The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends Part 22

The first doc.u.ment is Sp. III. 2, and contains all three names-or, rather, the names Tud?ula (Tidal), eri-Eaku's son Durma?-ilani, and Kudur-la?mal.

The first portion of this text refers to the G.o.ds: "ama, illuminator (of the earth)," "the lord of lords, Merodach, in the faithfulness of his heart," aided (probably) his servant to subdue (?) some region, "all of it." Then there is a reference to (soldiers) whom some ruler "caused to be slain," and as the name of Durma?-ilani son of eri-(E)aku follows, there is every probability that it was he who is referred to in the preceding lines. The carrying off of goods (?) is next spoken of, and waters which to all appearance came over Babylon and the great temple-tower called e-saggil (more usually written in earlier times e-sagila). The next line has an interesting reference to "the son (?)" of some one, who "slaughtered him like (?) a lamb with the weapon of his hands." After this, we are told that "the elder and the child (were killed) with the sword." To all appearance, another division of the subject begins with the next line, though the text goes on recording things of the same nature-"the child he cut off." This is immediately followed by the words "Tud?ula the son of Gazza- ..," or "Tidal son of Gazza(ni?)," who, like Durma?-ilani (if we may form any opinion from the fact that the wording of the line following the mention of Tidal is the same as that following the name of the son of eri-Eaku), carried off goods (?), and waters (he caused to flow?) over Babylon and e-saggil, the great temple of the city. The parallel between these two pa.s.sages is still further emphasized by the words in the line immediately following, which says that "his son fell upon him with the weapon of his hand." The next line is the last of the obverse, and speaks of ("the proclamation," perhaps) of "his dominion before the temple of Annunit," where we have the interesting archaism, _An-nu-nit_ for D.P. (_i.e._ the determinative prefix indicating that the name of a deity follows) _A-nu-nit_.

The reverse begins with a reference to Elam, and some one (perhaps the king of that country) who "spoiled from the city A??e (?) to the land of Rabbatum." Something was made, apparently by the same personage, into heaps of ruins, and the fortress of the land of Akkad, and "the whole of Borsippa(?)" are referred to. At this point comes the line mentioning Kudur-la?mal, supposed to be Chedorlaomer. It reads as follows-

"Kudur-la?mal, his son, pierced his heart with the steel sword of his girdle."

After this there is a pa.s.sage where the various kings mentioned seem to be referred to, and it is stated that Merodach, the king of the G.o.ds, was angry against them, and they were, to all appearance, made to suffer for what they had done. The scribe who had composed this record now speaks, in favourable words, of the king then reigning, and seems to refer to the restoration of the inscription to its place by the person (prince) who, in later days, should find it (as was the custom among the Babylonians and a.s.syrians). He ends with a pious wish that a sinful man might not exist, or something to that effect.

The second tablet, though in a more satisfactory state of preservation, is still sufficiently incomplete, none of the lines being altogether perfect.

After referring to Babylon, and to the property of that city, "small and great," it is said that the G.o.ds (apparently)

"in their faithful counsel to Kudur-la?gumal, king of the land of Elam ... said 'Descend.' The thing which unto them was good (he performed, and) he exercised sovereignty in Babylon, the city of Kar-Dunia."

It would therefore appear that this Elamite ruler, by the will of the G.o.ds (such was the way with conquerors in those days-they annexed other countries to their dominions by the will of the G.o.ds of the lands annexed), took possession of Babylon, capital (such seems to be the meaning of the phrase) of Kar-Dunia. This is followed by a long pa.s.sage in which animals and birds, apparently the favourites of the Elamite king, are referred to, and the idea which one gains by reading it is, that he attended to these rather than to the welfare of his realm. This being the case, it is natural that something about the remissness of the king should follow, and this seems to be, in fact, intended in the next line, where some one whose name is lost seems to ask: "What king of Elam is there who has (erected?) the chapel (?) (it was something made of wood, as the determinative prefix shows) of E-saggil?" It was the Babylonians, the text seems to say, who had done things of this kind. The speaker then seems to begin to talk of "their work," when another gap destroys the remainder of the phrase. He then speaks about "(a let)ter (?) which thou hast written thus: 'I am a king, the son of a king,' " but whether it is the same personage who says that he is "the son of the daughter of a king, who has sat on the throne of dominion," is doubtful-it may be a similarly boasting reply to the statement put into the mouth of the first speaker. The line which follows has the name of Durma?-ilani, son of eri-Ekua (eri-Eaku of the other historical text), who seems to have carried away spoil, but whether it is he who is referred to in the next line as having sat on the throne of dominion is doubtful. This is followed by the expression of the wish that the king might come who from eternal days ... was proclaimed lord of Babylon. The closing lines of the obverse, which is here described, do not give any clear sense, but there is a reference to the months Kislev and Tammuz, probably in connection with festivals, also (apparently) to certain priests, and to the taking of spoil. The remains of the reverse are too scanty to gather what the text inscribed upon it really refers to.

It is naturally difficult to judge which of these two inscriptions came first. Both of them seem to have a kind of peroration at the end containing similar phrases referring to the city of Babylon and its well-being, and either might therefore be the last tablet of a series. To all appearance, the order of the two records turns upon the question whether Durma?-ilani is the one who is referred to as having written a certain communication, or whether it is about him that some one has written. As he seems to be referred to in the third person, the probability is that "Durma?-ilani, son of eri-Eaku, who (carried away?) the spoil of ... ," is not the person speaking, but the person spoken of.

In this case he was not necessarily alive at the time, and the order of the two tablets as here printed may be the correct one.

How far the record which they contain may be true is with our present knowledge impossible to find out. The style of the writing with which they are inscribed is certainly very late-later, in all probability, than the Persian period, and the possibility that it is a compilation of that period has been already suggested. That it is altogether a fiction, however, is in the highest degree improbable. If we have in the three names which these two tablets contain the Babylonian prototypes of Tidal, Arioch, and Chedorlaomer, they must refer to the events which pa.s.sed between the first and thirty-first years of the reign of Amraphel or ?ammurabi, in which it would seem that both Durma?-ilani and Tud?ula attacked and spoiled Babylon, cutting the ca.n.a.ls so that the town and the temple were both flooded. Both of these royal personages, who, be it noted, are not called kings, were apparently killed by their sons, and Kudur-la?mal seems to have been a criminal of the same kind, if we may judge from the words "Kudur-la?mal, his son, pier(ced?) his heart with the steel sword of his girdle." That three royal personages, contemporaries, should all dispose of their fathers in the same way seems, however, in the highest degree improbable. It also seems to be in an equal degree impossible that (as has been suggested) the tablets in question should refer to Tidal, Arioch, and Chedorlaomer, but not the _same_ Tidal, Arioch, and Chedorlaomer as is spoken of in Genesis, unless it be meant thereby that the Biblical personages of that name are the historical ones, whilst those of the two tablets belong to the realm of fiction. The greater probability is, that they are the same personages, but that the accounts handed down to us on these two tablets are largely legendary.

And that this is the case is made more probable by the third doc.u.ment, couched in poetical form, which I have ent.i.tled _The Legend of Chedorlaomer_. The following are extracts from this remarkable piece-

"... and they pressed on to the supreme gate.

He threw down, removed, and cast down the door of Itar in the holy places, He descended also, like Ura the unsparing, to Du-ma?a; He stayed also in Du-ma?a, looking at the temple; He opened his mouth, and spake with the children (of the place).

To all his warriors (then) he hastened the message:- 'Carry off the spoil of the temple, take also its goods, Destroy its barrier, cause its enclosures to be cut through.'

To the channel ... they pressed on...."

(Here comes a mutilated pa.s.sage apparently referring to the destruction which he wrought.)

"He drove away the director's overseer, he took away the vail.

The enemy pressed on evilly to Ennun-dagalla.

The G.o.d was clothed with light before him, He flashed like lightning, and shook the (holy) places.

The enemy feared, he hid himself.

There descended (?) also its chief man, and he spake to him a command.

... the G.o.d was clothed with light, (He flashed like lightning), and shook the (holy) places.

'(Draw near unto?) Ennun-dagalla, remove his crowns!

(Enter into?) his temple, seize his hand!'

..., he did not fear, and he regarded not his life.

'(He shall not approach?) Ennun-dagalla, he shall not remove his crowns.' "

(Here follows another mutilated pa.s.sage, describing how "the Elamite, the wicked man," proclaimed something to the lands, and how he dwelt and stayed in Du-ma?a.)

(At this point is the end of the obverse, and there is a considerable gap before there are any further fairly complete pa.s.sages.)

"When the guardian spoke peace (to the city) The guardian-bulls of e-arra, [the temple of the host of the G.o.ds], departed.

The enemy, the Elamite, multiplied evils, And Bel allowed evil to be planned against Babylon."

"When righteousness was absent (?), then was decided (?) also the destruction Of e-arra, the temple of the host of the G.o.ds, the guardian-bulls departed.

The enemy, the Elamite, took its goods- Bel, dwelling upon it, had displeasure."

"When the magicians repeated their evil words (?), Gullum(47) and the evil wind performed their evil (?).

Then their G.o.ds departed-they departed like a torrent.

Storm and evil wind went round in the heavens.

Anu, their creator, had displeasure.

He made pale their face, he made desolate his place, He destroyed the barrier in the shrine of e-anna, (He overthrew?) the temple, and the platform shook."

" .... he decreed destruction, ..... he had disfavour.

The people (?) of Bel of e-zida barred (?) the road to umer.

Who is Kudurla?gu(mal), the doer of the evils?

He has gathered also the Umman-man(da against?) the people (?) of Bel- He has laid in ruin ... by their side."

"When (the enclosure) of e-zida (was broken down?), And Nebo was ruler of the host, there (came) down his (winged bulls).

Down to Tiamtu he se(t his face).

Ibi-Tutu, whom the Sun-G.o.d (?) hastened within Tiamtu, Entered Tiamtu, and founded a pseudo-capital.

The enclosure of e-zida, the everlasting temple, was caused to be broken through."

"(The enemy), the Elamite, caused his yoke of horses to be directed, (and) Set his face (to go) down to Borsippa.

He traversed also the road of darkness, the road to Mesech.

The tyrant (?) Elamite destroyed the palace (?), He subdued the princes of ... with the sword, He carried off the spoil of all the temples.

He took their goods, and carried them away to Elam.

.... ruler, he destroyed the ruler (?), .......... filled also the land."

(The remainder is wanting.)

Apparently this is a poetical reproduction of the tablets of which translations have already been given. The enemy entered Babylon, according to the nine lines of the earlier portion of the inscription which are preserved, and spoiled and ravaged the place. The mention of the channel (iku, irrigation-channel) suggests a comparison with the first of the two historical fragments, where waters over Babylon and e-sagila are referred to, and cause one to ask whether Durma?-ilani and Tud?ula were not the lieutenants of Kudur-la?gumal.

The description of the conditions under which the entry into Babylon was effected, when the G.o.d (possibly Ennundagalla) was clothed with light, flashed like lightning and shook the holy places, suggests that a severe thunderstorm acted on the superst.i.tious hopes of the Babylonians, and the equally superst.i.tious fears of their foes, so much so, that the Elamite did not carry out his intention of carrying away the crowns of the statue of the G.o.d. He seems, however, to have taken and retained possession of the place, and to have continued to extend his operations.

The reverse apparently states why all these misfortunes came, and what further happened. It was because they accepted a foreign ruler (he spoke peace to the city, and thereby became its master); because there was denial of righteousness or justice (righteousness was absent?); because the magicians repeated evil words. Even in the temple of Anu at Erech (the shrine called e-anna, "the temple of heaven," or "of Anu") the G.o.d of heaven was displeased, and caused something very like an earthquake. Some, however, were found who were willing to try to bar the pa.s.sage of the conqueror, who had gathered the Umman-manda (barbarian hordes), possibly his followers and those of Tud?ula or Tidal, against the people (?) of Bel (the Babylonians), and laid everything in ruins.

When the enclosure of e-zida (the great temple-tower of Borsippa, identified with the tower of Babel by modern scholars) was broken down, Ibi-Tutu, apparently a Babylonian prince, fled to Tiamtu, the region of the Persian Gulf, and there founded a temporary capital. The invader thereupon seems to have proceeded to Borsippa, and to have taken the road to Mesech-that is to say, to the north-where he continued his ravages.

That he intended to go so far as Mesech, however, is very unlikely, his object being to subdue the princes of the immediate neighbourhood of Babylon, and after collecting the spoil and goods of all the temples, he carried them away with him to Elam.

Cyrus, when he entered Babylon, spoke peace to the city, and promised peace to all the land. In later doc.u.ments even than the time of Cyrus, "the enemy, the Elamite," is spoken of, and there is every probability that the legend here recounted was popular with the Babylonians as long as any national feeling was left, hence these incomplete remains which have come down to us-due, perhaps, to some period when the old hostility was aroused by some inroad from the mountains on the east, where the Elamites held sway apparently to a comparatively late date.

Whether eri-Eaku (or Eri-Aaku), Tud?ula, and Kudur-la?gumal be Arioch, Tidal and Chedorlaomer respectively, I leave to the reader to decide for himself. The first of these will probably be regarded as sufficiently near to be exceedingly probable. With regard to the two others, it may be noted that Tidal was p.r.o.nounced, in Hebrew, Tidghal, as the Greek Thargal (for Thadgal, _d_ and _r_ being so much alike in Hebrew as to be easily interchanged) shows, and Chedorlaomer was Chedorlaghomer, as the Greek Chodollogomar likewise indicates. Doubt concerning the reading can only be entertained with regard to this last name.(48)

Whatever may be thought about the interesting and remarkable inscriptions of which an account has just been given, of one thing there can be no doubt, and that is, that the Elamites and Babylonians were quite powerful enough, at the time of Abraham, to make an expedition of the magnitude described in Genesis xiv. Sargon of Agade held sway over this district, and he reigned, according to Nabonidus's indications, more than 1500 years earlier. His son, when he came to the throne, added Elam to his dominions as well. That the position should, at a considerably later period, be reversed, is easily conceivable, and it was to all appearance the Elamites who held sway in a part of Babylonia, of which country many of the states undoubtedly acknowledged Elamite overlords.h.i.+p, though with exceeding unwillingness. One point of the undoubted history is noteworthy.

Kudur-mabuk, son of Simti-il?ak, who ruled at Larsa, bears, like his father, an Elamite name. His son, eri-Aku, has an Akkadian name-perhaps, as already suggested, from motives of policy, and likely enough from the same motive, he may have Semitizised it later on, making it Arad-Sin.

eri-Ekua (-Eaku) is likewise an Akkadian name, and must be a fanciful variant of that of eri-Aku or Arioch. His son, however, bears the Semitic name of Durma?-ilani, "the bond with the G.o.ds." This is apparently a case of carrying the policy of conciliation a step farther, for by doing this he not only bears a native name, but also claims to be the intermediary with the G.o.ds of his country.