The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends Part 23

After the retreat of the conquering army of Elamites and Babylonians with their booty, with Lot, Abraham's nephew, as prisoner, and his goods as part of the spoil, comes the interesting account of the way in which Abraham rescued his relative and recovered his property, with a portion of that belonging to the king of Sodom. On his return with the spoil, Melchizedek king of Salem meets him, offering him bread and wine, and blessing him as Abraham of El-Elyon, "the most high G.o.d." Certain supposed confirmatory statements in the correspondence of Abdi-?aba, ruler of Jerusalem, which was found among the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, has been the subject of much discussion, and it is apparently regarded as being of much importance, though there are various opinions concerning it. The prince in question, when writing to his suzerain, the reigning king of Egypt, makes the remarkable statement that it was not his father nor his mother who had set him in that place (_i.e._ Uru-salim or Jerusalem) as king, but "the mighty king"-

"Behold, this land of Jerusalem, neither my father nor my mother gave (it) to me-the hand (arm(49)) of the mighty king gave it to me."-(Tablet, _Berlin_, 103.)

"Behold, I am not a prefect, I am an employe of the king my lord,-behold, I am an officer of the king, and one who brings the tribute of the king.

Neither my father nor my mother, (but) the arm of the mighty king has set me in the house of my father."-(Tablet _B._ 104.)

"Behold, I, neither my father nor my mother set me in this place. The arm of the mighty king caused me to enter into the house of my father."-(Tablet _B._ 102.)

As Abdi-?aba then goes on to emphasize his faithfulness to the king of Egypt, apparently on account of his having been made ruler of Jerusalem by him, these pa.s.sages merely resolve themselves, to all appearance, into a statement of the writer's indebtedness to his royal master. It may be disappointing, but to all appearance the "mighty king" is the king of Egypt, and not the G.o.d of Uru-salim.

Nevertheless, the description of Melchizedek in Heb. vii. 3, "without father, without mother," makes it a quite legitimate question to ask: may not Abdi-?aba, in what he said to his suzerain, have made some mental reservation when writing what he did? Or is it not possible that, when speaking about his independence of his father and his mother for the position that he occupied, he was unconsciously making use of words familiar to him, and recorded in some doc.u.ment of the archives of the city? We have yet to learn the history of the preceding period-we know not whether Abdi-?aba had really a right to the position which he occupied (he seems to have been placed as ruler of Jerusalem by the foreign power to which he refers), and until we get more information, there is no escape from the necessity of regarding him, from his own letters, as being in a different position from that which, in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, Melchizedek occupies.

In connection with the question as to what divinity was wors.h.i.+pped at Jerusalem, the tablet known as _B._ 105 is of importance. Line 14 of the letter in question reads: "The city of the land of Jerusalem, its name is Bit-Ninip, the city of the king, is lost-(it is) a place of the men of Kelti." What was this "city of the king," or "royal city"? The general opinion at first was, that the place meant was Jerusalem itself, for that must have been from the earliest times "a royal city" _par excellence_.

Winckler, however, translates "_A_ city of the land of Jerusalem," which certainly seems a reasonable rendering. Properly speaking, however, the idiomatic Semitic Babylonian expression for "_a_ city" would be _iten alu_, "_one_ city." Though Winckler's rendering is a perfectly reasonable one, therefore, the first translation is not excluded, and in any case there remains the clear statement that a city of the territory of Jerusalem-that is to say a city which owned the sway of her kings-possessed, as its patron-deity, the G.o.d whom the Babylonians and a.s.syrians called Ninip, and wors.h.i.+pped under many names. Among these may be mentioned Madanunu, explained as "the proclaimed (?), the renowned, the high"; En-banda, probably meaning "the distinguished lord," a name which he bore as "Ninip, he who takes the decision of the G.o.ds." Another of his names was ?al?alla, "Ninip, protector of the decision, father of Bel"; and, more interesting still, he was called Me-ma?a ("supreme word"), as "Ninip, guardian of the supreme commands." The a.s.syrians wors.h.i.+pped him both under the name of Ninip and Apil-earra, "son of the house (temple) of the host." It is this deity whose name occurs in the a.s.syrian royal names Tukulti-Ninip and Tukulti-apil-e-arra, or Tiglath-pileser.

On these points, as on many others, we must wait for more light from the East.

In the matter of Sarai, Abraham's wife, giving her handmaid Hagar to Abraham as a second or inferior wife, because she had no children herself, it is not improbable that we have a record of what was a common custom at the time. On p. 174 ff. translations of Babylonian tablets are given, which seem to have some a.n.a.logies with what is stated in the Biblical narrative. In these inscriptions, however, the woman of inferior position, though she is expected to be the servant of the other, is raised, to all appearance, into a higher position, and described as the sister of the first wife, apparently by adoption, this supposition being based on the statement that Iltani was daughter of Sin-abu-u, though both Iltani and Taram-sagila were taken in marriage from Uttatum, their father. Apparently there was to be no difference in the status of the children of either of them, and it was apparently on account of the hope that Hagar's son would be as her own, that the patriarch's wife acted as she did.

With regard to the contract at Machpelah, that is, as has already been noticed more than once, evidently a legal doc.u.ment, or at least an abstract of such a doc.u.ment, and bears some likeness to the ancient contracts of a.s.syria and Babylonia, though the latter are generally composed in much shorter form, and with different phraseology. The descriptions of landed property given on pp. 167, 178 ff., and also such sales of land as the following give material for comparing the doc.u.ment in question-

" of a gan, a field by the crossing, in the upper district of Tenu, beside (the property of) Qaranu the son of the palace, and beside (the property of) Ili-midi, its first end the road Ataba(tum ?), its second end the property of the enclosure Tenunam, Il-u-bani has bought from Nannara-manum and Sin-bani, his brother, sons of Sin-abu-u, for its complete price. He has paid the money, he has pa.s.sed the barrier, his transaction is complete-the silver, the price of their field, is complete, they are content. They shall not say 'We have not received the money'-they have received it before the witnesses. At no future time shall Nannara-manum and Sin-bani make claim upon the field. They have invoked the spirit of ama, Merodach, and Zabium (the king).

"Claim of his brothers and his sisters [this would be better 'their brothers and their sisters'], children of Sin-abu-u, Nannara-manum and Sin-bani shall answer for.

"Before Ili-'adiwa, son of Amurru-bani; before Nannara-itti, son of Sin-na?ir; before Sin-remeni, son of Ime-Sin; before Nannara-ki-aga (?), son of Sin-idinnam; before Munawirum; before Sin-bel-ili; before Sin-ublam; before Nannara-manum; before Ubar-Ninip, the scribe, before Sin-eribam."

In the following text the nature of the trees on the ground sold is specified-

"12 measures, a date-palm plantation, beside the plantation of Ri-ama, priest of the Sun-G.o.d, son of the woman Sala, its first end (the property of) Girum, A?atani, sun-devotee, daughter of Marum, has bought for its price in silver from Ri-ama, son of Sala. She has paid the money, (and) is content-she has pa.s.sed the barrier. The transaction is ended. At no future time shall they make claim against each other. (They have invoked) the spirit of ama, Merodach, and ?ammurabi (Amraphel).

"Before Amri-ili-u, son of Naram-ea; before Yati-ilu, son of Abil-Sin; before Ibi-ama, before etil-ep-ama (?), sons of Buzia; before Izi-zare; before erib-Sin, son of Sarabi; before Manum, son of Sin-idinnam; before I?ur-adum, son of Ilu-ma-rabi (?); before Ili-abu-Sin (?); before erib-Sin, son of Su-...; before ama-bini-pi-ia; before Dima?um; before Ri-ama; before Ikunia, (son of?) ...-ninibu."

A comparison of these inscriptions, which are types of hundreds of others known to a.s.syriologists, with the transaction between Abraham and the Hitt.i.te Ephron, shows noteworthy differences. The boundaries are usually stated in the Babylonian doc.u.ments with sufficiently great precision; but, on the other hand, the nature of the land is generally not stated except if it be actually under cultivation, and any trees growing on it are apparently mentioned only on account of their commercial value-when, for instance, they are fruit-bearing trees, as in the reference to the date-palms in the second doc.u.ment here translated. In Babylonia, as in Palestine, contracts and transactions of a legal nature often took place in the open s.p.a.ce by the gate of the city in or near which the contracting parties lived, and where witnesses to the transaction could easily be found among those who pa.s.sed in and out, or who had business in the neighbourhood. In the record contained in the 23rd chapter of Genesis, the names of the witnesses are naturally not given, but it is expressly stated that the contract was made "in the presence of the children of Heth, before all that went in at the gate of his city."

Salem.

One of the most interesting points revealed by the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, is the fact that the name of Jerusalem occurs, and is not called simply Salem (as in Gen. xiv. 18), but Uru-salim, the Aramaic (Syriac) _Uri-shalem_, a form which confirms the translation given to it, namely, "city of peace," though the writing of the word in the Tel-el-Amarna tablets suggests the suppression of the particle "of," making "the city Peace" simply, which would, perhaps, be to a certain extent a counterpart to or an explanation of the form Salem, "Peace," in Genesis.

There is no doubt that the name is an exceedingly interesting one. Prof.

Sayce has suggested that there was a G.o.d named Salem, or "Peace," and that the city was so called as being the abode of that deity. This, of course, is by no means improbable, but in no place where the name occurs-neither in the Tel-el-Amarna tablets nor in the historical inscriptions of Sennacherib-has the element _salim_ (in Sennacherib's texts _salimmu_) the divine prefix before it. That the divine prefix should be omitted in the inscriptions of Sennacherib is easily understood, as the name in question would be a foreign one to the a.s.syrian scribes of his time. To the writers of the letters from Jerusalem, however, it was a native name, and one would certainly expect the name of the city, in such doc.u.ments, to be given fully at least once.

Nevertheless, that there was a G.o.d of peace among the Semites, is proved by the name of the a.s.syrian G.o.d ulmanu or Shalman, a component part of the name Shalmaneser, the a.s.syrian ulmanu-aarid. It is noteworthy that there were no less than four a.s.syrian kings of this name, and that it means "the G.o.d Shalman is chief." _ulmanu_ or _almanu nunu_, "Shalman the fish," also occurs, as the name of one of the G.o.ds of the city Tedi, or, as Prof. Sayce reads it, Dimmen-Silim (better Temmena-silima), but this latter reading would only be the correct one if the characters Tedi are to be read as an Akkadian group.

It is therefore very doubtful whether the element _salim_ in the name of Jerusalem be the name of a G.o.d, notwithstanding the love that the peoples of the Semitic East naturally had for the blessings which the word implies. It formed part, as in Arabic at the present day, of many a greeting, and is one of the most noteworthy points of the Semitic languages. A poetic composition, apparently of the time of the dynasty of Babylon-probably contemporaneous with Abraham-seems to read as follows-

Mazzazam iu, It has the resting-place, Padanam iu- It has the roadway, Bab ekalli alim; The gate of the palace is sound- ulmu parku akin. Perfect (?) soundness exists; Martum almat The gall is sound, Ubanum almat The peak is sound, ?au (?) u libbu (?) Entrails and heart almu are sound- Sinerit tiranu. 12 (are) the coverings (?).

Tertum immer izzim (If) the viscera (?) of a healthy sheep (?) almat Be sound, Mimma la tanakkud. Naught shalt thou fear.

The above probably represents the signs which the _extispices_ or "entrails-inspectors" looked for when working out their forecasts. A better translation than "peace" for _salim_ would therefore probably be "safe and sound," "intact," or something similar (see the 13th edition of Gesenius's Lexicon, edited by Prof. F. Buhl, with the collaboration of Socin and Zimmern, also Fried. Delitzsch, _a.s.syrisches Handworterbuch_), but the old and more poetic expression "peace," "to be at peace," may be held to sufficiently express the meaning.

With regard to the first element of the name Jerusalem, Uru-salim in a.s.syrian, that is to all appearance the Sumero-Akkadian _uru_ (from an older _guru_), "city," in the dialect _eri_, from which the Hebrew _'ir_, "city," has to all appearance come. The vowel-change from _u_ to _e_ or _i_ is shown in _tu_, dialectic _te_, "dove"; _uru_, dial. _eri_, "servant"; _duga_, dial. _?iba_, "good," etc. As is usual with two nationalities dwelling at no great distance from each other, borrowings of words took place between the Semites on the one hand and the Sumero-Akkadians on the other, which have left traces on the vocabularies of both.

CHAPTER VII. ISAAC, JACOB, AND JOSEPH.

Jacob, Yakub, and Yakub-ilu-Joseph, Yasup, and Yasup-ilu-Other similar names-The Egyptian monuments and the Semites.

With the disappearance of Abraham from the scene of his earthly wanderings, a prominent figure connecting Babylonia with Palestine vanishes from history. His son Isaac and his grandson Jacob retain, however, their connection with those of the family who resided at Haran, taking their wives from among their relatives there-Isaac because his father wished it, Jacob because the souls of his father and mother were vexed on account of the daughters of Heth whom Esau, Jacob's brother, had married. In this primitive story of three generations of a primitive family there is much to interest the student of ancient west Semitic manners and customs-the love of Isaac for Esau, because Isaac loved the savoury venison which the former provided for him; how Jacob, "the supplanter," obtained his brother's birthright and the blessing which he ought to have had; Laban's covetousness and duplicity-all these things furnish material for the student of manners and customs and of human nature, but very little for the comparative archaeologist who wishes to find connections between Abraham's descendants and the country which gave their father (or their grandfather) birth. Nevertheless there are points which deserve ill.u.s.tration.

To all appearance the manners and customs of the families of the patriarchs had not changed since they came out of Babylonia. There is the same pastoral life, the same dislike (and probably mistrust) of strangers and foreigners, the same freedom on the part of the men, even the most honoured among them, with regard to the marriage-tie, the same tendency to add to this world's goods, and to become great and mighty chiefs in the land (would that Jacob had done this otherwise), as at first. The Babylonian spirit of commerce and the desire for "supplanting" was well developed in the father of the twelve tribes, and may be regarded as adding, as far as it goes, to the confirmation of the theory (but the question is more one of fact than of theory) that Abraham was of Babylonian race.

Exceedingly interesting are all the names borne by the patriarchs, and the reasons why they were given to them. Indeed, the punning references to circ.u.mstances concerning their birth are similar in their character to those of the patriarchs before the Flood. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that many of the names found in this part of the sacred narrative are not by any means unique. Thus the name of Jacob occurs many times in the tablets of the period of the first dynasty of Babylon under the forms of _Yakubu_, _Yakubi_, etc., and there are also forms with the word _ilu_ attached-_Ya'kubi-ilu_, _Yakub-ilu_, etc. In like wise we find what is apparently the same name as that of Joseph, namely, _Yaupum_ with its longer form _Yaup-ilu_, types of many others, such as _Yakudum_, _Yakunam_, etc., _Yabnik-ilu_, _Yagab-ilu_ son of _Yakub-ilu_, etc. As far as I have at present been able to find out, however, none of the names of this cla.s.s, except _Yakub-ilu_ and _Yaup-ilu_, have as yet been discovered in both forms (_i.e._ with and without the element _ilu_), which may turn out to be of importance, or may be simply a remarkable coincidence.

This, naturally, leads to the question: What are the meanings of these names? According to Genesis, Jacob means supplanter, or, rather, "he has supplanted," and the further query then arises: What does the name mean when _ilu_ is added to it? The meaning in this case ought to be "G.o.d has supplanted," which clearly will not fit.

The best explanation probably is, that the name of Jacob was never Ya'kub-ilu, but Ya'kub simply, meaning, "he has supplanted," and referring, naturally, to the person who bore the name. As the name "Supplanter" is not one which a man would be proud to bear, in all probability it was seen that it would be taken for the usual abbreviation for Ya'kub-ilu, with the probable meaning of "G.o.d hath restrained"

(another signification of the root 'aqab), and thus it may be that there is no record of any one having reproached him on account of it, except the members of his own family, who knew why it was given to him, and recognized in his character as a man something which corresponded with the name given to him because of what was said to have happened at his birth.

Notwithstanding the two etymologies of the name of Joseph which are given (Gen. x.x.x. 23, 24), "He (G.o.d) hath taken away," and "He (G.o.d) hath added,"

there is but little doubt that the latter rendering is the correct one, agreeing, as it does, better with the root _yasaph_, from which it is derived, the other rendering, from the root _asaph_, "to take away," being due to a kind of pun. (The former rendering is explained as being from the Elohist narrative, the other from that of the Jehovist, but it seems not at all improbable that a woman, even a Canaanitess of those primitive ages, should have made a joke sometimes-they seem always to have been given to making strange comparisons with regard to words, and even the ancient Babylonians were not free from that failing, as at least one of the bilingual tablets shows.) The meaning of the name Joseph is therefore "He (G.o.d) hath added," corresponding with that of the Yaup-ilu, "G.o.d hath added," of the tablets of the time of the dynasty of Babylon. The use of __ for _s_ must be due to the fact that _Yaup-ilu_ was, for the Babylonians, a foreign name, and that, in a.s.syro-Babylonian, _in_ was p.r.o.nounced like _samech_ and _samech_ like _in_, as a general rule.

Besides the names of the patriarchs Jacob and Joseph, the name Sar-ili, "prince of G.o.d," suggests a comparison with Israel, which is written Sir'ilaa, "Israelites," in the time of Shalmaneser II. The meaning attributed to this name would seem to be somewhat strained, as it would signify rather "G.o.d hath striven," than "he hath striven with G.o.d." That word-play exists also here, and that the name was a changed form of Sar-ili, "prince of G.o.d," is possible, and is at least justified as a suggestion by the form recorded by Shalmaneser II. already referred to.

The name of his brother Esau may possibly exist in the Babylonian Ese, found on a tablet dated in the reign of Samsu-iluna. Laban does not occur, except as the name of a G.o.d in a list of deities wors.h.i.+pped in the city of Aur. With regard to Bethuel, one cannot help thinking that it must be the same as the place-name Bethel, the terminal _u_ of the nominative being retained in the name of Abraham's nephew. If this be the case, he may have been so named after the "Bethel of cedar" (see p. 201), though there is just the possibility that, as Gesenius suggests, Bethuel may be for Methuel, the Babylonian _Mut-ili_, "man of G.o.d." That the Bethel of Haran was a heathen place of wors.h.i.+p, however, can hardly be regarded as any objection to one of the family to which Abraham and his descendants belonged bearing such a name. If the Hebrew text be correct, therefore, it is probably an abbreviation, forming part of a name similar to e-sagila-zera-epu, "e-sagila (the temple of Belus at Babylon) has created a name," and others like it. It is also to be noted, that the name given by Leah to the son which Zilpah her handmaid bore to Jacob after she herself left off bearing was Gad, rendered in the Hebrew itself by "Fortunate," and probably the name of a west Semitic deity, Gad, the G.o.d of good fortune.

But the heathenism of the portion of the family living at or near Haran is clearly proved by the matter of the teraphim, which Rachel stole from her father Laban. It is true that they are generally regarded as figures used for the purpose of magic, but as Laban himself calls them his "G.o.ds,"

there is every probability that they were wors.h.i.+pped as such. It is to be regarded as simply an indication of the difficulty which most dwellers in the midst of polytheism in those days must have found in dissociating themselves from the practices of those with whom they came daily into contact. They may have had all the tendencies possible towards monotheism, but how were they to embrace it in all its perfection in the midst of a population recounting from time to time the many wonderful things which their G.o.ds and protecting genii did for them, and which the hearer had no opportunity of probing to the bottom and estimating at their true value?

As these people were, to all appearance, but simple shepherds (though sufficiently wealthy), it is hardly to be expected of them that they would go deeply into philosophical considerations concerning the Deity, especially when we remember that the family of Laban was in close contact with the idolatry of Haran.

With regard to the teraphim which Rachel took with her when Jacob fled from her father, there is not much that can be said. Figures so called were in common use among the Jews and other nations for purposes of magic, and to all appearance they were statues of deities (as indicated in the pa.s.sage now under consideration) which were consulted by some means when anything of importance was about to be undertaken. To all appearance they were the household G.o.ds, like the Lares and Penates of the Romans, though they were also used when on expeditions, as when Nebuchadnezzar is represented (Ezekiel xxi. 21-26 in the Heb.) standing at the parting of the ways to use divination, shaking arrows to and fro, consulting the teraphim, and looking at a liver to decide what his success in the operations which he was about to undertake against Jerusalem would be. In Zechariah x. 2 also, there is a reference to the teraphim, which, as oracles, had "spoken vanity," and the diviners had "seen a lie." Little doubt exists, therefore, as to what these things were used for. With regard to their form, it is supposed that they were similar to the small figures found in the ruins of the ancient palaces of a.s.syria, generally under the pavement, in all probability images of the G.o.ds of a.s.syria who, by their effigies, were supposed to protect the palace and its inhabitants. Some of these are four-winged figures similar to those found on the bas-reliefs, whilst others are representations of a deity, probably the G.o.d ea or Ae, the G.o.d of the sea, who is represented clothed with a fish's skin, etc. The size of these teraphim must have differed greatly; that which was placed in David's bed by Michal, his wife, to deceive Saul's messengers, must necessarily have been of considerable height-probably not much under that of a man. Those hidden by Rachel when her father came to look for them, however, must have been comparatively small, and the figures found in the foundations of the a.s.syrian palaces rarely measure more than six inches in height.

In the light of what this incident of the teraphim reveals, it is not to be wondered at that Jacob, when about to go up to Bethel from Shechem, after the treacherous spoiling of the city by his sons, should have said, "Put away the strange G.o.ds that are among you," and it shows also a considerable amount of tolerance on the part of the patriarch. Did he, too, believe that the G.o.ds which his relatives and dependents wors.h.i.+pped were in any sense divine beings? In any case, it is to be noted that, after they were given to him, he did not destroy them, but hid them, with the trinkets which they possessed-in all probability in many cases heathen emblems-under the terebinth-tree which was by Shechem.

To all appearance they were allowed to keep these strange G.o.ds and heathen emblems until they set out on the journey to make the commanded sacrifices to the G.o.d who had revealed Himself to Jacob at Bethel.