The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends Part 49

210. It was not only "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," but also "a daughter for a daughter," even when a mortal injury may not have been intended. This is practically the same as Ex. xxi. 23: "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life."

241. As this law stands, it refers to the unlawful working of another man's ox, and not to an ox taken in pledge, for the working of which there could be no remedy, any more than there was for taking a man's wife, child, or slave, in pledge to work out a debt.

244 (loss of an animal through attack by a wild beast). Compare Ex. xxii.

13: "If it (an animal delivered into the care of another) be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn." Apparently there was no obligation to place the animal in a safe place. Cf. Gen. x.x.xi. 39 (Jacob's reproof to Laban): "That which was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bare the loss of it."

245 ff. These are to a certain extent ill.u.s.trated by Ex. xxii. 14, 15, in which pa.s.sage, if the owner of the injured animal was not present, the borrower had to make good any loss. If, however, the owner was there to protect it, there was no penalty, as he could in all probability have prevented the injury from being inflicted, and in any case might be supposed to have control over the animal.

250. The owner of a furious bull was protected from loss, even though the result was fatal, if he did not know that the animal was vicious. In Ex.

xxi. 28, though the owner of the offending ox was to go free, the animal itself was to be stoned to death, and its flesh not eaten. There is no doubt that this was hard on the owner, but it must have had an excellent effect, and ensured the proper enclosing of all doubtful animals.

251. Even when the master knew that his ox was vicious, the Babylonians were more lenient than the Hebrews, who, in such a case, besides the destruction of the ox, decreed the death of the owner as a punishment for his negligence (Ex. xxi. 29). As will be seen from verse 30, however, he might be spared by paying such ransom as might be imposed upon him.

252. One-third of a mana of silver is equivalent to 20 shekels, so that the sum here indicated as compensation for the death of a slave who has been gored by a bull differs from that awarded in Ex. xxi. 32, by ten shekels-one-sixth of a mana more.

266. This is in part covered by 244 (destruction of cattle by a lion), and is parallel with Ex. xxii. 10, 11, where, also, an oath had to be sworn between the parties, and the herdsman in whose care the cattle were, went free of all obligation. The accident causing the loss, however, is not there described as "an act of G.o.d."

267. The wording of this law clearly indicates that it would apply if the herdsman were in fault, and suggests that the same condition must be read into Ex. xxii. 12, where, if the cattle were stolen from him, he had to make the loss good.

Besides the enactments in the Code of Moses, however, we find, in the interesting and important monument translated above, and in the legal doc.u.ments of the period to which it belongs, noteworthy parallels to other parts of the Old Testament. Reference has already been made (pp. 174, 175, and 185, 186) to the contracts of the period of ?ammurabi's dynasty which ill.u.s.trate the matter of Sarah giving Hagar to Abraham because she herself was childless (Gen. xvi. 1, 2). That this was the custom in Babylonia is now confirmed by law 144, which also furnishes the reason why it was the wife who chose her partner in the husband's affections. It was because the first wife preferred to choose herself the woman who was to replace her, and in doing this, she chose one who would be her subordinate, not one who might become a really serious rival. A parallel case is that of Bilhah (Gen. x.x.x. 4). Hagar's despising her mistress (Gen. xvi. 4) is ill.u.s.trated by law No. 146, which allows the mistress to reduce her to the position of a slave again, which was agreed to by the patriarch, the result being that Hagar fled (v. 6).

The determination to have the possession of the cave of Machpelah placed upon a thoroughly legal footing (Gen. xxiii. 14-20) may, perhaps, be ill.u.s.trated by law No. 7, though there is not much parallelism between the two instances, a field with a cave and trees being a difficult thing to steal. There is hardly any doubt, however, that the patriarch desired that no accusation should be brought against him or his descendants for unlawfully using it, as is suggested by the fact that when Ephron offered to give it, he said that he did so "in the presence of the sons of my people" only, but when the transaction was completed as Abraham wished, it was done not only in the presence of the children of Heth, but before all who went in at the gate of his city (Gen. xxiii. 18), and naturally included strangers as well.

Abraham's seeking a wife for his son (Gen. xxiv. 4) is in conformity with laws 155, 156, and 166; gifts are given (Gen. xxiv. 53 and laws No. 159, 160, etc.); seemingly the father-in-law retained the presents given by his son-in-law, if he could get possession of them (Gen. x.x.xi. 15 and laws 159-161), and these belonged to the wife (wives) and the children (x.x.xi.

16 and laws 162, 167, 171, ff.).

Whether the theft of her father's teraphim by Rachel (Gen. x.x.xi. 19) could be construed as sacrilege or not is doubtful, but this may well have been the penalty thought of by Jacob when Laban accused some of his household of theft (Gen. x.x.xi. 32 and law No. 6), though theft, if there were no rest.i.tution, was in Babylonian law always punishable with death.

The punishment of death by burning, which Judah decreed for his daughter-in-law Tamar (Gen. x.x.xviii. 24), is parallel with that meted out to a devotee opening or entering a wine-house (probably a place of ill-repute), but the parallel ends there-there is no law in the code of ?ammurabi, as at present preserved, decreeing death by burning for a widow who became a harlot.

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 a.n.a.logy 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 ?ammurabi referring to adoption (No. 185) might be quoted in ill.u.s.tration of the adoption of Ephraim and Mana.s.seh 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 ill.u.s.tration in law 171 of ?ammurabi'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 a.s.syriologist, Friedrich Delitzsch, delivered some time ago before the German Emperor, under the t.i.tle 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 archaeological 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 a.s.syria, 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 Murau 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 Agade, ?ammurabi, the Bronze Gates of Shalmaneser II., Sargon of a.s.syria, Sennacherib, a.s.surbanipal (Aur-bani-apli or Sardanapalus), the Laws of ?ammurabi (translated in full in this volume), the processions of G.o.ds,(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 Bit (or Beth) Ninip, after the Babylonian G.o.d-"even though there may not have been in Jerusalem itself a _bit Ninip_, a temple of the G.o.d 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 _u_), meaning "day," is explained by _abattum_, "Sabbath," as "_the_ day" _par excellence_, and from other pa.s.sages he reasons that the old rendering of the word as "day of rest,"

_um nu? 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 umu day.

U-ma-am [miil] umu half a day.

U-gi-kam [umu] kal first day (Sum.), the whole day (Sem.).

U-mina-kam i-na [umu] second day.

U-ei-kam ela[tu umu] third day.

U-lama-kam irbit fourth (day).

U-ia-kam ?amil[tu] fifth (day).

U-aa-kam e[itu] sixth (day).

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

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

U-ilima-kam tilti do. ninth day.

U-?u-kam eirti do. tenth day.

U-?uia-kam apatti fifteenth day (Sum.), Sabbath (Sem.).

U-mana-gi-lal-kam ibbu twentieth day less 1 (Sum.), the wrathful (Sem.).

U-mana-kam eru twentieth day.

U-mana-ia-kam ar?u bat[tu] twenty-fifth day (Sum.), festival month (Sem.).

U-ea-kam elaa thirtieth day.

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

U-?ul-gala u-?ulgallum evil day.

U-?ul-gala umu lim[nu] evil day.

U-u-tua umu rimku libation-day.

U-elene umu teliltum purification-day.

From the above it will be seen, that the _apattum_ 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 _a-bat_, "heart-rest," which probably has, therefore, no connection with the Semitic root _abatu_, which, as far as at present known, is a synonym of _gamaru_, "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 _apattum_ instead of _abattum_, though the latter is also found.

The nearest approach to the Sabbath, in the Jewish sense, among the Babylonians, is the _u-?ulgala_ or _umu 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 Zer-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 Itar, he shall make an offering, (and) his prayer(300) is acceptable with G.o.d."

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.