324
~~~~~___ greater even than justice. The merciful man is sternest, for we feel that behind His sternness God-like, for mercy is the highest attribute of there throbs eternal love. Love explains Divine Deity. Mercy must never be subordinated to Fatherhood. Love explains the Incarnation and such things as the tithing of mint, anise, and the Divine sacrifice on Calvary. cummin (Lk 6s~). On one occasion when teaching 4. And, further, the love that Jesus asks is love in the Temple, Jesus enforced the lesson of mercy i~a action, love expressed in sacrifice and service. in a startlingly dramatic fashion (Jn 83), when the The ‘service of man’ is a modern phrase, but the chivalry of Jesus shamed the scribes and Pharisees. truth underlying it was a commonplace in our ‘ He that is without sin among you, let him first Lord’s teaching. For next to His great Law of cast a stone at her.’ And one by one, conscience- Love comes His great Law of Service, and the stricken, they slunk away as from the judgment-seat. second is a corollary of the first. Love for Him 3. But more even than mercy is expected from meant no mere sentiment of transient emotion, citizens of the Kingdom. Love is expected, but an energy of soul expressing itself in active brotherly love. There is singular pathos in our ministry, doing good, practical helpfulness. Love Lord’s use of the words thy brother’ (Mt 5 24 I $15). proved itself by golden deeds. Fraternal love is the distinctive note of the On four occasions at least dwelt and it the in Jesus impressively upon Kingdom, Jesus gives highest place the Law of Service : first, when He rebuked the desire for His social His law of love is not a code gospel. precedence and taught that greatness was measured by but a spirit, not a set of rigid rules but a controlling Service (3’It 2026) ; second, when I-Ie showed by washing principle. Love is central and all-prevailing in IIis disciples’ feet that the lowliest service might be the divinest third, when He the His So clearly is this the case that (Jn 135) ; spoke great parable teaching. of the Good Samaritan and censured dehumanized out of hundred if asked religious ninety-nine people every officialism (Ll; ro30); and, finally, when IIe indicated that answer un- what the message of Jesus is would at the last the crown of welcome would be for those who hesitatingly ’a message of love.’ Love breathes had performed deeds of love (Mt 25 40).l from His personality, burns in His parables, emanates from every word He uttered, even the 1 D. Watson, The Social Expression of Christianity..
The Habiru and the Hebrews. NEW MATERIAL IN THE PROBLEM.
BY S. H. LANGDON, M.A., PROFESSOR OF ASSYRIOLOGI’ IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.
· I NEED not enter into a detailed examination of the this new evidence intelligible I begin with a brief difficult question of the identification of the Gmelfi r6sum6. Abdi-Heba, governor of Jerusalem, makes. -Ha-bi-ru in the Canaanish correspondence of frequent mention of the Habiru (genitive-accusative Amenhoteph III. and m. with the Hebrew people gabirt),8 who plunder the lands of the Egyptian’ of the Old Testament.2 There is, however, some king’s Palestinian provinces. In one instance the extremely important material published more re- genitive form Habiri-(ki) occurs, that is, the name cently than any accessible discussion, and to make is followed by the geographical determinative for the were a 2 ‘ political state,’ and hence people The most recent and thorough examination of the litera- Habiru and connected more or less with some ture on this subject is by Professor Burney, Israel’s Settle- vaguely ment in Canaan, 66-81, and the same scholar’s edition of province. It is possible to say ‘the ~Flabiru-~Habiri Judges, pp. lxxiii-lxxxiv. In this very able review of the man, or men.’ The word is employed only in the Professor inclines to the sources, Burney accept identification, singular, and is a diptote, that is, it is inflected in and he rightly in that case regards the description of the Habiru in the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries as revealed 3 The letters of Abdi-Qeba are edited in Knudtzon, EI- by the Amama Letters as applicable to westward migrations Amarna-Tafeln, Nos. 285-290. On the possible reading. of the Hebrews between the age of Abraham and the Exodus of this name as Mittanni or Hittite, see Knudtzon, p. 1333, of the early thirteenth century. and Gustav in Orientalische Literatür-Zeitung, 1911, 341.
Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on March 17, 2015 325 the genitive and accusative by the same inflectional shortened gentilic in ant~z~Ba_ab-bi-li, ‘ the Baby- ending t. For example, the Jerusalem scribe / lonians’; 10 ina alani sacmeri(m), ‘ from the Sumerian writes, ’You love the a~n~~l?~.Habiri,’ i.e. ‘the cities.’ 11 The feminine form iitzt becomes itu, g%abiru-man,’ an example of the collective singular Amurrltu, Babilîtu, regularly inflected, ’ztu, iti, ita, accusative.1 And another passage has a-elli the singular supposedly replacing the plural. (No ,tYabiru habat, ‘ The Habiru-men plunder,’ 2 where plural examples.) Now if, as seems probable, the plural is employed as a grammatical singular ~aharu and Habiri are really shortened gentilic in the nominative case, the verb being in the formations, supposedly of the Arabic-Babylonian singular. On the other hand, the scribe writes, type, are there parallel examples to prove that this is .tilikiu a 11lel-agabiru, ‘ The Habiru men take,’ a gentilic, and, if so, a gentilic of true Babylonian- where lfabiru is employed as a nominative plural.3 Arabic Canaanitish type as over against the Aramaic- An example of the genitive is aha a~~zel~2Ha_bi- Assyrian gentilic ending lila, a-ti, or (with endings ri-(hi), ’To the Habi’rie-men.144 Since gentilic zc, i), 12, i (e) ? We have for the formation ïiu, regu- formations in Assyrian drop the plural ending larly, sarru Isassii, ‘ the Cassite king,’ ~nlezugassu, before adding the gentilic suffix (äla), (ii),5 it ‘ the Cassite,’ gen. Kassi (I~asse by obscuring ï> e). seems probable that ~labiru, Habiri are for Uabird, But Nebuchadnezzar calls himself ikkaru babbilu, Habi?-i, that is, the ~abirite. The strictly philo- ‘ the Babylonian husbandman,’ 12 and the ending is logical side of this problem has never been empha- omitted altogether in mäti su~~aer u akkadiin, ‘ in sized, and even the statements on the gentilic the Sumerian and Akkadian land.’13 The Baby- endings in the Assyrian grammars have not been lonians formed the gentilic for Egyptian Mi,~rtl made thoroughly scientific.6 The old Babylonian (no examples), 1llisri (often Misri), where the (Assyrian so far as this northern people adopted it) Assyrians employ the Aramaic form Misrti, Misra~: generic ending is i,~, as in Hebrew, Arabic, and The Aramaic ending is the one usually employed Ethiopic. The Babylonians inflected this ending, in late Babylonian. Note, for example, that the nominative iiu > ~2, genitive iji > i, accusative Babylonians wrote a~~tczulq_ra-Jlau, ‘ the Aramean,’ 14 4a > d, which seems to have disappeared in and this form with short u is common in Assyria,15 favour of the genitive i, leaving the gentilic noun genitive Arimi, A rime. 16 These gentilic case-end- a diptote.7 So, for example, the Babylonian word ings are employed with great irregularity in late for Amorite would be declined : Assyrian, as were also the ordinary case-endings. The point is that the gentilic ending iju, iii > z2, i N. and amurri2, sing. plural. was shortened to u, i in many cases. Hence we G. amurrí,8&dquo; &dquo; find Misri and ~llisri employed indifferently in the A. amurrâ,9&dquo; &dquo; Amarna Letters. Now the iiia > a~ 17 does not appear in So we have already in the classical period the ending until Aramaic influence becomes mani- 2 Babylonian 1 Knudtzon, 286, 19. Ibid. 286, 56. 3 4 feist in the Cassite The Assyrians appear Ibid. 288, 38. Ibid. 299, 24. period. 5 to have it and it in not im- That is the ordinary rule in Arabic also, see Wright, adopted first, is, fact, Arabic Grammar, § 254, and Brockelman, Vergleichende probable that the Assyrians were themselves of Grammatik, i. § 220. Aramaic stock. At any rate, the Assyrians at first 6 Delitzsch, Assyrische Grammatik2, p. 184 ; Meissner, added case-endings to lila, obtaining dia-r2 > z2 and Assyrische Grammatik, p. 24; Ungnad, Babylonz-scla Assyrische Grammatik, p. 28. None of these writers help the student in the least regarding the syntax and declension 10 An accusative (Ungnad, Babylortische Briefe, No. 81, of gentilics ; Böhl, Die Sprache der Amarnabriefe, does not 15- 17). Ungnad regards it as a nominative here. The mention gentilics at all ; and Ebeling’s monograph on the passage is broken. grammar of the Amarna Letters is confined to the verb, see 11 Poebel, Historical and Grammatical Texts, No. 34, Col. Beiträge zur Assyriologie, vol. viii. part 2, 39-79. 17, 22. 7 By analogy with plural diptote ending û, î. 12 Langdon, Neubabylonische Königsinschriften, 104. 19. 8 See Schorr, Altbabylonische Rechtsurkunden, No. 269, 13 Ibid. 92. 16. I and 21. 14 L. W. King, Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian 9 The only accusative gentilic form known to me is Kings, ii. 81 ; cf. the full form Aramû, 59. 8. amura-am in Thureau-Dangin, Recueil de Tablettes Chal- 15 I. Rawlinson, 37. 37. 16 déennes, No. 85, and 124 Rev. 4 (cited by Ungnad, See Schiffer, Die Aramäer, 8-9, and p. 157, et passim. 17 Materialien zur Akkadischen Sprache, 92). Written a-a.
Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on March 17, 2015 326
3~-/ > ai > 9 (genitive-accusative). So we have the extraordinary treaties made by the kings AlflamÛ, ‘theAhlamite,’1 and the uncontracted form of Hatti with Mittanni, Nuhasse, and Kizzu- anrelz<
1 Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi, by Figulla and Weidner, 9 An unknown people; ilāni lu-la- ah-hi is a generic vol. i. p. 39. 37. construction. 2 King, Annals of the Kings of Assyria, 62. 36. 10 Figulla-Weidner, Boghazköi, i. p. 21,27-29. 3 Amarna Letters, Knudtzon, No. 8, 31 ; Boghazköi, ibid. 11 ilāni-lu-la-hi-i. Note the unshortened gentilic, proving.. i. p. 3. 50. lulahhi and habirito be gentilics. 4 Klauber, Politisch-Religiöse Texte, No. 25, Rev. io. 12 (ilāni SA-GAZ). Figulla-Weidner, i. p. 7, 50. 5 So Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, i. 389-396. 13 For this variant of Lulahhi another Subbiluliuma-Matti- 6 IV. Rawlinson, 34, No. 2, 5. uāza treaty has ilani-ša nu-la-ah-[hi ilāni ša amel] SA-GAZ. 7 Hilprecht, Old Babylonian Inscription No. 149. Obv. ibid. p. 14, 4-5. A New 14 amel 22. See also Hinke, Boundary Stone, 190-5. Ibid. p. II, 27, ilāni ša SA-GAZ. , 8 King, Chronicles, vol. ii. 59. 15 Subbiluliuma may be dated 1400-1350 (circa).
Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on March 17, 2015 327 clusively a military signification in Assyrian texts, neighbour about the Habiru. The same com- and especially in the Amarna Letters, and the plaint comes from the city Hazi 5 concerning the new texts of the Hittite archives. Asiatic armies invading sa-gaz.6 Similar complaints come from always associated war with plunder, and invariably Kades in Syria on the Orontes 7 and Gebal on the say that they ‘ plundered’ a land when they cap- coast north of Beirut,8 whose governor infers that tured it; !Jabballl is, then, a word for ‘fighting man,’ the saaaz were in employ of the Amorite army.9 and it was translated into Sumerian correctly From the letters of Rib-Addi of Gebal it seems sa gaz = sagg az, ‘ to smite the head,’ to slay. An that the mercenary army of the sqgaz held pos- ancient Sumerian incantation describes the gallÛ session of all the coast land between the Orontes demon as the sa-gaz ~’‘u-nu-gi, ‘ the smiter who is and Beirut at the close of the fifteenth century, not turned back.’ 1 Even 1’etti, king of the north undoubtedly with the connivance of the Hittites, Syrian Hittite tribe of Nuhasse, is called an amel who were in alliance with the Amorites against sa-~az.2 The Babylonians invariably translated Egypt. Also the region of Sidon and Tyre in titles into Sumerian. Names of professions, religious north Palestine fell to the sagaz troops.10 and secular, in Babylonia, are either of Sumerian The possibility of identifying ~zabiru with the origin or translated into that official language. If Hebrew &dquo;731 is philologically unquestionable. and the Liabirite became a professional soldier, Objection to this was raised by Professor Luckenbill was his known as a mercenary fighting man, pro- in the AmericanJour7zal of Tlzeology, vol. xxii. p. 37. fession would have been translated into Sumerian because Winckler and B6hl had given out a pre- by force of custom. The very fact that the liminary report concerning the Hittite treaty with Habirite a that he held has Sumerian title proves Tetti, in which the reading ilani lj,a-ab-bi-ri was said a as a And his legal status professional soldier. to exist.&dquo; This statement was repeated by Professor title sa;-gaz > sagaz is the natural translation of J. Powis Smith in the American _ Journal of Semitic laabbatu, ’soldier.’ Languages, vol. xxxv. p. 230, in a review of Now it is obvious that a sa-gaz or ’fighting Dr. Burney’s Judges. The objection was made man’ might be of any nationality. It is com- that Habirie is really a kattil formation, and con- monly associated with the Habirites, but it may sequently the identification with ‘zhri would be have been used of any race or of any one who had impossible. But the cuneiform text now published art official status in some military power. The by Figulla and Weidner has ilani ha-bi-ri.l2 Cer- translation free booter,’ ’ roving soldier,’ will not tainly we must assume that these two careful do. Sagaz implies a legal military profession, editors, whose copies were collated by Hrozny, and in the Amarna Letters it almost certainly have given the true reading. refers to mercenary soldiers in the Hittite army. But the Habirites were already professional Beyond doubt the Habirites so lent themselves to soldiers in the army of Rim-Sin, king of Larsa this service that the generic term ’ Habirite’ be- (2155-2095), contemporary of Hammurabi, king came technically and legally a word for mercenary of Babylon (ara3-zo8o), who also employed them. soldier’; when the governors of Palestinian cities The evidence is as follows :-Shortly before the write to the king of Egypt and mention the sagaz, War a large number of tablets of this period were whereas the king of Jerusalem mentions only the sold in Europe and America from clandestine Habirites, they all refer to mercenary soldiers of digging of Arabs on the site of ancient Larsa, the Hittite army. The SutÛ who appear in the modern Senkereh. In 19155 P~re Scheil dis- Amarna period in much the same role as the I 5 located in north Palestine in the of Habiru are from the Usually region Tyre. expressly distinguished scag aa- 6 men.3 The of Gazri makes Knudtzon, Nos. 185-186. governor (Gezer) 7 Ibid.189. 8 Ibid. 68. about the as does his I 9 10 frequent complaint sa-gaz, I Ibid. No. 71, 21. Ibid. Nos. 144-149. 1 Lutz, Selected Sumerian and Babylonian Texts, No. 127, 11 See Bohl, Kanaanäer und Hebriier, p. 87. Böhl repeated Obv. i. 7. this reading as a note signed W(inckler) in Theologisch 2 Hrozny, Hethitische Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi, Tijdschrift, 1916, p. IS4. vol. i. 136, 137. 12 This genitive-accusative form is employed in the nomina- 3 Knudtzon, No. 318, 13. Letter from Dagantakala in tive case in the Hittite text. That need cause no surprise, south Palestine. See also 195, 27-29. for case-endings are employed loosely at this time even in 4 Ibid. 298, 27 ; 299, 18, 24. Assyrian.
Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on March 17, 2015 328 covered on a small Larsa record of the military E. Grice, No. 51. Eighteen sheep, food for archives of Rim-Sin this important record : ‘ Four the fighting men (sagaz), brought by Imgur- flounced cloaks for the sergeants of the ~~n~l.~la-bi-ri, Sin. Seals of the witnesses. Seventh received from Ibni-Adad the master workman. month. Same year as C. They are in the reckoning of the temple of F. Grice, No. 52. Thiry-five sheep, food for Shamash. [Delivered by] the hand of Ili-ippalzam. the fighting men (sagaz), brought by Sin- Month of Nisan, nth day, year when Rim-Sin I idinnam. Seals of the overseers. Ninth became king.’ 1 The laabiri in this Sumerian I month. Same year as C. record are obviously private soldiers, for they are I G. Grice, No. 53. Fourteen sheep, food for under the supervision of the uk~i-zis, Semitic naÛ, ¡ the fighting men (sagaz), brought by Abi- a military officer of low rank. A large number of tabum.. Seals of the witnesses. Same these Larsa records were sold to the Babylonian month and year as C. Collection of Yale University, and 253 of them have been neatly and accurately published by The Habirites or sagaz men thus appear in Miss E. M. Grice in Records , from Ur and Larsa, / history first as mercenaries in the service of Warad- dated in the Larsa D)I1Zast)!. In several of these i Sin (2167-2155), son of Kudurmabuk the Elamite, texts a1llelsa-gaz occurs ; it is obviously a variant and again in the first year of his more famous of habiru. I give a r6sum6 of each of the brother Rim-Sin. For this reason Scheil regards Sumerian records of Larsa which refer to the lz2 ; / them as an Elamitic, a Cassite, or lower Mesopo- sa-gaz or ‘ fighting man.’ ! tamian people. If we maintain the historicity of Genesis 14, and see in Ariok of Ellasar, Warad-Sin A. Grice, No. levied 2 for 33. Eighteen sheep of Larsa, in Kedorld’6mer of Elam, Kudurmabuk the N from two Seals sa-gaz, shepherds. the Elamite, father of Warad-Sin and Rim-Sin, of the overseers. nth month, 2Ist day. and in Amraphel Hammurabi of Babylon, then it Year when the court of Shamash was great is that these Habirites served in the built. of Warad-Sin. probable Reign armies of Larsa and Babylon when they invaded B. Grice, No. 47. Thirty-four sheep levied for Syria and Palestine in the age of Abraham the the lr2 from a Seals of sa-gaz, shepherd. Hebrew. That is the conclusion to which Scheil the overseers. i oth month. Same year adheres. I quite agree, however, with Dr. Burney 3 as A. on this question. There is no reason for assum- C. Grice, No. 50, Seventeen sheep lzi sa aaz-su, ing that the Habirites at Larsa were not a west ‘for the fighting men,’ brought by Ibassi-ili. Semitic people. In fact, the new Larsa tablets at Taken in charge by Ibni-Ea. Seals of the Yale University identify them with the sagaz who overseers. Ninth month. Year when Kazallu were also Habirites in the service of Hittites and was Unknown date. Either destroyed. Amorites of the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries. Warad-Sin or one of his immediate pre- served also in the armies of Hammurabi, decessors. They as we know from the following letter published by D. Grice, No. 46. ’for the Sheep fighting the late Professor L. W. King : 4 ’To Sin-idin- men,’ Taribum. Taken (sagaz) brought by nam thus writes Hammurabi : &dquo; When thou in Abu-tlbum. Seals of the say, charge by seest this tablet send to me Ili-tukulti the baker overseers. Ninth month. Same as C. year who is in the service Apil-Shamash, and who is 1 Revue d’Assyriologie, 12, 115. The word rendered now resident with Anu-pi-Sin the captain of the ’cloak’ was erroneously copied by Scheil. He should have amel sa-gaz pl..&dquo; , copied gù not kar in line I, as the ordinary ideogram gú-èn= The evidence, then, is conclusive for the identi- mahlaptu (Brünnow, 3293) shows. Gú-en, gú-an into passed fication of the at and Larsa in Semitic as guanakku and into Greek as καυν&aacgr;κη, kaunakes. Habiru Babylon the the The same group of Larsa texts at Yale University have the twenty-second to the twenty-first centuries with same ideogram copied by Miss Grice, Letters from Ur and Habiru in Syria, and Palestine six centuries later. Larsa, No. 165. They could have received the name sagaz only 2 maš-gid-a, a term in the contracts of Larsa meaning literallykid seized (as revenue),’ and corresponding to the 8 Israel’s Settlement in Canaan, p. 78. term šu-gid in the Drehem tablets. See Legrain, Le Temps 4 Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, No. 35. See des Rois d’UR, p. 29. also Ungnad, Babylonische Briefe, No. 26.
Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on March 17, 2015 329 from the Sumerians or Babylonians, most certainly speaks of their gods, and that need not surprise the latter, because they had a legal status as a us. Only the branch of their people led by class of people in the service of the State. Abraham and descended through the line of Jacob The Habirites appear, therefore, to have been received the revelation of monotheism. Were the .a wandering people precisely as Hebrew tradition Old Testament mere profane history few would describes the ?brim, the Israelites, and the sons of refuse to grant historicity to its traditions. Why Jacob. Were their heroic deeds in the services of should we not see in this Canaanitish people an Larsa, Babylon, and the Hittites also written in the ! ancient race who wandered into the civilized land Book of Jashar? When I first came upon the of Sumer and Akkad along with the western Larsa texts and discovered the undoubted identity Semites of Maer and Ari1Urru in the twenty-fourth of the Habiru of the twenty-second century with century and founded the dynasties of Isin (2356) those of the A marna period, their identity with the and Babylon (2224)? The subject is one which Hebrews of Old Testament tradition seemed im- invites endless conjecture. Volumes of doubtful possible.’ The implications were so large as to be value may be written from this inspiring theme overpowering. But with what other important and the whole structure overthrown by the pub- people can we identify them, even if we deny the lication of a single cuneiform tablet. I venture at perfect philological evidence ? The Hittite treaty any rate in the direction of accepting the historicity 1 That has been the opinion consistently advocated by of the traditions of Genesis as controlled by ex- Sayce. ternal sources.
Contribution and Comments.
’ Now it may be assumed that the best text of t6e TL4MC ~c6íft&dquo;B.. Tobit is that to which the editors Fritzsche and IN 1898 Messrs. Conybeare and R. Harris with Swete give the priority, viz. that of Codex B ; the Mrs. A. S. Lewis published some Syriac, Armenian, next best that to which they assign the second Greek, and Arabic texts containing the story of place, viz. the Sinaitic. The first of these has Achikar, and in 1911 E. Sachau published an regularly the form ’Ax«6xapos or ’AxcaXapos; the Aramaic copy of the same work, ostensibly belong- second varies between ’AXELXapo~, ’A,~ECaxapos, ing to a Jewish community which flourished at ’AxECrcap, ’AxEircapos, ’Axlxapos. Elephantine in the fifth century B.c. The Syriac Now the Greek X is used to transliterate the form of the name is 1p’’nK, and this is also found Hebrew I and n, the Greek rc for p. It is most in the Aramaic text. It admits of a Hebrew unlikely that when n and p occurred in the same etymology, ’Precious brother,’ to be pronounced word, they would both be transliterated by x. On akh yaqar. the other hand, there is a rule of Greek euphony Now this personage figures in the Book of Tobit, (Kfhner, Ausf. Gram~natik, i. ~ 67), which forbids which in i n mentions a place called Kao-ep4Et’v in the recurrence of an aspirate in successive syllables ; the Sinaitic text, Kac~apecav in another. The latter hence EKExECpLa is written for 9XEXEtpta, KaXXq8w’v name (Caesarea) would fix the date of the work or XaA.K~8a)t~, etc. There is then a sufficient reason well within the time of the Roman Empire; but for the alteration of ’AxEixapos to ’AXetKapo3, but the former, which is also Latin, being derived from not for the contrary alteration. Castrum or Castra, would indicate a date but little Now ’AxECaxapos stands for inn’TIK, which may earlier. Hence the evidence of the Book of Tobit be compared with n1nN (according to Gesenius for for the true name of Achikar is of importance; as, i1N of i Ch 81. This name means ’my if this form be a corruption which can be traced brother left behind,’ and appears to be translated within the MSS. of Tobit, it follows that the in 122 §v 8’E 1§d8eX§6s J1.°U’ which means he was Aramaic Achikar is not a work of the fifth century my brother’s son.’ A man’s posterity is called his B.C., but of the twentieth A.D. J&dquo;I~1nN, of which this verb is a denominative.
Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on March 17, 2015