could be more satisfactory than this little episode of the Jewish

colony at Yeb—it needs but the discovery of the record of the rebuilding

and the inauguration of the temple to round it off.

Bagohi governor of Judea is the Bagoas or Bagoses of Josephus,

_Antiquities of the Jews_, xi. 7. The high-priest Johannes or John (the

Yoḫanan mentioned on p. 539) had slain his brother Jesus in the temple,

because the latter, supported by Bagoas, sought to dispute with him the

High-priesthood. Notwithstanding the protests of the Jews, Bagoas

penetrated into the temple, and imposed upon it a fine of 50 drachmas for

every lamb sacrificed therein. It will thus be seen, that in offering to

him a percentage of the sacrifices in return for his support in rebuilding

the temple at Yeb, Yedoniah and his companions were acting in accordance

with what was known to be his character. The reference to Yohanan’s

refraining from helping them, it is reasonable to suppose, also occurred

to them as likely to further their desires.

Yedoniah, the chief of the Jewish colony at Yeb and the writer of the

longer document, is probably likewise named in the Oxford papyri—he was

either Yedoniah ben Hosea or Yedoniah ben Meshullam, but could not have

been identified with a third of the name, Yedoniah ben Nathan, as this

last is stated to have been an Aramean of Syene. We have to await further

light upon his identity.

Arsames, who is mentioned in the second paragraph (p. 537), is probably,

as Sachau points out, the Arsanes of Ktesias, who was governor of Egypt

when Darius II. mounted the throne. He left Egypt and went to the court of

Darius, and the priests of Chnum(330) in Elephantine profited by his

absence to destroy the Jewish temple there. In this they were supported by

Waidrang, who, in the absence of Arsames, seems to have exercised the

office of governor. To all appearance he had been commander-in-chief of

the army in Egypt, a post held, at the time this document was written, by

Nephyan his son. There is some doubt as to the reading and vocalization of

the name Waidrang, and consequently, also, as to its true form, but it is

regarded as certainly Persian. It is thought that its Persian prototype

may have been _Vayu-darengha_,(331) “companion of the wind-god,” whilst

his son’s name, in Persian, is possibly _Napâo-yâna_, “favour of the god

Napâo.” Should these identifications be found correct, they will have, as

Sachau remarks, considerable value in ascertaining the principle upon

which names in Persian were given.

To all appearance Arsames returned to Egypt, and a reaction followed which

ended in the disgrace of Waidrang and his followers, who were deprived of

the spoils which they had stolen from the temple at Yeb, and the Jews also

became, in the end, witnesses of the death of all their persecutors. It

seems probable that the central government was greatly displeased at the

action of Waidrang and the priests of Chnub, for the Persians seem always

to have been well-disposed towards the Jews—moreover, cupidity, and not

the good of the state, was at the bottom of Waidrang’s action. The

destruction wrought, however, was not immediately made good, hence this

document, which throws such a vivid light upon the state of Egypt and the

Jews in those days. It is but just to the Persians of that period to say,

that notwithstanding their seemingly Persian names, Waidrang and his son

were apparently not Persians, but possibly Semites, as the (probably

gentilic) adjectives applied to the former seem to show.

The date of this document is regarded as not admitting of any doubt, as

may be gathered by the references to the regnal years of Darius in

conjunction with the names of historical personages—Bagohi (Bagoas or

Bagoses of Josephus), governor of Judea, Yehoḥanan or John, the

high-priest at Jerusalem, and the two sons of Sanaballaṭ,(332) the

governor of Samaria in the time of Artaxerxes I. (Longimanus). The ruler

of the Persian empire when these documents were written, must therefore

have been Darius II. (Nothus), who reigned for 19 years, namely, 424-405

B.C. The 14th year of Darius II.—the date of the destruction of the temple

at Yeb—was 410 B.C., and his 17th year—the date when the appeal was sent

to Bagohi—corresponds with 407 B.C. This fixes, among others, the date of

Yehoḥanan, and Sachau points out as noteworthy that one of his brothers,

named Manasseh, was son-in-law of the governor of Samaria, Sanaballaṭ, as

related in Nehemiah xiii. 28. Another brother of the high-priest was the

one whom he killed in the temple (Jesus). In this record, however, a third

brother, Ostan or Ostanes, appears. To all appearance this last bore also

another name, to wit, ’Ahani, which would be his true Hebrew appellation.

If, however, the Babylonian construction has been followed here, this

Ostan or Ostanes would be brother of ’Ahani, a personage of importance in

Jerusalem, but not otherwise known. Adopting the rendering given in the

translation, however, it is noteworthy that two brothers named Yehoḥanan

and ’Ahani are mentioned in 1 Chronicles iii. 24. These, however, were

descendants of David, whereas the brothers mentioned in the papyrus must

have been descendants of Aaron.

A high Persian official named _Uštanu or Uštannu (Ostanu_ or _Ostan_)

occurs on two Babylonian tablets in the British Museum, and also on one in

the possession of Lord Amherst of Hackney. He bears the title “governor of

Babylon and across the river,” possibly meaning all the tract west of the

Euphrates. This man, however, can hardly at the same time have been

governor of Egypt, and the texts in which he is mentioned seem, moreover,

to belong to the time of Darius Hystaspis, in which case he lived at a

much too early date.

The Egyptians called the island of Elephantine Yeb, and its capital bore

the same name as the island. It is transcribed Ab by those who follow the

old system of reading Egyptian, so that the present documents seem to

support the philological views of the Berlin school. A common ideograph

for the name of the island is an elephant with an upturned trunk, showing

that Yeb really means “elephant-island,” and that Elephantine is simply

the Greek translation of the native name. The temple of Khnum (Khnumba,

Khnub), whose priests are referred to in the papyri, was destroyed by

Moḥammed Ali in 1822.

The Hebrew divine name is written Yahu, which is apparently the longer

form of the biblical Jah, seen in such names as Hezekiah (Assyrian

_Ḫazaqi-yau_), Gemariah or Gemariahu (Jer. xxix. 3; xxxvi. 10, etc.). As

is shown on p. 471, this termination was pronounced _iāwa_ by the

Babylonian Jews, which raises the question whether the Yahu of these

papyri may not have been pronounced _Yāwa_ also.

Dr. L. Belleli, of the Philological Section of the _Instituto di Studi

Superiori_ in Florence, doubts the genuineness of the papyri found at

Elephantine on account of chronological difficulties. In the case of the

documents here translated, however, no such difficulties can be said to

exist, and the forger of such things would have to be not only a splendid

Aramaic scholar acquainted with the Berlin scheme of transcribing

Egyptian, but also a historian and the possessor of an exceedingly lively

imagination.

The above description is based upon Eduard Sachau’s noteworthy monograph,

_Drei aramäische Papyrusurkunden aus Elephantine_, Berlin, Königliche

Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1907. The documents in question were

discovered by Dr. Otto Rubensohn, and the collection included some papyri

still in roll-form, and various fragments. The principal document

translated above belonged to the former category, and was successfully

unrolled by Herr Ibscher, the keeper of the Royal Museum. The reproduction

shows it as a large sheet of papyrus, folded in two, and certain damaged

portions, on the left, imply that it was rolled upon itself about six

times.

NOTES AND ADDITIONS.

P. 11. It is needful to state, as has been pointed out to the writer, that

“our English translation would make all (the Biblical Creation-story)

appear English.” In other words, the test of language is not an unfailing

one.

Pp. 14-15. To the names of translators of the Babylonian Creation-stories

must be added P. Jensen, and W. L. King, who has published important

additions to the text.

P. 21, l. 4. Alternative rendering: “He beheld Tiamtu’s snarling” (see the

note to p. 24).

P. 22. With the first paragraph on this page the contents of the third

tablet, and with the last paragraph those of the fourth, begin.

P. 24. Instead of “they clustered around him,” Jensen translates

(doubtfully), “they ran round about him,” and King, “they beheld him.”

Something may be said in favour of each, but the rendering of the text

seems more probable. Also, instead of “Examining the lair,” I am inclined

to return to my earlier rendering, “Noting the snarling of Kingu, her

consort.” The four succeeding lines read:—

“He looks, and his advance(333) becomes confused,

His understanding is destroyed, and his action fails (?),

And the gods, his helpers, going by his side,

Saw the [con]fusion (??) of their leader, (and) their sight was

troubled (too).”

King attributes this fear and confusion not to Merodach, but to Kingu and

his followers, which would seem to be more consistent, but the difficulty

is, that the original gives no indication that this was the case. Further

discoveries may throw light upon the point.

P. 27. The Lumaši (l. 2), according to _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western

Asia_, vol. III., pl. 57, were seven constellations, and seem to have been

included in the thirty-six stars or constellations mentioned two lines

lower down. A list of these will be found in the _Journal of the Royal

Asiatic Society_ for 1900, pp. 573-575.

P. 28, l. 29. The translation of this line is based on that of Mr. L. W.

King, who first published the text. The word for “bone” is _iṣṣimtum_, the

Heb. _’eṣem_, Arab. _’adhm_. If the word be correctly read (the character

_tum_ is doubtful), it is possibly connected with _êṣimtum_, which

translates the Sumerian character standing for a weapon or a long straight

object.

Pp. 29-31. Tutu and other names given to Merodach in this section are

referred to on pp. 45-46. By “the people” in line 15 (p. 30) are

apparently to be understood the gods.

P. 44. Other names of the goddess Aruru, who assisted Merodach in the

creation of man, are “the lady potter,” “the constructor of the world,”

“the constructor of the gods,” “the constructor of mankind,” “the

constructor of the heart.” Aruru was the goddess of progeny, and is one of

the forty-one names by which “the lady of the gods” was known. An

interesting Sumerian (dialectic) hymn to her exists in the Brussels

Museum.

P. 47, ll. 29-32. Instead of “in their (the fallen gods’) room,” Jensen

suggests, “for their redemption.” That the fallen gods were to be redeemed

(lit.: “spared”) by the merits of the race of men which Merodach created

is a new idea, which further information may confirm.(334)

P. 59, l. 13. Ea is the Aê of the preceding pages, the Oannes of

Damascius. There is reason to believe that the name was also read Aa,

which would account for the Greek form which he employs, and likewise for

the identification of this god with the Aa of l. 4 and the following

paragraph.

P. 63, l. 27. Perhaps the most interesting of recent discoveries is the

identification (by Prof. Zimmern) of Euedoreschos with the Enweduranki of

the tablet described on p. 77. The original Greek form must have been

Euedoranchos (see the note to the page mentioned). Euedocus (l. 21) is

probably the Sumero-Akkadian En-me-duga.

P. 67. For further notes in connection with Tiamat, see the discussion of

Delitzsch’s _Babel und Bibel_ at the end, pp. 529-532. It is noteworthy

that this name heads the list of abodes of the gods published in the

_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_ for Dec., 1900, pp.

367-369. The explanation is unfortunately broken away, but it may be

surmised that as the goddess of the watery wastes of the earth she was

described as the abode of the gods who were regarded as her followers.

P. 72. The description of Tammuz as “the peerless mother of heaven” is

probably to be explained by the fact, that _ama-gala_, “great mother,” is

one of the Sumerian words for “forest,” and Tammuz was identified with the

forest of Eridu, the divine abode where he dwelt.

P. 73. For Pir-napištim, Ut-napištim is a possible reading (see below,

note to p. 99).

For further notes upon the trees of Paradise, see pp. 531.

P. 77. Euedoranchos. The forms of this name, as handed down, are

Εὐεδωραχος, Εὐεδωρεσχος, and Εὐερωδεσχος. Eusebius’s Chronicle, however,

gives the best form, namely, Edoranchus.

P. 78, l. 20. Perhaps it would be better to say that the Hebrew accounts

of the Creation “probably came from Babylonia”—they may not have

originated there.

Pp. 80-82. For further remarks upon the cherubin, see p. 533. In “the

_kurub_ of Anu, Bel,” etc., which also occurs, we probably have a variant

form.

P. 83, ll. 1-5. It is noteworthy that Ablum (“Son”) as a personal name

actually occurs (De Sarzec, _Découvertes_, pl. 30 bis, No. 19). Compare

Ablaa, “my son,” p. 533, l. 12.

P. 90. For further information about the name Gilgameš, see the

_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_ for 1903, pp. 198-199.

Prof. Hommel has pointed out that an inscription exists stating that he

built the fortress of Erech, thus bringing him almost within the domain of

history.

P. 99. (The Legend of Gilgameš.) Dr. Meissner’s discovery of a fragment of

a new version of the Gilgameš-legend(335) is a most welcome addition to

our knowledge. A description of this text will be found in the

_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_ for March and May,

1903, where a comparison of the two versions is also given. It speaks of

his visit to the land of darkness in quest of his friend Ea-banî (whose

name, as this inscription indicates, should properly be read Enki-du or

Ea(Aê, Aa)-du). In the second column it details his conversation with

Siduri (“the _Sabitu_”), in which he refers to the death of his beloved

companion, since whose departure he had not sought to live, but having

seen her face, he expresses the hope that he will now not see death. The

_Sabitu_, however, answers him to the effect that he would not find the

life which he sought—death was the lot which the gods had set for mankind.

Eat, therefore, make festival, rejoice day and night, put on fine apparel,

take pleasure in child and wife—such was her advice. In the last column of

this version the hero meets with Sur-Sunabu (Ur-Šanabi), who asks him his

name. Gilgameš tells him who he is and whence he came, and asks to be

shown Uta-naištim, the remote, as the Babylonian Noah seems to be called

in this version of the legend. About one-third of the tablet, giving the

lower parts of columns 1 and 2, and the upper parts of columns 3 and 4, is

the amount preserved.

The above seems to show, that the name of the friend of Gilgameš was

Êa-du, (Aa-du, Aê-du, or Enki-du), not Êa-banî; whilst Ur-Šanabi the

boatman, was really called Sur-Sunabu (or Sur-Šanabi); and Pir-napištim,

the Babylonian Noah, was Ut-napištim.

P. 104, ll. 1 and 6. Jensen suggests, for _muir kukki_, the translation

“rulers of darkness(?)”:—

“(If) the rulers of darkness cause to rain down one evening a rain of dirt

(?),

Enter into the ship, and shut thy door!”

That period arrived;

“The rulers of darkness rain down one evening a rain of dirt (?).”

_Muir_, however, seems to be singular, not plural. Another meaning of the

word is “messenger.”

P. 108, l. 35. If this translation be correct, the throwing down of a part

of the food recalls the casting of meal on the ground as an offering to

the gods. It is not unlikely that the preparation of the food, and setting

it by his head, was accompanied by some prayer or incantation to secure

his recovery, as in the inscription translated in the _Proceedings of the

Society of Biblical Archæology_, May, 1901, pp. 193 and 205-210. Sleeping

with a cruse of water near the head (1 Sam. xxvi. 11-12) was probably

simply a provision against thirst, with no special meaning. On p. 111,

there is just the possibility that “The leavings of the dish” were what

was allowed to remain therein for the gods, and “the rejected of the food”

may have been that which was thrown on the ground as an offering.

P. 113, ll. 19 ff. A number of the deities identified with the god Ea or

Aa are given in the _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. II.,

pl. 58, and form a parallel with the inscription printed on p. 58. Deities

seem also to have been identified with Nebo. The centres where these gods

were worshipped therefore had likewise their monotheistic system, in which

all the other gods were identified with the patron-deity of the place,

just as those Babylonians who worshipped Merodach identified all the other

gods with him.

P. 119. There has been a great deal of discussion as to the way in which

Šumer could be connected with Shinar, the chief reasons against their

identification being that the latter must have come from a Babylonian

form, of whose existence there is no evidence, and that it stood for the

whole country (except, possibly, Larsa), whereas Šumer was the name of the

southern part only. Hommel derives the Biblical Shinar from Ki-Imgir,

through the intermediate forms Shingar, Shumir (Šumer) and Shimir. This is

based upon the tendency which _k_ had to change into _š_, whilst the

substitution of _m_ for an older _g_ or _ng_ can be proved. As, however,

Shinar corresponds practically with the whole of Babylonia, a modification

of Prof. Hommel’s etymology may, perhaps, best meet the case. The whole of

the country was called by the Sumerians Kingi (or Kengi) Ura, and the

expression _mâda Kingi-Ura_ is rendered, in the lists, _mât Šumeri u

Akkadī_, “the land of Sumer and Akkad.” It is therefore clear, that

Kingi-Ura corresponds with the whole tract, and is practically synonymous

with the Biblical Shinar. The change from _k_ to _š (sh)_ being provable,

it is possible that Kingi-Ura, pronounced Shingi-Ura, may have originated

the Hebrew form Shinar (better Shin’ar), through the intermediate forms

Shingura and Shingar.

The statement that Elam was the firstborn of Shem (Gen. x. 22) receives

illustration from the fact, that many inscriptions have been found showing

that Semitic Babylonian was not only well known, but also used in that

country. From the order in which the names occur in Genesis, it ought to

be the earliest of the Semitic settlements, coming before Asshur,

Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram. If, however, Arpachshad stand, as is generally

thought, for Babylonia, it is quite clear that there is no indication of

chronological order in this, for Assyria was certainly younger, as a

Semitic settlement, than Babylonia, and it would seem that Elam was

colonized with Semites from the last-named country. This would make Elam

to be simply the first Semitic colony, as Prof. Scheil has already

suggested.

A good example of the slim racial type is shown on pl. V., second

seal-impression. For a long time after the Sumerians had become one nation

with the Semitic Babylonians, the type of the figures represented on the

cylinder-seals and sculptures remained unchanged, and it is on this

account that Ḫammurabi is portrayed, on the slab reproduced as pl. I., in

the old non-Semitic costume. The early Semitic type is shown on pl. III.,

no. 1 (no. 2 shows the late Assyrian type). In pl. VI. the Sumerian style

is there, but the type is rather thick. This, however, may be partly due

to the sliding of the cylinder when the impression was taken.

P. 124. Sargon of Agadé’s conquests, according to the omens referring to

his reign, were as follows:—(paragraph 1) Elam, (2) the land of the

Amorites, (4 and 5) the land of the Amorites (twice), (6) doubtful, (7) he

crossed the sea of the rising of the sun, and the reference to three years

in that district seems to refer to the time he stayed there, (8)

apparently no expedition, (9) he ravaged the land of Kazalla, (10) he put

down a revolt in his own country, (11) he fought against Suri or Sumaštu.

P. 125, l. 27. The old Sumerian or Akkadian laws are only known to us from

a few specimens preserved in the tablets of grammatical paradigms (the

series _Ana itti-šu_), and will be found on pp. 190-191. It is probable

that they were made use of in compiling the Code of Ḫammurabi.

P. 127, l. 21 ff. But perhaps it was the city of Aššur which came forth

from Babylonia (_i.e._ was a Babylonian colony), and its ever-increasing

inhabitants who founded the other cities mentioned.

P. 130 (the derivation of Nimrod). Another suggestion is, that Nimrod may

be the name of Merodach, as “Lord of Marad” (Nin-Marad). As far as I have

been able to see, however, this name of Merodach does not occur, and

moreover, it was Nergal, and not Merodach, who was lord of

Marad—Merodach’s city was Babylon. Prof. Hommel’s acute suggestion, that

Namra-ṣit may be a Babylonian form of Nimrod, would seem to be doubtful.

P. 131 (Merodach’s net). The bow of Merodach, after his fight with Tiamtu,

was placed in the heavens, and seemingly became one of the constellations,

but we do not hear of any similar honour having been conferred on his net,

notwithstanding the great service which it had rendered him. In Habakkuk

i. 15-17 there is a curious passage in which “the Chaldean” is described

as catching men with his angle and his net, as fishes are caught, and

making sacrifice to his net and his drag on account of his success with

them. Heuzey, the well-known French Assyriologist and antiquarian, makes a

comparison between this passage and the Vulture-stele, on which an ancient

Babylonian prince is represented as having placed his conquered foes in a

great net. This, however, does not explain the statement that the Chaldean

sacrificed and offered incense to his net and his drag, and it is doubtful

whether the Prophet had either that or any similar sculpture or picture in

his mind. There is, nevertheless, just the possibility that the

Babylonians were accustomed to pay divine honours to the net of Merodach,

and this may have given rise to the statement in the passage quoted.

Whether the relief on the Vulture-stele be derived from the legend of

Merodach or not, is doubtful—in all probability it merely expresses a

simile derived from catching wild animals with a net, as exhibited by the

sculptures of Aššur-banî-âpli in the Assyrian Saloon of the British

Museum.

Pp. 132-133. With regard to the statements on these pages, the Rev. John

Tuckwell writes: “Gen. xi. 1 must in all fairness be regarded as going

back prior to ch. x, in order to tell the history of Babylon from its

foundation. Again:—Why contradict Genesis? We do not know who ‘began’ to

build Babylon—Sayce suggests ‘Etana.’ It is quite possible that ‘they left

off to build the city,’ and resumed the work under Nimrod. There is no

need to regard any of the statements as ‘interpolations’ if thus read. If

all mankind perished by the Flood, as both stories appear to teach, there

must surely have been a time when ‘the whole earth was of one language.’ ”

P. 134. For the derivation of Shinar, see the note to p. 119.

P. 136. The Mohammedan legend of the Tower of Babel, as told in the

Persian work, _Rauzat-us-Safa_,(336) may be interesting. It is as

follows:—

“When Nimrud had witnessed the extinction of the pile of fire, and had

beheld the roses produced therein by the benign Creator, he aspired to

ascend to heaven.... Nimrud ... spent many years in erecting a tower,

which was so high that the bird of imagination could not reach its summit.

When it was completed, he ascended to the pinnacle of the spire, but the

aspect of the heavens remained precisely the same as from the surface of

the earth. This astonished and perplexed him. The next day the tower fell,

and such a fearful noise struck the ears of the inhabitants of Babel that

most of them fainted from the effects thereof; and when they had recovered

their senses they forgot their own language, so that every tribe spoke a

different idiom, and seventy-two tongues became current among them.”

P. 136, l. 3 from below. Nannara was the moon-god, the same as Sin. L. 6

from below, read _Ê-bar-igi-ê-di_.

P. 144, l. 9 from below. The Rev. C. H. W. Johns, in his Assyrian deeds

and documents, has pointed out the likeness of the names _Naḫiri_ and

_Naḫarau_ (or _Naḫarâu_) to Nahor, referred to by Kittel in his little

book upon Delitzsch’s _Babel und Bibel_.(337) _Naḫiru_, however, is the

common Assyro-Babylonian word for “nostril,” and is also the name of a

creature of the sea supposed to be the dolphin. _Naḫarâu_ it may be noted,

notwithstanding the absence of the prefix of divinity, bears every

appearance of being a name like _Bêl-Yau_ on p. 59, the initial _y_ or _i_

being omitted as in the case of _Au-Aa_ seven lines lower down. Judging

from analogy, _Naharâu_ should mean “Naḫar is Jah,” but whether this has

anything to do with the name Nahor or not is doubtful—as Assyrian

equivalent we should rather expect _Naḫuru_.

P. 145, l. 11 from below. The name of a Babylonian district called Pulug

occurs in a Babylonian geographical list, and may be the same as Peleg.

Though the ideogram is different, this is possibly the same as the Pulukku

of the _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. II., pl. 52, l. 53,

where it is explained as _Bît ḫarê_, “the house of the cutting,” or

“excavation.” The Babylonians would therefore seem to have regarded Pulug

or Pulukku as referring to the division of the land of Babylon by the

cutting of the irrigation-channels which gave it its fertility.

P. 146, l. 4. There is no great probability that the name Terah has

anything to do with _Tarḫu_, which occurs in certain names found in

Assyrian contracts (Johns, _Assyrian Deeds_, pp. 127, 458, etc.).

P. 147, l. 4 from below. The family of Terah may, however, have become

pastoral on leaving Ur of the Chaldees.

P. 148 (Abram). According to Prof. Breasted (_American Journal of Semitic

Studies_, Oct. 1904) mention is made in the geographical list of Shishak

at Karnak of “the field of Abram,” and if this identification be correct,

it is the earliest reference to the great ancestor of the Hebrews and the

nations associated with them, though it cannot be said that the date (time

of Jeroboam and Rehoboam) is a very remote one. Owing to the same Egyptian

character being used for both _r_ and _l_, Maspéro read the word as the

plural of _’abel_, “meadow.”

P. 150, l. 23. Illustrations of the old Akkadian (or Sumerian) laws will

be found in the contracts of adoption of Bêl-êzzu and Arad-Išḫara on pp.

176 and 177. The laws themselves are given on p. 190.

P. 152, second paragraph. It is needful to state that a few Semitic

Babylonian inscriptions of an exceedingly early date (seemingly before

3000 B.C.) exist, likewise a few Sumero-Akkadian texts after 2300 B.C.,

and the periods of the two languages therefore overlap. Judging from the

inscriptions, however, Sumero-Akkadian goes back to a date much earlier

than the earliest Semitic, but it was to all appearance hardly used after

the period of the dynasty of Ḫammurabi.

P. 158, l. 11. The Gutites were probably Medes.

P. 161, l. 11. It is not improbable that Sippar-Amnanu means simply

“Amonite Sippar,” the second word of the compound being apparently from

Amna,(338) which is possibly the Babylonian form of the name of the

Egyptian sun-god, Amon. _Ya’ruru_ is seemingly the old form of Aruru, one

of the names of Ištar, who was also worshipped there.

P. 166. The wedding-gift was to all appearance the price paid by the

bridegroom for the bride, in this case handed to the bride’s brother and

sister. For the laws concerning this payment, see Ḫammurabi’s Code,

sections 163 and 164 (p. 505). It was generally handed to the bride’s

father (upon a dish, according to _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western

Asia_, vol. v., pl. 24, ll. 48-51_cd_).(339) Instead of “Ammi-ṭitana the

king,” Dr. Schor reads Ammi-ṭitana-šarrum, _i.e._ as the name of a man,

meaning “Ammi-ṭitana is king.” If this be correct, the document is not a

record of the marriage of a princess.

P. 168. The grain given to Šeritum was probably of the nature of a

deposit—according to Ḫammurabi’s Code, sect. 257, the wages of a reaper

were not one _gur_ of grain, but eight.

P. 173-174. Upon the question of adoption, see Ḫammurabi’s Code, sections

185-193. As there is no indication, in these enactments, that female

children were included, it is doubtful whether Ana-Aa-uzni and Aḫḫ-ayabi

had any remedy in case of repudiation, or refusal to perform all the

conditions. Calling the gods to witness was probably regarded as being a

sufficient safeguard. Nevertheless, the usage of the language was such

that “daughtership” could be included in “sonship.”

Pp. 174 ff. It is noteworthy that, in this contract, there is no

indication of the second wife having been taken to vex the first (Lev.

xviii. 18, A.V.), and as the second was to be subordinate to the first,

rivalling (as the R.V. translates) was as far as possible prevented. As

the children already born are referred to (p. 175, l. 20), the second

marriage could not have been due to the absence of offspring, and it may

therefore be supposed that the second wife was taken on account of the

ill-health of the first (Ḫammurabi’s Code, sect. 148). This is supported

by the clauses referring to the services which Iltani was to perform for

her “sister.”

P. 176. The adoption of Bêl-êzzu illustrates section 191 of Ḫammurabi’s

Code. Both are based upon the Sumerian laws translated on pp. 190 and 191.

The word translated “deep” (line 19) is one generally used for the ocean,

the abode of Ea (Aa), god of the waters. It may have been something

similar to “the brazen sea” in the temple at Jerusalem.

P. 177. Arad-Išḫara was evidently adopted under the same law and enactment

as the foregoing. The declaration of the foster-father of his right to

have children is interesting.

Upon the adoption of Karanatum, compare pp. 173 and 174, with the note

thereon.

Pp. 178 and 179. The three tablets giving equal portions to each of the

three brothers, illustrate sections 165 and 167 of the Code, which enacts

that all brothers shall share equally. Any gift or share in the property

left by the mother would probably be recorded on another document.

P. 180. Laws 178 ff. of Ḫammurabi’s Code show that votaries and

priestesses had special privileges in the matter of inheriting property,

and it would seem from the tablet of Erištum, the sodomite or public

woman, that her station did not allow her the choice, that being the right

of her sister, Amat-Šamaš, priestess of the sun.

P. 181. Naramtum apparently had no children, and seems to have been

divorced in accordance with section 138 of Ḫammurabi’s Code.

P. 185. The case of Šamaš-nûri is illustrated by sections 144-146 of

Ḫammurabi’s Code.

Pp. 187 and 188. The conditions of the hiring of a slave were probably

those of the old Sumerian law translated on p. 191.

P. 199, l. 26. Elamite overlordship was naturally coextensive with that of

Babylon as long as the latter power acknowledged Elamite supremacy.

P. 201, l. 5 from below. _Qanni_ is probably one of the Assyro-Babylonian

words for “sanctuary.”

P. 203. In addition to the deities mentioned, Aššur-banî-âpli

(Assurbanipal) speaks of the goddess Nin-gala, the “great lady” or

“queen,” as having a temple called Ê-gipara at Haran. She is mentioned

with Nusku (p. 202) and is called “the mother of the gods,” Šamaš, the

sungod, being described as her firstborn. To all appearance she was the

consort of the Moongod, Nannar.

P. 208, last line. “Yoke of the _Elamites_” would probably have been the

better term. (See the note to p. 199.)

P. 209, l. 8 from below. Oppert always refused to accept the

identification of Amraphel with Ḫammurabi.

P. 222, l. 4 from below. It would appear from the Babylonian lists that

Tudḫula may be read simply Tudḫul, notwithstanding the final _a_ at the

end.

P. 243, ll. 25 ff. The name Aqabi-îlu (p. 463, l. 15) is similarly formed

to that of Ya’kubi-îlu, and from the same root, but it is not identical

with it. There is no probability that Egibi (p. 439, l. 2, etc.) has any

connection with the name Jacob, as has been suggested. Its connection with

the (? Assyrian) name Ḫakkubu seems to be still more unlikely. Upon these

and similar names, see Hommel, “_Ancient Hebrew Tradition_,”(340) p. 112.

P. 246, l. 5. If my memory serves me, the name Gadu-ṭâbu, “the fortune is

good,” occurs on a contract-tablet in the British Museum. (I unfortunately

forgot to make note of it at the time, hence my inability to give the

reference.)

P. 249, after the first paragraph. Jacob’s wrestling with “a man” (Gen.

xxxii. 24 ff.) brings out the interesting name Peniel or Penuel (vv. 30

and 31), explained as “the face of God,” so called because he had there

“seen God face to face.” A similar name to this is the Babylonian

_Ana-pâni-îli_, “to the face of God,” sometimes shortened to _Appâni-îli_.

The documents bearing the latter are of the time of Samsu-iluna, and are

therefore rather earlier than the time of Jacob. Besides the meaning given

above, other renderings are possible, and the question arises, whether

_Ana-pâni-îli_ means “(let me go) to the presence” or “before the face of

God,” or that its bearer was asked for by his father “at the presence of

God.” Many other possible renderings will also, in all probability, occur

to the reader, but it is noteworthy, that in this case, the Biblical

narrative may, by chance, serve to explain this Babylonian compound, for

as “the man” with whom Jacob wrestled was the representative of the

Almighty, so _pâni_ in the Babylonian name may be interpreted in the same

way, and the person bearing it may have been offered or dedicated to the

face, or presence (that is, the representative) of God. It is to be noted

that the owner of the name on Mr. Offord’s cylinder (pl. vi. no. 2) was a

worshipper of the god Hadad or Rimmon, and was not, therefore, a

monotheist.

P. 273, l. 8. The date of Amenophis II., according to Petrie, was about

1449 to 1423.

P. 278. The non-Semitic pronunciation of _Ninip_ was possibly _Nirig_, and

the Semitic reading _En-mašti_ (so Prof. A. T. Clay). An earlier reading

of the Aramaic character regarded as _m_ was _n_, which would give

_Ênu-rêštū_, “the primæval lord,” or the like, a title of Ninip and of

other gods. For other suggestions, see Hrozný in the _Revue Sémitique_,

July 1908.

P. 279, l. 2. The name Bidina may also be read Kaština, apparently a

variant of the Babylonian Bidinnam or Kaštinnam.

L. 12 ff. The mention of _Dumu-zi_, _i.e._ Tammuz or Adonis, goes back to

about 3500 B.C., or earlier. Hymns to Tammuz in the dialect of the

Sumerian language exist, dating from about 2000 years before Christ, the

most noteworthy of these compositions at present known being that

preserved in the Manchester Museum.

L. 27. Mutzu’u. It is doubtful whether this name is complete on the tablet

where it occurs. Possibly Mutzuata, a name occurring on the Bronze Gates

found by Mr. Rassam at Balawat, furnishes an indication as to the way in

which it should be completed. (Knudtzon reads _Mut-baḫlu_, written for

Mut-ba’la, possibly meaning “the man of his lord.”)

L. 31. Yabitiri. The inscription referring to his early life is translated

on pp. 284-285.

L. 37. For Addu-nirari, read Adad-nirari, the Assyrian form.

P. 280, line 4 and note. Nin-Urmuru (?) Knudtzon reads as Bêlit(=

Ba’lat)-Ur-Maḫ-Meš. In Assyro-Babylonian this would probably be read

_Bêlit-nêši_, a name meaning “the lady of the lions.”

P. 286, note 1. For the name Mut-zu’u, compare the note to p. 279, l. 27,

above. Knudtzon’s new translation differs somewhat from that given here.

P. 293, l. 26. Another Zimrêda (to all appearance) is mentioned in an

inscription in the British Museum. This text comes from Babylonia, and is

possibly of an earlier date. It apparently refers to the affairs of the

Babylonian principality of Suḫu and Maër.

P. 319, l. 14. Suḫi and Maër are mentioned together in the document

referred to above, note to p. 293, and in the inscription of

Šamaš-rêš-uṣur, governor of that district, published by Dr. Weissbach in

his _Babylonische Miscellen_. This district lay, according to that

scholar, somewhere near the point where the Habûr runs into the Euphrates.

As the western boundary of this state is entirely unknown, the full value

of Tiglath-pileser I.’s boast cannot be estimated, but the district

ravaged must have been a considerable stretch of country.

P. 325. The inscription referring to Gazzāni probably forms part of one of

those in which the ruler asks the gods (generally Šamaš and Hadad) for

success against the countries which he intended to invade. Sargon of

Assyria, Esarhaddon, and Aššur-banî-âpli (Assurbanipal) all had similar

inscriptions composed for them. From the manner in which the text is

written, however, it is probable that it antedates these.

P. 329, l. 4 from below. Instead of “advanced,” another possible

translation is “rose up.”

P. 330, l. 3. Instead of Gilzau, Kirzau and several other readings are

possible.

The “battle of Qarqara,” as it is generally called, is illustrated by

strip I (old mark C) of the Bronze Gates of Shalmaneser II.(341) The

scenes only represent the capture of the cities Pargâ, Adâ, and Qarqara of

Urḫilêni (= Irḫulêni) of the land of the Hamathites, there being no

reference either to Ahab, or to his allies. The city of Qarqara was later

on taken by Sargon (see p. 363).

P. 341, l. 4. Instead of _Persia_, read _Pahlav_ as the identification of

Parsua (Hommel).

P. 343, l. 22. As the character translated “lady” means also “sister,” it

may in reality indicate the relationship of Sammu-ramat to

Bêl-tarṣi-îli-ma.

P. 346, l. 22. Tiglath-pileser “III.,” or “IV.”

P. 347, l. 25. Sardurri of Ararat is the Sardaris (II.) of the Armenian

cuneiform texts.

P. 349, l. 6. Ḫatarikka is also spelled with one _k_, as on pp. 344 and

345.

P. 374, l. 20. In Kammusu-nadbi we have an instance of the occurrence of

the name of Chemosh, the national god of the Moabites. This name is also

found in that of Kamušu-šarra-uṣur, apparently a Babylonian, perhaps of

Moabite origin (see the note to p. 466).

P. 376, l. 21. Urbi occurs as the name of a city or district in a

Babylonian geographical list, from which we learn also that there was an

“upper” and a “lower” Urbi. It is immediately followed by Pulug (see the

note to p. 145).

L. 8. from below. Kallima-Sin is now read Kadašman-Ḫarbe (or Muruš).

P. 381, foot-note. According to Prof. W. Max Müller, _Orientalische

Literaturzeitung_, Nov., 1902, Mer-en-Ptah and “the great sorcerer and

high-priest of Memphis” were brothers, and the incident of the vision took

place before Mer-en-Ptah’s battle with the Libyans, when, as he himself

states, he saw in a dream a figure like that of Ptah, who said to him

“Take,” giving him the sword, and “Put away from thee thy

faintheartedness.” Max Müller attributes the chronological error neither

to Herodotus nor to the Egyptian scribes who supplied him with

information, but to Hecataeus of Miletus, whose work Herodotus used—“an

Egyptian would not have made such a chronological blunder.” This,

naturally, much diminishes the value of the extract as a parallel to the

account of the destruction of Sennacherib’s army before Jerusalem.

P. 384, l. 1 ff. The following is Nabonidus’s account of the murder of

Sennacherib and the events which led up to it, from the inscription

published by the Rev. V. Scheil in the _Recueil des Travaux relatifs à la

Philologie et à l’Archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes_, vol. XVIII.,

pp. 1 ff.:—

“He (this must be Sennacherib) went to Babylon, he laid its sanctuaries in

ruin, he destroyed the reliefs,(342) the statues he overthrew. He took the

hands of the prince, Merodach, and caused him to enter within

Aššur(343)—according to the anger of the god then he treated the land. The

prince, Merodach, did not cease from his wrath—for 21 years he set up his

seat within Aššur. (In) later days a time arrived, the anger of the king

of the gods, the lords, was then appeased. He remembered E-sagila and

Babylon, the seat of his dominion. The king of Mesopotamia,(344) who

during the anger of Merodach had accomplished the ruin of the land, the

son born of his body slew him with the sword.”

For the Babylonians, the Assyrian king was the instrument of Merodach’s

wrath.

P. 385. The British Museum “black stone” mentions Esarhaddon’s elder

brothers: “I, Esarhaddon, whom thou (O Merodach) hast called, in the

assembly of my elder brothers, to restore those buildings” (_i.e._ the

temples, etc., damaged by floods).

P. 393. Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, in an

inscription found by the German expedition, and published by Dr. Weissbach

in his _Babylonische Miscellen_, refers to the downfall of Assyria in the

following words:—

“The Assyrian, who from remote days ruled all people, and with his heavy

yoke oppressed the people of the land,(345) I, the weak, the humble, the

worshipper of the lord of lords, by the mighty force of Nebo and Merodach,

my lords, cut off their feet from the land of Akkad, and caused their yoke

to be thrown off.”

As the text is not of any great length, Nabopolassar could not give

details, but notwithstanding his humility, it is noteworthy that he takes

all the credit to himself. The inscription is written on four cylinders

from Ê-ḫatta-tila, the temple of Ninip in Šu-anna.

P. 399, l. 8. The spelling of the name of Nebuchadnezzar differs somewhat

in the various inscriptions, but the meaning is always practically the

same—“Nebo, protect the boundary” or “my boundary,” according as the

second component ends in _a_ or _i_. In Nabium (p. 398, l. 7 from below)

we have an old form fully spelt out.

[Plate XVI.]

Emblems used by Esarhaddon, and carved on the upper surface of the black

stone presented to the British Museum by Lord Aberdeen. It represents a

divine tiara upon an altar, a priest, the sacred tree of the Assyrians, a

bull, a mountain (?), a plough, a date-palm, and a rectangular

object—perhaps the walls of a town. The same emblems, arranged in a

circle, are found on the cylinders from Babylon inscribed with his

architectural works in that city.

P. 400, l. 25. The name of at least one Nabû-zer-iddina (son of Ab[laa?],

descendant of Irani) occurs in the contracts of the time of

Nebuchadnezzar. This man, however, was a scribe, and there is no

indication that he had ever been captain of the guard.

P. 403, ll. 7 ff. The penalty of death by fire, inflicted on Shadrach,

Meshach, and Abednego, receives illustration from the notes to p. 480.

P. 405, l. 21. The German excavations at Babylon have revealed the

appearance of the gate of Ištar as a plain opening in a wall of the city,

covered with glazed brickwork, ornamented with bulls and dragons

alternately, arranged in vertical rows, a decoration which is repeated in

the thickness of the wall and in the inner recesses. (See Delitzsch’s _Im

Lande des einstigen Paradieses_, figures 25 and 26.) For the position of

the gate, see the note to pp. 471, 472.

P. 406, ll. 2 and 3 from below. “The House of the Foundation of Heaven and

earth” is the Ê-temen-ana-kia of p. 138.

P. 413, above. As an example of the sending of the statues of deities

temporarily away from their shrines, see p. 278, where mention is made of

the image of Ištar of Nineveh, sent to Egypt by king Dušratta.

P. 415, l. 23, and four following pages. Ugbaru and Gubaru are generally

regarded as two forms of the name Gobryas, and though this seems certain,

there is just the possibility, that they are the names of two different

persons.

P. 425, l. 10 from below. The tablet mentioning Zēru-Bâbîli son of

Mutêriṣu exists in two examples, one being in the British Museum, and the

other (which has an Aramaic docket) in the possession of Mr. Joseph

Offord. It is translated in the _Quarterly Statement_ of the Palestine

Exploration Fund, July, 1900, pp. 264 ff.

P. 439, l. 26. The _raqundu_ was probably a weaver’s or embroiderer’s

tool, returned in exchange for that lent.

P. 446, ll. 8 ff. from below. The inscription referred to is published in

the _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, Dec. 1895, pp.

278, 279.

P. 453, ll. 6-8. Prof. Campbell Thompson translates: “I send this as a

_trouble_ to my brothers”—_i.e._ “I am sorry to trouble you, but I hope

you will do what is right.”

P. 457, l. 19. Arad-Mede may also be read Arad-Gula. In the next line

Šubabu-sara’ may be Šumabu-sara’.

P. 466 (the sale of an Egyptian slave). Another text of the same nature,

dated in the same year, is in the De Clercq collection. It refers to the

sale of an Egyptian slave-woman named Tamūnu (“she of Amon”). The text is

published, with a translation by Prof. J. Oppert, in the second vol. of

the _Catalogue_.(346) The slave in question belonged to Itti-Nabû-balaṭu,

son of Kamušu-šarra-uṣur, “Chemosh, protect the king”—probably indicating

that the bearer of the name was of Moabite origin, or the introduction of

the god of the Moabites into Babylonia.

Pp. 471-472. The German excavations have already settled many doubtful

points concerning the topography of Babylon, and it is certain that, after

the destruction of the city, exaggerated accounts of its enormous extent

obtained credence. According to Delitzsch, it was not larger than Munich

or Dresden, though even that is a good size for an Oriental city. The

principal ruins are on the right bank of the river, and included Babil

(“Probably a palace”), to protect which the city-wall makes a considerable

angle on the north. From this point the wall continues its course in a

south-easterly direction for a considerable distance, and turning at a

right angle at its farthest point from the river, runs back in a

south-westerly direction to meet it again. About a mile south of Babil the

visitor comes upon the great ruin known as the Kasr, where stood

Nebuchadnezzar’s second palace. On the eastern side of this is the

“procession-street” of the god Merodach, from which came some very fine

reliefs of “the Lion of Babylon,” beautifully wrought in coloured and

enamelled brick. The temple of the goddess Nin-maḫ lay to the south-east

of the southern end of the street, and between the two was situated the

celebrated Gate of Ištar, adorned with lions and strangely-formed dragons,

already referred to (p. 551). Proceeding to the south-west from the temple

of Nin-maḫ, we reach Nebuchadnezzar’s earlier palace, a very extensive

structure, with a spacious court-yard and a large hall used as a

throne-room, on the south side of which the recess for the throne is still

visible. The palace of his father Nabopolassar, which adjoined it on the

west, has not yet been excavated. About half-a-mile to the south of these

palaces lie the ruins of the great temple of Belus, in the mound now known

as Amran-ibn-Ali (see pp. 137 ff., 476, 480, ff.). The German excavations

have thus confirmed the identification of the site, as indicated in the

_Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. I., pl. 48, no. 9

(published in 1861). This text, which is a brick-inscription of

Esarhaddon, reads as follows:—

“Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, king of Babylon, has caused the brickwork of

Ê-saggil, Ê-temen-ana-kia, to be built anew for Merodach his lord.”

According to the German plan, the portion of the city on the west of the

river was of exceedingly small extent.

Artists will soon be able to depict the scenery of Babylon as a background

for pictures of this world-renowned city with considerable accuracy.

P. 478, l. 24. An alternative rendering instead of “sculptor,” is

“seal-engraver.”

P. 480. On account of the Greek words, I give here a transcription of the

late Babylonian text of the extract printed on this page:—

_An(tiukkusu) šarru ina âlāni ša mât Meluḫḫa šalṭaniš itta-luku-ma ...

(amēlu) puliṭê puppê u êpšētam ša kima uṣurtu (amēlu) Yāwannu...._

_Uṣurtu_ may be translated “bas-relief” instead of “shrine,” but the

rendering would not be materially changed thereby.

The remainder of the inscription, which is exceedingly interesting, is

rather mutilated, and a trustworthy translation of it is at present

exceedingly difficult. Certain thieves (_šarraqa_), however, seem to be

mentioned, and had to all appearance stripped (_iqlubū_) the image of

Uru-gala and another, “a deity whose name was called Ammani’ita.” On the

10th of Marcheswan these thieves were captured and imprisoned, and on the

13th to all appearance judged and condemned. _Ûmu šuati ina išati qalû_,

“That day they were burnt in the fire”—such is the end of the story.

This seems not to be in accordance with the laws of sacrilegious theft, as

stated in sections 6 and 8 of Ḫammurabi’s code. Perhaps the law had

changed in the 1800 years which had elapsed since the time of that ruler;

or stripping a sacred image was a much more heinous crime than mere theft

from a temple, which, in the first degree, was punishable with death.

It is noteworthy that refusal to worship the image set up by

Nebuchadnezzar was visited, in Dan. iii, with the same penalty, probably

as showing contempt for the divinity.

P. 484, l. 13. The river Ṣilḫu is probably the Sellas in Messinia, where

one of the numerous cities named Apameia (Apam’(i)a) lay.

Pp. 489-491. Not the least interesting of this long list of temples and

cities are Aššur and Nineveh, of which we have here the earliest mention.

INDEX.

Aa, Aê, Ea (Aos), 17, 26, 56, 61, 77;

? the same name as Yâ, 59, 112;

transferred to Merodach, 32, 113;

his other names and titles, 62;

abode and form, 62, 63;

offspring, attendants, and consort, 63, 64;

parentage, 17, 64;

god of handicrafts, rivers, and water, the sea and life therein, 62, 63;

ever ready with counsel, 64;

warns Pir-napištim of the coming of the Flood, commands him to build a

ship, and tells him what to say to the people, 102;

reproaches Ellila, 107;

deifies Pir-napištim, 107, 108;

worshipped at Eridu, 160;

month Iyyar dedicated to him, 65;

figures of Aa, 247

Aa (Aê, Ea), Yâ, Ya’u, names containing, 59, 546

Aa (goddess), 160

Aah-mes, Egyptian captain of marines, 270

Aah-mes, Pharaoh, 269, 270

Aa-ibur-sabû, Babylon’s festival street, 405, 472

Aa-rammu of Edom, 374

_Abarakku_, 258

Abdi-Aširta (Abdi-Aširti, Abdi-Ašratum, Abdi-Aštarti), the Amorite, 278,

293;

the forms of his name, 313;

writes to the king of Egypt, 314

Abdi-îli (Abdeel), 157

Abdi-li’iti of Arvad, 374

Abdi-milkutti of Sidon beheaded, 386

Abdi-tâba of Jerusalem, 233;

in a different position from Melchizedek, 235;

writes to the king of Egypt, 294, 295, 297-299;

see also 293

Abed-nego (Abed-nebo), the Babylonian name of Azariah, 129, 403

Abel-Beth-Maachah, 352, 353

Abēšu’ (Ebisum), king, 153, 155;

his daughter hires a field, 167

Abi-baal of Samsimuruna, 386

Abil-Addu-nathānu, life of, 459 ff.

Abil-akka, 352

Abil-Sin, king, 153

Abi-nadib (Abinadab), 438, 439

Ablum, “son,” as a personal name, 547

Abram, Abraham, his parentage, meaning of his first name, and traditions

concerning him, 146, 147, 196;

a Chaldean or Babylonian, 147;

probable Assyrian form of his name, 148;

the importance of his period, 149 ff.;

his seeming mistrust of the sons of Heth, 150, 151;

was there a movement towards monotheism in his time? 198, 199;

the Sabeans dedicate a chapel to him, 203;

the field of Abram, 552

_Abrech_, Sayce’s explanation of, 258

_Abriqqu_, 258

Absence of names of Egyptian kings, 250

_Abubu_, one of the weapons of Merodach, 24

Abu-habbah (Sippar), 158, 411

Abu-ramu, 148

Abydenus, 63, 384, 385, 393

Abyss, the, measured by Merodach, 26.

_See_ Apsū, Apason

Accad, a city of Nimrod’s kingdom, 118.

_See_ Akkad

Accho, 277;

lawless acts of the people, 281, 282, 360, 374

Accusation, false, 501 (127)

Achzib (Akzibi), 374

Act of God, 513, 523

Adad-’idri, 329;

resists the Assyrian king, 334, 335;

= Ben-Hadad, 337

Adad-nirari of Assyria, 279

Adad-nirari, king of Nuḫašše, 317

Adad-nirari III., king, 339, 342, 344;

inscriptions of, 340, 341, 343

Adam, various etymologies of the word, 78;

_adam_ in the bilingual story of the Creation, 78, 79

Adamah, 292

Adaya, 297

Addu (Hadad), 157, 170, 277

Adini of Til-barsip, 328

Administration, 493, 494

Adonis (_see_ Dumuzi, Tammuz), 82, 279

Adoni-zedek, 324

Adoption, 173, 175 177, 463, 465, 508, 509, 525, 553 ff.

Adram(m)elech, 378, 384, 385

Adultery, 501, 502

Aesculapius, the serpent, and the magic herb, 109 _n._

Agad, Agadé, 124, 412, 422;

its temple-tower, 136;

misfortunes sung, 477.

_See_ Akkad

Agaditess, lamentation of the, 477

Agents and travelling merchants, laws concerning, 495

Agricultural implements, theft of, 513

Ahab (Ahabbu of the Sir’ilâa), 329-331, 335, 337, 338

Ahaz and Tiglath-pileser, 353, 356

Aḫi-milki of Ashdod, 386

Aḫi-miti of Ashdod, 369

Aḫi-tâbu (Ahiṭub), 281

Ahuni of Til-barsip, 328

Ahuramazda, 426, 427

Ain-anab, 293

Ainsworth, W. F., his description of the ruins of Haran, 200

Ajalon, 280, 297

Akizzi, king of Qatua, 289-290, 317

Akkad (Accad), 119;

references to the country and its language, 121, 412;

the ideograph for, 122;

in early times a collection of small states, 123;

names of their capitals, 124;

the gods of, 415;

revolt in, 415;

weeping in, 416

Akkad, the city (Agadé), 124, 135

Akkadian, Akkadians, 119, 120, 121;

probably migrants, 134;

will overthrow the nations, 123;

their language that of most of the earlier inscriptions, 124;

its gradual disuse, 125;

disappearance of their specific racial type, 125;

their literature current also in Assyria, 126;

their laws retained, 125;

transcription and translations of inscriptions, 219-221

Akkû (Accho), 374

Alašia (? Cyprus), 277

Al Aštarti, city, 278

Al bêth Ninip, “the city of the temple of Ninip,” 278

Aleppo, 304, 329

Allala-bird, Ištar breaks his wings, 96

Allat, the temple of, 182

Alliance by marriage, 276

Amadeh, 273

Amāna, the god Ammon, 278

Ama-namtagga, “the mother of sin,” 532

Amanus mountains, 349, 368

Amaru, a name of Merodach, 54

Amar-uduk (Merodach), 54

Amasis, pharaoh, Babylonian vassal, 401

Amattu (Hamath), 363

Amedi, city, 372

Amen-em-heb, officer of Thothmes III., 272

Ameni (Amen-em-ha), inscription of, 261

Amenophis II., 273;

Amenophis III., 274, 316;

Amenophis IV., 269, 293, 299, 302;

his names, 303

Amherst of Hackney, Lord, his tablet mentioning Ostanes, 544

Amki, the cities of, 288, 289, 317

Ammani’ita, goddess, 561

Amminadab (Ammi-nadbi) of Beth-Ammon, 389

Ammi-ṭitana, king, 153;

extent of his dominions, 155;

letter from, 165;

lord of Amurrū, 215

Ammi-zaduga, king, 153;

tablet dated in his reign, 168, 332

Ammonites (Amanians), 329, 333

Ammurabi, a form of the name Hammurabi, 209

Ammurapi (Hammurabi), 210

Amna, a name of the sun-god, 144

Amon (the god Ammon), 278

Amoria (the land of the Amorites), 155, 205, 206, 207, 208, 374, 422

Amorite, Amorites, 156, 157, 300;

in Babylonia, 169, 277, 310;

tribute from the, 328, 341;

their kings do homage to Cyrus, 422;

their deities, 156, 170 _n._;

names, 170

Amorite tract, the, 169, 312

Amorite, an, the father of Jerusalem, 316

Amosis, the prince who knew not Joseph, 307

’Amq, identified with Amki, 289

Amraphel (Hammurabi), 125, 152;

identified with Hammurabi by Prof. Schrader, 209;

explanations of the final _l_, 211;

colophon-dates of his reign, 211-214;

his successor, 153, 187, 188

Amtheta, mother of Abram, 146

Amu, the ethnic name of the “impure” Hyksos kings, 265

Amurrū (the land of the Amorites), 122, 134, 155, 205, 206 (207), 208,

328, 341;

ruled over by Sargon of Agadé, 215;

claimed by Ḫammurabi, 215;

ruled by Ammi-ṭitana, 311;

the cuneiform ideographs for, 122, 311, 312;

used for “west,” 311

Amurrū (the god), 156, 312

Amurrū (personal name), 157

Amytis, 407

Anab, 293

Anamimi, the spring of, 305

“An eye for an eye,” etc., 509, 522

Animals created by Merodach, 40;

animals sent into the ark, 103, 117;

animals held in honour at On, 264, 265

Ankh-kheperu-Ra, “the beloved” of Amenophis IV., 303

Anman-ila, king, 54 _n._, 154

Annihilation, the, of Assyria, 393

Annunit, 224. _See_ Anunitum

Anos (= Anu), 17

Ansan, city, 411, 420, 421

Anšar and Kišar, production of, 16;

their names, 65;

connection of Anšar with Asshur, 66;

identity of the two deities, 66;

similar names, 67

Anšar and the revolt of Tiamtu, 20

Antiochus (Epiphanes), tablet referring to his reign, 480, 561

Anu, god of the heavens, 16;

asked to subdue Tiamtu, 20;

fails, 21;

mentioned with Ištar, 41;

worshipped at Erech, 160, 231;

Merodach founds a place for him, 26;

he joins with other deities to send a flood, 101

Anu-Bêl, the god, 482, 483

Anunitum, goddess of Sippar, 160;

Nabonidus’ and Belshazzar’s offerings to her temple, 445, 450

Anunnaki (spirits or gods of the earth), creation of, 40;

present at the Flood, 104

Aos (Aa, Aê, or Ea), 17. _See_ Aa

Apam’a (Apameia), city, 484

Apason (Apsū, the primæval ocean), 16;

husband of Tauthé (Tiamtu), 17

Apharsathchites, the, 391

Apharsites, the, 391

Aphek, city, 330

Apophis (’Apop’i), 262

Apparazu, city, 334

Apprenticeage, 508

Apsū (= Apason), the primæval ocean, the abyss, 17;

non-existent at the beginning, 39;

its fountain, 41, 44;

E-sagila there, 40, 43;

the abode of Tammuz, 43

Arabia, Sennacherib, king of, 378, 381

Arabians (Arbâa), 329, 333, 388, 391;

help Sennacherib, 382

“Arabic” dynasty, the, 169

Arabs, 347

Araḫtu, the canal, 70

Aramaic dialects, 140;

papyri, 539 ff.

Arame, king, 334

Aramean tribes, 347, 356

Arameans, 371

Aram-naharaim, 207

Arandaš, Hittite king, 537

Ararat (Urarṭu), 127, 336, 347, 351, 367, 368

Arareh, 293

Ararma (Larsa), 218

Araske (Nisroch, the god Assur), 378

Arazias, land of, 341

Arbaces, the Scythian, 393

Arbela, 412

Archevites, the, 391

Arganâ, city, 329

Argob, 313

Ari, the land of the Amorites in Sumerian, 312

Arioch, 164;

identified with Eri-Aku, 209

Arioch, the king’s captain, 403

Ark (ship), command to build the, given by Aê (Ea, Aa), 102, 117;

description of the, 103;

entered by Pir-napištim, his family, etc., 103;

given into the hands of a pilot, 104;

stopped by the mountain of Niṣir, 105;

Bel’s anger on seeing it, 106;

its building and provisionment, 103, 115

Armenia, 311, 344, 373;

Sennacherib’s sons take refuge there, 378

Armenians (Mannâa), 387

Arnon, 313

Arpachshad, possible etymologies of, 143, 144 _n._

Arpad, 340, 345, 347

Arqania, city, 484

Arrapha (Arrapachitis), 345, 346

Arsakā (Arsaces), departs to Arqania, 484

Arsâm (Arsames), 539, 542

Art of the Hittites, 323

Artaxerxes, friendly to the Jews, 428;

his death, 429

Artificers of the ark saved in the vessel, 103, 115, 117

Aruada (Arvad), 386, 390

Aruru, the goddess of Sippar-Aruru, 43, 44;

aids Merodach to create the seed of mankind, 40;

creates Ea-banî, 93;

her names, 546

Arvad, city, 272, 322, 328, 386, 390

Arvadites (Arudâa), 329, 374

Arzauya of Ruhizzu, 289

Arzawa, 298

Ašaridu, letter of, 210

Asari-lu-duga (Merodach), 54, 155

Asaru or Asari (Merodach), 54, 143

Asdudimma, city, 369

Asenath, the name, 258;

legend concerning her, 259

Ashdod, 322, 369, 370, 376, 386

Ashdodites (Asdudâa), 374

Asherah, the, 278, 314

Ashtoreth, Ashtaroth, 156, 157, 278, 313

Askelon, 277, 297;

conquered by Meneptah II., 306, 374, 386

Asnapper (Assur-banî-âpli), 391;

letter apparently addressed to him, 210

Aspāsinē (Hyspasines), Kharacenian king, 482, 483

Assarachoddas (Esarhaddon), 378

Asshur, builder of the cities of Assyria, 118

Asshur (Aššur), city, creation or foundation of, 28, 38, 374, 422;

earliest mention of, 490;

revolts, 345, 346;

land of, 340

Assignment for loan, 498

Aššur, the national god of the Assyrians, 202, 329, 340;

Delitzsch’s etymology of, 66

Aššurâaitu, queen, 392

Aššur-âḫâ-iddina (Esarhaddon), 392

Aššur-banî-âpli, 129;

letters to, 201, 410;

restores the temple of Nusku at Haran, 202;

see also 251;

refers to Sennacherib, 382;

his reign, 388-392;

his palace discovered, 394

Aššur-dan, king, 344;

wars in Babylonia, etc., 345

Aššur-êtil-îlāni-ukînni, 392

Aššur-mulik (Aššur-munik), 385

Aššur-nadin-šum, son of Sennacherib, made king of Babylon, 379;

his deposition, 380

Aššur-naṣir, eponym, 410

Aššur-naṣir-apli, I., 327

Aššur-naṣir-âpli II., 327;

attacks Carchemish, 321;

marches to the Mediterranean, 328

Aššur-nirari II. marches to Hatarika, Arpad, 345;

and Namri, 346

Aššur-uballiṭ to Amenophis III., 282

Aššur-uttir-aṣbat = Pitru, 329

Assyria, Assyrians, 122, 123;

spoke the same language as the Babylonians, 126;

their origin, 126;

character, rulers, artistic skill, 128;

invasion by, 331;

revolt of, 345, 374;

downfall of, 391 ff., 395;

Christians of, 485

Assyro-Babylonian language, the, widely known, 140, 275

Astamaku, city, 334

Aštarte (Istar) and the Asherah, 314

Astyages captured by Cyrus, 411

Ašur-nadin-âḫi of Assyria, 283

’Atar-’ata (’Atar-ghata), Tar-’ata, Atargatis, or Derketo, 203

Atargatis, goddess of Haran, 203

Aten, the sun’s disc, its suggested etymology, 303

Athribis, 389

Atra-ḫasis (Gk. Xisuthrus), a name of Pir-napištim, 107, 117;

the coming of the Flood revealed to him in a dream, 107

Augury from entrails, 240

Avaris, the Hyksos shut up in, 252;

the centre of their rule, 254;

taken by the Egyptians, 270

Avitus of Vienne, Bishop, 47

Ay, pharaoh, 303

Azariah, 338, 348

Aziru, 279, 293, 313, 315

Azor (Azuru), 375

Azriau or Izriau (Azariah), 348, 349

Azuri of Ashdod, 369

Azzati (Gaza), 285

Ba’ali, city, 340

Ba’ali-ra’asi, 337

Ba’al(u) of Tyre, 386

Baal-zephon (Ba’ali-ṣapuna), 349;

(Ba’il-ṣapuna), 369

Ba’asa (Baasha), 333

Baba (Beby), 261;

his inscription, 262

Babel = Babylon, 118, 135

Babel, Tower of, supposed, 44, 132-141, 398

Bâbîa, name, 456

Babylon, founded by Merodach, 40;

principal centre, 124;

Dynasty of Babylon, 142, 152, 153;

city destroyed by Sennacherib, 380, 381;

Jehoiachin carried to, 399;

the gods of Akkad enter, 415;

at the time of the Captivity, 471-473;

the proposed new capital under Alexander the Great, 476;

its walls dismantled under the Seleucidæ, 418;

as revealed by the German excavations, 560;

the Church at, 485;

tablets dated at, 432, 440-444, 448, 449, 459, 460, 464, 466, 478

“Babylon and the Bible,” 525, ff.

Babylonia (Sumer and Akkad, Shinar), 118, 119;

majority of inscriptions Semitic, 119;

federated under Ḫammurabi, 149;

change in its rule, 152;

under Assyrian rule, 327, 356, 357, 371, 379, 380, 386, 391;

under Cyrus, 419 ff.;

Darius and his successors, 424 ff.;

the Greeks, 475 ff.;

Kharacenians, 481;

Parthians, 484

Babylonia at the time of Abraham, 171, 347

Babylonian, Babylonians, character, 150;

dress, 171;

manners, 172, 391;

racial characteristics, 119, 120;

downfall of their empire, 415;

fought in the army of Cambyses, 467;

their religion, 49 ff., 159 ff.;

gods worshipped at a late date, 479

Babylonian Chronicle, the, 361, 383, 385

Bactrian slave-girl, the, 471

Bāgā-asā, brother of Hyspasines, 483

Baghdad, the Christians of, 126

Bagohi (Bagoas, Bagoses), 539 ff.

Baḫiani, 322

Balawat, gates of, 405

Ball, the Rev. C. J., 54;

compares Akkadian with Chinese, 121

Barbers and slave-marking, 511

Bardes (Barzia), 424

Baruḫi-îlu (? Baruchiel), 458

Bashan, the plain of, 277

Bashmurites, origin of the, 266

“Battle,” the, 530

Behistun (rock), 426

Bêl, “the lord,” a name given to Merodach, 32, l. 116, 54;

= Baal, Beecl, etc., 55;

as god of lordship and dominion, 58;

his dislike for Pir-napištim, 102;

his anger at the escape of the patriarch and his people from the Flood,

107.

_See_ Anu-Bêl

Bêl, “the lord” = Ellila (Illil) = Illinos, 17;

called “the father,” 32, l. 116

Bel and the Dragon, story of (= the Semitic Babylonian story of the

Creation), 20

Bêl-âbla-iddina, captain of Babylon, 469

Bêl-âḫê-iddina, one of Neriglissar’s captains, 444

Bêl-bulliṭ-su (a scribe), 478

Bêl-êṭiranni, major-domo of Neriglissar, 438

Bêl-ibnî (Belibus), 379

Belichus (river), 328

Bel-Merodach, 18