The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends Part 20

KI KUR MAR-?A-I KI ad Pa-ra-i-i Mountain of Parau.

KUR ir-rum ad Bi-ta-lal Mountain of KI Bitala. (Katala is possible.) KUR e-AN-NA ad Bi-ta-lal Mountain of KI Bitala.

KUR ?E-A-NA ad ?a-ni-e Mountain of ?anu.

KI KUR Lu-lu-bi ad Lu-lu-bi-e Mountain of KI Lulubu.

Here follows a list of adjectives combined with the word for country, forming descriptions such as "safe country," "low-lying country," etc.

In the above list of countries, the land of the Amorites holds the first place, and is repeated three times, there having, to all appearance, been three ways of writing its name in Akkadian. Why this was the case-whether in the older Akkadian literature the scribes distinguished three different districts or not, is not known, but is not at all improbable. The first of the three ways of designating the country is the usual one, and apparently means the land of the Amorites in general, the other two being less used, and possibly indicating the more mountainous parts. What the mountains of Suru or Subartu were is uncertain, but it may be supposed that, as this group is used in the late Babylonian inscriptions (as shown by the text containing the account of the downfall of a.s.syria) for the domain over which the kings of a.s.syria ruled, there is hardly any doubt that it stands for the Mesopotamian tract, extending from the boundaries of the Amorites to the frontiers of Babylonia. This would include not only a.s.syria, but also Aram-naharaim, or Syria, and is in all probability the original of this last word, which has given considerable trouble to students to explain.

In all probability, Siru, like Gutium and the border of Gutium, was a tract in the neighbourhood of Elam, which precedes. A comparison has been made between this Sirum and the Sirrum of the eleventh line of the extract, but as the spelling, and also, seemingly, the p.r.o.nunciation, is different, it is in all likelihood a different place. The mountain of Cedar, however, is probably Lebanon, celebrated of old, and sufficiently wooded, in the time of Aur-na?ir-apli, to give cover to droves of elephants, which the a.s.syrian king hunted there. _Mar?ai_ (Akk.) or _Parai_ (a.s.syr.) seems to have been a country celebrated for its dogs.

Concerning Bitala or Katala nothing is known, but ?ane is supposed to have lain near Birejik on the Orontes.(42) Lulumu, which is apparently the same as Lulubu, was an adjoining state, which the Babylonians claim to have devastated about the twenty-eighth century before Christ, a fact which contributes to the confirmation of the antiquity of Babylonian geographical lore, and its trustworthiness, for the nation which invades another must be well aware of the position and physical features of territory invaded.

It is interesting to note, that one of the ordinary bilingual lists (W.A.I. II. pl. 48) gives what are apparently three mountainous districts, the first being Amurru, translating the Akkadian GIRGIR, which we are told to p.r.o.nounce Tidnu (see above, pp. 122, 206, and below, p. 312), the second Ur?u (Ararat), which we are told to p.r.o.nounce in Akkadian Tilla, and the third Qutu, in Akkadian Gigala u anna, "the district with the high barriers," likewise a part of the Aramean mountains.

After returning from Egypt, Abraham went and dwelt in the south of Canaan, between Bethel and Ai, Lot quitting him in consequence of the quarrel which took place between their respective herdsmen. Concerning the Canaanite and the Perizzite, who were then in the land, the Babylonian inscriptions of this period, as far as they are known, say nothing, but there is hardly any doubt that these nationalities were known to them, this tract being within the boundaries of the Babylonian dominions. That these names do not yet occur, is not to be wondered at, for the Babylonians had been accustomed to call the tract Amurru, and names which have been long attached to a country do not change at all easily. The next resting-place of the patriarch was by the oaks or terebinths of Mamre in Hebron, where he built an altar to the Lord.

At this point occurs Gen. ch. xiv., which contains the description of the conflict of the four kings against five-evidently one of the struggles of the Amorites and their allies to throw off the yoke of the Babylonians, who were in this case a.s.sisted by several confederate states.

Much has been written concerning this interesting chapter of the Bible.

The earlier critics were of opinion that it was impossible that the power of the Elamites should have extended so far at such an early epoch. Later on, when it was shown that the Elamites really had power-and that even earlier than the time of Abraham-the objection of the critics was, that none of the names mentioned in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis really existed in the inscriptions. The history of Abraham was a romance, and the names of the Eastern kings with whom he came into contact equally so. It was true that there were Elamite names commencing with the element Kudur, the Chedor of the sacred text, but Chedorlaomer did not occur, Amraphel and Tidal were equally wanting, and that Arioch was the same as Eri-Aku or Rim-Aku could not be proved.

The first step in solving the riddle was that made by Prof. Eberhard Schrader, who suggested that Amraphel was none other than the well-known Babylonian king ?ammurabi. This, naturally, was a theory which did not soon find acceptance-at least by all the a.s.syriologists. There were, however, two things in its favour-this king ruled sufficiently near to the time of Abraham, and he overcame a ruler named Rim-Sin or Rim-Aku, identified by the late George Smith with the Arioch of the chapter we are now considering. Concerning the latter ruler, Rim-Aku, there is still some doubt, but the difficulties which attended the identification of ?ammurabi with Amraphel have now practically disappeared. The first step was the discovery of the form Ammurabi in one of the numerous contracts drawn up during his reign at Sippara, the city of the Sun-G.o.d. This form shows that the guttural was not the hard guttural _kh_, but the softer _h_. Yet another step nearer the Biblical form is that given by Aaridu, who, in a letter to "the great and n.o.ble Asnapper," writes as follows-

Ana arri beli-ia To the king, my lord, arad-ka, (A)aridu. thy servant Aaridu.

Nabu u Marduk ana Nebo and Merodach to ar matati the king of the countries, beli-ia likrubu. my lord, be favourable.

Duppi a arru The tablet which the ippuu king makes ...-?u u ul-alim. is bad(?) and incomplete.

(A)du duppi. Now a tablet, (la)biru a Ammurapi an old one, of sarru. Ammurapi the king (e)puu-ma al?aru- I have made and written out- (la?) pani Ammurapi it is of the time arru. (?) of Ammurapi the king.

Ki apuru As I have sent (to inform the king), ultu Babili from Babylon attaa I will bring (it).

arru nipisu The king (will be able to do) the work [ina] pitti at once.

[Here several lines are broken away.]

a A-................... which A-.......................

qat ....................... the hand of....................

ulla ...................... then (?) ......................

anaku ..................... I .............................

likipanni. may he trust me.

As this is a late reference to ?ammurabi, it is noteworthy not only on account of the form the name (which agrees excellently with the Biblical Amraphel) had a.s.sumed at the time (the hard breathing or aspirate having to all appearance completely disappeared), but also as a testimony to the esteem in which he was held a millennium and a half after his death. How it is that the Hebrew form has _l_ at the end is not known, but the presence of this letter has given rise to numerous theories. One of these is, that Amraphel is for _?ammurabi ilu_, "?ammurabi the G.o.d," many of the old Babylonian kings having been deified after their death. Another (and perhaps more likely) explanation is, that this additional letter is due to the faulty reading of a variant writing of the name, with a polyphonous character having the value of _pil_ as well as _bi_,-which form may, in fact, still be found. However the presence of the final (and apparently unauthorized) addition to the name be explained, the identification of Amraphel and ?ammurabi is held to be beyond dispute.

Thanks to important chronological lists of colophon-dates and to a number of trade-doc.u.ments from Tel-Sifr, Sippara, and elsewhere, which are inscribed with the same dates in a fuller form, the outline of the history of the reign of ?ammurabi is fairly well known, though it can hardly be said that we have what would be at the present time regarded as an important event for each year, notwithstanding that they may have been to the ancient Babylonians of all-absorbing interest. The following is a list of the princ.i.p.al dates of his reign, as far as they can at present be made out-

1 Year of ?ammurabi the king.

2 Year he performed justice in the land.

3 Year he constructed the throne of the exalted shrine of Nannar of Babylon.

4 Year he built the fortification of Malgia.

5 Year he constructed the ... of the G.o.d.

6 Year of the fortification of (the G.o.ddess) Laz.

7 Year of the fortification of Isinna.

8 Year of the ... of Emutbalum.

9 Year of the ca.n.a.l ?ammurabi-?egalla.

10 Year of the soldiers and people of Malgia.

11 Year of the cities Rabiqa and alibi.

12 Year of the throne of Zer-panitum.

13 Year (the city) Umu (?) set up a king in great rejoicing.(43) 14 Year of the throne of Itar of Babylon.

15 Year of his 7 images.(44) 16 Year of the throne of Nebo.

17 Year of the images of Itar and Addu (Hadad)....

18 Year of the exalted shrine for Ellila.

19 Year of the fortification Igi-?ur-sagga.

20 Year of the throne of Merri (Rimmon or Hadad).

21 Year of the fortification of Ba?u.

22 Year of the image of ?ammurabi king of righteousness.

23 Year of the ... of Sippar.

24 Year of the ... for Ellila.

25 Year of the fortification of Sippar.

26 Year a great flood (?)....

27 Year the supreme (?)....

28 Year of the temple of abundance.(45) 29 Year of the image of ala (spouse of Rimmon or Hadad).

30 Year the army of Elam....

31 Year of the land Emutbalu.

32 Year the army of....

33 Year of the ca.n.a.l _?ammurabi-nu?u-nii_.

34 Year of Itar and Nanaa.

35 Year of the fortification of....

36 Lost.

37 Practically lost.

38 Year the great....

39 Practically lost.

40 Lost.

41 Lost.

42 Practically lost.

43 Year dust (? ruin) overwhelmed Sippar and the city Ul-ama.

In the gaps indicated by the words "lost," and "practically lost," the following entries ought, perhaps, to be inserted, though it is to be noted that some of them may be merely additions to, or other forms of, dates preserved by the list-

"Year he (_i.e._ the king) built the supreme shrine of Bel." [?

the eighteenth year.]

"Year of the ... of the fortification of Sippar." [? the 25th year.]

"Year he made supplication to the G.o.ddess Ta-metu."

"Year of the river (ca.n.a.l) Tiida-Ellilla" (p. 182).