A later explanation by Prof. Sayce is,
that Enoch may be Ḫana, “on the east side
of Babylonia,” with the determinative suffix ki
(making Ḫanaki) added. See Expository Times, Jan. 1902, p.
179.
In this description of the contents of
the 12 tablets referring to Gilgameš, the common reading of the
name of his friend and companion has been retained, partly to keep
a form which was more or less familiar, and partly because the
reading is doubtful. From the new text discovered by Meissner,
however, the name would seem not to be Êa-bani, but Êa-du or
Enki-du. Future discoveries may ultimately give us the true
reading.
Compare the story of Aesculapius, who,
when in the house of Glaucus, killed a serpent, upon which another
of these reptiles came with a herb in its mouth, wherewith it
restored its dead companion to life. Aesculapius was to all
appearance luckier than Gilgameš, for it was with this herb that he
restored the sick and dead, whereas the Babylonian hero seems to
have lost the precious plant.
The Assyrians, when referring to
Babylonia, generally call it “Akkad,” which ought rather, therefore, to be
the district nearest to them—that is, the northern part of the
country, immediately south of their own borders. They also called
this part Karduniaš, one of the names by which it was known in
Babylonia.
Other possible instances of the
occurrence of this element in names of this time are Zumu-rame,
Šumu-ḫammu (apparently for Sumu-ḫammu), Sumu-ḫala, Samu-abum,
Samukim, Sumu-entel (so probably to be read instead of
Sumu-ente-al), Sumu-ni-Ea, “Our Shem is
Ea,” and in all probability many others could be found. (See
Hommel, Ancient Hebrew Tradition.)
For further information upon Babylonia
and Egypt, compare Prof. F. Hommel's “Der
babylonische Ursprung der ägyptischen Kultur,” München, G.
Franz, 1892. A new etymology of Arpachshad, very similar to that of
Prof. Schrader, has, however, lately been suggested by Prof. Sayce,
and afterwards by Prof. Hommel, who has apparently abandoned that
given above.
In consequence of variations in the
lists, there is doubt as to the total of the reigns of the above
kings. The shorter indications have been given above, as far as the
reign of Samsu-iluna. A small tablet from Babylon (Rassam
excavations) gives Sumu-abi 15, Sumu-la-ila 35, Zabû 14, Abil-Sin
18, Sin-mubaliṭ 30, Ḫammurabi 55, and Samsu-iluna 35—total, with
the others, 304 years instead of 285. Perhaps there were usurpers,
whose reigns have not been included. There seems to have been an
interregnum after the reign of Samu-abi (Proceedings of the
Society of Biblical Archæology, 1899, p. 161).
An interesting commentary on this is
furnished by the British Museum tablet K, 2100, which informs us
that the god Rimmon or Hadad was called Addu or Dadu in Amorite, Tešsub in the language of
Su (Mesopotamia), Maliku in the language of
Suḫ, (the Shuites), Kunzibami in Elamite, and
Buriaš in Kassite. The same
inscription also states that the word for “God” was ene in Su, nab in Elamite, malaḫum in Amorite, kiurum in Lulubite, mašḫu in Kassite, and gives the
additional synonyms (? in Babylonian) qadmu, “he who was first,”digirū (from the Akkadian
dingir, “god”), and also, seemingly, ḫilibu.
This often happens, the most
interesting case being the tablets referring to Bunanitum, four in
number, acquired in 1876, 1877, and a year or two later. Another of
the series is in New York. Cf. pp. 459-465.
I have purposely given the translation
of the inner tablet, that of the envelope being less simply worded,
and therefore not quite so easy to understand. The list of
witnesses, however, is from the envelope, this being much more
satisfactory in that it gives the father's name and the title of
the person in some cases.
In the list of household goods
inscribed on the tablet Bu. 91-5-9, 337, are enumerated 1 bed, 1
couch, 2 tables, other objects, mostly of wood, to the number of
42; 7 pots, 1 chair, 4 ušratum (probably vessels
containing the tenth part of some measure), 5 hamsatum (probably vessels
containing the fifth part of a measure), 31 qa
of sesame, and a few other things.
There was a temple of the sun and the
moon at a town at no great distance from Ur [Mugheir], now
represented by the mounds of Tel-Sifr, where a number of tablets
with envelopes were found.
One of the most interesting names
found in the texts of this period is that of Yaum-îlu, “Jah is God,” occurring in a letter. Yau (Jah)
was one of the Babylonian words indicating the Supreme God, only
used, however, in special cases. (Cf. pp. 58 ff.)
This is probably not the land of Ḫana
referred to on p. 84,
note, which was apparently a Babylonian principality, and retained
its independence to a comparatively late date. It was a district
which had especially skilful stone- and metal-workers.
It may just be mentioned that date 30,
“Year of the army of Elam,” if
correctly rendered, may refer to the Elamite expedition to the
West, but it seems more likely that it records a disaster to the
Elamite arms, which enabled Ḫammurabi to overthrow Rîm-Sin of
Emutbālu next year.
Further details will be found in the
paper, Certain Inscriptions and
Records, etc. in the Journal of the
Victoria Institute, 1895-96, pp. 43-90. Published
also separately.
The word ḳâtu, “hand,” in Semitic Babylonian, means also
“power,” and as an explanatory
gloss, the scribe has introduced the Hebrew זרוע or עורז,
zuruḫ in Assyrian transcription,
meaning “arm,” or, here,
“power.” Apparently he was afraid
that ḳâtu would not be
understood.
In this connection Maspero's remarks
upon this fragment (Records of the Past, 2nd series,
vol. ii. p. 43) are worth repeating. He points out that there were
three Pharaohs named Soqnun-rî (= Seqnen-Rê), and he implies that
it was in all probability the last of these which is referred to.
He perished by a violent death, perhaps in battle against the
Hyksos themselves. “He had shaved his head
the morning before, ‘arraying himself for
the combat like the god Montu,’ as the Egyptian scribes
would say. His courage led him to penetrate too far into the ranks
of the enemy; he was surrounded and slain before his companions
could rescue him. The blow of an axe removed part of his left cheek
and laid bare the teeth, striking the jaw and felling him stunned
to the ground; a second blow entered far within the skull, a dagger
or short lance splitting the forehead on the right side a little
above the eye. The Egyptians recovered the body and embalmed it in
haste, when already partly decomposed, before sending it to Thebes
and the tomb of his ancestors.... The author of the legend may
probably have continued the story down to the tragic end of his
hero. The scribe to whom we owe the papyrus on which it is
inscribed must certainly have intended to complete the tale; he had
recopied the last lines on the reverse of one of the pages, and was
preparing to continue it when some accident intervened to prevent
his doing so.... It is probable, however, that it went on to
describe how Soqnun-rî, after long hesitation, succeeded in
escaping from the embarrassing dilemma in which his powerful rival
had attempted to place him. His answer must have been as odd and
extraordinary as the message of 'Apôpi, but we have no means even
of conjecturing what it was.”
Compare the name of the well near
which Hagar the Egyptian woman fell down exhausted when fleeing
from Sarai, Abraham's wife: “The well of
the
living one who seeth me.”
Another god of Mitanni seems to have
been Eaašarri, probably from the Babylonian Êa
šarru, “Êa (Aê) the
king.” Other Mitannian deities are Šimîgi and Sušbi.
Nin-urmuru (?) is only a provisional
transcription, being at least partly Akkadian. Her name in all
probability began with Bêlit, “lady of” = Bâalat. As the name ends with
the plural sign, the question naturally arises whether it may not
be practically a title—“Lady of the
Urmuru” (?), or something of the kind.
In all probability this is
metaphorically spoken, and means simply that he captured him. The
feet of those vanquished in battle were sometimes cut off, but it
is hardly likely that a man would survive this without medical
treatment.
Ḫani-galbat is identified with
northern Mesopotamia (Aram-Naharaim), and was the land ruled over
by Dušratta, king of Mitanni, a synonym of which, at least in part,
the district known as Ḫani-galbat was. Ḫana-galbat is apparently a
variant spelling.
Or “the keeper
of thy horses.” The dual sign before the word “horses” suggests that “attendant,”“guardian,” or “driver” of the two horses of the king's chariot
is meant. The expression is apparently intended merely to indicate
the writer's position as vassal.
Apparently meaning that Milki-îli,
pretending to be faithful to the king of Egypt, intended to ask
him, later on, for the territory governed by Lab'aya and Arzawa, in
order to give it back to them, they having forfeited it by their
rebellion.
Sothis rose heliacally on the 9th of
Epiphi of the 9th year (1545 b.c.) of Amenophis I.
Amosis, his predecessor, ruled twenty-two years, so that his first
year must be 1575 b.c. Subtract 240 years,
the period of oppression, from 1575, and we obtain 1335 as the date
of the Exodus.
“Son of
Ê-saggil” means that he was one of the deities worshipped in
the temple bearing that name. The god Ninip is called “son of E-sarra,” for the same reason. Nebo was
especially worshipped, however, at Ê-zida.
I.e. like the ruins of cities
which had been swept away by a flood. In both Assyria and Babylonia
floods were common things, and the devastation they caused
naturally gave rise to the simile.
“The two
borders,” see Sayce. The Assyrian form is singular, as is
also the Babylonian Miṣir, which has i for
u in both syllables. The Arabic
form is Miṣr. Muṣur(u), Misir(u), Miṣraim, and Misr are all forms
of the same name.
It is impossible, with our present
knowledge, to determine the date of Merodach-baladan's envoy to
Hezekiah (2 Kings xx. 12), but if at the late period indicated, he
must have been in hiding, and waiting for the chance to mount the
throne again.
This, together with Nagitu, and
Nagitu-di'ibina, are apparently different from the Nagite-raqqi or
Nagitu-raqqu mentioned above. Apparently Merodach-baladan had fled
from the Nagitu “within the sea” to
the mainland.
I.e. Mer-en-Ptah, Seti I. As,
however, this king reigned as early as 1350 b.c., Herodotus must have
been misinformed. Tirhakah, “king of
Ethiopia,” was Sennacherib's opponent at the period of the
siege of Jerusalem (2 Kings xix. 9).
There were twenty provinces in all,
including those of Nikû, king of Mempi and Sâa (Necho of Memphis
and Sais); Šarru-lû-dâri (an Assyrian name), king of Ṣi'anu (Zoan
or Tanis), Susinqu (Sheshonq), king of Buširu (Busiris), and many
others.
As pointed out by Commander Jones in
1852, the river responsible for the disaster was not the Tigris,
but must have been the Khosr, which flows through Nineveh from the
N.E., and runs into the Tigris W.S.W. of the village of
Armushieh.
The second copy (the less correct)
has, instead of “who is over the
city,” the words “the son of the
king ...,” which (judging from the word for “man” before “king”) the scribe must have read into the
traces which he saw.
As the Babylonians had no means of
indicating the sound of o, characters containing
u had to be used in such words as
these. The Babylonian pronunciation of the Greek πολίτης was,
therefore, poliṭē. Another form of this
plural word, namely, puliṭannu (poliṭānu), also
occurs.
In 1890, when this inscription was
copied, it was in the possession of Mr. Lucas, who kindly gave me
permission to publish it. I do not know who possesses the tablet at
present. The seal-impression at the end is exceedingly
indistinct.
Or, with Scheil: who has rectified the
course of the Tigris. As, however, the sign for “river” is wanting, the meaning “family,”“race,”
which this word has, is to be preferred.
Or “the
boatman shall repair that vessel, and strengthen (it) with his own
capital, and give the strengthened vessel (back) to the owner of
the vessel.”
Lit.: “spirits” (utukke). Perhaps the
“soul” and “spirit” are meant, the plural being indicated
by writing the character twice, though nothing certain can be
deduced from this.
In Ex. xxi. 8 it is presumed that the
master of the girl betrothed her to himself, as in the case of
Šamaš-nûri (p. 185), who,
however, could be sold as a slave if she denied her mistress.
For parallels to the Babylonian legend
of Tiamtu in the Talmud and Midrash, see S. Daiches in the
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie,
xvii. (1903), pp. 394-399.
For a list of these, see “Observations sur la Religion des Babyloniens 2000 ans
avant Jésus-Christ,” by Th. G. Pinches, in the Revue de l'Histoire
des Religions, 1901.
See Hugo Winckler, Die im Sommer 1906 in
Kleinasien ausgeführten Ausgrabungen, Orientalische
Literatur-Zeitung, Dec. 15, 1906; Vorläufige
Nachrichten über die Ausgrabungen in Boghaz-Köi im Sommer
1907, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft,
Dec. 1907 (No. 35).
In the original Ostan âḫûhi zi
'Anani, a construction which reminds us of the
Babylonian âbli-šu ša, “son of.” May we, therefore, read “Ostanes, brother of 'Anani?”
Sanballat in Nehemiah. The
transcription here used is that of the Septuagint, but the
vocalization is in both cases incorrect—it should be Sin-uballiṭ.
This name, which is Babylonian, means “the
moon-god has given life.” He is called a Horonite in Neh.
ii. 10, 19.
Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen
Gesellschaft, 1902, I.: Ein Altbabylonisches
Fragment des Gilgamosepos, von Bruno Meissner.
Berlin, Wolf Peiser Verlag.
Oriental Translation Fund, New Series,
I. The
Rauzat-us-Safa; or Garden of Purity, by Mirkhond.
Translated by E. Rehatsek. Royal Asiatic Society, 1891.
The Babylonian Excavations and Early Bible
History, by Prof. Kittel, translated by Edmund
McClure, M.A., with a preface by Henry Wace, D.D. Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1903.
The Bronze Ornaments of the Palace Gates of
Balawat, with an introduction by Walter de Gray
Birch, and descriptions and translations by Theophilus G. Pinches.
Published at the Offices of the Society of Biblical Archæology,
Bloomsbury, W.C.