Chapter XXVI: Appendix: To the Third Edition (1)

The Hittites.

In consequence of the very important discoveries of the German explorers at Boghaz-Köi, the site of the ancient Hittite capital Ḫattu,(311) much light will be thrown on the ancient history, religion, manners, and customs of that portion of Western Asia, and Syria as well, together with the relations of the empire of the Hittites with Egypt. As far as can at present be judged, the language of the Hittites was Aryan, and the similar terminations in such Kassite(312) words as are known point to its being of the same family, and the same may, perhaps, be said of Mitannian.(313) The excavations at Boghaz-Köi began where fragments of tablets had already been found, namely, on the slope of the hill at Böyük-kale, the documents becoming more complete as the explorers went higher. Another mass of records was found at the foot of the hill, by the ruins of the temple. It was in the upper find that the Babylonian version of the treaty between Rameses II. and the Hittite king Ḫattušil was found. The founder of the dynasty was Šubbiluliuma, the name read _Sapalulu_ in the Egyptian version of the treaty. He was evidently a warrior-king, whose overlordship the state of Mitanni acknowledged, and seems to have been succeeded by his son Arandaš. The next ruler was Muršil, the _Maurasar_ of Egyptologists, who appears to have been a great conqueror. Muršil’s successor was his brother Mutallu (_Mautenel_), who, however, was apparently killed in a revolt, whereupon the renowned Ḫattušil (the _Khetasir_ of Egyptologists) mounted the throne. His queen was Pudu-ḫipa, and they had a son Dudḫalia, whose name recalls the Tidal (Tid’al) of the 14th chapter of Genesis, and the Tudḫula (or Tudḫul) of the tablets which apparently refer to Chedorlaomer and his allies.(314) In the Babylonian version of the treaty of Ḫattušil with Rameses II., we learn that the titles of the Egyptian king were _Wašmua-ria šatepuaria Ria-mašeša mâi Amana mâr Mim-mua-Ria binbin Min-paḫirita-Ria_, _i.e._ User-maat-ra Ra-messu Mery Amen, son of Men-maat-ra (Seti I.), grandson of Men-peḫti-ra (Rameses I.).(315)

The Ḫabiri.

Dr. Hugo Winckler, the explorer of Boghaz-Köi, who has published many interesting details of the result of his researches, states that parallel passages prove the identity of the Sa-gas (_see_ pp. 291, 292) of the Tel-al-Amarna tablets with the Ḫabiri, and that not only the Sa-gas people, but also the Sa-gas gods are referred to. For these latter, he says, compare the image of the “valley of the _’oberim_” (translated “them that pass”) in Ezekiel (xxxix. 11), in which further justification of the comparison of _ḫabiri_ and _’eber_ (Eber, regarded as the ancestor of the _’Ibrim_ or Hebrews) results. One would like to have further details of the learned explorer’s opinions upon this point. To all appearance the connection of _’oberim_ with _’eber_ would involve a change in the vocalization. For the author, the difficulty of connecting _ḫabiri_ with _’Ibrim_ (Hebrews) still continues to exist. The connection of _ḫabiri_ with _’Ibri_ (Hebrew) requires that the _ain_ should have been pronounced as _ghain_, and the Septuagint generally gives _gh_ when it was so pronounced.(316) In _’Ibrim_, however, this is not the case, and Prof. Swete has only the soft breathing in his edition.

A Letter Apparently From Prince Belshazzar (_see_ pp. 446-451).

This is evidently one of the documents obtained by Mr. Hormuzd Rassam at Sippar (Abu-habbah), as the reference to Bunene, one of the deities of the city, shows. Unfortunately, it is very defective, there being only eight lines (five of them incomplete) on the obverse, and the remains of the last three lines of the communication on the reverse. What makes it probable that the Belshazzar who sent the letter is the son of Nabonidus, and the hero of the fall of Babylon, is, that no honorific expressions are used with reference to the person to whom it is addressed—he does not call Mušêzib-Marduk his lord, or father, or brother, as was the custom in private correspondence. As far as it is preserved, the following is a rendering of this document, which is of interest mainly on account of the personality of its assumed writer—

“Letter of Bêl-šarra-uṣur to Mušêzib-Marduk. May the gods grant thee prosperity. Behold, I have sent Bêl-šunu and ... the (two) _mašmašē_, to.... Send the requirements for the robes (?) of the deity Bunene....

(Several lines are wanting here.)

... I have caused ... to be ... the threshold ... may all....”

The documents referring to Belshazzar’s residence at Sippar, are mentioned on pp. 414, 449, 450.

The Aramaic Papyri From Elephantine.

These noteworthy documents, which have attracted considerable attention, were found in the ruins of the city which lie at the southern point of the island. Almost all the brick-built private houses of Elephantine are in a ruinous state, partly due to the ravages of time, but principally to the Fellahin, who have for many years dug there for garden-mould. To the south of the place where Mr. Mond’s Aramaic papyri(317) are said to have been found, Greek papyri were discovered, but proceeding north of that point, the German explorers soon came upon the Aramaic fragments. Those first found are said to have been in earthen vessels, but the most important of them (the texts translated below) were buried, without any protective covering, close to the eastern and southern walls of the room in which they lay. To all appearance these last had escaped the notice of the earlier excavators, who had thrown them away with the rubbish cast aside as containing nothing more worth carrying off.

The text of the most perfect of them reads as follows—

“To our lord Bagohi, governor of Judea, thy servants Yedoniah and his companions, the priests in the fortress of Yeb, salutation! May our Lord, the God of heaven, grant (thee) prosperity at all times, and set thee in favour before Darius the king, and the sons of the (royal) house a thousandfold more than now, and may He give thee long life. Be at all times joyful and firm. Now speak thy servants Yedoniah and his companions as follows—

“In the month Tammuz in the 14th year of Darius the king, when Arsâm (Asames) had marched forth and gone to the king, the priests of the god Khnub, who are in Yeb, the fortress, [made] with Waidrang, who is the governor here, a secret union of the following nature—

“ ‘The temple of Yahû, the god who is in Yeb, the fortress, shall be removed(318) from that place.’

“Thereupon that Waidrang, the _laḫya_,(319) sent letters to Nephayan, his son, who was commander-in-chief in Syene, the fortress, saying—

“ ‘The temple which is in Yeb, the fortress, they shall destroy.’

“Thereupon Nephayan brought in Egyptians, together with other warriors; they came to the fortress of Yeb together with their _tali_,(320) penetrated into that temple, destroyed it down to the ground. And they shattered the stone columns which were there. It also happened, (that) they shattered the seven stone doors,(321) built out of a hewn block of stone, which were in that temple, and their heads, they ...(322) and their hinges which were in the marble, those were of brass,(323) and the roofing, consisting wholly of cedar beams, together with the plaster pavement (?) of the forecourt (?) and other (things) which were there—all this have they burned with fire. And the sacrificial dishes of gold and silver, and the things which were in that temple, all have they taken and have used as their own. And since the days of the kings of Egypt have our fathers built that temple in Yeb, the fortress. And when Cambyses came up to Egypt, he found that temple (already) built, but they pulled all the temples of the gods of Egypt down. In that temple, on the contrary, no one had destroyed anything.

“And after they had done this, we, with our wives and children, wore mourning-garments, fasted, and prayed to Yahû, the lord of heaven, who had given us warning concerning that Waidrang, the _kalbya_.(324) They have taken the chains(325) away from his feet, and all the treasures, which he had acquired, have gone to ruin. And all the men who wished evil to that temple, have all been killed, and we have been witnesses thereof.

“Also before this, at the time when this evil was committed upon us, did we send a letter to our lord, and to Yehoḥanan, the high-priest, and his companions, the priests who were in Jerusalem, and to Ostan (Ostanes), his brother, that is, ’Anani,(326) and the free ones (princes) of the Jews. They have not sent us one letter (in reply).

“Also since the days of Tammuz of the 14th year of Darius the king, and until this day, we wear mourning-garments and fast, our wives have been made as a widow, we have not anointed (ourselves with) oil nor drunk wine. Also since then and until (this) day of the 17th year of Darius the king they have not made food-offerings, incense-offerings, and burnt-offerings in that temple.

“Moreover, thy servants, Yedoniah and his companions, and the Jews, all citizens of Yeb, speak as follows—

“ ‘If it be good to our lord, mayest thou consider upon that temple, for its rebuilding, as they do not allow us to rebuild it. Look to the receivers of thy benefits and favours, who are here in Egypt. Let a letter be sent from thee to them with regard to the temple of the god Yahû, to rebuild it in Yeb, the fortress, even as it was heretofore built. And they shall offer food-offerings and incense-offerings and burnt-offerings upon the altar of the god Yahû in thy name. And we will pray for thee at every time—we and our wives and our children and all the Jews who are here, if they(327) have then worked until that temple is rebuilt.

“ ‘And a share shall be thine before Yahû the god of heaven from the man who offers to him a burnt-offering and a sacrifice, a value equal to the worth of a silver (shekel) for (every) 1000 talents.(328) And with regard to the gold, concerning that we have sent and given instruction. We have also sent everything in a letter in our name to Delaiah and Shelemiah, sons of Sanaballat, governor of Samaria. Also Arsames had no knowledge of all that which has been done unto us.’

“On the 20th of Marcheswan in the year 17 of Darius the king.”

A fragment of a duplicate gives some instructive variants of this exceedingly interesting document, from which it would appear that gold and treasure was given to Waidrang to induce him to act against the temple of Yahû at Yeb.

To this plea on the part of Yedoniah and the Jewish congregation at Yeb a favourable answer was given, as the following document shows—

“Memorandum of what Bagohi and Delaiah said to me—Memorandum as follows—

“ ‘Thou shalt speak in Egypt before Arsames concerning the temple of the sacrificial altar of the God of Heaven which is in Yeb, the fortress, before our time, before Cambyses, which Waidrang, that _lahia_,(329) destroyed in the 14th year of Darius the king, to rebuild it in its place, as it was formerly. And they shall offer food-offerings and incense upon that altar, even as was wont to be done formerly.’ ”

Nothing could be more satisfactory than this little episode of the Jewish colony at Yeb—it needs but the discovery of the record of the rebuilding and the inauguration of the temple to round it off.

Bagohi governor of Judea is the Bagoas or Bagoses of Josephus, _Antiquities of the Jews_, xi. 7. The high-priest Johannes or John (the Yoḫanan mentioned on p. 539) had slain his brother Jesus in the temple, because the latter, supported by Bagoas, sought to dispute with him the High-priesthood. Notwithstanding the protests of the Jews, Bagoas penetrated into the temple, and imposed upon it a fine of 50 drachmas for every lamb sacrificed therein. It will thus be seen, that in offering to him a percentage of the sacrifices in return for his support in rebuilding the temple at Yeb, Yedoniah and his companions were acting in accordance with what was known to be his character. The reference to Yohanan’s refraining from helping them, it is reasonable to suppose, also occurred to them as likely to further their desires.

Yedoniah, the chief of the Jewish colony at Yeb and the writer of the longer document, is probably likewise named in the Oxford papyri—he was either Yedoniah ben Hosea or Yedoniah ben Meshullam, but could not have been identified with a third of the name, Yedoniah ben Nathan, as this last is stated to have been an Aramean of Syene. We have to await further light upon his identity.

Arsames, who is mentioned in the second paragraph (p. 537), is probably, as Sachau points out, the Arsanes of Ktesias, who was governor of Egypt when Darius II. mounted the throne. He left Egypt and went to the court of Darius, and the priests of Chnum(330) in Elephantine profited by his absence to destroy the Jewish temple there. In this they were supported by Waidrang, who, in the absence of Arsames, seems to have exercised the office of governor. To all appearance he had been commander-in-chief of the army in Egypt, a post held, at the time this document was written, by Nephyan his son. There is some doubt as to the reading and vocalization of the name Waidrang, and consequently, also, as to its true form, but it is regarded as certainly Persian. It is thought that its Persian prototype may have been _Vayu-darengha_,(331) “companion of the wind-god,” whilst his son’s name, in Persian, is possibly _Napâo-yâna_, “favour of the god Napâo.” Should these identifications be found correct, they will have, as Sachau remarks, considerable value in ascertaining the principle upon which names in Persian were given.

To all appearance Arsames returned to Egypt, and a reaction followed which ended in the disgrace of Waidrang and his followers, who were deprived of the spoils which they had stolen from the temple at Yeb, and the Jews also became, in the end, witnesses of the death of all their persecutors. It seems probable that the central government was greatly displeased at the action of Waidrang and the priests of Chnub, for the Persians seem always to have been well-disposed towards the Jews—moreover, cupidity, and not the good of the state, was at the bottom of Waidrang’s action. The destruction wrought, however, was not immediately made good, hence this document, which throws such a vivid light upon the state of Egypt and the Jews in those days. It is but just to the Persians of that period to say, that notwithstanding their seemingly Persian names, Waidrang and his son were apparently not Persians, but possibly Semites, as the (probably gentilic) adjectives applied to the former seem to show.

The date of this document is regarded as not admitting of any doubt, as may be gathered by the references to the regnal years of Darius in conjunction with the names of historical personages—Bagohi (Bagoas or Bagoses of Josephus), governor of Judea, Yehoḥanan or John, the high-priest at Jerusalem, and the two sons of Sanaballaṭ,(332) the governor of Samaria in the time of Artaxerxes I. (Longimanus). The ruler of the Persian empire when these documents were written, must therefore have been Darius II. (Nothus), who reigned for 19 years, namely, 424-405 B.C. The 14th year of Darius II.—the date of the destruction of the temple at Yeb—was 410 B.C., and his 17th year—the date when the appeal was sent to Bagohi—corresponds with 407 B.C. This fixes, among others, the date of Yehoḥanan, and Sachau points out as noteworthy that one of his brothers, named Manasseh, was son-in-law of the governor of Samaria, Sanaballaṭ, as related in Nehemiah xiii. 28. Another brother of the high-priest was the one whom he killed in the temple (Jesus). In this record, however, a third brother, Ostan or Ostanes, appears. To all appearance this last bore also another name, to wit, ’Ahani, which would be his true Hebrew appellation. If, however, the Babylonian construction has been followed here, this Ostan or Ostanes would be brother of ’Ahani, a personage of importance in Jerusalem, but not otherwise known. Adopting the rendering given in the translation, however, it is noteworthy that two brothers named Yehoḥanan and ’Ahani are mentioned in 1 Chronicles iii. 24. These, however, were descendants of David, whereas the brothers mentioned in the papyrus must have been descendants of Aaron.

A high Persian official named _Uštanu or Uštannu (Ostanu_ or _Ostan_) occurs on two Babylonian tablets in the British Museum, and also on one in the possession of Lord Amherst of Hackney. He bears the title “governor of Babylon and across the river,” possibly meaning all the tract west of the Euphrates. This man, however, can hardly at the same time have been governor of Egypt, and the texts in which he is mentioned seem, moreover, to belong to the time of Darius Hystaspis, in which case he lived at a much too early date.

The Egyptians called the island of Elephantine Yeb, and its capital bore the same name as the island. It is transcribed Ab by those who follow the old system of reading Egyptian, so that the present documents seem to support the philological views of the Berlin school. A common ideograph for the name of the island is an elephant with an upturned trunk, showing that Yeb really means “elephant-island,” and that Elephantine is simply the Greek translation of the native name. The temple of Khnum (Khnumba, Khnub), whose priests are referred to in the papyri, was destroyed by Moḥammed Ali in 1822.

The Hebrew divine name is written Yahu, which is apparently the longer form of the biblical Jah, seen in such names as Hezekiah (Assyrian _Ḫazaqi-yau_), Gemariah or Gemariahu (Jer. xxix. 3; xxxvi. 10, etc.). As is shown on p. 471, this termination was pronounced _iāwa_ by the Babylonian Jews, which raises the question whether the Yahu of these papyri may not have been pronounced _Yāwa_ also.

Dr. L. Belleli, of the Philological Section of the _Instituto di Studi Superiori_ in Florence, doubts the genuineness of the papyri found at Elephantine on account of chronological difficulties. In the case of the documents here translated, however, no such difficulties can be said to exist, and the forger of such things would have to be not only a splendid Aramaic scholar acquainted with the Berlin scheme of transcribing Egyptian, but also a historian and the possessor of an exceedingly lively imagination.

The above description is based upon Eduard Sachau’s noteworthy monograph, _Drei aramäische Papyrusurkunden aus Elephantine_, Berlin, Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1907. The documents in question were discovered by Dr. Otto Rubensohn, and the collection included some papyri still in roll-form, and various fragments. The principal document translated above belonged to the former category, and was successfully unrolled by Herr Ibscher, the keeper of the Royal Museum. The reproduction shows it as a large sheet of papyrus, folded in two, and certain damaged portions, on the left, imply that it was rolled upon itself about six times.

NOTES AND ADDITIONS.

P. 11. It is needful to state, as has been pointed out to the writer, that “our English translation would make all (the Biblical Creation-story) appear English.” In other words, the test of language is not an unfailing one.

Pp. 14-15. To the names of translators of the Babylonian Creation-stories must be added P. Jensen, and W. L. King, who has published important additions to the text.

P. 21, l. 4. Alternative rendering: “He beheld Tiamtu’s snarling” (see the note to p. 24).

P. 22. With the first paragraph on this page the contents of the third tablet, and with the last paragraph those of the fourth, begin.

P. 24. Instead of “they clustered around him,” Jensen translates (doubtfully), “they ran round about him,” and King, “they beheld him.” Something may be said in favour of each, but the rendering of the text seems more probable. Also, instead of “Examining the lair,” I am inclined to return to my earlier rendering, “Noting the snarling of Kingu, her consort.” The four succeeding lines read:—

“He looks, and his advance(333) becomes confused,
His understanding is destroyed, and his action fails (?),
And the gods, his helpers, going by his side,
Saw the [con]fusion (??) of their leader, (and) their sight was
troubled (too).”

King attributes this fear and confusion not to Merodach, but to Kingu and his followers, which would seem to be more consistent, but the difficulty is, that the original gives no indication that this was the case. Further discoveries may throw light upon the point.

P. 27. The Lumaši (l. 2), according to _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. III., pl. 57, were seven constellations, and seem to have been included in the thirty-six stars or constellations mentioned two lines lower down. A list of these will be found in the _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_ for 1900, pp. 573-575.

P. 28, l. 29. The translation of this line is based on that of Mr. L. W. King, who first published the text. The word for “bone” is _iṣṣimtum_, the Heb. _’eṣem_, Arab. _’adhm_. If the word be correctly read (the character _tum_ is doubtful), it is possibly connected with _êṣimtum_, which translates the Sumerian character standing for a weapon or a long straight object.

Pp. 29-31. Tutu and other names given to Merodach in this section are referred to on pp. 45-46. By “the people” in line 15 (p. 30) are apparently to be understood the gods.

P. 44. Other names of the goddess Aruru, who assisted Merodach in the creation of man, are “the lady potter,” “the constructor of the world,” “the constructor of the gods,” “the constructor of mankind,” “the constructor of the heart.” Aruru was the goddess of progeny, and is one of the forty-one names by which “the lady of the gods” was known. An interesting Sumerian (dialectic) hymn to her exists in the Brussels Museum.

P. 47, ll. 29-32. Instead of “in their (the fallen gods’) room,” Jensen suggests, “for their redemption.” That the fallen gods were to be redeemed (lit.: “spared”) by the merits of the race of men which Merodach created is a new idea, which further information may confirm.(334)

P. 59, l. 13. Ea is the Aê of the preceding pages, the Oannes of Damascius. There is reason to believe that the name was also read Aa, which would account for the Greek form which he employs, and likewise for the identification of this god with the Aa of l. 4 and the following paragraph.

P. 63, l. 27. Perhaps the most interesting of recent discoveries is the identification (by Prof. Zimmern) of Euedoreschos with the Enweduranki of the tablet described on p. 77. The original Greek form must have been Euedoranchos (see the note to the page mentioned). Euedocus (l. 21) is probably the Sumero-Akkadian En-me-duga.

P. 67. For further notes in connection with Tiamat, see the discussion of Delitzsch’s _Babel und Bibel_ at the end, pp. 529-532. It is noteworthy that this name heads the list of abodes of the gods published in the _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_ for Dec., 1900, pp. 367-369. The explanation is unfortunately broken away, but it may be surmised that as the goddess of the watery wastes of the earth she was described as the abode of the gods who were regarded as her followers.

P. 72. The description of Tammuz as “the peerless mother of heaven” is probably to be explained by the fact, that _ama-gala_, “great mother,” is one of the Sumerian words for “forest,” and Tammuz was identified with the forest of Eridu, the divine abode where he dwelt.

P. 73. For Pir-napištim, Ut-napištim is a possible reading (see below, note to p. 99).

For further notes upon the trees of Paradise, see pp. 531.

P. 77. Euedoranchos. The forms of this name, as handed down, are Εὐεδωραχος, Εὐεδωρεσχος, and Εὐερωδεσχος. Eusebius’s Chronicle, however, gives the best form, namely, Edoranchus.

P. 78, l. 20. Perhaps it would be better to say that the Hebrew accounts of the Creation “probably came from Babylonia”—they may not have originated there.

Pp. 80-82. For further remarks upon the cherubin, see p. 533. In “the _kurub_ of Anu, Bel,” etc., which also occurs, we probably have a variant form.

P. 83, ll. 1-5. It is noteworthy that Ablum (“Son”) as a personal name actually occurs (De Sarzec, _Découvertes_, pl. 30 bis, No. 19). Compare Ablaa, “my son,” p. 533, l. 12.

P. 90. For further information about the name Gilgameš, see the _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_ for 1903, pp. 198-199. Prof. Hommel has pointed out that an inscription exists stating that he built the fortress of Erech, thus bringing him almost within the domain of history.

P. 99. (The Legend of Gilgameš.) Dr. Meissner’s discovery of a fragment of a new version of the Gilgameš-legend(335) is a most welcome addition to our knowledge. A description of this text will be found in the _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_ for March and May, 1903, where a comparison of the two versions is also given. It speaks of his visit to the land of darkness in quest of his friend Ea-banî (whose name, as this inscription indicates, should properly be read Enki-du or Ea(Aê, Aa)-du). In the second column it details his conversation with Siduri (“the _Sabitu_”), in which he refers to the death of his beloved companion, since whose departure he had not sought to live, but having seen her face, he expresses the hope that he will now not see death. The _Sabitu_, however, answers him to the effect that he would not find the life which he sought—death was the lot which the gods had set for mankind. Eat, therefore, make festival, rejoice day and night, put on fine apparel, take pleasure in child and wife—such was her advice. In the last column of this version the hero meets with Sur-Sunabu (Ur-Šanabi), who asks him his name. Gilgameš tells him who he is and whence he came, and asks to be shown Uta-naištim, the remote, as the Babylonian Noah seems to be called in this version of the legend. About one-third of the tablet, giving the lower parts of columns 1 and 2, and the upper parts of columns 3 and 4, is the amount preserved.

The above seems to show, that the name of the friend of Gilgameš was Êa-du, (Aa-du, Aê-du, or Enki-du), not Êa-banî; whilst Ur-Šanabi the boatman, was really called Sur-Sunabu (or Sur-Šanabi); and Pir-napištim, the Babylonian Noah, was Ut-napištim.

P. 104, ll. 1 and 6. Jensen suggests, for _muir kukki_, the translation “rulers of darkness(?)”:—

“(If) the rulers of darkness cause to rain down one evening a rain of dirt (?),

Enter into the ship, and shut thy door!”

That period arrived;

“The rulers of darkness rain down one evening a rain of dirt (?).”

_Muir_, however, seems to be singular, not plural. Another meaning of the word is “messenger.”

P. 108, l. 35. If this translation be correct, the throwing down of a part of the food recalls the casting of meal on the ground as an offering to the gods. It is not unlikely that the preparation of the food, and setting it by his head, was accompanied by some prayer or incantation to secure his recovery, as in the inscription translated in the _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, May, 1901, pp. 193 and 205-210. Sleeping with a cruse of water near the head (1 Sam. xxvi. 11-12) was probably simply a provision against thirst, with no special meaning. On p. 111, there is just the possibility that “The leavings of the dish” were what was allowed to remain therein for the gods, and “the rejected of the food” may have been that which was thrown on the ground as an offering.

P. 113, ll. 19 ff. A number of the deities identified with the god Ea or Aa are given in the _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. II., pl. 58, and form a parallel with the inscription printed on p. 58. Deities seem also to have been identified with Nebo. The centres where these gods were worshipped therefore had likewise their monotheistic system, in which all the other gods were identified with the patron-deity of the place, just as those Babylonians who worshipped Merodach identified all the other gods with him.

P. 119. There has been a great deal of discussion as to the way in which Šumer could be connected with Shinar, the chief reasons against their identification being that the latter must have come from a Babylonian form, of whose existence there is no evidence, and that it stood for the whole country (except, possibly, Larsa), whereas Šumer was the name of the southern part only. Hommel derives the Biblical Shinar from Ki-Imgir, through the intermediate forms Shingar, Shumir (Šumer) and Shimir. This is based upon the tendency which _k_ had to change into _š_, whilst the substitution of _m_ for an older _g_ or _ng_ can be proved. As, however, Shinar corresponds practically with the whole of Babylonia, a modification of Prof. Hommel’s etymology may, perhaps, best meet the case. The whole of the country was called by the Sumerians Kingi (or Kengi) Ura, and the expression _mâda Kingi-Ura_ is rendered, in the lists, _mât Šumeri u Akkadī_, “the land of Sumer and Akkad.” It is therefore clear, that Kingi-Ura corresponds with the whole tract, and is practically synonymous with the Biblical Shinar. The change from _k_ to _š (sh)_ being provable, it is possible that Kingi-Ura, pronounced Shingi-Ura, may have originated the Hebrew form Shinar (better Shin’ar), through the intermediate forms Shingura and Shingar.

The statement that Elam was the firstborn of Shem (Gen. x. 22) receives illustration from the fact, that many inscriptions have been found showing that Semitic Babylonian was not only well known, but also used in that country. From the order in which the names occur in Genesis, it ought to be the earliest of the Semitic settlements, coming before Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram. If, however, Arpachshad stand, as is generally thought, for Babylonia, it is quite clear that there is no indication of chronological order in this, for Assyria was certainly younger, as a Semitic settlement, than Babylonia, and it would seem that Elam was colonized with Semites from the last-named country. This would make Elam to be simply the first Semitic colony, as Prof. Scheil has already suggested.

A good example of the slim racial type is shown on pl. V., second seal-impression. For a long time after the Sumerians had become one nation with the Semitic Babylonians, the type of the figures represented on the cylinder-seals and sculptures remained unchanged, and it is on this account that Ḫammurabi is portrayed, on the slab reproduced as pl. I., in the old non-Semitic costume. The early Semitic type is shown on pl. III., no. 1 (no. 2 shows the late Assyrian type). In pl. VI. the Sumerian style is there, but the type is rather thick. This, however, may be partly due to the sliding of the cylinder when the impression was taken.

P. 124. Sargon of Agadé’s conquests, according to the omens referring to his reign, were as follows:—(paragraph 1) Elam, (2) the land of the Amorites, (4 and 5) the land of the Amorites (twice), (6) doubtful, (7) he crossed the sea of the rising of the sun, and the reference to three years in that district seems to refer to the time he stayed there, (8) apparently no expedition, (9) he ravaged the land of Kazalla, (10) he put down a revolt in his own country, (11) he fought against Suri or Sumaštu.

P. 125, l. 27. The old Sumerian or Akkadian laws are only known to us from a few specimens preserved in the tablets of grammatical paradigms (the series _Ana itti-šu_), and will be found on pp. 190-191. It is probable that they were made use of in compiling the Code of Ḫammurabi.

P. 127, l. 21 ff. But perhaps it was the city of Aššur which came forth from Babylonia (_i.e._ was a Babylonian colony), and its ever-increasing inhabitants who founded the other cities mentioned.

P. 130 (the derivation of Nimrod). Another suggestion is, that Nimrod may be the name of Merodach, as “Lord of Marad” (Nin-Marad). As far as I have been able to see, however, this name of Merodach does not occur, and moreover, it was Nergal, and not Merodach, who was lord of Marad—Merodach’s city was Babylon. Prof. Hommel’s acute suggestion, that Namra-ṣit may be a Babylonian form of Nimrod, would seem to be doubtful.

P. 131 (Merodach’s net). The bow of Merodach, after his fight with Tiamtu, was placed in the heavens, and seemingly became one of the constellations, but we do not hear of any similar honour having been conferred on his net, notwithstanding the great service which it had rendered him. In Habakkuk i. 15-17 there is a curious passage in which “the Chaldean” is described as catching men with his angle and his net, as fishes are caught, and making sacrifice to his net and his drag on account of his success with them. Heuzey, the well-known French Assyriologist and antiquarian, makes a comparison between this passage and the Vulture-stele, on which an ancient Babylonian prince is represented as having placed his conquered foes in a great net. This, however, does not explain the statement that the Chaldean sacrificed and offered incense to his net and his drag, and it is doubtful whether the Prophet had either that or any similar sculpture or picture in his mind. There is, nevertheless, just the possibility that the Babylonians were accustomed to pay divine honours to the net of Merodach, and this may have given rise to the statement in the passage quoted. Whether the relief on the Vulture-stele be derived from the legend of Merodach or not, is doubtful—in all probability it merely expresses a simile derived from catching wild animals with a net, as exhibited by the sculptures of Aššur-banî-âpli in the Assyrian Saloon of the British Museum.

Pp. 132-133. With regard to the statements on these pages, the Rev. John Tuckwell writes: “Gen. xi. 1 must in all fairness be regarded as going back prior to ch. x, in order to tell the history of Babylon from its foundation. Again:—Why contradict Genesis? We do not know who ‘began’ to build Babylon—Sayce suggests ‘Etana.’ It is quite possible that ‘they left off to build the city,’ and resumed the work under Nimrod. There is no need to regard any of the statements as ‘interpolations’ if thus read. If all mankind perished by the Flood, as both stories appear to teach, there must surely have been a time when ‘the whole earth was of one language.’ ”

P. 134. For the derivation of Shinar, see the note to p. 119.

P. 136. The Mohammedan legend of the Tower of Babel, as told in the Persian work, _Rauzat-us-Safa_,(336) may be interesting. It is as follows:—

“When Nimrud had witnessed the extinction of the pile of fire, and had beheld the roses produced therein by the benign Creator, he aspired to ascend to heaven.... Nimrud ... spent many years in erecting a tower, which was so high that the bird of imagination could not reach its summit. When it was completed, he ascended to the pinnacle of the spire, but the aspect of the heavens remained precisely the same as from the surface of the earth. This astonished and perplexed him. The next day the tower fell, and such a fearful noise struck the ears of the inhabitants of Babel that most of them fainted from the effects thereof; and when they had recovered their senses they forgot their own language, so that every tribe spoke a different idiom, and seventy-two tongues became current among them.”

P. 136, l. 3 from below. Nannara was the moon-god, the same as Sin. L. 6 from below, read _Ê-bar-igi-ê-di_.

P. 144, l. 9 from below. The Rev. C. H. W. Johns, in his Assyrian deeds and documents, has pointed out the likeness of the names _Naḫiri_ and _Naḫarau_ (or _Naḫarâu_) to Nahor, referred to by Kittel in his little book upon Delitzsch’s _Babel und Bibel_.(337) _Naḫiru_, however, is the common Assyro-Babylonian word for “nostril,” and is also the name of a creature of the sea supposed to be the dolphin. _Naḫarâu_ it may be noted, notwithstanding the absence of the prefix of divinity, bears every appearance of being a name like _Bêl-Yau_ on p. 59, the initial _y_ or _i_ being omitted as in the case of _Au-Aa_ seven lines lower down. Judging from analogy, _Naharâu_ should mean “Naḫar is Jah,” but whether this has anything to do with the name Nahor or not is doubtful—as Assyrian equivalent we should rather expect _Naḫuru_.

P. 145, l. 11 from below. The name of a Babylonian district called Pulug occurs in a Babylonian geographical list, and may be the same as Peleg. Though the ideogram is different, this is possibly the same as the Pulukku of the _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. II., pl. 52, l. 53, where it is explained as _Bît ḫarê_, “the house of the cutting,” or “excavation.” The Babylonians would therefore seem to have regarded Pulug or Pulukku as referring to the division of the land of Babylon by the cutting of the irrigation-channels which gave it its fertility.

P. 146, l. 4. There is no great probability that the name Terah has anything to do with _Tarḫu_, which occurs in certain names found in Assyrian contracts (Johns, _Assyrian Deeds_, pp. 127, 458, etc.).

P. 147, l. 4 from below. The family of Terah may, however, have become pastoral on leaving Ur of the Chaldees.

P. 148 (Abram). According to Prof. Breasted (_American Journal of Semitic Studies_, Oct. 1904) mention is made in the geographical list of Shishak at Karnak of “the field of Abram,” and if this identification be correct, it is the earliest reference to the great ancestor of the Hebrews and the nations associated with them, though it cannot be said that the date (time of Jeroboam and Rehoboam) is a very remote one. Owing to the same Egyptian character being used for both _r_ and _l_, Maspéro read the word as the plural of _’abel_, “meadow.”

P. 150, l. 23. Illustrations of the old Akkadian (or Sumerian) laws will be found in the contracts of adoption of Bêl-êzzu and Arad-Išḫara on pp. 176 and 177. The laws themselves are given on p. 190.

P. 152, second paragraph. It is needful to state that a few Semitic Babylonian inscriptions of an exceedingly early date (seemingly before 3000 B.C.) exist, likewise a few Sumero-Akkadian texts after 2300 B.C., and the periods of the two languages therefore overlap. Judging from the inscriptions, however, Sumero-Akkadian goes back to a date much earlier than the earliest Semitic, but it was to all appearance hardly used after the period of the dynasty of Ḫammurabi.

P. 158, l. 11. The Gutites were probably Medes.

P. 161, l. 11. It is not improbable that Sippar-Amnanu means simply “Amonite Sippar,” the second word of the compound being apparently from Amna,(338) which is possibly the Babylonian form of the name of the Egyptian sun-god, Amon. _Ya’ruru_ is seemingly the old form of Aruru, one of the names of Ištar, who was also worshipped there.

P. 166. The wedding-gift was to all appearance the price paid by the bridegroom for the bride, in this case handed to the bride’s brother and sister. For the laws concerning this payment, see Ḫammurabi’s Code, sections 163 and 164 (p. 505). It was generally handed to the bride’s father (upon a dish, according to _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. v., pl. 24, ll. 48-51_cd_).(339) Instead of “Ammi-ṭitana the king,” Dr. Schor reads Ammi-ṭitana-šarrum, _i.e._ as the name of a man, meaning “Ammi-ṭitana is king.” If this be correct, the document is not a record of the marriage of a princess.

P. 168. The grain given to Šeritum was probably of the nature of a deposit—according to Ḫammurabi’s Code, sect. 257, the wages of a reaper were not one _gur_ of grain, but eight.

P. 173-174. Upon the question of adoption, see Ḫammurabi’s Code, sections 185-193. As there is no indication, in these enactments, that female children were included, it is doubtful whether Ana-Aa-uzni and Aḫḫ-ayabi had any remedy in case of repudiation, or refusal to perform all the conditions. Calling the gods to witness was probably regarded as being a sufficient safeguard. Nevertheless, the usage of the language was such that “daughtership” could be included in “sonship.”

Pp. 174 ff. It is noteworthy that, in this contract, there is no indication of the second wife having been taken to vex the first (Lev. xviii. 18, A.V.), and as the second was to be subordinate to the first, rivalling (as the R.V. translates) was as far as possible prevented. As the children already born are referred to (p. 175, l. 20), the second marriage could not have been due to the absence of offspring, and it may therefore be supposed that the second wife was taken on account of the ill-health of the first (Ḫammurabi’s Code, sect. 148). This is supported by the clauses referring to the services which Iltani was to perform for her “sister.”

P. 176. The adoption of Bêl-êzzu illustrates section 191 of Ḫammurabi’s Code. Both are based upon the Sumerian laws translated on pp. 190 and 191. The word translated “deep” (line 19) is one generally used for the ocean, the abode of Ea (Aa), god of the waters. It may have been something similar to “the brazen sea” in the temple at Jerusalem.

P. 177. Arad-Išḫara was evidently adopted under the same law and enactment as the foregoing. The declaration of the foster-father of his right to have children is interesting.

Upon the adoption of Karanatum, compare pp. 173 and 174, with the note thereon.

Pp. 178 and 179. The three tablets giving equal portions to each of the three brothers, illustrate sections 165 and 167 of the Code, which enacts that all brothers shall share equally. Any gift or share in the property left by the mother would probably be recorded on another document.

P. 180. Laws 178 ff. of Ḫammurabi’s Code show that votaries and priestesses had special privileges in the matter of inheriting property, and it would seem from the tablet of Erištum, the sodomite or public woman, that her station did not allow her the choice, that being the right of her sister, Amat-Šamaš, priestess of the sun.

P. 181. Naramtum apparently had no children, and seems to have been divorced in accordance with section 138 of Ḫammurabi’s Code.

P. 185. The case of Šamaš-nûri is illustrated by sections 144-146 of Ḫammurabi’s Code.

Pp. 187 and 188. The conditions of the hiring of a slave were probably those of the old Sumerian law translated on p. 191.

P. 199, l. 26. Elamite overlordship was naturally coextensive with that of Babylon as long as the latter power acknowledged Elamite supremacy.

P. 201, l. 5 from below. _Qanni_ is probably one of the Assyro-Babylonian words for “sanctuary.”

P. 203. In addition to the deities mentioned, Aššur-banî-âpli (Assurbanipal) speaks of the goddess Nin-gala, the “great lady” or “queen,” as having a temple called Ê-gipara at Haran. She is mentioned with Nusku (p. 202) and is called “the mother of the gods,” Šamaš, the sungod, being described as her firstborn. To all appearance she was the consort of the Moongod, Nannar.

P. 208, last line. “Yoke of the _Elamites_” would probably have been the better term. (See the note to p. 199.)

P. 209, l. 8 from below. Oppert always refused to accept the identification of Amraphel with Ḫammurabi.

P. 222, l. 4 from below. It would appear from the Babylonian lists that Tudḫula may be read simply Tudḫul, notwithstanding the final _a_ at the end.

P. 243, ll. 25 ff. The name Aqabi-îlu (p. 463, l. 15) is similarly formed to that of Ya’kubi-îlu, and from the same root, but it is not identical with it. There is no probability that Egibi (p. 439, l. 2, etc.) has any connection with the name Jacob, as has been suggested. Its connection with the (? Assyrian) name Ḫakkubu seems to be still more unlikely. Upon these and similar names, see Hommel, “_Ancient Hebrew Tradition_,”(340) p. 112.

P. 246, l. 5. If my memory serves me, the name Gadu-ṭâbu, “the fortune is good,” occurs on a contract-tablet in the British Museum. (I unfortunately forgot to make note of it at the time, hence my inability to give the reference.)

P. 249, after the first paragraph. Jacob’s wrestling with “a man” (Gen. xxxii. 24 ff.) brings out the interesting name Peniel or Penuel (vv. 30 and 31), explained as “the face of God,” so called because he had there “seen God face to face.” A similar name to this is the Babylonian _Ana-pâni-îli_, “to the face of God,” sometimes shortened to _Appâni-îli_. The documents bearing the latter are of the time of Samsu-iluna, and are therefore rather earlier than the time of Jacob. Besides the meaning given above, other renderings are possible, and the question arises, whether _Ana-pâni-îli_ means “(let me go) to the presence” or “before the face of God,” or that its bearer was asked for by his father “at the presence of God.” Many other possible renderings will also, in all probability, occur to the reader, but it is noteworthy, that in this case, the Biblical narrative may, by chance, serve to explain this Babylonian compound, for as “the man” with whom Jacob wrestled was the representative of the Almighty, so _pâni_ in the Babylonian name may be interpreted in the same way, and the person bearing it may have been offered or dedicated to the face, or presence (that is, the representative) of God. It is to be noted that the owner of the name on Mr. Offord’s cylinder (pl. vi. no. 2) was a worshipper of the god Hadad or Rimmon, and was not, therefore, a monotheist.

P. 273, l. 8. The date of Amenophis II., according to Petrie, was about 1449 to 1423.

P. 278. The non-Semitic pronunciation of _Ninip_ was possibly _Nirig_, and the Semitic reading _En-mašti_ (so Prof. A. T. Clay). An earlier reading of the Aramaic character regarded as _m_ was _n_, which would give _Ênu-rêštū_, “the primæval lord,” or the like, a title of Ninip and of other gods. For other suggestions, see Hrozný in the _Revue Sémitique_, July 1908.

P. 279, l. 2. The name Bidina may also be read Kaština, apparently a variant of the Babylonian Bidinnam or Kaštinnam.

L. 12 ff. The mention of _Dumu-zi_, _i.e._ Tammuz or Adonis, goes back to about 3500 B.C., or earlier. Hymns to Tammuz in the dialect of the Sumerian language exist, dating from about 2000 years before Christ, the most noteworthy of these compositions at present known being that preserved in the Manchester Museum.

L. 27. Mutzu’u. It is doubtful whether this name is complete on the tablet where it occurs. Possibly Mutzuata, a name occurring on the Bronze Gates found by Mr. Rassam at Balawat, furnishes an indication as to the way in which it should be completed. (Knudtzon reads _Mut-baḫlu_, written for Mut-ba’la, possibly meaning “the man of his lord.”)

L. 31. Yabitiri. The inscription referring to his early life is translated on pp. 284-285.

L. 37. For Addu-nirari, read Adad-nirari, the Assyrian form.

P. 280, line 4 and note. Nin-Urmuru (?) Knudtzon reads as Bêlit(= Ba’lat)-Ur-Maḫ-Meš. In Assyro-Babylonian this would probably be read _Bêlit-nêši_, a name meaning “the lady of the lions.”

P. 286, note 1. For the name Mut-zu’u, compare the note to p. 279, l. 27, above. Knudtzon’s new translation differs somewhat from that given here.

P. 293, l. 26. Another Zimrêda (to all appearance) is mentioned in an inscription in the British Museum. This text comes from Babylonia, and is possibly of an earlier date. It apparently refers to the affairs of the Babylonian principality of Suḫu and Maër.

P. 319, l. 14. Suḫi and Maër are mentioned together in the document referred to above, note to p. 293, and in the inscription of Šamaš-rêš-uṣur, governor of that district, published by Dr. Weissbach in his _Babylonische Miscellen_. This district lay, according to that scholar, somewhere near the point where the Habûr runs into the Euphrates. As the western boundary of this state is entirely unknown, the full value of Tiglath-pileser I.’s boast cannot be estimated, but the district ravaged must have been a considerable stretch of country.

P. 325. The inscription referring to Gazzāni probably forms part of one of those in which the ruler asks the gods (generally Šamaš and Hadad) for success against the countries which he intended to invade. Sargon of Assyria, Esarhaddon, and Aššur-banî-âpli (Assurbanipal) all had similar inscriptions composed for them. From the manner in which the text is written, however, it is probable that it antedates these.

P. 329, l. 4 from below. Instead of “advanced,” another possible translation is “rose up.”

P. 330, l. 3. Instead of Gilzau, Kirzau and several other readings are possible.

The “battle of Qarqara,” as it is generally called, is illustrated by strip I (old mark C) of the Bronze Gates of Shalmaneser II.(341) The scenes only represent the capture of the cities Pargâ, Adâ, and Qarqara of Urḫilêni (= Irḫulêni) of the land of the Hamathites, there being no reference either to Ahab, or to his allies. The city of Qarqara was later on taken by Sargon (see p. 363).

P. 341, l. 4. Instead of _Persia_, read _Pahlav_ as the identification of Parsua (Hommel).

P. 343, l. 22. As the character translated “lady” means also “sister,” it may in reality indicate the relationship of Sammu-ramat to Bêl-tarṣi-îli-ma.

P. 346, l. 22. Tiglath-pileser “III.,” or “IV.”

P. 347, l. 25. Sardurri of Ararat is the Sardaris (II.) of the Armenian cuneiform texts.

P. 349, l. 6. Ḫatarikka is also spelled with one _k_, as on pp. 344 and 345.

P. 374, l. 20. In Kammusu-nadbi we have an instance of the occurrence of the name of Chemosh, the national god of the Moabites. This name is also found in that of Kamušu-šarra-uṣur, apparently a Babylonian, perhaps of Moabite origin (see the note to p. 466).

P. 376, l. 21. Urbi occurs as the name of a city or district in a Babylonian geographical list, from which we learn also that there was an “upper” and a “lower” Urbi. It is immediately followed by Pulug (see the note to p. 145).

L. 8. from below. Kallima-Sin is now read Kadašman-Ḫarbe (or Muruš).

P. 381, foot-note. According to Prof. W. Max Müller, _Orientalische Literaturzeitung_, Nov., 1902, Mer-en-Ptah and “the great sorcerer and high-priest of Memphis” were brothers, and the incident of the vision took place before Mer-en-Ptah’s battle with the Libyans, when, as he himself states, he saw in a dream a figure like that of Ptah, who said to him “Take,” giving him the sword, and “Put away from thee thy faintheartedness.” Max Müller attributes the chronological error neither to Herodotus nor to the Egyptian scribes who supplied him with information, but to Hecataeus of Miletus, whose work Herodotus used—“an Egyptian would not have made such a chronological blunder.” This, naturally, much diminishes the value of the extract as a parallel to the account of the destruction of Sennacherib’s army before Jerusalem.

P. 384, l. 1 ff. The following is Nabonidus’s account of the murder of Sennacherib and the events which led up to it, from the inscription published by the Rev. V. Scheil in the _Recueil des Travaux relatifs à la Philologie et à l’Archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes_, vol. XVIII., pp. 1 ff.:—

“He (this must be Sennacherib) went to Babylon, he laid its sanctuaries in ruin, he destroyed the reliefs,(342) the statues he overthrew. He took the hands of the prince, Merodach, and caused him to enter within Aššur(343)—according to the anger of the god then he treated the land. The prince, Merodach, did not cease from his wrath—for 21 years he set up his seat within Aššur. (In) later days a time arrived, the anger of the king of the gods, the lords, was then appeased. He remembered E-sagila and Babylon, the seat of his dominion. The king of Mesopotamia,(344) who during the anger of Merodach had accomplished the ruin of the land, the son born of his body slew him with the sword.”

For the Babylonians, the Assyrian king was the instrument of Merodach’s wrath.

P. 385. The British Museum “black stone” mentions Esarhaddon’s elder brothers: “I, Esarhaddon, whom thou (O Merodach) hast called, in the assembly of my elder brothers, to restore those buildings” (_i.e._ the temples, etc., damaged by floods).

P. 393. Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, in an inscription found by the German expedition, and published by Dr. Weissbach in his _Babylonische Miscellen_, refers to the downfall of Assyria in the following words:—

“The Assyrian, who from remote days ruled all people, and with his heavy yoke oppressed the people of the land,(345) I, the weak, the humble, the worshipper of the lord of lords, by the mighty force of Nebo and Merodach, my lords, cut off their feet from the land of Akkad, and caused their yoke to be thrown off.”