The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends Part 12

....... may it be ....... like the vault of ....... may it be strong above and below.

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

[At] the time that I shall send to thee Enter [the s.h.i.+p] and close the door of the s.h.i.+p, Into the midst of it [take] thy grain, thy furniture, and [thy]

goods, Thy ..., thy family, thy relatives, and the artisans; [The beasts] of the field, the animals of the field, as many as I shall collect (?), [I will] send to thee, and thy door shall protect them.

[Atra]-?asis opened his mouth and spake, Sa]ying to Ae, his lord: "...... a s.h.i.+p I have not made .......

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

Let me see the [plan], and [I will build] the s.h.i.+p.

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

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

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

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

397-400).

CHAPTER IV. a.s.sYRIA, BABYLONIA, AND THE HEBREWS, WITH REFERENCE TO THE SO-CALLED GENEALOGICAL TABLE.

The Akkadians-The Semitic Babylonians-The Hebrews-Nimrod-a.s.sur-The Tower of Babel and the confusion of tongues-Babylonian temple-towers-How the legend probably arose-The Patriarchs to the time of Abraham.

"And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.

"He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod, the mighty hunter before the Lord.

"And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of s.h.i.+nar.

"Out of that land went forth a.s.shur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth (or, the streets of the city), and Calah.

"And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city."

Such is the Biblical account of the origin of the two most powerful states of the ancient East, Babylonia and a.s.syria. It has been many times quoted and discussed, but there seems always to be something new to say about it, or to add to it, or what has already been said may be put in another and clearer way. It is for one or more of these reasons, as well as for the completeness of this work, that the author ventures again to approach the well-worn problems that these verses present.

Every reader, on taking up a book dealing with this period of ancient Eastern history, will probably have noticed, that the word which most frequently meets his eye (if the book be an English one) is Akkad, the Semitic equivalent of the Biblical Accad. If, however, it be a continental work, the equivalent expression will be umer-which word, indeed, he will meet with also in English works, if the writer be at all under German or other foreign influence.

The reason for this divergence of opinion is very simple, the fact being that there were two tribes or nationalities, umer being before Akkad when the two countries are mentioned together, and as it is regarded as identical with the s.h.i.+nar of Gen. x. 10, umer and umerian may possibly be preferable, but in all probability Akkad and Akkadian are not wrong.

As we see from the chapter of Genesis referred to, there were many nationalities in the Euphrates valley in ancient times, and the expression "Cush begat Nimrod," would imply that the inhabitants of Babylonia were all Cus.h.i.+tes. Yet the great majority of the inscriptions found in that country of a later date than about 2000 B.C. are Semitic.

Large additions have of late years been made to the number of ancient remains from Babylonia, and most of these are of a very early period. We are thus in a position to compare not only the different types of that early period with each other, but also with the sculptures of later date.

The cylinder-seals show us a comparatively slim race, long-bearded, erect and dignified, and these characteristics are also recognizable among the various types revealed to us by the still earlier sculptures. The representations of kings and deities are often heavily bearded, but, on the other hand, high officials and others are generally clean shaven.

These peculiarities, with the difference of costume, especially the thick-brimmed hats, would seem to imply distinct foreign influence, or, rather, in combination with the differences of racial type exhibited, considerable foreign admixture. Perhaps, however, the true explanation is, that the plain of s.h.i.+nar represents the meeting-point of two different races-one Cus.h.i.+te and the other Semitic.

And this fact, as is well known, is confirmed by the existence of what is regarded as the language of the Akkadians, and also of a dialect of the same. This is not the place to discuss the question whether these non-Semitic idioms be really languages or only cryptographs-the author holds, in common with Sayce, Oppert, Hommel, and all the princ.i.p.al a.s.syriologists, that they are real languages-but a reference to the few pa.s.sages where these idioms are spoken of may not be without interest.

One of these is the fragment known as S. 1190 in the British Museum, where the contents of the tablet of which it formed a part are referred to as "Two umerian incantations used" (seemingly) "for the stilling of a weeping child." Another tablet refers to the languages, and states that the tongue of umer was like (the tongue of) Akkad, or a.s.sumed a likeness to it at some time or other. This doc.u.ment also refers to another form of speech that was the tongue of the prince, chief, or leader. Yet another fragment refers to Akkad as below (? to the south) and umer above (? to the north),(13) but it is doubtful whether this refers to the position of the country. A fourth large fragment written partly in the "dialect" is referred to as a "umerian" text.

Both from the ethnographical and the linguistic side, therefore, ample testimony to the existence of a non-Semitic race (or non-Semitic races) in the plain of s.h.i.+nar in ancient times is at hand. As to the language intended in the expression "Two umerian incantations" (spoken of above) there can be no doubt, the original idiom in question being the non-Semitic tongue already referred to-that tongue which was like the tongue of Akkad, of which it was apparently a more decayed form. The t.i.tle given cannot refer to the translation into a.s.syro-Babylonian which accompanies it, as this is undoubtedly of later date than the composition itself.

There is then no doubt that the Akkadians and the umerians were two tribes of the same race, probably intermixed to a certain extent with foreign elements (people with oblique eyes being depicted on at least two of the sculptures of the early period from Tel-Loh), and speaking a language differing entirely from that of their Semitic fellow-countrymen,-a language which was of an agglutinative nature, introducing into its verbal forms whole rows of a.n.a.lytical particles, which sometimes gave to the phrase a precision of meaning to which the Semitic Babylonian has but little pretension, though umero-Akkadian is generally difficult enough in other respects, in consequence of the excessive number of the h.o.m.ophones that it contains. Indeed, it is sometimes difficult to see how the speakers of the latter language could have understood each other without resorting to some such distinctive aids similar to the tones used in modern-as probably also in ancient-Chinese, of which umero-Akkadian is regarded by the Rev. C. J. Ball as an exceedingly ancient form.

The question of the origin of the Akkadians is one concerning which there has been and is still much uncertainty, and which presents many problems for the future. It has been remarked that the fact that there is no special ideograph for "river," and the fact that "mountain" and "country"

are represented by the same character, imply that the people with whom the cuneiform script originated came from a mountainous country-probably the tract to the east or the north-east. This a.s.sumption, however, is not wholly dependent on what is here stated, for it is a well-known and admitted fact that the ideograph generally used for "Akkad" stands also for other tracts that are largely mountainous, namely, Phnicia and Ararat.

It may be of interest here to quote the pa.s.sage referring to this.

The text in question is the exceedingly important syllabary designated by Prof. Fried. Delitzsch "Syllabary _B_." The text is unfortunately defective in the British Museum copy, but a duplicate found at Babylon by the German explorers completes it as follows:-

Uri [Cuneiform] Akkadu Ari [Cuneiform] Amurru Tilla [Cuneiform] Ur?u.

From this we see that the ideograph for Akkad not only stood for that country, but also for the land of the Amorites (Amurru), and for Ararat (Ur?u), both of them being more or less mountainous districts. That the ancient home of the Akkadians was of the same nature is, therefore, more than probable.

That the Akkadians were a conquering race is indicated by the legend of the G.o.d Ura, generally called "the Dibbara Legend," where the hero, "the warrior Ura," is represented as speaking prophetically as follows-

"Tamtu with Tamtu, Subartu with Subartu, a.s.syrian with a.s.syrian, Elamite with Elamite, Ka.s.site with Ka.s.site, Sut.i.te with Sut.i.te, Qut.i.te with Qut.i.te, Lullubite with Lullubite, Country with country, house with house, man with man, Brother with brother, shall not agree: let them annihilate each other, And afterwards let the Akkadian come, and Let him overthrow them all, and let him cast down the whole of them."

The Akkadians had dominion, at one time or another, over all the above nationalities, some of whom were permanently subjected. Tamtu, the region of the Persian Gulf, was under their domination constantly, though the inhabitants were apparently rather turbulent, and unwilling subjects. The a.s.syrians were apparently for a time under Akkadian (Babylonian) rule, but threw it off at a very early period, and later on conquered Akkad itself.

The Elamites, too, were for a while conquered by the inhabitants of Babylonia, and the Sut.i.tes (people of Suti) are said to have been all transported by Kadaman-Muru (he reigned about 1209 B.C., according to Hilprecht). It will thus be seen that they played an important part in the history of the plain of s.h.i.+nar where they settled, and to all appearance introduced their civilization.

In the earliest ages known to us, the land of Akkad was a collection of small states resembling the Heptarchy. These states differed considerably in power, influence, and prosperity, and the pa.s.sing centuries brought many changes with them. From time to time one of the kings or viceroys of these small states would find himself more powerful than his contemporaries, and would gradually overcome all the others. One of the earliest instances of this is the ruler Lugal-zag-gi-si, whose reign is placed by Hilprecht at about 4500 B.C. He was son of Uku (the reading is doubtful), viceroy (_patesi_) of a district which seems to be that of which Kis was capital. "He had conquered all Babylonia and established an empire extending from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea"

(Hilprecht).

Whether he and his successors were able to maintain real dominion over all this extensive tract or not, we do not know, but a few hundred years later we find Sargon of Agade (known as "argani king of the city") subduing the land of the west in the 11th year of his reign, and placing the districts under one control, whilst his son, Naram-Sin, apparently added Elam to his dominions, and Uruwu (whom Prof. Sayce suggests as the original of the Horus of Pliny), at a later date, led a warlike expedition thither, and brought away much spoil, some of which is still extant as a lasting testimony to the reality of this historical fact.

Among the states which existed in Akkad before the whole country was united under one king may be mentioned Isin or Karrak, Ur (the supposed Ur of the Chaldees), Ke, Nippur (or Niffur), the modern Niffer, Laga, eridu, erech, and Larsa (identified with Ellasar), with some others. Akkad and Babylon were always important centres, the former being supreme before the date of the dynasty of Babylon (about 2200 B.C.), and the latter afterwards.

Until about the time of the dynasty of Babylon, the language princ.i.p.ally used was to all appearance the non-Semitic Babylonian or Akkadian-in any case, the numerous texts (mainly temple-accounts) of the period of Dungi, Bur-Sin, Gimil-Sin, and Ibi-Sin are written in that tongue. Nevertheless, Akkadian seems to have been the official language of the country for a considerable time after, if we may judge from the contracts, and especially the historical dates of these doc.u.ments, which are always written in Akkadian. The names, too, which were before this period wholly Akkadian, gradually become more and more Semitic (a.s.syro-Babylonian), and finally the Akkadian element only exists as a remnant of the non-Semitic tongue which prevailed before the Semitic Dynasty of Babylon-that to which ?ammurabi or Amraphel belonged-made the Semitic tongue, spoken by Sargon of Agade more than 1500 years before, the official language of the country.

Such, then, is the history of the ancient Akkadians, from whose intermingled stock the later Semitic Babylonians sprang, and who inherited, at the same time, their method of writing, their literature, their arts and sciences, and also, to a great extent, their manners, customs, and religion. It was to all appearance with the Semitic dynasty of ?ammurabi that the change from non-Semitic to Semitic predominance took place. This change must have been slow enough, and in all probability it occurred without any national upheaval, and without any interruption of the national life. Semitic names gradually replaced the Akkadian ones, most of the religious works, incantations, national histories, bilingual lists, and syllabaries were supplied with Semitic translations, and legal precedents in Semitic Babylonian for the information of the judges of later times were drawn up, whilst the old Akkadian laws, though retained, were translated for the use of students who no longer learned Akkadian as their mother-tongue, and who committed them to memory at the same time as they learned the set phrases they would have to use when, their education completed, they should attain to the dignity of full-fledged ministers to the legal needs of the community. By this time, or somewhat later, the racial type must have become fixed, for the sculptures from the thirteenth century B.C. downwards no longer show the slim, elegant form of the Akkadians, but the thick-set, well-developed figure of the Semites, such as at least some of the native Christians of Baghdad and the neighbourhood show at the present day.

As has been already noticed, the a.s.syrians spoke the same language, and had practically the same religion and literature (including the ancient Akkadian cla.s.sics) as the Babylonians, whom they resembled in manners, customs, and outward appearance. The old translation of the verse referring to a.s.syria, "Out of that land (Babylonia) went forth a.s.sur," is, in all probability, perfectly correct, whatever may be the arguments in favour of the rendering, "He (Nimrod) went out into a.s.syria," for it is exceedingly likely that the Babylonian civilization of a.s.syria is wholly due to emigration of settlers from Babylonia. Moreover, as will be seen later on, the enigmatical Nimrod is none other than the well-known head of the Babylonian Pantheon, Merodach, who is actually stated to have built Babel (= the city Babylon), Erech, and Niffer (identified in Rabbinical tradition, which in this case is probably correct, with Calneh). The Babylonian tradition as to the foundation of the city of Akkad is still wanting, but that its origin was attributed to Merodach is more than probable. If, however, there had been any grounds for honouring Calah, Nineveh, and Resen with the same divine origin, the a.s.syrians would certainly not have allowed the tradition to go unrecorded. Properly speaking the "land of Nimrod" (Micah v. 6) is Babylon, notwithstanding all arguments to the contrary, for that was the land which he loved, the land whose great cities he was regarded as having founded and as still favouring, and the land where, if we may trust the language of his name (in Akkadian it means "the brightness of day"), he ruled when he was king upon earth-the land, in fact, which gave him birth.

At first governed by _patesis_, or viceroys (many a.s.syriologists call them priest-kings or pontiffs), this t.i.tle was abandoned for that of _arru_, "king," between 1600 and 1800 B.C. The use of the t.i.tle _patesi_ (in a.s.syrian _iaku_, "chief") implies that the earlier rulers of a.s.sur acknowledged some overlord, and in all probability this overlord was the paramount king of Babylonia at the time. If we regard Nimrod (Merodach) as the first king of Babylonia (or the first really great ruler of the country), then it is certain that it was not he who founded the great cities of a.s.syria, for they can have no pretensions to the same antiquity as the great cities of Babylonia, any more than a.s.syrian civilization can be of the same period. Of course it is probable that the cities of a.s.syria were founded at an exceedingly early date, perhaps many of them are as old as any Babylonian foundation, but their importance was nothing like so great as those of Babylonia until the latter had already been renowned many hundreds-perhaps many thousands-of years, and to attribute the origin of these unimportant places to Nimrod would bring him no honour, even if it were probable that he had founded them.

The founder of Nineveh, Calah, Rehoboth Ir, and Resen was either a Babylonian emigrant named a.s.shur, the first viceroy of the district, or else a.s.shur, in the tenth chapter of Genesis, stands for the a.s.syrian nation. It is noteworthy that, in the verse in question, there is no mention of the foundation of the old capital, the city of Aur. This is probably to be explained by the fact that the book of Genesis was compiled at a time when the primaeval capital had already fallen into the background, and Nineveh, the city first mentioned in the enumeration, had a.s.sumed the first place-indeed, the fact that it is mentioned first seems to prove this contention.

Being far away from the centre of civilization, and apparently mingling with barbarous races to the north-the people of Urar?u (Ararat), Van, Ukka, Mu?a?ir, etc.-in all probability the ancient a.s.syrians lost what polish they had brought with them from Babylonia, and, like all pioneers, developed into hardy, fearless, and cruel warriors, constantly striving for the mastery over all the other tribes and nationalities around. Thus it came to pa.s.s that, having ascertained her strength, a.s.syria refused to acknowledge the overlords.h.i.+p of the kings of Babylonia, and the rulers of the country abandoned the t.i.tle of _patesi_ or _iaku_ for that of _arru_ or "king." The country from which the a.s.syrians had sprung did not long remain secure from the attacks of her offspring, and the conquest of Babylonia by the a.s.syrians took place more than once. Brave, warlike, and cruel, the a.s.syrians at last possessed for a time not only Babylonia, with the overlords.h.i.+p of Elam, but also the whole of Western Asia as far as the Mediterranean and Cyprus, and a large part of Egypt. Notwithstanding the polish that they had attained during the last years of the empire, the nations around remembered against them all the cruelties that they had committed during the foregoing centuries, and when the time of weakness came, when the ruling mind that should have held the empire together, and turned the tide of disaster into the channel of success, was wanting, then came the chance of the nations that had known the a.s.syrian empire in former ages, and the end of the seventh century before Christ saw the last of the power that had dominated Western Asia so long and so successfully.

Yet a.s.syria was a most remarkable power, and produced a number of really great rulers and generals. The a.s.syrian kings retained for a long time their dominion over fairly distant tracts, and made themselves greatly feared by all the nations around. As is well known, they had made great advances in the art of sculpture, so much so that visitors to the British Museum, on seeing the wonderful hunting-scenes in the a.s.syrian side-gallery, have been heard to express the opinion that Greek artists must either have originated them, or influenced their production. Their literature was naturally influenced by that of Babylonia, but one has only to read the historical records of Tiglath-pileser I., who declaims his successes in forceful and elegant paragraphs; Sennacherib, with his wealth of words; or a.s.sur-bani-apli, who in moderate and elegant phrases tells of the successes of his soldiers and generals, to see that, when occasion arose, they could produce literary works as good as the best of ancient times.

It will probably be a matter of regret to many people, but the name of Nimrod, which we have been accustomed to a.s.sociate with the pleasures and perils of the chase for so many hundred years, must now be relegated to the domain of words misunderstood or purposely changed for reasons that can without much difficulty be divined.