The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends Part 21

"Year the soldiers of Enunna were smitten by the sword."

"Year ?ammurabi the king, by command of Anu and Bel, destroyed the wall of Mair and Malgia" (p. 187).

"Year ?ammurabi the king renewed the temple e-me-temena-ursag, and raised the head of the temple-tower, the supreme seat of Zagaga, high like heaven."

"Year ?ammurabi the king raised the top of the great wall on the bank of the Tigris high like a mountain, and caused its name to be called the embankment of the Sun."

Besides these, there are additions in the entries in the chronological list, some of which are of sufficiently great importance-

"Year 31: Year ?ammurabi the king, by the command of Anu and Bel, established his advantage (and) captured the land Yamutbalum and the king Rim-Sin."

"Year 34: Year ?ammurabi the king made [images of] Itar and Nanaa."

Whether the following be another form of this date, or a different one altogether is uncertain:

"Year ?ammurabi the king renewed E-tur-kalama for Anu, Itar, and Nanaa."

Year 38, which, in the chronological list, is called the year of the great ... is possibly to be completed, in accordance with the indications from the colophon-dates: "Year of ?ammurabi the king (when) a great flood destroyed Enunna."

With regard to the other undecided dates, it is practically certain that the three long ones-those which record the destruction of the wall of Mair and Malgia, the restoration of the temple e-me-temena-ursag and the temple tower dedicated to Zagaga, and the construction of the great dam of the Tigris-come into the gaps after the entry for the thirty-first year. The reason for this a.s.sumption is, that the thirty-first year of ?ammurabi was the date of his conquest of Rim-Sin, in whose dominions the town represented by the ruins of Tel-Sifr (the place whence the tablets came which bear these dates) lay. All the tablets from this place, bearing dates of the reign of ?ammurabi, therefore belong to the thirty-first year of his reign and later.

In all probability there is one thing that will be considered as noteworthy, and that is, that as far as our records go, there is no reference whatever to any expedition to the West-land, and if that be due simply to the imperfection of the records which have come down to us, all that can be said is, that it is a noteworthy coincidence.(46) It must not be supposed, however, that it in any wise invalidates the trustworthiness of the narrative in the 14th chapter of Genesis-there is plenty of room in the mutilated list (of which I have given such a translation as is possible) for a date referring to this to have been recorded, though we must keep in mind the possibility, that if the Babylonian king considered that disaster had in any way overtaken his arms, he may not have recorded it at all. Then there is the fact, that the expedition was undertaken in conjunction with allies-Chedorlaomer, Tidal, and Arioch-for none of whom, in all probability, ?ammurabi had any sympathy. The Elamite was a conqueror from a land over which the Babylonians of earlier ages had held sway, and Arioch had dominion over a neighbouring tract, to which ?ammurabi himself laid claim, and over which, as the texts above translated show, he afterwards ruled. ?ammurabi, moreover, claimed also the West-land-_mat Amurri_, the land of Amurru-as his hereditary possession, and he found himself obliged to aid Chedorlaomer, Tidal, and Arioch to subjugate it-indeed, it was Chedorlaomer whom the five kings had acknowledged for twelve years as their overlord, and against whom, in the thirteenth, they rebelled. It is, therefore, likely that ?ammurabi regarded himself as having been forced by circ.u.mstances to aid Chedorlaomer to reconquer what really belonged to Babylonia, and the probability that he would cause it to be used as one of the events to date by, is on that account still less, even if the news of any success which he might have considered himself ent.i.tled to reached his own domain in time to be utilized for such a purpose.

It has been shown on p. 155 that Ammi-?itana, the third in succession from ?ammurabi, claimed the sovereignty of the land of Amurru, and from an inscription accompanying a portrait of ?ammurabi discovered by Mr. Ra.s.sam, we learn that he, too, claimed sovereignty over it. Sargon of Agade held sway over the tract centuries before, so that he probably reckoned that, by right of inheritance, it was his. It would therefore be natural that he should omit to mention as an event to be remembered, an expedition to a country which ought never to have thrown off his dominion.

Of course, one of the princ.i.p.al things confirming the identification of ?ammurabi with Amraphel would naturally be the occurrence of one or more of the names recorded in Gen. xiv., in conjunction with his, or in such a way that a connection could be established. This, naturally, is difficult, princ.i.p.ally on account of our having no continuous history of the period to which these rulers belong. Nevertheless, a close examination of the inscriptions suggests in what way confirmation of the events narrated with reference to Amraphel and his allies might be sought.

Reference has already been made to Rim-Sin, king of Yamutbalu (or Emutbalu), who appears to have been defeated by ?ammurabi in the thirty-first regnal year. From this time the dominions of Rim-Sin evidently formed part of the Babylonian Empire, and were never again separated from it as long as it existed.

Notwithstanding the early identification of Rim-Sin with Eri-Sin or Eri-Aku by the late George Smith, considerable doubt has been thrown on the ident.i.ty of these two names by the fact, that in inscriptions containing the name of Kudur-mabuk, the father, the name of his son is written with _Eri_ as the first element-not _Rim_. This, it must be admitted, is a considerable difficulty. Winckler, however, in the _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, Band III., 1 Halfte, pp. 88-89, publishes a text given by Lenormant, _Textes Inedits_, No. 70, in which the name of the son of Kudur-mabuk is written Ri-im-Sin, and if this be correctly copied, it would seem to settle the matter of their ident.i.ty. It is to be noted that they are both called king of Uriwa, king of Larsa, and king of umer and Akkad. In the inscriptions Eri-Aku or Eri-Sin also calls himself _adda Emutbala_, "father of Yamutbalu," and, as the colophon-date of the 31st year of ?ammurabi shows, Rim-Sin or Rim-Aku was also king of that region.

In these circ.u.mstances, there is hardly any doubt that they were at least closely connected, if not (as has been supposed since the time of the a.s.syriologist George Smith) actually identical. It is therefore worthy of mention, that M. F. Thureau-Dangin, the well-known French a.s.syriologist, suggests that Eri-Aku and Rim-Sin were brothers, sons of Kudur-mabuk, and successively kings of Larsa (_Les Inscriptions de umer et d'Akkad_, p.

300, n. 3). This would not only account for their having the same parentage, but also for their claiming the same t.i.tles. It can therefore not be said, that ?ammurabi became the enemy of his old ally-it was against his brother that he fought.

The date quoted on p. 214 (year 31) seems to include Rim-Sin in the capture of the land of Yamutbalum, but this is not confirmed by the new Chronicle, which states that ?ammurabi, king of Babylon, gathered his soldiers and went against Rim-Sin, king of Larsa. His hand captured Ur and Larsa, he carried off their goods to Babylon, and overthrew and carried away other things-what they were the mutilation of the record does not allow us even to guess. It is noteworthy also that the mention of Ur as one of the cities of Rim-Sin shuts out that state from the tract which, from the 14th chapter of Genesis, would otherwise be included in s.h.i.+nar, and seems also to explain why Ur is designated as being "of the Chaldees."

If, however, the colophon-date be right, and Rim-Sin was really made prisoner, he must either have escaped, or been set at liberty again, for Samsu-iluna, son of ?ammurabi, when he became king, had apparently to resist another attack on the part of that ruler, who seems to have been captured, and "(? burnt) alive in his palace."

With regard to the names Eri-Aku and Rim-Sin, one Sumero-Akkadian, and the other Semitic, the former means, as was thought from the first, "Servant of the Moon-G.o.d," whilst the sense of the latter, as is made clear by the variant spelling in the new Babylonian chronicle, is "Sin's (the Moon-G.o.d's) wild bull." A similar name is that of Rim-Anu, another king of Larsa-"Anu's (the Heaven-G.o.d's) wild bull." These are paralleled by such names as Bur-Sin, "Sin's young steer," in which the bearer is compared with a strong and willing animal of service. Possibly the subst.i.tution of the word for "wild bull" in Rim-Sin and Rim-Anu is symbolical of reckless courage.

Very little is known of the state of which Larsa (in Sumero-Akkadian Ararma) was the capital. It is interesting to note, however, that this city was a centre of the wors.h.i.+p of the Sun-G.o.d ama, as was also Sippar (now Abu-habbah). The temple in both cities bore the same name, e-bara (-para) or e-babbara (-barbara), "the house of brilliant light." With the exception of Eri-Aku or Arioch, whose name is Sumero-Akkadian, all the rulers have Semitic names-Rim-Anu, Nur-Rammani or Nur-Addi, "light of Rimmon" or "of Hadad," Sin-idinnam, "Sin has given," and Rim-Sin. If Eri-Aku was called, in the Semitic tongue, Arad-Sin, "Servant of Sin," as is possible, this name must be added too, but in that case his identification with Arioch would be less probable. As he was of Elamite origin, his bearing a Sumero-Akkadian or a Semitic name was probably due to motives of policy, and one which, when written, could be read either way would give pleasure to both sections of the people, Sumero-Akkadian and Semitic.

The following inscriptions record architectural works of Kudur-mabuk, and his sons Eri-Aku and Rim-Sin:-

Tablet Of Kudur-Mabuk Mentioning Eri-Aku.

(Dingir) Nannara To Nannara lugala-ni-r his king, Kudur-mabuk Kudur-mabuk, adda kura Martu father of Amoria, dumu Simti-il?ak son of Simti-il?ak.

Ud (dingir) Nannara When Nannara arazu-ni his prayer mu-igi-ginna received, ne-zila-ma?a ne-zila-ma?a (dingir) Nannara-kam for Nannara nam-tila-ni-u for his life, u nam-ti and the life Eri-Aku dumu-ni of Eri-Aku, his son, lugal Ararma-u king of Larsa, munanindu. he made.

"To Nannara, his king, Kudur-mabuk, father of the land of the Amorites, son of Simti-il?ak. When Nannara received his prayer he made for Nannara _ne-zila-ma?a_ for his life and the life of his son Arioch, king of Larsa."

Tablet Of Eri-Aku Mentioning Kudur-Mabuk, His Father.

Eri-(dingir) Aku Eri-Aku u kalagga powerful hero siba nig-zi everlasting shepherd ua Uri-(D. S.)-wa installed by Bel (dingir) Ellilli nourisher of Uriwa garra lugal Arar-(D. king of Larsa S.)-ma lugal Kiengi-(D. king of umer (and) S.)-Uragi Akkad dumu Kudur-mabuk son of Kudur-mabuk Adda Emutbala-men father of Yamutbalu am I.

Uriwa (D. S.) In Uriwa broad, dagal-e-ne mu maha dudune possessing an exalted name,

Col. II.

uu-na-bi to the peerless (?) ugul-immangaga supplication I have made.

(dingir) Nannara Nannara my king lugala-mu muine I have obeyed (?): bad gala ?ursag A great wall, high illa-dim u-nu-tutu like a mountain, impregnable, im-bi dul ea inspiring (?) its fear, munadu have I made, uru-ni ?immira its city may it protect.

bada-ba That wall (dingir) Nannara "Nannara the su?u mada gengen consolidator of the foundation of the land" is mu-bi-im its name.

"Arioch, the powerful hero, the everlasting shepherd installed by Bel, the nourisher of Uriwa, the king of Larsa, the king of umer and Akkad, the son of Kudur-mabug, the father of Yamutbalu, am I.

In broad Uriwa, possessing an exalted name, to the peerless one (?) have I made supplication, Nannara, my king, have I obeyed (?).

The great wall, high like a mountain, impregnable, inspiring (?) its fear, have I built-may it protect its city. The name of that wall is 'Nannara the consolidator of the foundation of the land.' "

[The above inscription is not without its difficulties, some of them formidable enough, but the general sense of the whole may be regarded as correctly made out.]

Tablet Of Rim-Sin.

(Dingir) Nin-sa? To Ninsa?

en galla abba age great lord, beloved father aga-gu-sag-gi knowing the gala-zu supplication of the heart sukkala ma?a exalted messenger, a-kua dingira (giving) heart-rest, galla great G.o.d dugga-ni i tul-du he who sends forth his hidden word lugal-a-ni-ir his king (dingir) Rim-Sin.

Rim-(dingir) Sin

siba gu kalama Nipri shepherd of all the (D. S.) people of Nippur me gikin he who fulfils the Gurudug-(D. S.)-ga word of the vine of su-dudu Eridu ua Uri-(D. S.)-wa nourisher of Uriwa e-ud-da-im-te-ga (and) e-udda-imtega lugal Arar-(D. king of Larsa S.)-ma

Col. II.

lugal Kengi-(D. king of umer and S.)-Ura-gi Akkad.

Ud Ana (dingir) When Anu, Bel, Ellila (dingir) En-ki (and) Ea, dingir-galgalene the great G.o.ds, Unuga (D. S.) uru du Erech, the ruined (?) city, u-mu-u into my hands manin-si-ea delivered (dingir) Ninsa? to Ninsa?, my king, lugala-mu-r gu-sagsaggi-da-mu-ta after my making supplication; e-da-agga-ummu e-dagga-ummu, ki-dura ki-agga-ni his beloved resting-place, nam-ti-mu-u for my life munadu. I built.

"To Ninsa?, the great lord, the beloved father, he who is aware of the supplication of the heart; the exalted messenger, (giving) rest to the heart, the great G.o.d who sendeth forth his hidden word-his king, Rim-Sin, shepherd of all the people of Niffer, who fulfilleth the word of the vine of eridu, nourisher of Uriwa (and) e-udda-imtega, king of Larsa, king of umer and Akkad. When Anu, Bel, and Ea, the great G.o.ds, delivered Erech, the ruined (?) city, into my hands, I built to Ninsa?, my king, after making supplication, e-dagga-ummu, his beloved seat, for (the saving of) my life."

This last text was found in the mound of Mugheir (Uriwa), and is of great interest, as it is dedicated to Ninsa?, the great messenger of the G.o.ds, and not to the G.o.d Sin or Nannara, the chief patron-deity of the city. It has also an interesting reference to the vine of eridu (see pp. 71 ff.), and apparently to his capture of the city of Erech, delivered into his hands by the G.o.ds Anu, Bel, and Ea. That he should represent himself as taking possession of the city by the will of Anu, the chief G.o.d of the city, whose name he mentions before the other two divinities, sheds a certain light upon the character of the man, whilst his military exploits, both at home and in the west, must have made him, like Chedorlaomer his fellow-countryman, and ?ammurabi his rival, one of the heroes of his time.

There now remain to be treated of Chedorlaomer and Tidal, the remaining two of the four allies who fought in that memorable conflict by the Dead Sea to bring into subjection their revolted va.s.sals.

From the time of their first discovery it has been felt that the occurrence of names containing the element Kudur-Kudur-mabuk, Kudur-Nan?undi, Kudur-Na??unte, etc.-was, in itself, excellent testimony to the correctness of the narrative in the 14th chapter of Genesis, where an Elamite king having _Chedor_ as the first element of his name, attacks and conquers, in alliance with certain kings of Babylonia, five petty rulers of a district on the sh.o.r.es of the Dead Sea. It was, however, naturally a matter of disappointment that the name of Chedorlaomer himself did not occur, for it was soon recognized that the identification, made by Sir Henry Rawlinson, of Kudur-mabuk (read Kudur-mapula) with Chedorlaomer could not be sustained. What was wanted, was some such name as Kudur-Lagamar or Kudur-Lagamal, the second element having been recognized in other texts as the name of the Elamite deity Lagamaru. It was to all appearance thought to be probable that the name of Tidal would be found.

Accordingly, when two tablets were referred to at the Congress of Orientalists held at Geneva in 1894 as containing the names Tud?ula, eri-Eaku (eri-Ekua), and another name read doubtfully as Kudur-la?(gu)mal, no publicly-expressed objection to their possible identification with Tidal, Arioch, and Chedorlaomer was made. The names were placed before the Semitic section of the Congress of Orientalists referred to, as recent discoveries, which were certain as far as they went, their identification being a matter of opinion.

None of these doc.u.ments are in a state of completeness, though one of them, a kind of poem, contains no less than 76 lines, more or less well preserved. The other two are of the nature, apparently, of historical legends, though they may be true historical doc.u.ments, and, though imperfect, are of great importance. Concerning the names which are contained in these texts there is but little or no doubt, though there may be doubt as to the way in which they ought to be read in consequence of the fanciful way in which they are written.