The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends Part 18

"(Tablet of) ama-nuri, daughter of Ibi-an. Bunini-abi and Belisunu have bought her from Ibi-an, her father-for Bunini-abi a wife-for Belisunu a servant. The day ama-nuri says to Belisunu, her mistress, 'Thou art not my mistress,' they shall shave off her hair, and sell her for silver. As the complete price he has paid five shekels of silver. He has taken the key.(30) The affair is concluded. He is content. (At no future time) shall one bring a claim against the other. They have invoked the spirit of ama, Aa, Marduk, and ?ammurabi."

(Here follow the names of seven witnesses.)

"Month Iyyar, day 3rd, year of the throne of Zerpanitum" (the 12th year of ?ammurabi or Amraphel).

That a father should part with his daughter for money in order that that daughter should become the wife of a man already married, agreeing at the same time that the young woman should become the slave of the first wife, would seem to the ordinary Western mind at the present day most barbarous.

That it was not the lowest depth, however, is implied by the condition attached to the contract, and containing a kind of penalty, namely, that if the new wife denied that the first wife was her mistress, she might be sold as a slave. In what her position differed from that of a thrall, however, does not appear.

Naturally the case of Hagar, the slave of Sarah, Abraham's wife, will at once occur to the reader, though the two differ somewhat. Nevertheless, it is not improbable that the well-known Bible-story explains that of the tablet, in giving a reason for the purchase of ama-nuri-namely, in order to give the purchaser, Bunini-abi, a chance of having offspring, which, in all probability, his first wife Belisunu had not brought him. It is difficult to imagine that she would consent to the introduction of a rival for any other reason. Of course, the new wife may have been well treated, but a transaction of the kind here recorded naturally gave an opening to all possible abuses. Another case of the taking of a second wife, with the proviso that she is to be the servant of the first, is that of Iltani (see pp. 174-175), who, however, was not a slave, and had a regular marriage-deed. Moreover, she is described as the sister (_a?at_), not the slave (_amat_) of the first wife.

On the same plate of the British Museum publication from which the foregoing is taken, there is a more ordinary doc.u.ment referring to slavery, and in this case it is to all appearance the sale of a real slave-woman and her child-

"1 slave-woman, Belti-magirat by name, and her child, handmaid of arrum-Addu and ?ammurabi-ami, Nabium-malik, son of Addu-na?ir, has bought from arrum-Addu, son of Addu-na?ir, and ?ammurabi-ami, his wife.

As the complete price he has paid 18- shekels of silver. At no future time shall they make claim against each other. They have invoked the spirit of Marduk and ?ammurabi."

(Here follow the names of eight witnesses, including two brothers of the contracting parties.)

"Month Tebet, day 21st, year ?ammurabi the king destroyed, by command of Anu and Bel, the fortification of Mair, and Malgia."

Tablets referring to the sale and purchase of slaves are numerous, and do not present much variety, being nearly all written in accordance with the usual legal forms. In the _hiring_ of slaves, however, there is a little more dissimilarity-

"Awel-Addi, son of Sililum, has hired Arad-ili-remeanni from Eriti-ama, sun-devotee, daughter of Sin-bel-abli, for a year. The hire for a year, 5 shekels of silver, he will pay. A first instalment of the sum, 2 shekels of silver, she has received. He will be clothed by his hirer.

"He entered (upon his duties) on the 16th of Elul.

"Before ama, Aa; before Taribatum; before Nur-Marduk; before La?utum.

"Year Samsu-iluna (made) a throne of gold (s.h.i.+ning like the stars, for Nin-gala").

The following is a similar text with additional clauses-

"Asir-Addu, son of Libit-Urra, has hired ama-bel-ili from A?atani, sun-devotee, daughter of ama-?azir, for his first year. As hire for his first year, he shall pay 3- shekels of silver. He shall clothe himself.

He entered (on his duties) on the 4th of the month Dur-Addi, in the month Mamitu he will complete (his term), and may leave.

"Before Asirum, son of Ea-rabi; before Nin-gira-abi, son of Eribam; before Arad-Sin, son of Sin-idinnam.

"The year of Samsu-iluna, the king."

(The accession-year of Amraphel's successor.)

In the following the slave is hired for produce-

"Ri-ama, son of Marduk-na?ir, has hired Nawir-nur-u from ubtum for a year. He will pay 20 _qa_ of oil as his hire for the year. He will clothe him. He entered in the month Elul, in the month Tirinu he may go forth.

"Before Riutum; before eriti-Aa.

"Year the great fortification...."

When a man had no master-was his own master, in fact-he was hired "from himself"-

"Idin-Ittum has hired for wages Naram-ili-u from himself, for six months.

He will receive 2 shekels of silver as wages for the six months.

"Before etel-pi-Ura, before Sin-ilu, before A?um, the scribe.

"Month Nisan, day 20th, year the throne ... was...."

Servants were not only hired from their masters and themselves, but also from their fathers, mothers, brothers, and whoever else might have charge of them. There are also lists of workmen hired for various purposes in batches. Those who went about doing reaping seem to have been of various nationalities, and interesting names are on that account found in the lists from time to time.

In all probability the towns at that early period resembled closely those of the Semitic East at the present day, the streets being as a rule narrow (from the necessity of obtaining protection from the excessive heat of the sun during the hot season) and exceedingly dirty. This is shown by the excavations at Niffer, where, at the earliest period, when the street in question was constructed, the houses were entered by going up a few steps.

Later on, in consequence of the acc.u.mulations, the footpath became level with the floor of the house, and, at a later period still, a little staircase had to be built leading down into the building. As may easily be imagined, the conditions in which the ancient Babylonians lived were in the highest degree insanitary, and such as would probably not be tolerated for a day in Europe at the present time.

Judging from the remains of private houses which have been found, these buildings were not by any means large. In fact, they must have contained only a few small rooms. Where, however, there was s.p.a.ce-as, for example, when the house was built in the middle of a field-the rooms were probably moderately large, and more numerous. They were of either unburnt or burnt brick, and the roofs were supported by beams. The floors seem to have been generally the bare earth.

Many lists of the furniture of these dwelling-places are extant, and allow us to estimate to a certain extent the amount of comfort which their inhabitants enjoyed. They reclined upon couches, and sometimes-perhaps often-it happened that the owner of the house possessed several of these articles of furniture. Apparently, too, it was their custom to sit upon chairs, and not upon the ground, as they do in the East at the present day, and have done for many centuries. Various vessels, of wood, earthenware, and copper, were also to be found there, together with measures of different kinds,(31) implements needed in the trade of the owner, and certain objects of stone. In some cases things of precious stone are referred to, a circ.u.mstance which points to a considerable amount of prosperity on the part of the owner of the house and its contents.

As will be seen farther on, when Babylonian life of a later period comes to be treated of, the leasehold system, with all its disadvantages, was in full force, and there is just the possibility that it was already in use during the time of the dynasty of Babylon. Even at this early date the question of party walls was an important one, as the tablet of ama-in-matim and eriti-Aa, daughter of Zililum, shows. They were to set up the dividing wall (_guuru_, apparently palings) _a?um mala a?im_, lit.

"brother as much as brother," _i.e._ one as much as the other. They managed things differently in ancient Babylonia, and if this was the usual arrangement, it must have given rise to endless disputes.

It is probable that, before the time of ?ammurabi, the ancient Babylonians had no code of laws in the true sense of the term. All the legal decisions known seem to have been decided on their merits by the judges who tried the cases, and in such actions in which the judges could not come to a decision, the matter seems to have been referred to the king, whose word was, to all appearance, final. Naturally an enormous responsibility rested on the judges on account of this, but they were not entirely without help in the matter of deciding difficult and unusual questions. Lists of precedents were kept, and to these, in all probability, they constantly referred-indeed, the tablets of legal precedents were held in such high esteem, that copies of them were kept in the libraries of a.s.syria, and in Babylonia also, in all probability, until long after the destruction of the a.s.syrian power, notwithstanding that legal use and wont had by that time somewhat changed. One or two examples of these legal precedents may here be quoted to show their nature:-

"If a son say to his father, 'Thou art not my father,' they may shave him, put him in fetters, and sell him for silver.

"If a son say to his mother, 'Thou art not my mother,' they may shave off his hair, lead him round the city, and drive him forth from the house.

"If a wife hate her husband, and say to him, 'Thou art not my husband,'

they may throw her into the river.

"If a husband say to his wife, 'Thou art not my wife,' he shall pay her half a mana of silver.

"If a man hire a slave, and he dies, is lost, runs away, gets locked up, or falls ill, he shall pay as his hire every day half a measure of grain."

Thus did the ancient Babylonians punish those who offended against their laws, and protect property (for the slave-hirer was undoubtedly saddled with a heavy responsibility). Was it that the death of a hired slave was regarded as testifying to the severity of his temporary hirer? In all probability it was so, and in that case, one cannot help regarding the law as a wise one. To all appearance, also, illness was attributed to his employer's cruelty. As to his running away, or falling into the hands of the police, these things would prove that his employer was not watchful enough with regard to him. A modern European lawyer would most likely not regard this particular law as being very exactly worded (there is no limit of time during which the slave's wages were payable, and one can only _guess_ that the term of his service with his hirer was understood), but there seems to be no doubt as to its intention-to safeguard the slave, and his owner at the same time, by making his hirer responsible for every mishap and accident which might happen to him whilst he was with his temporary master.

CHAPTER VI. ABRAHAM.

A short account of this period, with the story of Chedorlaomer, Amraphel, Arioch, and Tidal.

Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees, and afterwards Terah took Abram his son, Lot, his grandson, and Sarai, his son Abram's wife, and they went forth from Ur of the Chaldees to go to Canaan. Arriving at Haran, they dwelt there until Terah died at an exceedingly advanced age.

There have been many discussions as to the position of Ur of the Chaldees.

Some, on account of the distance from Canaan, apparently, have contended that Ur of the Chaldees is the same as the site known for many hundreds of years as Urfa, in Mesopotamia-the district in which the proto-martyr, St.

Stephen (Acts vii. 2, 41), places it. Mesopotamia, however, is an appellation of wide extent, and altogether insufficiently precise to enable the exact locality to be determined. To all appearance, though, Urfa or Orfa, called by the Greeks Edessa, was known as Orrha at the time of Isidore of Charax (date about 150 B.C.). Poc.o.c.k, in his Description of the East, states that it is the universal opinion of the Jews that Orfa or Edessa was the ancient Ur of the Chaldees, and this is supported by local tradition, the chief place of wors.h.i.+p there being called "the Mosque of Abraham," and the pond in which the sacred fish are kept being called _Bahr Ibrahim el-Halil_, "the Lake of Abraham the Beloved." The tradition in the Talmud and in certain early Arabian writers, that Ur of the Chaldees is Warka, the ????? of the Greeks, and ???? of the Septuagint, need not detain us, as this site is certainly the Erech of Gen. x. 10, and is excluded by that circ.u.mstance.