Archæology and the Bible

It appears from this document that Abamrama, who is none other than a Babylonian Abraham, was a small farmer, who leased a small tract of land.

3. Abraham Paid His Rent.[417]

This document, dated two years after that in which the ox was hired, shows how Abamrama (Abraham) paid a part of his rent.

The name Abamrama (Abraham) occurs in two other documents published in the same volume (no. 101, and no. 102), where, in defining the boundaries of other fields of Sin-idinam, they are said to be bounded on one side by the field of Abamrama. As these documents mention the name of Abamrama only incidentally, they are not translated here.

4. Who Was This Abraham?

These documents, which relate to the business of a Babylonian Abraham, come from Dilbat, about eight miles south of Borsippa, which was just across the Euphrates from Babylon. It is clear that this Abraham was a small farmer, who hired a tract of land from a larger land-owner. He also hired an ox wherewith to work his land, and paid the rent of the land and the hire of the ox as a good citizen should. This Abraham was not the Biblical patriarch. The patriarch’s father was Terah and his brother Nahor; the father of this Babylonian Abraham was Awel-Ishtar, and his brother Iddatum (ibid., no. 101, 9). The Abraham of the Bible was a monotheist according to Genesis; the ancestors of the Babylonian Abraham worshiped the goddess Ishtar, who corresponded to the Canaanitish Ashtoreth. The Bible connects the patriarch with Ur and Haran; this Abraham lived about half-way between these two cities.

Up to the present time this Babylonian Abraham is the only person known to us other than the Biblical patriarch, who, in that period of history, bore the name. He is the only one known to us outside the Biblical record.[418] The only other occurrence of the name outside the Bible is in the name of a place in Palestine, probably near Hebron, which Sheshonk I, the Biblical Shishak, calls “The Field of Abram.”[419] As Shishak lived much later (945-924 B. C.), being a contemporary of Rehoboam the son of Solomon, this Egyptian place name is not so significant. The Babylonian Abraham mentioned in the documents just translated is welcome proof that Abraham was a personal name in Babylonia near the time in which the Bible places the patriarch. With these documents Gen. 11:27-25:10 should be compared.

Another Babylonian contract is of interest in connection with the migration of Abraham.

5. Travel between Babylonia and Palestine.

The date of the above interesting document has not been identified with certainty. It is thought by some to belong to the reign of Shamsu-iluna, the successor of Hammurapi. The writing clearly shows that at any rate it comes from the period of this dynasty. That is, it comes from the period to which Gen. 14 assigns the migration of Abraham. Kittim in the contract is the word used in the Hebrew of Jer. 2:10 and Ezek. 27:6 for the coast lands of the Mediterranean. It undoubtedly has that meaning here. This contract was written in Sippar, the Agade of earlier times, a town on the Euphrates a little to the north of Babylon. It reveals the fact that at the time the document was written there was so much travel between Babylonia and the Mediterranean coast that a man could not lease a wagon for a year without danger that it might be driven over the long route to Syria or Palestine. Against such wear upon his vehicle the particular wagon-owner of our document protected himself.

When, therefore, Abraham went out from his land and his kindred, he was going to no unknown land. The tide of commerce and of emigration had opened the way. Apparently it was no more remarkable for him to do it than for an Irishman to come to America half a century ago, or for a south European to come today.

6. Hammurapi, King of the Westland.

It is thought by many scholars that Hammurapi was the Amraphel of Genesis 14. The following inscription[421] relates to this king:

This inscription is quoted here for two reasons: 1. It was erected “for the life of Hammurapi,” who is supposed by many to be the Amraphel of Gen. 14:1. Amraphel is supposed to be a corruption of Hammurapi, thus Amrapi. The final l of Amraphel is a difficulty. While many Assyriologists, from Schrader onward, have recognized the equivalence, it is now seriously questioned by Jensen and Eduard Meyer, and absolutely rejected by Bezold. It must be said that, if Amraphel is intended for Hammurapi, the name had undergone corruption before it was placed in the Biblical record.[422] 2. In this inscription Hammurapi is called “king of MAR-TU,” or the Westland, a name by which the Babylonians often designated Syria and Palestine. MAR-TU simply means “sunset,” but was used like the Arabic magrib as the designation of a region. There is no reason to doubt that here it designates Syria and Palestine, so that, if Amraphel is Hammurapi, this is confirmatory of his connection with the West.

7. Kudur-Mabug.

The following inscription[423] has also often been brought into the discussion of Genesis 14:

This inscription has often been brought into connection with Abraham, partly because some have seen in Kudur-Mabug the Chedorlaomer of Gen. 14:1, and partly because Kudur-Mabug in it calls himself “Father” or governor of the Westland. If, however, Kudur-Mabug was intended by the name Chedorlaomer, the name had been corrupted beyond all recognition in the Biblical tradition before Gen. 14 was written. In reality there is no reason to suppose that Kudur-Mabug and Chedorlaomer are the same. As to the term “Westland,” it probably does not here designate Palestine, but either the western part of Elam or the southern part of Babylonia. Babylonia lay to the west of Elam, and Kudur-Mabug placed on the throne of Larsa, a city of South Babylonia, first his son, Arad-Sin, and then his son, Rim-Sin, and apparently maintained an over-lordship over both of them. “Westland” accordingly means in his inscription, not Palestine, but Babylonia. One of Kudur-Mabug’s sons calls his father “Father” (or governor) of Emutbal, a region of Elam. It is a mistake, therefore, to bring Kudur-Mabug into connection with Abraham and Gen. 14.[424]

8. Kings Supposed by Some to be Those Mentioned in Gen. 14.

Some fragmentary tablets from the Persian period, not earlier than the fourth century B. C., contain references which have been brought by some scholars into connection with Abraham and the fourteenth of Genesis. The texts read as follows:

I[425]

II

Two other similar fragmentary texts belonging to the series are published as noted above, but it is unnecessary to quote them here. The two fragments which we have translated contain the most important references, and are sufficient to enable the reader to make up his mind as to the bearing of these texts upon the fourteenth of Genesis.

Pinches and Sayce read the name of the Elamite king, Kukukumal, Kudurlakhmal, and identify it with Chedorlaomer. Pinches so reads it, hesitatingly; Sayce, confidently. There is no reason for so reading it, except the desire to discover Chedorlaomer. The first three syllables are represented in the cuneiform by the same sign—a sign the most frequent value of which is ku. It does sometimes have the value dur, but never lakh. King reads it Kukukumal, and there is really no reason for reading it otherwise.

Another name which occurs twice is written in the two places with a slight difference of spelling. It is according to the most natural reading of the signs, Arad-Malkua, or Arad-Malaku. Sayce and Pinches read Eri-eaku and identified him with “Arioch, king of Elassar,” (Gen. 14:1). While this is a possible reading, it is only secured by giving to the signs their Sumerian, instead of their Semitic values, and, as the documents are in Semitic, this is probably wrong. The name is to be read Arad-Malkua. Another name, Tudkhula, which occurs in the first document, has been identified by the same scholars with “Tidal, king of the nations” (Gen. 14:1), but in this text there is no evidence that Tudkhula was a king at all, and the identification is purely fanciful. It should be noted also that Arad-Malkua, the supposed Eri-eaku, does not himself take any part in the wars here recorded; it is his son, Dursil-ilâni, who is represented as a contemporary of Kukukumal, the supposed Chedorlaomer.

It should be further noted that these documents represent a complete conquest of Babylon by Elam—a conquest in which Babylon itself is laid desolate. It is not certain just what part Dursil-ilâni played in the story. He may have been a vassal king under Kukukumal, or the Babylonian upon whom the hopes of the people centered, to free them from the yoke of Elam. It is clear, however, that the events mentioned in these documents are not in harmony with the supposition that these monarchs acted as allies of Hammurapi in the invasion of Palestine. Hammurapi is excluded from the account. Kukukumal conquered and desolated the very city in which Hammurapi had his throne. Kukukumal must, accordingly, have lived at some other period of the history, and the supposed confirmation of the account of the fourteenth chapter of Genesis has not yet been found.

As already stated, these tablets are not earlier than the fourth century B. C. The events which they record were probably much later than the time of Abraham. Babylon is called by its Cassite name, Kar-duniash, a name which it did not bear until some hundreds of years after the time of Hammurapi. Many times in the course of Babylonian history was the country overrun by Elam, and there is no real reason to suppose that the war here referred to belongs to the age of Hammurapi.

CHAPTER X

Three different men in Babylonia at the time of the Hammurapi dynasty bore the name Jacob-el. Thus, in the reign of Apil-Sin, the fourth king of the dynasty (2161 to 2144 B. C.), two witnesses, Shubna-ilu and Yadakh-ilu gave their father’s name as Yakub-ilu, or Jacob-el.[427] In the same reign a witness to another document, one Lamaz, had a Jacob-el as his father.[428] In the reign of Sin-muballit, the next king, a witness named Nur-Shamash was also the son of a Jacob-el.[429] In the reign of the great Hammurapi, the next king, a witness named Sin-erbiam gave his father’s name simply as Yakub,[430] or Jacob. This last is clearly a shortening of Jacob-el. These men all lived from 75 to 190 years before the Babylonian Abraham, whose documents are discussed in Chapter IX.

In connection with these names it should be noted that Thothmes III of Egypt, who made extensive conquests in Asia between 1478 and 1446 B. C., records the name of a city which he captured in Palestine as Ya-‘-k-b’-ra, the Egyptian equivalent of Jacob-el.[431] It does not seem a rash guess to suppose that in the period when intercourse between Babylonia and Palestine was frequent and immigration from the former country to the latter was in progress, some Babylonian bearing this name migrated to Palestine, settled there and that a city was named after him. Many parallels to this may be found in the names of places in the United States and Canada. That this place name in Canaan had some connection with the name of the Patriarch Jacob is probable, though just what that connection was it is impossible in the present state of our knowledge to say.

2. Joseph.

A Babylonian business document of the time of the first dynasty of Babylon has among its witnesses a man named Yashub-ilu, or Joseph-el.[432]

In the list of places which Thothmes III of Egypt conquered in Palestine there is one Ya-sha-p’-ra, which many scholars have taken to be Joseph-el, though Prof. W. Max Müller[433] thinks it rather is equivalent to Yesheb-el, meaning “where God dwells.” In view of the clear Babylonian equivalence, however, it seems probable that it is Joseph-el. If so, it probably became a place-name in Palestine because some important Babylonian who bore the name settled there, just as we have supposed Jacob-el did. Some scholars hold that it is connected with the name of the Patriarch Joseph in some way, but what that connection was, we cannot now say.

3. The Tale of the Two Brothers.[434]

We need not follow the story further. Those who wish to do so are referred to Petrie’s Egyptian Tales. From this point onward, it contains many mythological features.

This story, in the form in which we have it, was written for Seti II (1209-1205 B. C.) of the nineteenth Egyptian dynasty, while that monarch was still crown prince. Scholars of all shades of opinion have recognized in it a striking parallel to the story of Joseph in the house of Potiphar, in Genesis 39:1-20. Joseph, like the younger brother of this tale, was trusted with everything about his master’s place; Potiphar’s wife, like the sister-in-law of the tale, tempted Joseph; Joseph, like the younger brother, resisted temptation; and Potiphar’s wife, like the sister-in-law, charged him with the crime which he had been unwilling to commit.

Scholars of the critical school regard this as the original of the story in Genesis. While they recognize that it is a theme which is not confined to Egyptians and Hebrews (compare for other parallels Lang, Myth, Ritual, and Religion, II, 303, ff.), the fact that the theme of the Biblical story is laid in Egypt leads them to think it extremely probable that there is a connection between the two.

Conservative scholars on the other hand hold that in all probability there was more than one such scandal in Egypt, and account for the likeness by the similarity which would naturally present itself in such cases, holding that the Egyptian tale has no bearing on the credibility of that in Genesis.

4. Letters to a Ruler Like Joseph.

Among the letters in the Babylonian language and script found at El-Amarna in Egypt in the winter of 1887-1888,[436] many of which were written to Amenophis III and Amenophis IV, Kings of Egypt, 1411-1357 B. C., by Egyptian vassals in Palestine and Syria, there are two which were written to a Semite named Dûdu (David), which show that this Semite held at the Egyptian court a position analogous to that which Joseph, as ruler of Egypt, is said to have held (Gen. 41:39, f.; 50:26). These letters are as follows:

I[437]

II[438]

The Aziru of these letters was the chieftain or petty king of the Amorites, who were living at the time to the eastward of Phœnicia, between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon mountains. The way in which he addresses Dûdu is significant. Dûdu is classed continually with the king. Aziru fears to offend Dûdu as he fears to offend the king; the words of Dûdu are of equal importance with those of the king. Dûdu clearly occupied a position of power with the king of Egypt similar to that ascribed to Joseph in Genesis 41. Moreover, Dûdu is a Semitic name; vocalized a little differently, it becomes David.

The king to whom this letter was written was Amenophis III or Amenophis IV, in whose reigns Semitic influence was especially strong in Egypt. Amenophis III took as his favorite wife a woman named Tiy, daughter of Yuaa and Tuau, whose mummies, discovered a few years ago, show, some think, that they were Semitic. Queen Tiy was very influential during the reign of her son, Amenophis IV, and was in part the cause of the remarkable religious reform which he undertook (Part I, Chapter I, § 6 (vii)). It is not, accordingly, strange to find that the chief minister of one of these kings was a Semite. Of course, Dûdu cannot be identified with Joseph, but his career shows that such careers as that of Joseph were not impossible at this period of Egyptian history.

5. The Seven Years of Famine.

The following inscription was found cut on a rock between the island of Elephantine and the First Cataract, and was first published by Brugsch in 1891. It is written in hieroglyphic characters, and was apparently inscribed in the reign of Ptolemy X, 117-89 B. C. It relates how King Zoser, of the third dynasty, who began to reign about 2980 B. C., nearly 2,800 years before the inscription was written, appealed to Khnum, the god of Elephantine, because of a famine. The part of the text which interests us is as follows:[439]

As Brugsch[440] saw, this inscription gives a graphic account of the suffering caused by seven such years of famine as are said to have occurred in the time of Joseph (Gen. 41:30, 54, ff.). It cannot be the same seven-year famine as that referred to in Genesis, as it is placed several centuries too early to coincide with the time of Joseph. As the inscription is about 2,800 years later than the event it describes, its historical accuracy might be questioned, but it is probable that it was a renewal of an earlier inscription. But even if its historical accuracy be impugned, it witnesses to a native Egyptian tradition that such famines were possible.

6. Inscription Showing Preparation for Famine.

The Baba who wrote this inscription lived under the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty, about 1500 B. C., or a little before. Brugsch pointed out many years ago that Baba’s concluding statement forms an interesting parallel to the conduct of Joseph as told in Gen. 41:47-57. Baba claims to have done for his city, El-Kab, what Joseph is said to have done for all Egypt. His statement affords striking evidence of the historical reality of famines in Egypt, and of such economic preparation for them.

CHAPTER XI

In the year 1970 B. C., when Amenemhet I died and was succeeded by Sesostris I, an Egyptian of high rank, named Sinuhe, for some reason now unknown to us, fled from Egypt to Asia. The details of his escape from Egypt are not of interest to the Biblical student, but his description of the hardships encountered in the desert and of his experiences in eastern Palestine are of great value, as they afford us our earliest description of that country outside the Bible. The following extract begins just after Sinuhe had told how he escaped the guards in the fort which stood at the eastern frontier of Egypt.[442]

I went on at the time of evening,
As the earth brightened, I arrived at Peten.
When I had reached the lake of Kemwer,[443]
I fell down for thirst, fast came my breath,
My throat was hot,
I said: “This is the taste of death.”
I upheld my heart, I drew my limbs together,
As I heard the sound of lowing cattle,
I beheld the Bedawin.
That chief among them, who had been in Egypt, recognized me.
He gave me water, he cooked for me milk.
I went with him to his tribe,
Good was that which they did (for me).
One land sent me on to another,
I loosed for Suan,[444]
I arrived at Kedem;[445]
I spent a year and a half there.
Emuienshe,[446] that sheik of Upper [Ru]tenu,[447] brought me forth
saying to me: “Happy art thou with me,
(for) thou hearest the speech of Egypt.”
He said this (for) he knew my character,
He had heard of my wisdom;
The Egyptians, who were there with him, bare witness of me.

The Amorite chieftain then questioned Sinuhe concerning his flight. He gave evasive answers, merging with his reply a long hymn in praise of the king. After this Emuienshe said to him:

“Behold, thou shalt now abide with me;
Good is that which I shall do for thee.”
He put me at the head of his children,
He married me to his eldest daughter,
He made me select for myself of his land,
Of the choicest of that which he had,
On his boundary with another land.
It was a goodly land, named Yaa;[448]
There were figs in it and vines,
More plentiful than water was its wine,
Copious was its honey, plenteous its oil;
All fruits were upon its trees.
Barley was there and spelt,
Without end all cattle.
Moreover, great was that which came to me,
Which came for love of me,
When he appointed me sheik of the tribe,
From the choicest of his land.
I portioned the daily bread,
And wine for every day,
Cooked flesh and fowl in roast;
Besides the mid goats of the hills,
Which were trapped for me, and brought to me;
Besides that which my dogs captured for me.
There was much—made for me,
And milk in every sort of cooked dish.
I spent many years,
My children became strong,
Each the mighty man of his tribe.
The messenger going north,
Or passing southward to the court,
He turned in to me.
For I had all men turn in (to me).

The tale goes on concerning the personal prowess of Sinuhe, who, in his old age, returned to Egypt and made his peace with the king.

2. Communication between Egypt and Palestine.

This document from the early patriarchal age reveals a close relationship between Egypt and Palestine. There was frequent communication between Kedem and Egypt; messengers went to and fro. The Egyptian language was understood at the court of the Amorite chieftain. These conditions throw light on the narratives of the descent of Abraham and Jacob to Egypt. Sinuhe’s description of his life necessarily reminds one of the description of Palestine so often met with in the Pentateuch, Joshua, and the prophets, “a land flowing with milk and honey.” (See, for example, Exod. 3:8, 17.)

(For an addition to this chapter, see Appendix.)

CHAPTER XII

The following legend[449] contains a story of the exposure of an infant on a river, strikingly like that told of Moses.