Amurru the Home of the Northern Semites a Study Showing That The

THE HO M E O F THE NO RTHE RN

SE M ITE S

A S TU D Y S HO W I N G THAT TIIE R ELI G ION A N D CULTURE O F I SRAEL ARE NOT O F B A B Y LONI A N O RI G IN

H L BE R . L Y P A T T C A , D .

PR F E S S R O F S E M I T I C PH I L L G A N D A RC HE L G O O O O Y O O Y , U NI V E RS I TY O F PE N NS Y L V A NI A

PH ILA D E LPHIA

Elbe ﬁunhay ﬁthnnl 611m m 010 a I 9 0 9 COP Y R IGHT 1 909 B Y

THE S UNDA Y SCHOOL TIM ES COMP AN Y TO PROFES SO R EDGAR FAHS SM ITH

PH D S D LL D . . C . . . .

V I C E Pn ovosr 0 17 T H E U NIV E RS I T Y O F P E NNS YL V A NIA

BELO VED B Y COLL EA G UES A ND S TU DE NTS

IN GRATE FUL APPRECIATION

P R E F A C E

These discu ssions are the ou tgrowth of The Rein icker Le u 1 908 a ct res for the year , delivered at the Protest nt E S A V . piscopal Theological eminary , lexandria, irginia

I u i u as nstead of p blish ng the lect res delivered , which “ u R covered the s bject , ecent Discoveries in Bible Lands , it seemed preferable to present a special phase of the su b

ect u an ur . j , which is here treated more f lly th in the lect es ’ In u Li ht on the Old Testa m en t the a thor s work, g

' rom Babel w as m i , a protest expressed against the clai s of the Pan -Bab ylon ists that Babylonia had extensively u u inﬂ enced the cu ltu re of Israel . Contin ed researches

u u ﬁr have opened p new vistas of the s bject , which con m the contention that the Pan -Bab ylon ists have not only greatly overestimated the inﬂu ence of the Babylonian u ur u I b u t S c lt e pon srael , that the emitic Babylonians A u u S came from the land of m rr ; that is , yria and Pales n u u w as ti e , and that their c lt re an amalgamation of what was once Amorite or West Semitic and the S u merian

u E u which they fo nd in the phrates valley . In order to make the main ou tlines of the su bject as well as the discussions whi ch bear directly u pon the n Old Testament more readable , the tech ical material h as II b u t u been conﬁned largely to Part , freq ent refer en ces I In u i to it are made in Part . stead of q ot ng the

u u in n mbers of the pages referred to , they will be fo nd 6 A MU RRU HOME OF NORTHERN S EM ITES

u the Index . The a thor realizes that in a nu mber of instances other interpretations of certain individu al facts are possible . Modiﬁcation of views presented mu st necessarily follow new discoveries as they are made ; b ut nevertheless the writer believes that the main con ten

ur tions will remain undist bed . A u . To my colleag es , Professor J . Montgomery and Pro astrow Jr I u fessor Morris J , . , am deeply gratef l for their gen erous help and encouragement during the preparation i k An d I t k of th s boo . also ex end my hearty than s for the k A G. . ind assistance rendered by my friends , Professor w W u Barton , of Bryn Ma r Professor . MaxM ller , of Phila

r A ur Un n d Of v a Re . . delphia ; P ofessor rth g , Jena ; the Dr H W n U . r C . . Joh s , Fellow at Cambridge nive sity ; H R k P . A b l . oe e Dr ermann an e , of Berlin ; Dr rno , of E W l H Y k isenach ; and Dr . il iam ayes Ward , of New or . To all it gives me pleasure to acknowledge m y indebted u ness and extend my warm gratit de . Let me add , in mentioning the names of these scholars , that they are in no wise responsible for the views expressed in these lectu res . ALB E RT L AY T . C . V E R ITY F E NNS YLV ANIA UNI S O P . CONTENTS

ART I P .

INTRO D UCTORY REMARK S CREATION S TORY THE S A B E A TII ANTED ILUV I AN D ELUGE ” ORIGINAL HOME O F S EMITI C CULTURE

ART I P I .

A MUR RU IN THE CUN EI F ORM I Ns c R I PT I ONs AMURRU IN WEST S EMITI C

A E DI PP N X .

I UR O F . THE II THE N O F . AME III THE N O F S A G . AME R ON IV THE N NI N . AME THE N W V . AME YAH EH .

ABBREV IATIONS

A — A n a nd m n D hn i a . . D . . Jo s , ssy r Deeds Docu e ts A S L —A m a n ou rna l o S em a n a . J . . . eric J f itic L gu ges . A K W —A bha nd lu n en de r h l l h-h or h n la . . G . . g p i o og isc ist isc e C sse der K n i l a h s llscha de r W ns ha n S hen Ge e t . o g . c sisc i isse c fte A a b P v —M n a zu m A l ba b l n h va h l b r n . t . . i eiss er , Beitr ge t y o isc e Pri trec t

' ‘ A n —Mii e r A n u nd E a na h A l a i schen D e n km ci l ern . ll t t . sie , sie urop c gyp

’ A —B i rci A l h d H b l an a . . e t e t e B . g zur ssyrio og ie , edi ed y D itzsc upt B E —B E . a b l n a n x ion o the Un v o n n lva n a y o i pedit f i ersity f Pe sy i , V I l d 2 Hil re ch t V I 1 Ra n VI 2 Poe b e I I I 1 ol . an l , , p ; , , ke ; , , ; V , , l a IX Hil re ch t an d la l a XIV Cla XV l a C y ; , p C y ; X , C y ; , y ; , C y ; d Hil re ch t a n . XX , p Ba b lon ca — b V i a . i ro e a u d y Edited y ll . B l Ca a l e —Ca a lo o the n rm Ta b l i n the Kou u n ezo d , t ogu t gue f Cu eifo ets y i k C ll n j o ectio . wn Heb Die — w n v an d B H b e w a n d E n l h Bro , . Bro , Dri er riggs , e r g is L x n o h Old T a m n e ico f t e est e t. B L —A la L i o I a h ru n n ow C e C n m . — , ist ssiﬁ d st f u eifor deogr p s C T C ne T om B T c i n he B h . . o m x a b l n a n a bl ts e t . t u if r e ts fr y o i e , , ritis M m b K n n h a n d Th m n useu , y i g , Pi c es o pso .

’ ’ v —d e S a rze c He u ze D cou v r s Cha l é ou e e r e te en . D c ert s y , dee — ’ Dél en S ch e il T x e E la m e S em i ti u es D ele a ti on en . Perse , e t s it s q , g

Perse . E m s—L E i a h he w i id zb a rs ki E h m u r S m h . p , p e eris f e itisc e p gr p ik L — J . . . ou na l o B bl a l L i a B J r f i ic te r ture . R A — S . o l o h A J . . J na e R a l i a . ur f t oy s tic S ociety . —A B I V I I Ha s a n a n d a b l n a n l . . rper , Letters s yri y o i Letters , Vo s to H W — h A a n Ha n w ch . . l i d b r erbu z r . B De it sc , ssy t H b n en na m n —Di e ne n na m n i n K l h i u er , Perso e Perso e der ei sc r ft n n a u o N s n urku de s der Zeit de r Kan i ge v n Ur u nd i i . a w R l - R l n Ba n n A i n e . b l n u d . J stro , Die e ig io y o ie s ssyr e s ’ K —Kou u n tk C l B o h B h M u m y ] o le ction i n ezold s Ca ta logue f t e ritis use . 3 A T —D K m n K . il ch i A l T s a b m m . . ie e in s r ten u n d da s t n / e e t e t , y Zi er an d W n l i ck er . 1 0 A M U RRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EMITES

—K l n s c Bi bli o h lc K ei i hri tli che t e . . B f K n Ch n l — h n le on n n E a l B a b lon a n Ki n s i g , ro ic es C ro ic s C cer i g r y y i g , I a n d I I Vols . . I o r — l A h I de o ra m m de . S n e M n . eiss er , g e te e ssyrisc e g - M n S l m n —S l m n e u den A ri s hen Wa eiss er , upp e e t upp e e t ssy c rter

Mu -Arn ol t e —C n s ona r o the A a n La n ua ss , Di t o ci e Dicti y f ssyri g ges . NOl d e k e F s t h —O n a l h S n The Noldeke zu m , e sc rift rie t isc e tudie odor i e b n b a s zigste Ge urtst g . —0 li s i sc / - O . . ri n a he I i a u r n b e t t ter t t e s . L Z Zei u g , edit d y Pei er l om n a — l h l m na ne n e u n Hebra i sch Pro eg e De itzsc , Pro ego e ei s e A ra m ai sche n War erbu ch zu m A l n T m n t te esta e t . B A — n o h S o A S . . . ed e bl a l hae l P . Proce i gs f t ociety f Bi ic rc o ogy . N —E a l Ba b lon a n na l Na m B E V o III Ran . . l ke , P r y y i Perso es , D , . . R I R l n n —The n rm I n n o W s n . . aw er . , , etc , or i so Cu eifo scriptio s f e t A i a I l . . s , Vo s to V ’ Rev A ss —R v d A ss ri olo i e . . e ue y g .

’ — R v e em i i e S . S u . R. e u t g Rec Ta b ha l —Th u re a u - a n R l Ta bl Cha l é n . n nes . . . C D g i , ecuei de ettes d e m N Nb n —Ba b l n he T x I n h i S a a bk . . . n von tr ss ier , , , etc y o isc e te , sc r fte Na u chodon oso b r.

Tall vis t Na m en b u ch—Neu b a b lon i sch es Na m en bu ch zu den q , y Ges cha su rku nd en ft .

V B —Th u u - n in m h u nd A a hen Kon . . re a a S n D g , Die u erisc e kk disc i si n sch i en —V ra s a h B l h Ab 1 r I . t r b . g f o de i tisc e i iot ek , ,

‘ V S — a a h S chri tden km al er I II V II Un a d . l n V . order si tisc e f , Vo s , etc g A — ’ A A u ss h ur l b B . Z . . r . s l . , or Zeit f Zeit c rift f ssyrio ogie , edited y ezo d A T W — h u r a l a m n l h W n ha . . . . t Z Zeitsc rif f die ttest e t ic e isse sc ft,

' M — h h n M or en landi schen ll ha . . G. t. Z . D Zeitsc rift der Deutsc e g Gese sc f

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

THE current theory of Semitic scholars concerning the origin of the Semitic Babylonians is that they came

A r u u e from rabia, and that after thei c lt r had developed in Babylonia it was carried westward into Am u rru ‘ Palestin e and Syria ) generally kn ow n as the land Am of the orites . Without attempting to determine the u ltimate S m w origin of the e ites, the riter holds that every indi

u n cation , res lti g from his investigations , proves that the movement of the Semites w as eastward from Amurru an d Aram from the lands of the West) into Baby In u u S i lonia . other words , the c lt re of the em tic

Babylonians points , if not to its origin , at least to a long development in Am urru before it was carried into Babylonia . As a matter of fact , the earliest name for Northern

Uri Shu m er Babylonia in the inscriptions is . or

S u E n i o thern Babylonia, was called g , and Northern

i i . e Ur . Babylonia was called ; , Babylonia, as well as

n n the district extending to the shore of the Mediterra ea ,

e ri r Ari ri Ari U o . U was call d The name or , it will be

Am u rru th e n shown , is very probably derived from , ame of

u th e the West co ntry . This shows that name of Baby

B n m t i n s h n d a n E a l Hi s o S e e a S O a . I a rto e i ic r g i , c p , P to , r y t ry o a l t n a n d S ri a h I II— II a . I f P es i e y , c ps V . 1 3 1 4 A MU RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EM ITES

i i Uri k lon a, wh ch is in the earliest nown period of

is Semitic Babylonian history , a geographical extension

k wn as Am u rru r of the land in the West , no or U i . Not only was the name of the coun try Am u rru carried b ut to that region , it will also be demonstrated that the cu lture of the Semitic Babylonians w as largely transported

A n from the West . The morites in movi g eastward into Babylonia carried with them not only their religion , b u t u as their traditions, s ch their creation story , ante

u s u In dil vian patriarch , del ge legend, etc . considering

k - Bab lon ists I the position ta en by the Pan y in Part , u concerning these and other s bjects , the above state

u us II u ments , which are f lly disc sed in Part , sho ld be k ept constantly in mind . A little more than a decade ago there appeared in Germany a school of critics known generally as the

Pan - As - t S Babylonian or tral my hological chool . The parallels to certain features of the Bible stories that are fou nd in the Babylonian literatu re determined for the Pan- Bab ylon ists that the origin of mu ch of the H u u u ebrew c lt re is to be fo nd in Babylonian mythology . k S u k A stra lm then I A The wor of t c en , y , Part , on braham , u 1 896 II p blished in , which was followed by Part , on 1 897 Lot , in , may be said to be the beginning of these efforts ; althou gh simi lar conceptions of the Old Testa ment antedate this work .

Professor Winckler , of Berlin , may be said to be the

u In u real fo nder of the school . a series Of contrib tions

Geschi cht I l V l II e sra e s o . from his pen , following his , , w as u 1 900 has u which p blished in , he nfolded his theory I NTRODU CTO RY REMA RKS

U of the niverse . The world consists of heaven and

u e earth . The heavens are s bdivid d into the northern heavens , the zodiac, and the heavenly ocean . The earthly part of the u niverse also consists of a threefold i d vision, the heaven , the earth, and the waters beneath

In the earth . this system the signs of the zodiac play the important part , for the planets as they passed through the heavens enabled the astrologers to inter U pret the will of their deities . pon these ideas a com l k ut ete o . p cosmological system is wor ed The heavens ,

u u corresponding to the earth, reﬂect their inﬂ ence pon u it, with the res lt that everything in heaven has its coun terpart on earth . The gods of heaven have dwell h ings on earth, presided over by eart ly kings , who as representatives of the gods are considered their incarnations . The heavens reveal the past , present ,

u u u W an d the f t re for those who co ld read them . hat occurs on earth is only a copy of what occurred in A — . s heaven trology , therefore, was the all important

n All test a d interpreter of ancient history . ancient

u I u nations , incl ding srael , practised it or were infl enced by it . The periodic changes in the positions of the heavenly b odies u gave rise to certain sacred n mbers . These Winckler u ses to Show the bearing of the Babylonian

t I A c as tral my hology u pon thin gs sraelitish . c ording to I u his views , not only is the sraelitish c lt dependent u b ut s pon Babylonian originals, also the patriarch

d I u c u G and other lea ers of srael , s h as Josh a, ideon ,

S u are sun u a t a l , David, and others , or l n r my hological personages . 1 6 A M U RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EMITES

A Gem i n i braham and Lot are the same as the , R an u A called by the om s Castor and Poll x . braham ,

w his together ith wife , who was also his sister , are

s Tam m u z w as Ishta r form of (who a solar god) and , the former being the brother and bridegroom of the

As I shtar w as u S i n latter . the da ghter of , the moon

A u - god, braham m st be a moon god ; for he went from

Ur H a e to ar n , two places dedicat d to that deity . Many circ u mstances of the myths concerning Abraham cor 3 1 8 A ’ roborate this . The men who were braham s

u G 3 1 8 allies, in the fo rteenth chapter of enesis , are the All days of the year when the moon is visible . Baby K lonian gods were represented by nu mbers . irjath A arba, the one center of braham myths , means the “ Ar Arb u . a u city of ba, or fo r m st then be the moon “ u god which has fo r phases . Beersheba , the seven ” n A wells , another ce ter with which braham myths were

u are identiﬁed , also represents the moon , beca se there I c seven days in each phase of the moon . saa , who

u lived at Beersheba , m st , therefore , also be a moon

u deity . The fo r wives of Jacob show that he also is

His . the same . twelve sons are the twelve months ’ k Leah s seven sons are the gods of the wee . The twelve hun dred pieces Of silver which Benjamin received represent a mu ltiple of the thirty days of the month ; and the ﬁve chan ges of garments that he received are the ﬁve intercalary days of the Babylonian year .

- I n k Ta m m u z sun . Joseph , Winc ler sees a , or myth

His re u n E u ide n ti d am shows the priority of the s . sa

ﬁe d t E the s m n wi h dom is a e , as is show by his '

e r e e u s a h ~ redn ss . The sto i s of Mos s , Josh a (who i

1 8 A M U RRU HOM E O F N ORTHERN S EM IT ES

A e u . L Dr lfr d Jeremias , of eipzig, by his p blication ,

Da s Alte Testa m en t i m Li chte des a lten Ori en ts o u , has p p of b u t u k larized the views this school , fort nately ma es his position more reasonable by admitting the possi b ility that the patriarchs may be historical personages ; re re for example , the twelve sons of Jacob , he says , p ‘ i sent the zod acal signs, and yet it is possible that they may be hi storical persons .

u u Professor Jensen , of Marb rg, in a work p blished in 1 906 u Das Gi l am esch , of over a tho sand pages , g

E os i n der Weltli tera tu r n s p , ﬁ d the origin of the biblical A hr u characters of braham down to C ist , incl ding John

- hi B sun t . the Baptist , in t s abylonian collection of my hs “ ” M tho r h E The Gospels he calls y g ap s . ven references to biblical characters in the ancient monu ments are u explained away , or no acco nt is taken of them .

In as I short , the origin of what we know sraelitish is really an adaptation by late Hebrew writers of the

B sun - abylonian myths , which had been woven together into what is known as the Gilgamesh epic .

In u i one of the pamphlets iss ed th s year by Jensen ,

oses esu s Pau lu s V entitled M J , he defends his iews

His in : against his critics . position is stated the words “ I u The old sraelitish history , the history of Jes s of h as Nazareth , collapsed, and the apostolic history has ui —a been exploded . Babylon has laid Babylon in r ns catastrophe for the Old and New Testament science, b u t tru ly not un deserved ; a catastrophe for the mythol

ou r u n u ogy of ch rch and sy agog e , which reaches into ” ou r k u u present time li e a bea tif l ruin . I NTRODU CTORY REMA RKS

n By the expressio , Babylon has laid Babylon in

ui . an r ns , Prof Jensen evidently me s that the discoveries which have been used to establish the historical value of the Old Testament are now us ed to show that the founda tions u pon which the Christian and Jewish theology rest are borrowed from Babylonian mythology . The same

as in u u phr e q estion is , however , eq ally applicable in u these lect res , for the claim is that Babylonian researches show that the contentions of the Pan-Bab ylon ists are u u u I witho t fo ndation , and that the literat re of srael is not to be regarded as being compose d of transformed A h Babylonian and ssyrian myt s . Some of these scholars and their followers hold that

n only a change of names has taken place . O the one i u hand, all that orig nally belonged to Mard k is trans

h Gil a ferred to C rist ; and on the other , the legends of g H mesh have been adopted and adapted by the ebrews , hr — so that all which refers to the life of C ist his passion ,

u as his death , his descent , his res rrection and his een — sion are to be explained as having their origin in Baby lonian mythology . Although these theories have b een advanced by some of the foremost scholars , they need more proof before they can be seriously considered as more than conjectures similar to those that have been based on

Greek and Roman mythology for centuries . The an thropomorphic character of the gods enables one to

ﬁnd parallels , in one form or another , for practically everything that took plac e in the lives of all biblical For characters , even in that of the Nazarene . example , 20 A MU RRU HOM E O F N ORTHERN S EMITES

G k t u i A h in ree my hology , Tamm z , the darl ng of p w as b u t rodite , slain ; on the third day they rejoiced — at the resu rrection of this lord of light who also was

l a w A known by the name of . more striking parallel

u . u e l a w h co ld not be desired F rth r , this name as rightly been said to represent closely the divine name

Y as ahweh, it appears in the inscriptions ; hence addi ti n l - n u f As o a far reachi g conjectures co ld be o fered . a G k f e i matter of fact, ree mythology o fers far mor nterest an ing parallels th the Babylonian . The German savants who belong to this school have their cou nterparts in E ngland and on this A side of the tlantic . The celestial light has penetrated these shores an d we have seen in the past an d are beginning to see more and more the reflections flare u p in a modified as well as in an intensified form . The dependence of the culture of Israel u pon Babylonia seems to be conceded by almost every n n scholar . This conception has grow steadily withi

so n the last few decades , that the ediﬁce which has bee h u reared as now reached its f ll height , the capstone

h set an d u u . A n as been , the str ct re is complete cha ge an u of names, that is all , and a Babyloni deity, Mard k or Bel , becomes Christ . The writer feels that the very height to which thi s creation has attained is the salu tary feature of the ff u u whole e ort , for the fo ndation pon which it rests is of su ch a character that it will surely cause the entire

I u u stru cture to fall . t is not the p rpose of this disc ssion to take down one stone after another and su bmit them I NTRODU CTORY REM A RKS

an u to examination , and so endeavor to red ce the height an d keep the bui lding within proper proportions ; b ut it is the purpose to exam ine carefu lly the very foundation stones of the stru cture and ascertain u pon what it rests . Before di scu ssing some of the important claims of these critics , a word may be said with reference to the Baby I In lonian astral ideas and srael . the ﬁrst place , contrary to the position taken by Winckler and his school that as tron om y took its rise in the early period of Babylonian l 2 Ku ler astrow history , it is now maintained by g , J , and s w as others, that the period when the science of a tronomy developed in Babylonia was between the fourth and B C. ur . sa u se cond cent ies , that is to y , d ring the period 3 e u E u V Ku of Gre k inﬂ ence in the phrates alley . gler

522 BC u dates the earliest astronomical tablet , altho gh he adm its that it shows evidence of being revised from

W e si l t an earlier tablet . hile an argu ment en i o is pre u cario s, this absence of astronomical inscriptions of the character that is su pposed to have inﬂu enced Israel is strikingly signiﬁcant . More importan t is the fact that there is absolu tely no proof for the existence of su ch an astral conception

In un . of the iverse in the Old Testament fact , as far

w u k as is kno n to the writer, there is an tter lac of data

ult h h B B A m K u n a b l n h n no . ur istorisc e ede tu g der y o isc e stro ie, p ff 38 . 2 n o the A m a n h l h a l S t I I Proceedi g s f eric P i osop ic ocie y, XLV , 1 66 7 . N 1 90 90 8 . o. , , p 3 S n n u n d S nd ns i n B a b l I 2 ter ku de ter ie t e , , p . . 22 AM U RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EM ITES

1 Sur the u pon which these astral theories rest . ely inj un ction to have nothing to do with astrology can not

In u be constru ed as countenancing it . De teronomy

1 2 2—7 u , the law req ired that the man who worshiped

sun u the , moon , or any of the host of heaven , sho ld be

u De u p t to death . The same spirit is maintained in 4 1 1 Se teron om 5 9 . e y , also in what contempt and I 47 1 3 ridi cu le the prophet ( s . ) spoke of the astrologers ,

- star gazers, and monthly prognosticators , when he tells the people to let these save them from the coming disasters . That the people of Canaan , or rather of A u ru sun an d an d m r , worshiped the , moon stars , m perhaps divined by them, see s to be evident from these inj unctions ; b u t the legislation against astrology in Israel su rely is su fﬁcient proof that it had not pene tr te d u u a the c lt , even if some of the people were inﬂ enced by it .

u The same is tr e of liver divination , which serves ’ as another illu stration of Israel s attitu de towards su ch

u practises . The req irement of the Mosaic law to “ ” destroy the so-called cau l above the liver is a proof I that in srael divination by the liver was not sanctioned . We know that the Babylonians believed that by inspecting the liver of the sheep they cou ld ascer

un tain what the gods desired to comm icate to them . 2 hr u T o gh the researches of Professor Jastrow , we have obtained an excellent u nderstan ding of this practise k . G R of the Babylonians The ree s , omans , and

1 R R l n o B a b l n a a n d A a 220 S e e . . ogers , e ig io f y o i ssyri , p Se e h i R l n a b l n n u n d A n II 1 74 s . e ig io B y o ie s ssyrie s, , p ff . I NTRODU CTO RY REM A RKS

Etruscans also divined by the liver To what extent the peoples of Am urru practised hepatoscopy is

k Bu wn . t u not no in the Pentate ch , in no less than ten passa ges a protest is implied against this kind of l divination . The ordinance provides for the bu rning “ ” u of the ca l above the liver , which Professor Moore has shown refers to the ﬁn g er-shaped appendix of the

u u ca date lobe , altho gh the rest of the liver was permitted

u u to be eaten . The reason they were req ired to b rn

r astrow u s this part of the live , as Professor J has s gge ted , is that it was a symbolical protest against the u se of the

u liver for divination p rposes . By destroying this

u portion , which played s ch an important part in hepa tosco py , the people were warned not to divert the We sacriﬁce into a form of divination . reach , there

u . u n fore , the same concl sion The c lt , while recognizi g

u the existence of s ch practises , cannot be said to be even tainted with them ; b ut by its protests emphasizes

An an . d the import ce of holding aloof from them , at

u the same time , it cannot be said that these reg lations were directed especially against Babylonian in ﬂ u ences ; becau se astrology and liver divination appear to have u u u been widespread in antiq ity , and do btless were in vog e among other peoples beside those already m en tion e dh - ln all probability among the Canaanite nations . Many theories of these and other scholars have

u n on the u n arisen and have fo nd accepta ce , s ppositio that the re is no antiqu ity for the Hebre w c u lture as early

Le v 3 : 4 . , 9 : 24 A MU RRU HOME OF N ORTHERN S EMITES

’ H as Abraham s time . The ancestors of the ebrews are considered by man y of these writers to be noma dic Arabs who came u p from Arabia abou t the time of Abraham ; not becaus e one iota of evidence h as been produ ced to di scredit the accou nts concerning the origin of the

H as ebrews , preserved in the Old Testament , namely , A A -Nah araim that they came from ram (or ram ) , b u t simply becau se the specu lations of these scholars

u u . An d have led them to s ch concl sions yet , contrary to what has been claimed , many discoveries that have been made in the past decades of research an d investi g ation tend to show the historical valu e of these relics ui of antiq ty . Let us inquire what the excavations have thu s far revealed concerning this interpenetration of the Baby I ur lonian cu ltu re in srael . D ing the past years explora tions have been condu cted principally at four sites in r Palestine belonging to the early pe iod , namely, Lachish ‘ G S u Ta an n ek and ezer in the o th , and and Megiddo in ﬁ the North . On rst impressions these excavations might serve the Pan -Bab yl on ists better than anything else with argu ments for the mythological character of the

hi I If kn I entire story of srael . we did not ow that srael

u u act ally lived in Palestine, we wo ld scarcely have inferred it from what these excavations have revealed . H an owever , according to the recent report of Macalister , interesting old Hebrew calendar inscription has been

u fo nd at Gezer . Macalister placed the date of it in the

u B C b ut Lidzb arski n k sixth cent ry , thi s it is the oldest, W S or at all events one of the oldest , of est emitic

26 AM U RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EM ITES

i u as u Th s m ch can be emph ized, witho t taking into

. consideration the clay tablets fou nd in that di strict which will be discu ssed later : the excavations condu cted in Palestine do not show any Babylonian inﬂu ence in I the early period of sraelitish history, nor in the pre I In A sraelitish . the late ssyrian period, when the

i Of arm es that nation again and again overran the land , when Assyrian officials in man y cases were set over u t f cities and p into control of a fairs , it is perfectly natural that traces of the Assyrians shou ld be discovered ; especially when we know that towns were repeopled

As i with syrians after the natives were carried nto exile . Whi le proofs dependin g u pon antiquities discovered u p to the present which show su ch an occu pation are

n exceedi gly slight , it is perfectly proper to expect , if certain cities are excavated , to hear at any time of the ﬁn a n As u ding of m y importations from syria, s ch as

Bu s u . t arm , tensils, seals, etc , as stated above , these will be found to belong to the time when Assyria w as i the dom nant power in Western Asia . Af ter su rveying the results of the excavations c on

u in us d cted Palestine we m t , therefore , agree with 1 k S um Nowac , who in his review of the work of ch acher and Steu ernagel at Tel e l-Mutesselim takes issu e with those who claim predominant inﬂu ence of Babylonian cu lture in Palestine from the third mil len n iu m He : It i s di stu rb in u t u on . says a g b irref table fact that u ntil down to the ﬁfth stratu m to the

Th l a z i 26 e n 1 0 . . 9 8 . eo Liter tur tu g , , NO I NTROD U CTORY REMA RKS — beginning of the eighth century important Assyrian ” “ It inﬂu ences do not assert themselves . is most signiﬁcant that in Megiddo not a single idol (Gottesbi ld) from the As syrian -Babylonian Pan theon has been

u S A r - in fo nd . ome proofs of ssy ian Babylonian flu en ce are first met in the fifth and sixth stratu m ; I se e while this is limited , so far as can , to the seals ” 1 foun d there . E On the other hand , the relations with gypt are shown by the antiqu ities discovered to have existed as early as the twelfth dynasty ; and mu ch evidence has been secu red to prove that the Semites in Canaan

u were strongly inﬂu enced from that q arter . This is

u u E not s rprising beca se of the proximity of gypt , I u H u and , as regards srael , beca se the ebrews for cent ries lived in that land ; b ut it fails to su bstantiate the completely Babylonian natu re of Canaanitish civili zation u E u in the cent ries before the xod s , or in fact at any other time . This predomin ance of E gyptian inﬂu ence as against the Babylonian is well established in the art as re pre i i sented u pon the seal cyl nders com ng from this district . ’ ‘ Sellin s excavations at Tell Ta an n e k show that the

an b u t Palestini s imported seal cylinders from Babylonia, r u E eng aved pon them gyptian hieroglyphic symbols .

In Ph oen ic ia u the seals which came from , incl ding Pales

H u —in A a tine and the a ran other words , the morite l nd , or

’ ’ e e n n a na a n a l x lora ti on e nt 4 1 4 S e e e . 3 39 Vi ce t , C d pr s p r c e , pp , , d The R l on o A n a l 1 1 2 a n e e nt n . . Cook , e ig i f ci P esti e , p f 28 AM U RRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EM ITES — the land called Amurru in these discu ssions the Egyp tian inﬂu ence is predominant as early as the third millen

B as E k u C. S u ni m . ch elements the gyptian haw , apron , n ta r u u cru x a sa us . , papy ﬂower , lion sphynx , v lt re , etc , 1 are mu ch in evi dence .

A II Am u rru i n the West s set forth in Part , on

S emi tic I n scri ti on s p , the excavations by Macalister and others in Palestine poin t to the fact that the dominant A in people in the Westland , whom we call morites , the u S millenni m preceding the time of Moses, were emites ; ur as II Am u rru i n the and f ther , shown in Part , on

u n ei orm I n scri ti on s C f p , there are evidences which deter m ine that in the earliest kn own historical period the

A u u w as u an d morite c lt re already f lly developed , that it r61e u played an important in inﬂ encing other peoples . V u u ery appropriately , therefore , inq iry sho ld be made whether the E gyptian inscriptions throw an y light u pon

u u u the q estion . Do they show that there was a c lt re in

? If so S i that land in the early period , was it a em tic

u ? An d n an cu lt re ﬁ ally , are there y evidences that this cu lture inﬂuenced other peoples ?

’ ’ A -ma -ra or A -m a -ra in the Egyptian inscriptions is k n now as a geographical term, and refers to the Lebanon It u u region . may even incl de the coast , being a vag e A S . term for central yria The race of the morites, E u S m an d according to the gyptian pict res , is e itic , in no

l S e e W a C l n a n d th A n n S a l i n the L b a o rd , y i ders o er cie t e s i r ry f M J . on t a n 9 . 8 Pierp org , p . I NTROD U CTORY REM A RKS way distingu ished from the other inhabitants of southern ‘ and middle Syria . The m on u m en ts of Egypt not only furnish ample ' evidence to prove that the civilization of Syria-Palestin e 2 is S i as as E b u t em tic , and is old that of gypt , , on the W Mii ll r u . . e a thority of Prof . M , it may be stated that the beginnin gs of civilization in the Nile valley seem to u W have been extensively inﬂ enced by the estern Semites .

a Of S Contr ry to the views most emitists , who have fol “ E Prun kin sc hriften lowed the writer of the gyptian , which misrepresents the As iatics by describing them as “ i u m serable , h ngry , dirty sand wanderers, or the S i n u he novel, which endeavors to give the impression that the people of Palestine were in a state Of barbarism 2 Miill r 000 B C . e , Prof maintains that in the districts of u u arable land the people were agric lt ral , and had E attained a fair degree of civilization . The gyptian pictures of the nomadic or half nomadic traders and mer cen aries coming to Egypt at that time show their skill k n R k in metal wor ing and weavi g . emar able weapons an and h dsomely decorated garments are depicted .

Th I h W M M Th e c om a n n th u . . . ll is le r o e a t ority of Prof u er . m ha a l ne 4 w h th e b S a a a l . 8 a s n a . p ri o de y Prof yce , P tri rc P esti , p , it Lib yan type (w hi ch stron gly resem b les th e Sem itic type) w as b ased “ ’ ” h h n A -m a -ra L D 20 9 on a a u t e . r t er poor pict re of pri ce of ( , or M o a l T in i n e Ra c . ll S . 1 43 tc . al s o Ros e . . , tor , p , ; Petrie , i ypes) Better r th e Am w h o a re al w a n as S m pictu es of orites , ys represe ted e ites , “ are to b e foun d in Se th os I a tta cki n g th e l an d of Q a d e sh of th e la n d Am R e in i M o o h a m ll n M on u m en ts ll n . S 5 3 a os t . . of r ( , r , p ; or C po io . i W M a n d al th e th e n h a i n . . p . so picture of pri ce of t t c ty E l R h I I l 7 . M ll to . a . u er , gyp ese rc es , , p X 40 O I/ i I 3 . Se e Mull n . t. . . er , rie Zeit , , p 30 A M U RRU HOM E O F N ORT HERN S EM I TES

’ Already at thi s time a papyr u s speaks of Pharaoh s messengers going to Syria with in scribe d bricks tied in 1 e us their loin cloths . This giv s an earlier date for the use Of un r E A the c eiform sc ipt in gypt and Western sia .

Pe u 2500 B C cr A Pharaoh py , abo t , des ibes his siatic

i u u r enem es as largely agric lt al , and living in strongly It u fortified cities . wo ld seem that some of the walls of 2 Th their cities were no less than fifty feet high . e adoption of Syrian loan words shows powerfu l influ ence S i E 3 2 exercised by the em tes on gypt before 000 B C. E ven prior to Menes this Semitic civilization played an

E u u important part in the development of gyptian c lt re .

Miiller ur nf Prof . f ther i orms me that , according to

ui di ling stic and racial in cations , in the earliest time no other than the Semite appears to have lived in the Am u u a ricul rr region , where he became sedentary and g u as E an 3 t ral as early the gypti in the Nile valley . In thi s conn ection a word is appropriate with refer ence to the inﬂu ence of Babylonian and S u merian civil iza ion u E u t pon gypt . There is little do bt that the Su merian cu lture will eventu ally be shown to have existed at a mu ch earlier date than thu s far as certained

Bu E by the excavations in Babylonia . t to call gypti an

S u civilization a branch of the Babylonian , or merian , u u seems to be a statement witho t s pport . Contrary to

H m u u k the claims of Prof . om el , altho gh it is q ite li ely

‘ Se e M ll O n Li IV . t. . . 8 . u er , rie Zeit , , p 2 D esha sheh l 4 n As a m . a n o b Petrie , , p , represe ts i tic city st r ed y a n i n th e th n Egyp ti s 5 dy a sty . Se e Mu e r O n Li 40 n . . t. t . 3 , rie Zei , X , p . I NTROD U CTORY REM A RKS that the begin n in gs of Egyptia n c ivilization were brought

As S u h as from ia, not a single merian loan word been w E S u sho n to exist in gyptian , and yet the merian

i u u se 2000 B C cont n ed in as late as , and the Babylonian langu age was e xtensively a mi xture of the S u merian and

S u u i the emitic . The elements of c lt re that m grated from Babylonia or Shum er to Egypt mus t have ﬁrst

S i n S been adopted by the em tic i habitants of yria, and u us transmitted by them . Nat rally , this forces to regard r the barbarous Sy ian of this early age in another light . An d it also forces us to realize that the references to Am mru in the oldest cu ne iform inscriptions are indi ca tions of the correctness of the contentions for the early In civilization of that land . short, all this attests the credibility of the claim s made on the basis of the Pales a an d tinian excav tions other researches , that an ancient S i em tic people , with a not inconsiderable civilization , A u A lived in m rru prior to the time of braham . It is well know n that Babylonian and Su merian u k — r lers in the earliest nown historical period that is, in the third and fourth mi llen nium s before Christ conqu ered and held in su bjection the land of Syria and In i Gu un Palestine . th s period dea is fo d importing i t . l mestone , alabas er , cedars , etc , from the West , even

Si u A u gold from the naitic penins la . s ccession of Babylonian ru lers claimed su zerainty over this land un E W til it fell into the hands of lam . ith the over

Am u u i an d S throw of that land , rr (Palest ne yria) came ’ again into the possession of Babylonia in Ha m m urab i s

u n E time . Later , d ring the eighteenth dy asty of gypt ,

in he n the r it is found t co trol of Pha aohs . 32 AM U RRU HOM E O F N ORTHER N S EM I TES

The mi litary conqu est an d enf orced su bj e c tion of the coun try for su ch a long period resu lted in the estab lishm en t of the Babylonian lan g u age and script as the

u t e n as ofﬁcial tong e of h entire district co trolled , well A an d E The as of other parts of Western sia gypt . ability to maste r this complicated an d difﬁcul t system

u k u of writing, many have tho ght , spea s vol mes for the c A intelligence of the ivilized peoples of Western sia . E du cation Of scribes must have bee n widely spread ; for the learned knew how to write this cu mbersome ideographic and phonetic script of the Babylonian s .

ﬁn H Mi n E d . tan aean a We the ittite the , the gypti n , the

Am u b ut H orite , and other peoples sing it ; the ebrews, who have handed down a literature of a very high order

u i an d p rport ng to deal with to come from this period , are u we informed by critics, were ncivilized or semi -barbarou s nomads ; not that an y evidences of an arch ze olog ical or any other character have been

u u b ut prod ced in s bstantiation of this view, simply

e u becau se th ir theories demand s ch conclus ions . Perhaps the most importan t argu ment u sed by scholars to show the inﬂu ence of Babylonia u pon Can aan h as been the fact that among the tablets dis

at e l-Arn arn a E covered Tel , in gypt, two Babylonian

u de ﬁ epics were recovered . This fact also f rnished a nite time when the su ppose d Babylonian in ﬂu ence w as

n e exerted u pon Canaan . O of these myths contains

‘ Th e w riter is on e of th e sm all m in ority w h o b eliev es th a t H b a Am a l a a s w ll as A a m a h as a at e r ic (or or ic) iter ture , e r ic , g re th e m ll n n m B C an tiquity prior to ﬁrst i e iu . .

34 AM U RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EM ITE S frame of mi nd to select from the older an d cu rrent

ul u ul beliefs what sho d constit te her faith . The c t of the Israelites grew u p u nder unconscious in ﬂuemces

u quietly at work d ring the generations which preceded , It k . u reaching far bac into the ages is, however , q ite reasonable to su ppose that the culture of Canaan had more I It or less in ﬂu ence in on e way or an other u pon srael . is not improbable also that the Kenites with whom Moses

u an d I sojo rned, with whom srael came into contact ,

n H u b u t t inﬂu e ced the ebrew c lt , to what ex ent can be determined only when we kn ow more abou t their civilizations .

u um Nat rally , if it is ass ed that the Babylonians were the only people who had a religion in that era in

As u . Western ia, the theory wo ld appear more reasonable

But u an . , of co rse , this c not be maintained Philology

rchmolo our so and a gy have extended horizon , that our conception of the civilizations of that age is that W they were of a highly developed character . ith the

Ar ae E Amorites and am ans in the North , the gyptians

S u Am and Arabians in the o th , as well as the old orite

in u s culture the land which they occ pied , it seem un reasonable to assu me su ch a wholesale dependence

- ff u u u u pon far o Babylonian c lt re , simply beca se in certain periods Amu rru was un der the control of Baby

u u i lon , or beca se certain literat re , some of wh ch is

h as u s Western , been preserved for by reason of the fact

u that it was written pon clay , whereas most of the other nations wrote on perishable material ; and also because two practically indestr u ctible tablets containing so I NTRODU CTORY REMARKS 3 5 called Babylonian myths happened to have been foun d E . t as in gypt On the con rary , the discussion pro ceeds see w as W , we shall how Babylonia invaded by est

S u u emitic peoples who carried their c lt re thither .

It u k H u m st be ac nowledged that the ebrew , d ring an has u u the m y ages of his history , been pec liarly s bject

u A to the inﬂ ences of his environment . notable char acteristic of the race is the adaptability of the people to But u their surroundings . here we sho ld also recall that Herodotus said that the Persians more easily than

m u others adopted foreign custo s . The inﬂ ence of Babylonia u pon the habits and life of Israel after the But i exile is well recognized . even th s is greatly over

n u A e estimated , for many thi gs that are act ally rama an

He l have been regarded as Babylonian . Persian and n u We u lenie i ﬂ ences also are recognized . m st not u fail to remember , however , that d ring these periods

But - the nation was disorganized . still , in the pre exilic period we have only to read the prophets and the codes , to see how susceptible Israel apparently w as to the

u u inﬂ ences at work abo t them, and how prone the people were to wander . We also learn that the high standard requ ired by

in . m an so the codes was y points not realized , that pre cept and practise were widely separated . There seems k to have ta en place , in many instances , what may prop erly be called an accom modation to the actu al practises of I f the people , which crept into srael in spite of the e forts k u ou t. of the leaders to eep them Moreover , it wo ld n s be un fair to the a cient lawgiver , and to the leader 3 6 A MU RRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EM ITES

I kn u w of srael , if we ac owledged that the c lt itself as even su bject to modiﬁcation as the people became acqu ainted with or were in ﬂu enced by the practises of i vi the r en ronment . Gu nkel holds that as long as the Israe litic religion was in its vigor it assimilated actively this foreign

a m terial ; in later times, when the religion had become in t relaxed s rength , it swallowed foreign elements , ” I t feathers and all . f this s atement of the readiness I r u of s ael to assimilate , in s ch a wholesale manner , the ideas of foreign peoples depends u pon what has been

u m shown to have been act ally assi ilated in the late period ,

u u k the verdict m st be , it rests pon wea premises .

in hi s Babel u nd Bi bel ur That Delitzsch , lect es , is right in calling Canaan at the time of the E xodu s a ” u u n domain of Babylonian c lt re , is a stateme t most difﬁcu lt to un derstan d in the light of the kn own

If u ul facts . it were tr e , sho d we not expect the chief deity of the Babylonians to figure prominently in the West ? If the influ ence of the Babylonian religion u W as pon the est were great as is asserted by scholars , shou ld we not expect to fin d in the early literatu re of

a rdu k that land, for instance , the name of M , who for half a millenniu m prior to the E xodu s had been the head of the Babylonian pantheon ? This name was u u — sed extensively in the nomenclat re , the name

attri above all names , the god that had absorbed the

u . Sur b tes and prerogatives of all other gods ely , if the i u w as so t u W u nfl ence ex ensive pon the est , we o ght to find the name Marduk figuring prom inently in the I NTRODU CTORY REMARKS

‘ Ta an n ek Amarna letters , in the inscriptions , in the

u S Cappadocian tablets p blished by Delitzsch , ayce ,

an d in and Pinches , the portions of the Old Testament But belonging to the early period . , with one exception A ? u in the marna letters , where is the name The arg

si len ti o u b ut ment e is nscientific , this silence at least An d ardu k is most significant . where is the epithet of M Bel h k E lli l ? A n namely , , w ich was ta en from ccordi g Am Kn u dtzon to the revision of the arna texts by , the only occm 'ren ce is the qu estionable [B]e-[e]l- [sh]a m u An d a[ ] every character of which is in do bt . E lli l 1 where is the name in these letters , from whom Bél w as k Kadash the title ta en , except in the name of ma n-E lli l an ul ? E lli l , the Babyloni r er is the lord of u u as lands , to whom the r lers of the co ntry , ancient well Ni urian a as modern , did obeisance at the great pp s nc tuar u so y , and whose name fig res prominently as an Wh element in personal names . y , it can properly be as ked , is the mention of this deity (who was considered by the As syrians to be the god par excellence of the Babylonians) not foun d in Palestine ? In the in scrip s Nu slcu an tions of the Ca site period , is a most import t u At u deity in the nomenclat re . Nipp r the name of u sku E lli l IN-IR us N , together with that of and N , is ed in the oath formu la ; b ut where is thi s deity found in the literature of Canaan of this period ? The same is tru e er a l Cutha of N g , the god of , with the exceptions of the ’ an t u in E Babyloni my h fo nd gypt . Nergal s name in

A certa in E llil-ban i occurs i n th e Ca ppadocia n tab lets pub b n h i h ed b S avce an d . l s y , y Pi c es 38 A MU RRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EMITES the Cassite period is also extensively used in the nomen 1 l ur In u e l-A Al c at e . a tablet fo nd at Tell marna from a shi a i is u u AS H-M AS H , wh ch s pposedto be Cy pr s, a god M u i h as er a l b ut occ rs, wh ch been read N g , for which a ” i u L UGAL Urra i Uru better read ng wo ld be , K ng , u b ut th which is eq ivalent to Nergal , which is one of e names in the inscriptions for the great solar deity of W II An d NIN-LIL the est (see Part ) . where is or Na ndiorBau or GU-LA or any other form of the goddess I u ? n shtar fo nd Only in the letters from Mitan i , which i s in i A north of and proxim ty to ssyria, does the name

I u I A shi rta A shrati shtar occ r . nstead , we ﬁnd or , which is the name of the goddess indigenou s to the land . Am A ong the deities in the marna letters, the Baby

1 3 an d NIN-IR u b u t as we lonian writing are fo nd ; , s see II u hall in Part , these are c neiform signs which ‘ probably stood for the West Semitic E shu and the Ba al

Am a hu In of u ru s . r or M other words , they represent deities or epithets of the solar god or gods of the land Am ur u in which the letters were written , namely , r . S hama sh Adad ru Da an u b ut U . , , , g , etc , are also fo nd , ,

see W In as we shall , the est is their proper habitat . II u k Part it will be shown that Mard , Nergal , and other A deities are moritish . Then an explanation why these names are not foun d in the early literature of the W As se e II est is in order . we shall in Part , while W t S they are es emitic , they represent originally only

E V n d la . XI a . Se e . C y , B , XV I NTRO DU CTORY REM A RKS 39 different forms of the same name of the same solar deity of the West ; and that these different writings arose in different centers through the adoption of the

u S u c neiform script of the merians, whose scribes were the ﬁrst to write u pon clay for the Semites who

-E u entered the Tigro phrates valley . The very absence k of these names, generally spea ing , is proof that the theory advanced is correct ; althou gh it is most sur prising that sporadic occu rrences of Babylonian names compounded with these elements in the names of the

W k Elli l-ban i an u est , li e in the Cappadoci tablets, sho ld u not be fo nd . From this point of view, therefore , it mu st be acknowledged that the dependence of Canaan u pon Babylonia in the period of the E xodu s is grossly I exaggerated . f the same claim had been made for the H u un A ittites, more evidence wo ld be fo d in the marna

u . a r u men letters to s bstantiate it Let me repeat , the g tu m e si len ti o u b ut is precario s , when in the nomen clature H Mitan n ae an of Babylonia the ittite , the , and W S u other est emitic infl ences are so apparent , we have every right to expect to fin d traces of Babylonian u infl ence , if what scholars have claimed is more than a con e tu r A u j c e . fresh discovery may prod ce some of the re

ui b ut k - q red data, still the position ta en by the Pan Baby lonists cannot be maintained , for the evidence against it an i from m y points of view is overwhelm ng . It has been asserted that the Babylonian r u le having

i u t been extended over this land by m litary conq es , not only the general c u ltu re and the alien lan gu age was nf u b u t s s e orced pon the people , also the Babylonian y 40 A M U RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EM ITES

H n tem of law . ammurabi havi g been su zerain over

A ur u u u u m r , it was q ite nat ral to s ppose that this great lawgiver established his laws there as well as in Baby b ut lonia, this does not seem to have been the case . We ﬁn d interesting parallels of cu stoms practised among s as an r the patriarch , , for inst ce , the adoption of his se E A S ’ H vant , liezer , by braham ; arah s giving agar to u a u u her h sb nd for wife, and the s bseq ent treatment of her ; Rachel giving her handmaid Bilhah to Jacob for w ife , etc . While there are no parallels for these practises in

M u the osaic law, the existence of s ch Babylonian customs in the case of Abraham and his immediate clan is exactly what we shou ld have expected ; for he and his I i . t s family had lived in Babylonia , therefore , not necessary on accoun t of these facts to assu me that

H m In am urabi established his laws in Palestine .

u tr th, these very facts are merely interesting and impor

ur us tant exceptions , ass ing that we have a veritable hi storical personage in the patriarch to deal with , and H His not the creation of a ebrew ﬁction writer . early

w as e du life spent in Babylonia, where he received his Hi cation . s emigration to Palestine and residence there — — as a shaykh among his people a law u nto him self wou ld not requ ire u s to su ppose that he had forgotten his

n f early traini g, and especially with reference to a fairs of

At it u un everyday life . the same time , wo ld be reason able to su ppose that the laws of Canaan were in ﬂu e n ce d u by this petty shaykh , who we are told co ld

u e gather only three h ndred and eight en men , which

42 A M U RRU HOM E O F N ORTHERN S EM I TES

It is not my desire to attempt to minimize the in ﬂu

' e n ce s from the Tigro-E u phrates valley u pon the cu lture

i n u I of the neighbor ng nations in general , i cl ding srael .

U u u S u an nq estionably s ch a civilization as the meri , hi as as k w ch , far we now , was highly developed as early fi u BC an d Ass ro as the fth millenni m , also the y u u Babylonian , exerted an infl ence pon neighboring Wh u w as u peoples . at that infl ence pon the center of the S S emites from which the emitic Babylonians came , of ff I u i u . t co rse, is a d erent q estion is well to bear in mind S um that while the erians , on the one hand , greatly influ enced the Sem itic cu lture which was brought into

un S the co try the emites , on the other had a great , — , influ ence u pon the S umerians not so mu ch in their art as ul u S s in their c t re in general , for the emite seem to a i h ve had little art worth im tating . By taking this more into accoun t it is not improbable that many of the diffi c ulties brou ght to light by the Halevy school will find u S their sol tion , for it is evident that the emitic hordes , as they are called , which came into Babylonia greatly

u u u But u inﬂ enced the c lt re of that land . beyond s ch i u du e m nﬂ ences as are to com ercial relations , and perhaps

u u Am u u the script, it does not appear that the c lt re of rr , according to all that we know from the excavations and

In u w as . the mon ments, modiﬁed by Babylonian forces t ul our di s shor , a caref consideration of the data at posal conﬁrms the contention that many extravagant statements have been made concerning the indebtedn ess I r W Of s ael and the estern Semites to Babylonia . Farther North it is apparent that the contact between I NTRO D U CTO RY REM ARKS

H u u w as the ittite and the Babylonian c lt re closer . Whether the peoples will u ltimately be shown to have had intimate relations with one another remains to be

m . u u u deter ined M t al inﬂ ences , however , are shown by 1 u ar i u u a st dy of the t. The Babylonian nﬂ ence pon that region is also apparent in the so-called Cappadocian

in as as . tablets, well the inscriptions fromMitanni The inﬂuences from Babylonia or Shu m erwhich fou nd their

E u u way into rope , do btless , were largely transmitted 2 u A through the medi m of these peoples in s ia Minor . In u k u fact we are j stiﬁed in loo ing for inﬂ ences , at least r in o thography , among all the nations that adopted the u u Babylonian script for their own lang age . This wo ld u k Am as incl de a people li e the orites , in so far they

u an u adopted the c neiform script for their own l g age .

Se e Wa C l n r a nd h A n i n S a l i n the L bra o rd , y i de s ot er c e t e s i ry f o M a n h fin a b l n an n fl n on th e J . n . 9 3 w o Pierp t org , p , ds B y o i i ue ces as fin l as H Th n h e l a m s seal cylin ders cl sed de ite y ittites . is regio c i m h h a b n n h also gave in return ore t an on e deity to t e B yl o ian pa t eon . 2 An in terestin g ill u stra tion of th is is th e Ba b yl oni an origin of th e la ni n um b wh h h as b n m n a b P to c er , ic ee de o str ted y A an d A am an d n l i us b Hil re ch t in Ba b l n i a n ures d , rece t y d sc sed y p , y o “ E x on Vo 1 an d b Ba on On th e Ba b l n d l . . a n pe iti , XX , pt , y rt , y o i ’ m ” Am l S O i n la N b J ou na l e i a n O i enta Vol . r gi of P to s u er , r r c r ociety , 2 1 0 9 , p . 2 . CREA TION STORY

IT is a widely current theory that the cosmology of

H as G 1 —2 : 4a as the ebrews , reﬂected in enesis , well as in the prophets and in the poetic produ ctions of

I w as as srael , borrowed from the Babylonians ; or , an “ has eminent scholar expressed himself , in fact , no archaeologist qu estions that the biblical c osm og ony , however altered in form and stripped of its u original polytheism, is in its main o tlines derived ” l B l n i ab o a . from y Certain scholars , however , while as signing for literary reas ons all the pas sages in the Old “ Testament dealing with the so-called Yahweh-Tehom ” in as myth, their extant form, to a period as late the w as exile , hold that there a long development of the

. as r Babylonian myth on Palestine soil Or , another w iter u H w as un u an p ts it, the ebrew fo ded pon the Babyloni 2 “ Y ” S . es soon after the invasion of Canaan , says ayce, “ H the elements , indeed , of the ebrew cosmology are all Babylonian ; even the creative word itself w as a Baby

as u k lonian conception , the story of Mard has shown ” 3 k u s . Gu u n el , followed by others , ass mes a dependence

1 v m m on n 0 a n in hi l 3 . a C nta . s Dri er, o e ry Ge esis, p B rto , rtic e “ m A m Or oc V ol 1 —2 T a ou n . . . 7 w on e on a . . S as i t , J r er ie , XV, , of th e ﬁrst w riters to m a ke an ex ten ded com pa ris on b etw een th e h B a n n S e e al a w a n t e a b l n n a d . Cre tio story of y o i s Ge esis so J stro , 1 0 1 622 w h a l R v w 9 . Je is Qu rter y e ie , , p . 2 A a 1 9 Ba l n a a n d 3 . R R l n o b . og ers , e ig io f y o i ssyri , p 3 B 3 d a b l n a . 95 R l n o E a n . e ig io s f gypt y o i , p 44 CREA TI O N S TO RY

i n G c u of the biblical story enesis , in l ding several rem

u b u t nants in the Old Testament, pon the Babylonian ; the former was separated from the latter by a long space of time . These represent the views generally w u adopted by riters on the s bject , namely, that it w as ou t of this circle of inﬂu ences that the beginning ’ of Israel s conscious thinking abou t the work of crea tion arose . The sole argu ment of valu e that has been advanced u I for the Babylonian origin is, that in p rely sraelite environment it is impossible to se e how it shou ld have been Su pposed that the primeval ocean alone existed in at the beginning, for the manner which the world rises in the Hebraic story corresponds entirely to Baby n in lonia climatic conditions , where the winter water holds Sway everywhere until the god of the spring sun an d appears , who parts the water creates heaven and

u earth . This cosmology , it is held , m st therefore

uv u as have had its origin in the all ial plains, s ch those of Babylonia, and not in the land of Palestine , still less S Ar an It in yria or the abi desert . also involves a sun u special deity of spring or of the morning , s ch as u w d Y as an . Mard k , ahweh was not It must be adm itted that the f undamental conceptions H expressed in the ebrew story are not Palestinian in color , and that in all probability they are based u pon a common

S u . f u n inheritance There is a merian cosmology , the dam en tal idea of which is that water is the primeval ” “ In w as . element , for all the earth sea those day s u E u was b ilt rid , which is in the region where the 46 AMU RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EM ITES

H are E ebrews generally regarded to have placed den , “ out w as of which a river went , and from thence it parted ” and became into four heads . The biblical cosmology E u b ut not only places den in an all vial plain , it recog n izes water as the primeval element . These ideas were

E an c held also by the gypti s , Phoeni ians and others, and it is altogether reasonable to assu me that the Am orites

A In a . so u and ram eans had something similar far , it m st be admitted that the biblical story embraces cosmological conceptions similar to those fou nd among the S u merian s 1 b u t as out h e and other peoples ; , Pinches pointed , when pu blished this Su merian legend whi ch belongs to an in cantation tablet , nothing is said in the fragment of a

u k conﬂict between Mard and Tiamat , the chief theme of the Babylonian legend .

M u - The ard k Tiamat myth, which belonged to the As u Library of h rbanipal , is a late and elaborated attempt

u to explain the origin of things . The chief p rpose of

as n loriﬁca the legend , it has been handed dow , is the g M u k n w tion of the god ard , who , as is well k o n , absorbed u r the prerogatives and attrib tes of the other gods , afte Hammu rabi caused him to be placed at the head of

. u e the Babylonian pantheon That is to say , it is q it apparent that the writer composed the work from existing legends ? 3 a strow S Professors J , ayce , and others recognize two different schools of thou ght represented in the

n a l o a l A 1 9 R a S c 1 89 . 3 3 Jour f oy si tic o iety, , p ff . 2 B . as w Re l o a b n d A 40 . . a ss 7 Cf J tro , f . , p . ff . R l n o E t a n d Ba b l n a 6 . 37 . e ig io f gyp y o i , p CREA TI O N S TORY

t as my h , is shown by the attempt to harmonize C In two conﬂicting onceptions . the chaos symbolized by Tiamat is seen the relic of a cosmology whi ch eman ated

u from Nipp r . This, it is claimed , was adopted and combined with the cosmology of Eridu that made W water the origin of all things . ith the S u merian

u B as Si ara u s legend, fo nd by sam at pp , before , which

u E u ui do btless came from rid , it seems q te clear that the Tiamat cosmology is entirely independent of it .

But r s , contra y to the asserted claim , it cannot be said

u I to have ema nated from Nipp r . can agree with

u mi n Professor Jastrow, who , in ass g the composite 1 n character of the Babylo ian Creation story , sees a version un derlying it which represents a conﬂict between A E u . a and ps This version , which emanated from

E u us rid , m t be viewed as the establishment of order

But I in place of chaos . fail to appreciate the claim made by certain As syriologists that there is a distinct

i u version of the episode wh ch originated at Nipp r , in E which Bel or llil and Tiamat are the contestants . The argu ments addu ced in su pport of the theory are k by no means conclu sive . The transfer to Mardu of the prerogatives of E llil cannot be u sed to explain

i u the orig n of all that belongs to Mard k, for that deity had an existence with proper attribu tes before Ham m urab i u E k conq ered the lamites , and was able to ma e “ ” u bél mdtdti him s pplant the old , lord of lands . This

ﬁ set in transfer of titles is de nitely forth the myth, where

S e e Nold e k e F e sts c hri l 9 71 if , f , p . . 48 A M U RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EM ITES

hi s f u k the compiler , in e forts to glorify Mard , bestows u pon hi m all the attribu tes which belonged to other E Bu as as . t deities, well llil the statement which is us ed to prove that Mardu k su pplanted E llil in thi s i u k conﬂ ct is not j stiﬁed by any nown facts , namely , that the description in the fourth tablet of the equ ip

— u ment of the god that is , the fo r winds, lightning, the

ar an d — E storm ch iot , the storm weapons only ﬁts llil

ur u u of Nipp , and is totally incongr o s in the case of u u - an d Mard k, beca se one is a storm god the other a u I solar deity . The arg ment , repeat, has little or no as u k weight, for , will be seen below, Mard , the god of i - 1 A s . light , also a storm god dad , another representation W of a solar deity in the est , is also the god of the

Su Ni n -Gi rsu winds and storms . The merian is simi l rl cu u a . y a solar and agri lt ral deity This ‘ is perfectly u as sun u r nat ral , the recalls to life the sl mbe ing powers of natu re ; b ut fertility is not only dependent u pon the b sun ut u . , also pon rain

T i u k an d as Zim h s conﬂict between Mard Tiamat , 2 has k mern held , is manifestly one of light against dar ness , k i . e . the god of light with the god of dar ness , while the Su meri an symbolizes the establishment of order out of

E w b u . as t chaos llil not a god of light , a deity of an

ff u k altogether di erent character . Mard , on the other

- hand , is pre eminently a solar deity ; and therefore , u ntil some indisputable facts are produ ced to show

ar u that M d k is not the original deity of the legend ,

1 B Se e n n K . V I 5 63 Je se , . , , p . . E n c clo di a B bl a c ol 3 3 ce 7 . y p i ic , .

50 AMU RRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EMITES

“ tamd a se a Tidm tu the word , , and also in this legend . 1 c n The chaos seems to be a Phoeni ia idea also (see below) . use The absence of the of the stem in Babylonian , as above stated, considered in connection with these k H facts , ma es the hypothesis that the ebrews borrowed thi s idea from the Babylonians exceedingly precarious ; i n unr as u H fact, it is e onable to ass me that the ebrew ‘ TehOm is a modiﬁcation of a Babylonian pattern . The

u u S u deity f rthermore is s rely not merian , at leas t it has

n ot u . sa t been proved to be s ch To y , therefore , tha the origin of the Mardu k -Tiamat myth is to be foun d in a

Ni urian k E - pp version , originally nown as llil Tiamat, u u our is u tterly witho t fo ndation . With present

u c knowledge , the only concl sion at whi h we can reason an W ably arrive is, that this is importation from the est . The art as represented in the seal cylinders offers a weighty argu ment for the comparatively late intro r A du ction of this myth into Assy ia . characteristic design of the As syrian period of the ﬁrst m illenn iu m

B C. is the conﬂict between the deity of order and disorder , which has incorporated certain elements from the earlier cyli nders depicting the battle between

u Gilgamesh and wild beasts . The composite prod ction ,

In n n I n i t n M a n da u Khou a bi r Pog o , scr p io s ites des co pes de , 27 3 3 th e w a l un in Man a w h h i Ara m a os . s an N , , ord is so fo d d ic , ic ic Th a is w a ' al e a rmN nm 73 . n n 65 u di ect . p ss ge 1 Pog o (p . ) s g “ ” h a b al a n d ' i b l s nnm . e . a k b u t gests ere scri error proposes , , c , M n m w h o a ll m a n n th e a a Professor o tgo ery , c ed y tte tio to p ss ge , “ ” an l a in th e h th e l w a b Th a th tr s tes dept , o er ysses . t is s um is e as th e H b w s am e e re mnn . CREA TI ON S TORY

however , is intended generally to portray the conﬂict u k u between Mard and Tiamat, tho gh it is important to bear in mind that the battle between Mardu k and Ti amat is never represented in the early Babylonian 1 I as f ar as As art . t belongs , we know, to the syrian u u s k period , which therefore j stiﬁes in see ing for the origin of the myth elsewhere than in Babylonia .

S u i as h as wn ch a confl ct, been sho , is reflected in the l Y ut O d Testament , where ahweh p down a power of in i H darkness . This , fact, is a dist nctive mark of ebrew r u u Old theology reflected th o gho t the Testament . I has t passed over into the New Testament, and become the heritage of the Christian Chu rch in the doctrine

U u a of the fallen angels. nder the g id nce of a primeval

an an d leader , certain gels did not persevere in wisdom u b ut u righteo sness , apostatized , in conseq ence of which

hi s the chief , together with followers , was banished to

God Au u the eternal desertion of . g stine, it is interest i ing to note , mainta ned that the fall of these angels took place during the age represented by the second G u verse of enesis , altho gh he does not seem to have k I ta en into consideration the passages in Job , saiah an d the Psalms which refer to the conﬂict before the creation of the heavens an d the earth between Yahweh i k un and th s primeval power of dar ness , der the names ” a Tehom 2 Rahab , Leviathan , Dr g on or and the helpers .

‘ W a l nd a n d O h A n n t S a l i n he L b a o J rd , Cy i ers t er cie e s t i r ry f . e n M a n 1 t . 7 Pi rpo org , p . ’ ‘ S e e u n l S chb u n u nd ha s l a Li ht on the Old G ke , pf g C o ; C y , g T ta m ent om Ba b l 6 es 9 . fr e , p . 52 A MU RRU HOME O F NORTHERN S EMITES

The Israelitish conception of Sin presu pposes inﬂ uence k from this primeval power of dar ness and its allies .

In n li llu e i mmu u tu kku Babylonia demonology the , t , , an d other destru ctive demons played an important r61e b ut u a , the knowledge of s ch conﬂict between light rk and da ness, or between the god of light and the god k as w u of dar ness, as far is kno n in the literat re of Baby ﬁ t lonia, is con ned to this my h . Simi lar ideas seem to prevail also in the creation

o E us us u story of the Ph enicians . ebi , who reprod ces “ what a certain S an chon iath on has handed dow n to u posterity , a very ancient a thor who they testify ” l Phoen i ﬂou rished before the Trojan war , says the “ c ian s believed that the beginning of all thi ngs was d a k a dark an condensed windy air , or breeze of dar air , ” E In and a chaos turbid and black as rebus . the

' ” 2 Ba a v i u e . Phoenician also , . , emptiness, ﬁg red as a

o l rr a a ve 1. 0 x / c an wife of / 9 , from whom spr g the primeval

n ve v u a as H men . The j , which is the same the ebrew ﬁ u i ruah in the chaos , also g red prom nently in the

Phoenician . Nor is it strange that su ch a conception as a monster in the ﬁgure of a dragon should prevail in Israelite k environment , as some have claimed, when we ta e a u slightly broader view of the sit ation , and realize that we cannot localize this motive to certain inland cities

I Hu occu pied by srael . ge monsters are familiar

S e e A n n F a m nts l Cory , cie t r g e , p . . G 2 . 1 n 1 Cf 71 3 of e esis . CREA TI ON S TORY 53

Am u u It even now on the coast of rr . is only ar o necess y to refer to the st ry of Jonah , with its u ar t u -A classical co nterp t in the my h of Perse s ndromeda, I n localized at Joppa, to meet this objection . fact,

our k u u according to present nowledge , we m st concl de is i ti that this idea d s nctively Palestinian , instead of

Babylonian . What is tru e of Tidm tu can be said of other elements

e A su W S in the story , . g . , the deity p is also est emitic . As II a mu will be seen in Part , besides other elements L h

La a an d h mu are the same . The composite character of the Babylonian Creation an d myth being well established, likewise that the amalga mation of the diversiﬁed elements took place some time ’ Ashurb an i al s prior to the establishment of p library , it s s i eem reasonably certa n that the two cosmologies , which r u S are clea ly disting ishable , represent a emitic myth com W ar u k ing from the est , in which M d , the god of light , is n ark arrayed agai st Tiamat, the god of d ness, and a S u a u E u u in meri n myth , pres mably from rid , res lting E a as a the establishment of order by , g ainst the chaos , A u which is personiﬁed by ps . Scholars are mi staken in as sum in g that there has been a complete tran splantin g of the Babylonian myth Yah u to the soil of wism , or that the a thor of the biblical story had before hi m not only the cosmological system

b ut u ar has of the Babylonians, that partic l form which been incorporated into the As syrian epic . On the

u s contrary , in the light of these disc ssions , it seem reasonably certain that the Western Semites who e mi 54 A M U RRU HOM E O F N ORTHERN S EM I TES grated to Babylonia1 carried their tradition with them

w as to that land , which in time combined with the um u in u e S erian , res lting the prod ction discover d in the u library of Ash rbanipal .

On th e m ovem en ts from th e West to th e Eas t in th e th ird A m r oc I I l ou r O . I m ill nn m B C see a J . S 1 42 ff e iu . . , C y , . er . , XXV , p . . , M h 1 90 This h as b e n a ce b M d Ran O L. a 7 a n . . ke , Z rc , e c pted y ey er, s h hte dos Altertu ms Ge c ic I, THE SABBA TH

FOR some years a nu mber of Assyriologists who have written u pon the S abbath of the Hebrews have reached the conclusion that not only the word Sabbath ” 1 an b u t u is Babyloni indeed , also that the instit tion i -E u orig nated in the Tigro phrates valley . This is well “ S expressed in the statement , the abbath rest was ” 2 e ssentially of Babylonian origin . Or , as is asserted

Gu : n by nkel The history of religio , however , indicates that the observance of su c h a holy day is a re n m an t of an earlier time in the history of religion when man k believed in gods, who according to their ind belonged ”3 u c to certain days . Following are the facts pon whi h

u n these concl sio s rest .

In I n scri ti on s o t Asi a V l II R Wes ern o . awlinson , p f , , 32a—b 1 6 u sha—a t-tu m um n u -u li b-bi , , the eq ation p h “ u h . as is fo nd This been translated , day of rest of

u e the heart , and was s pposed to contain the g rm

H S sha a ttu m of the ebrew abbath . The word p , which ‘ sha ba ttu m u can also be read , occ rs in several syllabaries , and has been explained by Professor Je nsen to mean “ appeasement (of the gods) , expiation , penitential 56 A M U RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EM ITES

prayer , from a root which means to conciliate . “ Professor Zimmern conjectured that the root means to ” l Bu u desist . t p to the present the only explanation of sha ba ttu m from Babylonian sources is that it is a 2 “ a m aru synonym of g and means to be complete , to be ” u An d f ll . this meaning becomes perfectly intelligible in the light of the list of S u merian and Babylonian days 3 u of the month p blished by Pinches , from which we learn that sha ba ttu m was the name of the ﬁfteenth day of the month ; an d c onsidered in con nection with the ” a m aru u synonym g , to be complete , it do btless had

u u reference , as has been s ggested , to the f ll moon in the middle of the month . The idea originally advanced that am n ah li bbi is a day of the appeasement (of the gods) ” or the day

as n for appe i g the anger of the deity seem s to be correct . This is further illu strated by personal names su ch as ‘ “ ” 4 Li n i t - li bbi - E lli l E h , May the heart of llil be appeased , 5 ° i n a - li bbi -i ldn i u - li bbi —i ldn i I . t or L h , or N h is not

sha a ttu m improbable that on the day p , when the moon

K A T 3 5 93 . . . , p . . 2 w 2 1 4e- H h n S b n a hl u n d b b b e i d e n Ra . 8 S a a , V, , f . e ie e z t ” Ba b l n n u n d im Al n T a m n S m t h y o ier te est e t , Leipziger e i isc e ” S n h l ha sha bdtu n a ll m a n b e m l l k tudie ) o ds t t orig i y e t to co p ete , i e “ ” m n h n An h im ga aru ; a d t a t to rest is a secon da ry m ea in g . ot er porta n t trea tise recen tly pub l ish ed on the S a b b a th is S a bba t u n d W h i m A l n T a m n b Me inh od w h o a a ff n w oc e te est e t, y , t kes di ere t vie . 3 h H a l R 2 Old T ta m n i n the h o t e . 5 7. es e t Lig t f istoric ecords, p B E v l I II l a . . o . . Cf . C y , V , B E vol . . , . X . v . I I B E ol . I V .

58 AMURRU HOME OF NORTHERN S EMITES

k n hi s f business . The ing Shall bri g o fering at night

u k I ar k ff i before Mard and sht , he shall ma e an o er ng ; ” hi s prayer shall be acceptable to god . T UD- UL—GAL his H , or evil day, observed not

b u t i un ar every seven days, accord ng to the l month,

w as . As not a day of rest for the people seen , there were some su perstitious requ irements demanded of the k n b ut m i g on that day , not of the com on people . l The investigations of John S Show that in the As syrian period in the eighth and seventh centuries before Christ 720 u —ﬁrst an d ( the seventh, fo rteenth, twenty , twenty- eighth days do not Show any marked abstem

u . tion from b siness transactions The nineteenth day, In however , does . examining the dated tablets of the i A e . First dynasty of Babylon , . , the time of braham, he conclu ded that there is a noticeable abstention on

b u t i these days , especially on the n neteenth day . Of a 356 um ﬁ total of tablets, the n ber dated on the rst day w as 39 5 of the month ; on the seventh, only ; on the

u 5 -ﬁrst - fo rteenth, ; on the twenty and twenty eighth,

8 . i each Considering the month to have th rty days , the average for each day of the month woul d be 1 1 an d a fraction . John s does not state whether hi s investigations Show that other days besides the ﬁrst of the month were especially au spicious for bus iness transactions as i If determ ned by the dated contracts . there were , ﬁ u In the g res do not prove anything . the Cas

E x s o T m s II 6 5 7 . po it ry i e , XV , p . THE S A B B A TH 59

Site period the Temple Archives Show that the average amoun t of bu siness was transacted on those

as . As days as well on the nineteenth Johns observes , u n however, most of the Cassite doc ments referri g to the affairs of the temple may necessitate their being

In considered from an other point of view . the time of

As the First dynasty of Babylon and in the syrian period , the nin eteenth day stands ou t as one u pon which S abbata rian principles as regards the doing of business may I have been at least partially observed . t seems it might k have been a certain ind of a holy day . Besides this hemerology for the intercalary month

E u an d Marchesvan u u l l , no f rther light on the s bject

In H u h . as been recovered the amm rabi Code of laws , or in fact in the thou sands of tablets that have been

u p blished, scholars have not been able to ﬁnd anything ,

h as u beyond what been disc ssed , which even by inference wou ld seem to show that the Babylonians observed su ch a rest every seven days .

u w as u This hemerology , or religio s calendar , fo nd in

As u k n ur the Library of h rbanipal , and , nowi g the nat e

un u of that Library , it is not reasonable to ass me that hi s u scribes, having collected every kind of literat re ,

un u ancient and modern , fo d in some section of the co ntry u f K that s ch a lun ar day was observed by o ﬁcials . now ing as we do that Israel and Ju dah were carried to A an d u Babylonia and ssyria placed in captivity , a c stom that w as practised in all probability for mi llenniu ms ; and that thi s gave rise to many commun ities of West

S e th e E u a ern emitic p oples in phrates v lley , it is not 60 A MU RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EM I TES u as u nreasonable to s me that at least in some places , r S where this element p edominated , the abbath w as u n observed in m ch the same man er as it was in Canaan . Knowing also that most of the pu blished contracts of

n the First dynasty (when , as was noticed by Joh s, there was at least a falling off of bu siness transactions on W S certain days) come largely from a est emitic center , it is not impossible to see here the resu lts of a West i Semitic nﬂu ence .

u u F rther , it m st be noted that the Library of As hurbanipal belonged to the centu ry following the

S I u fall of amaria and the deportation of srael , d ring

Ti lath il 4 — 2 which centu ry also g p eser (7 5 7 7 B C. ) took I A - — K H jon , bel Beth Maacah , Janoah, edesh , azor , G G ilead and alilee , and all the land of Naphtali , and carried them captive to Assyria (2 Kings

u That is, in the cent ry prior to the time the Library of A ur u sh banipal was gathered, tho sands of Palestinian A k captives were brought to s syria . This fact ma es it altogether reasonable to expect to ﬁnd some traces of H u the ebrew instit tion . Then also it can properly be assu med that other Western Semites besides the Hebrews observed the

S A a the abbath , as , for example , the ram eans, whence H 1 A ebrews sprun g . s there is every indication in the Old Testament that the institution existed prior to

I k u srael , and nowing how for cent ries prior to the time of Ashurbanipal the Aramaeans and Amorites

l n a l a a b h M n h l h w h a in A ab a h Nie se , Der t r isc e o d u t, S o s t t r i t ere w n d t -d b v ere seve a n e n a y periods O ser ed . THE S A B B A TH

E s k were the prey of the a tern ings , we have every reas on to expect to ﬁn d some reﬂections of the ob serv ance of the day even from other than Hebrew sou rces in that land . This mu ch seems to be certain : The S abbath as h as a day of rest , observed every seven days , not been foun d in the Babylonian literature . While the hemerology of the late Assyrian period h as preserved a kn owledge of a regu lation involving the king and his

u - first officials on the seventh , fo rteenth , twenty , twenty eighth and nineteenth days of two months of the year , which days were regarded as “ evil days ” and were to be observed according to certain restric tions in order to u u appease the gods , it cannot even be j stifiably ass med at the present time (except perhaps for the nineteenth day) that there w as any cessation from bu siness of any kind or that there was a rest day for the people . r The very root from which the word is de ived , if u se As s ro— u in in the y Babylonian lang age , is almost u our k nknown , and cannot be shown with present nowl “ edge to have the meaning to rest , cease or desist . It d is only necessary , on the other han , for one to glance at a dictionary of Hebrew words to be impressed with “ u sha ba th the widely extended sage of the root , to cease , ” “ S desist , rest , to which the word abbath belongs . An d k u H nowing what this instit tion was to the ebrew, as is indicated in all the Old Testament codes—that it w as u u b ut not a day depending pon the l nar month , w as u w observed every seventh day , altho gh there as In addition the new-moon festival which w as also a 62 A M U RRU HOM E OF N ORTHERN S EM ITES day of rest ; and f u rther apprec iating how extensive — w as the legislation concernin g it that it meant not only

u u b ut w as abstention from daily p rs its , a day of con secration , one which the people sanctiﬁed by a proper o u t k n bservance ; that it was not an a s ere day for the i g, so u e b ut that the anger of the gods wo ld be app ased, a day of rest for slave, stranger, and even beast ; and that it wa s an institu tion withou t parallel in ancient as well as in modern times , yes, the day

ar excellen ce H —it p among the ebrews seems evident,

u u u witho t any elaborate disc ssion of the q estion , that

-Bab lon ists the Pan y , and others who hold similar views, are mistaken when they ﬁnd the origin of the institu

o ti n in Babylonia. ANTEDILUV IA N PA TRI ARCHS

FOR some years Assyriologists have declared that the names of the antedilu vian patriarchs of Genesis were borrowed from Babylonia, as represented in the antedil u vian mythological kings in the list handed down l 2 3 ‘ u Zim m ern H S by Beros s . , ommel , Jeremias, ayce , H and others hold that the names of the ebrew list, in part at least , are direct translations of the Babylonian S names . ome even hold that they are the work of a i learned priest of the period of the Babylonian ex le . Following is a list of the Chaldean kings as qu oted E 5 A u u u . s by Beros s, from sebi s The form of the rmenian “ translation are here presented in Latin .

' ’ A/l w o Al 1 . OI OS f p g ,

’ 2 A1 a n a o Al r Al Al a . a o u s a auru s a ru s. p c, p , p , p

Di /l a w Alm el n 3 . o . a n ,

4 Di re m Am m n o e n . . p/ ,

Me a /l a o Ma a /l a m 5 . Am l e a aru s . r p g , y e, g

Aa w vo Aa w D 6 . n a v o u s . g , g , ( )

‘ 7. Eb e dw a o E b e dw e o o E d or n h u E d ore sch u s a c s . p l s, p z g , , Am 8 . em h sin u s p .

K A 5 9 ff . . 3 .

oc B i S . b A . . h 1 89 3 243 ff Proc rc . , . , 3 D a s A l T ta m nt 1 1 9 te es e , etc . , p . . E x o T m Ma 1 899 35 3 posit ry i es, y , , p . . h n l b C . b S h n ro i er prior , edited y c oe e , Se e m m n K A 5 1 . . 3 . Zi er , . p 63 64 A M U RRU HOM E O F N ORTHERN S EM ITES

‘ ’ Q rta r A 6a r ‘ tiarte s 9 . O p nc, p ns, .

1 0 Ecoo u ﬁ o S zoovd o Z ro td o Xisu th ru . s . p g , p g, p g ,

’ Atw o ~ u The ﬁrst name , p s, is considered to be the eq iv I l n t Aru ru I n t a e of the Babylonian . the ligh of the

u u II u u disc ssion which is fo nd in Part , it is witho t do bt

Am e the name of the chief deity of the orit s, which is written E l-Ur or E l-Or (T bN) in the recently dis

of Z k u covered inscription a ir , p blished by Pognon .

’ A.1a 7m o These scholars all regard the second name , p g , u Ada a It to be eq ivalent to p . is, however , not

u necessary to resort to s ch violence , and especially S when it can be translated as a good West emitic name .

u The f ll name is as above , or as the Latin version has it, Ala oru s An . u namely , p additional element m st be

A la recognized besides p, namely , the name of the god ? “ ru u u s Ala - Uru U This wo ld give p , Friend or Ox Uru of , with which we can compare the Babylonian “ ” 3 - in P Ri m S i n S . E le h PN name , Ox of , etc p ( ) , which is a place name in Benjamin (Joshu a 1 8 may also be compared . E These scholars have said nosh , man , the third

’ H A a /l w v name in the ebrew list , is a translation of , n or “ ” a m élu u , beca se the latter also means man . The

’ u A tI /l a o u f ller form of the third name , p p g , m st

D lt T a m n 1 1 9 S e e m as a s a . . Jere i , e est e t, p 2 3 K A T 1 n h h n m m n . . . . 5 3 a t e n Zi er ( , p ) recog ized t t e di gs of “ sev eral of th e n a m es w ere Sim il a r : Die En dun g poc kon n te d a b ei ” n n i n “ ﬁl m In “ 1 1 23 0 0 348 0 3 0 0 n a h b l n derje ige / c, 1 0 9 , 7 0 9 c ge i det sei . ’ l 1 m 4M A n K n h n I I Ri . w . . I h C . 7 i g s , ro ic es , , p , ( ) is ritte Cf “ a -M a k a l Ma l A l C . a so g rdu , f of rduk , etc

66 A M U RRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EM ITES

E n—m e—du r—a n —ki S u an with (written in meri ) , the name k S of a mythological ing of ippar , who received reve lation s from his deity and ru led three hun dred and sixty k E ﬁve . years The ing has been identiﬁed with noch , also H “ the seventh in the list of the ebrew patriarchs , who ” k God wal ed with , and lived before his translation

u h u the same n mber of years, namely , t ree h ndred and -ﬁv W Sixty e . hile no connection between the names is u u s ggested, there is good reason for s pposing that these facts point to a common origin .

’ A e u cvo Am em hsi n u s Hom The eighth name , n , gp g ( p ) , l mel and other scholars think is a corru ption of “ ” n Am é —i n - i i . e l S in Ami ls u s . S , , , man of the moon god , H ethu and compare it with the eighth ebrew name , M “ 2 S a la h S S , man of alah or of the javelin This, ayce “ u u tu -sha—Irhhu s ggests , is a variation of M , man of the ” - u H ethu moon god , which is eq ivalent to the ebrew M ’ ha l s e . These explanations and comparisons do not appear to be convincing .

Q n a ﬁ A The ninth name , p j g , which lexander Poly hist e r writes is made equ ivalent by these

bar- Tu tu scholars to U , the father of the Babylonian f hero of the del u ge . No e fort is made to compare H this name with Lamech, which is the ninth in the ebrew It list . shou ld be noted that the form given by Poly histor may perhaps be nearer the original , in which case Uru the ﬁrst element in the name probably is the god ,

Aru II which frequ ently appears as (se e Part ) . The

B A 1 24 ff i b h 9 3 . S oc 8 3 . Proc . . . rc . , , p 2 m 1 9 E x i T 8 9 . pos tory i es , , p A NTEDI LU VI A N PA TRI A RCHS second element may be represented in the name

ati S ar as D , a scribe of the time of gon , well as in the

a ti - Elli l kn S name D , the well own father of argon of

A k Arda la k ad . Compare also , a place name along the A coast of the Mediterranean in the marna letters .

u The tenth is that of the hero of the del ge , which is a UT—n a i shti m reg rded as an epithet of p , the Babylonian

N A u oah . ltho gh no relationship between the names is apparent , the fact that the tenth name ends both lists with the dilu vian hero points to some connection b e

An d u u u tween them . this gives rise to the s al q estion k u as ed in connection with disc ssions of this character , I H s the Babylonian derived from the ebrew, or the H an m ebrew from the Babyloni , or have they a com on origin ?

As v has stated above , the iew which been widely u accepted , is that a learned priest sec red these legends from the Babylonians while in exile ; that he translated

H an d the names into ebrew, appropriated the list for h u the istory of his race . The concl sions which these scholars reach seem to demand that the Jews allowed an extensive inﬂu ence to be exerted u pon them by this polytheistic people , who had robbed them not only of their independence and the actu al possession of their b ut territory , also even deported them and held them in k an d bondage . That is , their ings priests and people were torn from their an cestral home ; their women and children were forced to endure the awf u l hardships

u in i entailed pon them being transferred , after hav ng been su bjected to atrociou s indignities of every imagin 68 A M U RRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EM ITES a as i n i ble character , and then held slaves th s alien land .

I S as in the theory re onable that the priests , learned an u an d a i u their cient c lt in their ncestral h story , sho ld have adopted at this time as their own an tecedents

i u these mythological k ngs of Babylonia, who , Beros s u s u u un an d tells , r led, on an average , fo r h dred thirty tw o thous an d years ? The Jews were carri ed to Babylonia by Neb u ch ad m a rezzar , and ny were deposited in the vicinity of 1 u In A I II . u . Nipp r the time of rtaxerxes . and Dari s un u W the co try seems to have abo nded with them . hile

u own u many ret rned to their land , a large pop lation u u contin ed to reside there . The Babylonian Talm d w as written in that land by the descendan ts of those

u u that remained . Nat rally , if the Jews who ret rned to Palestine had been so extensively inﬂuenced by the

u u Babylonian religion and history , we sho ld s ppose i that the Jews who remained in the land certa nly , by u reason of their attachment for it, wo ld have been

n But i inﬂu enced even more in this directio . th s does not seem to have been the cas e . The spoken langu age of Babylonia when the Jews ? lived in exile w as the Aramaic When they returned

i u Ar to Palest ne they fo nd that amaic , which was the li n ua ra nca W A E g f at that time of estern sia and gypt , k was generally spo en in the land . To accept the con el usion of these scholars we are requi red also to explain

1 L ht on th Old T a m n 40 ff S e e l a e . 3 . C y , ig est e t, p 2 h B a u nd A ss 1 B W n l h b . 9 l a S e e . . 7 a b i ck er, Gesc ic te , p ; C y , . E x 1 0 an d Li h on the Old T a m nt m a b l 397 f p , X , p . , g t est e fro B e , p . . A NTEDI LU VI A N PA TRIA RCHS why these late Hebrew priests or scribes shou ld have adopted the langu ag e of the earli er period for these myths an d legends which they are su pposed to have

u w an d i introd ced in Je ry , why they interspersed the r writings with many archaic forms . Did these religious inn ovators by so doing desire to give their borrowed an n ran an d us the stories an cie t appea ce, th deceive people by their literary forgeries ?

As E doran chus mentioned above , the fact that E t and noch, respectively the six h of each list, both

u r conversed with their deities, and the former r led th ee

u -ﬁve a u h ndred and sixty ye rs , the same n mber that ar an d ur the latter lived on e th , the f ther fact that the

as are u tenth and l t of each list the heroes of the del ge , seem to be poin ts that can not be considered simply B as . ut as u coincidences , is f rther shown above , the argu ment that the Hebrew is a tran slation of the Baby w lonian is u tterly ithou t proof . In the light of all these facts, the most reasonable

u u concl sion seems to be , that inasm ch as most of the W S names can be explained as being est emitic , they are u s ch and not Babylonian . This follows from the fact

Am u II that the chief deity of the orites (disc ssed in Part ) , w Oros Au ru s u here ritten and , ﬁg res in ﬁve of Si the ten names . nce the list of these mythological

’ ” k Atw o God Uru u ings is headed by p g, , we m st conclu de that it w as brou ght into Babylonia by the

S W It u emites from the est . is perfectly nat ral that S the emitic Babylonians , who were not indigenous to b ut as I i n Babylonia, , ma ntai , in all probability were 70 A MU RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EM ITES

A m u rru ul af from , sho d have preserved ter they entered an i Babylonia their cient list of k ngs , headed by the

i i u name of the r chief deity . Th s enabled them, nat rally, u i I to regard their r lers as having d vine origin . nstead, ﬁ i therefore, of nding the origin of th s legendary list of ki u u ngs in Babylonia, together with their c lt re, it is to k m S i be traced bac to a com on stock of em tic traditions, r n in Amurru which had thei origi the great land . DELUGE STORY

THE most important proof of the absolutely un qu es tion ab le dependence of the biblical narrative u pon a Babylonian archetype that scholars have found is the

u Gun k story of the Del ge . el is right in saying that almost all As syriologists and Old Testament scholars regard the Deluge story indu bitably of Babylonian 1 O origin . Delitzsch and others incline even to the pinion that the biblical au thor had the Babylonian legend before him, and that he translated and revised it . E ven Rogers says that it is qu ite clear that the material of the Hebrew narrative goes back undou btedly to the ’’2 Babylonian original . The Babylonian story of the Deluge is so well kn own that it is not necessary to recapitu late it here The striking resemblances to the biblical story have so fre qu ently been noted that they need not be repeated ; nor is it necessary to emphasize the fact that they Show ? a common origin for both narratives In so far all scholars are agreed .

Gu k ki n el , however, ta ng the position generally

i k u held, th n s that those who are nwilling to agree that

B o B a b b l n 1 al tr w Rel . a nd I a l u n d a n . 6 . . as o . sr e y o ie , p Cf so J , f A 0 6 ss . 5 . . , p 2 o B a b a nd A s 20 9 l n . s . . R . e ig io f , p 2 B a l E S e e la L h on the Old T a m n m b . 84 . C y , ig t est e t fro e , p , or o h w th e a m h a a t er orks of s e c r cter , 71 72 A M U RRU HOM E OF N ORTHERN S EM ITES

H u the ebrew acco nt is dependent on the Babylonian , b u t sa who y that both are versions of the same event , - He have over anxiou s temperaments . claims that inas

u so i m ch as the stories coincide in many m nor details , they are related as narratives . To prove that the

Israelitish story was borrowed from Babylonia, he

m u hi s in hi s I sra el u n d Ba b lon i en 1 su s p views y (p . 9) in two argu ments .

First , the great age of Babylonian civilization and

u u of the del ge narrative as well ; second, the freq ent occu rrence of ﬂoods is very natu ral in the ﬂat plain of

an d Babylonia, which lies close to the sea is watered by two great streams .

u Z The arg ment advanced by immern , who holds also that the narrative was tran splanted from Baby lonia, its birthplace , is practically the same as the k H u Gu . e arg ments of n el says that the story , which

i i u was prim tive, was ndigeno s in Babylonia, and was transplanted to Palestine ; because the very essence of the Babylonian narrative presu pposes a coun try liable k H un . e to in dations , li e Babylonia regards the story “ ” u simply as a nat re myth , representing the phenomena hi 1 of winter , w ch in Babylonia is a time of rain .

an m These writers hold the theory adv ced by Dill an , as m S i well as by others , that there was a co mon em tic tradition which developed in Israel in one way and in

Babylonia in another , is to be rejected . Those who

E nc clo x di a B bl ca I 1 0 Se e al v m m . 59 . C nta y p i i , , p so Dri er, o e ry 1 0 on n . 7 Ge esis, p .

74 A MURRU HOM E O F N ORTHERN S EM ITES

1 In u S u fact . the epic are fo nd relics of ancient merian mythology combined with Semitic sun -myths ; and some r of the latter at least , the w iter claims, have come from an ancient stock of legends possessed by the Western i Sem tes . It is not a qu estion whether Israel borrowed the

Delu ge story from this Babylonian composition , or the I b u t S i Babylonians from srael , whether the em tic elements in the Gilgamesh epic are in digenou s to Sou thern Babylonia to the S u merians) ; or whether they had their origin with the Semitic Babylonians who entered the land ; or whether they go back to that It m Semi tic center from which they came . see s that most of the theories on the su bject which resu lt in saying the Hebrews borrowed their story from the Babylonians emanate from a very contracted V iew of the situ ation ; as if the only civilized peoples in Western Asia that possessed a literatu re or mythology were the Baby

I an lonians or S u merians and srael . That the Babyloni

ui f f u legend is of a great antiq ty o fers no di ﬁc lty . The

un almost iversal character of a tradition of the event , k an which mar ed an epoch for cient peoples, the writer k u an u u thin s , is based pon the recollection of act al in n dation of an extraordinary character . The Babylonian H and the ebrew narratives , both of which can be said to belong to a comparatively late period in the history of

as . man , have many points , we have seen , in common

u S u Do btless the merians also possessed a narrative ,

w Rel Ba b a n d A ss 4 0 S e e as . . . 7 J tro , , p . . DELU GE S TORY 75

u which may yet be fo nd , some of the elements of which are incl u ded in the Gilgamesh series ; b u t which m ay have been a story altogether different in character from H the ebrew and the Babylonian . A fact to be constantly kept before us is that the biblical accou nt makes the ark rest u pon the mou ntains

A Ura r u of rarat t of the inscriptions) , while the Ni ir I Ni ir . f s Babylonian ﬁxes the place at Mt s . is a

u Zab as mo ntain , east of the Tigris , across the Little ,

Ura r u has been declared, it can be said to be in t , for u u A that co ntry incl ded the highlands north of ssyria . It is a qu estion whether in ancient times Ura rtu inclu ded

u u u A the lofty mo ntaino s platea now known as rmenia . But the point to be emphas ized is that both the Hebrew an d the Babylonian stories localized the second beginning ’ b ut of man s history , not only in the same region , also outside of Babylonia . The biblical story contains some featu res whi ch di are acknowledged to be stinctively Palestinian . is an These, it claimed, made their appear ce after the story reached Palestine an d was appropriated by the H “ ” “ ebrews . They are Noah , the olive leaf , which ” is characteristic of Palestine ; the ark, instead of a i us sh p , beca e there are no large navigable rivers in that land ; and the beginning of the delu ge on the seventeenth as day of the second month, that is the month the rains a n s an u begin in C naa , wherea the Babyloni del ge began in the eleventh month , the time the rains begin to fall in

Babylonia . This latter is based on the fact that the

w as R epic written on twelve tablets , which awlinson 76 A MU RRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EM ITES su ggested represented the months ; the eleventh tablet, i therefore , correspond ng to the eleventh month . There seems to be abou t as mu ch proof for this assertion as if it were said that all books containing 365 pages rep I . u ee resent the days of the year F rther , fail to s that “ ” Noah is distinctively Palestinian . There is b ut

k u one Noah nown in the literat re of Palestine , whereas the element Nat is frequ ently found in Babylonian

u It ul -Bab lon i t nomenclat re . wo d seem that the Pan y s s

k u have here overloo ed an arg ment . “ important “ ” Th e statement that olives are characteristic of

b u t u Palestine is most interesting, it wo ld have been more S correct to have said Palestine and yria, or still more Am u rru u r e appropriately , for at Beir t and T ipolis ther

u h are olive groves ﬁve miles sq are . Little or not ing is “ ” w tebah u h kno n of the origin of the word ark ( ) , altho g

E u some declare it is of gyptian origin . These s pposed

u du e u feat res , to Palestinian inﬂ ences after the story was the borrowed from Babylonian , do not offer very weighty argu ments in su pport of the theory that the Delu ge

S u story originated in o thern Babylonia .

The Babylonian epic , as stated above , is composed S S u of emitic and merian elements, the latter , it seems, u E growing p especially at rech . The stories are made u G to revolve abo t the hero , named ilgamesh, who is

n - As S either a su god or his representative . ayce has

u u said , The story of the Del ge , which constit tes the k eleventh boo , has been foisted into it by an almost ” l E violent artiﬁce . The scenes are shifted from rech ,

Ba b 42 R l o E a nd . 3 e . . . f gypt , p DELU GE S TOR Y 77 an d the hero starts on a jou rney to his ancestor UT n a i shti m in hi s p , order to learn the mystery of apo the osis s , and to be relieved of a loath ome disease . A very promi nent featu re in the path of this celestial

k u sea voyag er , before he embar ed pon the of death or w as an darkness, which the Mediterr ean , was the gate of h un a u u sh . t e setting S . This was at the mo ntain M Its entran ce was gu arded by monsters daily from sun

u u rise to s nset . This wo ld imply from the rising of

sun u hr u the ntil it passed t o gh the gate at even , when w i it as closed . Jensen properly considers that th s

un i Am u u mo ta n was in rr , near the shore of the Medi ‘ terranean , and that perhaps it is to be identiﬁed with the gap made by the Lebanon and An ti- Leban on

u mo ntains .

i cri b sham shi Th s gate is the place of the , the entering ” su n S u of the , or , to give its earlier merian form, the place “ ” A - TU i M ar R . e . S ee of M , , the entering in of ( Part

I In u I . G ) the ilgamesh epic , of which the Del ge story i re re s a part , the hero , who is a solar god , or the p

n t tive u u m se a of that deity , is th s made to ﬁg re pro i u ently in connection with the Western mountain of “ in Am u rru xt s the world , , whose back e end to the dam

A ra ll u of heaven , and whose breast reaches down to (Hades) This association with the Western gate of

sun Am u rru the , located in the land of , points to indis

B n b 4 w ll H m m 7 . n . 67 as l K . . . 5 5 . as Cf . , p f Je se , i id , p , e o e ,

T 3 h ad re vi ou l v n th e m u n a A n c Heb a d . 5 s in . . r , p , p co sidered o t A ab a to b e in r i . 78 A MU RRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EM ITES putab le connections with the great S ha ma sh or Uru W S of the estern emites .

G s S i u The name ilgamesh seem to be em tic , altho gh most of the scenes of the legend are depicted at E rech

u (see page in Babylonia . The syllabary p blished by l Pin ch es determined the reading of the name Gilgamesh

I H- - A H - - i . e . G S U S Ci i l a for the late period , , T M g m esh . This enabled scholars to identify the deity with

‘ 2 k I ct a o Aeli n the mythical ing y n g mentioned by a .

A u f ller and earlier form of the name , however , has been found on a little squ are tablet in the University 3 u u u of Pennsylvania M se m, referring to a b ilding in

E u so i rech (which city ﬁg red prom nently in the legend) , d dedicated to a deity whose name is written GIS H-BIL

A- IS H G M .

' The ﬁnal element of the name , it will be noticed , r f IS H AS H is w itten in three di ferent ways , M , M and ES H Su M . This looks as if the name is not merian , u S b ut q ite probably represents a emitic element . In this connection we recall that the Nineveh temple — E—MAS H-MAS H is written E -MIS H MIS H in the

H u IV IS H amm rabi Code ( , The element M is

Cuth a E ~ MIS H also in the name of the Nergal temple at , — LAM ; and MAS H is in the name of the temple E UL

B b a n d O n Rec IV 1 0 264 a 89 . . rie . . , , , p . 2 A a m 1 890 Nov 24 S e e S a 8 . . y ce , c de y, , , , p . 2 Th e x w a s b l h b Hil re ch t B E I a 1 No 26 te t pu is ed y p , . . , , p rt , . , m B A XV : 1 Poe b e l d w a n la b H m l . 3 S . . I . a n s a . ﬁrst tr s ted y o e , P , h h h e n l h f E m n x w b l o . . a l n th e n a i . so fou d e te ts ic rece t y pu is ed , B ,

V I 2 N 2 I I I : 6 . , , o . 6 , DELU GE S TO RY

A H A As Gil - S . a M at gade, etc g mesh is a solar deity and ﬁgures in conn ection with the mo untain Mdshu

u 1 26 S he - a sh Di - a sh (see also disc ssion , page f, on M , M i u u q , a pla sible conject re is that the name of the 1 t u If dei y of the mo ntain is contained in the name .

u in u this is tr e , the same element temple names wo ld u W show extraordinary inﬂ ence from the est .

u The name of the dil vian hero, the ancestor of

G e x eri ilgamesh , whom he visited , and who related his p e n c es u , has been a s bject of considerable controversy for If S years . not altogether it is partly emitic ; and there are good reasons for regarding it as containin g an

S c element foreign to the emitic Babylonian , whi h W ff probably is from the est . Many di erent readings

- — Th e ﬁrst elem en t of th e n a m e is w ritten GIS H BIL GA a n d IS H—U TUN IS H- U a h w h h n l a . n a n G T (or ) G T p s u, ic Je se tr s tes ” B 1 l m m x K . VI a n Ri tu a lt ln 1 41 a e . 87 a e n ; cf . , , p . ; so Zi er , f , , ote Th a m l = a —la —u of B A D U a o . S . m b . e S . . . C ideogr T p q ( P , ece er , 1 80 PI 1 f li Pa ld u h a th e a m ba l d m 8 . . . as u a n , , q , per ps s e g , e s “ M - Ar lt D i c m ill a a . u n o to destroy , k , r v ge (cf ss , . , p . fro “ ” w h h i la u a x e v I n th e Ha mm ra b th e ic p gq , , is deri ed . u i period B la u n m b m Ra n N n d n a m e a . . a in e q occurs u er of ti es (cf ke , P h Bi l B E h h n m t la C a . . W a e as u . C site period qq (cf y , , XV) it t ese es w e ca n m a th e b b l al al a k 53 As a m n co p re i ic B (P ) . ere co jecture I w oul d l ike to propose th a t th e n am e Gilga m esh in V iew of th e i s h “ ” a s a e - M h m th Ax M h Th h n w n ts an e e a . w riti g g , e s of s is e w ritten in S u m eria n a ppea red w ith th e determ in a tive w h ich w as n n a n d in m b a m S m n Gi sbi l a a n d l a pro ou ced , ti e ec e e itized i to g ter b a m C l a The ax e in th e m h a a n n l a s h is ec e i g . yt ppe ri g fre que t y w a n al th e n a n A a -Te sh u v n b e po (cf . so represe t tio s of d d p g i e y i Ro ch e r a n n n a b l n Th m a n s is n ot a . Jere i s , ) , it u re so e co jecture is b in is al h a n a b l a m all i n th e e g true , it toget er re so e to ssu e , especi y l h h a h n h a il a m h w as n all ig t of ot er f cts ere co sidered , t t G g es orig i y Am h oritis . 80 AM U RRU HOM E O F N ORTHERN S EM IT ES an d explan ations have been offered for the name}

n a i shti m b u The second element is clearly p , t the ﬁrst h as UT Pi r Per i t S hamash Na . been read , , , S , , h, etc 2 UD u Bi r The Sign has properly also the val e , and the

Bi r-n a i shti m so name can be read p ; and if , perhaps it is k Bi r—n a i shti m -u u r an abbreviation for a name li e p s , “ ” k obit-n a i shti m -u u r O Bir , protect the life ; li e N p s , a i common formation among Babylonian names . Th s reading seems to be su pported by the tablet now in the

J . Pierpont Morgan Collection, which was discovered

S che il u Pi —i r u by , who fo nd [ ] where he tho ght the name k u was bro en away . This reading of the name wo ld m explain why the deter inative for deity is omitted ,

1 “ ” F i r-na i shti m f in l D l h S h a Jas p , o fspr g of ife ( e itzsc , c r der , “ w Pa r-n a i shti m Ha M -Arn ol t i t-n a i shti m th e tro ) ; p ( upt, uss ) ; S p , ” “ ” a v on e n n m a Na -na i shti m th e ul s ed (Je se , Jere i s) ; h p , rest of so “ ” H m m l all ‘ S ha m a h-n a i shti m sun li H m m l ( o e , B ) s p , of fe ( o e ) ; ” — i T- n im m n Um na i sht m d a l U n a i shtim n . p , y of ife ; p (Je se ) Z er , 3 “ K A T 4 h n n a n l in h e aw uta at . 5 5 n in a s . . k , p . , t i s Je se tr s t g ( , ) ” “ ” th i i h l h n ll l v th u l e l . e . e un as a e fe , , fo d ife , fi y so ed diffic ty ; b u t a l m b a n n m n l a u n ot ex a p ra lel n a e in Ba yl on i o e c t re does ist . h m h h x l n a n If UT S ha m a h T e sa e is tru e of t e ot er e p a tio s . or s w n b e an d th e n a m a as a h ere co sidered to deities , e reg rded ypo ch oristi eon a n am l Bi r-n a i shti m — as ab v th e di ffi for e ike p usur, o e , c ul ti e s a re e m v Na a ll m th e x l a n a ns a re v n r o ed . tur y so e of e p tio g i e on th e supposition th a t th e n am e is sym b ol ica l of th e pa rt pl a yed b y th e hero ; b u t even in th a t case w e Sh oul d expect a reg ul a r for m a n tio . 2 I n S a m a Da r 365 20 th e n am a n in v al tr ss ier, . , e of di idu is d M R- bn a n d i n Da r 366 1 8 th e am n a m w n w n U . ritte i i , , s e e is ritte d T- b h h b M u r Bi r I n a m h as M u r U n w m e a . i i , ic ust re d or s uc , b l w an d K A M i r a re va a n th e a m n a m see . . , Bir , etc . , ri tio s of s e e ( e o ? ff h l t a n l a b . T 443 . ) e re di g is p usi e

82 A M U RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EM IT ES

u u wo ld therefore be q ite appropriate for the name .

in II Moreover , consideration of what follows in Part , the name appears to Show conn ections with the cu ltu re

Bu zu r-KUR-GAL that came from the West . , the pilot

u of the ship in the Babylonian del ge story , now to be

Bu zu r- Uru W S m u as read , also shows est e itic inﬂ ence , u A u u the name is compo nded with the chief deity of m rr . A ur lso, the gods which ﬁg ed in the narrative are mostly those which are recognized as being different representa

sun - u i tions of the god, bro ght nto Babylonia from

W i S ha ma sh d the est , prom nent among them being an

rr - a l U a g .

In u view of these considerations, we may concl de tha t predominant elements in this and other parts of the Gilgamesh epic are con nected with the sun -deity d W S an the land of the estern emites , and that the origin

S m u of the e itic portion of the epic, which do btless inclu des those featu res which are common to the biblical k W S m narrative, goes bac to a est e itic narrative ,

ar which is p ent also to the biblical version .

We u in are, therefore , led to concl de, the light of u u I these facts , that the inﬂ ence of Babylonia pon srael

Am u u In or even rr has been greatly overestimated .

i e fact , exactly the reverse seems to be the case , . . , many of the elements of the Semitic Babylonian religion and u u b ut literat re are not indigeno s to the land, in all probability came from the West ; at least they had their W A natu ral development in that part of estern s ia . The b ut u ltimate origin may belong elsewhere , that does not u affect these concl sions . ORIGINAL HOME OF SEMITIC CULTURE

S OME scholars have held that Sou thern Babylonia S t S was the original seat of the emi es, or of the emitic cu ltu re ; others say the eas tern conﬁn es of Africa ; still others Armenia ; b u t the great majority of scholars hold that the interior of the Arabian peninsu la or w i 1 Sou thern Arabia as the cradle of the Sem tes . The one important argu ment in su pport of the

A h as u rabian theory, which met with s ch wide accept Ar u S i ance , is that the abic represents the p rest em tic

u lang age . This seems to have little force , however ,

k t as as when we ta e into consideration tha , far we k w as u u A a now, there no important center of c lt re in rabi which wou ld have experienced as rapid a development from what w as primitive as wou ld be foun d elsewhere It un der other conditions . is the opinion of some scholars that the E thi opic lan gu ag e is even pu rer than the Arabic ; why not as sum e that Abyssin ia is the cradle of the Sem ites ? The argu ments advanced from a stu dy of the social

d m u an econo ic conditions seem to be rather precario s . The earliest inﬂu ence u pon Babylonia from Arabia

ar k as claimed by some schol s, is the time nown the First

F or a full discussion of th e va riou s th eories on this q u estion s a n S m O i n s 1 ff ee . . B rto , e itic rig , pp 83 84 A MURRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EM ITES

2 E u 000 B C. u dynasty of Babylon , abo t ven tho gh it be admi tted that the ru lers of the First dynasty are A rabian , they came into possession of Babylonia many u S i cent ries after the em tes had entered that land ; and, k k u did n ot li e the Cassite ings and their s bjects , they ,

w u as far as has been sho n , seem to have inﬂ enced the

ul We Babylonian c ture . therefore have no light

u i u from early inscriptions pon th s mooted q estion , A a i for the earliest from rabia are the Min ean , wh ch ur belong to abou t the ﬁfteenth cent y B C. The Semites mu st have migrated to Babylonia at B u u . C. the latest in the fo rth or perhaps ﬁfth millenni m , b u t ff u entering from the North, and slowly e ect ally

u u A S B crowding o t the S merians . s the emitic aby lonian is more closely related to the Aramaic and Hebraic Am Ar A i ‘ i (or oraic) than to the abic and byss nian , t

u H o ght to follow that the Babylonian , ebraic and

u Aramaic tong es were at one time the same langu age .

H m m l Un n ad Brockel m ann a n d h v th e S m o e , g , ot ers di ide e itic u n d W S e m Th m a n h th e m l an a as an es . n a a l g ges i to E t t itic ey i t i t t for er , i th a S mi e n b th e As s ro-Ba b n an . e . e l . , E st e tic , is repr se ted y y y o i h W m T e a i e . e S v n h m A l . S S a b tter , , st e itic , is di ided i to out e itic ( r ic a n d h n d N h S mi H b a a n d A m a Th e Et iopic) a ort e tic ( e r ic ra ic) . sepa ra tion of th e Ba b ylon ian from th e oth ers in to a sepa ra te cl ass h b m l a l b a m m a al ff n Th as n . ee pro pted rge y y g r tic di ere ces ese , it m m e m us b e x l a n as b n a l th e n ﬂ n see s to , t e p i ed ei g g re t y due to i ue ce th S m a n d a n L n i all th of e u erian script l guage . i gu stic y e Ba b yl on ia n is closer to th e Heb ra ic an d Ara m a ic th a n th e other Sem itic l an a Th e ll w n l as a n m a b l m . n a e g u ges fo o i g c siﬁc tio see s prefer e , l y

Th e N h S m w h h is e n b th e Ai n ora ie A a m a ort e itic , ic repr se ted y , r ic

a n d Ass ro- a b l n an a n d th e S u h S mi w h h re re y B y o i , o t e tic , ic is p n e th A n d h se t d b y e ra b ic a Et iopic . ORI G I NA L HOM E OF S EMITI C CU LTU RE 85

If we accou nt for the development of the Am orite c ul tur u u B C. e before the fo rth or ﬁfth millenni m . , we are so far removed from the time the Semitic cradle rocked that u ntil we get some glimpses into the early history

u u A of this c lt re before this time , or even of the rabic

k u u before what we now now, s ch p rely hypothetical

ul k spec ations can only be ta en for what they are worth . u V There is, however , no s pport for the iew advanced by u i k some scholars, that the lang age of Palest ne ( nown to u s H A as ebraic) , in the days of braham, was simply a ’ dialect of Arabia ; or that in Abraham s time the Ara

as Ar Su m ans were still a part of the ab race . ch theories are wholly baseless and absurd in the light of fact and t If tradi ion . in the main my contentions are correct , a readj ustment of the extravagant statements advanced is in order ; and especially in view of what follows in Part I I .

The inscriptions an d archmological ﬁnds of c ote m po rameou s peoples have corroborated in a rem arkable manner the early hi story in the Old Testament of the

an u nations of tiq ity , while at the same time they have restored the historical backgrou nd and an atmosphere so c for the patriarchal period, that even a s ientist can feel that the old Book h as preserved not only trust worthy traditions to be u sed in the reconstru ction of

b u t k the history of that period , also the nowledge of veritable personages in the patriarchs . Nothing has been produ ced to Show that they are not hi storical ; and

as on the other hand every incre e of knowledge , gained k by the spade or by the s ill of the decipherer , helps to 86 AM U RRU H OM E OF N ORTHERN S EM ITES di ssolve the conclusions of those who have relegated the patriarchs to the region of myth . An interesting discovery has recently been made by “ ” A ur Un n a A i . d Prof rth g , of the name bram belong ng ‘ to the age when the patriarch lived . The fact that the

u in un ur name had not been fo nd the c eiform literat e , ’ u owing to the patriarch s sojo rn in Chaldea, gave rise f to many di ferent views ; for example , it was claimed that H it was an idealized name created by a late ebrew writer , “ ” and mean t The su blime father The discovery of

in A- ba-ra —ma A -ba—a m the name written three ways, , ra - am A - ba -am—ra -m a u i u , and , p ts th s important q estion ? beyond any further discus sion The discovery of the divin e name Yahweh in cu nei form literature also h as important bearin gs on the point u u nder disc ssion . Contrary to the views of those who hold the Kenite theory concerning the origin of the Y worship of ahweh , or that it came from a Canaanitic etc E a J , or from the Babylonian , or that it is a develop ment from a tribal polytheism into henotheism and then hi into monotheism, etc . , for w ch there is no historical u proof , the Old Testament f rnishes the only light on the u Y s bject , which is that the name and worship of ahweh A ae An d A came from the ram ans . as braham and his ’ an as as A ae descend ts , well his ancestors, were ram ans, it follows that the name and worship of Yahweh was

i Aram n fam liar to the ma s .

Se Bei r A ss VI 2 e . zu , 5 , p . 8 . 2 Se e a l a II so P rt . Se e A n dix on Ur the Ch al de as ppe of . O RI G I N A L HOM E O F S EM ITI C CU LTU RE 87

H ‘ The investigations of Dr . William ayes Ward in connection with ancient seals have led him to the conviction that among the ﬁgu rative expressions un der Y which ahweh is represented in the Old Testament , there

A c u are those which point to an ramaean origin . This oncl sion is evidenced by the symbolic representations un der

which the Aramaean deity Adad appears in ancient art . The worship of Yahweh in the Old Testament is u so largely identiﬁed with the mo ntains ; , for example ,

S an ‘ the yri s, in explaining their defeat to Benhadad , I ’ “ said concerning srael s deity , Their god is a god of the ” I Ki S H hills ( ngs The stories of inai , oreb ,

ar u . Moriah , C mel and Paran f rther testify to this Y u ahweh is represented also as a god of storms , th nder

an d w n lightning , as is sho n by ma y passages in the Old u Testament , partic larly in the Psalms and Prophets . He is frequ ently regarded also as a god of battles : “ ” Y An . d ahweh is a man of war , the god of hosts u Y f rther , ahweh was represented symbolically in the 2 u art as the calf or young b ll . The golden calf that A as as aron made , well the shrines at Bethel and Dan , u H an d A so vehemently deno nced by osea mos , are i i ind cative of th s . The same characteristics are foun d in the art depict A ae A u ing the ram an dad , who in the lang age of the Y “ prophet concerning ahweh, treads on the high places ' ” of He u s u the earth . is the god of the clo d , th nder ,

t u In lightning, rain , s orm , del ge , etc . Babylonian art he

“ Th Or n th e W h h th e A m J ou r o e a w in . . igi of ors ip of Y e , er f ff S em . a n 1 . 75 . L g , XXV , p . 2 A m a n n a l o i n 1 a 1 . S m t a . 8 eric Jour f e i c L gu ges , p 88 A M U RRU HOM E OF N ORTHERN S EM ITES

un As is represented as carrying a th derbolt . the god of x A u a . war , he carries the bow, cl b and When dad is

a ' represented in his complete form, he holds in his hand

n u cord attached to a ri g in the nose of a b ll or wild ox . “ He is appropriately designated the divine heavenly

u DINGIR GUD AN-NA b ll ( ) , the god of k W These distingu ishing mar s have led Dr . ard to remark that “ he cannot help believing that he (Adad) was the pagan Yahweh before Yahweh emerged as the 2 “ u od it niversal g of monotheism ; and again , is not un likely that the monotheistic worship of Yahweh

A u originated in that of dd . Natu rally there is no more proof for saying that the Y A n worship of ahweh is derived from that of dad, tha A Y that the worship of dad came from that of ahweh . Although we are better acqu ainted with the worship of

A u dad from extra biblical so rces of the early period , becau se the deity was adopted into the Babylonian

an u p theon , still it wo ld be safer perhaps to say that these characteristic marks whi ch both deities have in common point to their Aramaean origin ; and especially as the

Y A a Old Testament associates ahweh with the ram eans, and also becau se the inscriptions clearly show the same ‘ u A so rce for the worship of dad .

é v 1 0 D cou ertes , XXX , . 2 Se e A m a n na l o S m a n a 1 5 . 8 . eric Jour f e itic L g u ges , XXV , p 2 S e e Cyl i n ders a n d other A n cien t Orienta l S ea ls i n the Libra ry of J n M a n 1 9 . . Pierpo t org , p . “ ” A m ru al th e L th e M n a n M U-L U AR ur is so ord of ou t i s , H S AG- GA GI T i e b e-l u sha - -i a II Th h v , . . , di (see P rt ) . is is furt er pro ed b th e u se th e a m KUR-GA L Am u w h h m a n y of ideog r for urr , ic e s ” a m n a n Gre t ou t i .

9 0 A M U RRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EM ITES qu ite reasonable to expect su ch a variation as the use

Y as w as of the name ahweh , if , represented, the deity A m a S ra ean or West emitic . But Y n , as a matter of fact , the name ahweh , whe u in u compo nded with elements proper names, is fo nd in the early literature in connections which also point to A It Aramaean or moritish origin . is claimed in the ‘ discu s sion of the name an d native coun try of S argon W m A S an a . that he was a estern e ite, perhaps ram ean

- u Li u sh- au m The name of his great gran dda ghter is p J . A ou r u ccording to present knowledge , the only concl sion at whi ch we c an arrive is that J au m represents the name ? ‘ Y u ahweh F rther , the name of the First dynasty, 3 l —au m a wu m i a i . H J , son of J , also conta ns this element

awu m n J , which at least is the exact form of the divi e

a li —a u m name , together with H J are foreign names , and W S in all probability est emitic . In considering these different facts in connection Y with the name and worship of ahweh , it seems that the K an an enite , the Babylonian , the C a ite , and all other theories mu st give way to that whi ch is gathered from Y the Old Testament , namely , that the worship of ahweh u an A came from the co ntry of the cestors of bram , the A R u u ramaean . ecent discoveries th s f rnish a greater antiqu ity for things biblical than is u su ally accorded to A i e them, and point to the ancestral home of bram , . . ,

n th e n a m S a n Se e Appen di x o e rg o . 2 x n th e n a m a h w h Se e Appen di o e Y e . 2 l Na m 1 1 4 S e e Ran na . . ke , Perso es , p ORI GI NA L HOM E O F S EM ITI C CU LTU RE 9 1

A w as Am u u ram, which identiﬁed closely with rr , ’

the u I u u . instead of Babylonia, as so rce of srael s c lt re I t is necessary , therefore , to differ radically from even “ k R sa those who , li e Professor ogers , y that the ﬁrst as eleven chapters of Genesis in their present form, also in the original docu ments into which modern critical

u research has traced their origin , bear eloq ent witness H to Babylonia as the old home of the ebrew people ,

But and of their collection of sacred , let me add, in appreciation of what the same writer says , even when he inclu des those elements which he thinks were borrowed from the Babylonian s : When all

u a these are added p and placed together , they are sm ll in nu mber and insignificant in size when compared ’ with all the len gth an d breadth and height of Israel s ” 2 literatu re But the writer ventu res to go even farther and to claim that the influ ence of Babylon ian cu ltu re u w as n i l pon the peoples of Canaan almost . The story of Babel in Genesis at this point becomes especially interestin g ; for in it we may see a reflection as han ded down by the biblical writer of the movement S W of the emites from the est , who made Babel a promi “ As u E un nent center . they jo rneyed ast they fo d a i ” H plain in the land of Sh nar . ere these mou ntaineers “ u k i sed bric instead of stone , to wh ch they had been ” accu stomed in their native land ; and bitu men ” c u instead of mortar . This be ame nat rally a city

R R l n o Ba b a n d A s s 2 1 . . 9 . ogers , e ig io f , p . 2 b 22 R . 6 og ers , i id , p . . 92 A M U RRU HOM E OF N ORTHERN S EM ITES

Am a r the sacred to their chief deity , , whose name

S u u merian scribes wrote in the c neiform script,

Am a r-u du k .

It has been asserted that the ziggu rra ts or towers in Babylonia were preceded by tombs of the gods in the

ﬁr u e . b t center of necropoles This may be correct , the zi u rra t i S name gg po nts to a emitic origin for the tower . Also the idea of the zi ggu rra t being the representation of a mou ntain su rely originated with a people from a u us mo ntaino district . P A R T I I

AMURRU IN THE C UNEIF ORM INS CRI PTI ONS

RE CE NT investigations on the part of the writer have resu lted in the conviction that most of the deities S of the emitic Babylonians , which have been recognized

ar as sun - s by schol s original god , had their origin in the W S great solar deity of the estern emites, known as

Am a r M a r Ur or and , which was written in the script W WEN 1 2) TIN 3 1 k w of the est , or and , or , also no n i WDW. as Th s deity , after having been transplanted S i un ff to Babylonia by the em tes, appeared der di erent r s f as E—URU-GAL w itten form in di ferent localities , N Gu AMAR- UTUG i at tha, at Babylon , etc . Th s is due to the fact that the Semi tes adopted the non-Semi tic S u cu neiform script of the S u merians . These merian forms in time were semitized and became Nerga l and a rdu k as S u E N—LIL LIL M , the merian , Lord of the , “ E lli l S u NIN-GAL G became and the merian , reat i i h l W k a . m stress , became N , etc ith later streams of i W imm gration coming from the est, as, for instance , in i u B C the Nisin dynasty (th rd millenni m ) , the name in its original form continu ed to be brou ght into the country ; b ut comi ng in when the early S umerian forms S of the emitic names , as well as the religion , had been iz b ab lon ed . y , they were treated as distinct deities

These , however , were not admitted at once into the 95 9 6 A MU RRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EM ITES

s b ut Babylonian pantheon of god , were treated for

u as as w cent ries alien deities , is sho n by the fact that w the determinative for deity in many cases as omitted . Natu rally an importan t point to be determi ned is that these movements from the West actu ally took

In Am place . a paper read before the erican Oriental S h E 1 907 w ociety in Philadelp ia ( aster week, ) the riter referred to the fact that at the time of the First dyn asty of Babylon (2000 the personal names Show that

un w as ﬁl W the co try led with foreigners , notably estern Semites ; and also endeavored to Show that the names k I m B C. of the ings of the sin dynasty (third illenniu m . )

W S u u indicate est emitic inﬂ ence pon Babylonia, and that the capital of this dynasty dou btless was a strong f hold o that people . Before the paper appeared in H R k r print, Dr . ermann an e, of Berlin , appea s to have reached similar conclu sions from an entirely diff erent

He point of V iew . called attention to a date on a tablet which he believed referred to the invading Amorites ‘ Lib i -I t u . at the time of shtar , a r ler of this same dynasty Ur Uru m m a The preceding dynasty , namely , that of ( ) u In G -Sin was S merian . the reign of imil we learn that ” u u W the king b ilt the wall of the co ntry of the est , “ u ri k Ti dn u m s which was called M , the wall that ward ” i dnu A Ti dn u off T . s see the we Shall below, is another Am u rru h name for the lan d of . T is fact points to active interference on the part of the Am orites already at this

As u u u u time . is s ally nderstood , the r lers of the pre

S 0 Z Ma h 1 90 7 al M e h hte des A lter e e . . . L , rc , , so eyer, G sc ic tu m I 4 1 6 s, , .

9 8 A M U RRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EMITES

n tee th chapter of Genesis . Later it became the pos

H i - ﬁrst In session of ammurabi after his th rty year .

un k i us an inscription fo d at Diarbe ir , the s ngle title ed “ by Hammu rabi is king of D uring the First dynasty of Babylon many Amorites seem to have i S dwelt in the v cinity of ippar , where there was a city 2 A u rr B Toffteen l m . ut ca led u we cannot follow , and Am those who hold the view, that the orites of the West emigrated from this place through pressure from

E an d i lam, in th s way the name was transferred to the W - Am k an . i est l d Th s was a settlement of orites , li e the Jewish settlement in the vicinity of Nippu r during the captivity and after it , having been deported perhaps to that locality by a predecessor of Chedorlaomer (see Appendix on Ur of the This title passed down to his su ccessors ; among them

A — t n mmi di a a is mentioned as having enjoyed it .

u r I Ti lath ileser I As h u rn a ir al Neb chad ezzar , g p , s p and

S II l A -n irari III halman eser refer to the and . dad

u K H Am u u S conq ered hatti ( ittite land) , rr , Tyre , idon

m I S u an d O ri ( srael) . argon incl des the Khatti in the “ w A u u Phoen i idely extended land of m rr , as well as

A E A h b n i . s ur a cia, Philistia, Moab , mmon and dom 3

u u an . pal , Nabonid s and Cyr s also refer to the l d In r u B C u the ﬁ st and second millenni ms , the c nei form inscriptions lead u s to believe that Am u rru had

S - e r become a general appellation for yro Palestine , a p

S e e S a A hae l o th C n o m I n r t n 1 43 e . . y ce , rc o ogy f u eif r sc ip io s, p 2 h i n A s a n a n d B a n o a h 0 R a b l a n 3 . ese rc es syri y o i Ge g r p y , p . 2 ff t n bi 29 S e e To e e . . , i d , p . AM U RRU I N CU NEI FORM I NS CRI PTI ONS 99

w as H tion of which controlled by the ittites ; that is, the borders of Kh atti seem to have been extended so that the ru le embraced a considerable portion of what

Am u u In R II was once rr . the time of ameses the

H u Am u r If ittites, we learn , occ pied the land of . , Am i as a people , the orites ever dom nated politically

an that land in an organized m ner , their history belongs i u It un k to the th rd or earlier millenni ms . is not li ely

w as that the order always that of petty principalities , an d that the name w as generally regarded as a ge o of graphical designation the land . To Delattre‘ belongs the credit for having deter mined the Semitic reading Am u rru for the S u merian 2 AR- TU A arru u sub stan M instead of h . Jensen f rther i t n u t a ed the reading . The passage in a hym p blished 2 “ R DINGIR - MAR- TU - E by eisner , namely , ( ) d A - m u r—ru ul corrob o , as is known , f ly and deﬁnitely

i It u rated the read ng . wo ld seem that very early DINGIE - MAR- TU and KUR-MAR- TU were read

u A respectively the deity and co ntry of the morites , i e as the transliterations, especially for the latter , . . , A m a rra an al , occasionally contain addition ﬁnal vowel ,

a d ecti va m rela ti on i s as if an j .

In A R- TU the earliest inscriptions , as we have seen , M

' n B bl a l A hae lo 1 1 23 3 ﬁ o S 89 . . Proceedi gs f ociety i ic rc o gy, , p 2 h ur A i l V l XI 30 4 5 r o . . . Zeitsc rift f ssy o og ie, , p , 2 h- ba b l n h H m n 24 Re v I I S m ne . 5 . u erisc y o isc e y , , , , etc ‘ For th e b en eﬁt of th ose w h o h a v e n ot pa id a tten tion to S m m i h b e m n n h a w h a in i n a al l e itics , it g t e tio ed t t t is pr ted c pit etters l DI NGI R i n al c is S m an an d w h a in m al l ike , it i s , u eri , t is s er type i lu S m Ba b l n an l . ike , is e itic y o i 1 0 0 A MU RRU HOM E OF N ORTHERN S EM IT ES is the S umerian ideogram for the name A m u rru and the u Wh q estion arises, y was this combination of characters selected to represent this country ?

M AR u u the m , which is also freq ently sed as na e of AR-TU u the land alongside of M is do btless , as has been u Am ar s ggested , a shortened form of , which became ? A m u r un der the inﬂuence of the labial MA R is one sun -d of the names of the eity , as will be shown in the As pages which follow . a deity in personal names u As u nder that form in the syrian period , it occ rs in ’ a r—lari m m e a ri -lari m ar—bi di a r-i rri sh a r M , M , M , M , M 3 in 1 7 u ri . u 3 3 . s , etc , and also s ch names as T , etc , W S us from est emitic inscriptions disc sed farther on .

TU Su has u erébu in merian the val e , to

MAR- TU k UD - TU éri b sham shi li e (or ) , therefore , ” éri b M ar M a r Am ar means , entering in of (or , “ i . e . sun u , the setting light or This, of co rse , shows “ ” M a r Am ar sun that ) meant the originally , and S in all probability was the chief deity , the hamash of A 5 the morites . To the Babylonian it was also the name “ Am u rru of the land , for was the land of the setting

Cf m m n K A 41 n 1 l T ff A . . . . 5 a o te e n ss Zi er , p , ote ; so , . “ ” Ba 2 M A R h l A b . . . 3 . as a s th e al u m W Geog , p o v e urru, est, al n I M -M AR- TU K . u l S te n u n u nd S t n n o g side of , cf g er , r k de er die st,

2 Ra w l n n I I 35 1 9 is h a to b e M A R - TU-u i so , , , per ps restored [ ] A -m a -ru m b u t of l th - - - m . a e ll w n l A ru A m a ru ; so fo o i g in e . 2 S e e h n A a n d s t s a n d m n . Jo , ssyri Dee Docu e s

. n S m ia n x 2 on 3 3 . Cf Pri ce , u er Le ic , p . 2 “ " I n Job 3 1 : 26 am s un a he m esh in , , , is us ed inste d of s “ " a all l m w h th e m n p r e is it oo .

1 02 A M U RRU HOM E O F NO RTHERN S EM ITES

" HR c u tablets, the transcription , whi h occ rs in several

KUR-GAL e names , represented and that th se charac

Am u rru Awa rra Urn ters are to be read (or ) , and not

Bél da- ra ba S u or S ha as generally read . ch names ‘ 2 3 Am u rru - a a Am u rru - n a tan n u Am u rru -n asa bi as b h , , , 4 Am u rru - sha m a in , containing foreign elements connec

Am u rru tion with the name of the deity , seem to su bstantiate the view that Am urru (or Urn as in Uru 5 6 m i l/ti i lkfiru e e s . and M , below) was a foreign god 7 Peiser verified completely this identification , by

AR- TU-éri sh KUR- GAL showing that the name M ,

éri sh Am u rri o u , and belonged to a single individ al ,

h ochoristicon i a the latter being a yp with the ending , “ ” k S am u - l In S e . li e ammy from other words, we get — " the formula MAR-TU = KUR GAL Am u rru HR

Urn (or ) . Of special interest and importance is the fact that

h as u Akkada Am a rra a single ideogram the val es , and U

Uri B UR-B UR

Ti dn u B UR- BUR

Ti lla B UR-B UR

S Nb k 66 3 as m a . . tr s ier , 2 Nbk 459 4 . . 3 k 1 2 2 . 3 . Nbk 42 . 5 . K E I I . . 90 . , , p . A m a n a L t K B 6 1 : 5 4 e tc r et ers, . . , V , , . 7 U n e n a u s der e t itt n ba b l n h n D na sti c rku d Z i der dr e y o isc e y , p . II I V . 3 S e e l h A s l B 2—4 a n d W b a h s S . 7 7 De itzsc , . y , , eiss c ’ M i sce llen 29 , p . . A M U RRU I N CU NEI FO RM I NS CRI PTI ON S 1 0 3

In n Ti dnu Am u rru u another text , i stead of , is fo nd l A = A m u rru Ti dnu e u ri . is the nam of a mo ntain in Am u rr u mentioned already in the time of Gu dea (see 2 3 Ti lla as . as above) is the name of a deity, well the Ur u A name of a land in the region called t or rmenia .

In us u u other words , the al ideogram for the co ntry Uri or Akkad Babylonia) stood also for the cou n

A A u u Ur Ar H u tries ri or m rr and m or menia . ere sho ld

n u n H u be mentio ed again the mon me t of amm rabi ,

u k S u A fo nd at Diarbe ir , in o thern rmenia, in which the “ single title u sed is King of Uru

M I a m m No 5 3 2 S e e n . 8 . eiss er, deogr e, 2 B I 70 Vor i b . Cf . . . , , p . 3 T lla th e n a m n ot n l th e l a n b u t a u -di i is e o y of d of deity , cf . H —T —la A sh-ta r- Ti l-la a n d Ta -i —Ti l-la m B E v l i b i l . . o a n d , of y , . XV, - r- Ti l—la B E vol XIV a l T —i —i —Ti l- d I a A a . . . e la a n ht q of , ; so cf . b p s r Ici —Ti l—la n h n a l o the R a l A a S 1 897 , Pi c es, Jour f oy si tic ociety, , p . ff Ti -m i - Ti l-la O n L t a n 1 90 2 24 9 a n d . . 5 Cf 58 . . . , , rie i er turzeitu g , , p al M e - T lla h th e H i n th e a Ra m II so i , c ief of ittites tre ty of eses . Addition al n a m es com poun ded w ith Tilla h a ve b een pu b l ished te b n d B A : I - — Ti l -la M - c e n tl U n a . . VI 5 . lci y y g ( , , p ri ir , Ti l—la h -ki - Ti l -la a n d hi -m i - Ti l - la O h w ll a a i S S . n , ur t ers i ppe r m h mi n v l m T m l m h l re y fort co g o u e of e p e Docu en ts . Bork rig t y h n m m n a b v b Mitta n n aea n 0 Z a t e a n e . g rded ﬁrst e e tio ed o e to , cf . L . 1 90 6 59 1 Th m b e b a b th e n a m wh h a re , p . . is see s to corro or ted y es ic m th e ab l b l h b n h M a n n h a quoted fro t et pu is ed y Pi c es . y tte tio s b n all b Dr A T Olms a a l a Ti lla h m n n b ee c ed y . . . te d to p ce , e tio ed y a ne v h b l n h h L a N a n d a . a t t e n n t e a y rd ( i e B y o , p ju ctio of E st a n d W T w h h is on th e m A a th e est igris , ic direct route fro ssyri to La k Van An h T la m n n b As h u rn asir e district . ot er site e is e tio ed y al I li 1 1 h h l a w an a a n d n w . 3 w as all n o p ( , ic ter c ed Co st ti Viran h hi r b w M E b s e n U a a n d a in a n d S . a ki , et ee rf rd . of Di r e r . Th e in a re m a n b u t n ot a l Ol m a h n k th e ru s i port t , e r y . ste d t i s A a n h b e x th e N W a t th e n a -b ssyri site of t is city is to ﬁ ed to . . e r y u n Te ll a u m o d of G ra n . 1 04 A M U RRU HOM E O F N O RTHERN S EM ITES

An important argu ment for the movement of the

A e u morit s into Babylonia is to be fo nd in this fact , that the name of that land in the third and fou rth millenniu ms r S m before Ch ist, after the e ites had entered, is the same as u the name of the co ntry from which they came , or , in s A n Am u rru other word , the morite la d called or Uru was geographically extended so that it inclu ded that part Of the E u phrates valley occu pied by the S emitic Babylonians . The fact that Akkad or Northern Babylonia is called

Uri A ur u Ari u , and that m r is called , raises the q estion whether there is a conn ection between Am u rru and Uri

A r We Ar or i . have seen that in the late period the amaic equivalent for Am u rru which is scratched on cu neiform "H tablets is R. The representation of the Babylonian m A w vi ce versa w by the ramaic , or , is well kno n ; for

{2212} w A S ham a sh example , is ritten in ramaic for ,

S i ma n u I W a r a ma n u TD J R . { for , and [ for g Perhaps the most striking illu stration of this is the transcription ’ ‘ H J dm a in of the ebrew ma by Babylonian . Natu rally it is possible that the Aramaic equ ivalent " IN for Am urru was pronounced by the Aramaeans

Awa r u w u , altho gh ordinarily in s ch instances became a ’ “ ” Or In w e . vowel letter , as for , light , etc Babylonian w the elision of a between two vowels , after which a m on o th on izin k p g g of the vowels ta es place , is well

S e e A n x on th e n a m a h w e h Th e h n h an m ppe di e J . p o etic c g e of to th e m - n n a n a te w h h n l a a se i co so t u , f r ic it freque t y dis ppe rs , is

l n w n shu m dti = shu dli Th u the w l . . e k o , cf , etc is is due , of co rse , to a h a th e m w as un l w f ct t t so ded ike .

1 0 6 A M U RRU HOM E OF N ORTHERN S EM IT ES

u as Na m ra tu m are fo nd , which is considered to belong 1 n a wdru S ham a sh- li —wi —i r to the stem ; , the father of 2 I b a tu m S ha ma sh-li - m e- ri A -wi—i r-tum g , written , and , 3 A - - r-ru m In me i . written the Cassite period, with the ‘ k A -wi —lu -tu m exception of an example li e , these words , m as u . as far they occ r , have This change of consonant is in reversed order from w that of the late period . Considering also that initial

w ara d dr of the early period , as in , etc . , is opped and also w d i rtu i i r is ropped between two vowels , as in b , h from awdru u h , and that there is practically no s pport from the cognate langu ages for the view that w is original in A m M” these stems, except the late ra aic , which it awdtu is claimed is the stem of , it seems as if the last

u word has not been written on the s bject . Moreover , if

m Am u rru a m élu in the late period the of , , and perhaps a m dtu u k 10 amélu a mdtu was prono nced li e ; and , , and

s w the other word contained in the early period , it is not improbable that Am urru was also pronou nced

Aw ur u Yet u i r in the early period . it m st be adm tted that the absolute proof of the identiﬁcation of a m ar t 12m ar a as wi h in the e ly Babyloni n period, well as in W S has u the est emitic inscriptions , not yet been f rnished . It is very inviting to su ggest that perhaps this change of consonants was du e to dialectical diff erences in the

u W lang ages from the est, of which all traces are lost .

1 Se e n d B A U n a . . VI 1 2 g , , , 5 , p . 7. 2 S e e Ra n N 1 4 . . . . 5 ke , P , p 3 S e P b e B E VI l 2 e oe . 4 l 1 2 1 2 l . . 6 , , , p , : , , , 2 a n d S e e la E XIV 1 . 58 : . C y , B . , , A MU RRU I N CUNEI FORM I NS CRI PTI O NS 1 07

This wou ld obviate the necessity of assu m i n g that the

m n a waru na mdru original and the later ste s , and , were both in u se in the Hammurabi period ; an d this wou ld ’ ’ ‘ u u s a mdru awdru also acco nt for s ch synonym as and . On this su pposition the ide ntiﬁcation of the West Semitic stem from which the word “ Amorite ” comes " H u H R . with , wo ld become reasonable owever , while the other considerations seem to su pport the view that

f u u the di ferences are dialectical , and it wo ld throw m ch

u f welcome light on the s bject , it is here o fered only as a u u pla sible conject re .

W u The word for est , s nset , etc . , in the Babylonian ’ ’ 2 u r a N ﬁl N Awu rru Am urr Talm d is U y ( ) u . In ’ this connection we are reminded of the Talmu dic Ur “ ” ’ ’ TIN u rta ( ) , s nset , twilight , evening, and even U “ ” ﬁ u night, and the dif c lty the Jews in Baby lonia experienced in trying to understand how Ur ” which ordinarily means light , in this connection “ “ W In meant darkness or the est . the Babylonian “ u u k Wh W Talm d the q estion is as ed , y is the est called ’ r a ? WWW an TIN U y ( , vari t ) , and the answer was u beca se it means divine air (variant , light) , meaning

Palestin e ﬁ In other words, they did not appreciate the

S ee l h Prolo om ena 28 an d Ha le in Mus -Arn ol t De itzsc , g , p . ; vy , s , h A s a n t na . 52 The a h a a m n th e val t e s yri Dic io ry , p . f ct t t o g ues of n m M AS H w e ﬁn d a mdru an d a mi i h a th e a m as cu eifor , r (per ps s e “ ” A m i um m i i n H b w al n ha m h ll bb u r , s t, e re ) o gside of s s u , e u , i , ua ma m u th e w h e s h l ars h a t ru , etc see s to s pport vie of t es c o t ’ ’ a m dru an d a w(2ru a re n n m sy o y s . S e e M n S l m n 1 0 eiss er , upp e e t, p . . Se e a w Ta lm u t na 34 J stro , dic Dic io ry , p . . 1 08 A M U RRU HOM E OF N ORTHERN S EM ITES

’ o W Ur MN rigin of the term . hile ( ) , the name of the “ c un S o try , means light, to the emite living in the E “ i . e . a k ast , , Babylonia, it also meant evening, d r ness, ” 1 W u Am u rru Uru est, etc . , beca se or was the lan d of W i “ u e . an the est , or of the s nset, . , the l d of the going un in of the s .

OTHE R NAME S OF AMAR .

The chief argu ments for the view that the movement was eastward into Babylonia are to be foun d in the fact that the cul ture of the Am orites w as carried into that

a in . s u s as land This, we have seen , shows itself s ch legend M uk-Tiam tu b G . ut ard , ilgamesh , etc , especially in the worship of the great solar deity or deities of the West by

Am ar M a r the Babylonians . Besides the names or and Am u r u a a s , already disc ssed, the following v ri nt form of the name of this same deity , considered in connection with the theory concerning the way they arose , strengthens the thesis here maintained .

“ ar m I ai ah 24 1 5 u u all a n l a t n of s , is s y tr s ed , regio of ” “ ” -G i H b w on a I t u t l h a . uhl e se n us . ig t, E st , cf B , e re Dicti ry is q i e n a tural to as sum e th a t th e w ord ﬂi t: in Palestin e sh oul d m ean “ i th e l a th e in th e l h an d c al l b a . e . E st , , p ce of ris g of ig t, espe i y y “ a n an an h wi h th e w l wh h w in th e re so of tit esis t ord is es , ic ere “ ” H w as ' th e u al w f as an d th e W . D I s d est o ever, Pis u or or E t, “ w i n n m an W in A am ai is ui e b a b l ord q uestio e s est r c, it q t pro e h h m n n th m in H b w It m us b e n h a t a t t e ea i g is e sa e e re . t oticed t t “ th e h a w h h ll w n th e l th e se a c an u t p r se ic fo o s , referri g to is es of , j s as w ll b e u n as b n a all l w hi h w oul re ui e the e derstood ei g p r e , c d q r “ ” m in W ean g est .

1 1 0 A M U RRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EM I TE S

I shbi - Urra e e n dynasty , , both lem ts seem to be West 1 Semitic .

In r Uru Ur these same texts the e is also a deity or , w NI TA u ra ritten witho t the phonetic complement , 2 H He and also US . re shou ld be mentioned also the 3 NI TA or GIR -A -M U name ( ) , which probably is to ” Ura a —i ddi n Ura Ura - a i l be read ( ) , has given , or p i ddi n ra s on u M U , U gave a , nless in the early period

u n a da n u does not have the val e . ’ This discussion throws additional light u pon the king s

Wa ra d-S i n A ra d—S i n name now generally read or , and identiﬁed by some with Arioch of the fou rteenth chapter

Of G . u enesis The identiﬁcation is highly pla sible , u Wa rud-S i n k beca se was the ing of Larsa, which city

1 I shbi a Ba b loni an i ze d m Of a W S m l m n is y for est e itic e e e t, J a -a sh—bi —i —la n i n Ra n n a l Na m 1 44 cf . , fou d ke , Perso es, p . . of 2 S a m l 2 1 1 6 m a a l n th e l m n ue , y so represe t e e e t . 2 H b P n e n n a m n 57 n 1 h h u er, erso e , p . , ote , grouped t ese toget er , “ ” a n d a a v a n URU-DI NGIR-RA an l a A a d s y s rdu, ser t . tr s ted r “ ” i li va n od m a n b u t m h n m b e , ser t of g , kes se se , so et i g see s to w n w h th e m m n UR U-M U URU—i ddi n a n ro g it co o ) , if tr s “ ” l a a va n h as v n URU-LI G—GA w h h H b ted ser t g i e ; or , ic u er , “ ” li n h a a a n n b e a n la Th e n UR U fee g t t rdu c ot correct , tr s tes stro g . “ F h h n a m a s GA L A m élu - URU m an a n urt er, suc es ( ) , of serv t , “ “ GI R—URU la va n a n d D UM U-URU son va n , s ve of ser t , , of ser t , “ w l v a n m a n n if URU w an la Kn h ou d gi e str ge e i gs ere tr s ted ec t . “ H b a a h s a n d a h a In m an n a m URU u er ppreci ted t i , dded t t y es ’ URU- RA seem s to h a ve b een us ed a s a n equi valen t for a g od s ” n a m h e a a n n m a b va n ? Un u e s e , or , sks , is it sy o y of du, ser t q tion a b l w e h a v h a l th e n a m th e od Uru a n d th e y e ere so e of g , “ ” “ ” “ n a m m a n Uru h as v n Uru m h a n Of es e gi e , is ig ty , serv t ” “ ” Uru a n d th e n Uru so of . 3 S ch e il M a n i shtu su 5 : 2 , , D . . A M U RRU IN CUNEI FORM I NS CRI PTI O NS 1 1 1

c E the is identi al with llasar of Old Testament , over

A He w as Of which rioch ru led . also a cotemporary 1 Am H u raphel , the amm rabi of the inscriptions, and his

Ku u -Mab u E m utb al E father , d r g , the king of , or lam, k S ul was ing of yria and Palestine at this partic ar time , G which is in strict accordance with enesis , where we learn E that lam was the su zerain power in that land . The identiﬁcation is based especially u pon the fact that the second element of the name can be read Aku as well as

S i n Ardu , and that the ﬁrst character , read , has also

u E ri the dialectical val e . w These facts , which are well kno n , have been accepted ar u b u t by a l ge n mber of scholars , some seem to exercise more than ordi nary critical cau tion with reference to

I n the identiﬁcation . the ﬁrst place , the name list of the Isin and Ur dynasties show that Aku or Agu w as ? u us u freq ently ed in personal names F rther , in these S u merian centers it cannot be show n by phonetically written examples that the element was read Wa rdu or

Ardu In w in the early period . all probability it as Ur E ri W read or . here the element is followed by the

u an name of a god, altho gh other translation is possible ,

Uru Aku u u namely , is , we wo ld nat rally translate “ Aku At c servant of . the same time , the fa t that

S in ce th e a ppea ran ce of m y L ight on the Old Testa m ent from B ab l Th u re a u - a n in h as h wn ha Wa ra d- S i n a n d Ri m -S i n e , D g s o t t -M b u w tw o n a b h b n n K a . ere perso ges , ot ei g so s of udur g 2 S e H A -ku -i -lu m a n d e b n n n a m n 1 67 a l . u er , Perso e e , p . ; so cf

A -ku -E a O f th e Ma n is h tus u Ob l e isk . 1 1 2 AM U RRU HOM E OF N ORTHERN S EMITES

l there is an E lamite deity Bri a mu st not be lost sight ’ as i Ku u -Mab u of , and especially the k ng s father , d r g , E m w as u utb al E . r ler over , a name of or part of lam

u Moreover , it seems to me that the only concl sion at ’ u which we can arrive is , that the r ler s name was not

Ar - n ri or E ri -Aku un ad S i b u t U . prono ced , ( ) Two other ideograms whi ch have the readin g Uru are ’ un Uri B UR-B UR -DA fo d in names of the early period, ( ) 3 4 ru —DA H ru U . u and ber says U the holy city , a ’ Whi I u alu god s le q estion the reading , “ ” us city , it m t be recalled that there is a deity or

A -li u u Fi epithet , , freq ently fo nd in the names of the rst ” A - l —b —n — e . i a i shu Ali dynasty , g . , , is his creator , and also that the name of a deity often appears as su b titu te s s . V for the patron deity in names ery probably ,

Uru . however , we have here also the name of the deity W k ith this understanding the above names ma e sense .

k Uru - M U-US H The names of the early ings , and

H Neb u cha dr zza r I 222 S e e in k e . . e , , p S e e C n m T x 24 Ob 1 u eifor e ts, X, , . . “ 3 Hub URU in th e l a m an in S m a n . tter e s city u eri er , h m I t “ h ” m 6 a t n a w a . ne n na n . 5 e Perso e , p , re ds e ti it city Al Uru URU -M U h e a d alu -iddi n w hi h an l a w l so ( ) , re s , c tr s ted ou d “ ” “ b e th e h as v n Uru URU -ki -bi h e an l a city gi e . ( ) tr s tes Die — “ S ta dt sprich t Uru ( URU) KA -GI -NA h e tra n sl a tes Die S ta dt “ Uru URU -NI - BA - A GA S n S a is t ( ) , ei e t dt ” L b l n ru R -BA - A - A dlw u da m m i U U U S G S G . ie i g ; ( ) q, etc b 1 9 . 8 . Cf . i id , p . m h E l VI 1 l Na . v Se e l in Ra nk ona is . o . . ists e , Pers es, B , , pt , P E v VI 2 b l . l . an d oe e . o . . , B , , pt ° h m ” th e Old T a h a m Se . Wi n . Per ps us is itic , cf , etc , of est

Ki n n o S t o B bl a l A ha ol vol . m n . e t g , Proceedi g s f ocie y f i ic rc e ogy,

- - 1 908 23 9 th e a n Ri m a u sh . XXX , , p . , sug gests re di g

1 1 4 A M U RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EM I TES

as u u as u C site doc ments at Nipp r , a r le , did not preﬁx the determinative to the names of the Cassite deities

S hu am u n a (with the exception of g , who had been introdu ced into the Babylonian pan theon) in the same

S um an way , the eri scribes in the early period probably A regarded this god of the morites as foreign . This , it s u seem to be evident, was done beca se of the religiou s

u i An d prej d ces of the scribes . yet it must be borne in mi nd that su ch deities as S in or Nannar in this as well as the earlier pe riod are frequ ently written withou t the

i Urra determ native . The Legend of , which echoes severe conﬂi cts waged against certain Babylonian

dis cities by some rival power , also points to a foreign ri hi t ct over w ch the god presided . It may be of in terest to add that the earliest inscribed

Urra object dedicated to the god , is a vase which is in M It the organ Library Collection . is dedicated by or son Lu al-kisalsi for a of g , who belongs perhaps to the ur um fo th millenni B . C? The name of the god is written DING'IR BIL-LIL R IV , which , according to awlinson , ,

5 66a Urra . , , is to be read

NE RGA L .

Cuth a Nergal , the patron deity of , is also a solar 2 u deity , who in the late period is the god of the b rning heat

sun - of the , or the god of the all destroying midday

“ ” Se e Ba n A as I n n m W a a A m a n ks , V e scriptio fro rk , eric L n I l o em a a XX . 63 n a S t . Jour f i ic gu ges , , p 2 A 4 1 2 4 4 f m m K . . Se e n n K m l 8 . n . p . p , Je se , os o og ie, ; Zi er , Ba b u nd A ss 1 57 a n d a w Rel . J stro , . . , p . . A M U RRU I N C U NE I FORM I NS CRI PTI ONS 1 1 5

sun n h as sun . The great heat of the in Babylo ia a highly

u u destr ctive power , which do btless gave rise to the attributes attached to this deity when he became the l u god of pestilence death and the nderworld . One , — of the S u merian ideograms for the deity is NE URU

AL h a l G er . S , w ich gave rise to the familiar N g cholars have considered this ideogram to mean Lord of the great ” 2 H H u dwelling ades) . a pt , following Delitzsch , s i In and others have thus regarded t. the light

u of these investigations , there can be little do bt that URU this sign , which ordinarily has the meaning “ n w as Su dwelli g, selected by the merian scribes at

Cutha as u , mentioned above , simply beca se it represented ru the sound U . The last two elements of the name ru wou ld then mean great U . The name of the god is

u un r in as freq ently fo d w itten this abbreviated form, ‘ - - - rra- al u ﬁ U ri al la U . g , g , etc F rther , the rst element 5 “ ” 6 ” 7 E b ut n ru N does not seem to mean lord , u , light , although it shou ld be borne in mind that the meaning “ ” ” Uru NE u Lord , if is translated lord , wo ld be “ ” Uru L UGAL-URU parallel to King ) , another

O A name of this deity . The name then f this morite

K m l 4 6—4 Se e n n . 7 87. Je se , os o og ie, pp 2 A m a n u na l o h lolo II I . 274 a n d eedi n eric Jo r f P i gy, V , p , Proc g s A m a n O n a l S O b 1 8 7 XI o 8 . f eric rie t ociety, cto er, , 3 3 m m n A T 41 2 Se e al K . . . so Zi er , . , p . S m a Nbk 0 : 4 a . 3 5 . tr ss ier , In th e Na ra m -S in ins cription fou n d i n S us a a deity NIN-NE UNU u Th u re a u - a n i Vor Bi b I 1 RU . n . . . 68 U . ( ) occ rs , cf D g , , , p ° h w v h h v l a shru Brun n w . The n as t e a . o Li d sig , o e er , ue g ; cf , I o r m m e N Mei sn S lt n de a O . 6920 Cf . . s er, e e e g , 1 1 6 AM U RRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EMITES sun - Su n Cutha god, when written by the meria scribes at , “ ” “ l Uru meant The ight of the great , or perhaps Lord Uru al g . “ The deity L UGAL- URU has also been identiﬁed In R i as . with Nergal , above a passage from awl nson , 1 I n scri ti on s o Western Asi a p f , we seem to have proof d Am u rru It ds : S ha r-ra - u that this deity is from . rea p “ L AL- - A M A -KI DIN IR UG UR R R i . e . G , , The deity S harrapu (the bu rner) Lu ga l Urra (Lord Uru ) Of ” 2 mu rru A .

MARD K U .

Another striking proof of the transmi ssion is to b e

a rdu k ar seen in the name of the god M , whose sol charac

u w as ter is attested by Beros s , which ﬁrst pointed 3 A H m out by Sayce . fter am urabi placed this god of a su light at the head of the pantheon , and m de him p u plant the other gods , his solar feat res were over shadowed by the man y other attributes with which he w n u as invested, and as a co seq ence they were more or

Of less lost sight . The deity u nder the name Mardu k is not known in

H e arl eriod c the ebrew of the yip , and with one ex eption , DI - ardu k u A i . e . , M , the name does not occ r in the marna letters . This is signiﬁcant , and shows , as stated (p . that the su pposed great inﬂuence exerted by Babylonian

1 4 c—d 22 6 . V , , 2 K A 4 1 5 n I Cf . . . p . , ote . 3 T a n oc Bi b A h 1 9 3 II 246 l n S . . a n . 8 r s . rc , , , p . ; cf . so Je se ,

K m lo . 88 . os o gie, p

1 1 8 A M URRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EMITES u tu k G u , for it is well known that a ﬁnal , incl ding the ‘

S u . vowel , in merian is often apocopated Jensen explains AMAR UT to mean the son of the ” 2 un n s . This expla ation , however , is based on a frag 3 u AMAR ment of qu estionable val e . Pinches explains D “ H m ‘ U UG to mean the brightness of the day . o mel “ s AMAR un con iders to mean yo g wild ox, which explanation he feels is conﬁrmed by one of the dates of 5 “ - Am ar- i n S Bu r S i n hi s t S . , where name is writ en ayce e as u xplains the name having a p nning etymology , “ ” - Am ar u tu k . , heifer of the goblin It is possible to u nderstand how a deity like Mardu k “ u S on S b u t co ld have an epithet , of hamash ; it does n ot seem appropriate to explain the name of the patron

An d an i deity of Babylon in that way . notwithst d ng

S ee L a n S m h L h w o 4 e n rter 3 . e der, u erisc e , p . “ ‘ ’ K B VI 2 A M A - T—m . . 5 6 R U a r u u n Cf . , , p . . p ru J g es ‘ ‘ ’ m dri -sha m a shu in S n hn . s n n n S nn n , d . i o e ki d Oder o e so der ‘ ’ Gette r ab n h S n n hl h hi n , er ic t o e sc ec t . 3 Old T a m n i n the L h o the H a l I n n est e t ig t f istoric scriptio s , etc . , 4 5 . p . 4 S m i a n Leses tu cke 1 5 . u er , p . 5 I t is ui e n h a th e n a m b h th e son u n q t evide t t t es of ot , of D gi th e Ur n as an d th e son Ur-NI N—I B th e I n a re n ot of dy ty , of of si , b e a B u r-S i n a n d n a as u u all n -S i n I to re d ; desig ted , is s y do e , Bur , a n d Bu r- i n II I v h h m th e S . n n a n w t e e ery i st ce ere for er occurs , n A M A R C T XXI 2 2 Hil r ch t w n . . 4 5 27 a n d e sig is ritte , cf , , , , p , R E I 1 2 22 4 t. 0 7 : 3 w h as th e l a n a m , , p , , , XX , , etc . , ere tter e is wr n h B U f B E I v R o . . 1 1 d XX 4 1 M w . . 9 a n 7 : 5 . itte it , , , pt , , , oreo er in B E 4 h h . b m h n . : 7 n a a a Un l a , XX , ot es ppe r . ti , t erefore , p o etic w n n al h h A M AR m a b e a th e a in riti g is fou d , t oug y re d Bur , re d g Am a -S i n th e m a n d B u r- i n h a b r for for er S for t e l a tter is prefer le . R l on o E t a nd a b l n a 325 e igi f gyp B y o i , p . . AMU RRU IN CUNEI FORM I NS CRI PTIONS 1 19

out the other explanations , it does not seem of place to

u offer still other conject res . “ If Ama r HR as is a synonym of , light, has been u n in s ggested , which Pinches apparently had in mi d “ ” n translating brightness , then the ﬁrst eleme t of the

u NE n ru name co ld also be a synonym of u ) , which “ un NE —URU—GAL Uru is fo d in , Light of the great , an d also of S IR n uru or n a pdhu ) in S IR- (u su ally ” B U E - NE ﬁre read ) N , Light or ﬂame of the , the

e S s S In as AMAR chariote r of hama h of ippar . this c e “ ” T G u O tu k i e u n U U f U . . s . wo ld mean Light , , the A -ma —ru as saw u , which, we above , is eq ivalent to

a rdu k u M , wo ld then represent perhaps only the ﬁrst

u r i element . This wo ld mean , if correct , that in w it ng thi s name the Amorite element Am ar w as u sed in con ’ n e ction with the S u merian UTUG or the Babylon ize d u tu k .

An other explanation is perhaps more plau sible . Words were compou nded in Babylonian in other than ‘ S i u the em tic constr ct relation . Many of these com positions dou btless arose throu gh the inﬂu ence of ? S u merian writing

Se e l h A i h a m m a t De itzsc , ssyr sc e Gr ik . 2 I n th is con n ection I desire to call a tten tion to se vera l n a m es Of w n an m al a n d la n m w hi h m a v n all oods , sto es , i s p ts , so e of c y e e tu y b e h w n b e mil a in m a n Th e n a m th e u n s o to si r for tio . e of co try Am u b i n th e am as th e a m n th e m an v a a n rru , e g s e deity , o g y ri tio s in m in w hi h th e n am a a w e h a v A m a M a r Am for c e ppe rs e r, , ur , M u r Ur a n d A r , . — - — -! - - - l an : A m u r ti n n u II R 45 A m u r ri a n u al a. P ts ( . , , q ( so “ kn th e e e of A a b a a a n d a a n sic ess of y , . r ic r q ur q, g r i 1 20 AM U RRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S E M ITE s

As is customary at the present time to designate the

a l . origin of nima s , woods , etc , by mentioning the name of “ ” “ u as S I the co ntry, , for example , cotch terrier , talian ”

a . ur u m rble , etc , it seems nat al to post late that the did m n Babylonians the same in na i g foreign materials .

An d i A u u u u m th s being the case , m rr sho ld ﬁg re pro i u u in ently in that respect , for freq ently we read the

as as Gu i inscriptions , early the time of dea, that th s land w as the forest that furnished woods for their

u s temples , and the q arry where they got certain kind

A m ar-u tu k of stone . may , therefore , mean the ” Am tu k i e Am - n U . . sun O e orite , , the orite god s other explanation seem probable and worth considering . ’ A AR- UTUG an Am M , being orite deity , contains Am ar as its ﬁrst element , meaning the deity (see above) . In the light of these considerations , therefore , is it not “ reasonable to su ggest that the name means Ama r

A w - - - i r II R 43 67a an d b A w a-a r-si - i r A wa -a a a r ka . r s ( , ) ; q - — D l h H W B W : Ur- a -l m b Vor sa n a bu . . . . . o . ( e itzsc , , p etc o ds h u ( Bi b I 30 96 m b l n A m u Ur-ka ri n n u a . , , pp . , ) see s to e o g to urr ; (Es r h a n I 20 b u h w h a m S n M a r-eri u Mu ddo , ) is ro g t it ced r fro ido ; qq ( ss l t S n : M u r-a r- n a - ti m Brun n ow Arn o . . , Dic , etc to es ( , - i a rru Brii n n ow A r- a m a n w h h i h n a n d e M u r s s o . p ( , g , ic P e ici y “ i a m a n l An m al : A -m u r- sa -n u A—m u r—si n S . yri c e s co or, etc i s ; M n l m n A wa -a r-i—lu m M a r—ba bi llu Mus u S . g ( eiss er, upp e e t, p , s n d l h H W B M u r-n i s i t 90 a . . . . A rn ol . . z p , Dic , p , De it sc , , q

- t 4 na sd u M Arn ol . . 58 us . ( s , Dic , p , root q ) , etc Th w th e m l n a l all w h h is in u b ese ords , ety o ogy of e r y of ic do t , a n m a ull l I m l i n a s th e n t ke fro f er ist , si p y offer order to r i e q uestio w h eth er som e of th em a t lea st can n ot b e ex pl a in ed a s con ta in in g ha th e l m n an d all a s w e h a v m l a per ps e e e t discussed , especi y e si i r s a ha - h m n a h a a s n m t e S u m a n . for a tio s , s r edu , per ps ri e fro eri

1 22 A M URRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EM ITES

i h i as u . s mean ng, not been improved pon There , how u i ever , another pla sible explanation of th s name , which may eventu ally be found to be correct . We have seen in Part I that the mountain Mdshu ur G ﬁg es prominently in the ilgamesh epic , and that it A u u We u is located in the lan d of m rr . have f rther — seen how in the name Gi lga m esh and in the names of several temples in Babylonia the element Ma sh or

esh u i M ﬁg res, and that th s element in all probability

as n m is foreign . Now, is well k own , another co mon IN-IB MA H ﬁr ideogram for N is S . The st element “ ” I an I -IB N N meaning Lady or Mistress , d the name N N , “ ” IB w as IB s Lady , who the consort of the god , show i As w that originally the deity was fem nin e . there as a W S a sh u b e est emitic deity called M , his consort sho ld ashlu In a sh called M . Babylonian, there is a deity M and

a s iu n also his consort M h . Knowi g as we do that this k Nin -Girsu ul deity , li e and others , became masc inized , it is altogether reasonable to assu me that even in early times “ ” EN- a shtu e u . the deity becam M , that is, Lord Masht Thi s as well as the above explanation identiﬁes the

W i ur u deity with the est , wh ch is f ther disc ssed , and for which additional proofs are given in the Appendix on “ ” - The Name NIN IB .

RA H U S .

‘ Ura sh IB s IB-BA The god , written and perhap also ,

w as th e Dilb at u who local deity of , is do btless also a

S e e la B E vol XIV 9 5 . C y , . . , . , p . A M U RRU I N C U NEI FO RM I NS CRI PTI ONS 1 23

A u solar deity from murr . This follows from the deter NIN-IB w as s mination of , who originally the con ort of IB A , as being morite .

It u E bed—Ura sh A occ rs in in the marna letters . u h u B Now in a P nic inscription of the t ird cent ry C.

' ' ur W IN WZ there occ s the name W, which in all proba ‘ ili W Urash b ty is the same ; compare also NW NDIQ.

' - h -E ﬂ Ur es i . e Uru sh WN N . may be a contraction of , , , ,

B - r u k Ada d Ama t . i r U see . like or , etc ( above) The ﬁrst

‘ E sh- son S u A element in ba al of a l , and shbel

i n 53 0 W son Ge . ( , the name of a of Benjam n ( ’ “ ” 46 u WN b u t I may of co rse be , man , prefer to ” see E sh ﬁre - I shu m in it the deity , god ; compare = especially in the Hamm u rabi period? IB Urash has 3 “ u a m u I u the val e g , perhaps b rned , and considering [ B Of NIN-IB that is the consort , a solar deity, the ‘ an s above expl ation seem at least plausible .

HAMA H S S .

S hamash was S u , whose temple at ippar , is nat rally recognized as the great solar deity of the Babyloni an At S . emites the same time , we have only to recall the fact that in the Amarna letters Shamash is the one all

N h S I n 0 m a th e as m n . 7 w Cooke , ort e itic scriptio s , p , co p res root , “ w h h in As a n c e ka a n d th e H b w ic syri ( r s ) desire , request, e re b u t bi 1 2 h e h n a h . i k ﬁft s . 9 n d u in y , ; i d , p , isc ss g t i s it is deit ’ a n d m a A 7 co p res p 7c. S e e Ran na l Na m ke , Perso es . 3 ’ S e e Bri i n n ow L N 1 0 4 1 o 8 . , ist . 4 Fora n h l a h h m O L Z 1 90 9 x an n U a . . ot er e p tio of r s see D or e , . 1 24 A MURRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EMITES

r so u u impo tant deity, freq ently named in the sal tation . “ ar r S The Ph aoh add essed is called my hamash , my ‘ ” i li lu ra li s i n ten si vu s i . e . god ( , , p ) , my lord . These h s H Y E t ree term correspond to the ebrew ahweh , lohim, “ ” “ n A It a d . god, donai , lord is not impossible

E sun - Re that the gyptian god , or the foreign impor tation A was E ten meant , who the gyptians believed w as b ut u incarnated in the Pharaoh ; if that were tr e ,

u c we wo ld expect at least a single variant , in whi h It i one or the other was referred to by that name . s more probable that the Amorite writer meant his own sun -deity which he associated with the deity Of th e

In spite of th e pron oun ced v iew s of oth ers w h o h a v e differed — w ith th e ex plan a tion s off ered for DI NGI R DINGI R or DI NGI R M E S H Eloh im th e gen eric n a m e of th e g od a m on g th e H b w a n d th e l th e W Hil re ch t al e re s peop e of est (cf . p , Editori a m E l IX I n in m a in a in h a vo . . Pref ce to y B . . , X , p ) , co t ue to t t t h x l an a n f b B n A m i n oc A l a O S . t is e p tio of ered y rto (Proc . er . r e . , pri , 1 892 is in all b ab l Th a DINGIR-M E S H 5a ) pro i ity correct . t , in th e n a m th e A h aem n a n I h a v n l u v l h wn es of c e i period , e co c si e y s o i n m y pa per on Ara m a ic En dorsem en ts in th e Ha rper M em oria l V l m I 2 i Unl v h th e w 87 f . c a n b e a o u e ( , p . ) ess it pro ed t t ord El oh im of th e Old Testa m en t w as n ot in us e as ea rly as th e secon d m ll n n m B C h x d in th e . ﬁn . as n i e iu , t ere is every re o to e pect to it l a u Of al n an d all in th e Am a n a l Th iter t re P esti e , especi y r etters . is b n u h a re a n b l n h a in th e n a m ei g tr e , t ere good re so s for e ievi g t t e Wa ra d-DI NGI R-DI NGI R- M A R- TU w e m ust recogn ize th e gen eric “ ” n a m us b th e W n S mi h a n a e for God ed y ester e tes ; t t is , i ste d of “ ” a n l a n Am the w b l h a in th e a l tr s ti g gods of urru, riter e ieves t t e r y as w ll as in th e l a th e b ff n a b w n period , e te , scri es di ere ti ted et ee i lu a n d Si: ‘ M v i a n hi w m h D a . a m or oreo er, odif c tio of t s vie ig t b e w h h h a th e n a m w a s b a b l a Wa ra d suggested , ic is t t e pro y re d ‘ El - ru h i n cri U . Con sidered i n con n ection w ith mm in t e Pog n on s p n h x la n a n a a a a b l tio , t is e p tio ppe rs re son e .

1 26 A M U RRU HOM E O F N ORTHERN S EMI TES establish its deity in the foremost position du ring the ‘ ul u hi A r e of some powerf l dynasty . Besides t s ramaic t hi i s em, w ch has led scholars to give the mean ng servi ” S i tor to hamash, no other seems to exist from wh ch the i name can be derived . Tak ng this into consideration , the f us u following is o fered as a pla ible conject re .

a sh The name M , more than has been realized, ﬁgures promi nently in the E astern as well as in the

ul u a sh in Western Semitic c t res . M the Old Testament is

A m n 1 0 dshu called one of the sons of ra (Ge . M is the mountain where the gates of the setting sun were u hi s to fo nd . T s , as has been tated (p . is probably in Am u u H be located rr and perhaps is ermon , near

Damascus (see below) . This element Ma sh is frequ ently met with in the i It u u Babylonian nscriptions . occ rs in a n mber of E - UL-MAS H E —AS H temple names , for example M H E - E H-LAM I AS S . t u M , M , etc is also fo nd in the

l a - esh here name Gi g M (see p . This solar was associated with E rech where a deity Mesh w as worshiped? , — The name of the solar deity Lugal Urra or Nergal is written with the signs MAS H-MAS H This deity is W IN-IB of estern origin . The name N , another of the u chief solar deities of Babylonia , is written in c neiform d MAS H and is phonetically written Ma -a -shu in a

1 B n d A s II 4 m a n a n h a Rel a b a s . 57 as r w . . Prof . J t o , , p , i t i s t t astrol ogical con sidera tions a re respon sib le for th e rel a tive position s h h of Sin an d S a m as .

ll n Cl I X 2 C dc er 8 . Cf . o ectio q, A M U RRU I N CU NEI FO RM I N S C RI PTI O NS 1 27

‘ IN-IB e r i syllabary . N , whil prominently wo sh ped in W In A Babylonia, is also a deity of the est . ramaic 2 “ ) J = EN-Mdshtu i e ﬂ W N . . the name is written , , Lord ” dshtu dshtu k u M . M is nown in c neiform, and is perhaps

Va shti k E to be identiﬁed with of the Boo of sther . The gods Mashu and Mdshtu are called the children of 3 ‘ in ma h f r in S . ha S s was also regarded as the o fsp ing of S . AS H h as u The sign M , it may be mentioned also , s ch

u sha m shu ellu i bbu amaru n a mara as . val es , , , , , etc The deity whose habitat was found in the mou ntain

a sh S i u M might well be called , following the em tic sage

S ha -Mash E l S ha mma sh with a relative particle , , or , ” “ i He h . e . as , of Mash, or The god of Mash . This its parallel in Babylonian where Man of sealing or Of the ” h 5 w sha kkan a ku m seal , is ritten . The relative is co monly u as fo nd an element in Babylonian personal names, 6 S ha—Addu It u W S e . . . g , , etc is also fo nd in the est emitic

- — - - M thuf hd E i hd l Béth sha E l w names e s l and M s . ( rit 7 Ba t-sha -ra on e u n ten y ) , of the freq e tly mentioned cities

E n to of Palestine in the gyptian i scriptions , also seems

B L N 1 . run n 7 ow o . 7 8 . Cf , ist — Se e Appen dix on th e n a m e NI N I B Se e A n x on th n a m NI N- 1 B ppe di e e . Se a Rel o B a b a nd A s e w . . s . . 68 . J stro , f , p 5 h ” sha n u m a n Cf . also g of sa criﬁce a n d sha bru m a n of n seei g . S e e Ta ll vis t Neu ba b lon i sche s Na m en bu ch 33 1 a n d Ra n q , y , p . , ke , N 245 If h x h m h v . . h . l an a t n a m ha a l . n e S P , p t is e p tio of e s s ou d pro e n o t m b l h a E l S ha dda i a m l a m a n correct , it is i possi e t t is si i r for tio ,

h a n a n i n th e l m n A d per ps co t i g e e e t d u . 7 W M M E 1 2 a n d M e l Se e . . ll a a nd A i 9 n n n . u er , urop s e , p , itt i u g e vordera si a ll ha XII 1 2 t. 90 7 9 . der Gese sc ft, , , 1 28 AM U RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EM IT ES

It c contain the particle . probably represents the ity ‘ u A Bethel . The relative is also fo nd in rabic divine ’ ’ h l a la sa hu l S hara e . . an d names, g , D u H , D , also A Dhu ’t 3 S u e . . S am c wi . in Old o th rabic names, g , The explan ation that Shamash contains the relative wou ld 4 u m Il—Tam m esh give a reason for the do bling of in , for , as k w u is well no n , one of the forms of the particle do bles A ff n an . s the followi g conson t stated above , this is o ered simply as a conjectu re in the absence of any reas onable S explanation of hamash . A word may properly be added here with reference

a u an to the name Dam sc s . The fact that it is a very cient d important city raises the qu estion whether it is not mentioned in the early Babylonian inscriptions . — — It seems that Damascu s mu st be Oi Ma sh qi which ﬁgu res so prominently in the inscriptions of Gu dea and 5 un . u u A D gi This city is s ally considered to be in rabia, ’ b ut the scene of Dun gi s operations were chieﬂy in Am In KI 1 urru . the absence of any proof that or 62 is

S i u em tic , this wo ld mean that the name of the city as known in cun eiform was or became the name of the

I n a u An as a I -sha - él w h h m h l a P py r s t si , occurs , ic pro pted sc o rs hi n B h n a Of B h h a n to t k of et el i ste d et s e . 2 W e h A n u m 42 ll a us en R t a b h n Hei de t es . . , es e r isc e , p ff 3 B th e n i a 1 2 ae 3 . g , Be tr ge , p . f 4 — Th are a fe w va a n m as Il—Ta m h I l T m h se e ere ri t for s es , e es , Tall v is t Neu ba b lo i ch N m n bu ch 2 n s es a e . 88 . q , y , p 5 l h a a 242 h a s h w m a u De itzsc (P r dies , p . f . ) , o ever, de it q ite ’ rea son a b le th a t th e desert O f Sy ria is referred to in A sh u rb a n ipal s a m a n a s th e M a h n n n ow al la M dshu in c p ig desert of s . Je se so p ces th e b a n n Le o district .

1 30 AM U RRU HOM E O F N ORTHERN S EM I TES

- D m - - a As mas a i m as . q , q , etc , in the syrian inscriptions ;

D ma h u in A In i s . . and g , etc , rabic view of the above ‘ S ha -M a sh an d u m explanation of , the do bling of the se e in the name, it is possible to here the relative particle s u (see above) . This view ﬁnd s pport in the other form “l ? S ha - i meri -shu If i ul e of the name , th s sho d prov correct , then the early name Mesheq, perhaps arisen " un n Mashq from the c eiform writi g of the name , later ” Dam meshe became q, (city) of Mesheq . An other and more reasonable explanation is that the ﬁ Dar Du m Du r S ara rst element written , (for ) , and even

E ui A Der in gyptian , is eq valent to the ramaic and the “ ” ur u d . s Babylonian , fortress , etc , which is do btles " “ A WI sur from the ramaic stem , to enclose , or to u u Ar ro nd , and contin es in the late amaic dialect as

Th e r in several of th e forms coul d h a ve b een used for th e dis m m sim ul a tion of . Th e oth er form of th e n a m e in cun eiform is S ha -im eri -shu ha -i -m e-ri -shu I I I R 2 S ha -NI TA -shu an d S ha -NI TA (S , , , XX) , H- hi t I II Th w n can b e n l th e ME S R. 9 s ( , ese riti gs reco ci ed if “ ” B L i e A m a h e od n a m a runn ow . . t secon d sig is rea d ru ( , ist, , r g , “ ” m a h e as s an d NI TA as Ura h a M i r Bru n n ow ins tea d of i er t , , per ps ( , NI TA -M E S H M i ri S HU a h h N 4 an d as . l u L os . 95 ist , or ( t o g h a n h n S HU us h as th e al e erébu in t e l a te period ot er sig is ed) v u , ha m h Brun n o L in n n n w h . w especially co ectio it s s u (cf , ist , M AR M IR-S HU w ul h n b e val n M A R- TU c b A or o d t e equi e t to , or ri “ ” “ m S ka -AM AR-S HU w l m a n The ha h th e n sun . s s i , setti g ou d e ” th e n sun a m a a n a m a m as u . city of setti g , ost ppropri te e for D c s w v th e a h a h w l a a in b in th e S m i la v Ho e er , f ct t t t is ou d g r g e tic re ti e in to con n ection w ith a S um erian ideogra m m ust b e recogn ized as an

b n n l w e a m h a th e n m w as x n O jectio , u ess ssu e t t cu eifor script e te h si ve l y used i n th a t district i n th e th ird m ill en n iu m BC a n d t e m S m ideogra m h ad ea rly b eco e e itized . A M U R RU I N CU NEI FO RM I NS CRI PTI O NS 1 3 1 d ra ui ur . u u , circ t , enclos e The name wo ld then mean

i u u eshe a sh c rc it or enclos re or fortress of M q (or M ) , A l ” hi instead of se stadt. T s has its parallel in the name ” has an Carchemish, which been tr slated Castle of Mish ; “ ” perhaps better , Fortress Mash . The latter element is ur sun - of co se the name of the god .

A OR A A DDU D D .

As Addu Ramma n is well known , or in Babylonia ar as in S appe s a god of rain and lightning, and yria ‘ u w where he is indigeno s , as sho n by Jensen , Jastrow, Z immern? and others , he is recognized as a solar ‘ it u deity . This seems to have s parallel in Mard k

in -Girsu Su sun - T and in N , the merian deity of ello , who iﬁ u u . u fru ct is also the god of agric lt re Nat rally , the cation and viviﬁcation of the earth is dependent u pon

un the warmth of the s together with the rain . Addu is associated and identiﬁed with the god of the 5 W i Am u rru m e . . T est , . , his see s to be well established ; d “ ” - = IM u be A A T sha a b i . u . c . R U e . f M , , dd of the ﬂoods Compare the name in the Amarna letters Am a r-Adad d “ ” IM i e A u A A u w ( ) , . . , m r is dad . dd , as is well kno n , i AR- TU Am urru is also the god of the mounta ns . M “ bél shadi un K R- GAL i . e . U . Of , , lord the mo tain “ Am u rru u sha d ra b i . e . ) u u , . , the great mo ntain

‘ A VI 0 ff 3 3 . Z . . , , 3 Rel Ba b u n d A ss 222 . . . , p . . K A 43 3 . . . p . ‘ f K B V I 6 C . n n . . . 5 3 Je se , , , p . Re v c—d Cf I II R. 67 5 1 . , , . , . 1 32 A MURRU HOM E OF N ORTHERN S EM ITES

In this con nection we are reminded of the epithets Shaddai E ur WW W? WW , lyon and S ( , W} and ) of the Old Testament, as well as the conception the ’ Syrian s had of the nature of Israel s God when they “ ” a Y 1 Ki 21 s id , ahweh is a god of the hills , ngs As has been shown , there are other designations of 2 hi u r er Bu r Bi r t s deity , namely , M , M , , , etc . These 3 M a r A nd seem to be variations of the name . that “ ” u Bi r-Ha dad u H being tr e , wo ld mean Mar is adad , which later may have been misu nderstood by the H u A Mar ebrews who, perhaps inﬂ enced by the ssyrian “ A bar on s . (see p . considered it to be the ramaic , I Moreover , simply desire to emphasize in this connection

u o that this deity is indigeno s in the West, and was intr duced from that land into Babylonia .

K NUS U .

u N sku is also recognized as an original solar deity . ’ 4 The names of the Harran Oen su s show that this deity w as promi nently worshiped in Haran un der the

a shku name of N , where there was a temple devoted to S him . ome hold that the deity was imported from u b ut k Nipp r , exactly the reverse is more li ely to be the

“ ” Wa Th i h h f A m Se e e O n t e W O ah w e . rd , rig of ors ip Y e , r o S em La A l 1 ff e e . n 90 1 Al a I . . . . 9 75 . s 88 J ur g , pri , , p . so P rt , p “ Se e w Rel B a b d A s 1 4 H m m l A u as . u n 6 a l . s . p . } J tro , , ; so o e , 3 a 220 a n d m m K A T 44 ff z . n . . . . 5 . s t e , p , Zi er , , p 3 Hil re ch t A ss ri a ca 1 a M e— M i r is . 77 n p , y , p , ote , s ys ir ) i n al w h M u r de tic it Bir or . Se e hns A a n m a 1 2 Jo , ssyri Doo sd y Book , p . .

1 34 A M URRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EMITES

u u AR b ut This sign is s ally read H , M UR might An r be preferable . interesting va iant of the name d M - n Dar 395 20 u Dar 1 UR i b i . 3 . 96 8 , , is to be fo nd in , “ UTU—i bn It where the same name is written i . is UTU Bi r not improbable that is to be read , which is a ‘

r er a r . va iant of M , M , etc This explanation , if correct , wou ld throw interesting light on the name of the hero

a u UTU—na i shti m of the Babyloni n del ge story , p , which nam e may also be read Bi r-n api shti m (see I UR Part ) . The associations of the god M , considered in connection with the possible variant readings, show that it is a solar deity .

MA IK L .

An d who will qu estion that Ma li k is West Sem itic A or rabic instead of Babylonian , perhaps originally 2 b ut only an epithet, later considered to be a name ? This well known deity is prominently associated an d S IR-NE -NE S with Shamas h at ippar . This fact is interesting when considered in connection with the

m Uru -m i lki i lki—Uru u fa iliar name and M , fo nd early in B as W an d late abylonia, as well among the estern In Man ishtusu O Semites . the belisk the name ’ - —I - u Ma li k Z I N S U occ rs . The name of Sargon s scribe 2 — a li k u is S hu m M . These occ rrences show that the

v n d K A 443 ff b a . Se e a o e . . p . ’ “ 2 l M l h E n c Bi b M a . al a n S e e . i oore s rtic e, o ec , , so B rto n K A 4 a d m m n . . 69 h E n lo ae an . . J ewi s cyc p di ; Zi er , p 2 Bi b I 1 64 Vor . . , , 9 . A M U RRU I N CU NE I FORM I NS C RI PTI O N S 1 35 name w as introdu ced into Babylonia in the early Semitic period . A stu dy of the early history of these recognized Semitic Babylonian solar deities leads us to certain In ﬁr a u . im import nt concl sions the st place , we are pressed with the fact that nearly all the important

S sun - emitic Babylonian gods are deities , and that they

u are not indigeno s to the land . The earliest traces of the more important are synchronou s with the earliest S i An d references to the em tes in Babylonia . after we realize that there mu st be assu med a great an tiqu ity Am u u an d di for the orites and their c lt re , ﬁn ng that u Ar ae they , incl ding the am ans, had the same deities as S u the emitic Babylonians , we can post late, after a S consideration of all that is known , that the emitic Babylonian s were originally Western Sem ites ; and espe ciall as u k y the elements in q estion, generally spea ing, r do not belong, as far as we know, to other ea ly peoples . W H W u Dr . illiam . ard, the eminent a thority on sun - Babylonian seals, informs me that the god is one of the most favorite themes of the Babylonian an d Syrian

u seal cylinders . For years he has made a st dy of Baby

-H His lonian an d Se ittite seals . comparison of the forms of Babylonian gods with the forms of the Syro Hittite deities as depicted in their art h as led hi m to the conviction that the form s originated in the

West . That is, from the art of that region were derived the representations of Mardu k an d Am urru (MAR-TU) at different times from the more dign i 1 3 6 A M U RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EM ITES

ﬁe d god who appears in the Se -Hittite art u su ally

i u ar u k w tho t weapons . M d is represented simply hold

hi s mi i A u u ing sci tar downward, wh le m rr the same a hi s god is represented with one h nd to breast , holding a short rod .

a an i tu k S rp , the na ed goddess on seals , who is the u k consort of Mard k, corresponds to the na ed goddess S -H w Tarkhu on the yro ittite seals , very likely the ife of , i H ur the ch ef god of the ittites . The fo th Babylonian god in the art of the Semitic Babylonians coming from

W A s u an d the est is dad, who hold a th nderbolt weapon

hi u u e I n s s . over head, and lead a b ll (for the th nd r)

H us u Te shu b the ittite art this god , ally called , bears

u as u . r other weapons s ch the cl b , axe , etc The ea lier art

-E u r k Gu of the Tigro ph ates valley bac of the time of dea, i W r i in . the op nion of Dr ard , does not show t aces of th s inﬂ u ence (see also page We have only to recall how very frequ ently the name d of Am u rru ( MAR-TU) occu rs on the seal cylinders of the Sem itic Babylonians as the patron god of the n i u i d vid al , and especially in contrast with the ofﬁcial

e n T us of the names of the gods in the i scriptions . his is reasonably explained according to the theory proposed in us k these disc sions , namely , that the great deity nown A as Am u rru Uru to the morites , perhaps also , when brou ght into Babylonia received in different localities ff . us di erent names That is , in these vario centers , which were really independent principalities with their own ui ds S i i g l or schools of scribes , the em tes hav ng probably already an alphabetic script , and speaking a foreign

1 38 A M U RRU HOM E O F NO RTHERN S EM ITES

u u sun - u Nat rally the attrib tes of this god, altho gh

u e i f originally the same deity , wo ld dev lop d ferently ,

u In du e to different conditions or inﬂ ences . the later

u u cent ries, the petty principalities were bro ght together al u w as u into politic nions , and there a gro ping of the

si deities into a pantheon , when their original solar g n iﬁc ce w e xce an as more or less lost sight of , with the p S If us tions of Shamash at ippar . this concl ion is not

u u n accepted, then it m st be ass med either that the e ter ing Semites adopted the S u merian UTU sun - cu lt of

in S u Larsa o thern Babylonia, and modiﬁed it in accord

own f an ce with their ideas by giving it di ferent names , or it must be assu med that they came from different

u q arters , in each one of which a solar god was wor i f sh e d n . p u der a di ferent name That is , if the theory S S advan ced is not correct , the emites living in ippar u came from one district , while the devotees of Mard k and those that worshiped other su n - deities came from S u u u u in other localities . ch concl sions nat rally wo ld

u s in di f u u volve great ﬁc lties , and wo ld indicate a strange development of sun worship as well as a state o f

f In affairs rather di ﬁcu lt to comprehend . the light w u of all the facts kno n , it seems that the only concl n sion at which we can arrive is that the Babylonia s , k W S generally spea ing, were originally estern emites , an d that they brou ght with them their solar worship from the West .

E — HUR OTH R GODS z AS .

The chief deity of the As syrian pantheon also seems to be an importation from the West . The appear A MU RRU I N C U NEI FORM I NS CRI PTI ONS 1 39 an ce of the name As hu r in Assyria is found in the earliest inscriptions from that land . The fact that the name does not occur in the early Babylonian inscriptions preclu des ur a s aying the deity is Babylonian . F ther , the f ct that h r A-u sar A-shi r A-shu r Ash-shur t e name is w itten , , , ,

e tc . . , points to a foreign origin The deity ﬁgures promi nently in the Cappadocian tablets, some of which belong to the latter part of the B I Am C. t ur third mi llennium . also occ s in the arna ‘ It u in Old mm Wit/ N letters . is fo nd the Testament . in o ”WWWWN WDNWD The name is the Ph enician D, etc . , A bDWDN ‘ 3 1 w an d . in the ramaic W , , etc , and perhaps even in the name of the tribe and city Asher ? r n 25 : Asshu i m Ge . 3 and , , etc These occurrences Of the name in the inscriptions W W S of the est point to est emitic origin , and the association of su ch elements as Ma li k even suggests that W it may be solar . hen we take into consideration also A u the fact that other prominent ssyrian deities , s ch as A A U W S u . hamash, m r , dad, rra, Dagan , etc , are estern ; and that the stu dy of the so-called Syro-Hittite art shows that the West h as furnished the form of several As u As deities for syria, it wo ld seem that the syrian cu lture arose throu gh migrations from the West instead ? of from Babylon ia

A - h -ma -li k an d A - h -m a —li k in th e a a cri Cf . s ir s ur C pp docian in s p n tio s . 2 H m m l v Pa ra di eses u ss e 278 h l th e o e , Die ier ﬂ , p . , o ds deity m th e W is fro est . 2 ’ W n kl H o a b l n i a a nd A a a an l a n i c er , istory f B y o ssyri (Cr ig s tr s tio , h l h a th e n a n th e A an h n m p . o ds t t represe t tio s of ssyri p ysiog o y h is Jewis . 1 40 A M U RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EM ITE S

While it is not improbable that the temple of Ashur

c As u w as u H ul as in the ity h r fo nded by a ittite r er , has been main tained ; and that there was a brief Hittite ‘ u B u r le over abylonia, the elements which made p the u u As H b u t S i If c lt re of syria are not ittite em tic . the

S i A u u center from which the em tes came is m rr , the inﬂu ence of Hittite art u pon the Semi tic wou ld be easy

u us mi in Am u to nderstand, beca e the do nant power rru 2 B H 000 C . w as at ittite . As syria m ay have been originally a colony from Baby b ut u lonia, for the present this view m st be regarded as u entirely hypothetical . The early r lers seem to have 2 x Iri shu m son a llu been foreigners , for e ample, the of H f 4 5 “ I u r- ka ka u Pudi -El sh i a K k U i i a etc . r g p p , , p , , Late ’ rulers names are mostly compounded with the West

S Ashu r Adad ham sh an d S i . emitic , , Considering the date of the Cappadocian tablets an d ar u ff the fact that ne ly all , altho gh coming from di erent i i s ust localities, conta n th element, it m be admitted that the idea that those bearing these names represent As A syrian colonists , when ssyria is scarcely known in E u . the inscriptions of the ast , is exceedingly precario s If Ashera is the consort of this deity , the fact that the

‘ “ n d B A VI 1 H Se e U n a . 3 a n d as w tes in 5 . g , , , p , J tro , itti ” B R vu em i i a b l ni a S t u e . y o , e e q 2 I - - -i m h in t e a a an ab l t . Cf . ri si , C pp doci t e s 2 a l l a l a in B E h a b . . . to e ass ated Cf H i i , H i , etc , . , XV per ps oci h a li a lba t w it H g . th b b e l al ah l an d a h . Cf . i ic Ped e Peda i 2 th sh -bi - a B E Of . S e a U . . . C ssite h, , XV

Ki ki a B E n d Un n B . V A XI a a d V . . . I 1 3 . . 5 . Cf , , , g , , , , p

1 42 A M U RRU HOM E O F N ORTHERN S EM ITES

‘ Ashratu béli t eri as A an , the s , represented by the ssyri s, 2 As W A u u the tarte of the est, and consort of m rr ; and that it seems hi ghl y probable that the biblical A shera

i As u r h . is the same, which appears to be the fem nine of At E u rech, the same prostit tion that attended the worshi p of As htoreth in Can aan existed in the cul t of I A Bi m a I t s a . shtar . y , also dedicated to shtar , Dr Banks inf orms me he found jars containing the bodies of i f as u i small n ants, were fo nd in the h gh places of Canaan , and indications of the same lewd practices of the E rech 3 u u u c lt . The q estion arises , were these rites introd ced

vi ce versa ? An into Canaan from Babylonia, or other u u alternative , of co rse , is that there was a common so rce ; b ut hi k A . s of t s we have no nowledge has been said, E w rech as essentially a Semitic city . The very fact that thi s phase of the cul t did not exist generally in Babylonia an d As I u syria, where shtar was worshiped, altho gh H u u k g n erodot s speaks of it at Babylon , wo ld spea a ai st its origin being ﬁxed in Babylonia ; and especially as it w as so thoroughly rooted in the West .

A D A NU AN NTUM.

A A Of E NN , the patron deity rech , is generally recog n ize d u A u h u as a deity of the S merians . ltho gh t e c lts

Ge 1 4 : a l K B 1 42 1 0 n 2 21 5 . a d 37 : . m n n . . Cf wy , , so , V, . Th e us e Of 7 b e n th e a m n a m th e h a n ' 1 is to oted , for if it is s e e c ge y R 2 ? to or to J h a s ta ken pl a ce . 2 A XI 0 2 t ur ss 3 . S e e ns n . . . Je e , Zei f , , p 3 The u sual ex pl a n a tion is th a t th e b odies represen t the Off erin g ﬁ -b om An h n m a b e h a h a s h a re of th e rs t . ot er suggestio y t t per p t ey u l m h b a th e offsprin g res tin g fro t ese de sed rites . A MU RRU IN CU NEI FORM I N S CRI PTI ONS 1 43

An u I shta r E S of and of rech are clothed in a emitic garb , “ ” n w S I a d the to n is essentially a emitic city, do not u A A S i wish even to s ggest that NN might be em tic . T u here are some reasons, however , for vent ring the suggestion that a Semitic deity A n u was introduced into W Babylonia from the est , some of whose characteristics were associated with the cu lt of the so-called S umerian A A NN . Anu ﬁgures prominently in the early As syrian in scrip W S A shu r S hama sh tions with other est emitic deities, as , ,

Adad Ishta r P , , etc . erhaps the only name of the early u An u se e I period compo nded with ( Langdon , ndex to ’ I An w ban n k Lu l i V. B i i ub In u . , ) is , ing of . this r ler s An u ﬁ Thureau inscription , is the rst deity mentioned . V B I 1 i . . 73 Dangin ( , p ) regards th s inscription probably

Ur An u ﬁ u in earlier than the dynasty . g res also the

Gi m i l-Ani m Pi —sha -Ana Idsha -Ana names , and of the It h ’ Cappadocian tablets . is perhaps also in t e deity s name Ana mm elek (2 Kin gs 1 7 Especially signiﬁcant is the fact that the consort An tu m I u the is not recognized in Babylonia . t occ rs in

As n A umk akrim e syria inscription of g , and in the late - - - - - A D I A na a t da la ti n . . . t name (Joh s, D , p . u An u -ban i ni k occ rs in the early inscription of , ing of

Lul ub i u Seri ul It u n , fo nd at p . occ rs in the old Canaa ite ‘ —‘ names of towns An a thoth and Beth A n a th ; and perhaps ‘ Ana t h S . . is in the name , father of hamgar Prof Montgomery calls my attention also to the name of the ‘ Amori tehero Aner (Genesis 1 4 for which the H An -ra m Samaritain ebrew gives the variant , perhaps 1 44 AM U RRU HOM E O F NO RTHERN S EM ITES

A n a -ra m It u u intended for . is s ally un derstood to have been carried to E gypt as early as the 1 8th dynasty A si en In ( , p . short, the absence of the consort in Babyloni an literatu re and its occu rrence in the West u m st be indicative of its origin .

A U N B .

Nab fi , another important Babylonian deity , who k t does not ma e his appearance very early , at leas in S i m W S this em tic form, also see s to be of est emitic o n rigin . The deity is promi ently mentioned in the W S i ‘ est em tic inscriptions as an element in names . ’ The mountain which was the place of Moses death w a s

k A u A u u an d dedicated to this god . Li e dd , m rr , Dagan W S m u r u u other est e itic names, Nab is f eq ently fo nd in the cuneiform in scriptions of the Neo-Babylonian period ’ i W S i abu-idri in d stinctively est em tic names, as N , ’ ? buf ra a An a . d N p , etc , etc also when the fact is con sidere d uk a Gu an d that Mard , Nergal , Nan , la, other deities bearin g names distinc tively Babylon ian are not

un in W S u fo d the est emitic nomenclat re , we are led to Nab fi u W feel that m st be an importation from the est . ’ 3 u Beca se of the deity s relation with fertility , Jensen Nab fi His regarded as originally a solar deity . associa tion or identiﬁcation with Nu sku wou ld su pport this

H an view . owever , the evidence on this is too sc t to

an u arrive at y concl sion .

Se Lid z ki N S em E i 2 if e b a rs . 0 . , ord . p g . , p . 2 B E I Na m n bu h a n d X a n d . l . Se e Tall vis t . . q , e c , , Vo s X 2 K m lo 239 os o g ie , p . .

1 46 A MU RRU HOM E O F N ORTHERN S EM I TES

If the conjecture that the origin al form of the deity is ’ ‘ S i S e S u ul e , , or , sho d prov to be correct , is it not possible see in E N- Z U Sin S u to , the ideogram for , the merian E N an d S mi S u S i element , Lord, the e tic or , a formation like E N-M a shtu and on the principle that Ni n -su -gi r i n - i r-su E N-S u w S u -EN appears N g , might be ritten or

S i - E N Sin E u -n a - Z u -i u . Compare the name n fo nd ? in a Cappadocian tablet If the deity is of West Sem itic

i un origin th s will acco t for the Babylonian form . This, f u u let me add , is only o fered as a pla sible conject re , for the n of S i n in Babylonian and the other West Semitic di alects may represent what the scribes in the Haran i i ’ district intended by the breath ng in S .

DAGAN

It is quite evident that D a ga n is also a West Semitic 2 w as n u deity who early i trod ced into Babylonia . The

n is name of the deity , with the determi ative for god , un M n i ht u In 7th fo d on the Obelisk of a s us . the 3 year

un In th of D gi a temple is dedicated to Dagan . e

I W S m I shm e—a an dynasty of sin , probably est e itic , D g , u u W S one of the r lers , do btless bears a est emitic name .

a a n w G Ash D g , as is well kno n , was the god of aza and

Beth- a an dod . The place name D g , and the name of

a an - ta ka la the Canaanite , D g , who is one of the writers

Th e m th e Z u w h h a l wr n Z i a n d Z a in th e for of deity , ic is so itte h Le n z a a t l a b e n . gio , is e st to oted ere 2 m l I den tiﬁed as S in b y Ho m e . ’ A m O n oc I II a n d M f o . S . C l a . . . C y , J ur er rie , XXV , ey er, lt m 46 h h de s A . 8 . Gesc ic te ertu s, p A M U RRU I N CU NEI FO RM I N S CRI PTI O NS 1 47

A r n n A u u of the marna lette s , poi t to Palesti e or m rr as n e r the origi al habitat of this d ity . Compa e also

I -ti —Da - a n c u e g in the Cappado ian tablets , p blish d by

S u Ba b lon i a ca ayce in a recent n mber of the y . The West Semitic names fou nd in the tablet from Hana (se e

Un n a d B A VI 5 28 u t V In g , . . , , , p . ) also s ppor this iew . these tablets the de ities S ham a sh and Daga n are fou n d u in the oath form la . The tablets said to have been fou n d at E d-D e ir su pport the views of those who have he ld that his worship radiated from the highlands

e e n an d betw n Palesti e Mesopotamia .

LAHMU A N D AHAM L U .

a m u La a m u c u The god L h and goddess h , which oc r in the Mardu k-Tiamat le gend and in a few syllabaries i A t . and ncantation tex s, also appear to be moritish The fact that they play no part in the pantheon indi

A h out r n . s as cates foreig origin been pointed by othe s,

‘ La m u Beth—e em h probably is one of the elements in L h ,

w in n which as the name of two cities Palesti e . Other distinctively Semitic gods may be regarded in

e S u u e the sam way . everal of those disc ssed above nd r ” n u the headi g Other Deities , may prove event ally to have been solar in their original habitat ; b u t more evidence mu st be forthc omi n g before this can be dete r

u r mined . This m ch can be said , they are in all p obability

W S e est emitic d ities .

Beside s the argu me nt based on the c u ltu re an d relig~

n r ff e ion , the Babylo ian sc ipt o ers strong evid nce in su pport of this thesis . 1 48 A MURRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EM I TES

It is a well established fact that the northern grou p A Ar S i u i . e . of em tic lang ages , , the moraic , amaic and

As - se Babylonian , are more closely related to each other than they are to the lan gu ages of the sou thern I u Ar A . u gro p , namely , abic and byssinian nasm ch as there are so many elements that the northern cu ltures

s ur u have in common , it seem nat al to ass me that they had a common origin ; and the qu estion arises which is the earlier . as u The Babylonian script , is nderstood , is an adap tation of the S u merian cu neiform system for the Semitic lan gu age that was brou ght into the cou ntry ; and in k di that script the wea er consonants or ra cals are elided , A as . u or contracted, or appear vowels st dy of the script of the Northern grou p makes it m Ost difﬁcu lt to un an an u derstand , if the Babyloni is the older l g age, k i i u how the wea rad cals, which had d sappeared, sho ld

u have been restored, and the roots correctly introd ced

W u in the alphabetic script of the estern lang ages . For i f u u Bél Uru example , it is d ﬁc lt to nderstand how , and ’ Ti a ma t belu ri m tam da , or the corresponding , and , W l W u u as 7 W D a . co ld be correctly introd ced 51 3 , and ‘ Naturally some Babylonian loan words are foun d in

b ut u ﬁn d the West, wo ld we not expect generally to

u du e many pec liar formations, to this transportation ff and trans formation . The di erences in the verbal

u formation , and other pec liarities of the Babylonian ,

More dis crim in a tion sh oul d h e rea fter b e ex ercis ed in decla rin g w ords w h ich th e Ba b yl on ia n a n d Heb rew h a v e i n com m on to b e ab l n a n ri n of B y o i o gi .

AMURRU IN WEST SEMITIC INS CRIPTIONS

IN the Old Testament , the only form of the name k w Am u rr of the land no n as u, generally recognized, i h G refers to the n abitants , and appears with the entilic l ‘ l i AI Il OI l j LXX Vi o a h i . e . DN end ng, , ( , is p pp g) , and in h nearly every instance the word as the article . The Amorites are considered to be the descendan ts of the

u n Gen . 1 r so . fo rth of Canaan (cf and Ch on . 1 They form part of the ancient inhabitan ts of n an d u the u Palesti e, yet nder name are incl ded the an G i Hi H u C aanites, irgash tes , ttites, ivites, Jeb sites

P izite en 1 5 1 —21 K er s G . : 9 and , and once ( ) the enites , K K R . enizzites , admonites and ephaim From the Old Testament it woul d seem that Am orite history reached far ui back into antiq ty , and that the people had main in w H A ta e d their identity do n to the ebrew period . s

u a nation , however , they had then beg n to disintegrate i m i Of Hit and were los ng prestige . The do nation the tites in the middle of the second millenniu m dou btless

u Bu t brou ght this abo t . there is every indication that

ul they were originally an extensive and powerf people , whose chief location w as the mou ntainou s region north of what we now recognize as Palestine , covering the district , it seems , as far north as the Orontes ; in other H words , to the ittite land A MU RRU I N W ES T S EM ITI C I NS CRI PTI ON S 1 5 1

In the Old Testament they are gen erally represented

n as a people livi g in the highlands . Palestine in the early period seems to have been extensively controlled

A in by the morites . Macalister , the excavations at G n A ezer , ﬁ ds traces of a people he calls morites at a u 25 ur date which he ﬁxes abo t 00 B C. Nat ally there may be more ancien t sites in the land than Gezer where A Af u the morites lived . ter this period the occ pation of the city seems to have been su pplanted by the

I a u u sr elites, abo t the middle of the second millenni m . Althou gh the Am orites had their day and ceased to be as u u a factor a people , they held vario s cities for cent ries ‘ u u I s cceeding the occ pation of Canaan by srael .

As k n u -ﬁfths u is well now , fo r of the letters fo nd in E el-Am gypt at Tel arna, which represent the ofﬁcial an d frien dly correspondence in the Babylonian langu age

Arn n hi III IV B e o s u C. of p and in the ﬁfteenth cent ry . , consist of reports and commu n ications from vassals of

E W A In i the gyptian kings in estern sia . th s great land

S i as the names of districts are practically all em tic ,

Am u rru a ri m a Am i Z i ri —Ba shan i Gar A . s , N k , q , and geographical names frequ ently are retained from one era to another , we realize that the inhabitants of the S land prior to this age in all probability were emitic . We reach the same c onclu sion when su ch names of the

For a discussion of th e Am orites b a sed upon th e Old Testa m W M M “ ” n . . ull in th e a l Am i n th e wi h e t see er , rtic e orites Je s ’ E nc cl o cedi a S a i n Has in na o the B ibl y p ; y ce , t gs Dictio ry f e ; or a t n i n th e On e V l m n a r 2 1 Al , p . 7 . a n b d B r o o u e Dictio y, so B rto , i i “ ” 1 1 0 on the an a an p . , C ites . 1 5 2 A M U RRU HOM E O F N ORTHERN S EM ITES

k n u rri i du n a cities are ta en into co sideration , as S , S ,

Gu bla i deshu Uru sa li m , Q , and others , some of which ui at least are considered to have had a great antiq ty . The predom inance of Semitic personal names is so evident in these letters that it is only necessary to mention the fact . The consideration of the names

A - As hi rta hi s son Aziru i bdi , , and others , ndicates their

S . ur u emitic origin F ther , it is s fﬁcient to recall that the letters from this great region betray the fact that the u Of H In native tong e the writer is ebraic . other words , these letters make us acqu ainted with the fact that the

ul u i an S c t re of th s l d, which is emitic , is of a highly

i n k developed character , ind cati g that, bac of what we

u have become familiar with , there m st be a long period

u m of development covering millenni s . The names clearly indicate also that the chief deity of this region w as un solar , who, as we have seen above , appears der

i f as Uru Ada d i lku d ferent names or epithets , , , M ,

h IN- IR S ha ma sh Ura s . , N , , etc ‘ A The theory advanced years ago, that the morites depicted on the walls of the Egyptian temples and tombs u i with short and pointed beards, bl e eyes and redd sh

i n e k hair , high forehead and rather prom ne t ch e bones ,

h siolo i thin lips and straight noses , show that they p y g I -E uro aean s cally were ndo p , does not seem to have

u found acceptance . The mon ments show that the Am orites represent in practically every instance a Semitic

u people (see p . This wo ld imply that in that age

0 the He b w s 42 S a E a l H t . y ce , r y is ory } re , p .

1 54 A MU RRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EM ITES

Am some are called orites , that term may have been used very early in the sense that it was in later biblical

u un times, when all the peoples were incl ded der that

se e m E A general name ( above) , Ma re, shcol and ner ‘ An r m i A a O S . ( ) . g and hon are mentioned as morites 2 In u 1 0 3 H H arm uth Josh a , oham of ebron , Piram of J , a hia E J p of Lachish, and Debir of glon are mentioned as Am orite kings . These names, which can be derived from S u u emitic stems , throw light pon the sit ation . The name

A - Z k k u of doni ede , the ing of Jer salem, who associated

s l S mi him e f with the others, contains well recognized e tic

u k - Z k ki elements . The same is tr e of Mal i ede , ng of S u see A alem (perhaps Jer salem, ppendix) , of an early period . It is unf ortun ate that we do not have more names of persons in the Old Testament who c an be identiﬁed u k A It nmista ably as morites . is certain , however , that a large percentage of Old Testament names of the early S i period in Palestine are em tic , the same as the names in A r the ma na letters, which represent the inhabitants of I We Canaan prior to the entrance of srael . have , there

u fore , every indication that not only the lang age of

an w as H b ut the l d what is called ebraic , the names and religious cu lt indicate at least that most Of the inhabitants were Semitic .

v h ” - r o a n a n th e l m n 0 i . e . m n od S in p per ps co t i s e e e t , , oo g ; a b v see o e . 2 H h am i n in M n a a n of Ha u a m H m m l s . m m . o fou d i e , h ; cf o e , A n n H b w T a t n 22 1 a h a h a n in the cie t e re r di io , p . f . J p i is per ps fou d ' ‘ M n a a n r Il- a i a H m m l A n n t H b w T a n s m . i e p y p ; cf o e , cie e re r ditio , 248 p. f . A MU RRU I N W ES T S EM ITI C I NS CRI PTI ONS 1 55

The Old Testament su pplies u s with only scanty ethnological data concerning the Amorites ; b ut if Macalister is correct in his statement that the pre Israelitish Amorites who occ u pied Gezer were ethn ologic S ally emitic , we have one very important fact established . Althou gh we know that Aryans or perhaps Tu ranians w u ere also there , we may concl de that most of the people hi who lived in that great region , which geograp cally A u u was called m rr , from a very early period not only

k S i u b u t spo e a em tic lang age , in the early period were S i em tes, and that the land was at a very early time an

u u important center of Semitic c lt re . The people from Am urru who appear in the Baby r lonian tablets generally bear Semitic names . The e lig ion of Amurru that found its way into the E u phrates v i In S . alley , as we have tried to show, is em tic short , everythi n g points to the fact that the dom inant people in the Westland were Semites in the millennium s pre

n A u an d cedi g the marna or biblical age . This being tr e , bearing in mind that the solar worship of the Babylonian

S m k A u u u an e ites goes bac to m rr , we sho ld ﬁnd m y traces of the worshi p in that lan d in which it w as

i u ind geno s . Inasmu ch as the Amorites ﬁgure so prominently in the early period in Palestine , it is reasonable to expect to ﬁnd in the Old Testament traces of the worship of the ‘ c i w Am u rru h ef deity of this people whose name is ritten ,

I n S outh Arab ian th ere is a n a m e th a t seem s to b e com poun ded Lid zb a rs ki E h m e ri w h h l m n m ass ki n S a b a . it t is e e e t , , g of , cf , p e s , II 7 38 . , p . 1 56 A M U RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EMI TES

W'IR A Uru . , etc , as well as in the ramaic of Babylonia . In this connection a most interesting passage is to be ” u 31 26 fo nd in Job , where in parallelism with moon , " “ ” m i sun u e S . nstead of hemesh, , is fo nd The name ’ ’ ' un W1N bx WlN l l l’Wl N of the deity seems to be fo d in , , , ’ ' ’ fl W ’ Ur u u lN and WW WW. The element is s ally trans “ ” e S u lated light, flame, or fi ry . The ept agint shows ’ ’ ” Ur c orn m on Or that , not the , light , is meant . “ r : These names, the efore , are to be explained My ” “ ” “ Uru Uru k uf Uru , or simply (with a ose s fix) ; ” ” God Uru k Uri— ardu k Uru is , is Jahweh , li e M and “ ” mi lki ee Sh i Uru s adda . , above ; and is , cf an d both W1}! and my being also equ ivalents

i u to the names of deities . Before consider ng other occ r

us u r renees of the names in the Old Testament, let inq i e whether it occu rs in the Amarna letters . Many of the letters fou nd at Amarna having been

B A u u C. ur written in the ﬁfteenth cent ry . , in m r , and u ﬁn d referring to the land , it is nat ral to expect to

u in them both the name of the co ntry and of the god ,

Am u rru ru Am u rru or U . , as the name of the land , has b u t long ago been recognized , not the deity . The god ,

u Am th e however , is also fo nd in the arna letters , in

Mi lkuru In ﬁn d i lki - i li name . these epistles we a M I —m l A r and an li i ki . pa allel formation compoun ded

Uru u i lkuru Uru - m i lki with wo ld be M , with which S of the ennacherib inscription may be compared .

i i l- ki —U- ri Th s same name , written M , belongs to a slave A S ‘ s u . in an syrian doc ment , dated in the reign of argon

l Of K B N 1 1 2 . . . , , p . .

1 58 A MURRU HOME OF NORTHERN S EMITES

E l- Ur He suggested for comparison with the deity the name of the antedilu vian Babylonian king

’ Al u a Li zb ki in i u . d ars accord ng to Beros s , namely , p g , a ‘ review of the inscription which has since appeared, also adm its that the comparison with this name is in vit 2 G W) u ing . rimme properly regarded to be eq ivalent to

r Ama ru ardu k Awa Babylonian M . ' u Wl sun - ru Unq estionably represents the deity U . It is a most interesting and important fact that this A k n ramaic inscription , which belongs to the earliest now

u Z k k H in that lang age , shows that a ir , ing of amath and ‘ La ash E l-Ur , dedicated the stele which he erects to . The comparison of E l-Ur with the first name Of the 1 antedil u vian Babylonian king 71 , p seems to be most B fi as . ut b ut re onable not alone the rst of the list , the second, third, fifth , and perhaps the ninth , contain the

’ : A/l a 7ra 0 Ala au ru s Ala oru s name of the deity p 9 ( p , p ) ,

“ A cl l a o Ma a /l a " u oa . u p p g , r p ? and perhaps p mc For a f ller I discussion of these names see Part . The use of El (5K) in connection with the name Ur W1 i ( ) is most interest ng , especially when we recall ’ ‘ l E l- Sh addai ( WW 7R) and E l-E lyon (WWI? 7&2) of the Old Testament . Originally , as mentioned above , b ut these may have been epithets , were not considered “ ” Preﬁxin as su ch later on . g the word for God seems W S to have been a characteristic of the estern emites . ’ 2 Al-Na sh u - m i lki Al-S i Il- Te i ri —a bi Compare also h , , h ,

I/ i t n t a lbla t 1 908 582 . Ze r t , , p . . 2 O n t 1 90 9 1 6 rie . Lit . Zeit . , , p . . 2 A a n m da k 1 hn . 5 Jo s , ssyri Doo s y Boo , p . A MU RRU IN W ES T S EMITI C INS CRI PTIONS 1 59

’ ‘ 2 Il—Te ri —n ri Bari ki —Il- Tammesh Il-Tamesh—di ni h u , and , , 3 ‘ a h - Il ammesh n a tan n u l am Il T mmes i la i , T , I T mesh 5 ° 7 n ttr Abi -Il-T m e h Il - Teri - a n a n a ev e s . R , , h , etc The . h A l Dr . Jo ns thus regarded the which is preﬁxed to the

Hil rech u . t two examples fo nd in his texts Professor p , in E Ba b lon i an E x edi ti on his ditorial Preface to my y p , “ III k : But A vol . X, p . X , as ed where did the ssyrians ‘ ’ ever pronoun ce the word for god (n oin connec tion with the god ’s name immediately following in their ” “ inscriptions ? He further said : I do not believe

u arran un that the people abo t H prono ced it either . A l in the name qu oted can scarcely be anything else ‘’ ’ til cl k Lidzb arski s than the article or , nown from list of proper names to have been u sed in conn ection with ” ” ' W " ’ W “ . . DWN D 3 N D J certain deities Cf U P, 79 5 ( The ﬁ ‘ ‘ W J “ — ntb WN D ( The moon god etc . Tall ‘ ’ vi Hil re ch q st accepted p t s view .

In ﬁ u Lidzb ar the rst place, the names q oted from ’ ski s work to prove the point at issu e are not West S m Ar b ut S A An d e itic nor amaic , are inaitic or rabic . as a matter of fact it is not kn own that the article w as u in A an d u sed Old rabic ; f rther , even if it was , as in u u the late period, it wo ld not have been sed with a

l a E Cf . C y , B . . , X . 2 S a m a k 363 : 4 tr ss ier, . , . a 583 1 8 . , . a 497 : 4 . , . C r 5 6 8 . y . , a 638 : 4 . , . 2 C r 1 77 : y . , 3 .

N b a b lon i sches Na b h eu men . 288 y uc , p . 1 60 A MU RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EM ITES

k S A . s proper name li e hemesh stated , the names are Aramaean and the Aramaic did not have an article ; so John s was right in considering this element Al to be “ ” the word for god . ’ These writings W) for the deity s name enable u s W S to explain satisfactorily some est emitic names . k ‘ W) D'lWl Coo e calls attention to the preﬁx in j , a name of a priest of Baal - ham mon in a North Pun ic inscription A in DDW) u from lgiers , and also j in a P nic inscription Th E u a u . B from gg , in astern N midia D in the latter “ ” dou btless mean s prefect (compare the As syrian shakn u ) , and is also a divine name or epithet , cf . " ” ha k u ﬂ DD. u Uru S n j { The name co ld mean is , like ‘ ’ ‘ ru - l W W1 U mi k. WJD Pand l W also contains the element " 133 and l W) both appearing elsewhere as personal names . If W) in West Sem itic inscriptions represents the

Uru deity , it is reasonable to expect the name written ’ W H 1 u u in the ebrew script , as initial s ally passes into

l e o a a l The personal name (LXX, p ﬁ ) , according to “ u 6 : 32 J dges , is explained let Baal contend , as if iv u ss e . S it were a J form cholars , appreciating the

f u di ﬁc lties involved in this explanation , have pro ’ ' ’ ’ ’ aWW N WW 5K W posed that the root is , as in 7 and (see ’ H D c eb i . . Brown s . , p The transliterations of the

’ ’ ’ LXX l a a a /l Ie a o a a ,l Ie a a a ,l , namely , pfi , p fi , p fi , seem

an Ye t to su pport the proposed ch ge . in all probability “ Ur the name is to be interpreted is Baal .

2 I n s 1 46 N th S m n . . or e itic cri ptio s, p 2 E i i N . Lid zb a rs k . , ord p g 2 E i No . f Lid zb arski . C . , rd p g

1 62 A MU RRU HOME OF NORTHERN S EMITES w as us H ff m ‘ af terwards ed as a title of a deity . o an ‘' “ ” ’ A n m translates l l WD do is lebt . This is not i pos b u t u k W sible, a better explanation wo ld be to ta e D M ar W ar —in as 1 W . s ( ) another form of ( ) , etc other word , hr u the element under di scu ssion . T o gh the kindn ess of Professor Montgomery my attention h as been called to de o n ize i . e . te t d the name of a god or demon , , a p deity ,

’ NIWDRWD In scri ti on s S em i ti u es written in Pognon , p q u S (p . The same demon occ rs in a yriac incantation ? u S il In bowl p blished by t be the light of the above facts , it seems reasonable to identify thi s god or demon with the A once important deity or epithet of the ancient morites,

u whose c lt had practically disappeared, as far as we k i now, at the time this inscription was written . Th s may accou nt for the writing A and TUR- US H for the

-H ﬁrst element of Bir adad ; that is , the signs which had u m a r us the val e were ed (see p . This form of the name seems to be found also in ’ the name of the land and moun tain tWWD of Genesis 2 1 S S and Chronicles 3 : . iegfried and tade regarded the name as a “ Wortspiel mit ”NW?” Concerning the reading of the Peshitta which makes ’ “ it NW1DN of the Driver thinks “ it has some claim to be considered the original one . The Septu agint tran sliterates the name of the mou nt u S ui 2 3 1 pon which olomon b lt the temple , Chronicles ,

1 Z A XI 240 . . , , p . . 2 h -Ba b l n h Z a u b t z t 22 a ere e . J disc e y o isc e , p . 2 ' F or h x l an a n th e n a m se e in Has n s ot er e p tio s of e , Driver ti g o the bl 4 4 ona 3 . Dicti ry f Bi e , p . AMURRU IN W ES T S EMITI C I NS CRI PTI ONS 1 63

Too A o e m W p p . hen we consider the meaning of the n e A ame Jerusalem (se ppendix) , and the passage “ in E k 1 6 3 ze iel concerning the city , namely , thy

w as an A H father morite and thy mother a ittite , it seems reasonable to su ppose that the name Am urru is the in contained in it, and that read g preserved by

S u u an d the ept agint has the f ller form , also that the A I place whither braham went to sacriﬁce saac , which

w as A bears the same name , in all probability the morite

n Am oria w as la d, or rather proper , which north of Canaan ; for after he had journeyed from Sou thern ff n saw o an . Canaa three days , he afar the l d Moriah The etymology of ancient geographical names offers i u due m a many d fﬁc lties, to the fact that they y be of ui an great antiq ty , or belong to era of which we have

u ma little or no literat re . The names y even belong to a

i hr u u people whose ex stence is s o ded in obsc rity , and u u use altho gh they are contin ed in , their traditional pronun ciation may have su ffered so mu ch that they are of comparatively little valu e in determining the original

A al n are signiﬁcation . great many names of P esti e n -I i hi k own to be of Pre sraelitish orig n . T s we learn not only from the Old Testament b ut from the Amarna as as u E k tablets , well from the lists of s ch gyptian ings as m II Th oth es I . 1 51 S , and these (see p . ) are generally emitic . A i nother personal name , the etymology of wh ch i ’ ’W I s u D DD D. t u regarded as obsc re , is J occ rs twice

1 8 : 34 9 : 40 in Chronicles , and once in , in which " an W un verse also the vari t 59 :1 D is fo d . Some

wn u as an (Bro and B hl) regard the latter name error , 1 64 A M U RRU HOM E O F N ORTHERN S EM I TES whi le others (Siegfried an d Stade and Gray) consider ’ W r n l the ful ler form an error for D. The t a s itera

S u i Me t a a /l u tion of the ept agint, wh ch is p ﬂ , s pports the “ r latter view . Brown t anslates Baal is ‘ “ H Gray translates ero of Baal . The latter is reason b u t to the Of able , it seems me, in light the above , that “ ” M r the name more probably means a is Baal .

H b ew N m er a es 20 1 n te 3 . e r Prop , p . , o

E I . UR OF TH CHALDEES

FOR more than two thousand years efforts have been “ Ur made to identify the site of of the Chaldees, the A In u U home of braham . recent cent ries rfa or Orfa, G k E as which the ree s called dessa, had been regarded ‘ Sir H R i 1 855 un the ancient city . enry awl nson in fo d

k u in S u bric s at M qayyar o thern Babylonia, from which Hu r he gathered that the ancient name of the city was . S u bsequ ently it was found that the reading of the name

ma ru m U i . e Uru a . was , and in late Babyloni n , , with ﬁ i a nal vowel . The almost general acceptance of th s identiﬁcation is due to the fact that no attractive reasons

n K have been given for a y other site . Dillman and ittel 2 iden tiﬁcation b ut have strongly opposed this , ever since Rawlinson has advanced his view the nu mber of has i those who have accepted it stead ly increased, so W u that now it has become qu ite general . itho t Of u attempting an exhaustive treatment the s bject , let us brieﬂy review the facts u pon whi ch it rests . The Old Testament says Terah took Abram and

S ar u ai his wife, Lot his grandson , and bro ght them forth from Ur of the Chaldees to go into the land of Canaan ;

F or a u n as w ll as n th e l a u on the disc ssio , e refere ces to iter t re ’ I V 8 35 b n h in Ha n B bl c ona . su ject , see Pi c es, sti g s i e Di ti ry , , p , a n d h n in E n l ae a B bl a I V C ey e , cyc op di i ic , . 2 llm an n Ed 6 2 1 3 f an d K l h c h der Di , Ge esis, . , p . . , itte , Gesc i te Hebraer 1 7 , . 1 68 A MURRU HOME OF NORTHERN S EMITES an d u H A r they came nto aran and dwelt there . fte

u A the death of Terah, the Lord said nto braham, “ Get ou t Of u ' k thee thy co ntry , and from thy ingdom, ’ an d u u I from thy father s ho se , nto a land that will show thee . S S A 2 4 k t. 7 : tephen (see cts , ) spea s of the place W as . being in Mesopotamia hile this is rather indeﬁnite , and dou btless an admission that the exact site was not k Sh u m er S u nown , it does not point to , or o thern Baby

as u . lonia, the co ntry

E u l m 1 5 B C u o e u s u 0 . . p , who lived abo t , as q oted

E us u k A by ebi s , spea s of the place of braham, who was the inventor of astrology and Chaldean magic , as a

Ka a w ' city of Babylonia called p p q , which is called by some the city of As E u pole m us w as dis us H it u c sing ebrew history , wo ld seem that he reﬂects the opinion of the Jews at that time . The mention of Camarina Offered a reason for the

u Uru m m a Of identiﬁcation with M qayyar , the the ar U772 u e ly inscriptions , or the of the later period, beca se “ A ama r b e of the rabic word q , meaning moon , and cause Mu qayyar in ancient days w as dedicated to a ’ b u t u A moon deity ; especially beca se Terah , braham s father , whom we learn from tradition was an idolater , u H an t jo rneyed to ar , another ci y dedicated to the moon It u u hi s . god, where he remained ntil death is f rther conjectured that in this late period the ancient name i out use u E u olem us was go ng of , beca se of the way p k spea s of the city . T u A n The alm d, however , as well as some later rabia

1 70 A MU RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EM ITES

r h Ca m a na the a gu ment as little in it . To identify ri “ ” with Uru m ma becaus e qa m a r in Arabic mean s moon i s certainly precarious . Another difﬁcu lty lies in the designation Ur of i the Chaldeans . The geograph cal term Chaldea or

Ka hl u wr G k Xa l aa roc u , itten by the ree s , altho gh the n Of u origi the name is not nderstood , does not seem , u especially in the early period , to incl de Lower Baby lonia . The word is probably preserved , apart from Ur-Ka sdi m Ar a -Kesed Ar haxad rfa , in i ( p , perhaps U ) , Kesed i and in , one of the tribes descend ng from Nahor H Gen . ( owever , the traditions, as preserved

u an . by Beros s, connect the Babylonians with the Chalde s The argu ment advanced in favor of Uru m ma as

Ur u u the site of , beca se of the Chaldean district so th of the city , has little or nothing in its favor . That region w w Bi t- Ya ki n as kno n as , being inhabited by Chaldeans

Y ki n 800 B C. a only some time after , which name W S implies that it is est emitic , was probably borne by

n s His a man who was know as a Chaldean estate , i e Bi t- Ya ki n u su fﬁ . . , , developed into a comm nity of cient importance to cau se Assyria considerable difﬁcu lty in retaining Babylonia, with which it was allied, in endeavoring to regain independence . A I The name bram, as already mentioned in Part , has at last been fou nd in the cun eiform literatu re belong ’ In ing to the patriarch s age . the tablets from Tell

Deilam Dilb at u i u ) , abo t twenty m les so th of u u Babylon , which are now in the Berlin M se m, the name ‘ Aba -ra m a Abam —ram Aba m -ra ma is written , and .

A ss V I 60 d zu r . 5 . . Se e Un n a . g , Bei , , , p U R O F THE CHA LD EES

But it does not f ollow necessarily that the man who bore the name was a Babylonian because he w as the son Of A —I m an In wil shtar , a bearing a Babylonian name . the same texts there are many examples of men bearin g West Semitic names who gave their children Bab ylo nian names ; and the reverse is also found in these as

t e u well as in the tex s of the other p riods . This res lted ‘ t from mixed marriages . The tex s Show that many

S Dilb at s Bu t Western emites lived in at thi time . what is more important than all else in showin g that the name is W S ram h as est emitic , is the fact that the element not been found to exist in the thou sands of known Bab ylo m W S i nian names , whereas it is a com on est em tic element . The ﬁrst element of the name A bra m is fou nd S i b u t in all the em tic dialects, the second element W m In H A is S . estern e itic the ebrew , besides bram - , m a n urns cram rpm ern xx and , , , , and ’ W1 u In D IW occ r . the Phoenician inscriptions compare - ‘ u Se e b an m nbn m n. r , and a also the name in the

M hu Addu -ra mm u B E ol t . V . uras . i tex s, ( , X) Th s

ram k E l on element may be translated high, or li e y may have been an epithet of a deity . Moreover , all

A bra m w as an A ae the ancient traditions Show that ram an . The genealogical list of his an cestors in Genesis XI shows

Aram eean s an that they were , certainly not Babyloni s , hi s i Aram ze The names of immediate fam ly are an .

r u in Nahor , the name of his b other , is fo nd the place

S e e l a h on the Old T a m n m B a b l 40 3 C y , Lig t est e t fro e , p . . 1 72 A M U RRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EM ITES

Ti l a i ri arran u name N h of the H cens s . Compare also

eeds a n d ocu m en ts 420 : 3 421 : 5 Johns, D D , ; ; and the a ardu a ri M i . ilkah as personal names N h and N h ,

u a li above, sho ld be connected with the epithet M k. W S W A Jiscah in form is also est emitic . hen bram H was commanded to leave aran , he is told to go u k W out of his co ntry and from his indred . hen E I ’ liezer was sent for saac s wife , he was told to go to ’ A u i r braham s co ntry and to his k nd ed , in the city of W Nahor . hen Jacob ﬂed from his brother he went to i The the ancestral home , and there obtained his w fe .

u are W S In names Beth el and Laban est emitic . later years their descendants were called Ara m man s (compare G 25 : 20 In enesis , short , every bit of evidence that can be brou ght to bear u pon the su bject points to

A an the fact that braham was not a Babyloni by descent, u Ar If Ur i b t that his ancestral home was in am . s b e as located in Babylonia , it then can reasonably ked

u why he sho ld have lived in that land .

But has , notwithstanding all that been said with

Ur ar as reference to the identiﬁcation of , schol s as well the ancients seem to think that Terah and Abram went H t to aran from a city some distance away , and tha Chaldaea in this connection very probably mean s Baby ‘ lonia . The Babylonian Jews , as well as others of ancient u times , so ght for the city in that land .

In n as Ur are u identifyi g a city , , there a n mber of

u conditions which sho ld be satisfactorily met . First,

Kittel a rgues th a t Ka sdi m Ka ldi m is th e l an d Ka ldia in A m n a r e i .

1 74 AMURRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EM ITES even asserted that the Amorites of the West came from this district (see above) . Concerning the way these S Western emites came to live in this locality , we can

But k u only theorize . nowing the later c stom of deport i n i u Che dor g people , and know ng also the acco nt of ’ s e l omer s campaign , how he carri d away Lot and the S G i u people of odom and omorrah, we m ght s ggest that they or their ancestors had been carried into exile by

E u some previous lamite or Babylonian conq eror . A parallel to this case can be fou nd in the Bu si ness

ocu m en ts o the u rasha S on s o i u r In D f M f N pp . them, A k G H -Tab alai towns called sh elon , aza, eshbon , Bit are located in the vicinity of Nippur in the ﬁfth century

C In W B . S other words , est emitic names are intro du ce d u t for the towns occ pied by the Jews in captivi y . In these tablets also a great many Jewish names have

u u been fo nd , the descendants of the people whom Neb ch a dre zz r a placed there in exile . The name of the ’ city Ba rsip above Carchemish Of Gu dea s time dou bt

Borsi a less is the origin of the Babylonian pp . An d W S ﬁnally , having shown that the est emitic

AR- TU= Am u rru W1 Ur name M Nor , and that this is S the name of the town in the vicinity of ippar, we have the Ur A k w only city name of the time of braham that is no n . Thu s all the requ irements that can reasonably be laid down in the identiﬁcation of the city have been

a satisﬁed . The city is in Chald ea or Babylonia ; it thrived at the time that the patriarch lived ; its location was later lost sight of it was inhabited by West S e mitic w people , and its name is the same as is ritten in the

Old Testament . J II . THE NA ME ERUSA LEM

THE name Jerusalem has had in the past many if As H d ferent interpretations . a ebrew name , formerly it has been considered to mean The abode of ” “ ” “ S ’ peace , The possession of peace , alem s posses ” “ ” “ A u u Sh a sion , fo ndation of peace , Fo ndation of A lem, etc . The discovery of the marna tablets, which i U-ru -sa -li m contain the writ ng , resembling the form

Ursa li m m u i S of the nscription of ennacherib , threw

u new light on the s bject . Considered in connection

S Uri shlem with the yriac , which is , scholars realized us u in that Jer alem, which Sho ld have been written u k Ya rusha li m u c neiform something li e , was a disg ised ur or perhaps an incorrect writing . This was f ther corroborated by the writing 0 5m m in the Naba “ ” e an S ta an inscriptions . The tr slation City of alem, “ ” “ S ” City of Peace , or Place of afety , then became

u u pop lar , for nearly all scholars seem to have concl ded

u URU that the elements of the name are a compo nd of , “ ” S u n S which in merian mea s city , and the emitic “ ” “ ” sha li m in , peace or safety . For example , his ‘ I H u editorial notes to the text of saiah , a pt accepts an d fu lly discu sses the name from this point of view :

i S u URU E RI The d alectical form of the merian is , ’ “ H r W u which passed into the eb ew J) , city The

l h m B bl 1 0 0 Po yc ro e i e , p . 1 76 A MU RRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EM ITES

a Uru sali m S u an vowel after in , he says , is the meri

i S r H u vowel of prolongation . The in the y iac , a pt

u u . f rther states , is the vowel of the constr ct state

Iru shali m hi m u , from w ch the com on form of Jer salem Uru is derived , represents the dialectic form of . The r Iru sha li m du e u after in may be to dissimilation .

n Su Of Pi ches, who also accepted the merian origin the u al first element , appreciated the diffic lty in the genitiv relation of the two elements in translating City of ” “ ” u an Peace , and s ggested the me ing The city peace, mak ing it a cou nterpart to or an explanation of the “ ” S halem G name , Peace , in enesis The theory that the first element is from the Su “ ” u u merian and mean s city is fra ght with diffic lties .

In ﬁr H the st place , if the theory is correct that the ebraic or Arn oraic my is derived from the dialectical form E RI u Sum URU us , going back to the p re erian , we m t assu me that in Uru sa li m we have preserved not the form ’ W u from which ? is s pposed to have been derived , E RI b ut Su URU namely , , the original merian ; or the name wou ld be compoun ded with pure Sum erian an d

S . u u emitic elements F rther , inasm ch as we have ‘ ‘ Ir S hem esh Ir a ash similar formations as , N h , etc . , ﬁr belonging to the early period , if the st element of the “ ” URU an name means city , does it not seem str ge that it shou ld have been u nrecognized by the ancients that the element had that meaning? Some Su merian loan H k wn b u t words in ebrew are no , these are traced back

Cf The Old T a m nt i n the L ht o the H o a l I n scri . est e ig f ist ric p 239 ti on s . . , etc , p f .

1 78 AMU RRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EM ITES

u I A the occ pation of srael , when the morites were the dominant people of the land .

i as The name or epithet of the ch ef deity , we have

hi w as Uru seen , of t s people , and a reasonable explana “ ” tion of Jerus alem is that it is compounded with that sha li m an ru name and , me ing perhaps U is appeased . sha li m S The second element is emitic , as above stated , being very comm only u sed in the formation Of Baby

an d As It un in W lonian syrian names . is also fo d est S i r/ s c o n . abuse r w em tic personal names , cf , , and ‘ ha l DDWDJ. Compare also the city S em of Genesis 1 4 , which may be the same name in an abbreviated

Ya hweh-S ha lom form . Compare also the altar name

u u of the Old Testament . For s ch a theophoro s

Urn -sha li m name as , compare the two altar names

Yahweh- i reh Ya hw eh- n i ssi j and , also the passage in mi 36 : 1 6 us Jere ah , where it is said Jer alem shall be “ ” called Jehovah is our righteou sness (WWW? But k Ya bn i —cl carcel especially compare names li e , J ,

ose h—cl u J p , etc . , also the large n mber of place names ’ of verbal formation ; see Glossary in Hommel s S ou th

b hre tomat Ara i c C s h u . y, nder letter y This gives rise to the qu estion whether the name i was orig nally a place name , or whether it was the

an u name of individ al , which was afterward applied

As to the estate , manor or town . an original place

u name we can compare the names q oted above , and — also su ch Babylonian names as NIN-IB-a sha bshu i qbi ?

S e e Lid zb ars ki Ha ndb h a n d N h S m tic I n scri , uc , Cooke , ort e i p

n s tio . 2 B E I X 1 Vol . : 5 . . 5 , , . THE NA ME O F JERUS A LEM

‘ E lli l-li mm a ssu e Uru -sha li m , in which case the nam , Uru i is appeased , m ght have been given to the place ui on its being reb lt after an enemy had destroyed it , u perhaps when a fo ndation sacriﬁce had been offered , ? s H a at Jericho owever , if the ﬁrst element is the name

Uru - sha li m of the deity , appears more likely to be the n i u u Am ame of an ndivid al , do btless an orite , the father ” of the city , who perhaps was in possession of the hill kn as Am oriah own Moriah , or more correctly (see above II A kn w . s in Part ) is o n , there are many place names among the ancient Sem itic as well as other peoples that were once personal names . The second explanation off ered is that the ﬁrst

as un element is to be regarded the name of the co try , Amu rru Uru u as A namely , , in view of s ch names ram

Z Ar an d S ha lem obah , am especially if is the original name of the city , which later became the

as S capital of a petty principality , the yrian places u ds u Am q oted were . This view ﬁn s pport in the arna un us letters , for the land or co try of the city Jer alem r l Aram or is several times refer ed to . That is, ike ( S - A - as us u yria) Maachah, or ram Dam c , we wo ld have

rn -S ha lem i Am S ha I U lem . f , mean ng the orite these

u so in Ara m compo nds are common connection with , why shou ld not the same be found to be the case

E Vol h h M n th a . . . w u e ea n t B , XV, for ic eiss er s ggests r di g Bélna li ssu S HI -M AS -S U Gatli n i sche l h A n z n 1 90 8 p ( ) , g Ge e rte eige , , 2 1 43 No . p . . =, Of 1 Ki n . gs 2 ' A b M a i n M an H m m l Au satze u Ab Cf . S O . a . ha ndl r ic isr , o e , f 1 80 A MU RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EM ITES

Uru A m u rru ? If i with or th s theory is correct , then Shalem of Genesis 1 4 is very likely to be identified with Uru -sa li m us as w as k A , j t Maachah nown as ram ‘ Maachah . i us in H The writ ng Jer alem the ebrew, which ff so As n Ursa li mmu di ers greatly from the syria , is i u not very d ffic lt to explain . The loss of the initial R W153 E l Ur af 1 , as in , , ter which the being initial passes i H f f u use nto in ebrew , o fers no di fic lty . The of the long vowel following Wmu st then be regarded as a join k W ’ W as T N DI . ing vowel , in formations li e D D DN The

k e a el A Masoretic pointing is li e j q tt , which in rabic is

“ i lu As u a i u a l . j g tt , and in syrian q tt

Arpa d (1 9 1 1s ) in North ern S yria w as in th e ea rly period an “ ” Am . Th e n a m m a b e m th e 1 1 x n orite city e y fro root 9 , to e te d ,

“ ” ’ h H Mull I ch II o m s b u t it n 1 1 3 a . . . n s r. u . e ce 9 terr ce , cf D er, f m m h r-Pad i th Am Uru is al a an U . e . e e 1 9 so y e eit er , , orit , or “ ” i m m ui an d 1 9 to . am s req u ted, fro 11 , redee , req te , cf H , i ‘1 Thi ﬁn u in th e un i m in ns w h th e n 9 . s ds s pport c e for scriptio , ere al u m wr n b u t n M ar- a —da —a i Ha n a e is itte o ce p , rper , I Ov 1 In th n Gu a a L VI N 6 5 . 9 . e ins r . o . 8 ette s, Pt , , criptio of de , city

- Uru a z b l n in hi a m s is of . Th u re a u , e o g g to t s s e di trict, referred to, B 21 Gu a in an i n n ak b in n m n n . a V . . p . d p p g g D g i , , e scri tio s e s—of r i fro - Ti da n u th e m un a n Am u m a b l u r a d da . V . . 70 , o t i of rru , r e for p , cf B , 6 1 7 b u t th e m an n th e a a n ot m b e un , e i g of p ss ge does see to der If th e n or h i x l a n a n v n a b e sh ul stood . seco d t rd e p tio gi e ov o d e r h a re h a h al n am th e Am i e prov cor ect , t ere ot er geogr p ic es of or t s th e e m l w h h un a n h a h ul b e di trict , ty o ogy of ic is cert i , t t s o d - n e ed for exam le Ur bi llu m e tc . of the ea rl eri o . co sid r ; p , , y p d

1 82 A MURRU HOM E OF N ORTHERN S EM ITES

S har—Gan i -sha rri now read the name , some of whom

Gan i considered to be the name of a god , by reason of i ‘ the identiﬁcation of su ch a deity by S che l . A recent ﬁn d at Susa of two portions of a large 2 3 u G u S che il monolith, p blished by a tier , and later by , ’ i u i conta ns a carto che in front of the k ng s image , in

i hi s S ha rra -GI sharru wh ch name is written . The “ is S harru —u ki n k name read by these scholars , the ing, As k n the same as the name of the late syrian i g, known us as S to argon , who is referred to in the Old Testament ; as hi and , mentioned above, has been regarded therto as the same as the su pposed abbreviated form of S har an i -shar-ali b ut S har-Gan i —sha rri S har a n i g , to be read or y ha s rri .

4 S ch eil S harru -GI as considered , however , another

ha r— n i - harri I u S ha rru -u ki n than S Ga s . nasm ch as in a 5 — tablet found at Tello bestows u pon Na rdm S i n the

atesishi Shi r urla S cheil u p p of p , arg ed that they were

— - father and son ; while S har Gan i sha rri he considered to be another king of Ak kad belonging to the same

b u l t u . dynasty, who followed the other r ers This view is also advanced by Halevy? 7 Th ure au - an k u D gin too exception to this concl sion ,

u S harru —u ki n - i li S beca se of the name , argon is my

I 1 6 3 D el en . . . . Perse, , p , u 2 l VI I 1 6 de a v Vo . . 7 . Rec . . tr , XX , pp f 2 4 D l n . . e . e Perse, X , p 4 D l n . . e . e Perse, X , pp f 2 u T bl t Cha lde e n n es No 3 R i l a . 8 . Cf . ec e de e tes , 2 1 0 if R v S ém 9 8 . 377 . e ue itique, , pp 2 L Z 3 1 3 0 . 1 90 8 . . . , , pp . f THE NAM E O F S A RG ON

u u god, fo nd on an ndated tablet which he assigns to - in S harru -GI the time of Naram S . The of the text pu blished by Gautier and Seheil he placed in the Kish A k dynasty, preceding the k ad dynasty , and; proposed that we have the following order Of rulers of Kish :

S har-ru -GI a n i shtu su Uru -m a -u sh an d Akk , M , ; of ad ,

har- a n - ha a ram -S i n S G i s rri and N . ‘ Ki S harru -GI ng also considers of the new stele ,

u G u S che il p blished by a tier and , to be a still earlier

K u ki . In ng of ish , sing two texts to prove his point 2 u Sche il one, however , which was p blished by , the only trace of the name is the last character at the end of the ﬁrst line ; which reading the au thor a ckn ow l

u u u edges to be do btf l . The other inscription q oted

k K un is also of a ing of ish fo d at Tello , of which the only ar p t of the name that is preserved is the ﬁrst sign , ha K i S rru . namely , ing, therefore, proposes the read ng

S ha rru -GI GI S harra -kenu a deity ) , instead of , and considers that this king of Kish is not to be iden ti

ﬁed S ha r—Gan i -sharri ar -Sin with , the father of N am , k n Akk In i g of ad . order to explain why in the late Assyrian and Babylonian tradition Sargon was called k A Akk ing of gade or ad , and the father of Naram “ Sin It , he says , is clear , therefore , that the name of S ki K k argon , ng of ish, has been borrowed for the ing of

Akk S har-Ga n i —sha rri ad , whose real name , , has dis ” appeared . ’ In S che il s : S harra - u ki n i short order is , k ng of

o th B b l A hae l 24 n e S o l a . 0 . Proceedi gs f ociety f i ic rc o ogy , XXX , p 2 D n I 4 el . e . Perse, , p . 1 84 A M U RRU HOM E OF N ORTHERN S EM ITES

A c ram -S i n hi s kkad, is followed by N , son , and later by

S ha r- an i -sharri Thure au - i K a certain g . Dang n and ing

k S ha rru -GI i Ki S har-Ga n i—sharri ma e a k ng of sh, and , son ardm -S i n k Ak k followed by his N , ings of ad . It is not improbable that there w as another kin g m S n of this era by the na e of argo , who belonged to the

Ki b u t us dynasty of sh, it m t be recognized that the us u theory advanced is exceedingly precario , beca se concerning the one inscription it shou ld be said that ’ other ru lers names begin with L UGAL ; and concern

GI so un i ing the other inscription , the is certa n that S che il u u , altho gh when he originally p blished the translation of the text‘ read later2 he did not u h u U even s ggest t at m ch . ntil therefore more evi , , — dence is forthcomi ng that there was a S harru GI of the

so- S han i - Gan i Kish dynasty , the theory that the called sha rri - Si n , the father of Naram , was credited with the achievements of the still greater predecessor , and that the conf usion is to be accounted for because both were u great conq erors of the same age , and that both belonged to the Semi tic wave of domination and restored the S u di s ippar temple, and beca se their names are not w f se e similar ( ith which the writer di fers , below) , must for the present be considered as rather qu estion able . 2 The names u sed by Dhorme to prove that URU in these names following L UGAL is to be read ri are

‘ D l n II 4 e . e n Perse, , p . , ote . 2 F l a 6 S a n l a S . 9 . iso de oui es ipp r, p 2 0 L Z 1 0 2 0 . 7 3 9 . . . . , , p

1 86 A M U RRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EM ITES

i u b u t Not only is the format on and meaning pec liar ,

in c where this period , or in any other , does the chara ter L UGAL regu larly have a phonetic complement ri

ru ? is or Or , if it considered to be a phonogram, where in this age or in any other does L UGAL regu larly have the phonetic valu e shar. When the scribe in the Man ishtusu Obelisk wrote the name Sargon phonetic

S hci r-ru —GI S har-ru -i - li S har-ru ally we ﬁnd cf . also ,

ri In k -Sin d . u , etc the bric inscription of Naram , ? u S ch e il 1 S har-ru Thi p blished by , is twice written s must be regarded not only as a serious objection to i b ut i the read ng, proof that it is ncorrect ; for it cou ld not be inf erred that on su ch monu ments as the

k S u u Obelis or the votive objects of argon , fo nd at Nipp r

u as so- and Tello , or in the date form l , or in the called

B - —harr i n Ga n i s i . u u name , etc , we wo ld expect s ch

as Ge sa S graphical expediencies or , the rmans y , pie ” 2 i n an d lere e . are For these other reasons we , there

2 D I P 1 l . en r I I 1 e 3 . Pe se, , . 2 l S hdr-la-a k k n Ku u Vor Bi b I 22 - . a S ha ri . . 5 Cf so , i g of t , . , , p ; r - - hf ta a A Pl I I I 1 9 w ll a ll th e n c m i s l Rev ss . 8 7 as as am o q , . , . V , ; e es un w h S he -ru m in Rank P na l Na m po ded it r e , erso es . 2 Wh a t h as b een s a id con cern in g L UGA L a lso a pplies to th e H m m b I - lu L AL URU I II : 1 6 c an l a a e . . UG a ur i Code , g , , , sc rce y “ ” ” b e an l a od k n od n Th e in al tr s ted g of i gs or g of ki g . orig “ an l a n th e i n n ms b e m a n a b l b u t tr s tio , d vi e city ki g , see to ore re so e , h a n ot n Th n h v h al . is o e a a w a m per ps ﬁ ere p ss ge , o e er, t t see s to the a n in th e Ha m m u a b Poe b e l h a s a ll support re di g r i period . Dr . c ed ’ n n A XXI In Kin t V a s L l . I I . . . o tte tio to it (cf Z , , p . g et ers , , No Col II A AL E - E —I n n x 58 . 37 L UG L L UG N R . I . , , is fou d te t 57 th e m v l he S m n l n h x NO . of sa e o um e t e itic tra s a tio of t is te t a ha a i n LUGAL-URU re ds s rr . THE NA M E O F S A RG ON 1 87

u L UGAL URU fore , compelled to ret rn to the reading ,

— - instead of sha r ri or sha rri ( ri ) ; and the qu estion arises whether the combination of characters be read S haryan i sha r-dli sha r an i sha r dli S haran i L UGAL URU? , g , or g In L UGAL URU the light of what follows , if is diffi c onsidered to be a title , it seems to me there is no cu lty whatever in identifyin g the traditional S ha rru kén u —Sin k with the father of Naram , hitherto nown

— - — as S ha r-ga -n i - shar dli and S ha r Ga n i sharri ; and at the u In same time all other difﬁc lties vanish . other

S harru -GI u G u words , the of the stele p blished by a tier and Seheil is the same ruler who is mentioned as bestow ing the pate sishi p of Tello u pon Naram-Sin in the texts

u Thureau - p blished by Dangin , and was the father of

- in Naram S . The well-known tradition of Sargon in the chronicles an d t as Of u omen tex s , as well in the cylinder Nabonid s , S ha rru -kén u u in which his name is written , show s 1 w as , that he not of royal descent , having been reared ‘ Akk 2 w as by i the irrigator ; , that he followed by

—Sin w as son 3 w as k Naram , who his ; , that he ing of Ak k 4 u Am u rru 5 ad ; , that he conq ered ; , and that he c u E onq ered lam .

1 S har an i shar URU . as The inscription of g , well as the dating of tablets in his reign , show that he does i m not claim royal ancestry , be ng the son of a com oner , a ti —Elli l 2 -Sin w as a D ; , that Naram king of this dyn sty ,

A -bi u l i -di Of th e legen d does n ot m ea n th a t h e did n ot k n ow ’ h is a h n a m b u t l th e n al n a m a h m f t er s e , ike perso e refers to post u ous h l c i d . 1 88 A MU RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EM I TE S

an d u S har a n i and in all probability the son s ccessor of g , H especially by reas on of the fact that Dr . aynes found that the pavement laid in the temple at Nippu r by — Naram Sin consisted of bricks intermingled with those

S har an i in scri of y , as well as the fact that both by their p tions tell u s that they were devotees of the Shamash S temple at ippar , both had the same scribe , namely ,

Lu a l-u su m - a l Shir urla an d u the g g , patesi of p , beca se of bu llce u , referred to below, which were fo nd at Tello ; 3 Akk 4 u , that he also was king of ad ; , that he conq ered ‘ ? Am u rru ; 5 and that he conqu ered E lam , — The recently pu blished inscription Of S ha r-ru GI a S u S hi r u rla by cheil shows that he too r led over p , and —Sin U that he made Naram patesi of that city . nless

u S it is ass med , with King , that this is another argon b ut u u then we m st add, who was s cceeded by another

m- Sin u Shir urla S har Nara and that both r led p , as did , — gan i and his son w e mu st recognize a most pecu liar combination of coincidences .

At Bism a k u - y , Ban s fo nd brick stamps of Naram ” Sin u a bu llce , b ilder of the Temple of Nan , and also which contained the seal impression of S ha ryan i shar

k- URU. The bric stamps are of the same general character as those found at Nippu r belonging to Naram

Sin It u . seems to me that inasm ch as we know that

S harru -GI n -Sin Shir urla appoi ted Naram as patesi of p ,

bu llce S ha r a n i shar URU r and that the of y , add essed to

- . Th u re a u a n in V B I 225 Cf D g , . . , , p . . 2 Cf b 22 . . 5 . i id , p . 2 D e l en 4 Cf . . Perse, X , pp . f .

1 90 A M U RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EMITES

There remains to be considered the usu al L UGAL

” URU S ha r a n i Bi n an i an d which follows y , g , also the M k name Ubi n of the an ishtu su Obelis . The original ” explanation that it was a title , city king, does not

u u seem nreasonable , and m ch can be said in its favor . E ven if L UGAL URU is to be explained otherwise in

S un k the argonic period, it is not li ely that the title in ” m i so e periods mean s k ng of the city .

In n the light of these i vestigations , however , and in conn ection wi th the reading for this sign when it refers

- to the deity of the West land, as we have seen above, I u k an wo ld li e to propose another possible expl ation , Uru un namely , that here means the co try , and that the “ S ha r dn i shar Uru S name and title g means argon , ” k ri suzer ing of U . By this title was recognized the a in t Uri S u y of , which in the merian inscriptions “ ” r KI—B UR- B UR Ki—Uri Uru was w itten , Land , Akkad AR-TU se e and later in Babylonia, or M ( below) . This land Uri extended from what was know n as E n gi (Shum er) to the shores of the Mediterranean (see above II i in Part ) . The fact does not seem to be ord narily appreciated that some of the earliest rulers known by their records show that they extended their conqu ests W In over this part of estern Asia . fact in the few inscriptions that have come down to us this stan ds

u i o t prom nently . These expeditions were not raids

ur u b ut u for the p pose of pl ndering, were for conq est, u and were eq al in extent , in the way of holding the

an u . l ds in s bjection , with those of the later periods The t re - omen tex s , which had been edited in the late period , THE NA ME OF S A RG ON

b ’ S n sha r ki rat a rba i m i . e . credit argo with the title , , “ king of the fou r al thou gh there is no veriﬁcation of this fact in the inscriptions of Sargon

How ? thus far published . is this to be explained The inscriptions thus far kn own dou btless belon g to the early part of hi s reign when he had conqu ered ARTU i hi m ki Uri only M , wh ch gave the title ng of sha r Uri b ut ( ) ; in later years , by reason of certain u w as u additional conq ests, he able to ass me the title which embraced a qu asi-worldwide dominion ; or he us may have preferred the less pretentio title , even i c an after he had accomplished this work . Th s be inferred from what is written in the omen texts found ’ As h urb an i al s hi E in p library , w ch mention lam in the

E s S ub artu a t and in the North, as well as other important lands , as having been invaded . The chron 2 “ ioles of early kings referring to Sargon say : After wards in his old age all the lan ds revolted again st him afterwards he attacked the land S u bartu i ” 3 “ . : S in his m ght , etc They also state argon , who

un W u marched against the co try of the est , and conq ered u u u u the co ntry of the West , his hand s bd ed the [fo r] ” u q arters . We have a parallel case in the reign of

u n i u u D g , where in the later years of his r le he conq ered “ ” the four qu arters and handed down to his su ccessor

e S the title , xactly as did argon (see below) .

Ki u u This title , namely , ng of the fo r q arters ,

K n h n le I I 2 . . 7. Cf i g , C ro ic s , , p 2 K n Ch n le II 6 Cf . i g , ro ic s , , p . . 2 2 I . 7 bi d . , p . 1 92 A M U RRU HOM E O F NO RT HER N S EM I T ES

- in In r S . Naram inherited other wo ds , the title of

-Sin S Naram , as well as that of argon in the omen texts ’ r ki bra t arba i n u t chn cu ! i . e . sha i m term s e i s , , was a , imply

i u t r ing v rt ally a sovereignty which ex ended no th , east,

u an d e n so th west of the c ter of the empire , which in the

- - A A A DE . S kka d G i e . case of argon was ( ) , , the city Akk ad as the capital . The omen texts Show that the

u u Am u u S u b artu E fo r q arters referred to were rr , , lam

A u u E n and ccad (which do btless incl ded gi) .

Bi n a n i son —Sin g , the of Naram , did not , as far as we ” kn K u u ar . ow, enjoy the title ing of the fo r q ters One or more Of the coun tries may in his day have

u regained independence . The title which he alone co ld “ r Lu a l—za i si n E n sha boast of was King of U i . g gg a d g “ ku shan n a u lu a l ka tam m a sed the title g , king of the ” “ t world, the dominion which ex ended from the lower sea of the Tigris and E u phrates the Persian Gu lf) ” as far as the u pper sea the Mediterranean) . Ur-E n gu r only u sed the title King of E n gi and

In k hum er Uri S i . e . other words he was ing over , ,

S u Uri o thern Babylonia, and also the region , which

h m e Hi extended from S u er to the Mediterranean s a . s nu merous references to Am u rru and its produ cts alone

u n i wou ld imply that he reigned in that land . D g used the same title ; b u t in several of his inscriptions

i lu a l ou - u b- da ta b- ta b—ba is he called h mself g , which ’ S u shar ki brat arba i m ur the merian for , king of the fo ” u In l q arters . the dates of the latter ha f of his reign

u u we learn that he made notable conq ests . These do bt less enabled him to u se the all important and compre

1 94 A MURRU HOM E OF N ORTHERN S EM ITE S

Some time after the foregoing w as written and in i I un u 7 1 909 shape for the pr nter , fo d (Febr ary , ) in

L . . the ibrary Collection of Mr J Pierpont Morgan , of Y S New ork City , a fragment of a tablet of argon , which E H W i . . had j u st been sh pped from ngland by Dr C . . w an John s . Follo ing is the tr sliteration of the fragment

A - n a - ku S ha —ru —ki -i n d n a -ra - am I shtar

mu - te- li —i k

ki - i b- ra - a—ai

i r- bi —ti —i n

-tw rw ru

Thi s perhaps is to be translated as follows : I Sargon ” beloved of I shtar a of the fou r qu arters the kingdom of the four qu arters) The special valu e of this fragment is the con ﬁr mation of the view above advanced In connection with

S u the name and titles of argon . Nat rally , it is possible u u an S to ass me that it was iss ed by other argon , who was “ i u u b u t as k ng of the fo r q arters, , mentioned above , i u u ﬁr the ex stence of s ch m st st be proved . The frag ment shows that the fu ll name of the king w as S ha ru ki n ; an d u l f rther , that in this tablet he no longer calls himse f “ ” k Uri shar Uru b ut k ing of ( ) , speaks of his ingdom ‘ ki brat i rbi ti n i u as the , wh ch s bstantiates the view that after he had conqu ered the territory embraced in the “ ” K u u title ing of the fo r q arters , he was in a position

- in u S . to ass me it , and to hand on to his son Naram

n n a n n a m m m a n Nu tio i ste d of i tio . V HE - I . T NAME NIN IB

IN pu blishing the Archives of the Muras hu Sons of

u 1 904 u u Nipp r , in , the writer fo nd a large n mber of

u doc ments which contained short reference notes , called “ ” in legal parlance endorsements . These reference notes were scratched or written with ink on the tablet in the Aramaic lan gu age for the beneﬁt of the archive ‘ k u eeper . On several of these tablets were fo nd names which were compoun ded with the name of the deity

NIN- IR e I IB- dd B . i i n a ut . in , g , N N . instead of ﬁnd g an t k A y hing li e what had been proposed, namely , dar , Ninra -U w as Nindar , g , Nin rash and Nisroch, there e W 1 n written in each instanc l W JN. Before ﬁ ding an additional tablet which contained the Aramaic equiv alen t u , there seemed to be some do bt whether the

u W 1 u middle character sho ld be read or , altho gh A preference was given to the latter . nother example, w as un however , fo d which conﬁrmed the preferred i read ng . The resu lt of the discovery of this Aramaic

u eq ivalent , instead of solving the problem , seemed to make the obscurity which surroun ded the pron un ciation

S e la Ba b l n 5 L h on the e a n E x n V ol . C y , y o i peditio , . X , pp f ig t Old T a me n m Ba b l 3 94 a n d Ara m a n m n on est t fro e , p . , ic E dorse e ts th e u m n th e Mu rash u S n Ha M m a l V l m Doc e ts of o s , rper e ori o u e, “ l a m NI N-I B A I 2 f an d Th an d R a . . 89 . e O n , pp . , rigi e N e of , J 1 O S . 90 7 . , . 1 9 6 A M U RRU HOM E O F N ORTHERN S EM ITES

m still denser . The writer at the same ti e had several theories in mind with reference to the vocalization and

n n b ut u as mea i g of the characters, none were p blished,

u S they did not seem s fﬁciently satisfactory . ome of ‘

u . these, however , have been p blished by others

Th e in terestin g collection of view s on th e Ar am a ic e q u i va len t an d th e in terpreta tion s of it w hi ch follow sh ows h ow di ver siﬁe d h as b n th e un an n h l a r Hil re ch t ee derst di g of sc o rs . P ofessor p , in hi i l m M u r x B E V s a a a shu . ol . ed tori pref ce to y te ts . , X) , w ll as in an a l in The S n a S ho l T m S te m b 25 e rtic e u d y c o i es, ep er , 1 90 4 x n m a i n a n d a tw o h a a if , took e ceptio to y re d g re d c r cters d fer ‘ n l i In x l a n n h h . e . R. t e n am e c om e t y , , HW D e p i i g e proposed “ a i n w h NIN-S HAH th e Be ar th e S a p r so it , Lord of yri c JW1 RJ an d a n al w h th e b b l al Nisroch in w h , reg rded it ide tic it i ic , ose m l a t N n v h S n n a h b w hi Th e S a m te p e i e e e c eri ors ped . yri c for , l B b u A ss I h w 1 3 . as w Re a nd Vol is P 3 . . . . . o ever , (cf J tro , , , p wh h ur m ak s th e m a n im b l F h ic of co se e co p riso possi e . urt er, th e ﬁn al h ara th e A a ma NI N-I B is n ot b u t c cter of r ic of n n, h m d h h Th e as I a d ain a n an w h as in b n . t i ed, ic s ce ee proved correct rea din g of 1 in stea d of 1 in spired a series of oth er rea din gs w hi ch ll w imm n as b Hil re ch t in The fo o . Professor Z er , q uoted y Professor p S nda S h l T m S m b 25 a bl rsht bél u y c oo i es ( epte er , re d p “ ” i hti L r rin in th e o n a l ri s n . p , ord of decisio P ofessor P ce , J ur B bl a l L a v l 1 ll w in a in E n u o o 90 5 . f i ic iter ture ( . , p fo o ed re d g “ ” éshtu Th hi n h ab th e am m in l . r e . , c ef ord Dr Pi c es , out s e ti e , th e na l o the R a l A i a S an ar a E n Jour f oy s tic ociety (J u y , re d “ ” h E ht Th m v l hn rés eth n u rés u e a al . , pri e ord Professor Jo s , E x i T m m b 1 41 a Ura shtu a n d on pos tory i es (Dece er , p . , re d , 1 41 bi d A ra shtu e S a in th e a m n al m p . i . , . Prof ssor y ce , s e jour (Dece b e r a as ui val n th e A an I n —a ri shti , reg rded it eq e t to ssyri , h h m Ni n —U a h I n th R v t e mi t e S an . e Lord of tre , u eri for r s e ue m e 1 90 5 e Halev ff th e a n S é . itiqu ( , p Prof ssor y o ered re di g “ ” E n na i shti L l f a b l E n -n a w a shti E u p , ord of i e , or prefer y “ m m shti n u cc u i é m v m n na a d d d , , seig e r e tout q est ou e vie de ou e e t ” L b th a m a u a ni m é . a . . . e de toute cre t re e ter (cf i id , p s e “ h l a f two h x l an a n : eru ri sha ti n u sc o r o fered ot er e p tio s , seig e r de

1 9 8 A MU RRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EM ITES

r h u . s improved pon For the change of to , compare “ ” m artu m TUR-S AL m a shlu m u ( ) , da ghter (Jensen ,

Z A IV shi i shti shi i rti Mur hﬁ . . as , , p . p for p in the Docu ments ; the Ne e - Babylonian personal name Ma sh tu ku M a rtu ku , written in the Cassite period ; also the ’ ’ A shka i ti Arka i ti deity , and the article by Jensen , Z A VII 1 9 E N . 7 . . , , p . For an exact parallel to the

A T Bel-Am u rru E N—KAS Bél- a rran R U . M cf H ,

eeds a n d ocu m en ts an d in the name index of Johns, D D , D oom sda y Book ; b ut especially DINGIR-MAR- TU “ ” Am u rru In ui Am the deity of . arg ng for an orite n I -IB origi of N N , or , better expressed , that it represented ‘ Of A u u a deity m rr , as others had done , reference was W S Abdi -NIN-IB made to the est emitic name , the city “Z“ 2 I -IB Kn u dtzon N N according to the collation of , and the name of a place or temple in or near Jeru salem 3 i - IN-IB in the di strict of the city) called B t N . In the same paper it was su ggested that NIN-1 B was ‘ Ba a tut Am u rru originally the chief goddess , which perhaps was A shtarti ; and that at some center in Baby

Dilb at lonia, probably , the deity appeared as the consort IB k ra h In w U s . ds of , who later was no n as other wor , W u the theory is that the god of the est , when introd ced i w at a certa n center in Babylonia, was ritten by the S u IB merian chirographers , which conveyed to them

m m K A T 2 1 1 n . 4 Cf . Zi er , . . , p . . 2 B A IV 1 1 4 Cf . . . , , p . . 2 B V K . Cf . . . , THE NAM E NI N- IR 1 99

‘ the idea represented by the Western solar deity ; and ’ hi s As htarti w as consort s name , probably , written NIN-IB? an Later , as was the case in so m y instances 2 I - IB u u when N N became masc linized , in certain q arters “ ” the deity w as regarded as the Lord par excellen ce ‘ Am Ba a l Am u rru u u u i . e . S of rr , , , when the merian “ ” u E N-MAR-TU Am u rru eq ivalent , Lord , was intro du ce d An d Su k E N-LIL . this merian form, li e , was w A handed do n into later times , as the ramaic form of ur ar the name shows . Of co se , it is not necess y to waste i E N-MAR-TU E N-LIL space in show ng how , like , u as E n wa shtu E lli l co ld pass into Babylonian and , and 2 in Ar u as lWW11N an d D7R. be reprod ced amaic . Another theory concerning the reading and under stan ding of the name by the help of the Aramaic

u In i u now becomes more pla sible . d sc ssing the name — Gilg a Mesh it became apparent that the name is West

S mi in Su e tic , written merian , and that it perhaps con u a sh tains the name of the mo ntain god M , which is 1 0 : 23 to be identiﬁed with Ma sh (WD) of Genesis . It w as fu rther shown that in Nineveh there w as a

E - AS H- AS H E - IS H temple M M , which is written M

2 A T i n K . . I t n n n h a m m n . . is i teresti g to ote t t Zi er ( , p u i n Bi t-NI N-IB u al m as a a n Ha h a disc ss g of Jer s e , g i st upt (Jos u , l Bi b w h o a h a NI N-I B n ah w h Po y . . , p . s ys t t represe ts Y e , assu m es a m on g th e oth er possib ilities th a t it m a v b e a desig n a tion a n a v Sh am a h E1 of ti e deity , s or . 2 I t n ot m b a b l h a NI N-MA R th e n a m th e in is i pro e t t , e of deity

C w h m Ur-Nin a un an d h w a n n irsu , of o , D g i ot ers ere p tro s , represe ts . d — ’“ th e am od al th e n al n a m Ur- NI N M A R s e g ; cf . so perso e V B I 1 1 4 . 8 NO ( . p . . . , , t , p , 2 a n S em t Or i n Cf . B rto , i ic ig 20 0 A M URRU HOM E O F NORTHERN S EMITES

MIS H in the Hammu rabi Code ; and also that the temple of the West Semi tic Nergal at On tha is called

E — IS H- LAM A M , and that the temple at gade is called E - UL-MAS H The element was also Shown to be in

- - i — K r i sh . II Di a sh a ke . the names M q , M , etc (see Part ) ’ ‘ In Ca ta lo u e o the Kou u n i k Collecti on Bezold s g f y j , ’ 1 778 Briin n ow s NO . and in Classiﬁed List , , the following formu la is foun d :

— d - M a -a sh MAS H ma -a shu NIN IB

Thi s considered in con nection with the ideogram

AS H i mm u in wr M , wh ch was co only sed iting the name of the deity , becomes especially interesting . Then also ’ 2 in Bezold s Ca ta logu e the following is written :

d d M a -ao hu u M a-a shtu m m are i n s S . “ ashu a htu m S i n The god M and M s children of .

ashtu w as in of M , therefore , originally the fem ine

M a h IN- IB w i s . N originally as fem nine and later

u In u became masc linized (see above) . a gro p of gods ’ given in connection with their consorts in Harper s 2 ‘ Letters NIN- 1 B IN- IB un , follows N as if his co terpart , which very likely is du e to the fact that at that time the god and his consort bore one and the same name . This change in sex natu rally points to a misunderstand IN-IB u ing at some time . N therefore co ld be regarded

K . 7 790 . 875 . , , p 2 It b h -IB l is of course n ot im possi le t a t NIN is a m is ta ke for Gu a . 2 K 63 1 35 . . p 8 . , , V ol . IV , No . 358 .

V W . THE NA ME YAH EH

WITH the discovery of the name Yahweh in the u u u u c neiform literat re, excl sive of proper names, nder the form Jawu (m ) (see page the qu estion arises whether it throws an y light on the ancient pronun ciation of the divine name . Before the discovery of the Aramaic papyri at A u Y iden ti ss an , certain scholars claimed that ahweh is n one is cal with the Ca aanitic deity J , which they said

- - — - - b -d S discovl u a u a zi a u i i . fo nd in J h , J , etc ince the ‘ ’ As u 171 u ery of the s an papyri , in which occ rs for the divine name , it seems that scholars generally have dhu u adopted the reading J . This concl sion , however , nn ca ot be maintained . 2 In a former work I endeavored to show that the divine name of the pre -Christian period was practically identical with the pronunciation which The odoret

u s O S informs he btained from the amaritans, namely

’ Ia s i un S ﬂ , wh ch is also fo d in a amaritan letter in 2 Ar S ahwa a hwe abic to de acy , namely , J or J , and the u i pron nciation wh ch has been accepted for years , a h h w e . namely J This as has been claimed , is preserved

“ Se e S a h a u A ra ma i sch P ku n d 2 e a ru s ur en 5 . n c , py , p . Die Jude

' in E le ph a n tin n an n ten ih ren Gott n ich t mn' son dern w ofii ri ch ” n a h a n A A h dhu h m c Vorg g der ssyrer die usspra c e J a nn e e . 2 L h on th Old T m m Ba b 24 f e a n l 7 . ig t est e t fro e , p . 2 Se e M n m ou n a l o B bl a l L a 1 90 6 o tgo ery , J r f i ic iter ture , XXV , ,

202 THE NAM E YA HW EH 203 in d a (J a-a -ma ) an element in Jewish names in the 2 Ne e - Babylonian period and in J awu (m ) on the tablet an 89 in the Morg Library Collection (see p . ) and on one in the possession of Professor Delitzsch , which came from the same sou rce . The chief objection to the pronunciation t u is to ' ’ u r i 11tW be fo nd in the w iting , the Old Testament form hi u of the name , w ch also occ rs on the Moabite stone . Can it be said that the Hebrew writers in Israel and Moab did not know how to write the divine name ? What does the additional ﬁnal letter mean ? Did they

O u un ? add it to bsc re the pron ciation Or , did the Jews

u n prono nce the name one way in Palestine , and a other

E n ? way in gypt , and still another way in Babylo ia ’ ’ t 1tW d u The writer maintains that , , as well as (Jawi and Jdwa ) all represent the same pronunciation ; an d u , as above , that this pron nciation is preserved in the

’ G I a e A a hwe an d reek ﬂ , in the rabic J , in the accepted a hwe a hweh modern transcription J or J . As Y the ﬁrst element in personal names , ahweh

u A a-u occ rs in the ssyrian historical inscriptions as J , in ’ —- - - - Ja u hazi an d Ja u bi di ; and in the Ne e Babylonian

a—u -u a - a - u —u a - a —u a - u - u period as J h , J h and J h in J h na ta n n u ? u a -u , etc Perhaps also it is to be fo nd in J

L h h ld T m n m B a b l 24 See l a on t e O a 8 . C y , ig t est e t fro e , p . 2 h o Bi b A h 1 ff h n S c . 3 . w as t e . s Pi c es , Proc . . rc , XV , , ﬁr t to all a n n h n a m c tte tio to t ese es . 2 Se e l a B E Vo 1 9 a n d L h on the Old T a m n . l . . e t C y , X , p , ig t est m a b l 241 fro B e , p . f . 204 A M U RRU HOM E O F N ORTHERN S EM IT ES

‘ bani th e an d in a u m - E l Ham of Cassite period, J of the m urab i pe riod (se e below) . As the second element in personal names it occu rs

- — H u V S VII A shi ra t a w i . in J in the amm rabi period of ,

' — — - 1 57 : 7 an d in Ahi J a m i (Ja wi ) of the Ta an n e k tablet ; , —— an d in the Assyrian historical inscription s as J a a u

a -u a za i —J a—a —u G and J in H q , etc . , in the ezer tablet in

a tan —J a -u Ne e - n e a N , also in the Babylonia tabl ts as J 2 -m a a a n n - - -m a It im a d ta u J a a . ( ) , in N , etc is not it u a —an probable that occ rs also in other forms , as in H n i u which , owing to their ncertainty , are not ? inclu ded in the disc u ssions

As u dwu m s ming that J ( ) of the early period , the only form known where in cun eiform it is not compoun ded

n with other elements , represents the divi e name , it can be shown that the same pronunciation also represents r H the element when w itten in the ebrew script . ” 1 1W u The form as the ﬁrst element , when reprod ced

u As a -u in c neiform in the syrian period , became J , where the h between the two vowels w as elided ; an d in the

Ne e - a - u -u a -a - u an Babylonian period it became J h , J h d

a—a—u -u h J h , where the is represented by the Babylonian

' ’ Massoretic 1tW u u f h. The explanation of the s ally o fered is the one proposed by the late Professor Franz ‘ ’ ’ : 171 = 1 tW It Delitzsch , namely seems to me

‘ E X 2 S e e a . Vo . V 3 . l . l . C y , B , , p 2 h on h ld T m n 2 S e e L t e O . 44 a . ig t est e t , p 2 On h a w na l o B bl a l L a u XIV . t ese , see J stro , Jour f i ic iter t re , 0 if a n d Da i c h es ur A ss II 1 2 ff 1 . . 5 . 8 . p . , Zeit f , XX , p A W 2 0 ff II f . 8 Se e . . 1 73 . Z , ;

20 6 AMURRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EMITES u in n ncontracted name , which case , however , a reaso u u h m st be given why it is not apocopated , inasm ch as t e in H hi i element ebrew names is always shortened . T s s ‘ n i also shown by the Septu agi t . My own suggestion s that the Babylonian scribes recognized the element a s H the name of the ebrew god , and that in their schools they were tau ght to w rite the fu ll name of the deity Th when it appeared as the second element in names . e r b ut name , therefore , was not w itten as they heard it , , n as they treated their own Babylonian names , accordi g

u W H to ﬁxed r les . hen we consider that ebrew names compoun ded w ith Jdma occur more frequ ently in the Murash ﬁ docum ents than Babylonian names com

un i u A u po ded with their own prom nent deities , s ch as dd

B E un u au a . , , etc , we can readily derstand that this co ld -ﬁve be an adopted orthography . Of the twenty or more

f u am a di ferent names compo nded with J , some of which

u O i the occ r very ften , there is not a s ngle variation from form J a - a - ma ; and in every instance it is withou t the

i An u t u an determ native for deity . ill s ration of s ch l AN- ES H i lu p adopted writing is to be seen in M or , whi ch represents the West Semitic DR ? Another and perfectly reasonable theory is that either the ﬁnal vowel of Jama was not pronoun ced

b u t k aw“ distinctly , as a light overhanging, vowel li e J ;

u n k J aw In or it was not prono ced at all , li e . other

dwa aw a words, J or J ( ) stands for the apocopated form of akwu the divine name J . This apocopation or shortening

h o Old T ta m n 247 L n the . . ig t es e t, p 2 l T m n a nd S m S I 1 6 S e e la O d a . 3 . C y , est e t e itic tudies , , p THE NA M E YA HW EH 207 of the final vowel w as du e to the emphas is being placed fir e . . atan on the st syllable of the divine name , g , N Jdhwu became Na ta n -J ahw (u ) S uch an explan ation also accoun ts for the change to W u n , so commonly fo nd in the Old Testament , and i As u fi w i the s an papyri , the nal be ng apocopated . It ul sho d be added that the Massoretic pointing , while u possible according to phonetic laws, is not s pported by

S u u u n the ept agint, which s ally transliterates this endi g m It u 1 e. 71171 wo ld appear , therefore , that as well as were pronounced J and that this pronu ncia

use as as H m u tion was in early the am rabi period .

u Y A r a F rthermore , ahweh being probably of am ean ’ i 1tW A ae orig n , may be the ram an form of the name ,

u As u in A c inasm ch as the s an papyri are written ramai . These conclusions necessitate the reconsideration of ‘ u a -wi -i lu a -wi - i lu S s ch names as J and J , which ayce , Delitzsch and others have regarded as containing the k divine name . These names , as is well nown , can also ’ a —E l In be read J pi . addition to the fact that there is not a single in stance in the Hebrew literatu re where the ' name Yahweh remained un changed when appearing as ﬁ S m a rst element in proper names , the West e itic name 2 a —a—E l H u k u J p , also of the amm rabi period , ma es it q ite ’ reasonable that the readi ng shou ld be J a pi or J a pi ’ instead of J a wi or J awi ; and that the stem of the “ ” l tW lW . u element is probably EJ , to cover The name co d

B E C T I II 20 a n d I II 3 4 544 4 an d Ran . . Cf . . V , , V , , ; ke , , VI 1 1 3 , , 7 : 8 . 2 I Un a d V II 1 6 39 . n . S 5 g , , V , 20 8 AM U RRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EMITES

an as h as t God be tr slated, been s ated, has covered , ” a -u - u m —E l protected . On the other hand, the name J , n e belongi g to the early p riod , probably represents the i i us r d v ne name, beca e the element appears in the sho t ‘ ened form exactly as fou nd in later periods .

1 L on h O T m ht t e ld esta ent . 237. ig , p

2 1 0 A M U RRU HOM E O F N O RTHERN S EM ITES

A nu - ra m 1 44 B a r- a 1 45 , iks , A su 47 5 3 Ba rsi 1 74 p , , p , 24 B A A a b a 77 8 3 a n . 1 3 1 7 43 r i , , , rto , George , , , , A a -S in 1 1 0 44 8 3 1 1 4 1 24 1 41 1 5 1 r d , , , , , , , A a ll 77 1 69 1 99 r u , , A a m 24 Bau 38 r , , A a m - a m a 1 79 B a t- sha —ra 1 27 r D scus , y , Ara a 75 B 76 r t , eirut , B 2 4 Ard a ta , 67 él , 0 , 37 , 7, 1 0 2 A a -K 1 70 Bél - a a n 1 98 ri esed , H rr , A a m a n 1 0 4 1 20 n h a a 87 rg , , Be d d , A ri 1 3 1 0 4 B u 63 68 1 70 , , eros s , , , ‘ ‘ A a 1 80 B th—A na h 1 43 rp d , e t , A r a dda u 1 80 B eth-D a a n 1 46 p ( ) , g , A ax x I 68 B h l 1 28 rt er es , et e , A 64 Beth- m 1 47 ruru , Lehe , As h b l 1 23 Be h—sha —E l 1 27 e , t , As h 65 B hs h a n 1 28 er , et e , A h a 1 40 B eth-S h m h 1 25 s er , e es , A h a -J a w 20 6 B h l 1 72 s ir t i , et ue , A shi rta 38 B l a l 200 , ezo d , C r , A - h —m a —li k 1 39 Bi —i n - a —n i —ha - 1 85 s ir , g s r ri , ’ Ash tarti 1 98 1 99 B l a - i ll h 79 , , i g is , - — — BI L-LIL 1 1 1 1 4 A sh ta r Ti l la 1 0 3 , 3 , A h 1 38 Bi la u 79 s ur , qq . A h b a n al 1 7 46 Bi r-A a 1 23 s ur ip , , , d d , 60 98 Bi r—Ha a 1 32 , d d , A l 1 5 Bi r—na i shti m 80 1 34 stro ogy , p , , Ath ta ra 1 41 Bi r—n a i shti m - 80 , p usur , A n 5 1 Bis m a a 1 42 ugusti e , y , A r 43 B i t- NI N-I B 1 98 u es , , A 69 Bi t- Ya n 1 70 urus , ki , A w a -a r- i —lu m 1 20 B F 1 0 3 , ork , A w a -a r-ka - i r 1 20 Broc ke l m a n n a l 84 s , , C r , A wa —a r-sa -na - bu 1 20 B w n a n s 1 63 1 64 , ro , Fr ci , , A w a -a r- - i r 1 20 Brun n ow R l h 1 1 5 1 1 7 si q , , udo p , , , w 1 0 1 20 1 23 200 a atu , 5 , , a w élu 1 0 5 B hl a n 1 63 , u , Fr z , — B U S IR —NE - NE 1 1 A wi l I hta 1 71 ( ) , 1 9 , 33 s r , — A -fwi - lu -ti m 1 0 6 B UR B UR 1 0 2 1 1 3 , —, , A -wi - —tu m 1 0 6 B UR- B UR D A 1 1 2 ir , , 2 Bu r—S i n 1 1 8 1 9 3 A zi ru , 1 5 , , B u —K UR-GA L 82 uz r , ‘ B —Uru 82 uzur , Ba a l , 38 B b l s 1 57 Ba b l 9 1 y o , e , Ba b l n 1 42 y o , B e h n F 1 2 a n 65 a t e . g , , 8 C i , J 1 1 4 1 42 1 a a a n ab l 3 7 39 43 E . 88 Ba n . ks , , , , C pp doci t ets , , , I N D EX

a m l 8 7 E l - E l n 1 58 C r e , yo , h a m ll n 29 l z 40 1 29 C po io , E ie er , , h la m 98 E ll l 37 47 48 5 6 9 5 1 1 7 C edor o er , i , , , , , , on a n a 1 0 3 E ll l - ban 39 C st ti , i i , A 2 1 23 1 1 60 ll 1 0 . 7 5 7 7 Cooke , G . , , , , e u , 1 78 E l h i m 1 24 o , o 52 E l-S ha dda i 1 27 1 58 C ry , , , a Al x a n 1 39 l l 57 59 Cr ig , J . e der , E u , , On h a 1 1 5 E l—Ur 64 1 58 t , , , u 38 98 E -M A S H- M A S H 78 1 26 Cy r s , , , , E -M I H- M I H S S , 78 D 4 E —M IS H—LA M 8 a g a n , 38 , 1 6 , 7 Da i ch es S a m l 20 6 20 7 E m u tb al 97 , ue , , , Da m a 1 26 1 28 1 30 n 1 3 scus , , , E g i , Da I I 68 E N- GI -D U 8 1 rius , D a —E ll l 67 1 87 E N-Kl -D U 8 1 ti i , , , Da v 1 7 E N- M A R- TU 1 2 1 id , , D a v on u s 63 E N—M a ht 1 2 1 1 22 ( ) , s u , , D A E n -m - —a n -ki 66 l a . 99 e e ttre , J dur , D l h a n 20 6 20 7 E n -n a -Z u —i n 1 46 e itzsc , Fr z , , , l h F h 3 6 37 49 n h 66 69 De itzsc , riedric , , , , E oc , , 57 71 80 8 9 1 0 5 1 0 7 1 1 9 n h 64 , , , , , , , E os , 1 2 2 1 2 1 6 1 E n sha ku sha n n a 1 92 0 , 1 5 , 8 , , g , 1 30 E n vd shtu 1 99 Der , , S a 20 4 b 52 de cy , Ere us , h m P 1 23 1 84 1 85 h 76 78 1 26 1 42 D or e , . , , , Erec , , , , ’ h l a la a 1 28 E h a l 33 D u H s , res kig , ’ D h l S ha a 1 28 E ri 1 77 u r , , a b i 9 7 98 1 0 3 1 93 E ri a 1 1 2 Di r ek r , , , , , E ri -A ku 1 Dilb a t, 1 98 , 93 Di m A 2 1 6 45 47 5 3 ll an n . 7 7 , , , Eridu , , , ‘ DI - M a 1 1 6 E sh- b a a l 1 23 rduk , , —m a h—i 79 1 29 200 E h 38 Di s q , , , s u , Di m -m as - a 1 30 h l a n ua 83 q , Et iopic g ge , v R 44 1 62 e im m u 5 1 S . Dri er , , t , D UM U- URU 1 1 0 a n 23 , Etrusc s , u n 9 7 1 1 8 1 28 1 92 l 1 63 D gi , , , , Ezekie , E —UL -M A S H 1 1 26 dur, 1 30 , 7 , E - UL—LA M , 78 E u ol e m u s 1 68 4 p , E a , 7, 53 b 52 E a —ban 8 1 Euse ius , i , E b - U as h 1 23 ed r , E d - 1 47 al l 60 Deir , G i ee , m 98 GA L- UR-RA 1 1 3 Edo , , E dora n c hu s 63 69 a m dru 5 6 , , g , an 3 2 Ga r 1 5 1 Egypti , , h 1 7 a 1 82 1 83 E ud , G utier , , l a m 97 m n 1 6 E , ge i i , 21 2 AM U RRU HOM E OF NORTHERN S EM ITE S

G 24 H u 35 1 42 ezer , erodot s , , h t H V n 1 7 Hil re c . . 43 78 1 1 8 Gideo , p , , , , , il a 60 1 24 1 32 1 59 1 8 1 20 7 G e d , , , , , 1 1 2 W J . l a m e h 50 73 74 76 77 H n . Gi g s , , , , i ke , , 79 8 1 1 22 1 26 1 29 i r u 1 0 6 , , , , h t , i m l -A n m 1 43 H 32 G i i , ittite , i m l—S i n 96 1 9 3 H ha m 1 54 G i , , o , - H m m F 30 63 6 GIR UR U 1 1 0 l . 65 6 77 , o e , , , , , , , IS H—BI L—GA 79 78 80 84 1 1 8 1 54 G , , , , , , IS H-BI L—GA -M IS H 78 1 6 1 1 78 1 79 1 8 1 G , , , , I S H- U-M AS H 78 H b 87 G T , ore , B 1 64 H n F 1 a G . . . 97 Gr y , , roz y , , 2 b E 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 k 2 H . . 9 0 2 Gree s , u er , P , , , , im m H 1 45 1 58 u - -i b—Ti l—la 1 0 3 Gr e , , H di ,

Gu b l a , 1 52 a 3 1 9 7 1 0 3 1 20 1 28 Gude , , , , , , I R , 38 1 3 6 1 80 1 93 , , bb 1 0 7 i u , l a 38 20 0 Gu , , I b a tu m 1 0 6 g , Gu n u n u 1 9 g , 3 - 1 I bi S i n , 93 n H 36 44 5 1 5 1 l . 5 7 Gu ke , , , , , , , I - ka ka u 1 40 gur p p , 72 73 , i 1 6 i h r, 0 I n 60 jo , Ha a 40 I un - i - Uru 1 1 3 g r , k p , H v J 42 1 0 7 1 82 1 9 7 i li 1 24 al . e y , , , , , a l a 1 40 I l- T -a bi 1 58 H i , ehiri , ’ a li a lba t 1 40 I l- a i a 1 54 H g , y p , a l - a m 90 I lu -a a a 1 0 1 H i J u , r p , a l l 1 40 I M -M A R TU 1 0 0 H i i , , a ll 1 40 i m tut 1 0 5 H u , , Ha m a h 1 57 i n uh 1 0 5 t , Ha m m a b 40 41 46 59 78 I - -i r- Ti l-la 1 0 3 ur i , , , , , , ri , ‘ 79 89 97 98 1 0 7 1 1 1 1 1 6 I r—M a 1 76 , , , , , , , rduk , ‘ 1 1 7 1 86 1 9 3 I r—Na a h 1 76 , , h s , ‘ a na 1 47 I r-S h m h 1 76 H , e es , a -a n -u i - i a 20 6 I ru sha li m 1 6 H , , 7 Ha an 1 6 I shbi —U a 1 1 0 r , rr , Ha an n 1 45 I - h —ha - 1 85 r Ce sus , s ir s r ri , H F 1 24 0 20 I shm e- a a n 1 46 1 a R . 1 8 0 93 rper , . , , , D g , , Has n a m 1 5 1 1 62 1 67 I h a 1 6 38 1 41 ti gs , J es , , , s t r , , , Ha u a m 1 5 4 I h a -ki - Ti l-la 1 0 3 h , s t r , Ha a ul 80 1 1 5 1 41 1 76 I h m 1 33 upt , P , , , , , s u , 1 99 I n n as 96 si dy ty , f i wi ru 1 0 5 I - -D a - a n 1 47 h , ti g , H H 1 a n e . . 88 y s , J , Ha 60 J a b n i -E l 1 78 zor , , H b n 1 54 a b 1 8 e ro J co , H h n 5 6 a h it 86 e , J J , H m n 1 26 a - u -u 205 er o , J h ,

21 4 A M U RRU HOM E OF NO RTHERN S EM ITES

MAS H-MAS H 38 Na bil - 1 44 , idri , M a shtu ku 1 98 Na b u-m i shti m - u 80 , p us r , ‘ M d shtum 1 98 200 20 1 Na b it- a a 1 44 , , , r p , 1 20 0 Na a d u 1 M dshu , 38 , 1 0 , 1 26 , 28 , h r , 72 M 24 27 Na i 1 72 egiddo , , hir , Me in h old 56 Na ri m a 1 5 1 , J h , M n B n 8 1 1 0 3 1 0 5 n a m dru 1 0 7 eiss er , ru o , , , , , 1 Na m m 1 0 7 , 1 1 5 , 1 73 , 79 ra tu , 1 0 6 M n 1 1 Na m a 3 an J . 8 t 3 e t , , r , M n 30 Na nci 38 e es , , il l E S H 78 Na n n a 97 1 69 , r , , M he 1 29 1 3 1 a h a l 60 es q, , N p t i , M e thd—S a la h 66 Na a m -S in 1 1 5 , r , M hu-sha -E l 66 1 2 Nas h i 1 2 et , , 7 h , 3 M e - T lla 1 0 3 na wa u 1 0 5 i , r , M a 54 96 97 N b h a e a 68 98 ey er , Edu rd , , , e uc dr zz r , , M i l-ki - U— 1 3 4 1 56 N al 33 3 7 38 1 1 4 1 1 5 1 1 7 ri , , erg , , , , , , , M ku 1 2 1 21 1 26 1 i l ru , 0 , , 33 M i -sha -E l 1 27 NE - URU—GA L 1 1 1 1 , , 95 , 5 , 9 M IS H 78 N l n 60 , ie se , -ki —Ti l-la 1 0 3 N ha l 95 , ik , M an n 32 38 43 NI N-GA L 95 it i , , , , M a b 98 Ni n —i r—su 1 46 o , g , M n m a m A 50 1 2 1 Ni n -Gi rsu 48 1 3 1 o tg o ery , J es , , , , 1 57 1 62 1 97 20 4 NI N-I B 37 38 9 1 2 1 1 26 , , , , , , 8 , , , G A 23 1 4 1 M . . 3 78 oore , , , M an b a ll n NI N-I B -i ddi n a 1 95 org Li r ry Co ectio , 1 1 4 1 4 20 NI N- E 5 1 , 88 , 89 , , 9 , 5 N 1 1 5 M a h 87 NI N-M A R 1 99 ori , , M a 41 Ni n ra 1 95 os ic Code , g , M 1 7 N 47 oses , ippur , N Mt. r 75 in 97 isi , Nis , Mt S n a 1 4 N s in . 5 n as 95 i i , i dy ty , M a y a 1 67 1 68 h 1 95 uq y r , , Nisroc , M H 1 0 N1 TA 1 1 ull . . 8 3 er , D , , Mul W Ma x 2 1 2 1 N a h l . 9 30 7 5 7 76 er , , , , , o , M - Ti d n u m 96 NOld e k e Th 4 urik , , eodore , 7 M u r-a r-n a -ti m 1 20 N w a W 26 , o ck , . , M u r—ba bi llu 1 20 n u -u , h, 5 5 , 76 , 80 M UH- bn 1 34 Nu a shshi 1 29 i i , h , M u r-n i s i 1 20 Nu - l bb - lan 5 6 q , h i i i i , M u r—si a rru 1 20 Nil -n a i sh i m p , k p t , 80 M -A o W 1 0 n u m u shda rn l t . 79 80 7 1 97 uss , , , , , , 1 1 2 1 20 1 41 Nu sh k u , , , 37, 1 32 - - M u uf sha I rkhu t , 66 O 1 4 g , 5 Na b n 98 Ol m s a A T 1 . 0 o idus , te d , . , 3 Na bu 1 44 Om 98 , ri , INDEX

O e rt J 1 81 S al m 1 5 4 pp , e , Ore s 69 S a m a a 60 , ri , Oti arte s 64 S a m -cl 1 0 2 , u , S a m n 1 25 so , a -kl ' 79 S a n ch on i a th a n 5 2 p w , , a an 87 S a a h 40 P r , r ,

a n . B 1 3 S a n 90 9 7 1 8 1 P to , L rgo , , , a ah 1 40 S a an 5 7 1 3 3 1 3 6 Ped i , rp itu , , , ah l 1 40 S a ru i 1 89 Ped e , g , l x 1 0 2 S a A H 2 44 46 5 . 9 37 5 Peiser , Fe i , y ce , . , , , , , , 30 63 66 76 89 1 25 1 41 1 46 Pcpy , , , , , , , , 80 1 47 1 5 1 1 5 2 1 6 1 1 8 1 Per , , , , ,

F 29 , 30 h Petrie , S l . V . 73 80 1 1 0 1 82 e ei , P , , , ,

h l a , 98 1 1 P i isti 83 84 1 86 , 1 88 , ,

h aen a , 98 S h a E 0 P ici . 8 c r der , ,

T G . 46 4 8 n h . 37 5 7 Pi c es , , , , , , S h u m a h 26 c c er , 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 6 1 1 67 - 1 0 3 , , 9 , 5 , , , S ha A d 1 27 d u , 1 76 1 8 1 20 5 20 7 , , , sha ba ttu m , 5 6 80 Pir , sha ba th 6 1 , ra m 1 54 S ha - m -shu 1 30 Pi , i eri , -n a i shti m 80 S h a l m a n II 98 Pir p , eser , 1 1 1 2 - Poe b e l A n 78 8 1 0 6 , , ha M h 1 2 , r o , , , S as , 79 , 7 1 37 1 5 7 1 73 1 8 1 h m , , , S a as h , 80 , 1 0 0 , 4 1 24 1 45 n H . 50 6 n , , 1 Pog o , , , , 0 4 1 0 7, 1 1 8 1 23 1 25 , , ,

1 57 1 62 - , S ha m a h-li -m e ri 1 0 6 s , n D 1 00 Pri ce , J . . , S ha m a h - li -wi - 1 0 6 s ir , —E l 1 40 Pudi , S ha m a h-na i shti m 80 s p , - — S ha NI TA shu , 1 30 a m a 1 70 s ha - a t—tum 55 r , p , n HA R- A -NI -L U A L - U Oen a , 65 S G G RU h Qi de s u , 1 52 1 8 1 I -M A S H 1 29 S ha r a n i —ha -dli 1 3 1 O g s r , i -M a h- i 1 28 S ha - a n - ha 1 1 3 1 82 O s q , r G i s rri , , S ha -la -a h 1 86 r , Ra m s I I 99 1 0 3 S ha rra u 1 1 6 ese , , p , Ra n H m an n 54 79 9 0 S ha - -i shta —a l 1 86 ke , er , , , , r ri q , 1 1 2 1 ki n 1 4 96 , 0 6 , 1 0 9 , 1 0 , 1 1 , 1 3 , S ha ru , 9 1 23 1 2 1 1 1 1 6 1 i -m i —Ti l—la 1 0 3 , 7 , 6 , 73 , 8 , 9 3 , S h , 20 9 S h in a 9 1 r , Re n 99 1 1 3 S h m -M a l 1 34 iss er , J , u ik , Ri m -A ku h u m e r 1 3 , 1 93 S , Ri m —A n m 89 Sh u a m u n a 1 1 4 u , q —, Ri m -S i n 64 1 1 1 S h —ki —Ti l la 1 0 3 , , ur , W 22 5 S n 98 R R . 5 ogers , . , , , ido , i 2 i du na 1 5 2 Rn se ll in , 9 S , 1 62 S C . ieg fried , , S a b b a h 55 60 6 1 S h n 1 45 1 5 4 t , , , i o , , S a h au a 20 4 S m a n 1 0 4 c , Edu rd , i u , 2 1 6 A M U RRU HOM E NO RTHERN S EM I TES

1 2 S in , 1 6 , 45 , 00 S in a 8 7 i , S i n - m a 1 9 3 g ir , S in - iddin a m 1 92 , Ub a - T t 66 r u u , S i n u he n v l 29 - - o e , U-bi - i n ha ri 1 85 s r , S a 47 98 1 73 ipp r , , , UD 0 , 8 S i a 1 45 ser , UD - UL -GAL 58 H , i 80 S t, - T UD U , 1 00 i t- n a i shti m 80 S p , m m n u a u , 65 C 26 S n a l . — teuer ge , , Um n a i shti m 80 p , N 1 4 S as m a . 80 tr s ier , J Un n a d A h 8 1 84 86 1 0 5 g , rt ur , , , , , 1 0 5 1 59 1 62 1 68 , , , 1 4 1 0 6 , 5 , 1 47, 1 70 , 20 9 R 1 62 S b . tu e , , Ur 1 6 5 , , 9 S u bsa lla 7 , 9 - A UR , 1 1 3 S m -a b m 89 u u u , U a 75 r rtu , UR 1 0 1 S , U as h 8 9 1 22 r , , Ur- b ll m 1 80 i u , ‘ Ta an n e k 24 27 3 7 Ur n as 9 6 9 7 , , , dy ty , , Ta -i - Ti l—la 1 0 3 Ur—E n ur 1 92 , g , a ba h 76 U a 1 0 3 1 67 1 70 t , rf , , , T v K L 1 0 1 1 2 U - —l - b 1 2 all is t . r a u u 0 q , 7, h , 1 33 1 44 Uri 1 3 1 0 2 1 92 , , , , Tal m 68 Uri or E ri -A ku 1 1 2 ud , ( ) , Ta m m 1 6 20 U- - a l -la 1 1 5 uz , , ri g , kh -k n n 1 2 Ta r u , 1 36 Ur a ri u , 0 h m 4 -Ka sdi m 1 Te o , 9 , 50 Ur , 70 Te - i —i —Til —la 1 0 3 U——M a 1 1 7 h p , ri rduk , T l a 1 0 3 Ur-NI N-I B 1 1 8 1 93 e , , , T ll -De il a m 1 70 Ur-NI N-M A R 1 99 e , , T ll e l -Am a n a 32 38 Ur-Pad 1 80 e r , , , T ll e l -Mu tes selim 26 U a 1 0 9 1 1 3 1 1 4 e , rr , , , T a h 1 68 U a - ban 1 0 9 er , rr i , Th u re a u — an n F 1 1 1 U a -BA -TI L 1 0 9 D gi , . , , rr , 1 43 1 80 1 8 1 1 82 1 84 U a - a l 82 1 1 5 , , , , , rr g , , 1 88 a 1 0 5 urr , ’ Ti a m a 46 48 1 48 Ursa li m m u 1 0 5 1 75 1 80 t , , , , , , ’ a m tu 49 50 5 3 U 1 0 2 ti , , , rtu , i da n u Uru 1 0 9 T , 97 , T n 6 1 2 1 Uru -A z 1 80 i d u , 9 , 0 , 0 3 , P 1 41 1 8 1 Uru URU -BA -S A G-S A G 1 1 2 T l . . ie e , C , , ( ) , Ti l a th ile s e r I 60 98 URU—DI NGI R RA 1 1 0 g p , , , T lla 1 0 2 1 0 3 URU- KA OI - NA i 1 2 1 1 3 i , , , Till a h 1 0 3 Uru UR U ki - bi 1 1 2 , ( ) , Ti l - Na 1 72 URU-LIG—GA 1 1 0 hiri , , Ti -m a -a sh- i 1 29 RU-m l g , U i ki T - m i - Ti l-la 1 m m 1 i , 0 3 Uru a , 67 Ti —ra -m a s - i 1 2 RU—M U 1 1 0 q , 9 U , ff A - M —U H To te en , O . . , 9 Uru U S , 1 1 2