TH E H O M E O F TH E N O RT H E R N

S E M I TE S

A S TU DY S HO W I NG T HA T TII E R ELI G I O N A ND

CU LT UR E OF I SRA EL AR E NO T O F

BA B Y L O N I N O RI G I N
A

A L BE RT T . C LA Y, PH D .

PR O FESS O R OF I I
SEM T C PH L I OO YL G A ND A RC H E OO Y L G

Y Y
,

U N I V E RS I T OF PE N NS LVA N AI

PH I L A D E LP H I A
Elb e fi u nha y fithnnl 611 m m 010 a
I 9 0 9
 C O Y I 1 909
P R G HT BY

TH E S UN DA Y S H OO TIM
C L ES O
C MP AN Y
 TO

PRO F E S S O R E D GA R FA HS S M IT H
PH D . . SC D . . LL D . .

V I C E P n o vo s r 0 17 T H E U N IV E R S I T Y OF P E NNS Y L V A N IA

B E L O VED BY C O L L EA G U E S
A ND S TU D E NT S

IN G RA T E FUL A PPRE C IAT IO N

 PREF A CE

These disc u ssions are the o u tgrowt h of The Re i n ic ker

Le ct u res for the year 1 908 delivered at the Protest ant
,

E pisco p al Theological S eminary A lexandria Virginia

, ,
.

I nstead of p u blishi ng the lect u res as delivered which ,

covered the su bject Recent D iscoveries in Bible Lands

,
“
,

it seemed preferable to present a special phase of the su b

j e c t which is here treated more f u lly th an in the lect ures
,
.

In the au thor s work L i ght on the Ol d Testa m en t

’
,

i rom B a b el a protest w as expressed against the clai m s

'

of the Pan Bab y l on i sts that Babylonia had extensively

-

infl u enced the c u lt u re of I srael Contin u ed researches

.

have opened u p new vistas of the su bj ect which con firm ,

the contention that the Pan B ab y l on i sts have not only

-

greatly overestimated the influ ence of the Babylonian

c u lture u pon I srael b u t that the S emitic Babylonians
,

came from the land of A m u rr u ; that is S yria and Pales ,

ti n e and that their c u ltu re w as an amalgamation of what

,

was once Amorite or West S emitic and the S u meri an

which they fo u nd in th e E u phrates valley .

I n order to make the main o u tlines of the s u bject

as well as the disc u ssions whi ch bear directly u pon the

Old Testament more readable the techn ical material

,

h as been confined largely to Part I I b u t frequ ent refer

,

e n ce s to it are made in Part I In stead of q u ot ing the

.

n u mbers of the pages referred to they will be fo u nd i n

,
6 A M U RRU H OM E O F N O R T H E R N S E M I T E S

the I ndex The au thor reali z es that in a n u mber of

.

instances other interpretations of certain individ u al

facts are possible Modification of views presented m u st
.

necessarily follow new discoveries as they are made ; b u t

nevertheless the writer believes that the main c on te n
tions will remain u ndist urbed .

To my colleagu es Professor J A Montgomery and Pro

,
. .

fessor Morris Jastrow Jr I am deeply gratef u l for their

,
.
,

gen ero u s help and enco u ragement d uring the preparation

of thi s boo k An d I also extend my hearty than k s for the
.

k ind assistance rendered by my friends Professor G A ,

. .

Barton of Bryn Maw r Professor W Max Muller of Phila

,
.
,

delphia ; Professor Arth ur Un g n a d Of Jena ; the Re v D r ,

. .

C H W John s Fellow at Cambridge Univer

. . .
,
sity ;
D r Hermann Ran k e of Berlin ; D r Arno Poe b e l of
.
,
.
,

E isenach ; and D r Wil l iam Hayes Ward of New Yor k

.
,
.

To all it gives m e p leas ure to ac k nowledge m y indebted

ness and extend my warm gratit u de Let me add in .
,

mentioning the names of these scholars that they are ,

in no wise responsible for the views expressed in these

lect u res .

A L B E RT T C L A Y . .

UNI V E RS ITY O F P E NN S YL V A NI A .
 C ON TE N T S

PAR T I .

IN TRO D U CT ORY REMARK S

CR E A T IO N S T ORY
THE S A B E A TII
A N TE D I L UV I A N
D EL U G E ”

OR I I N AL
G HO ME OF S EM I TI CU LT UR E
C

P A RT II .

A M UR RU I N T H E CUN E I OR M F I N s c R I PT I O N s
A M URRU I N W E S T S EMIT I C

A PP E N D I X .

I . UR OF THE
II . THE NA ME O F

III . THE NA ME S R ON
OF A G

IV . TH E NA ME NI N
V . TH E NA ME Y AH W E H .
 A BBR E V IA T I ONS

A D D —John s A ssy ri a D eeds n d D ocum e ts n a n

L —
. . . .
,

A . J . S . A m eric
. J ou r l f S em itic L n g uag es an na o a .

A K . . G . W —A b ha nd l u n g e n
i o o isc ist isc e Cl sse der
. de r ph l l g h -h or h n a

Ko i g l S ach sisch n isse c te. en Ge s e ll scha i t de r W ns ha f n .

A l tb b P ri —Meiss er Beitrag e
a . m A l tb b yl o isch e P ri
v . trecht n ,
zu a n n va .

A sie —Mii l l r A sie d E u rop ch A l tagypti h D km i l r ' ‘

n . e , n un a na sc en en c e n .

B A —B i t i g zu r A ssy riolog ie edi te d b y D l it z sch d H u p t

. . e rc
’

e , e an a .

B E —B b y l o i
. E pediti f th U i ersity f Pe s y l
a i
n an x on o e n v o nn va n a ,

V l I l d 2 Hil pr h t ; V I 1 R ke ; V I 2 P b l ; VI I I 1
o .
, an , ec , , an , , oe e , ,

Cl y ; I X Hil pr h t d Cl y ; X Cl y ; XIV Cl y ; XV Cl y ;
a , ec an a , a ,
a , a

d XX Hil pr h t
an ec

—
, .

B b yl i
a Edited b y V i r ll d
on a ca o eau

B e z ol d C t l og u —C t l g u e f th C u ei form T b l ets i th K y
. .

, a a e a a o o e n a n e ou un

j i k Coll ectio n .

Bro w H b D i —Brow D ri er d Bri g g s He b r w d E g l ish

n , e . e n ,
v an , e an n

L e ico f th Old Test m e t

x n o e a n

w L ist—A Cl ssi fi d L i st f Cu ei form I deog r ph s

.

Br
C T—
unn o , a e o n a .

. Cu i f rm Te ts fr m B b yl o i
. T b l et
ne t i th B ritish
o x o a n an a s, e c .
,
n e

M u seu m b y Ki g Pi ch es d Th o m pso n n an n

D éc ert s—d S r H y D r t
, , .

Ch l dee
Perse —
’ ’

ou v e e a ze c e u ze ,
e c ou ve r e s e n a .

D él S h il Te t s E l m it s S m i ti q D el eg ti
’

. en c e , x e a e e u es , a on en

Perse .

E ph m w i —L id b r k i E phem eris f r S em itisch e E p i g r ph ik

e s z a s u a

J B L —
.
,

. J r l f B i b l ic l L i t r tu re
. . ou n a o a e a .

J R A S —J u r l f th Roy l A s i tic S ociety

. . . o na o e a a

H rp er Letters—A s y ri
. .

a d B b ylo i Letters V ol s I to V I I s an an a n an

H W B —D el it zsc h A ss yri
.
, ,
.

. . H dw b t b h , an an r er u c .

Hub er Perso m e —D i , Perso me i der Kei l sch r i ft

n en n a n e n e n na n n

u rku de der Zeit d r Ka i g n Ur d Ni i n au s e n e von un s n .

J stro w R l D ie Rel i g io B b ylo ie s d A ssy r i e s

a e -
n a n n un n

K —K y ] k Col l cti o i B e zol d s C t l og u e f th B ritis h M u se m

, . .

’
ou un t e n n a a o e u .

K A T —D i K i l i
. . h i /t d d . A l te Te t m e t b y Zi m m er
3
e e nsc r en u n as s a n , n

d W i ck l er
an n .
10 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I TE S
K B —Kei l i n s c h ri ftli ch e B i b l i oth e lc
Kin g Ch ron icl es—C h ron icle s C on cern i n g
. .

, r
E a l y B a b y l on i an Ki n g s ,

V ol s I an d II
—S elte e A ssy risch e I d
. .

Meiss er n , I de og r . n e og ra m m e .

Meiss er n , S pp l mu e e t—S u ppl em e t

n n eu de n A ssyri ch s en War-ter

Mu ss A rn ol t D i t —Co ci e D icti ry f th A ssy ri L g g es

- e n s on a o e an an ua

F e tsch ri ft—O rie t l isch e S tu die

, .

NOl d k e e ,
Th odor N old k
s m n a n e e e zu

si b z i g ste Geb u rtst g

e n a

O L Z —0 ri t l i ti h I i t r t r Z ei tu g e d it d b y Pei er
.

. . en a s sc e / e a u -
n , e s .

P rol eg m e —D el it z sch P rol eg om e

o na ei s e H br h , na ne n eu n e a i sc

A r m ai h Wa t rb h m A l te Tes t m e t
a sc en re uc zu n a n .

P S B A —P roce d i g s f th S ociety f Bi b l ic l A rch ol ogy

. . . . e n o e o a ae .

R ke P N —E r l y B b yl i
an ,
Perso l N m es B E D V l I I I
. a a on a n na a , .
, o . .

R I
. etc or R w l i so — Th Cu ei form I scri ptio s f W e t r
, .
,
.
,
a n n e n n n o s e n

A si Vol s I to V a , . .

R ev A .
—Re u e d A yri l g i
ss . v
’
ss o o e .

R S — Re u S m i ti g
’

. . v e e ue .

R ec T b Ch l —
. Th a D g i Recu ei l de T b lettes Ch ldée
. a . u re a u - an n , a a n nes .

S tr ss m ier N b k N b
a etc —B b yl o isch Te te I sch ri fte
a , .
,
n .
,
. a n e x , n n von

Na b u chodon os or .

Ta ll q vi s t Na m en b u c h —N eu b a b y l on i s c h e s Na m en b u ch
,
zu de n Ges
c ha ftsu rku n d en .

V B —Th u re a u
D ie S um erische d A kk disch K -
D an g in n un a en on

h ri ft —V order i tisch e B i b l ioth ek I A b 1

. .
,

ig i s n sc en as a , ,
. .

V S — Vorder si tisch e S h ri ftd k m al V ol s I I I V I I etc U g d ‘

a a c en e r, n na
—Zeit ch ri ft fur A ssy riolog ie edited b y Be z ol d
. .
,

Z A or Zeit f ur A
’

ss s

Z A T W —
. . .
, . .
,

Zeitsch ri ft f r die lttest m e tl ich e W isse sch ft u a a n n a

Z D M G —
. . . .
,

. Zeitsch rift der D eutsch e M rg la di h Gesell sch ft

. . . n o en
'

n sc en a .
 I NTR ODU C T ORY REM AR KS

THE c urrent theory of S emitic scholars concern ing

the origin of the S emitic Babylonians is that they came
from Arabia and that after thei r c u lt u r e had developed
,

in Babylonia it w as carried westward into A m u rru

Palesti n e and S yria ) generally kn ow n as the land ‘

of the Am orites .

Witho u t attem pting to determi ne the u ltimate

origin of the S e m ites the w riter holds that every indi
,

cation resu lti n g from his investigations proves that

, ,

the movement of the S emi tes w as eas tward from Am urr u

a n d Aram from t h e lands of the West ) into Baby
lonia I n other words the c u ltu re of the S emi tic
.
,

Babylonians points if not to its origin at least to a

, ,

long development in Am u rr u before it was carried

into Babylonia .

As a matter of f act the earliest name for Northern ,

Babylonia in the inscriptions is Uri S h u m e r or .

S o u thern Babylonia was called E n gi and Northern

, ,

Babylonia was called Uri ; i e Babylonia as well as . .

, ,

the district extending to the shore of the Mediterran ean ,

was call e d Uri or Ari The name Uri or Ari it will be .

,

shown is very probably derived from A m u rru th e n ame of

, ,

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

.

S e e Ba rto n e i ic Ori g i ch p
S m t ns, a . I, an d P to
a n ,
r
E a ly Hi s t ry
o

of P l esti e
a n an d Sy i c h p s I I I —V I I I
r a, a . .

13
14 A M U RR U H OM E OF N ORTH E R N S EM I T E S
lon i a whi ch is Uri in the earliest k nown period of
,

S emitic Babylonian history i s a geographical extension ,

of the land in the West k nown as A m u rru or Uri , .

Not only was the name of the coun try A m u rru carried
to t h at region b u t it will also be demonstrated that the
,

c u lt u re of the S emitic Babylonians w as largely transported

from the West The A morites in movin g eastward
.

into Babylonia carried with them not only their religion ,

b u t their traditions s u ch as their creation story ante

, ,

dil u vian patriarchs del u ge legend etc I n considering

, ,
.

the position tak en by the Pan Bab yl on i sts in Part I -

,

concerning these and other su bjects the above state ,

ments which are f u lly disc ussed in Part I I shou ld be

, ,

k ept constantly in mind .

A little more than a decade ago there ap p eared in

Germany a school of critics k nown generally as t h e
Pa n Babylonian or As tral myt hological S chool
-
The-
.

parallels to certain feat u res of the Bible stories that are

fou nd in t h e Babylonian literat u re determined for the
Pan Ba b y l on ists that the origin of m u ch of the
-

Hebrew c u lt u re is to be fo u nd in Babylonian mythology .

The wor k of S t u ck en A stra lm ythen Part I on Abraham

, , , ,

pu blished in 1 896 which was followed by Part I I on

, ,

Lot in 1 89 7 may be said to be the beginning of these

, ,

efforts ; althou gh simi lar conce ptions of t h e Old Testa

ment antedate this work .

Professor Winckler of Berlin may be said to be the

, ,

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

from his pen following his Geschi chte I sra el s Vol I I

, ,
.
,

which w as p u blished in 1 9 0 0 he h as u nfolded his theory ,

 I N T R O D U CT O R Y R EM A RKS
of the Universe The world consists of heaven and
.

earth The heavens are s u bdivid e d into the northern

.

heavens the zodiac and the heavenly ocean The

, ,
.

earthly p art of the u niverse also consists of a threefold

di vision the heaven the earth and the waters beneath
, , ,

the earth I n this system the si g ns of the zodiac play

.

the imp ortant part for the planets as they passed,

thro u gh the heavens enabled the astrologers to inter

pret the will of their deities Upon these ideas a com .

pl e te cosmological system is wor k ed ou t The heavens .

,

corresponding to the earth reflect their infl u ence u pon ,

it with the resu lt that everything in heaven has its

,

co un terpart on earth The gods of heaven have dwell .

ings on earth presided over by earth ly kings who

, ,

as representatives of the gods are considered their

incarnations The heavens reveal the past present

.
, ,

a n d the f u t u re for those who co u ld read them What .

occ u rs on eart h is only a copy of what occ u rred in

heaven As trology therefore was the all —
.
,
important ,

test an d interpreter of ancient history All ancient .

nations incl u ding I srael practised it or were infl u enced

, ,

by it .

The p eriodic changes in the positions of the heavenly

b od i e s gave rise to certain sacred n u mbers These .

Winckler u ses to S h ow the bearing of the Babylonian

as tral myt hology u pon thi n gs I sraelitish A c c ording .

to his views not only is the I sraelitish c u lt dependent

,

u pon Babylonian originals b u t also the patriarchs ,

and other lead ers of I srael su c h as Josh u a Gideon , , ,

S au l D avid and others a re s un or l u n a r mythological

, , ,

personages .
 16 A M U RR U HOM E O F N ORT H E R N S E M I T E S

Abraham and Lot are the same as the Gem i n i ,

called by the Roman s Castor and Poll u x Abraham .

,

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

forms of Ta m m u z (who w as a solar god ) and I shta r ,

the former being the brother and brideg room of the

latter As I shta r w as the dau ghter of S i n the moon
.
,

god Abraham mu st be a moon god ; for h e went from

,
-

Ur to Har a n two places dedicat e d to that deity

,
Many .

cir c u ms tances of the myths concerning Abraham cor

roborate this The 3 1 8 men who were A braham s
.
’

allies in the fo u rteenth chapter of Genesis are the 3 1 8

, ,

days of the year when the moon is visible Al l Baby .

lonian gods were represented by n u mbers Kirjath .

arba the one center of Abraham myths means the

, ,
“
city of Arba or fo u r A rb a m u st then be the moon
,
.

god which has fo u r phases Beersheba the seven .

,
“

wells another cen ter with which Abraham myths were

”
,

identified also represents the moon becau se there are

, ,

seven days in each phase of the moon I saac who .

,

lived at Beersheba mu st therefore also be a moon

, , ,

deity The fou r wives of Jacob show that he also is

.

the same His twelve sons are the twelve months

. .

Leah s seven sons are the gods of the wee k The twelve
’
.

h un dred pieces Of silver which Benj amin received

represent a m u ltiple of the thirty days of the month ;
and the five chan ges of garments that he received a re
the five intercalary days of the Babylonian year .

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

, ,
-
.

Hi s d re am shows the priority of the s u n E sau i d e n ti .

fie d wi th E dom is th e s a m e as is shown by his , '

redn e ss The sto ri e s of Mose s Joshu a (who i s a h

.
,
~
18 A M U RR U HOM E OF N O RT H E R N S EM I T E S
Dr . Jeremias of L eip z ig by his p u blication
A lfr e d , , ,

D a s A l te Te s ta m e n t i m L i ch te d e s a l ten Ori en ts has popu ,

larized the views of this school b u t fortu nately mak es ,

his position more reasonable by admitting the possi

b i li ty that the patriarchs may be historical p ersonages ;
for example the twelve sons of Jacob he says re pre
, , ,

sent the zodi acal signs and yet it is possible that they
‘
,

may be hi storical persons .

Professor Jensen of Marb u rg in a work pu blished

, ,

in 1 9 06 of over a thou sand pages Da s Gi lga m esch

, ,

E pos i n der We ltli tera tu r fin ds the origin of the biblical ,

characters of Abraham down to Christ incl u ding John ,

the Baptist in t hi s Babylonian collection of sun myths

,
-
.

The Gospels h e calls Myth og ra ph s “ ”

E ven references .

to biblical c h aracters in the ancient monu ments ar e

explained away or no acco u nt is taken of them

,
.

I n s h ort the origin of what we know as I sraelitish is

,

really an adaptation by late Hebrew writers of the

Babylonian sun myt h s which had been woven together
-
,

into w h at is known as the Gilgamesh epic .

I n one of the pamphlets iss u ed thi s year by Jensen ,

entitled Moses J esu s Pa u lu s he defends his V iews ,

against his critics His position is stated in t he words :

.

The old I sraelitish history the history of Jesu s of

“
,

Nazareth h as collapsed and the apostolic history has

—
, ,

been exploded Babylon has laid Babylon in r u i ns a

.

catastrophe for the Old and New Testament science ,

b u t tru ly not un deserved ; a catastrophe for the myt hol

ogy of ou r ch u rch and syn agog u e which reaches into ,

ou r present time li k e a bea u tif u l r u i n

”
.
 I N T R O D U C TO R Y R E M A RK S
By the expression Babylon has laid Babylon in
,

r ui ns Prof Jensen evidently me an s that the discoveries

,
.

w hich have been u sed to establish the historical val u e of

the Old Testament are now us ed to show that the fo u nda
tions u p on which t h e Christian and Jewis h theology rest
are borrowed from Babylonian mythology The same .

phr as e in q u estion is however eq u ally applicable in

, ,

these lect u res for the claim is that Babylonian researches

,

show t h at the contentions of the Pan Bab yl on i sts are -

witho u t fo u ndation and that the literat u re of I srael is

,

not to be regarded as being compose d of transformed

Babyloni an and Assyrian myt hs .

S ome of these scholars and their followers hold that

only a change of names has taken place On the one .

hand all that originally belonged to Mard u k is trans

,

ferred to Christ ; and on the other the legends of Gilg a ,

mesh have been adopted and adapted by t h e Hebrews

—
,

s o t h at all whic h refers to the life of C hrist his p assion ,

his death his descent his resu rrection and his as een
sion —are to be explained as h avi ng their origin in Baby
, ,

lonian my thology .

Al tho u gh t h ese t h eories h ave b een a dvanced by

some of the foremost scholars they need more proof ,

before t h ey can be serio u sly considered as more than

conject u res simi lar to those that have been based on
Greek and Roman mythology for cent u ries The .

an thropomor phic c h aracter of the gods enables one to

find parallels in one form or another for practically
, ,

everything that too k plac e in the lives of all biblical

c haracters even in that of the Nazarene
,
F or example .
,
20 A M U RR U HOM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM IT E S
in Gree k myt hology Tammu z the darl ing of A ph
, ,

rodite w as slain ; b u t on the third day they rej oiced

—
,

at the res rrection of this lord of light wh o also was

u

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

cou ld not be desired Fu rthe r t his name l . h as,

aw

rightly been said to represent closely t h e divine name

Yahweh as it appears in the inscriptions ; hence addi
,

ti on a l f ar reachin g conject u res cou ld be o ffered

-
As a .

matter of fact Gree k mythology offers far more interest

,

ing p a rallels th an the Babylonian .

Th e Germa n savants who belong to th is school

have their cou nterparts in E ngland and on t his
side of the Atl antic The celestial light has p enetrated
.

these s h ores an d we have seen in t h e p ast an d are

beginning to se e more and more t h e reflections flare
u p in a modified as well as in an intensified form .

Th e dependence of the c ul t u re of I srael u p on

Babylonia seems to be conceded by almost every
scholar T his conception h as grown steadily within
.

the last few decades s o that the edifice whic h has been
,

re ared h as now reached its f u ll height the ca pstone ,

h as been se t an d the str u ct u re is complete

,
A chan ge .

of names that is all and a Babyloni an deity Mardu k

, , ,

or Bel becomes Christ

,
.

The writer feels that the very height to wh ic h

thi s creation h as attained is the sal u tary feat u re of the
whole e ff ort for the fo u ndation u pon whic h it rests is
,

of s u ch a c haracter that it will s u rely cau se t h e entire

str u ct u re to fall I t is not the p u rpose of this discu ssion
.

to tak e do wn one stone after another and su bmit them

 I N TR O D U C T O R Y R E M A R KS
to an examination and so endeavor to red u ce the ,

height an d k eep the b ui lding within pro per proportions ;

b u t it i s the p u rpose to exa m ine caref u lly the very
fo u ndation stones of the str u ct u re and ascertain u pon
what it rests .

Before di sc u ssing some of the important claims of these

critics a word may be said wit h reference to the Baby
,

lonian astral ideas and I srael In the first place contrary .

,

to the p osition tak en by Winckler and his school that as

tron om y too k its rise in the early period of Babylonian
history it is now maintained by Ku g l er J astrow and
, ,
l
,
2

others that the period when the science of astronomy w as

,

developed in Babylonia was between the fou rt h and

se cond cent uries B C that is to say du ring the p eriod
. .
, ,

of Gre ek infl u ence in the E u phrates Valley Ku gler .

3

dates the earliest astronomical tablet 5 22 B C althou gh ,

he ad m its that it shows evidence of being revised from

an earlier tablet While an argu ment e si len ti o is pre
.

cariou s this absence of astronomical inscriptions of the

,

character that is su pposed to have influ enced I srael is

strikingly significant .

More import an t is the fact that there is absol u tely

no proof for the existence of su ch an astral conception
of the un iverse in the Old Testament I n fact as far .
,

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

Kult u rh istorisch e B ede tu u ng der B a b yl o isch e

n n A stro no m ie , p
.

38 f f .

2
Proceedi g s n of the Am eric an P h i l osoph ic al S ociety X L VI I
, ,

No 1 9 0
.
,
1 90 8 , p 66 7
. .

3
S ter ku de n n u nd S ter d ie t in ns n e
Ba b l, I , p 2 . .
22 A M U RR U HO M E OF N O R T H E RN S EM I T E S
u pon which these astral theories rest S urely th e .
1

inj un ction to have nothing to do with astrology c an not

be constr u ed as co u ntenancing it I n D e u teronomy .

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

the sun moon or any of the host of heaven shou ld be

, , ,

p u t to death The same

. spirit is maintained in D eu

te ron om y 4 1 5 1 9 S e e also in what contempt and

,
.

ridi c u le the prophet (I s 47 1 3 ) spoke of the astrologers

.
,

star gazers and monthly prognosticators when he tells

-
, ,

th e people to let these save them from the comi ng

disasters That the people of Canaan or rather of
.
,

A mu rru worshiped the sun moon an d stars an d

, , ,

perhaps divined by them see m s to be evident from ,

these inj u nctions ; b u t the legislation against astrology

in I srael su rely is s u fficient proof that it had not pene
trate d the c u lt even if some of the people were infl u enced
,

by it .

The same is tr u e of liver divination which serves ,

as another ill u stration of I srael s attit u de towards s u ch

’

practises The requ irement of the Mosaic law to

.

destroy the so called cau l above the liver is a proof

-
” “

that in I srael divination by the liver was not sanctioned .

W e k now that the Babylonians believed that by

inspecting the liver of the sheep they cou ld asce r
tain what the gods desired to commun icate to them .

Thro u gh the researches of Professor Jastrow we have ,

2

obtained an excellent u nderst an ding of this practise

of the Babylonians The Gree k s Romans and .
, ,

1
S Ro g ers Rel i g io
ee f B b yl o i
,
d A ss y ri
n o p 2 20
a n a an a, . .

S h i Rel ig io B b yl o ie s
ee s d A ss y rie s I I p 1 74 ff
n a n n un n , ,
. .
 I N TR O D U C T O R Y E
R M A R KS

E tr u scans also divined by the liver To what

extent the peoples of Am u rr u practised hepatoscopy is
not kno wn Bu t in the Pentate u ch in no less than
.
,

ten passa ges a protest is implied against this k ind of

divination The ordinance provides for the b u rning
.
l

of the cau l above the liver which Professor Moore

“
,
”

h as shown refers to the fin g e r shaped appendix of the -

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

to be eaten The reason they were requ ired to b u rn

.

this p art of the liver as Professor J a strow has su gge sted

, ,

is that it was a symbolical protest against the u se of the

liver for divination p u rposes By destroying this .

portion which played s u ch an important part in hepa

,

tos copy the people were warned not to divert the

,

sacrifice into a form of divination We reach there .

,

fore the same concl u sion The c u lt while recognizin g

,
.
,

the existence of su ch practises cannot be said to be ,

even tainted with them ; b u t by its protests emphasizes

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

the same time it cannot be said that these regu lations

,

were directed especially agai nst Babylonian in fl u ences ;

becau se astrolog y and liver divination appear to have
been widespread in antiqu ity and do u btless were in vogu e
,

among other peoples beside those already m e n ti on e d ln h -

all probability among the Canaanite nations .

Many theories of these and other scholars have

arisen and have fo u nd acceptan ce on th e s u ppositio n ,

that th e re is no antiqu ity for the Hebr e w c u lt u re as early

Le v 3
. : 4, 9 :
24 A M U R RU H OM E OF N O RT H E R N S EMI T E S
as A braham s time The ancestors of the Hebrews are
’
.

considered by m an y of these writers to be noma dic Arabs

who came u p fro m Arabia abou t the time of Abraham ;
not becaus e one iota of evidence h as been produ ced to
di scredit the acco u nts concerning the origin of t h e
Hebrews as preserved in the Old Testament namely
, , ,

that they came from Aram (or Aram Nah ara i m ) -

,

b u t simply becau se the spec u lations of these scholars

have led them to su ch concl u sions An d yet contrary .
,

to what has been claimed many discoveries that have

,

been made in the past decades of research an d investi

g a ti on tend to show the historical val u e of these relics
of antiqui ty .

Let us inqui re what the excavations have thu s far

revealed concern ing this interpenetration of the Baby
lonian c u ltu re in I srael D uring the past years explora
.

tions have been condu cted principally at fo ur sites in

Palestine belonging to the early period namely Lachish , ,

and Gezer in the S o u th and Ta a n n e k and Megiddo in

,
‘

the Nort h On first impressions these excavations might

.

serve the Pan Bab yl on ists better than anything else

-

with arg u ments for the mythological character of the

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

act u ally lived in Palestine we wo u ld scarcely have

,

inferred it from what these excavations have revealed .

However according to the recent report of Macalister an

, ,

interesting old Hebrew calendar inscription has been

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

sixth cent u ry B C b u t Li d zb ars k i thi n k s it is the oldest

, ,

or at all events one of the oldest of West S emitic ,

26 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O RT H R E N S EM I T E S
Thi s mu ch can be em p has ized withou t taking into ,

consideration the clay tablets fou nd in that di strict which

.

will be di sc u ssed later : the excavations condu cted

in Palestine do not show any Babylonian infl u ence in
the early period of I sraelitish h istory nor in the pre ,

I sraelitis h In the late Assyrian period when the

.
,

armi es Of that nation again and again overran the land ,

when As syrian officials in m an y cases were se t over

cities and pu t into control of affairs it is perfectly ,

nat u ral that traces of the Assyrians sho u ld be discovered ;

especially when we know that towns were repeopled
with As syrians after the natives were carried i nto exile .

Whi le proofs dependin g u pon antiqu i ties discovered

u p to the present which show s u ch an occ u pation are

exceedin gly slight it is perfectly proper to expect if

, ,

certain cities are excavated to hear at any time of the ,

fin ding of ma n y importations from As syria s u ch as ,

arms u tensils seals etc Bu t as stated above these

, , ,
.
, ,

will be fo u nd to belong to the time when Assyria w as

t h e domi nant power in Western Asia .

Af ter s u rveying the res u lts of the excavations c on

du cted in Palestine we mus t therefore ag ree with , ,

Nowac k who in his review of the work of S chum acher

,
1

and S te u ernagel at Tel e l Mu te sse l i m -

takes
issu e with those who claim predomi nant infl u ence of
Babylonian c u ltu re in Palestine from the third mil
l e n n i u m on He says : I t i s a di stu rb i n g b u t irref u table
.

fact that u ntil down to the fifth strat u m to the

Th eol Liter tu r itu

. a ze ng, 1 908 , NO . 26 .
 I N T R O D U C T O RY R E M A RK S
—
beginning of the eighth cent u ry important A ssyrian
infl u ences do not assert themselves I t is most .
” “

significant that in Megiddo not a single idol (Gottesbi ld)

from the As syrian Babylonian Pan theon has been -

fo u nd . S ome proofs of A ssyrian Babylonian i n -

fl u e n c e are first met in the fifth and sixth strat u m ;

while this is limited so far as I can s e e to the seals
, ,

fo un d there ”
.
1

On the other hand the relations with E gypt are ,

shown by the antiq u ities discovered to have existed

as early as the twelfth dynasty ; and mu ch evidence
has been sec u red to prove that the S emites in Canaan
were strongly infl u enced from that qu arter This is .

not s u rprising becau se of the proximity of E g ypt ,

and as regards I srael becau se the Hebrews for cent u ries

, ,

lived in that land ; b u t it fails to su bstantiate the

completely Babylonian nat u re of Canaanitis h civili
zati on in the cent u ries before the E xod u s or in fact ,

at any other time .

This predomin ance of E gyptian infl u ence as against

the Babylonian is well established in the art as re pre
sented u p on the seal cyl inders comi ng from this district .

S e ll i n s excavations at Tell Ta an n e k show that the

’ ‘

Palestini an s imported seal cylinders from Babylonia b u t ,

engraved u pon them E gyptian hieroglyphic symbols .

I n the seals which came from Ph oen i c i a incl u ding Pales ,

H —
tine and the au ran i n other words the Amorite l a nd or , ,

V i ce t C
See n n ,
a na a n d ’
ap res l pl ti
’
ex ora on rec te en , pp 3 4 1 , 4 3 9 ,
.

an d Cook Th Re l i g i
e ,
e on o f An ci t P l esti e
en a n , p 112 f
. .
28 AM U R RU H OM E OF N O RT HE RN S EM I TE S
the l and called A murr u in these disc u ssions —the E g y p
tian infl u ence is predominant as early as the third millen
ni u m B C S u ch elements a s the E gyptian hawk apron
. .
, ,

cru x a n sa ta papyrus flower lion sphynx vu lt u re etc

, , , ,
.
,

are mu ch in evi dence .

1

As set forth in Part II on A m u rru i n the We st ,

S em i ti c I n scri pti on s the excavations by Macalister and

,

others in Palestine poin t to the fact that the dominant

people in the Westland whom we call Amorites i n the , ,

millenni u m preceding the time of Moses were S emites ; ,

and f urther as shown in Part I I on A m u rru i n the

, ,

Cu n ei form I n scri pti on s there are evidences which deter ,

m i ne that i n the earliest kn own historical period the

Amorite c u lt u re w as already f u lly developed an d that it ,

played an important r61e in influ encing other peoples .

V ery appropriately therefore inqu iry sho u ld be made , ,

whether the E gyptian inscriptions throw an y light u pon

the qu estion D o they show that there was a c u lt u re in
.

that land in the early period ? I f s o was it a S emi tic ,

c u lt u re ? An d fin ally are there an y evidences that this ,

c u lt ure infl u enced other peoples ?

A m a ra or A m a ra in the E gyptian inscriptions is
’ ’
- - - -

known as a geographical term and refers to the Lebanon ,

region I t may even incl u de the coast being a vagu e

.
,

term for central S yria The race of the Amorites .

,

according to the E gyptian pict u res is S e m itic an d in no , ,

l
Se e W a rd Cyl i n ders
, and oth er An cie t S e l s
n a i n th e L b i r ry
a o f
J . Pierp on t M org an , p 89
. .
 I NT R O D U CT O RY E
R M A RKS

way disting u ished from the other inhabitants of so u thern

and middle S yria .
‘

Th e m on u m e n ts of E gypt not only f u rnish ample

'

evidence to prove that the civili z ation of S yria Palesti n e -

i s S emi tic and is as old as that of E gypt b u t on the

, ,
2
,

au thority of Prof W M Mii l l e r it may be stated that . . .

,

the beginnin gs of civilization in the Nile valley seem to

have been extensively infl u enced by the Western S emites .

Contr ary to the views Of most S emitists who have fol ,

lowed the writer of the E gyptian Prun k in sc h ri fte n “

,

which misrepresents the As iatics by describing them as

mi serable hu ngry dirty sand wanderers or the
, ,
“
,

S i n u he novel which endeavors to give the impression

,

that the p eople of Palestine were in a state Of barbarism

20 00 B C Prof Mii lle r maintains that in the districts of
,
.

arable land the people were agric u lt u ral and had ,

attained a fair degree of civilization The E gy ptian .

pict u res of the nomadic or half nomadic traders and mer

c e n ari e s coming to E gypt at that time show their skill

in metal wor k ing and weavin g Remar k able weapons .

and h an dsomely decorated garments are depicted .

Th is I l e r th th ority of Prof W M Mull er Th m

a n on e au . . . . e co

p ri o m d e b y Prof S y ce P tri rch l P lesti p 48 w ith th

a s n a . a , a a a a ne , .
, e

Lib y typ e (w hi ch stro g l y rese m b l es th S e m itic t ype ) w b se d

an n e as a

on a r t h er p oor p ict re of th p ri ce of A m r (L D 20 9 or
a u
“
e n
’
- a -
a
”
. ,

R ll i i M
os e n ,S tor p 1 43 t ; l
on . Petrie R i l Types) Better
.
, .
, e c . a so , ac a .

p ict ures of th Am orites w h r l w y s re prese te d S e m ites

e , o a e a a n as ,

r to b fo d i S th I tt cki g th l d of Q d h of th l d “
a e e un n e os a a n e an a es e an

of A m r ( R l l i i M S t r p 5 3 ; or Ch m pol l io M m t
a os e n ,
on . o .
, . a n on u en s .

p. d l so
anth p ict uare of th p ri ce of t h t c t
e y i W M e n a i n . .

Mull er E g ypt l Rese rch es I I pl 7

, o . a , , . .

S Mul l er Orie I i t Z eit X I p 40 3

ee , n . / . . , , . .
30 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
Already at thi s time a papyr u s speak s of Pharaoh s ’

messengers going to S yria with in scrib e d bric ks tied in

their loin cloths This give s us an earlier date for the
.
1

use Of the c un eiform script in E gypt and Western Asia .

Pharaoh Pe py abo u t 250 0 B C desc ribes his Asiatic

, ,

enemi es as largely agric u ltu ral and living in strongly ,

fortified cities I t wo u ld seem that some of the walls of

.

their cities were no less than fifty feet high Th e .

2

adoption of S yrian loan words shows powerf u l infl u ence

exercised by the S emi tes on E gypt before 3 0 00 B C .
2

E ven prior to Menes this S emitic civilization played an

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

Prof Miill er f urther i nf orms me that according to

.
,

ling ui stic and racial in di cations in the earliest time no ,

other th an the S emite appears to have lived in the

Am u rr u region where he became sedentary and ag ric ul
,

tu ral as early as the E gypti an in the Nile valley .

3

I n thi s conn ection a word is appropriate with refer

ence to the infl u ence of Babyloni an and S u meri an civil
i za ti on u pon E gypt There is little do u bt that the
.

S u merian c u lt ure will event u ally be shown to have

existed at a m u ch earlier date th an th u s far as certained
by the excavations in Babylonia Bu t to call E gypti an .

civilization a branch of the Babylonian or S u merian , ,

seems to be a statement witho u t su pport Contrary to .

the claims of Prof Homm el altho u gh it is q u ite li k ely

.
,

‘
Se e Mu ll er Orien L i t
, Zeit I V p 8 . . .
, , . .

Petrie D h h h pl 4 re prese ts
2
, es a s e , .
, n an As i tic city st r m e d b y
a o

Egyp ti s i th 5 th d y sty
an n e na .

S Mun eeOrie L i t Z ei t X p 40 3
e r, n . . .
, , . .
 I N TR O D U C T O R Y R EM A RKS
that the begin n i n gs of E gyptia n c ivili z atio n were bro u ght
from As ia not a single S u merian loan word h as been
,

sho w n to exist in E gyptian and yet the S u merian ,

contin u ed in u se as late as 200 0 B C and the Babylonian ,

lang u age was e xtensively a mi xt u re of the S u merian and

the S emitic The elements of c u lt u re that mi g rated
.

from Babylonia or S h u m e r to E gypt m us t have first

been adopted by the S emi tic i n habitants of S yria and ,

transmitted by them Nat u rally this forces us to regard

.
,

the barbaro u s S yrian of this early age in another light .

An d it also forces us to reali z e that the references to

Am mru in the oldest c u n e iform inscriptions are indi ca
tions of the correctness of the contentions for the early
civilization of that land I n short all this attests the
.
,

credibility of the clai m s made on the basis of the Pales

tinian excavations an d other researches that an ancient ,

S emi tic people with a not inconsiderable civilization

, ,

lived in Am u rr u prior to the time of Abraham .

I t is well kno w n that Babylonian and S u merian

r u lers in the earliest known historical period —that is ,

in the t hird and fo urth mi llen ni um s before Christ

conqu ered and held in su bjection the land of S yria and
Palestine I n thi s period Gu dea is fo un d importing
.

l i mestone alabaster cedars etc from the West even

, , ,
.
, ,

gold from the S inaitic p enins u la A su ccession of .

Babylonian r u lers claimed s u zerainty over this land

un til it fell into the hands of E lam With the over .

throw of that land Am u rr u (Palest ine an d S yria) came

,

again into the possession of Babylonia in Ha m m u ra b i s ’

time Later d u ring the eighteenth dyn asty of E gypt

.
, ,

it is fo u nd i n th e con trol of th e Pharaohs .

32 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O RT HE R 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
l i sh m e n t of the Babylonian lan g u age and script as the
official tongu e of the entire district con trolled as well ,

as of other parts of Western Asia a n d E g ypt Th e .

ability to mast e r this complicated a n d diffic ul t system

of writing many have thou ght speak s vol u mes for the
, ,

intelligence of the c ivili z ed peoples of Western Asia .

E d u cation O f scribes mus t have be e n widely spread ;

f or the le a rned knew how to write this cu mbersome
ideographic and phonetic script of the Babyloni an s .

We fin d the Hittite the Mi tan n aean the E gypti an the

.
, ,

Am orite and other peoples u sing it ; b u t the Hebrews

, ,

who have handed down a literat u re of a very hi gh order

pu rport ing to deal with a n d to come from this period ,

we are informed by critics were u ncivili z ed or ,

semi barbarou s nomads ; not that an y evidences of

-

an arch ze ol og i c a l or any other character have been

produ ced in su bstantiation of this view b u t simply ,

becau se the ir theories demand su ch concl us ions .

Perhaps the most importan t argu ment u sed by

scholars to show the infl u ence of Babylonia u pon
Can aan h as been the fact that among the tablets d i s
covered a t Tel e l Arn arn a in E gypt two Babylonian
-
, ,

epics were recovered This fact also f u rnished a de fi

.

nite time when the su ppose d Babyloni an in flu ence w as

exerted u pon Canaan On e of these myths contains
.

‘
Th e w r iter is of th s m l l m i ority
on e e a n who e ie es th t
b l v a

He b r ic (or Am or ic ) l iter t u re
a a w el laAr ,
as as am a ic h
,
as g re t
a a

anti q u it y p rior to th first m ill e iu m B C

e nn . .
34 A M U RR U HOM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
frame of mi nd to select from the older an d c u rrent
beliefs what sho ul d constitu te her faith The c ul t of .

the I sraelites grew u p u nder u nconscio u s i n fl u e mc e s

qui etly at work du ring the generations which preceded ,

reaching far bac k into the ages I t is however qu ite .

, ,

reasonable to su ppose that the c ul t ure of Canaan had more

or less i n fl u ence in on e way or an other u pon I srael I t is .

not improbable also that the Kenites with whom Moses

soj ou rned a n d with whom I srael came into contact
, ,

influ en ced the Hebrew c u lt b u t to what extent can

,

be determined only when we kn ow more abo u t t heir

civili z ations .

Natu rally if it is assum ed that the Babylonians

,

were the only people who had a religion in that era in

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

Bu t of co u rse this c an not be maintained

, ,
Philology .

and arc h mol og y have extended our h orizon so that ,

ou r conception of the civili z ations of that age is that

they were of a h ighly develope d character Wit h the .

A morites and Aramae ans in the North t h e E gyptians ,

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

,

c u ltu re in the land which they occ u pied it seems ,

un reasonable to ass u me s u ch a w h olesale de p endence

u pon far off Babylonian

- c u lt u re simply becau se in ,

certain periods Amu rr u was un der the control of Baby

lon or becau se certain literat u re some of whi ch is
, ,

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

,

that it was written u pon clay whereas most of the other,

nations wrote on perishable material ; and also becau se

two practically indestr u ctible tablets containing so
 I N TR O D U C TO RY E
R M A R KS 35

called Babylonian myths happened to have been fo un d

in E gypt On the con trary as the disc us sion pro
.
,

ce e d s we shall se e how Babylonia w as invaded by West

,

S emitic p eoples who carried their c u lt u re thither .

I t mu st be ac k nowledged that the Hebrew d u ring ,

th e m an y ages of his history h as been p ec u liarly s u bject

,

to the infl u ences of h is environment A notable char .

a c te ri sti c of the race is t h e adaptability of the people to

their s u rro u ndings Bu t here we sho u ld also recall that

.

Herodot u s said that the Persians more easily t h an

others ado pted foreign c u sto ms The infl u ence o f .

Babylonia u pon the habits and life of I srael after the

exile is well recogni z ed Bu t even thi s is greatly over
.

estimated for many t hin gs that are act u ally Aramaean

,

have been regarded as Babylonian Persian and He l .

lenie in fl u ences also are recognized We mu st not .

fail to remember however that du ring these periods

, ,

the nation was disorganized Bu t still in the pre exilic

.
,
-

period we have only to read the prophets and the codes ,

to se e h ow su sceptible I srael apparently w as to the

infl u ences at work abo u t them and how prone the ,

people were to wander .

We also learn that the high standard requ ired by

the codes was i n m a n y points not realized so that pre
.

cept and practise were widely separated There seems .

to have tak en place in many instances what may prop

, ,

erly be called an acco m modation to the act u al practises of

the people which crept into I srael in spite of the e fforts
,

of the leaders to k eep them ou t Moreover it wo u ld .

,

be un fair to the an cient lawgiver and to the leader s ,

36 A M U RR U HO M E OF N O RT H E R N S EM I TE S
of I srael if we ac kn owledged that the c u lt itse lf w as
,

even su bj ect to modification as the people became

acqu ainted with or were i n fl u enced by the practises of
the ir en vi ronment .

Gu nkel holds that as long as the I srae litic religion

was in its vi gor it a ssimilated actively this foreign
ma terial ; in later times when the religion had become
,

relaxed i n strength it swallowed foreign elements

, ,

feathers and all ”

.I f this statement of the readine ss
of I srael to assimilate in su c h a wholesale manner the
, ,

ide as o f foreign peoples depends u pon what has been

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

the verdict mu st be it rests u pon weak premises

,
.

Th at D elitzsch in hi s B a b el u n d Bi b e l lect ures is

, ,

right in calling Canaan at the time of the E xodu s a

domain of Babylonian c u lt u re is a stateme n t most
”
,

difficu lt to un derstan d in the light of the kn own

facts I f it were tr u e shoul d we not expect the
.
,

c hief deity of the Babylonians to figu re prom inently in

the West ? I f the infl u ence of the Babylonian religion
u p on the West were as great as is asserted by scholars ,

sho u ld we not ex p ect to fin d in the early literat u re of

that land for instance the name of Ma rdu k who for
, , ,

half a mi llenni u m prior to the E xodu s had been the

head o f the Babylonian p antheon ? This name was
u sed extensively in the nomenclat u re —the name ,

above all names the god that had absorbed the a ttri
,

b u tes and prerogatives of all other gods S urely if the .

,

infl u ence w as so extensive u pon the West we o u ght to ,

find the name Mard u k fig u ring pro m inently in the

 I N TR O D U C T O RY R E M A RK S
A marna letters in the Ta a n n e k inscriptions in the ‘
, ,

Cappadocian tablets p u blished by D elit z sch S ayce , ,

and Pinches a n d i n the portions of the Old Testament

,

belonging to the e arly p eriod Bu t with one exception .

,

in the Amarna letters where is the name ? The argu ,

ment e si l en ti o is u nscientific b u t this silence at least ,

is most significant An d where is the epithet of Ma rdu k

.

namely Bel wh ich was tak en from E l li l ? A ccordin g

, ,

to the revision of the Am arna texts by Kn u dtzon ,

the only occ m re n c e is the qu estionable [B]e [e]l [sh]a

'
- -

a [m ] every character of which is in do u bt An d .

where is the name E l li l in these letters from whom ,

1

the title Bél w as taken except in the name of Kada sh ,

ma n E lli l t he Babyloni an r ul er ?
-
,
E l li l is t h e lord of
lands to wh om the r u lers of the co u ntry ancient as well
, ,

as modern did obeisance at the great Ni ppu ri an s anc

,

tu ary and whose name fig u res so p rominently as an

,

element in personal names Why it can pro p erly be .

,

as ked is the mention of t h is deity ( who was considered

,

by t h e As syrians to be the god pa r excellence of the

Babylonians ) not fo un d in Palestine ? In t h e in scri p
tions of the C assite period Nu slcu is a most import an t ,

deity in the nomenclat u re At Nip pu r the name of .

N u sku together with that of E lli l and N I N I R is us ed

,
-
,

in t h e oat h formu la ; b u t where is t hi s deity fo u nd in the

literatu re of Canaan of this period ? The same is tr u e
of N erga l the god of Cu th a with the exceptions of the
, ,

Babyloni an myth fo u nd in E gypt Nergal s name in .

’

A cert i E l l i l b a i occ u rs i
a n th C pp d oci
- n t b l ets p b n e a a an a u

li h d b y S
s e d b y Pi c h es
a vc e , an n .
38 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O RT H E R N S E M IT E S
the Cassite pe riod is also extensively u s ed in the no men
c l a tu re In a tablet fou nd at Tell e l Amarna from A l a
.
1 -

s hi a whi ch i s s u pposed to be Cy pr u s a god M A S H M A S H

, ,
-

occu rs whi ch h as been read N erga l b u t for which a

, ,

better reading wou ld be L UGA L Urra Ki ng Uru ”

, ,

which is equ ivalent to Nergal b u t which is one of th e ,

names in the inscriptions for the great solar deity of

the West (see Part I I ) An d where is NI N LIL or .
-

N a n dior Ba u or GU LA or any other form of t he goddess

-

I shtar f o u nd ? Only in the letters from Mitann i w hic h ,

i s nort h of and in proximi ty to Assyria does the name ,

I shtar occ u r I nstead we find A s hi rta or A shra ti

.
, ,

which is the name of the goddess indigenou s to th e

land .

Am ong the deities in the A marna letters the Baby ,

lonian writing 1 3 an d NI N I R are fou nd ; b u t a s w e -

,

s hall s ee in Part I I these are c u neiform signs whic h

,

probably stood for the West S emi tic E shu and the Ba a l ‘

of Am u rru or M ashu I n other words they represent .

,

deities or e p ithets of the solar god or gods of t h e land

in which the letters were written namely Am urr u , ,
.

S ha m a sh Ada d Uru D a ga n etc are also fo u nd b u t

, , , ,
.
, , ,

as we shall se e the West is their proper h abitat In

,
.

Part I I it will be shown that Mardu k Nergal and ot her , ,

deities are Amoritish Then an explanation why .

these names are not fo un d in the early literatu re of the

West is in order As we shall se e in Part II while.
,

they are West S emitic they represent originally only ,

Se e Cl ay, B . E .
,
XIV and XV .
 I NT RO D U C T O RY R E M A R KS 39

di fferent forms of the same name of the same sol ar

deity of the West ; and that these di fferent writ ings
arose in di fferent centers thro u gh the adoption of the

c u neiform script of the S u merians whose scribes were ,

the first to write u pon clay for the S emites wh o

entered the Tigro E u phrates valley The very absence
-
.

of these names generally speak ing is proof that the

, ,

theory advanced is correct ; altho u gh it is most su r

prising that sporadic occ u rrences of Babylonian names
compo u nded with these elements in the names of the
West li k e E lli l ban i in the Ca pp adoci an tablets sho u ld
,
-
,

not be fo u nd F rom this p oint of view therefore it

.
, ,

mu st be acknowledged that t h e dependence of Canaan

u pon Babylonia in the period of the E xod u s is grossly

exaggerated I f the same claim had been made for the

.

Hittites more evidence wo u ld be fo un d in the A marna

,

letters to su bstantiate it Let me repeat the a rgu m en

.
,

tu m e si len ti o is p recario u s b u t when in the nomen

,

c l a tu re of Babylonia the Hittite the Mi tan n ae an ,

and ,

other W est S emitic infl u ences are so apparent we have ,

every right to expect to fin d traces of Babylonian

influ ence if what scholars have claimed is more than a con
,

j e c tu r
.e A fresh discovery may produ ce some of the re
qu i red data b u t still the position tak en by the Pan Baby
,
-

lonists cannot be maintained for the evidence against it

,

from man y points of view is overwhelmi ng .

I t has been asserted that the Babyloni an r u le h aving

been extended over this land by mi litary conqu est ,

not only the general c u lt u re and the alien lan g u age was
e nf orced u pon the people b u t also the Babylonian sy s
,
40 A M U RRU HOM E OF N O RT H E R N S EM I T E S
tem of law Hammurabi havi n g been s u zerain over
.

A murr u it was q u ite nat u ral to s u ppose that this great

,

lawgiver established his laws there as well as in Baby

lonia b u t this does not seem to have been the case
, .

We fin d interesting parallels of c u stoms practised among

the patriarc hs as for inst an ce t he adoption of his se r
, , ,

vant E liezer by Abraham ; S arah s giving Hagar to

, ,
’

her hu sb and for wife and the su bsequ ent treatment of

,

her ; Rachel giving her handmaid Bilhah to Jacob for

w ife etc
, .

While there are no parallels for these practises in

t h e Mosaic law the existence of su ch Babylonian c u stoms
,

in t h e case of Abraham and his immediate clan is

exactly what we sho u ld have expected ; for he and his
f amily had lived in Babylonia It i s therefore not .
, ,

necessary on acco un t of these facts to ass u me that

Hamm u rabi established his laws in Palestine I n .

tr u th these very facts are merely interesting and impor

,

tant exceptions ass uring us that we have a veritable

,

hi storical personage in the patriarch to deal with and ,

not the creation of a Hebrew fiction writer His early .

life w as spent in Babylonia where he received his e d u ,

cation His emigration to Palestine and residence t h ere

— —
.

as a shay h among his people a law nto hi se f wo u ld

k u m l
not requ ire u s to s u ppose that he had forgotten his
early traini n g and especially with reference to affairs of
,

everyday life At the same time i t wo u ld be un reason

.
,

able to s u ppose that the laws of Canaan were i n flu

e n c e d by this petty shaykh who we are told co u ld ,

gather only three hu ndred and eight e en men which ,

42 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
It is not my desire to attempt to minimize the i n fl u
e n c e s from the Tigro E u phrates valley u pon the c u lt u re
'
-

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

.

Unq u estionably s u ch a civilization as the S u meri an ,

whi ch as far as we know was highly developed as early

, ,

as th e fift h millenni u m B C a n d also the Assyro ,

Babylonian exerted an infl u ence u pon neighboring

,

peoples Wh at that infl u ence w as u pon the center of the

.

S emites from which the S emitic Babylonians came o f ,

co u rse is a di ff erent q u estion I t is well to bear in mind

,
.

that while the S um erians on the one hand greatly , ,

i nfl u enced the S e m itic c u lt u re which was bro u ght into

the coun try the S emites on the other had a great
infl u ence u pon the S u merians —not s o mu ch in their art
, , ,

as in their c u l t u re in general for the S emite seems to,

ha ve had little art worth imi tating By taking this more .

into acco un t it is not im probable that many of the di ffi

c u l ti e s bro u ght to light by the Hal evy school will find

their sol u tion for it is evident that the S emitic hordes

, ,

a s they are called which came into Babylonia greatly

,

infl u enced the c u ltu re of that land Bu t beyond su c h .

i nfl u ences as are du e to comm ercial relations and perhaps ,

the script it does not appear that the c u lt u re of Am u rr u

, ,

according to all th at we know from the excavations and

the mon u ments w as modified by Babylonian forces I n
,
.

short a caref ul consideration of the data at our di s

,

posal confirms the contention that many extravagant

statements have been made concerning the indebtedn ess
O f I s rael and the Western S emites to Babylonia .

F arther North it is apparent that the contact between

 I N TRO D U C T O R Y R E M A R KS
the Hittite and the Babylonian c u ltu re w as closer .

Whether the p eoples will u ltimately be shown to have

had intimate relations with one another remains to be
determined Mu tu al infl u ences however are shown by
.
, ,

a st u dy of the art The Babylonian i nfl u ence u pon that .

1

region is also apparent in the s o called Cappadocian -

tablets as well as i n the inscriptions from Mitanni The

,
.

influ ences from Babylonia or S h u m e rwhich fou nd their

way into E u rope dou btless were largely transmitted , ,

thro u gh the medi u m of these peoples in As ia Minor .

2

In fact we are j u stified in loo k ing for infl u ences at least ,

in o rthography among all the nations that ado pted the ,

Babylonian script for their own langu age This wou ld .

incl u de a people li k e the Am orites in so far as they ,

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

Se e Wa rd , Cyl i ders
c e t S e ls i th L i br ry f
n a nd other An i n a n e a o

J P ier p t M org
. p 9 3 w h fi ds B b yl o i i fl u e ces th
on an , .
, o n a n an n n on e

se l cyl i d ers cl sed d e fi itel y Hittites Th is re g io h cl im

a n as n as . n e a s

al so g ve i ret u r m ore th
a n d eit y to th B b yl o i p th eo
n a n on e e a n an an n .

A i teresti g il l str tio of th is is th B b y l o i

2
n n n ori g i of th
u a n e a n an n e

Pl to i c m b er
a n nu w h ic h h b ee
,
d e m o str te d b y as n n a

Au res a d A d m n d rece tl y di sc se d b y Hi l pr h t i B b yl o i
a , an n us ec , n a n an

E ped iti V l XX p t 1 d b y B rt O th B b y l o i “
x on , o .
, .
, an a on , n e a n an

O ri g i of Pl to s Nu m b er r l A m ri c Ori t l S ociety V l ”
J
’
n a , ou na e an en a , o .

29 , p . 21 0 .
 C R E A T I ON S T ORY

is a widely c u rrent theory that the cosmology of

IT
the ebrews as reflected in Genesis 2 : 4a as well
H ,
1 — ,

as in the prophets and in the poetic prod u ctions of

I srael w as borrowed from the Babylonians ; or as an

, ,

eminent scholar h as expressed himself in fact ,

“
,

no arch aeologist qu estions that the biblical c osm og

ony however altered in form and stripped of its
,

original polytheism is in its main ou tlines derived ,

”
from Bab yl on i a Certain scholars however while
.
l
, ,

as signing for literary reas ons all the pas sages in the Old

Testament dealing with the s o called Yahweh Te h om -

“
-

myth in their extant form to a period as late as the

”
, ,

exile h old that there w as a long development of the

,

Babylonian myth on Palestine soil Or as another writer .

,

p u ts it the Hebrew w as fo un ded u pon the Babyloni an

,
”
soon after t h e invasion of Canaan Ye s says S ayce .
2 “
, ,
“
the elements indeed of the Hebrew cosmology are all
, ,

Babylonian ; even the creative word itself w as a Baby

lonian conception as the story of Mardu k has shown ,

Gu n k el followed by others ass u mes a dependence

”3
us .
, ,

D ri er Com m e t ry Ge esis p 3 0 B rto i h i rticl e

1
v ,
n a on n ,
. . a n, n s a

on Ti m t
“
J r A m er Orie S V l X V 1 —27 w
a a ,
ou . of
. n . oc .
,
o .
, ,
as on e

th efirst w riters to m ke e te ded co m p ri o b et w ee th

a an x n a s n n e

Cre tio story of th B b yl o i s d G e esis S l so J strow

a n e a n an an n . ee a a ,

Jew ish Qu rterly Re iew 1 9 0 1 p 622

a v , ,
. .

Ro g ers Rel i g io f B b yl o i d A ss yri

2
,
n o p 1 39 a n a an a, . .

Rel i g io s f E g y pt
3
d B b ylo i
n o p 395 an a n a, . .

44
 C REA TI O N S TO R Y
of the biblical story i n Genesis in c l u ding several rem ,

nants in the Old Testament u pon the B abylonian ; b u t ,

the former was separated from the latter by a long

space of time These represent the views generally
.

adopted by w riters on the su bject namely that it , ,

w as ou t of this circle of infl u ences that the beginning

of I srael s conscio u s thinking abou t the wor k of crea
’

tion arose .

The sole arg u ment of val u e that has been advanced

for the Babylonian origin is that in p u rely I sraelite ,

environment it is impossible to se e how it sho u ld have

been Su p p osed that the p rimeval oce an alone existed
at the beginning for the manner in which the world
,

rises in the Hebraic story corresponds entirely to Baby

lonian climatic conditions where in the winter water ,

hol ds Sway everywhere u ntil the god of the spring sun

appears who p arts the water an d creates heaven and
,

earth This cosmology it is held mu st therefore

.
, ,

h ave had its origin in the all u vial plains s u ch as those ,

of Babylonia and not in the land of Palestine still less

, ,

in S yria or the Arabi an desert It also involves a .

special deity of spring or of the morning su n s u ch as ,

Mard u k w as an d Yahweh was not

,
.

I t mu st be ad m itted that the f u ndamental conceptions

expressed in the Hebrew story are not Palestinian in color ,

and that in all probability they are based u pon a common

inheritance There is a S u merian cosmology the f u n
.
,

d a m e n ta l idea of which is that water is the primeval

element for all the earth w as sea
,
”
I n those day s .
“

was b u ilt E rid u which is in the region where the

,
46 A M U R RU H OM E OF N O RTH E RN S EM I T E S
Hebrews generally regarded to have placed E den
a re ,

ou t of which a river went and from thence it w as parted

“
,

and became into four heads The biblical cosmology .

”

not only places E den in an all u vial plain b u t it recog ,

n i ze s water as the primeval element These ideas were .

held also by the E gypti an s Phoeni c ians and others and , ,

it is altogether reasonable to assu me that the Am orites

and Aramaeans had something similar In s o far it mu st .
,

be admitted that the biblical story embraces cosmological

conceptions similar to those fou nd among the S u meri an s
and other peoples ; b u t as Pinches pointed ou t when h e
, ,
1

p u blished this S u meri an legend whi ch belongs to an in

cantation tablet nothing is said in the fragment of a
,

conflict between Mardu k and Tiamat the chief theme ,

of the Babylonian legend .

The Mard u k Tiamat myth which belonged to the

-
,

Library of As hu rbanipal is a late and elaborated attempt ,

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

the legend as it has been handed down is the g l ori fic a

, ,

tion of the god Mardu k who as is well kn o w n absorbed , , ,

the prerogatives and attrib u tes of the other gods after ,

Hammu rabi cau sed him to be placed at the head of

the Babylonian pantheon That is to say it is qu ite .
,

apparent that the writer composed the work fro m

existing legends ?

Professors Ja strow S ayce and others recog nize, ,

3

two di fferent schools of thou ght represented in the

Jou r l f Roy l A si tic S o iety
na o a a c ,
1 89 1 , p 3 93. ff .

2
Cf J tro w R l f B b d A
. as ,
e . o a . an ss .
, p
40 7
. ff .

Re l i g io f E g y pt d B b y l o i
n o an a n a, p 3 76
. .
 C R E A TI O N S TO R Y
myth as is shown by the attempt to harmonize
,

two conflicting Conceptions I n the chaos symboli z ed by

.

Tiamat is seen the relic of a cosmology whi ch eman ated

from Nipp u r This it is claimed was adopted and
.
, ,

combined with the cosmology of E rid u that made

water the origin of all things Wit h the S u merian .

legend fo u nd by B as sam at S i ppara before u s which

, , ,

do u btless came from E ridu it seems qui te clear ,

that the Tiamat cosmology is entirely independent of it .

Bu t contrary to the asserted claims it cannot be said

, ,

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

Professor Jastrow who in ass u mi n g the composite

, ,

character of the Babylon ian Creation story sees a ,

1

version un derlying it which represents a conflict between

E a and A ps u This version which emanated from
.
,

E rid u mus t be viewed as the establishment of order

,

i n place of chaos Bu t I fail to appreciate the claim

.

made by certain As syriologists that there is a distinct

version of the episode whi ch originated at Nipp u r in ,

which Bel or E llil and Tiamat are the contestants .

The argu ments add u ced in su pport of the theory are

by no means concl u sive The transfer to Mard u k of
.

the prerogatives of E llil cannot be u sed to explain

th e origin of all that belongs to Mardu k for that deity ,

had an existence with proper attrib u tes before Ha m

m u ra b i conqu ered the E lamites and was able to ma k e,

him s u pplant the old b él m dtdti lord of lands ”

This ,
“
.

transfer of titles is de finitely se t forth in the myth where ,

S e e Nol d e k e , F e s ts c h ri fl , p 9 7 1 if
. .
48 A M U R RU HOM E OF N O RT H R E N S E M I T ES
the compiler in hi s efforts to glorify Mardu k bestows
, ,

u pon hi m all the attrib u tes which belonged to other

deities as well as E llil Bu t the statement which is

,
.

us ed to p rove that Mard u k s u pplanted E llil in t hi s

confli ct is not j u stified by any k nown facts namely , ,

that the description in the fo u rth tablet of the equ ip

ment of the god—that is the fou r winds lightning the
storm chariot an d the storm weapons—only fits E llil
, , ,

of Nipp ur and is totally incongr u o u s in the case of

,

Mardu k becau se one is a storm god an d the other a

,
-

solar deity The argu ment I repeat has little or no

.
, ,

weight for as will be seen below Mardu k the god of

, , , ,

light i s also a storm god A dad another representation

,
-
.
1
,

of a solar deity in the West is also the god of the ,

wi nds and storms The S u merian Ni n Gi rsu is simi .

-

l arly a solar and agri c u lt u ral deity This is perfectly .

‘

nat u ral as the sun recalls to life the sl u mbering powers

,

of nat u re ; b u t fertility is not only dependent u pon the

sun b u t also u pon rain
,
.

Thi s conflict between Mard u k an d Tiamat as Z i m ,

mern h as held is manifestly one of light against dar kness

2
, ,

i e the god of light with the god of dar k ness w hile the
. .
,

S u meri an symboli z es the establishment of order ou t of

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

altogether di ff erent character Mardu k on the other .

,

hand is p re eminently a solar deity ; and therefore

,
-
,

u ntil some indisp u table facts are produ ced to show

that Mardu k is not the original deity of the legend ,

1
Se e Je se
n n ,
K B
. V I , p 5 63
.
,
. .

E n c y c l op ce di a i ic
B b l a , c o l 73 3 . .
50 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T ES
the word tam d a se a and also Ti dm tu in this legend ,
“
, .

The chaos seems to be a Ph oenic ian idea also (se e below ) .

1

The absence of the us e of the stem in Babylonian ,

as above stated considered in connection with these ,

facts mak es the hypothesis that the Hebrews borrowed

,

thi s idea from the Babylonians exceedingly precarious ;

i n fact it is un re as onable to ass u me that the Hebrew
,

Teh Om is a modification of a Babylonian pattern The

‘
.

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

n ot been proved to be s u ch To s a y therefore tha t the .

, ,

origin of the Mard u k Tiamat myth is to be fo un d in a -

Ni ppu ri an version originally k nown as E llil Tiamat ,

-
,

is u tterly withou t fo u ndation With our presen t .

knowledge the only concl u sion at whi c h we can reason

,

ably arrive is that this is an importation from the West

,
.

The art as represented in the seal cylinders offers a

weighty argu ment for the comparatively late intro
du ction of this myth into Assyria A characteristic .

design of the As syrian period of the first m illenn i u m

B C is the conflict between the deity of order and
.

disorder which has incorporated certain elements from

,

the earlier cyl i nders depicting the battle between

Gilgamesh and wild beasts The composite prod u ction .
,

In Po g o
scri ptio s M d ites des co pes de Kh bi r
n n, In n an a u ou a ,

Nos .2 7 3 3 th w or d is l so fo
, , d i M d ic w h ich i
e Ar m ic a un n an a , s an a a

d i l ect Th p ss g e i w a rm N nm
a . e 173
a Po g o (p 6 5 ) g
a s
'
. n n . su

g ests h ere scrib l error d p roposes s nn m i b l ck

“ ”
a a b t an
'

,
. e .
,
a ,
u

Professor Mo t g o m ery w h c ll e d m y tte tio to th p ss g e

n ,
o a a n n e a a ,

tr sl tes i th de p th th l o w er b y sses Th t is s um i th
an a
“
n e ,
e a .
”
a s e

sa me th He b re w mn n
as e .
 C R E A TI O N S TO R Y
h owe ver is intended generally to portray the conflict
,

between Mard u k and Tiamat thou gh it is important to ,

bear i n mi nd that the battle between Mard u k and

Ti amat is never represented in the early Babylonian
art I t belongs as f ar as we know to the As syrian
.
1
, ,

p eriod which theref ore j u stifies u s in see k ing for the

,

origin of the myth elsewhere th an in Babylonia .

S u ch a confli ct a s h as been s h own is reflected in the , ,

Ol d Testament wh ere Yah we h pu t down a power of ,

darkness This i n fact is a dist inctive mark of Hebrew

.
, ,

theology reflected thro u gho u t t h e Ol d Testament .

I t passed over into t h e New Testament and h as become ,

t he h eritage of th e Christian C hu rch in the doctrine

of the fallen angel s Under the g u id ance o f a primeval .

leader certain an gels did not persevere in wisdom an d

,

righteo u sness b u t ap ostatized in consequ ence of w hich

, ,

the chief together with hi s followers was banished to

, ,

the eternal desertion of God Au gu stine it is intere st .

,

ing to note maintai ned that the fall of these angels

,

took place d u ring the age re presented by the second

verse of Genesis althou gh he does not seem to h ave ,

tak en into consideration the p assages in Job I saiah ,

an d the Psalms w hich refer to the conflict before the

creation of the heavens an d the e arth between Yahweh

and thi s primeval power of dar kness un der the names ,

Rahab Leviathan D r ag on or Te h om and the helpers

”2
, , .

W a r d Cyl i n d ers a n d Oth er A n cien t S ea l s

‘
, i n th e L b i r ry
a o f J .

P ie rpont M orga n p 1 7 , . .

’
Se e G kel S hb pf
un ,
c
‘

u ng u nd Ch o a s ; Cl ay, L i g ht on th e Old
Tes ta m en t f r m B b el p 6 9
o a , . .
52 A M U R RU HO M E OF N O RT H E R N S E M IT E S
The I sraelitish conception of S i n presu pposes infl u ence
from this primeval power of dar kness and its allies .

In Babylonian demonology t h e l i ll u eti m m u u tu kku , , ,

an d other destr u ctive demons p layed an imp ortant

r61e b u t the knowledge of s u c h a conflict between light
,

and darkness or between the god of light and the god

,

of dar kness as far as is kno w n in t he literat u re of Baby

,

lonia is con fined to this myth

,
.

S i mi l ar ideas seem to p revail also in the creation

story of the Ph oenicians E us ebi us who reprod u ces .
,

what a certain S an c h on i ath on has h anded do w n to

“

posterity a very ancient au thor wh o they testify

,

flo u rished before the Troj an war ”

says the Ph oen i ,
l

c i a n s believed that the beginning of all thi ngs was

“

a dark an d condensed windy air or a breeze of dar k air , ,

and a chaos t urbid and black as E reb us ”

I n the .

Phoenician also B i e emptiness ”

figu red as a
'

a av
,
. .
, ,
2

wife of / 9 l a ve 1 0 from whom spr an g the primeval

. xo / r
rca
,

men The .
j which is the same as the Hebrew
n ve v u a
,

rua h in the c h aos also fig u red promi nently in th e

,

Phoenician .

Nor is it strange t h at s u ch a conception as a monster

i n the fig u re of a dragon s h o u ld p revail in I sraelite
environment as some have claimed when we tak e a
, ,

slightly broader view of the sit u ation and realize that ,

we cannot localize this motive to certain inland cities

o cc u pied by I sr a el Hu ge monsters are familiar .

Se eCory A cie t F r g m e
,
n n a nt s , p . l .

Cf 171 3 of Ge esis 1 2
. n .
 CR EA TI O N S TO R Y 53

even now on the co ast of Am u rr u I t is only .

necess ary to refer to the story of Jonah with its ,

classical co u nterpart in the myth of Perse u s Andromeda -

,

localized at Joppa to meet this objection I n fact

,
.
,

according to our present knowledge we mu st concl u de ,

that this idea is di sti nctively Palestinian instead of ,

Babylonian .

What is tr u e of Ti d m tu can be said o f other elements

in the story e g the deity A psu is also West S emitic
,
. .
,
.

As will be seen in Part I I besides other elements L a hm u

,

an d L a ha m u are the same .

The com p osite character of the Babyloni an Creation

myt h being well established an d likewise that the amalga
,

mation of t he diversified elements took place some time

prior to the establishment of Ash u rb an i pal s library it ’
,

s eems reasonably certai n that the two cosmologies which ,

are clearly distingu ishable represent a S emitic myth com

,

ing from the West in which Mardu k the god of light is

, , ,

arrayed again st Tiamat the god of darkness and a

, ,

S u meri an myth pres u mably from E rid u res u lting in

, ,

the establishment of order by E a as ag ainst the chaos , ,

w hich is personified by Aps u .

S ch olars are mi stak en in as s um in g that there has

been a complete tr an spl a ntin g of the Babylonian myt h
to the soil of Yah wism or that the au thor of the biblical
,

story had before hi m not only the cosmological system

of the Babylonians b u t that p artic u l ar form which h as
,

been incorporated i nto the As syri an epic On the .

contrary in the light of these disc u ssions it seems

, ,

reasonably certain that the Western S emites who e mi

54 A M U R RU HOM E OF N OR T HE RN S EM I TE S
grated to Babylonia carried their tradition with them
1

to that land which in time w as combined with the

,

S um erian res u lting i n the prod u ction discover e d in the

,

library of Ash u rbanipal .

On th e m v m o e e t fro m th W est to th E t i th th ir d
n s e e as n e

e iu
m i ll n n m B C , see . . Cl y J r A m er O S XXVI I I p 1 42 ff
a ,
ou . . r
. oc .
, , . .
,

an d R ke O
an ,
. L Z M rc h 1 9 0 7
. a Thi h
,
b e c p te d b y Mey er
. s as e n a ce ,

G e ch icht d
s e os A ltertu m s I,
 THE S A BBA TH

F OR some ye ars a n u mber of Assy riologists who

have written u pon the S abbath of the Hebrews have
reached the concl u sion that not only the word S abbath
is Babyloni an indeed ”
b u t also that the instit u tion
,
1

orig inated in the Tig ro E u phrates valley This is well

-
.

expressed in the statement the S abbath rest was

,
“

e ssentially of Babylonian origin Or as is asserted ”2

.
,

by Gu nkel : The history of religio n however indicates , ,

that the observance of s u c h a holy day is a re n m an t of

an earlier time in the history of religion when man
believed in gods who according to their k ind belonged
,

to certain days ”
. F ollowing are the facts u pon whi c h
3

these concl u sion s rest .

I n Rawlinson I n scri pti on s of We stern A si a V ol I I

, ,
.
,

3 2 a —
,
b 1 6 the
,
eq u ation s h a —
pa t tu m um n u u h l i b b i
- - -

is f ou nd This h as been translated day of rest of

.
,
“

the heart and was s u pposed to contain the ge rm

,

of the Hebrew S abbath The word sha pa ttu m which

.
,

can also be read sha b a ttu m occ u rs in several syllabaries

, ,
‘

and has been explained by Professor Je nsen to mean

“
appeasement ( of the gods ) expiation penitential , ,
56 A M U RR U HO M E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
prayer from a root which means to conciliate
, .

Professor Z immern conj ect ured that the root means to “

desist . Bu t u p to the present the only explanation

”l

of sha b a ttu m from Babylonian so u rces is that it is a

synonym of ga m aru and means to be complete to be 2 “
,

f u ll.
”
An d this meaning becomes perfectly intelligible
in the light of the list of S u meri an and Babylonian days
of the month p u blished by Pinches from which we ,
3

learn that sha ba ttu m was the name of the fifteenth day
of the month ; a n d c onsidered in con nection with the
synonym ga m aru to be complete it do u btless had , ,
”

reference as has been s u ggested to the f u ll moon in the

, ,

middle of the month .

The idea originally advanced that am n ah l i b b i is a

day of the appeasement (of the gods ) or the day ”

for appe as in g the anger of the deity see m s to be correct .

This is f u rther ill u strated by personal names s u ch as

Li n i th l i bbi E lli l
‘
-
May the heart of E llil be appeased
-
,
“
,
”4

or L i n ah l i bbi i l dn i or N uh li b bi —
-
i l dn i I t is not -
,
5 -
.
°

improbable that on the day sha pa ttu m when the moon ,

K A T . . .
3
, p 593. .

2
Ra w .
,
V ie b e z h l d S b b t b i d
,
28 , 1 4e -f . He h n S n a un a a e en

B b y l o ier d i m Al te Test m e t Lei pz i g er S em i tische ”

a n n un n a n ,

S tu die ) h o l d s t h t h b d t ori g i l l y m e t to b co m pl ete l ik e ”

n a s a u na an e ,

g m aru ; d th t to rest is seco d ry m e i g A oth er i m “ ”

a an a a n a an n . n

p ort t tre tise rece tl y p u b l ish ed

an a th S b b t h is S bb t n d on e a a a a un

W och e i m A lte Test m e t b y M i h d w h t kes di ff ere t vie w

n a n ,
e n o ,
o a a n .

3
Old Test m e t i th Li g ht f th H istoric l Records p 5 27
a n n e o e a ,
. .

Cf Cl y B E . l VI I I a ,
. .
,
vo . .

B E . l X .
,
vo . .

B E . l VI I I vo . .
58 A M U R RU H OM E OF N ORTH RN S E EM I TE S
b u siness The k ing Shall brin g hi s offering at night
.

before Mard u k and I sht ar he shall mak e an off er i ng ; ,

hi s prayer shall be acceptable to god

”
.

This UD HUL— GAL or-

evil day observed not , ,

every seven days b u t accordi ng to the l un ar month

, ,

w as not a day of rest for the peo p le As seen t h ere .

,

were some su perstitio u s requ irements demanded of the

k in g on that day b u t not of the comm on people
,
.

The investigations of Joh n S Show that in the As syrian l

period in the eighth and seventh cent u ries before Christ

(7 0
2 the seventh fo u rteenth twenty —
first an d
, , ,

twenty eighth days do not Show any mar k ed abstem

-

tion from b u siness transactions The nineteenth day .

,

however does In examining the dated tablets of the

,
.

F irst dynasty of Babylon i e the time of A braham ,

. .
, ,

he concl u ded that there is a noticeable abstention on

these days b u t especially on the n i neteenth day Of a
,
.

total of 3 5 6 tablets the n um ber dated on the first day

,

of the month w as 39 ; on the seventh only 5 ; on the ,

fou rteenth 5 ; on the twenty first and twenty eighth

,
- -
,

each 8 Considering the month to h ave thi rty days

.
,

the average for each day of the mont h 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 spicio us for b us iness transactions as
determi ned by the dated contracts I f there were .
,

the fig u res do not prove anything In the Cas .

E xp o it ry Ti m e XV I I
s o s
, , p 5 67
. .
 TH E S A B B A TH 59

Site period the Temple Archives Show that the

average amo un t of b u siness was transacted on those
days as well as on the nineteenth As Johns observes.
,

however most of the Cassite doc u ments referrin g to

,

the affairs of the temple may necessitate their being

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

the F irst dynasty of Babylon and in the As syrian period ,

the nin eteenth day stands ou t as one u pon which S abbata

rian principles as regards the doing of b u siness may
h ave been at least partially observed I t seems it might .

h ave been a certain k ind of a holy day .

Besides this hemerology for the intercalary mont h

E l u l an d Marc h e sv an no f u rther light on the s u bject
,

h as been recovered . I n the Hammu rabi Code of laws ,

or i n fact i n the tho u sands of tablets that have been

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

beyond what h as been disc u ssed which even by inference

,

wo u ld seem to show that the Babylonians observed

su ch a rest every seven days .

This hemerology or religiou s calendar w as fo u nd in

, ,

the Library of As h u rbanipal and k nowin g the nat ure

, ,

of that Library it is not un reasonable to assu me that

,

hi s scribes having collected every kind of literat u re

, ,

ancient and modern fo un d in some section of the co u ntry

,

that su ch a l un ar day was observed by o fficials Know .

i n g as we do that I srael and J u dah were c arried to

Babylonia and Assyria an d placed in captivity a c u stom ,

that w as practised in all probability for mi llenni u ms ;

and that thi s gave rise to many commu n ities of Wes t
ern S emitic pe oples in th e E u phrates va lley it is not ,
60 A M U RR U HO M E O F N O R T H E RN S EM I T E S
u nreasonable to as s u me that at least in some places ,

where this element predominated the S abbath w as ,

observed in mu ch the same mann er as it was in Canaan .

Know i ng also that most of the p u blished contracts of

the F irst dynasty (when as was noticed by John s there , ,

was at least a falling off of b u siness transactions on

certain days ) come largely from a West S emitic center ,

it is not impossible to see here the resu lts of a West

S emitic i nfl u ence .

Fu rther it mu st be noted that the Library of

,

As hurbanipal belonged to the centu ry following the

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

T i l —
which cent u ry also g ath pil e ser (745 727 B C ) took
Abel Beth—
.

I j on
,
Maacah Janoah Kedesh Hazor
-
, , , ,

Gilead and Galilee and all the land of Naphtali and , ,

carried them captive to Assyria (2 Kings

That is in the cent u ry prior to the time the Library of
,

Ash urbanipal was gathered tho u sands of Palestinian ,

captives were bro u ght to As syria This fact mak es it .

altogether reasonable to expect to find some traces of

the Hebrew instit u tion .

Then also it can properly be assu med that other

Western S emites besides the Hebrews observed the
S abbath as for example the Aram aeans whence th e
, , , ,

Hebrews spr un g A s there is every indication in t h e

.
1

Old Testament that the instit u tion existed prior to

I srael and k nowing how for cent u ries prior to the
,

time of Ash urbanipal th e Aramaeans and A morites

Niel se D er lt r b isch e M o dhu lt Sh o w s th t i A r b i th ere
n ,
a a a n ,
a n a a

w ere se e
v n and t d y p eriods O b ser ed
en - a v .
 TH E S A B B A TH

were the prey of the E as tern k ings we have every ,

reas on to expec t to fin d some reflections of the ob se rv

ance of the day even from other th an Heb rew sou rces
in that l and .

This mu ch seems to be certain : The S abbath

as a day of rest observed every seven days h as not
, ,

been fo un d in the Babylonian literat u re While the .

h emerology of the late Assyrian period h as preserved

a kn owledge of a reg u lation involving the k ing and his
officials on the seventh fo u rteenth twenty first 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 restri c tions in order

toappease the gods it cannot even be j u stifiably ass u med
,

at the present time (except perhaps for the nineteenth

day ) that there w as any cessation from b u siness of any
kind or that there was a rest day for the people .

The very root from which the word is derived if

in u se in the As syro—
,

Babylonian lang u age is almost ,

u nknown and cannot be shown with ou r present k nowl

,

edge to have the meaning to rest cease or desist

“
,
.

I t is only necessary on the other han d for one to glance

, ,

at a dictionary of Hebrew words to be impressed with

the widely extended u sage of the root sha b a th to cease ,
“
,

desist rest to which the word S abbath belongs

, ,
” “
.

An d k nowing what this instit u tion was to the Hebrew

as is indicated in all the Old Testament codes—that it
,

w as not a day depending u pon the l u nar month b u t ,

w as observed every seventh day altho u gh there w as ,

In addition the new moon festival which w as also a

-
62 A M U R RU HO M E OF N O RT H E R N S EM IT E S
day of rest ; and f u rther appre c iating how extensive
w as the legislation concerni n g i t— that it meant not only
abstention from daily p u rs u its b u t w as a day of con
,

secration one which the people sanctified by a proper

,

observance ; that it was not an a u stere day for the k in g ,

so that the anger of the gods wo u ld be app e ased b u t ,

a day of rest for slave stranger and even beast ;

, ,

and tha t it wa s an instit u tion witho u t parallel

in ancient as well as in modern times yes the day
c e ll en ce among the Hebrews —i t seems evident
, ,

p a r e x ,

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

the Pan Bab y l on ists and others who hold similar views
-
, ,

are mistak en when they find the origin of the institu

ti on in Babylonia .
 A N TE D I L U V I A N PA T RI A R C HS

FOR some years Ass yriologists have declared that

the names of the antedil u vian patriarchs of Genesis
were borrowed from Babylonia as represented in the ,

antedil u vian mythological k ings in the list handed down

by Beros u s Z i m m ern Hommel Jeremias S ayce
.
,
l
,
2
,
3
,
‘

and others hold that the names of the Hebrew list in ,

part at least are direct translations of the Babylonian

,

names S ome even hold that they are the work of a

.

learned priest of the period of the Babylonian exi le .

Following is a list of the Chaldean k ings as q u oted

by Beros u s from E u sebi u s The forms of the Armenian
,
.
5

translation are here presented in Latin “

.

1 A/l w po g , Al OI O S f
'
’
.

2 A1 a n a p o c, Al a poru s , A l a pa u ru s, Al a pa ru s
’

. .

3 . Di a n/l a w
,
A l m e l on .

4 Di p/re m
.
,
A m m e n on .

5 . Me ra /l a po g , May a /l a m e, Am e g a l a ru s .

6 . Aa w vo g , Aa w g , Da (v ) on u s .

7 . E b e dw pa l os ,
‘
E b e dw p e ozo g , E d oran ch u s, E d ore sc h u s .

8 . A m e m ph si n u s .

K A . . 5 3 9 ff .

Proc . S oc B i b A
. . rch .
,
1 8 9 3 , 2 4 3 ff .

3
Da s A lte Test m e t etc p 1 1 9 a n , .
,
. .

E posit ry Ti m es M y 1 8 9 9 p 3 5 3
x o ,
a , , . .

Ch ro l i b er p rior e d ited b y S ch oe e
n .
, n ,

S Zi m m er K A
ee p 531
n , . . . .

63
64 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
9 Oti a rte s
‘ ’
. Q rta p rnc, Ap 6a rns, ‘
.

10 . E co o u fip o g , S zo ov dp o g , Z ro tdp o g , Xi su th ru s .

The first name Atw p s is considered to be the eq u iv ,

’
o ~

a l e n t of the Babylonian A ru ru I n the ligh t of the I

.

disc u ssion which is fo u nd in Part I I it is withou t dou bt ,

the name of the chief deity of the Am orit e s which is ,

written E l Ur or E l Or (T b N) in the recently dis

- -

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

These scholars all regard the second name A 1 m p g ,

’
. a7 o
,

to be equ ivalent to A da pa I t is however not .

, ,

necessary to resort to s u ch violence and especially ,

when it can be translated as a good West S emitic name .

The f u ll name is as above or as the Latin version has it , ,

namely A la poru s An additional element m u st be

,
.

recogni z ed besides A la p namely the name of the god , ,

Uru This wo u ld give u s A l ap Uru Friend or Ox

? -
,
“

of Uru with which we can compare the Babylonian

,

name Ri m S i n Ox of S in etc E leph ( PPN) which

-
,
“
,
”
.
3
,

is a place name in Benj amin (Josh u a 1 8 may also

be compared .

These scholars have said E nosh man the third , ,

name in the Hebrew list is a translation of A nl w or ,

’

,a / v

a m él u becau se the latter also means man

,
”
The “
.

f u ller form of the third name Ap I l p g mu st ,

’
t / a o
,

Jere m i D l te Test m e t p 1 1 9
See as ,
as a a n ,
. .

Zim m er (K A T p 5 3 1 ) reco g i z ed t h t th e di g s of
2
n . . .
3
,
. n a e n n

se er l of th m es w ere Si m il r D ie E d u g p c ko te d b ei
v a e na a :
“
n n o nn a

derje ig e i “ fil / c “ 1 23 0 9 34 7 3 0 9 ch g eb il det sei

n n n m In ,
1 1 0 0
,
8 0 0 0 na n .
”

I Ki g s Ch ro icl es I I p 1 7 Ri m ( 4 M A ) is w ritte
’
h n ,
Cf n , ,
.
,
. n . .

l so A g l M rdu k C l f of M rd u k etc “
a - a a a
a , , .
66 A M U RRU HO M E OF N O RT HE RN S EM I T E S
with —
E n m e— an—
du r— ki ( written in S u meri an ) the name ,

of a mythological k ing of S ippar who received reve ,

l ati on s from his deity and r u led t hree h un dred and sixty
five years The k ing has been identified with E noch also
.
,

the seventh in the list of the Hebrew patriarchs who ,

“

wal k ed with God and lived before his translation

”
,

the same nu mber of years namely three hu ndred and , ,

Sixty five While no connection between the names is

-
.

su ggested there is good reason for su pposing that these

,

facts point to a common origin .

The eighth name An gp g (A m em phsi n u s) Hom ,

’
e ,u cvo
,

mel and other scholars thin k is a corr u ption of

l

,
—
Am i l si n u s i e A m él S i n . man of the moon god S in
.
,
”
,
“
-
,

and compare it with the eighth Hebrew name M ethu ,

S a la h
“
,
man of S alah or of the j avelin This S ayce ,
2

su ggests is a variation of Mu tu sha —

,
I rhhu man of the -
,
“

moon god wh ich is equ ivalent to the Hebrew Methu

-
”
,

sha e l
’
. These explanations and comparisons do not
appear to be convincing .

The ninth name Q p j g which Alexander Poly ,

n a fi
,

hist e r writes is made equ ivalent by these

scholars to Ub a r Tu tu the father of the Babylonian
-
,

hero of the del u ge No e ffort is made to compare .

this name with Lamech which is the ninth in the Hebrew ,

list I t sho u ld be noted that the form given by Poly

.

h i stor may perhaps be nearer the original in which case ,

the first element in the name probably is the god Uru ,

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

Proc S B i b A rch 1 8 9 3
. oc . . .
, , p 24 3 ff
. .

2
E posi tory Ti m es 1 8 9 9 p
x , ,
.
 A N T ED I LU V I A N P A TRI A R CH S
second element may be represent ed in the name
D a ti a scribe of the time of S argon as well as in the
, ,

name D a ti E lli l the well kn own father of S argon of

-
,

Ak k ad Compare also A rda l a a place name along the

.
,

coast of the Mediterranean in the Amarna letters .

The tenth is that of the hero of the del u ge which is

regarded as an epithet of UT—
,

n a pi s hti m the Babylonian ,

Noah .Altho u gh no relationship between the names is

apparent the fact that the tenth name ends both lists
,

with the dil u vian hero points to some connection b e

tween them An d this gives rise to the u su al qu estion
.

as k ed in connection with disc u ssions of this character ,

I s the Babylonian derived from the Hebrew or the ,

Hebrew from the Babyloni an or have they a comm on ,

origin ?
As stated above the v iew which h as been widely
,

accepted is that a learned priest sec u red these legends

,

from the Babylonians while in exile ; that he translated

the names into Hebrew an d appropriated the list for ,

the h istory of his race The concl u sions whic h these

.

scholars reach seem to demand that the Jews allowed

an extensive infl u ence to be exerted u pon them by this
p olytheistic people who had robbed them not only
,

of their independence and the act u al possession of their

territory b u t also even deported them and held them in
,

bondage That is their k ings an d priests and people

.
,

were torn from the i r an cestral home ; their women and

chil dren were forced to endu re the awf u l hardships
entailed u pon them i n being transferred after hav ing ,

been su bjected to atrociou s indignities of every imag in

68 A M U RRU H OM E OF N O RT HE RN S EM I T E S
a ble character and then held as slaves i n thi s alien land
, .

I S the theory re as onable that the priests learned in ,

their an cient c u lt a n d in their ancestral hi story shou ld ,

have adopted at t hi s time as their ow n an tecedents

these mythological ki ngs of Babylonia who Berosu s , ,

tells u s r u led on an averag e fo u r h un dred an d thirty

, , ,

tw o tho u s an d years ?
The Jews were carr i ed to Babylonia by Ne b u c h a d
rezzar and m a ny were deposited in the vicinity of
,

Nipp u r In the time of Artaxerxes I and D ari u s I I

.
1
. .

the co un try seems to have abou nded with them While .

many ret u rned to their ow n land a large pop u lation ,

contin u ed to reside there The Babylonian Talmu d .

w as written i n that land by the descend an ts of those

that remained Nat u rally if the Jews who ret u rned
.
,

to Palestine had been so extensively infl u enced by the

Babylonian religion and history we shou ld s u ppose ,

that the Jews who remained in the land certai nly by ,

reason of their attachment for it wo u ld have been ,

infl u enced even more in this directio n But thi s does .

not seem to have been the c as e .

The spo k en lang u age of Babylonia when the Jews

lived in exile w as the Aramaic When they returned ?

to Palest i ne they fo u nd that Aramaic which was the ,

l i n gua fra n ca at that time of Western Asia and E gypt ,

was generally spo k en in the land To accept the con .

el u sion of these scholars we are req ui red also to explain

1
See Cl
i ay , est e t
L g ht on th e Old T a m n , p 40 3 ff . .

2
SeeW i ck er G esc ic te
n l , h h B a b u nd A ss , p
. . C . 1 79 ; la y , Ba b .

E xp ,
X p 1 0 d Lig ht th Old Test m e
, .
,
an on e a n t f ro B e p m a b l, 397 f
. .
 A NT ED I LU V I A N P A TRI A R C HS
w h y these late Hebrew priests or scribes sho u ld have
adopted the langu ag e of the earli er period for these
myths an d legends w h ich they are s u pposed to have
introdu ced in Je w ry an d why they interspersed the ir
,

writings with m any archaic forms D id these religio u s .

inn ovators by so doing desire to give their borrowed

stories an an cien t appearan ce an d thus deceive th e ,

people by their liter ary forgeries ?

As mentioned above the fact that E d ora n c h us
,

and E noch respectively the sixth of each list bot h

, ,

conversed with their deities and the former r u led three

,

h u ndred and sixty five ye ars the same n u mber that

-
,

the latter lived on e arth an d the f urther fact that the

,

tenth and l as t of each list are the heroes of the del u ge ,

seem to be poin ts that c an not be considered simply

as coincidences . Bu t as is f u rther shown above the
, ,

argu ment that the Hebrew is a tr an slation of the Baby

lonian is u tterly w itho u t proof .

I n the light of all these facts the most reasonable ,

concl u sion seems to be that inasmu ch as most of the

,

names can be explained as being West S emitic they are ,

su ch and not Babyloni an This follows from the fact

.

that the chief deity of the Am orites (disc u ssed in Part II ) ,

here w ritten Oros and A u ru s fig u res in five of ,

the ten names S ince the list of these mythological

.

k ings is headed by Atw p g ’

God Uru we mu st
o
, ,
”

concl u de that it w as brou ght into Babylonia by the

S emites from the West I t is p erfectly nat u ral that
.

the S emitic Babylonians who were not indigeno u s to

,

Babylonia b ut as I mai ntain in all probability were

, , ,
70 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O RT H E R N S EM I T E S
from A m u rru shoul d have preserved af ter they entere d
,

Babylonia their an cient list of ki ngs headed by th e

,

name of the i r chief deity Thi s enabled them nat u rally

.
, ,

to regard their r u lers as having di vine origin I nstead

.
,

therefore of finding the origin of thi s legendary list of

,

k ings in Babylonia together with their c u lt u re it is to

, ,

be traced bac k to a comm on stock of S emi tic tradition s ,

w hich h ad t hei r origi n in th e g re at land A m u rru .

 D E LU GE S T ORY

most important proof of the absol u tely un q u e s

THE
ti on a b l e dependence of the biblical narrative u pon a
Babylonian archetype that scholars have fo u nd is the
story of the D el u ge Gun k el is right in saying that .

almost all As syriologists and Old Testament scholars

regard the D el u ge story indu bitably of Babylonian
origin D elit z sch and others incline even to the Opinion
.
1

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 q u ite clear that the material

of the Hebrew narrative goes bac k u ndo u btedly to the
Babylonian original .
’’2

The Babylonian story of the D el u ge is so well kn own

that it is not necessary to recapit u 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 emphasi z e the fact that they Show
a common origin for both narratives In so far all ?

scholars are agreed .

Gu n k el however tak ing the position generally

, ,

held th in ks that those who are u nwilling to agree that

,

I sr el
a u nd Ba b yl o ie
n n, p 16 . . Cf . al so J as trow , Re l .
f Ba b
o . a nd

A ss .
, p 50 6
. .

e i io
2
R l g n of B a b
d A p 20 9 . an ss .
,
. .

2
CSe e i t th Old Test m e t fro m
l a y , L gh on e a n e
Ba b l, p 84 E . .
,
or
o th er w orks of th s m e ch r cter e a a a ,

71
72 A M U RRU H OM E OF N O RT H E R N S EM I T E S
the Hebrew acco u nt is dependent on the Babylonian ,

b u t who sa y that both are versions of the same event ,

have over anxiou s temperaments He claims that inas

-
.

mu ch as the stories coincide in so many mi nor details ,

they are related as narratives To prove that the .

I sraelitish story was borrowed from Babylonia he ,

su m s u p hi s views in hi s I sra el u n d B a by lon i en (p 1 9 ) .

in two argu ments .

F irst the great age of Babylonian civili z ation and

,

of the del u ge narrative as well ; second the frequ ent ,

occ u rrence of floods is very nat u ral in the flat plain of

Babylonia which lies close to the sea an d is watered by
,

two great streams .

The argu ment advanced by Z immern who holds ,

also that the narrative was tran splanted from Baby

lonia its birthplace is practically the same as the
, ,

arg u ments of Gu n k el He says that the story which .

,

was primi tive was i ndigeno u s in Babylonia and was

, ,

trans planted to Palestine ; becaus e the very essence of

the Babylonian narrative pres u pposes a co un try liable
to in un dations li k e Babylonia He regards the story
,
.

simply as a nat u re myth representing the phenomena

“
,
”

of winter whi ch in Babylonia is a time of rain

,
.
1

These writers hold the theory advan ced by D ill m an ,

as well as by others that there was a co m mon S emi tic ,

tradition which developed in I srael in one way and in

Babylonia in another is to be rej ected Those who , .

E n c yc l op x di a B b l i i ca , I, p 1 0 59
. . Se e al so Dri er Com m e t ry
v ,
n a

on Ge esis
n , p 107
. .
74 A M UR RU H OM E OF N O RT H E R N S EM I T E S
fact In the epic are fou nd relics of ancient S u merian
.
1

mythology comb ined with S emitic s un myths ; and some -

of the latter at least the writer claims have come from

, ,

an ancient stoc k of legends possessed by the Western

S emi tes .

I t is not a q u estion whether I srael borrowed the

D el u ge story from this Babylonian composition or the ,

Babylonians from I srael b u t whether the S emi tic ,

elements in the Gilgamesh epic are in digeno u s to

S o u thern Babylonia to the S u merians ) ; or whether
they had their origin with the S emitic Babylonians
who entered the land ; or whether they go back to that
S emi tic center from which they came I t see m s that .

most of the theories on the su bj ect which resu lt in saying

the Hebrews borrowed their story from the Babylonians
emanate from a very contracted V iew of the sit u ation ;
as if the only civili z ed peo p les in W estern Asia that

possessed a literat u re or mythology were the Baby

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

legend is of a great antiqui ty o ffers no di ffic u lty The .

almost un iversal character of a tradition of the event ,

which mar k ed an epoch for an cient peoples the writer ,

thin k s is based u pon the recollection of an act u al in u n

,

dation of an extraordinary character The Babylonian .

and the Hebrew narratives both of whic h can be said to ,

belong to a comparatively late period in the history of

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

D o u btless the S u merians also p ossessed a narrative ,

See J tro w
as ,
Re l B a b
. . an d A ss .
, p 470
. .
 DE LU G E S TO R Y 75

whic h may yet be fo u nd some of the elements of which

,

are incl u ded in the Gilgamesh series ; b u t which m a y

have been a story altogether di fferent in character from
the Hebrew and the Babylonian .

A fact to be constantly k ept before us is that t h e

biblical acco u nt mak es the ark rest u pon the mo u ntains
of Ararat Ura rtu of the inscriptions ) while the ,

Babyloni an fixes the place at Mt Ni sir I f Ni sir is a . .

mo u ntain east of the Tig ris across the Little Z a b as

, , ,

has been declared it can be said to be in Ura rtu for

, ,

that co u ntry incl u ded the highlands north of Assyria .

I t is a q u estion whether in ancient times Ura rtu incl u ded

the lofty mo u ntaino u s plateau now known as Armenia .

Bu t the point to be emph as ized is that both the Hebrew

an d the Babylonian stories localized the second beginning

of man s history not only in the same region b u t also

’
, ,

o u tside of Babylonia .

The biblical story contains some feat u res whi c h

are acknowledged to be di stinctively Palestinian .

These it is claimed made their appear an ce after the

, ,

story reached Palestine an d was appro priated by the

Hebrews They are Noah
. the olive leaf w hic h
“
,
” “
,
”
is characteristic of Palestine ; the ark instead of a ,

shi p becaus e there are no large navigable rivers in that

,

l and ; and the beginning of the del u ge on the seventeenth

day of the second month as that is the month the rains
,

begin in C anaan whereas the Babyloni an del u ge began

,

in the eleventh month the time the rains begin to fall in

,

Babylonia This latter is based on the fact that the

.

epic w as written on twelve tablets which Rawlinson ,

76 A M U R RU HO M E OF N O RTHE RN S EM I T E S
su ggested represented the months ; the eleventh tablet ,

therefore correspondi ng to the eleventh month There

,
.

s eems to be abo u t as m u ch proof for this assertion as

if it were said that all boo ks containing 365 pages rep

resent the days of the year Fu rther I fail to s e e that .
,
“
Noah is distinctively Palestinian There is b u t
”
.

one Noah known in the literat u re of Palestine whereas ,

the element N at is frequ ently fo u nd in Babylonian

nomenclatu re I t woul d seem that the Pan Ba b y l on i sts
.
-

have here overloo k ed an important arg u ment “

.

Th e statement that olives are characteristic of “ ”

Palestine is most interesting b u t it wo u ld have been more ,

correct to have said Palestine and S yria or still more ,

ap pro priately A m u rru for at Beir u t and Tripolis ther e

,

are olive groves five miles squ are Little or noth ing is .

know n of the origin of the word ark (te ba h) altho u gh “ ”

,

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

featu res du e to Palestinian infl u ences after the story was

,

borrowed from th e Babylonian do not offer very weighty ,

argu ments in su pport of the theory that the D el u ge

story originated in S ou thern Babylonia .

The Babylonian epic as stated above is composed , ,

of S emitic and S u merian elements the latter it seems , , ,

g rowing u p especially at E rech The stories are made .

to revolve abo u t the hero named Gilgamesh who is , ,

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

-
.

said The story of the D el u ge which constit u tes the

, ,

eleventh boo k has been foisted into it by an almost

,

violent artifice ”
The scenes are shifted from E rech
.
l
,

R l f E gypt
e . o d B b p 42 3 an a .
,
. .
 DE LU G E S TO R Y 77

an d the hero starts on a j o u rney to his ancestor UT

n a pi shti m i n order to learn the mystery of hi s apo
,

th e os i s and to be relieved of a loaths ome disease

, .

A v ery pro mi nent feat u re in the path of thi s celestial

v oyag er before he embar k ed u pon the se a of death or
,

darkness which w as the Mediterr an ean was the gate of

, ,

t h e setting S un This was at the mo u ntain M ashu . .

I ts entr an ce was gu arded by monsters daily from sun

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

the sun u ntil it p assed thro u gh the gate at even when ,

it w as closed Jensen properly considers that thi s .

moun tai n was in Am u rr u 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 Leb an on -

mou ntains .

Thi s gate is the place of the cri b sha m shi the entering ,

of the su n or to give its earlier S u merian form the place

”
, , ,

of MA R TU i e the entering in of M a r (S e e Part

-
,
. .
,
“ ”

II) . In the Gilgamesh epic of which the D el u ge story ,

is a p art the hero who is a solar god or the re pre

, , ,

s e n tati v e of that deity is thu s made to figu re pro m i ,

u ently in connection with the W estern mo u ntain of

the world in A m u rru whose back e xtends to the dam

, ,
“

of heaven and whose breast reaches down to A ra ll u

,

(Hades ) This association with the Western gate of

the s un located in the land of A m u rru points to indis
, ,

Cf . K B
p 5 75 . n n, . b , , p
4 67, . f Je se i id
. . . as w ell as Ho m m el ,
Anc . . r
H e b T a d , p 3 5 , h a d pre v i o u s l v n . co sidered th e m o t un a in

to b e in A a b a r i .
78 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O R TH R E N S EM I T E S

pu ta b l e connections with the great S ha m a sh or Uru

of the Western S emites .

The name Gilgamesh seems to be S emi tic althou gh ,

most of the scenes of the legend are depicted at E rech

(see page in Babylonia The syllabary p u blished by .

Pin c h e s determined the reading of the name Gilgamesh

l

for the late period i e GI S H TU MAS H Ci i l g a ,

. .
,
- - - -

m esh This enabled scholars to identify the deity with

.

the mythical k ing I ty n g mentioned by Ae l i an ‘

c a o .
2

A f u ller and earlier form of the name however has , ,

been fo u nd on a little squ are tablet in the University

of Pennsylvania Mu se u m referring to a b u ilding in ,
3

E rech (which city figu red s o promi nently in the legend ) ,

dedicated to a deity whose name is written GI S H BI L

d -

GA MI S H
-
.

The final element of the name it will be noticed '

, ,

is written in three di fferent ways MI S H MAS H and , ,

ME S H This looks as if the name is not S u merian

.
,

b u t qu ite probably represents a S emitic element .

I n thi s connection we recall that the Nineveh temple

E— M AS H M A S H is written E M IS H—
-
MI S H in the -

Hammu rabi Code (I V The element MIS H is ,

also in the name of the Nergal temple at Cu th a E M IS H ,

~

L A M ; and M A S H is in the name of the temple E — UL

Ba b rie R I V 1 89 0 p 264
. and O n . ec .
, , ,
. .

2
S S y ce A c dem y 1 8 90 8 N
ee a ,
p 24
a , , ,
ov .
,
. .

Th te t w pu b l is h ed b y Hil p h t B E I p rt 1 No 2 6 ,
2
e x as re c , . .
, ,
a ,
.

an d w first tr sl ted b y Hom m el P S B A X V I 1 3

as an a ,
. . . .
,
: . Po e b e l
a l so fo u d th
n me i te ts w h ic h h rece tl y pu b l ish ed
e na n x e n ,
of . B . E .
,

V I , 2 , No 2 6 , I I I : 6. .
 DE L U G E S TO R Y
MA S H at A gade etc As Gi lg a mesh is a solar deity ,
.
-

and fig u res in conn ection with the mo u ntain Md shu

(see also disc u ssion page 1 26 f on S h e Ma sh Di Ma sh , ,
-
,
-

qi ,
a plau sible conj ect u re is that the name of the
dei ty of the mo untain is contained in the name If .
1

this is tr u e the same element in temple names wou ld ,

show extraordinary infl u ence from the W est .

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

Gilgamesh whom he visited and who related his e x peri

, ,

e n c e s has been a s u bject of considerable controversy for

,

years I f not altogether it is partly S emitic ; and there

.

are good reasons for regardi ng it as containin g an

element foreign to the S emitic Babylonian whi c h ,

probably is from the West Many di ff erent readings .

first el e m e t of th m e i w ritte GI S H BI L—
Th e n GA d e na s n -
an

GI S H— TU ( or T UN) GI S H TU p ashu w h ich Je se tr sl tes .

-
,
n n an a

; cf K B VI p 1 8 7 ; l so Zi m m er ote
”
axe Ri t l t f l 1 41 a n ua a e n n
—
. . . .
, , , , ,

C. T h ideo eg r m T U l =
p
—l q ( f P S B A D ece m b er
a a So a a u o . . . . .
, ,

1 8 8 0 PI 1 f l i
,
. P l dq .p erh ps th s m e b l d g m e s
,
. a u ,
a e a as a u ,
an
“
to d estro y k ill r v g e ( cf M ss Ar l t D i p
, ,
a fro m
a . u -
no ,
c .
,
.

w h ic h p i l gq a is d eri e d I th H mm ur b i period th
u ,
“
axe,
”
v . n e a a e

na me B l q occ urs um b er of tim es (cf R ke P N

e a u a n d i . an ,
. an n

th C site p erio d B i l qq ( cf Cl y B E XV)

e as W ith t h ese a m es u a ,
. .
,
. na

w e co m p re th b ib l ic l B l k ( P53 ) A m ere co ject u re

ca n a e a a a . s a n

I w o ul d l ike to p ro p ose t h t th m e G i lg m esh i ie w of th a e na a n V e

w riti g s ag M t h m e s th A of M s h Th is w h e
i h a s “ ”
n e -
s ,
an e xe a . n

w ritte i S m eri
n n pp e re d w ith th
u determ i ti e w h ich w
an a a e na v as

p ro o u ce d
n n d i tim e b ec m e S e m iti z ed i to Gi b i lg
,
an n d l ter a n s a an a

b ec m e C i lg
a Th i th m y t h ppe ri g fre q u e tl y
a . e hi
ax e n e a a n n as s

w e po a ( cf n l so th re prese t tio s of A d d T h p g i e b y
. a e n a n a - es u v n

Jere m i s i R h ) it i t u re so b l e co ject u re Th is
a ,
n os c er ,
s no an n a na n .

b e i g tr u e it i
n l to g et h er re so b l e to ss u m e es p eci ll y i
,
s a th a na a ,
a n e

l i g h t of ot h er f cts h ere co sidered t h t G il g m esh w a ori g i ll y n ,

a a as na

A m oritis h .
80 A M U R RU HOM E OF N O RT H E RN S EM I T E S
an d expl an ations have been offered for the name }
The second element is clearly n a pi shti m b u t the first ,

h as been read UT P i r Per S i t S ha m ash Nah etc , , , , , ,

.

The Sign UD has properly also the val u e B i r and the ,

2

name can be read Bi r n a pi shti m ; and if so perhaps it is -

,

an abbreviation for a name li k e Bi r— n a pi shti m u su r -

,
“
O Bir protect the life ; li k e N obi t n a pi shti m u su r a
,
”
- -
,

common formation among Babylonian names Thi s .

reading seems to be s u pported by the tablet now in the

J Pierpont Morgan Collection which was discovered
.
,

by S c h e i l who fo u nd Pi —
i [r] where he tho u ght the name
,

was bro k en away This reading of the name wo u ld .

explain why the deter m inative for deity is omitted ,

1
Fi o ffspri g of l ife ( D el it z sch S ch r d er J
pi s h ti m ,r-n a
“
n
”
,
a ,
as

tro ( H u p t Muss A r l t) ; S i t pi h ti m
“
w ) ; P a r-n a pi s h ti m th a ,
-
no -
na s ,
e

s edav ( Je se Jere m i s ) ; Nah pi h ti m

on e
”
rest of th so l
n n, a -
na s ,
“
e u
”

(Hom m el B ll ) S h m sh of l i fe (Hom m el ) ; “ ”
pi h ti m
‘
a a -n s
,
a a
,
sun

Um — pi hti m na d y of l ife ; U T
s p i h ti m ( Je se )
,
Zi m m er
a
”
-
na s n n . n ,

K A T p 5 45 th i k s Je se i tr sl t i g h
. . .
3
,
. w (ut
,
at) n n n n an a n
“
e sa a,

th l i fe h fo d l ife h fi l l y sol e d th d iffic l t y ;

” “ ”
e i ,
. e .
,
e un ,
as na v e u

b t u p r l l el m e i B b y l o i
a a a o m e cl t re d oes t ist
na n a n an n n a u no ex .

Th s m e is tr e of th oth er e p l
e a tio s I f U T or S h m sh
u e x an a n . a a

w ere co sidere d to b d eities d th

n m e re g r d ed h ypo e an e na a as a
—
,

c h i tior s for m e l ike B i

e on p i h ti m u su r b o e th d i ffi
a na r-n a s ,
as a v ,
e

cu l ti r m o e d N t ur l l y so m e of th e pl tio
e s a re e v gi e
. a a e x an a ns a re v n

on th s u pp ositio e th t th m e i sy m b ol ic l of th p rt pl y ed n a e na s a e a a

b y th h ero ; b t eve i t h t c se w S h o ul d e p ect

e u re g l r for n n a a e x a u a

m tio
a n .

I S tr ss m ier D r 3 6 5 20 th
2
n a m e of i d i id u l is
a ,
a .
,
e na an n v a

w ritte M UR i b i d i D r 3 6 6 1 8 th s m e m e is w ritte
d -
n n an n a . e a na n
, ,

d
U T i b i w h ich m u st b
-
n re d M r or B i I s m u ch
,
M r e a u r . na as u ,

M i Bir etc r, ri tio s of th s m e m e ( e b el o w d K A

,
.
,
a re v a a n e a na s e an . .

T 443 ff ) th re di g is pl u si b l e
?
. e a n a .
82 A M U R RU HOM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
wou ld therefore be qu ite appropriate for the name .

Moreover i n consideration of what follows in Part II

, ,

the name appears to Show conn ections with the c u ltu re

that came from the West B u zu r K UR GA L the pilot
.
- -
,

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

read B u zu r Uru also shows West S e m itic influ ence as

-
, ,

the name is compo u nded with the chief deity of A mu rr u .

Also the gods which fig ured in the narrative are mostly

,

those which are recognized as being di fferent representa

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

the West promi nent among them being S ha ma sh an d

,

Urra -ga l .

In view of these considerations we may concl u de ,

t ha t p redominant elements in this and other parts of

the Gilgamesh epic are con nected with the sun deity -

an d the land of the W estern S emites and that the origin

,

of the S e m itic portion of the epic which dou btless ,

incl u des those featu res which are common to the biblical
narrative goes bac k to a West S e m itic narrative
, ,

which is p arent also to the biblical version .

We are therefore led to concl u de in the light of

, , ,

th ese facts that the infl u ence of Babylonia u pon I srael

,

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

fact exactly the reverse seems to be the case i e many

, ,
. .
,

of the elements of the S emitic Babylonian religion and

literat u re are not indigeno u s to the land b u t in all ,

p robability came from the West ; at least they had their

natu ral develo p ment in that part of Western As ia The .

u ltimate origin may belong elsewhere b u t that does not ,

a ffect these concl u sions .

 ORI GI N A L HOME OF S EM I T IC
C UL T U R E

S O ME scholars have held that S ou thern Babylonia

w as the original seat of the S emi tes or of the S emitic ,

c u lt u re ; others s ay the e as tern confin es of Africa ; still

others Armenia ; b u t the great maj ority of scholars
hold that the interior of the Arabian p enins u la or
S o u thern Arabi a w as the cradle of the S emi tes
1
.

The one im p ortant argu ment in su pport of the

Arabian theory which h as met with s u ch wide accept
,

ance is that the Arabic represents the p u rest S emi tic

,

langu age This seems to have little force h owever

.
, ,

when we tak e into consideration that as far as we ,

k now there w as no important center of c u lt u re in Arabi a

,

which wo u ld have experienced as rapid a development

from what w as primitive as wo u ld be foun d elsewhere
un der other conditions I t is the opinion of some
.

scholars that the E thi opic l an gu ag e is even p u rer

than the Arabic ; why not as su m e that A byssin ia is the
cradle of the S e m ites ?
The arg u ments advanced from a st u dy of the social
an d econo m ic conditions seem to be rather precario u s .

The earliest i nfl u ence u pon Babylonia from Arabia

claimed by some schol ars is the time known as the F irst
,

full disc u ssio of th

F or a n e va riou th eorie
s s on th is qu estio n

s ee B rto S em itic Ori gi pp

a n ,
n s, . 1 ff .

83
 84 A M U RR U HOM E OF N O RT H RN S E EM I T E S
dynasty of Babylon abo u t 20 0 0 B C E ven tho u gh it ,
.

be admi tted that the r u lers of the F irst dynasty are

Arabian they came into p ossession of Babylonia many
,

cent u ries after the S emi tes had entered that land ; and ,

li k e the Cassite k ings and their s u bj ects they di d n ot , ,

as far as has been show n seem to have infl u enced t h e ,

Babylonian c ul t u re We therefore have no light .

from early inscriptions u p on thi s mooted qu estion ,

for the earliest from Arabia are the Min aean whi ch ,

belong to abou t t h e fifteenth cent ury B C .

The S emites mu st have migrated to Babylonia at

the latest in the fo u rt h or perhaps fifth millenni u m B C . .
,

entering from the North and slowly b u t e ff ect u ally ,

crowding ou t the S u merians As t h e S emitic Baby .

lonian is more closely related to the Aramaic and Hebraic

(or Am oraic ) than to the Arabic and Abyss i nian it
‘
,

ou ght to follow that the Babylonian Hebraic and ,

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

Ho m m e l Un g n a d Broc k e l m an n a n d oth ers d i vi d e th e S e m itic

, ,

an g u a g es in to E as t a n d W es t S e m itic e a in t a in t h a t th e for m er
l l Th y m .
,

i . e E st S e m i tic is re p r se te d b y th A y r B b y l o i
.
, th e a , e n e ss o- a n an .

Th l tter i e W st S e m itic is d i ided i to S o u t h S e m itic ( A r b ic

a , . e .
, e , v n a

an d E th io p ic ) d North S e m i tic ( He b r ic d A r m ic )
an Th a an a a . e

se p r tio of th B b y l o i from th oth ers i to se p r te cl ss

a a n e a n an e n a a a a

h b ee p ro m p te d l r g el y b y g r m m tic l d i ff ere ces

as n Th ese it
a a a a n .
,

see m s to m m t b e pl i e d b ei g g re tl y d u e to th i fl u e ce
e , us e x a n as n a e n n

of th S um eri scri p t d l g u g e L i g u i stic ll y th B b yl o i

e an an an a . n a e a n an

is cl oser to th He b r ic d A r m ic th th oth er S e m itic l

e a an a a an e an

g u g es aTh foll o w i g cl sific tio see m s p refer b l e

. e m lyn as a n a , na e

Th North S e m itic w h ich i re p r se te d b y th A

e r i, A r m ic s e n e i n o a e, a a

and A yr B b y l o i ss d tho- S o th S e mi tic w h ich is r pr

a n an ,
an e u , e e

se t d b y th A r b ic d E th iopic
n e e a an .
 O RI G I NA L HO M E OF S E M I T I C C U L TU R E 85

If we acco u nt for the development of the Am orite c u l

ture before the fo u rth or fifth millenni u m B C we are . .
,

so far removed from the time the S emitic cradle roc k ed

that u ntil we get some glim p ses into the e a rly history
of t his c u ltu re before this time or even of the Arabic ,

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

spec ul ations can only be tak en for what they are worth .

There is however no s u pport for t h e V iew advanced by

, ,

some scholars that the langu age of Palest ine (known to

,

u s as Hebraic ) in the days of Abraham was simply a

, ,

dialect o f Arabia ; or that in Abraham s time the Ara ’

masans were still a p art of the Arab race S u ch t h eories .

are wholly baseless and absurd in the light of f act and

tradi tion I f in the main my contentions are correct a
.
,

readj us tment of t h e extravagant statements advanced is

in order ; and es p ecially in view of what follows in Part
II .

The inscriptions an d arc h mol og i c a l fin ds of c ote m po

rameo u s p eo p les have corroborated in a re m arkable
manner the early hi story in the Ol d Testament of the
nations of an tiqu ity while at the same time they have
,

restored the historical backgro u nd and an atmosphere

for the p atriarchal period so that even a sc ientist can
,

feel that the old Book h as preserved not only tr us t

worthy traditions to be u sed i n the reconstr u ction of
the history of t h at p eriod b u t also the k nowledge of
,

veritable personages in the patriarchs Nothing has .

been prod u ced to Sh ow that they are not hi storical ; and

on the other hand every incre as e of knowledge gained ,

by the spade or by the sk ill of the decipherer helps to ,

86 AM U R R U H OM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM IT E S
di ssolve the concl u sions of those who have relegated the
patriarchs to the region of myth .

An interesting discovery has recently been made by

Prof Arthur Un g n a d of the name Abram belonging
.
”
,
“

to the age when the patriarch lived The fact that the
‘
.

name had not been fo u nd i n the c un eiform literat ure ,

owing to the patriarch s soj ou rn in Chaldea gave rise ’

,

to many di fferent views ; for example it was claimed that ,

it was an idealized name created by a late Hebrew writer ,

and me an t The s u blime father

“
The discovery of ”

the name written i n three ways A b a ra — ma A ba— am - - -

ra a m and A b a a m —
, ,

-
,
ra m a p u ts thi s important q u estion
- - -
,

beyond any f u rther disc us sion ?

The discovery of the divin e name Yahwe h in c u nei

form literat ure also h as important bearin gs on the point
u nder disc u ssion Contrary to the views of those who
.

hold the Kenite theory concerning the origin of the

worship of Yahweh or that it came from a Canaanitic ,

J etc or from the Babylonian E a or that it is a develop

, ,

ment from a tribal p olytheism into henotheism and then

into monotheism etc for whi ch there is no historical
,
.
,

proof the Old Testament f u rnishes the only light on the

,

s u bj ect w hich is that the name and worship of Yahweh

,

came from the Aram ae ans An d as Abraham and his .

descend an ts as well as his ancestors were Aramae ans

, , ,
’

it follows that the name and worsh ip of Yahweh w as

fami liar to the Ara m man s .

S e e B ei . zu r A ss VI 5 p 8 2
, , . .

2
Se e so P rt I I
al a .

Se e Appe di xn on Ur of th e Ch al d e as .
 ORI G I N A L H OM E OF S E M I T I C C U LTU R E 87

The investigations of D r William Hayes Ward .

‘

in connection with ancient seals have led him to the

conviction that among the fig u rative expressions un der
which Yahweh is represented in the Old Testament there ,

are those which point to an Aram aean origin This c oncl u .

sion is evidenced by the symbolic representations un der

which the Aram aean deity A dad appears in ancient art .

The worship of Yahweh i n the Ol d Testament is

largely identified with the mo u ntains ; so for example , ,

the S yri an s in explaining their defeat to Benhadad

,
‘
,

said concerning I srael s deity Their god is a god of the ’

,
“

hills (I Ki ngs
”
The stories of S inai Horeb , ,

Moriah Carmel and Paran f u rther testify to this

,
.

Yahweh is represented also as a god of storms thu nder ,

an d lightning as is sho w n by man y passages in the Old

,

Testament partic u larly in the Psalms and Prophets

,
.

He is frequ ently regarded also as a god of battles :

Yahweh is a man of war
“
the god of hosts An d ,
”
.

f u rther Yahwe h was re p resented symbolically in the

,

art as the calf or yo u ng b u ll The golden calf that .

2

A aron made as well as the shrines at Bethel and D an

, ,

so ve h emently denou nced by Hosea an d A mos are ,

indi cative of thi s .

The same characteristics are foun d in the art depict

ing the Aram ae an A dad who in the lang u age of the ,

pro p het concerning Yahweh treads on the high places ,

“

of the earth He is the god of the clo u ds thu nder

”
'

.
, ,

lightning rain storm del u ge etc I n Babylonian art he

, , , ,
.

Th O ri g i of th W ors h i p of Y h w e i th A m er J r f
“
e n e a , n e . ou . o

S m L g XXV p 1 75 ff
e . an .
, , . .

A m eric
2
Jou r l f S em i ti c L g u g es p 1 8 1
an na o an a , . .
 88 A M U RR U HOM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
is represented as carrying a thun derbolt As the god of .

war he carries the bow cl u b and a x When A dad is

, ,
.

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

'

cord attached to a rin g in the nose of a b u ll or wild ox .

He is appropriately designated the divine heavenly “

b u ll (D I NGI R GUD A N NA ) the god of -

,

These distingu ishing mar k s have led D r W ard to .

remar k that he cannot help believing that he (A dad )

“

was the pagan Yahweh before Yahweh emerged as the

u niversal g od of monotheism ; and again i t is not 2 “
,

un li k ely that the monotheistic worship of Yahwe h

originated in that of A dd u .

Nat u rally there is no more proof for saying that the

worship of Yahweh is derived from that of A dad than ,

that the worship of A dad came from that of Yahwe h .

A ltho u gh we are better acqu ainted with the worship of

A dad from extra biblical so u rces of the early period ,

becau se the deity was adopted into the Babylonian

p an theon still it wo u ld be safer perhaps to say that these
,

c h aracteristic marks whi ch both deities have in common

point to their Aramaean origin ; and especially as the
Old Testament associates Yahweh with the A ramaeans ,

and also becau se the inscriptions clearly show the same

so u rce for the worship of Adad .
‘

D écou ertes XXX 1 0

v , , .

2
S A m eric
ee Jou r l f S em itic L g u g es XXV p 1 8 5
an na o an a , , . .

2
S Cyl i ders
ee d oth er A cie t Or i e t l S e l s i th Li b r r y f
n an n n n a a n e a o

J P ier po t M org
. n p 19 an , . .

A m u rr is l so th u L or d of th Mo u t i s
a M U L U HA R
e
“
e n a n ,
” -

S A G GA GI T i
-
b l h di i (see P rt I I )
, . e .
, Th is is f u rt h er p ro ed
e- u s a- -
a . v

b y th e of th i d eo g r m K UR GA L for A m u rr w h ich m e s
u se e a -
u, an

G re t m ou t i
a n a n .
”
90 A M U RR U HO M E OF N O RT HE RN S EM I T E S
qu ite reasonable to expect su ch a variati on as the use
of the name Yahweh if as represented the deity w as , , ,

Aram aean or West S emitic .

Bu t as a matter of fact the name Yahweh when

, , ,

compou nded with elements in proper names is fou nd in ,

the early literat u re in connections which also point to

Aram aean or A moritish origin I t is claimed in t h e .

disc u sion of the name an d native coun try of S argon

s
‘

that he was a Western S em ite perhaps an Aram aean ,

.

The name of his great gr an ddau ghter is Li pu sh J a u m - -

.

A ccording to ou r present knowledge the only concl u sion ,

at whi ch we c an arrive is that J a u m represents the name

Yahweh F u rther the name of the F irst dynasty
? ‘

, ,

a l i —
H J a u m son of J a wu m also contains this element
, ,
3
.

J a wu m which at least is the exact form of the divin e

,

name together with Ha li —

,
J a u m are foreign names and ,

in all probability West S emitic .

I n considering these di fferent facts in connection

with the name and worshi p of Yahweh it seems that the ,

Kenite the Babylonian the Can aan ite and all other
, , ,

theories mu st give way to that whi ch is gathered from

the Old Testament namely that the worship of Yahweh
, ,

came from the co u ntry of the an cestors of Abram the ,

A ram aean Recent discoveries th u s f u rnis h a greater

.

antiqu ity for thi ngs biblical th an is u su ally accorded to

them and point to the ancestral home of A bram i e
, ,
. .
,

Se e A p p e di n x on th e n am e S rg o a n .

2
S e e App e din th x on e na m e Y h w eh a .

2
S e e Ran ke Perso l N
,
na a m es p 1 1 4 , . .
 O RI GI NA L HO M E OF S E M I T I C C U LT U R E 91

Aram , which w as identified closely with Am u rr u ,

i ns tead of Babylonia as th e so u rce of I srael s c u lt u re

’
.
,

I t is necessary therefore to differ radically from even

, ,

those who li k e Professor Rogers sa y that the first

, ,
“

eleven chapters of Genesis in their present form as also ,

in the original doc u ments into which modern critical

research has traced their origin bear eloqu ent witness ,

to Babylonia as the old home of the Hebrew people ,

and of their collection of sacred Bu t let ,

me add in appreciation of what the same writer says

, ,

even when he incl u des those elements wh ich he thin k s

were borrowed from the Babylonian s : When all
these are added u p and placed together they are sma ll ,

in n u mber and insignificant in si z e when compared

with all the len gth an d breadth and height of I srael s ’

literat u re ”2
B u t the writer vent u res to go even farther
and to claim that the infl u ence of Babylon ian c u ltu re
u pon the peoples of Canaan w as almost n i l .

The story of Babel in Genesis at this point becomes

especially interestin g ; for in it we may see a reflection as
h an ded down by the biblical writer of the movement
of the S emites from the West who made Babel a promi ,

nent center .As they j o u rneyed E ast they fo un d a

“

plain in the land of S hi nar ”

Here these mo u ntaineers .

u sed bric k instead of stone to whi ch they had been

“
,

acc u stomed in their native land ; and bit u men ”

instead of mortar This be c ame natu rally a city

.
”

o ers Rel ig io
R g ,
n o f Ba b . a nd A ss .
, p 21 9
. .

2
o ers i b id p
R g ,
.
,
. 22 6 .
92 A M U RRU H OM E OF N O R TH E R N S E M IT E S
sacred to their chief deity A m a r whose name the
, ,

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

A m a r-u du k .

Ithas been asserted that the zi ggu rra ts or towers

in Babylonia were preceded by tombs of the gods in the
center of fire necropoles This may be correct b u t the
.
,

name zi ggu rra t po i nts to a S 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 peo p le from a
mou ntainous district .
PA RT II
 A M U RRU I N THE C UN E I F O R M
I NS CRI PTI ONS

RE CE NT in vestigations on the part of the writer

have res u lted in the conviction that most of the deities
of the S emitic Babylonians which have been recognized
,

by scholars as original sun gods had t heir origin in the

-
,

great solar deity of the Western S emites known as ,

A m a r or M a r and Ur which was written in the script

,

of the West WE N or 1 2) and TIN or 3 1 also k now n

, , ,

as WDW Thi s deity after having been transplanted

.
,

to Babylonia by the S emi tes appeared un der di ff erent

,

written forms in di fferent localities as N E — URU GAL ,

-

at Gu tha A M A R UTUG at Babylon etc Thi s is

,
-
,
.

d u e to the f act that t h e S e m i tes adopted the non S emi tic -

c u ne i form script of the S u merians These S u merian .

forms in time were semitized and became N erga l and

Ma rdu k as the S u merian E N—
,
LI L Lord of the LI L , ,

became E lli l and the S u merian NI N GA L Great -

,
“

mi stress became Ni kha l etc W ith later streams of

, ,
.

immi gration coming from the West as for instance in , , ,

the Nisin dynasty (thi rd millenni u m B C ) the name ,

in its orig inal form contin u ed to be brou ght into the

cou ntry ; b u t comi ng in when the early S u merian forms
of the S emitic names as well as the religion had been
, ,

b ab y l on i ze d they were treated as distinct deities

,
.

These however were not admitted at once into the

, ,

95
96 A M U RRU H OM E O F N O RTHE RN S E M I T E S

Babylonian pantheon of gods b u t were treated for ,

cent u ries as alien deities as is sho w n by the fact that ,

the determinative for deity in many cases w as omitted .

Nat u rally an import an t p oint to be deter mi ned is

that these movements from the West act u ally too k
place In a paper read before t he Am erican Oriental
.

S ociety in Philadelp h ia (E aster week 1 9 0 7) the w riter ,

referred to the fact that at the time of the F irst dyn asty
of Babylon (200 0 the personal names Show that
the co un try w as fil led with foreigners notably Western ,

S emites ; and al so endeavored to Show that the names

of the k ings of the I sin dynasty (third m illenni u m B C ) . .

indicate West S emitic infl u ence u pon Babylonia and ,

that the ca p ital of this dynasty dou btless was a strong

hold of that people Before the paper appeared in .

print D r Hermann Ran k e of Berlin appears to have

,
.
, ,

reached similar concl u sions from an entirely di ff erent

point of V iew He called attention to a date on a tablet
.

w hic h he believed referred to the invading Amorites

at the time of Li b it I shtar a r u ler of this same dynasty
- ‘
,
.

The preceding dynasty namely that of Ur ( Uru m m a ) , ,

w as S u merian In the reign of Gimil S i n we learn that

.
-

the king b u ilt the wall of the co u ntry of the West ”

,

which was called Mu ri k Ti dn u m the wall that wards ,

“

off the Ti dn u As we Shall se e below Ti dn u is another

”
,
.

name for the l an d of A m u rru Th is fact p oints to active .

interference on the p art of the Am orites already at this

time As is u su ally u nderstood the ru lers of the pre
.
,

S 0 L Z eeM rch 1 90 7 l so Me y er G sch icht d A l t r

. . .
,
a , ,
a ,
e e es e

t ms I
u ,
41 6 , .
98 A M U R RU H OM E OF N O RT H R N S E EM I TE S
te e n th chapter of Genesis Later it became the pos .

s ession of Hamm u rabi after his thi rty first year In -

.

an inscription fo un d at D iarbe k ir the s ingle title us ed ,

by Hammu rabi is king of “

D uring the F irst
dynasty of Babylon many A morites seem to have
dwelt in the vi cinity of S ippar where t here was a city ,

cal led A m u rru Bu t we cannot follow Toffte e n and

.
,
2

those who hold the view that the Am orites of the ,

West emigrated from this place t hro u gh press ure from

E lam an d in thi s way the name was transferred to the
,

West l an d Thi s was a settlement of Am orites li k e

-
.
,

the Jewis h settlement in the vicinity of Nipp u r d u ring

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 do w n to his s u ccessors ; among them
A mmi — di tan a is mentioned as having enj oyed it .

Neb u chadrezzar I Tig l ath pi l e ser I As h u rn asirpal and

, ,

S halman eser I I refer to the l and A dad n i ra ri I II .

-

conqu ered Khatti (Hittite land ) Am u rr u Tyre S idon , , ,

an d O m ri ( I srael ) S argon incl u des the Khatti in the

.

w idely extended land of Amu rr u as well as Ph oe n i

“
,

cia Philistia Moab Ammon and E dom Ash urb a n i

, , ,
.

pal Nabonid u s and Cyr u s also refer to the l an d

,
.
3

I n the first and second millenni u ms B C the c u nei ,

form inscriptions lead u s to believe that Am u rr u had

become a general appellation for S yro Palestine a pe r -
,

Se e Say ce A rch ol og y
,
ae f
o the C u ei f rm I scri ptio s p 1 43
n o n n ,
. .

2
ese rc es i A sy ri
R a h n s an an d B b ylo i
a G e g r ph y p 3 0
n an o a ,
. .

2
S T ff t
ee o i bi d p
e en ,
.
, . 29 .
 A M U RR U IN C U N E I F O RM I NS C R I P TI O N S 99

tion of which w as controlled by the Hittites ; that is ,

the borders of Kh atti seem to have been extended so

that the ru le embraced a considerable portion of what
was once Am u rr u In the time of Rameses I I the .

Hittites we learn occ u pied the land of A m u r I f

, ,
.
,

as a peo p le the Am orites ever domi nated politically

,

that land in an organi z ed m an ner their history belongs ,

to the thi rd or earlier millenni u ms I t is not un li k ely .

that the order w as always that of petty principalities ,

an d that the name w as generally regarded as a g e o

graphical designation of the l and .

To D elattre belongs the credit for having deter

‘

mined the S emitic reading A m u rru for the S u merian

MA R TU instead of A ha rru Jensen f u rther su b stan
-
.
2

ti ate d the reading The passage in a hymn p u blished .

by Reisner namely D I NGI R M A R T U( E )

,
“2
,
- - -

d
A m u r—
-
ru as is known ,
f ul ly and definitely c orrob o ,

rated the readi ng I t wo u ld seem that very early .

D I N GI E M A R TU and KUR M A R T U were read

- - - -

respectively the deity and co u ntry of the A morites ,

as the transliterations especially for the latter i e , ,

. .
,

A m a rra occasionally contain an addition al final vowel

, ,

as if an a dj ecti va m re la ti on i s .

I n the earliest inscriptions as we have seen M A R T U , ,

-

Proceedi g s ociety B i b l ic l A rch ol g y 1 89 1 p 23 3 fi

n o f S a ae o , ,
.
'

2
Z eitsch rift f ur A ssyri ol og ie V l X I p 3 0 4 5 ,
o .
,
.
,
.

2
S u m erisc h b b y l o isch e Hy m-
a 24 R I I 5 etc
n ne n , ,
ev .
, ,
.

‘
F r th
o b e efit of t h ose w h
e n h e t p id tte tio to o av no a a n n

S e m itics it m i g h t b m e tio ed th t w h t is p r i ted i c p it l l etters

,
e n n a a n n a a

l ike DI NGI R i it l i s i S u m eri

,
n d w h t is i s m l l er t yp e
a c ,
s an , an a n a

l ike i l u is S e m itic B b yl o i
,
a n an .
1 00 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM IT E S
is the S u merian ideogram for the name A m u rru and the
qu estion arises Wh y was this combination of characters ,

selected to represent th is co u ntry ?

M A R which is also frequ ently u sed as th e nam e of
,

the land alongside of MA R TU is do u btless as has been -

,

su ggested a shortened form of A m ar which became

, ,

A m u r un der the infl u ence of the labial M A R is one ?

of the names of the sun d eity as will be shown in the -

,

pages which follow As a deity in personal names .

u nder that form in the As syrian period it occ u rs in ,

Ma r— l a ri m m e M a ri l a ri m M a r—
b i d i M a r i rri sh M a r
’
- -
, , , ,

su ri etc and also in s u ch names as T1 3 7 3 etc

,
.
,
3
,
.
,

from West S emitic inscriptions disc us sed farther on .

TU in S u merian h as the val u e eréb u to ,

M A R TU li k e UD TU ( or éri b sha m shi ) therefore

- -
, ,

means éri b M a r entering in of M a r (or A m a r ”

, ,

i e . .the setting light or su n

,
“
This of cou rse shows , ,

t h at M a r A m a r) meant the sun “ ”

originally and ,

in all probability was the c hief deity the S hamash of ,

the Amorites To the Babylonian it was also the name .

5

of the land for A m u rru was the land of the setting

“
,

Cf . Zim m er n, K A . . p .ote 1 ; l so T ff t
41 5, n A a o e en , ss .

Ba b Geog p 3 2
. .
,
. . M A R h as l o th v l e A m u rr u W est
a s e a u ,
“
,
”

a l o g side of I M M A R T U
n - -
,
cf K g l er S t r k de d S ter die st
. u ,
e n un un n n ,

2
Ra w l i son n, restore d [ M A R] TU
I I, 35 1 9 , is p erh ps t a o be - -u

A m r m; b t f
-
a- ul so th fo ll o w i g l i e A r
u A m r m
o . a e n n -
u - a- u .

S 2
Joh A ssyri Deed d D ocu m e ts
ee ns , an s an n .

Cf Pri ce S u m er i Le ic p 2 3 3
. n ,
an x on , . .

I 2
J b 31 n 2 6 a m
o
"
i e d i ste d of s h m h i
: , ,
“
s un , s us n a e es n

p r ll el is m w ith th m oo
a a
"
e
“
n .
 1 02 A M U RRU H OM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
"
tablets the transcription HR whi c h occ u rs in several
, ,

names represented K UR GA L and that th e se charac

,
-

ters are to be read A m u rru A wa rra (or Urn ) and not ,

B él or S ha da ra b a as generally read S u ch names -

.

as A m u rru ba ha A m u rru n a ta n n u A m u rru n asa b i

-
,
‘ -
,
2 -
,
3

A m u rru s ha m a containing foreign elements i n connec

-
,
4

tion with the name of the deity A m u rru seem to ,

s u bstantiate the view that A m u rru (or Urn as in Uru

m i l /t i and M i lkfiru s e e below ) was a foreign god
5 6
.
,

Peiser verified completely this identification by

7
,

showing that the name MA R TU éri sh K UR GAL - -

,
-

éri sh and A m u rri o belonged to a single individ u al

, ,

the latter being a h y poc h ori sti c on with the ending i a ,

li k e S ammy from S a m u e l I n other words we get

“ ” -
.
,

the formu la MA R TU = K UR— GA L A m u rru HR -

"

(or Urn ) .

Of special interes t and importance is the fact that

a single ideogram h a s the val u es A kka da A m a rra and ,

U
Uri B UR-B UR
Ti dn u B UR B UR -

Ti l l a B UR- B UR
S tr s m ier
as a ,
Nb k 6 6 . 3 .

2
Nb k 4 5 9 . 4 .

3
k . 1 32 2 .

Nbk 42 5 . .

K E , I I p 90
. .
, . .

A ma r Letters K B V 6 1 5 4
na , . .
, ,
: ,
e tc .

7
U rk u d d r Z it der dr itte
n en aus e e n ba b yl o ische
n n D y na s ti c , p .

VI I I
—
.

3
S ee D el it z sch ,
A ss . S yl . B, 72 74 , and W eiss b a ch ’
M i sc e l l e n ,
p . 29 .
 A M U RRU IN C U N E I F O RM I N S C R I P T I O N S 103

In another text i n stead of Ti d n u A m u rru is fo u nd

, ,

A ri = A m u rru Ti dn u is the name of a mo u ntain in

.
l

Am u rr u mentioned already in the time of Gu dea (see

above ) Ti l la is the name of a deity as well as the
.
2 3
,

name of a land in the region called Urtu or Armenia .

I n other words the us u al ideogram for the co u ntry ,

Uri or Ak k ad Babylonia) stood also for the co u n

tries Ari or Am u rr u and Urm or Armenia Here shou ld .

be mention ed again the mon u men t of Hammu rabi ,

fo u nd at D iarbe k ir in S o u thern Armenia in which the , ,

single title u sed is King of Uru “

S Meiss er I deog r m m e N
ee 5 3 28
n ,
a ,
o . .

Cf V B i b I p 70
2
. or . .
, ,
. .

Ti ll is th
3
me t o l y of th l d b t of deit y cf H d i u-

i b—
a e na no n e an u a

d T i—
.
,

Ti l — l A h t a, Ti l l s Ti l l of m y B E
-
a r- l XV -
d a an a- -
a vo an
—
. . .
, ,

A q -
Ti l —
a r- l of B E l X I V ; l so cf T —
a i —
b p Ti l l
.i d I s ht r
.
,
vo . a . e -
a an a

I i—
c Ti l —l Pi ch es Jou r l f th Roy l A si tic S ociety 1 8 9 7 p
a, n ,
na o e a a , , .

5 8 9 ff .d Ti m i Ti l l
,
an Orie L i ter tu r z eitu g 1 9 0 2 p 2 4 5
- -
Cf - a, n . a n , ,
. . .

a l so M Ti l l e-ch ief of th Hittites i th tre ty of R m eses I I

a, e n e a a .

A dditio l m es co m p o
na de d w ith Ti l l h e b ee p b l ish e d
na un a av n u te

ce n tl y b y U g d (B A VI 5 p n I ri —
na ir Ti l l M li : - - a, -
c

Ti l—
. . .
, ,

l a S h u r k i Ti l l
,
d S hi m i Ti l l
- - O t h ers w ill ppe r i
- a an - - -
a . a a n

m y fort h co m i g ol um e of Te m pl e D oc um e ts Bork rig h tly r

n v n . e

g rde d th first
a m e m e tio ed b o e to b Mi tt
e na cf 0 L Z n n a v e a n n aea n ,
. . .

1 90 6 p 5 9 1
,
Th is see m s to b corro b or te d b y th
. . m es w h ic h r e a e na a e

q u oted fro m th t b l et p u b l is h e d b y Pi c h es e My tte tio h

a n . a n n as

b ee c ll ed b y D A T Ol m te d to
n a pl ce Ti ll h m e tio ed b y
r . . . s a a a a ,
n n

L y r d (N i
a a eh d B b y l o p ne v t th j u ctio an of th E st a n, . a e n n e a

an d W est Ti g ris w h ich i th direct ro u te fro m A ss y ri to th

,
s on e a e

L e V
a k d istrict A oth er site Tel is m e tio e d b y A h r i r
an . n a n n s u n as

p l (I l i 1 1 3
a ,
w h ich l ter w
. c ll ed Co st ti d w a as a n an a an no

Vir an sh hi b et w ee
e Urf r, d M rdi d S E of D i r b e ki rn a an a n an . . a .

Th e r u i s r i m p ort t b t t e rl y Ol m ste d t h i ks th
n a e an ,
u no a . a n e

Ass y ri site of t h is city is to b fi ed to th N W t th e r b y

an e x e . . a e n a -

mo und of T ll G r e au an .
1 04 A M U R RU H OM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
An important argu ment for the movement of the
A morit e s into Babylonia is to be fo u nd in this fact that ,

the name of that land in the third and fo u rth millenni u ms

before Christ after the S e m ites had entered is the same
, ,

as the name of the co u ntry from which they came or , ,

i n other words the A morite lan d called A m u rru or

,

Uru was geographically extended s o that it incl u ded

that part Of the E u phrates valley occ u pied by the
S emitic Babylonians .

The fact that Ak k ad or Northern Babylonia is called

Uri and that A m urr u is called A ri raises the q u estion
, ,

whether there is a conn ection between A m u rru and Uri

or A ri We have seen that in the late period the Aramaic
.

equ ivalent for A m u rru which is scratched on c u neiform

"
tablets is HR The representation of the Babylonian
.

m by the A ramaic w or vi c e versa is well kno w n ; for , ,

example {221 2} is w ritten in Aramaic for S ha m a sh

, ,

{T D for S i m a n u and
[IJWR for a rga m a n u
,
Perhaps the .

m ost stri k ing ill u stration of this is the transcription

of the Hebrew ma by J dm a i n Babylonian
’ ‘
.

Natu rally it is possible that the Aramaic equ ivalent

"
IN for Am urr u was prono u nced by the A ramaeans
A w a r altho u gh ordinarily w in s u ch instances became a
,

vowel letter as Or for w e light etc In Babylonian

,
” ’
,
“
,
.

the elision of a w between two vowels after which a ,

m on opth on g i z i n g of the vowels ta k es place is well ,

Se e A pp e di e J h w h Th ph o etic ch g e of m
n x on th e n am a e . e n an

t th se m i co so
o e t u ft r w h ich it fre q u e tl y dis ppe rs is
-
n n an , a e n a a ,

w el l k o w
n cf h m d ti = h d l i etc Th is is d ue of co rse to th
n , . s u s u ,
. , u , e

f ct th t th m w so de d l ike w
a a e as un .
1 06 A M U RR U HOM E OF N O RT HE RN S EM I T ES
are fo u nd as Na m ra tu m which is considered to belong
wi —
,

to the stem n a w dru ; S ha m a sh l i — i r the father of 1 -

,

I bga tu m written S ha m a sh l i m e ri
,
and A w i — i r tu m - - -
,
2 - -
,

written A m e i r ru m I n the Cassite period with the

- - - 3

exception of an example li k e A w i —
.
,

l u tu m these words - -
,
‘
,

as far as they occ u r have m ,

.

Th is change of consonant is in reversed order from

that of the late p eriod Considering also that initial w .

of the early period as in w a ra d etc is dropped and also

, ,
.
,

w is d ropped between two vowels as in b i rtu i hi r from , ,

ha w dru and that there is practically no s u pport from

,

the cognate langu ages for the view that w is origi nal in
these stems except the late Aram aic M ” which it
, ,

is claimed is the stem of a wdtu it seems as if the last ,

word has not been written on the s u bj ect Moreover if .

,

in the late period the m of A m u rru a m él u and perhaps , ,

a m dtu was prono u nced li k e 10 ; and a m él u a m d tu and , ,

the other words contained w in the early period it is ,

not improbable that Am urr u was also prono u nced

Aw u rru in the early p eriod Ye t it mu st be admi tted .

that the absol u te proof of the identification of a m ar

wi th 12m in the e arly Babyloni a n p eriod as well as in ,

the West S emitic inscri ptions h as not yet been f u rnished ,

.

I t is very invit i ng to s u ggest t h at per h a p s this change

of consonants was d u e to dialectical diff erences in the
lang u ages from the West of which all traces are lost , .

1
S e e Un g n a d B A VI , 5, 1 27. .
, ,
p . .

2
S e e Ra n ke PN p 1 45
, . .
, . .

3
S e e Poe b e l B E VI p l 2 , 4 : l 1 2 , 1 6 2 2
, . .
, , .
, , an d
C
S e e lay , B
E , X IV , 58 : 1
. . .
 A M U RR U IN C U N E I FO RM I N S C R I PT I O N S 1 07

This wo u ld obviate the necessity of ass u m i n g that the

original and the later ste m s n a waru and n a m d ru were , ,

both in u se in the Hammu rabi period ; an d this wo u ld

also acco u nt for s u ch synonyms as a md ru and a w dru ‘ ’ ’
.

On th is su p position the ide ntification of the Wes t

S emitic stem fro m which the word Amorite comes
” “

"
with HR wo u ld become reasonable However while
,
.
,

the other considerations seem to su pport the view that

the di fferences are dialectical and it wou ld throw m u ch ,

welcome light on the s u bject it is here o ffered only as a ,

plau sible conj ect u re .

The word for West s u nset etc in the Babylonian , ,

.
,

Talmu d is Urya (N fil N) A w u rru

’
A m u rru In ’
.
2

this connection we are reminded of the Talmu dic Ur ’

( TIN) s u nset twilight evening and even Urta

,
“
, , ,
” ’ ’

“
night and the diffic u lty the Jews in Baby ,
”

lonia experienced in trying to u nderstand how Ur

w hich ordinarily means light in this connection ,
”

meant darkness or the West

“
In the Babylonian
“
.

Talmu d the qu estion is ask ed Wh y is the West called

“
,
’
Urya ? (WWW vari an t TIN) and the answer was , ,

becau se it means divine air (variant light ) meaning , ,

Pa l e sti n e fi I n other words they did not appreciate the ,

D el it zsch Pr l g m
See p 28 ; d H l evy i M s A r l t
, o o o en a , . an a , n us - no ,

A s yri
s D ictio ry p 5 2 Th f ct th t m o g th l u es of th
an na , . . e a a a n e va e

c u eifor m M A S H w fi d m d r d m i r i (perh ps th s m e
n , e n a u an a a e a as

Ami r s m m i t i Heb re w ) l o g si d e of sh m sh u ell u i bb

,
“
u ,
”
n a n a , , u,

ua m ru etc
a see m s to s pport th view of th es ch ol r th t
, u e e s a s a

d r sy o y m s
’ ’
a m dr u an w (2r a u a e n n .

S Meiss er S u pp l e m e t p 1 0
ee n ,
n , . .

S J stro w T l m dic D ictio ry p 3 4

ee a ,
a u na ,
. .
 1 08 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O RT HE RN S EM I T E S
o rigin of the term While Ur (MN) the name of the .
’
,

c o un try means light to the S emite living in the “

, ,

E ast i e Babylonia it also meant evening d ar k ness “

. .
, , , , ,

West etc becau se A m u rru or Uru was the l an d of

,
”
.
,
1

th e West or of the su nset i e the l an d of the going

, ,
. .
,
“

in of the s un .

O THE R NA ME S OF AMAR .

The chief argu ments for the view that the movement
w as eastward into Babylonia are to be fo un d in the fact
that the c ul tu re of the Am orites w as carried into that
land This a s we h ave seen shows itself i n s u ch legends as
.
, ,

Mard u k Ti a m tu Gilgamesh etc b u t especially in the

-
, ,
.
,

worship of the great solar deity or deities of the West by

the Babylonians Besides the names A m a r or M a r and .

A m u r already disc u ssed the following v ari a nt forms of

, ,

the name of this same deity considered in connection ,

with the theory concerning the way they arose ,

strengthens the thesis here maintained .

aof I s i h 24 1 5 is s ll y tr sl te d re g io of
r
m a a ,
u ua an a ,
“
n

l igh t ,
E st cf B hl G i Heb rew D icti ry I t is q i te
” “
a ,
”
. u -
e s e n us , on a . u

na t u r l to s u m e th t th w or d fl i t: i P l esti e sh o ul d m e
a as a e n a n an
“
E st i th pl ce of th risi g of th l ig h t d espe i l l y b y
a ,
. e .
,
e a e n e ,
an c a

re so of
a n tith esis wi th th w or d isl es w h ich w ere i th
an an e
“
,
n e

W est Ho w ever . D I is th
P u l w or d f or E t d th ,
as
'
e us a
“
as ,
”
an e

w or d i q u estio m e s W est i A r m i c it i q i t p rob b l e “

n n an n a a s u e a
,

th t th m e i g is th s m e i Heb re w I t m t b otice d th t
a e an n e a n . us e n a

th ph r se w h ic h fo ll o w s referri g to th isl es of th j st “
e a ,
n e e se a , c an u

as w e ll b d erstoo d b ei g p r ll el w hi ch w o l d r q i r th
e un as n a a ,
u e u e e

m ean i g W est
n
“
.
”
1 10 A M U RRU H OM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I TE S
dynasty both e leme n ts seem to be West
,
I s hb i Urra , -

S emitic .
1

I n these same texts there is also a deity Uru or Ur ,

w ritten NI TA witho u t the phonetic complement ra ,

and also US H He re shou ld be mentioned also the .

2

name NI TA (or GI R) A M U which probably is to - - 3

be read Ura (a ) —
,

i ddi n Ura has given or Ura a pi l , ,

”
-

i ddi n Ura gave a s on u nless M U in the early period

, ,

does not have the val u e n a da n u .

This disc us sion throws additional light u pon the k ing s ’

name now generally read Wa ra d S i n or A ra d— S i n and -

,

identified by some with Arioch of the fou rteenth chapter

Of Genesis The identification is highly plau sible
.
,

becau se Wa ru d S i n was the k ing of Larsa which city -

,

1
I sh bi is form f W est S e m itic el em e t
a B a b y l oni a n i ze d O a n

cf J h— i—
,

. bi — l
a -a s fo u d i R ke Perso l N m es p 1 44
a, n of n an ,
na a ,
. .

2 S m u el 2 1
a 1 6 m y l so re p rese t th el e m e t ,
a a n e n .

Hub er P erso
2
me p 57 ,
ote 1 g ro up e d th ese to g et h er
nen na n, .
,
n , ,

an d s ys rdu ser t
a UR U DI N GI R RA tr sl te d A r d
a ,
“
van .
” - -
an a a

i li ser t of g d m kes se se b t so m eth i g see m s to b

“
va n o
”
a n u n e

UR U—
, , ,

w ro g w it h th co m m o UR U M U i ddi ) if tr s -

ser t h g i e ; or UR U L I G—
n e n n ,
an

l te d GA w h ich Hub er
“ ” -
a a va n as v n , ,

feeli g t h t rdu c ot b correct tr sl tes Th stro g UR U

n a a an n e ,
an a
“
e n .
”

F u rt h er s u ch ,
m es GA L (A m él ) UR U nam of serv t as u -
,
“
an an ,

GI R— sl ve of ser t d D UM U UR U of ser t
“ “
UR U ,
a va n ,
an -
,
s on va n
,

w o ul d g i e str ge m e i g s if UR U w ere tr sl te d K ech t “

v an an n an a n .

Hub er ppreci te d t h i a d dd e d t h t I m a y m es UR U s , an a a
“
n an na

UR U RA see m s to h ve b ee
-
ed e q ui l e t for g o d s a n us as an va n a
’

na m e or h ,
sks is it s y o y m of b du ser t ? U q
,
e a ,
a n n a ,
va n
”
n ues

tion a b ly w h e h ere lso th e m e of th

av g d Ur d th a e na e o u ,
an e

m es m e gi e Ur is m i g h t y serv t f
“ ” “ ” “
na Ur h an u as v n ,
u ,
an O

Ur u
”
d th an of U “
e s on ru .
”

S h il M
3
c i hte D 5 2,
an s u su , . : .
 A M U RR U IN C U N E I F O RM I N S C R I PT I O N S 111

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

which Arioch r u led He w as also a cotemporary Of .

Am raphel the Hamm u rabi of the inscriptions and his

1
, ,

father Ku d u r Mab u g the king of E m u tb a l or E lam

,
-
, , ,

was k ing of S yria and Palestine at this partic ul ar time ,

which is in strict accordance with Genesis where we learn ,

that E lam was the s u zerain power in that land The .

identification is based especially u pon the fact that the

second element of the name can be read A ku as well as
S i n and that the first character read A rdu has also
, , ,

the dialectical val u e E ri .

These facts which are well kno w n have been accepted

, ,

by a l arge n u mber of scholars b u t some seem to exercise ,

m ore than ordi nary critical ca u tion with reference to

the identification I n the first place the name list of .
,

the I sin and Ur dynasties show that A ku or Agu w as

frequ ently us ed in personal names Fu rther in these ?
,

S u merian centers it cannot be sho w n by phonetically

written examples that the element was read Wa rdu or
A rdu in the early period I n all probability it w as .

read Ur or E ri Where the element is followed by the

.

name of a god althou gh an other translation is possible

, ,

namely Uru is A ku we wo u ld nat u rally translate

, ,
“
servant of A ku At the same time the fac t that .
,

S i ce
n e r ce of m y L ig ht th Old Test m e t from
th e a pp a a n on e a n

B b el Th
a ,
D g i h sh o w th t W d S i
u re a u - an d Ri m S i
n as n a a ra -
n an - n

w ere tw p erso g es b ot h b ei g so s of Ku d u r M b g
- u
o na ,
n n a .

S 2
Hub er Perso e
ee me p
,
1 67 ; l so cf A k i l m
n d
nna n ,
. a .
- u- - u an

A k E
- u-f th M i h t
a O Ob e l isk
e an s us u .
1 12 A M U RR U HO M E OF N O RTH ER N S EM IT E S
there is an E lami te deity B ri a mu st not be lost sight l

of and especially as the ki ng s father Ku du r Mab u g

,
’
,
-
,

w as r u ler over E m u tb al a name of or part of E lam ,

.

Moreover it seems to me that the only concl u sion at

,

which we can arrive is that the r u ler s name was not ,

’

prono un ced A rad S i n b u t Uri (or E ri ) A ku -

,
-
.

Two other ideog rams whi ch have the readin g Uru are
fo un d in names of the early period Uri (B UR B UR) D A - - ’

and Uru —
,

DA Hu ber says Uru the h oly city a

.
3 4
,

god s ’
Whi le I qu estion the reading alu ,
”
“
city it mus t be recalled that there is a deity or
,

epithet A l i frequ ently fou nd in the names of the Fi rst

,
-
,

— — ,
—
dynasty e g A l i b a n i shu Al i is his creator
. .
,
” -
, ,

and also that the name of a deity often appears as su b

sti tu te s for the patron deity in names V ery probably .
,

however we have here also the name of the deity Uru

,
.

With this u nderstanding the above names mak e sense .

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

- -

S Hi k e N b h d
ee I p 22 2
n ,
e uc a re zza r ,
. .

S Cu ei form Te ts X 2 4
ee n Ob 1 x , , ,
. .

UR U i th l tter m e s
3
city i S um eri
n H b er
e a an
“
n an . u ,

Perso me p 5 6 re d s th
ne n n a m e I tti
n ,
w it h city
.
,
a e na
“
a .
”

Al so Ur ( UR U) M U h re d s al i ddi
u w hi ch tr sl te d w o ul d
-
,
e a u- n, an a

be
“
th city h g i e
e Ur ( UR U) ki b i h tr sl t
as D ie v n
”
u - -
e an a es
“

Ur ( UR U) —
.

S t dt s p rich t
a KA GI NA h tr sl tes D ie S t d t u - - e an a
“
a

Ur ( UR U) NI B A A GA S ei e S t d t i t “
u - - - n a s
,

L ie b l i g ; d lw d m m i q etc
”
Ur ( UR U) B A S A G S A G
n u - - - u a ,
.

Cf i b id p 1 8 9. .
, . .

S l ists i R k e P ers
ee l N m es h i B E n l VI p t 1an ,
on a a ,
s . .
,
vo .
,
.
,

an d P b l B E oe l VI p t 2
e ,
. .
,
vo .
,
. .

Perh p s m u sh is S m itic cf Wi n etc of th Old Test

°
a e ,
.
”
,
.
,
e a

me t n Ki g P roceedi g s f S ociety f B i b l ic l A rch e l og y

. n ,
l n o o a a o ,
vo .

XXX 1 9 0 8 p 23 9 su g g ests th re di g Ri m h
, , . ,
e a n - a -u s .
1 14 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
Cas site doc u ments at Nippu r as a r u le did not prefix , ,

the determinative to the names of the Cassite deities

(with the exception of S hu ga m u n a who had been ,

introdu ced into the Babylonian pan theon ) in the same

way the S um eri an scribes in the early period probably
,

regarded this god of the A morites as foreign This it .

,

seems to be evident was done becau se of the religiou s ,

prej u di ces of the scribes An d yet it mu st be borne in .

m i nd that s u ch deities as S in or Nannar in this as well

as the earlier p e riod are freq u ently written witho u t the

determi native The Legend of Urra which echoes

.
,

severe confli cts waged against certain Babylonian

cities by some rival power also points to a foreign d i s ,

tri c t o v er whi ch the god presided .

I t may be of i n terest to add that the earliest inscribed

object dedicated to the god Urra is a vase which is in ,

the Morgan Library Collection I t is dedicated by or .

f or a son of Lu g a l ki sa l si who belongs perhaps to the-

,

f ourth millenni um B C ? The name of the god is written .

DI NGI R BI L LI L which according to Rawlinson IV

'
-
, , , ,

5 66a is to be read Urra

, ,
.

NE RGA L .

Nergal the patron deity of Cu th a is also a solar

, ,

deity who in the late period is the god of the b u rning heat
,
2

of the sun or the god of the all destroying midday

,
-

Se eks A V e I scri ptio fro m W rk

Ba n ,
“
as n n a a ,
”
Am eric an

Jou r l f S m i tic L g u g es XXI p 63

na o e an a , , . .

2
S Je se Kosm ol og ie p 48 4 f ; Zi m m er K A
ee n n , ,
. . n, . .
p 4 1 2,
.

and J stro w R l B b
a ,
d A ep 1 57 . a . un ss .
, . .
 A M U RR U IN C U N E I F O RM I NS C RI P T I O N S 1 15

s un The great heat of the sun in Babylon ia h as a highly

.

destr u ctive power which do u btless gave rise to the ,

attrib u tes attached to this deity when he became the

god of p estilence death and the u nderworld One l

of the S u merian ideograms for the deity is NE —

.
,

URU
GA L w h ich gave rise to the familiar N erga l
,
S cholars .

h ave considered this ideogram to mean Lord of the great

dwelling Hades ) ”
Hau pt following D elit z sch .
, ,
2

and others have thus regarded i t I n the light .

s

of these investigations there can be little do u bt that ,

this sign UR U which ordinarily h as the meaning ,

“
dwelli n g w as selected by the S u merian scribes at
,

Cu th a as mentioned above simply beca u se it represented

, ,

the so u nd Uru The last two elements of the name .

wo u ld then mean great Uru The name of the god is .

frequ ently f oun d written i n this abbreviated form as ,

U ri ga l la
- -
Urra ga l etc
-
F u rther the first element
,
‘ -
,
.
,

N E does not seem to mean lord b u t n uru light

5 ” “
,
6
, ,
”7

altho u gh it sho u ld be borne in mind that the meaning

“
Lord Uru if NE is translated lord wo u ld be
”
,
”
,

p arallel to King Uru

“
L UGA L URU) another
”
-
,

name of this deity The name then Of this Amorite .

Je se Kosm ol og ie pp 476—
Se e n 48 7
n , ,
. .

A m eric
2
Jo r l f Ph i l l g y VI I I p 274 d Proc di g s
an u na o o o , , .
,
an ee n

f A m eric Orie t l S ociety O cto b er 1 8 8 7 X I

o an n a , , ,
.

S 3
l so Zim m er
ee a K A T p 41 2 n ,
. . .
3
,
. .

S tr ss m ier Nb k 3 0 5 4
a a ,
. : .

I th N r m S i i cri p tio fo
n e di S
a a d eity NI N NE
-
n ns n un n us a a -

URU ( UN U) occ rs cf Th D g i V r B i b I p 1 68
u ,
. u re a u - an n, o . .
, ,
. .

Th si g
°
h o w e er h
e th n,l u e g hr ; cf Br w Li dv ,
as e va as u . un n o ,
.

Cf M i s n er S elte e I d g m m N 69 20
. e s ,
n e o ra e, O . .
1 16 A M U RRU HO M E O F NO RT H E R N S E M I T E S

god when written by the S u merian scribes at Cutha

su n - , ,

me ant The l ight of the great Uru or p erhaps Lord

“
,
” “

Uru g al .

“
The deity L UGA L has also been identified -
URU
with Nergal as above I n a passage from Rawl i nson
,
.
,

I n scri pti on s of Wes tern A si a we seem to have proof 1

,

that this deity is from A m u rru It reads : S ha r ra pu

d
.
- -

DI NGI R L UGA L UR RA M A R KI i e The deity “

- - -
. .
, ,

S ha rra pu (the b u rner ) Lu ga l Urra (Lord Uru ) Of

”2
A m u rru .

MA RD U K .

Another
stri king proof of the trans mi ssion i s to b e
seen in the name of the god Ma rdu k whose solar charac ,

ter is attested by Beros u s which w as first p ointed ,

ou t by S ayce After Hamm u rabi placed this god of

.
3

light at the head of the pantheon and ma de him su p ,

plant the other gods his solar feat u res were over ,

shadowed by the man y other attrib u tes with which he

w as invested and as a con seq u ence they were more or
,

less lost sight Of .

The deity u nder t h e name Ma rdu k is not known in

the Hebrew of the e arl y ipe ri od and with one exception , ,

i e D I M a rdu k the name does not occ u r in the Amarna

. .
,
-
,

letters This is significant and shows as stated (p

.
, ,
.

that the s u pposed great infl u ence exerted by Babylonian

V 46 — 1
d 22,
c ,
.

Cf K A 2
p 41 5
. ote I
. . .
,
n .

Tr s S 3
B i b A rch
an 1 89 3
. oc . . .
, ,
II, p . 246 ; cf . al so Je se n n ,

Kosm ol g ie p 88o , . .
1 18 A M U R RU HO M E OF N O RT H R E N S EM I T E S
u tu k, for it is well known that a final G incl u ding the ,

vowel in S u merian is often apocopated

,
.
‘

Jensen explains A M A R UT to mean the son of the

sun This explan ation however is based on a frag
.
”2
, ,

ment of qu estionable val u e Pinches explains A M A R .

3

UD UG to me an the brightness of the day Ho m mel “

.
‘

cons iders A M A R to mean yo un g wild ox which

“
,

explanation he feels is con firmed by one of the dates of

B u r S i n where hi s name is written A m a r S i n S ayce
-
“ -
5
.
,

e xplains the name as having a p u nning etymology ,

A m a r u tu k heifer of the goblin

-
”
,
“
.

I t is possible to u nderst and how a deity li k e Mard u k

co u ld have an epithet S on of S hamash ; b u t it does ,
“

n ot seem appropriate to explain the name of the patron

deity of Babylon in that way An d notwithst an d ing .

S ee L e der S um erisch e L
an e h n w orte r, p 34
U T—
.
, .

Cf . K B . ru J g es.
,
V I , p 5 62 . .
“
AMAR - m ar pu
‘
un
’

m d ri h m h -s
d i Soa e ki d O d er S o e soh der
as u, s in
. .
‘
nn n n
‘
nn n n
’

Ge tt b er ich t S o e sch l ech th i ‘ ’

e r, a n nn n .

Old Test m e t i th L i g ht f th H istoric l I scri ptio s etc

3
a n n e o e a n n
,
.
,

p . 54 .

4
S m u eri an L e ses tu cke , p . 51 .

5
t evide t th t th m es of b oth th
I t is q u i eof D g i n a e na e son un

of U NI N—
,

of th Ur dy ty d th e I B of th I si
n as t , an e son r- e n , a re no

to b re d B r S i ; d desi g te d is s ll y do e B u r S i I
e a u -
n an na , as u ua n ,
- n ,

an d B r S i II I e ery i st ce w h ere th for m er occ u rs th

u -
n . n v n an e , e

si g A M A R is w ritte cf C T XXI 2 4 25 2 7 d Hil p h t

n n , . .
, , , ,
an re c ,

R E I p t 1 20 22 XX 4 7 3 etc w h ere
, , . th , l tter m e is, , ,
: , .
,
as e a na

w ritte w ith B UR nf B E I pt 1 1 9 d XX 47 1 5 Moreo er , o . . .

, , .
, , an , : . v

i B E
n XX 47 b oth m es p pe r U til th erefore ph o etic
. .
, : , na a a . n , , a n

w riti g is fo u d
n l th o u g h A M A R m y b re d B u r th re d i g
n , a a e a , e a n

A m r S i for th form er
a -
d B n S i for th l tter i p refer b l e
e an u r- n e a s a .

Rel i g i f E gypt d B b yl o i p 3 25 on o an a n a, . .
 A M U RR U IN C U N E I F O RM I N S C R I P T I O N S 1 19

the other explanations it does not seem ou t of place to ,

offer still other conjec tu res .

I f A ma r is a synonym of HR light as has been “

, ,

su ggested which Pinches apparently had in mi n d in

,

translating brightness then the first elemen t of the

” “
,

name cou ld also be a synonym of NE n uru ) which

—
,

is fo un d in NE — U R U GAL Light of the great Uru ,

“
,

an d also of S I R n uru or n a pdhu ) in S I R (u s u ally -

read B U) N E NE Light or flame of the fire the -

, ,
”

chariote e r of S hamas h of S ippar I n this c as e A M A R .

UT UG wo u ld mean L ight Of Utu k i e the s u n “

,
”
. .
,
.

A ma — -
ru which as we s a w above is equ ivalent to
, , ,

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

,

element This wou ld mean if correct that in writ ing

.
, ,

thi s name the Amorite element A m a r w as u sed in con

n e c ti on with the S u merian UT UG or the Babylon ’

i ze d u tu k .

other explanation is perhaps more plau sible

An .

Words were compou nded in Babylonian in other than

the S emi tic constr u ct relation Many of these com
‘
.

positions do u btless arose throu gh the infl u ence of

S u merian writing ?

Del it z sch A ssy ri sche G r m m tik

Se e ,
a a .

I t h is co
2
n ectio I desire to c ll tte tio to se er l m es
nn n a a n n v a na

O f w oods sto es im l s d pl ts so m e of w hi ch m y e e t u l l y
,
n ,
an a an an ,
a v n a

b esh o w to b si m il r i for m tio Th

n e m e of th co try a n a n . e na e un

A m rr u b e i g th s m e
u ,
th deit yn m o g th m e y ri tio s
a as e ,
a n e an va a n

i for m i w hi ch th
n n me pp e rs w h e A m r M A m ure na a a e av a ,
ar
, ,

M u r Ur a n d A r
——
.
,

Pl ts an : A -m u r ti n nu (I I R .
,
45 , A -m u r ri -qa -n u
! -
(al so a .

sic k ess ofn th e e y e , of . A r b ic r

a a aq and ur a q,
“
g r i
a n
1 20 A M U RR U HO M E OF N O R TH R N S E M I T E s E
c us tomary at the present time to designate the
As i s
origin of a nimals woods etc by mentioning the name of , ,
.
,

the cou ntry as for example S cotch terrier ”

I talian
, , ,
“
,
“

ma rble etc it seems nat ural to post u late that the

,
”
.
,

Babylonians di d the same in nam in g foreign materials .

An d thi s being the case Amu rr u sho u ld figu re pro m i ,

u ently in that respect for frequ ently we read i n the ,

inscriptions as early as the time of Gu dea that t hi s , ,

land w as the forest that f u rnished woods for their

temples and the qu arry where they got certain kinds
,

of stone A m a r u tu k may therefore mean the

.
-
, ,

Am orite Utu k the Am orite s un god

”
i e On e ,
. .
,
-

other explanation seems probable and worth considering .

A M A R UTUG being an Am orite deity contains

’
-
, ,

as its first element A m a r meaning the deity (see above ) ,

.

I n the light of these considerations therefore is it not , ,

reasonable to s u ggest that the name means Am a r “

A w a -a r-ka -si r ( I I R 43 67a an d b ) ; A w a -a r-si -qi r A w a -a r

—
.
,

s a -n a b ( D el it z sc h
u etc o ds ,
u H W . . B .
,
p . W o : Ur-ha -l m b ( Vor
. .

B i b I pp 3 0 9 6 ) see m s to b el o g to A m u rr ; Ur k ri
.
, ,
.
, ( Es r n u -
a nnu a

h ddo
a I 20 ) is b ro g h t w it h ced r fro m S ido ; M
n ,
ri qq ( M ss u a n a r-e u u

A r l t D ic
no ,
etc S to es M r r ti m ( B u w
.
,
. n : u -a -
na - r nno ,

M r i p rr ( B ii
u -s a w u Ar g m w h ic h i P h e ici
r nno dy - a an , s o n an e
— —
.
,

i S y ri c m e s col or etc A im l s A m r “
n a an ; A m r i ,
. n a : - u -
s a -n u u s

gu ( Meiss er S u p p l e m e
n t p A w,
r i —
l m M r—b b i ll M s n ,
. a -a - u a a u ,
us

A r l t D ic
no p 90
,
d D el it z sch H W B
.
,
. p M r i qi
,
an ,
. . .
,
. u -
n s

( M s Ar l t D ic p 5 8 4 root
us -
no d q ) etc
,
.
,
.
,
na s u ,
.

Th ese w ords th et y m ol o gy of e rl y ll of w h ich i i do b t

,
e n a a s n u ,

t ke fro m f ll er l ist I si m pl y offer i order to r i e th q u estio

a n a u ,
n a s e n

w h et h er so m e of t h e m t l e st c ot b e pl i e d co t i i g a a an n e x a n as n a n n

p er h p s th
a e l e m e t disc u sse d d es peci l l y w h e sim il r
e n ,
an a as e av a

form tio s a sh r edu perh ps ri e from th S m eri

n ,
as a a - ,
a a s n e u an .
1 22 A M U RR U H O M E O F N O RT HE R N S E M I T E S

mean i ng h as not been improved u pon There i s how

, .
,

ever another plau sible explanation of thi s name which

, ,

may event u ally be fou nd to be correct .

We have seen in Part I that the mou ntain Md shu

figures prominently in t he Gilgamesh e p ic and that it ,

is located in the l an d of Amu rr u We h ave f u rther

seen how in the name Gi lga —
.

m esh and in the names of

several temples i n Babyl onia t h e element Ma sh or
Mesh figu res and that thi s element in all probability
,

is foreig n Now as is well kn own another com mon

.
, ,

ideogram f or N I N I B is M AS H Th e first element -

.

N I N meaning Lady or Mistress an d the name N I N IB

“ ”
,
-
,
“
Lady I B wh o w as the consort of t h e god I B s h ows
,
”
,

that originally the deity was femi nin e As there w as a .

West S emitic deity called Ma sh his consort sho u ld b e ,

called Ma shl u I n Babylonian there is a deity Ma sh and

.
,

als o his consort Ma shi u Knowin g as we do that t h is .

deity li k e Nin Girsu and others became masc ul inized it is

,
-
, ,

altogether reas onable to assu me that e ven in early times

the deity became E N Ma shtu that is Lord Masht u
“ -
, ,
.
”

Thi s as well as the above explanation identifies the

deity with the West whi ch is f urther disc u ssed and for , ,

which additional proofs are given in the Appendix on

“
The Name NI N IB ”
-
.

U RA S H .

The god Ura sh written I B and perhaps also I B B A ,

-
,
‘

who w as th e local deity of Di lb a t is do u btless also a ,

See Cl ay, B . E .
,
v ol . XI V, p 5 9
. .
 A M U RRU IN C U N E I F O RM I N S C R I P T I O N S 1 23

solar deity from A m u rr u This follows from the deter .

mination of NI N I B who w as originally the con sort of -

,

IB as being A morite
,
.

I t occ u rs in E b ed —
Ura sh in the A marna letters .

Now in a P unic inscription of the t h ird cent u ry B C .

there occ urs the name W IN WZW which in all proba ' '

b i l i ty is the same ; compare also NWWNDIQ Ura sh .

‘

may be a contraction of WN fl N Ur esh i e Uru E sh '

,
-
,
. .
,
-
,

like Bi r A da d or A m a r Utu k etc (se e above ) The first

-
,
. .

element in E sh ba al son of S a u l and Ashbel

-
‘

(53 0 W ,
the name of a son of Benj ami n (Ge n .

46 may of co u rse be W N man b u t I prefer to

’ “ ”
, ,

se e in it the deity E sh fire god ; com p are I shu m

”
-
,

especially in the Hamm u rabi p eriod ? I B = Ura sh h as

the val u e a gm u perhaps I b u rned and considering ,
3 “
,

that [ B is the consort Of NI N IB a solar deity the -

, ,

above expl an ation seems at least plau sible ‘

.

S HA MAS H .

whose temple w as at S ippar is nat u rally

S ha m a sh, ,

recognized as the great solar deity of the Babyloni a n

S emites At the same time we have only to recall the
.
,

fact that i n the A marna letters S hamash is the one all

Cooke orth S em itic I scri ptio s p 70 co m p res th root was

,
N n n ,
.
,
a e
,

w h ich i A s y ri
n ( r esk )
s desire re q u est
an c d th He b re w
a
“
, ,
an e

fi fth s ; b t i bi d p 1 2 9 i
u d isc ss i g
.
,
. h t h i k s it is deit y
,
n u n e n a ,

d co m p res A p 7c
’
an a 7 .

S R ke P erso l N m es
ee an ,
na a .

w L ist N
3
S B i 1 0 48 1
’

ee r inn o ,
o . .

F4
ot h er e pl tio of Ur sh see D h orm e O L Z 1 90 9
ora n x an a n a , . . .
1 24 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O R T H RN S E EM I T E S
important deity so frequ ently named in the sal u tation , .

The Ph araoh addressed is called my S hamash my “

,

god (i li i e plu ra li s i n ten si vu s) my lord

‘
,
.
”
These
.
, , .

th ree terms correspond to the Hebrew Yahweh E lohim , ,

“
god an d A donai
,
”
lord I t is not impossible ,
“
.

that the E gyptian sun god Re or the foreign impor -

,

tati on Aten w as meant who the E gyptians believed ,

w as incarnated in the Pharaoh ; b u t if that were tr u e ,

we wo u ld ex p ect at least a single variant in whi c h ,

one or the other was referred to by that name I t i s .

more probable that the Amorite writer meant his ow n

s u n deity which he associated with the deity Of th e
-

sp ite of th p ro o ced ie w s of oth ers w h h e di ffere d

In e n un v o av

w it h th e pl tio s o ff ered for D I NGI R—

e x an a D I N GI R or D I N GI R
n

ME S H El oh i m th g e eric m e of th g d mo g e n na e o a n

th Heb re w s
e d th p eo pl e of th W est ( cf Hil p
an h t E ditori l
e e . re c ,
a

Pref ce to m y B E
a l X p I X ) I co t i u e to m i t i
. .
,
th t
vo .
,
.
,
n n a n a n a

th is e pl tio off ere d b y B rto ( Proc A m er Ori e S A pril

x an a n a n . . n . oc .
, ,

1 8 9 2) i i sll p ro b b il it y correct
n a Th t D I NGI R M E S Ha 5a . a -
,

i th
n m es of th
e na A ch m e i p erio d I h e co cl si el y sh o w
e ae n an ,
av n u v n

i m y p p er
n A r m ic E d orse m e ts i
a on th H r p er M e m ori l
a a n n n e a a

Vol u m e ( I p 287 if ) ,
U l ess it. b p ro ed th t th w or d . n can e v a e

El oh i m of th Ol d Test m e t w e ti e rl y th seco d a n as n o n us e a s a as e n

m i ll e i u m B C th ere is every re o to e pect to fi d it i th

nn . .
, as n x n n e

l iter t re f P l esti e
a u O d es p eci l l y i th A m r
a l etters
n ,
Th is an a n e a na .

b ei g tr e t h ere
n u g oo d re so s for b el ievi g t h t i
,
a re th me a n n a n e na

W d D I NGI R D I N GI R M A R T U w m u st reco g i z e th g e eric

a ra - - - -
e n e n

na m e for G od ed b y th W ester S e m i tes ; th t is i ste d of

“ ”
us e n a ,
n a

tr sl ti g g o ds of A m u rr u th w riter b el ieves t h t i th e rl y
an a n
“
,
”
e a n e a

p erio d ,
w el las i th l te th scri b es di ff ere ti te d b et w ee
as n e a ,
e n a n

ilu d Si: or D a
an Moreo er m odifi c tio of t hi s vie w m i g h t
‘
. v ,
a a n

be su gg este d w h ich is th t th ,
me w p rob b l y re d W d a e na as a a a ra

E l Ur
-
uCo si d ered i co ectio w ith m m i th Pog o i ri p
. n
‘
n nn n n e n n n sc

tio t h is e pl tio ppe rs re so b l e

n , x ana n a a a na .
1 26 A M U R RU HOM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I TE S
establish its deity in the foremost position du ring the
r ul e of some powerf u l dynasty Besides thi s Aramaic .
‘

stem whi ch has led scholars to give the mean i ng servi

,

tor to S hamash no other seems to exist from whi ch the

”
,

name can be derived Taki ng this into consideration the .

,

following is o ffered as a plaus ible conj ect u re .

The name Ma sh more than has been realized , ,

fig u res promi nently in the E astern as well as in the

Western S emitic c ul tu res Ma sh in the Old Testament is .

called one of the sons of Aram (Ge n 1 0 Md shu .

is the mo u ntain where the gates of the setting sun were

fo u nd Thi s as has been stated (p
.
,
is probably to .

be located in Am u rr u and perhaps is Hermon near ,

D amasc u s (see below ) .

Thi s element Ma sh is frequ ently met with in the

Babylonian i nscriptions I t occ u rs in a n u mber of
temple names for example E UL M A S H E —
.

,
MAS H - -

MA S H E ME S H LAM etc I t is also fo u nd in the

,
- -
,
.

name Gi lga Me sh (see p -

This solar h ere was .

associated with E re ch w h e re a deity Mesh w as worshiped ? ,

The n a me of t he solar deity Lu ga l— Urra or Nergal

is written with t h e signs MA S H M A S H T his deity is -

of W estern origin The name N I N IB another of t h e .

-
,

chief solar deities of Babylonia is written in c u neiform ,

d
M A S H and is phonetically written Ma a shu in a - -

1
Prof J trow R l B . as , e . ab . a nd A ss II , p . 45 7, m a i t i s th t
n a n a

astrol og ic l co sider tio

a n a ns a re resp o si b l e for
n th e rel ti e p ositio s
a v n

of S i d S h m h
n an a as .

Cf Coll ectio d Cl rq
. n c e ,
IX 82 .
 A M U R RU IN C U N E I F O RM I N S C R I PT I O N S 1 27

syllabary N I N I B whil e prominently worshi ped in

.
‘ -
,

Babylonia is also a deity of the West I n Aramaic ,

.

the name is written fl W) JN= E N M dshtu i e Lord -

,
2
. .
,
“

Mdshtu M dshtu is known in c u neiform and is perhaps

.
”
,

to be identified with Va shti of the Boo k of E sther .

Th e go ds Mashu and Md shtu are called the children of

S ha m a sh was also regarded as the o ffsp ring of S i n
‘
S in .
3
.

The sign MA S H it may be mentioned also h as s u ch , ,

val u es as s ha m shu e llu i b bu a m aru n a m ara etc , , , , ,

.

The deity whose habitat was fo u nd in the mo u ntain

Ma sh might well be called following the S emi tic u sage ,

with a relative particle S ha M a sh or E l S ha m m a sh ,

-
, ,

i e
. He of Mash or The god of Mas h
.
,
This h as its ,
” “
.

p arallel in Babyloni an where Man of sealing or Of the

seal is w ritten sha kka n a ku Th e relative is co m monly
,
h”
.
5

fo u nd as an element in Babylonian personal names

e g S ha —
,

Add u etc I t is also fo u nd in the West S emitic

6
. . .
, ,

names M e thu shd E l and Mi — shd l Béth sha E l (w rit

f
-
.
- -

ten Ba yt sha ra ) on e of the frequ en tly mentioned cities

- -
,
7

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

Cf B run n ow L ist N o 1 778

e NI N—
.
, . .

Se e A p pe di
n x on th e n am IB
S e e Ap p e di
n x on th e na m e NI N 1 B -
.

J strow R l
Se e a , e . o f Ba b . a nd A ss .
, p 68 . .

5
Cf l so h g
h
. a s an u m an of s crifice a an d
”s ha b ru m an of
seei n g .

S e e Ta l l q vis t, Neu b a b ylon i sche s Na m e n bu ch p 3 3 1 ,

ke .
, an d Ra n ,

P . N p 245 .t is e pl tio of th
, . . If h x an a n e na m e S h m sh s h o u l d p ro e
a a v

correct it is t im possi b l e th t E l S h
, no a a d d i is a si m i l r for m tio
a a a n ,

p erh ps co t i i g th el e m e t A dd u
a n a n n e n .

S W M Mull er E u rop
7
ee d A si e . .
, a an n , p 1 9 2,
. an d M itte i l u ng en
der rd r i t Gesellsch ft XI I 1 90 7 2 9
vo e as a . a , , , .
1 28 A M U RR U HOM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
contain the particle I t probably represents the c ity .

Bethel The relative is also fo u nd in Arabic divine

.
‘

names e g D hu l Ha la sa D hu l S ha ra
,
. .
,
an d also
’
,
’
,

in Old S o u th Arabic names e g D hu S a m ctwi The ,

. .
,
’

.
3

expl an ation that S hamash contains the relative wou ld

give a reason for the do u bling of m in I l— Ta m m e sh for ,
4
,

as is well k no w n one of the forms o f the p article do u bles ,

the followin g conson an t As stated above this is o ff ered .

,

simply as a conjectu re in the absence of any re as onable

exp lanation of S hamash .

A word may properly be added here with reference

to the name D ama scu s The fact that it is a very an cient .

d important city raises the qu estion whether it is not

mentioned in the early Babylonian inscriptions
I t seems that D amasc u s m u st be Oi —
.

Ma sh— qi which
figu res so promi nently in the inscriptions of Gu dea and
D un gi This city is u su ally considered to be in Arabia
.
,
5

b u t the scene of Dun g i s operations were chiefly i n

’

Am urr u In the absence of any proof that KI or 621 is

.

S emi tic this wo u ld mean that the name of the city as

,

k now n in c un eiform was or became the name of the

P py r s A t si I h él occ u rs w h ich p ro m p ted sch ol rs

In a u n as a ,
-
s a- ,
a

to thi k of B eth el i ste d f B eth sh e

n n a O an .

W ll h
2
e Reste A r b isch e H i d t m
a us e n p 42 ff, a n e en u es , . .

3
B th g Bei trag e p 1 2 3 f
ae en

ri t form s I l— T m esh I l —
, , . .

Th ere
4
f w a re aTem eshe va an as a , , se e

Ta ll q v is t Ne u b a b y l on i s c h e s Na m e n b u ch p 28 8
, , . .

D e it z sc P r dies p
5
l h ( a a f ,
o ever m d e it q ite
2 42 ) h a s , h w . .
,
a u

re so b l e th t th desert f S y ri is referre d to i A h b i p l
a na a e O a n s u r an a
’
s

c m p ig
a a th desert of M sh
n as Je se w l so pl ces M d h i
e a . n n no a a s u n

th Le b
e o district
an n .
1 30 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O R T HE R N S EM I T E S
etc in the As syrian inscriptions ;
m a s -qa , D i m - m as -qa , .
,

and D i m a shgu etc in Arabic In view of the above ,

.
,
.

explanation of S ha M a sh an d the dou bling of the m ‘ -

,

in the name it is possible to se e here the relative p article

,

(see above ) This view finds s u pport in t h e other form

.

of the name S ha i m eri shu

l
I f t hi s sho ul d p rove
,
“ - - ?

correct then the early name Mesheq perhaps arisen

, ,

from the c un eiform writin g of the name M a sh later q "

,

became D a m m esheq (city ) of Mesheq ”

,
.

An other and more reasonable explanation is that the

first element written D a r D u m (for Du r) and even S a ra , ,

in E gyptian is equi valent to the Aramaic D er and the ,

Babylonian dur fortress etc w hich is dou btless

”
,
“
,
.
,

from the Aramaic stem WI to enclose or to su r "

,
“
,

ro u nd and contin u es in the late Aramaic dialect as

,

r i sever l of th for m co l d h ve b ee sed for th dis

Th e n a e s u a n u e

s i m l tio of m m
u a n .

Th oth er for m of th
e me i c eifor m is S h i m eri h e na n un a- -s u

(S h i m ri h
a- - I I I R 2 XX ) S h NI TA h
e- -s u ,
d S h NI TA , , ,
a- -s u an a-

M E S H sh (I I I R 9 - Th ese w riti g s
it b reco cil e d if th
.
,
n can e n e

seco d sig is re d m ru (Bru w L ist

n n i A m r th
a g d
a a nn o , ,
. e .
,
a e
“
o ,
”

i te d of i m er th
ns a d NI TA Ur p erh ps M i r ( B r
a e w
“
as s ,
”
an as a ,
a unn o ,

L ist N , 95 4 d os or NI TA M E S H M i ri S H U ( l th o g h
. an -
as . a u

i th l te p eriod
n e oth er sig S HU is e d ) h th v l u réb
a an n us as e a e e u ,

es p eci ll y i co ectio w ith sh m shu ( cf B u w L ist

a n nn n a . r nn o , ,

AM A R or M I R S H U w o l d th e b e q u i l e t to M A R T U or ri b
-
u n e va n -
, c

sh m sh i th setti g
a ,
“
S k A M A R S H U w o ul d m e
” “
e Thn sun . a - - an e

city of th setti g m ost pp ro p ri te m e for D m c s ”

e n su n , a a a na a as u .

Ho w e er th f ct th t th is w o ul d g i b r i g th S e m i tic re l ti e
v , e a a a a n n e a v

i to co ectio w ith S um eri i d eo g r m m ust b recog i ze d

n nn n a an a e n as an

Ob jectio u l ess w ssu m e th t th c u eifor m scri pt w e te

n , n e a a e n as x n

i l y u sed i
s ve th t d istrict i th th ird m i ll e i m B C
n a d th n e nn u an e

ideo g r m h d e rl y b eco m e S e m iti z e d

a a a .
 A MU RRU IN C U N E I F O RM I N S C R I P TI O N S 131

d ura, circ ui t enclosure The name wo u ld then mean ,

.

c i rc u it or enclos u re or fortress of Meshe q (or Ma sh) ,

instead of Ase l sta dt Thi s has its p arallel in the name

”
.

Carchemish which h as been tr an slated Castle of Mish ;

,
”

perhaps better F ortress Mash ”

The latter element ,
“
.

i s o f co urse the name of t h e sun god -

.

A DD U OR AD AD .

As is well known A ddu or Ra m m a n in Babylonia ,

appe ars as a god of rain and lightning and in S yria ,

where he is indigeno u s as show n by Jensen Jastrow ‘

, , ,

Z immern ? and others h e is recognized as a solar ,

deity This seems to have i ts p arallel in Mard u k

.
‘

and in N in Girsu t h e S u merian su n deity of Tello who

-
,
-
,

is also the god of agric u lt u re Nat u rally the fru c ti fi .

,

cation and vi vi fic ati on of t h e earth is dependent u p on

the warmt h of the sun together with t he rain .

Add u is associated and identi fied with the god of t h e

West i e A m u rru This see m s to be well established ;
,
. .
,
.
5

cf M A R TU = I M sha a b u b e i e A dd u of t h e floods
d “ ”
-
. . . .
, ,

Compare the name in t he Amarna letters A m a r A dad -

( IM) i e Amu r is A dad A dd u as is well kno w n

d “ ”
. . .
, , , ,

is also the god of the mo u ntains MA R TU A m u rru .

-

b él sha d i i e lord Of t h e moun tain ,

K UR GAL . .
,
“
.
-

A m u rru ) sha d u ra b u i e the g reat mo u ntain ,

. .
,
“
.

‘
Z . A .
,
V I , 3 0 3 ff .

3
Re l B a b . . u nd A ss .
, p . 222 .

K A . .
p 433 . .

‘
Cf Je se n n, K B VI, p 563
—
. . . . .
,

Cf I I I R
. .
,
67, Re v c d 5 1 .
, .
1 32 A M U R RU HOM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
In this con nection we are reminded of the epithets
S h a d d a i E lyon and Sur ( W W W
,
W }? and WW) of ,

the Old Testament as well as the conception the ,

S y ri an s h ad of the nat u re of I srael s God when they

’

sa id Yahwe h is a god of the hills 1 Kings 2 1

,
“
,
”

As has been shown there are other designations of ,

thi s deity namely Mu r M er Bu r Bi r etc These

, , , , , ,
.
2

seem to be variations of the name M a r A nd that .

3

being tr u e Bi r Ha da d wo u ld mean Mar is Hadad

,
-
” “
,

w hic h later may have been misu nderstood by the

Hebrews who perhaps infl u enced by the A ssyrian M a r
,

(see p considered it to be the Aramaic b a r son “

. .
,

Moreover I simply desire to emphasi z e in this connection

,

that this deity is indigenou s in the West and was intr o ,

d u ce d f rom that land into Babylonia .

NU S KU .

N u sku is also recognized as an orig inal solar deity .

The nam es of the Ha rra n Oen su s show that this deity ’ 4

w as promi nently worshiped in Haran un der the

name of N a shku where there was a temple devoted to ,

him S ome hold that the deity was imported from

.

Nippu r b u t exactly the reverse is more li k ely to be the

,

Se e W a rd ,
“
Th e ri
O gin of th e W ors h i p Of Y ah w e ,
”
Am e r .

J uro . S em . La n g .
,
ri
Ap l , 1 90 9, p . 1 75 ff . Al so se e P rt I
a p 88 ,
. .

“
Se e J tro w
as ,
Re l . Ba b . und A ss .
,
p . 1 46 ; al so Ho m m l, A u } e
s tze
a , p
220 , a n d m m n, Zi er K A T 3
p 445 ff
M e—
. . . . . .
,

3
Hil pre c h t, A ssyri a ca , p . 77, n ote 1 , ay s s ir M i r) is
i de tic
n al with Bir or M r u .

Se e Joh A ssy ri D oom sd y Book

ns , an a , p . 12 .
1 34 A M U RRU HO M E OF N O RT H R E N S EM IT E S
This sign is s ally read HA R b u t M UR might
u u ,

be preferable An interesting variant of the name

.

d
M UR i bn i Da r 39 5 20 is to be fou nd in D a r 3 96 1 8
-
,
.
, .

where the same name is written UT U—

,
“
i bn i I t is .

not improbable that UTU is to be read Bi r w hich is a ,

variant of M er Ma r etc This explanation if correct

‘
, ,
.
, ,

wou ld throw i nteresting light on the name of t h e hero

of the Babyloni an del u ge story UTU— n a pi shti m , ,

which n am e may also be read Bi r n a pi shti m (se e -

Part I ) The associations of the god M UR considered

.
,

in connection with the possible variant readings show ,

t h at it is a sol ar deity .

MA LI K .

An d who will qu estion that Ma li k is West S e m itic

or Arabic instead of Babylonian per h aps originally ,

only an epithet b u t later considered to be a name ?

,
2

This well kno w n deity is prominently associated

with S hamas h an d S I R NE NE at S ip p ar This fact - -
.

is interesting when considered in connection with the

fam iliar name Uru m i lki and Mi lki —Uru fo u nd early -
,

an d late in Babylonia as well as among t h e Western ,

S emites In the Man ish tu su Obelisk t h e name

.

M a li k Z I —
- I N S U occ u rs The name of S argon s scribe
-
.
’

is S hu m — M a li k These occ u rrences show that the

.
2

Se e ab o e dK A
v an p 443 ff . . . .

2
Se e Moore s rticl e
’
Mol ec h
a E ,
“
,
nc . Bi b .
,
al so B rto a n in
s
J e wi h E n o ae acy cl p di ; d Zi m m er K A
an n ,
. . p . 4 69 .

2
Vor B i b , I , 1 649
. . .
 A M U R RU IN C U N E I F O RM I N S C R I PT I O N S 1 35

name w as introd u ced into Babylonia in the early S emitic

period .

A st u dy of the early history of the se recognized

S emi tic Babyloni an solar deities leads us to certain
import ant concl u sions In the first place we are i m
.
,

pressed wit h the fact that nearly all the important

S emitic Babylonian gods are sun deities and that they -
,

are not indigenou s to the land The earliest traces of .

the more important are synchrono u s with the earliest

references to the S emi tes in Babylonia An d after .

we realize that there m u st be assu med a great an tiqu ity

for the Am orites and their c u ltu re an d fin ding that ,

they incl u ding the Aramaeans h ad the same deities

, ,

as the S emitic Babylonians we can post u late after a

, ,

consideration of all that is known that the S emitic ,

Babyloni an s were originally Western S e m ites ; and espe

c i a ll y as the elements in qu estion generally s p eak ing , ,

do not belong as far as we know to other early

, ,

peoples .

D r William H Ward the eminent au thority on

. .
,

Babylonian seals informs me that the sun god is one of

,
-

the most fav orite themes of the Babyloni an an d S yrian

seal cylinders F or years he has made a stu dy of Baby
.

lonian an d S e Hittite seals Hi s comparison of the

-
.

forms of Babyloni an gods with the for ms of the S yro

Hittite deities as depicted in their art h as led hi m
to the conviction that the for m s originated in the
West That is from the art of that region were
.
,

derived the representations of Mardu k an d Am u rr u

( M A R TU ) at
- diff erent times from the more d i g n i
1 36 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O RTH R E N S EM I T E S
fie d god who appe ars in the S e Hittite art u su ally -

wi tho u t weapons Mardu k is represented simply hold

.

ing hi s sci mi tar downward whi le Amu rr u the same ,

god is re p resented with one h and to hi s breast holding ,

a short rod .

Sa rpan i tu t h e nak ed goddess on seals who is the

, ,

consort of Mardu k corresponds to the nak ed goddess

,

on the S yro Hittite seals very likely the w ife of Tarkh u

-
, ,

the chi ef god of the Hittites The fourt h Babyloni an .

god in the art of the S emitic Babylonians coming from

the West is A dad who holds a thu nderbolt a n d weapon
,

over hi s head and leads a b u ll (for the th u nde r ) I n

,
.

the Hittite art this god us u ally called Te sh u b bears

, ,

other weapons s u ch as the cl u b axe etc The earlier art , ,

.

of the Tigro E u phrates valley bac k of the time of Gu dea

-
,

i n the op i nion of D r W ard does not show t races of t hi s

.
,

infl u ence (see also page

We h ave only to recall how very frequ ently the name
of A m u rru ( M A R TU) occ u rs on the seal cyl i nders
d -

of the S em itic Bab yloni a ns as the patron god of the

in di vidu al and especially in contrast with the official

,

us e of the names of the gods in t h e i n scriptions This .

i s reasonably explained according to the theory proposed

in these disc us sions namely that the great deity k nown
, ,

to t h e Amorites as A m u rru p erhap s also Uru when , ,

brou ght into Babylonia received in diff erent localities

di ff erent names That is in these vario us centers which
.
, ,

were really independent principalities with their own

gui l ds or schools of scribes the S emi tes having probably
,

a lready an al ph abetic script and speaking a foreign ,

1 38 A M U R RU HO M E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
Natu rally the attribu tes of this s un god althou gh -
,

originally the same deity wo u ld deve lop di fferently

, ,

d u e to di fferent conditions or infl u ences I n the later .

cent uries the petty principalities were bro u ght together

,

into politic al u nions and there w as a g ro u ping of the

,

deities into a pantheon when their original solar sig

,

n i fic an ce w as more or less lost sight of with the e x c e p ,

tions of S hamas h at S ippar I f this concl us ion is not

.

accepted then it mu st be ass u med either that the en ter

,

ing S emi tes adopted the S u merian UT U sun c u lt of -

L arsa in S ou thern Babylonia and modified it in accord ,

an ce with their ow n ideas by giving it di fferent names ,

or it mu st be ass u med that they came from di fferent

qu arters in each one of which a solar god was wor
,

s h i pe d n der a di fferent name That is if the theory

u .
,

advan ced is not correct the S emites living in S ippar

,

came from one district while the devotees of Mardu k

,

and those that worshiped other su n deities came from -

other localities S u ch concl u sions nat u rally wo u ld i n

.

volve u s in great di ffic u lties and wo u ld indicate a strange

,

development of sun worship as well as a state o f

aff airs rather di fficu lt to comprehend I n the light .

of all the facts kno w n it seems that the only concl u

,

sion at which we can arrive is that the Babylonian s ,

generally speak ing were originally Western S emites

, ,

an d that they bro u ght with them their solar worship

from the West .

OTHE R GO D S z—AS HUR .

The chief deity of the As syrian pantheon also

seems to be an importation from the West The appear .
 A M U R RU IN C U N E I F O RM I NS C R I PTI O N S 1 39

an ce of the name As hu r in Assyria is fo u nd in the earliest

i nscri p tions from that land The fact that the name does .

not occ ur in th e early Babylonian inscriptions precl u des

s aying the deity is Babylonian F urther the f act that .
,

th e name is written A u sa r A shi r A shu r A sh shu r -

,
-
,
-
,
-
,

e tc points to a foreign origin

.
,
.

The deity figu res promi nently in the Cappadocian

tablets some of which belong to the latter part of the
,

t hird mi llenni um B C I t also occurs in the Am arna . .

‘
letters I t is fo u nd in t h e Ol d Testament mm Wit/ N
. .

The name is i n the Ph oenician ”W WWWN WDNWDD etc , .

,

an d in the Aramaic W b DWDN 3 1 w etc and ,

‘
,
.
,

p er hap s even in t h e name of the tribe and city A sher

and A ssh uri m Gen 25 : 3 etc ,
.
,
?

These occ u rrences Of the name in the inscriptions

of the West point to West S emitic origin and the ,

association of su c h elements as Ma li k e ven su ggests that

it may be solar Wh en we take into consideration also
.

the fact t h at oth er p rominent Assyrian deities su c h as ,

S hamash Am u r A dad Urra D agan etc are Western ;

, , , , ,
.
,

and th at t h e stu dy of t h e so called S yro Hittite art - -

sh ows that the West h as f u rnished the form of several

deities for As syria it wou ld seem that the As syrian,

c u ltu re arose thro u gh migrations from the West instead

of from Babylon ia ?

Cf A sh ir m l i k d A sh u r m —
.
- - a- l i k i th C pp doci
an -
i ip
-
a n e a a an n s cr

tio sn .

Ho m m e l D ie ier P r di
2
, fl v p 278 h ol d s th deity
a a e s es u ss e
,
.
,
e

i fro m th W est
s e .

2
W i c kl er H istory f B b ylo i
n , d A ss y ri ( Cr i g s tr sl tio
o a n a an a a
’
an a n ,

p. h ol ds th t th re p rese t tio s of th A ss y ri
a e ph y sio g o m y
n a n e an n

i J e w is h
s .
1 40 A M U RR U HOM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
While it is not improbable that the temple of Ashu r
in the c ity As hu r w as fo u nded by a Hittite r ul er as has ,

been main tai ned ; and that there was a brief Hittite
r u le over B abylonia the elements which made u p the ,
‘

c u lt u re of As syria are not Hittite b u t S emi tic I f the .

center from which the S emi tes came is Amu rr u the ,

infl u ence of Hittite art u p on the S emi tic wo u ld be easy

to u nderstand becaus e the dom i nant power in Am u rr u
,

at 2000 B C w as Hittite . .

As syria m ay h ave been originally a colony from Baby

lonia b u t for the present this view mu st be regarded as
,

entirely hypothetical The early r u lers seem to have .

been foreigners for e xam p le I ri shu m the son of Ha llu f

, ,
2

I g u r ka pka pu
-
Pudi E l Ushpi a Ki ki a
,
“
e tc Later -
,
4
,
5
,
.

r u lers names are mostly com p ou nded wi th t h e West

’

S emitic A shu r Ada d an d S ha m shi , ,

.

C onsidering t h e date of t h e C a pp adoci an tablets an d

the fact t h at ne arly all alt h ou gh coming from diff erent ,

localities contai n thi s element it must be admitted that

, ,

th e idea t h at t h ose bearing these names re present

As syrian colonists wh en Assyria is scarcely known in ,

the inscriptions of the E ast is exceedingly precariou s ,

.

I f A shera is the consort of this deity the fact that the ,

‘
S e e Un g n a d ,
B . A VI , 5 , p . 1 3, an d J tro w as ,
“
Hittites i n
o
Ba b y l n i a
”
R vu
,e e S m i ti q e ue .

2
Cf I ri si i m i th C pp d oci t b l e ts
.
- - -
, n e a a an a .

2
Cf H l i l i H l i etc i B E X V p erh ps
. a ,
a a , .
, n . .
,
a to b e ass oci a te d

w ith Ha l i g a l b a t .

Cf . th e b b li ic l Pe d h el a a an d Pe d i a ah .

2
Of th e
. C ssite U h bi S
a s - - a h B E , . .
,
XV .

Cf . Ki ki a B E , . .
, XI V , an d Un g n a d ,
B A . .
,
VI 5, p 1 3
, . .
1 42 A M U RR U HO M E OF N O RT HE RN S E M IT E S
Ash ra tu , the b éli t seri as represented by the Assyri an s
‘
, ,

the As tarte of the West and consort of Amu rr u ; and ,

2

that it seems hi ghl y probable that the biblical A shera

is the same which appears to be the femi nine of A shu r
,
.

At E rech the same prostit u tion that attended the

,

worshi p of As htoreth in Can aan existed in the c ul t of

I shtar At Bi sm a y a also dedicated to I shtar D r
.
, ,
.

Banks inf or ms me he fou nd j ars containing the bodies of

small inf ants as were fo u nd in the hi gh places of Canaan
, ,

and indications of the same lewd practices of the E rech

c u lt The qu estion arises were these rites introdu ced
.
3
,

into Canaan from Babylonia or vi ce versa ? An other ,

alternative of cou rse is that there was a common sou rce ;

, ,

b u t of t hi s we have no k nowledge As has been said .

,

E rec h w as essentially a S emitic city The very fact that .

thi s phase of the c ul t did not exist generally in Babylonia

an d As syria where I shtar was worshiped althou gh
, ,

Herodot u s speaks of it at Babylon wo u ld speak a ain st ,

g

its origin be i ng fixed in Babylonia ; and especially as it

w as so thoro u ghly rooted in the West .

A NU AN D A NT UM .

A NN A , the patron deity Of E rech is generally recog ,

n i ze d as a deity of the S u merians Altho u gh th e c u lts .

Cf . m nwy , Ge n so K B V 1 42 1 0 d 2 3 7 2 1
. 14 : 5, al . .
, ,
an : .

Th e f 17 is to b
us e O oted for if it is th s m e m e th ch g e y
e n ,
e a na e an
'

to R or 2 t J? h t ke pl ce o as a n a .

S 2
Je e Zei t fur A X I p 3 0 2
ee ns n, . ss .
, ,
. .

Th3
s u l e pl tio is th t th b odies re p rese t th Off eri g
e u a x an a n a e n e n

of th fir t b m A oth er s u g g estio m y b th t p erh p th e y r

e s - o . n n a e a a s a e

th o ffs p ri g res l ti g fro m t h ese de b se d rites

e n u n a .
 A M U RRU IN C U N E I F O RM I N S C R I PT I O N S 1 43

of A n u and I shta r of E rech are clothed in a S emitic garb ,

an d the to w n is essentially a S emitic city I do not

“ ”
,

wish even to s u ggest that A NN A might be S emi tic .

There are some reasons however for v entu ring the , ,

su ggestion that a S emitic deity A n u was introdu ced into

Babylonia from the West some of whose characteristics ,

were associated with t h e c u lt of the so called S u merian -

A NN A .

A nu figures promi nently in the early As syrian i n scri p

tions with other West S emitic deities as A shu r S ha m a sh , , ,

A da d I shta r etc
,
Perhaps t h e only name of t h e early
,
.

p eriod compo u nded with A n u (se e Langdon I ndex to ,

V B I ) is A n w b an i n i k ing of Lu l u b i I n t his r u ler s

’
. . .
, ,

inscri ption An u is the first deity mentioned Th ure a u

,
.

D angin ( V B I p 1 73 ) regards thi s inscri ption probably

.
,
.

earlier th an the Ur dynasty A n u figu res also i n the

names Gi m i l A n i m Pi —
.

-
sha A n a and Idsha A na o f t h e
,
- -

C app adocian tablets It is perhaps also in th e deity s .

’

name A na m m elek (2 Kin gs 1 7

E s p ecially signi ficant is the fact that the consort
A n tu m is not recognized in Babylonia I t occ u rs in th e .

As syrian inscri p tion of Ag um k a kri m e and in the late ,

name A na a t da la ti (John s A D D p
- - - - -
It ,
. . .
,
.

occ u rs in the early inscription of A n u ba n i ni k ing of -

,

Lu l u b i fo u nd at S e ri pu l I t occ u rs in the old Canaan ite

,
.

names of towns A n a thoth and Beth—A n a th ; and perhaps

‘ ‘

is in the name A na th father of S hamgar ‘

Pro f
,
. .

Montgomery calls my attention also to the name of the

Amori tehero A n er (Genesis 1 4 for which the
‘

S amaritain Hebrew gives the variant A n ra m perh aps -

,
1 44 A M U RR U HOM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
intended for A n a ra m I t is u s u ally un derstood to
-
.

have been carried to E gypt as early a s the 1 8th dynasty

( A si en p ,
In short the absence of the consort
.
,

i n Babyloni an literatu re and its occ u rrence in the West

mu st be indicative of its origin .

N AB U .

Na b fi another important Babylonian deity who

, ,

does not mak e his appearance very early at least in ,

this S emi tic form also seem s to be of West S emitic

,

origin . The deity is promin ently mentioned in the

West S emi tic inscriptions as an element in names .
‘

Th e mo u ntain which was the place of Moses death w a s ’

dedicated to this god Li k e A ddu A mu rr u D agan an d .

, ,

other West S e m itic names Nab u is frequ ently fo u nd in ,

the c u neiform in scriptions of the Neo Babylonian period -

in di stinctively West S emi tic names as N a b u i dri ,

-
’
,

N a bu rapa etc etc An d also when the fact is con

f
’
,
.
,
?

s i de re d that Mard u k Nergal Nan a Gu la an d other , , , ,

deities bearin g names distin c tively Babylon ian are not

foun d in the West S emitic nomenclat u re we are led to ,

feel that Nab fi mu st be an importation from the West .

Becau se of the deity s relation with fertility Jensen ’

,
3

regarded Na b fi as originally a solar deity His associa .

tion or identification with N u sk u wo u ld s u pport this

view However the evidence on this is too sc an t to
.
,

arrive at an y concl u sion .

S e e Li d z b a rs k i N , ord S m . e . E pi g .
,
p . 2 0 if .

2
S e e Ta l l q v is t Na ,
m e b ch
n u ,
an d B E . .
,
V ol s . IX an d X .

2
Kosm olog ie , p . 23 9 .
1 46 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O RTH E RN S EM I T E S
the conj ect u re that the origin al form of the deity is
If
S i S e or S u sho ul d prov e to be correct is it not possible
‘
’

, , , ,

to se e i n E N Z U the ideog ram for S in the S u merian

-
, ,

element E N Lord an d the S e m i tic S u or S i a formation

, , ,

li k e E N M a shtu and on the principle that N i n su gi r

- - -

appears N i n g i r su E N S u might be w ritten S u E N or

- -
,
- -

S i EN
-
S in Compare the name E u n a Z u i n fou nd
.
- - -

in a Cappadoci an tablet If the deity is of West S e m itic ?

origin thi s will acco un t for the Babylonian form This .

,

let me add is only offered as a plau sible conj ectu re for

, ,

the n of S i n i n Babyloni an and the other West S emitic

di alects may represent what the scribes in the Haran
district intended by the breath ing in S i ’
.

D A GAN
is qui te evident that D a ga n is also a West S emi tic
It
deity who w as early i n trodu ced into Babylonia The
2
.

name of the deity with the determi n ative for god is , ,

foun d on the Obelisk of Man ish tus u I n the 3 7th ye ar .

of D un gi a temple is dedicated to D agan I n th e

dynasty of I sin probably West S e m itic I shm e—
.

D a ga n
, , ,

one of the r u lers do u btless bears a West S emitic name , .

D a ga n as is well know n was the god of Gaza and As h

, ,

dod The place name Beth D a ga n and the name of

.
-
,

the Canaanite D a g a n ta ka la who is one of the writers

,
-
,

form of th deity Z u w h ich is l so w itte Z i

Th e e ,
a r n an d Z a i n th e
L g io z a is t l e st to b
e n ,
ote d h ere
a a e n .

I d e t i fie d
2
S i b y Ho m m e l
n as n .

Cf Cl y’
J u r A m er Orie S
. a ,
XXVI I I
o . . n . oc .
, ,
an d Me y er,
G e ch ichte d A ltertum s p 468
s es ,
. .
 A M U RR U IN C U N E I FO RM I N S C R I PT I O N S 1 47

of the Amarna letters poi n t to Palesti n e or Am u rr u

,

as the origi n al habitat of this d e ity Compare also

I ti —
.

- D a g a n in the Cappado c ian tablets p u blish e d by

-
,

S ayce in a recent n u mber of the B a b yl on i a ca The .

West S emitic names fo u nd in the tablet from Hana (se e

Un g n a d B A VI 5 p 28 ) also s u ppor t this V iew
,
. .
, , ,
. In .

these tablets the d e ities S ha m a sh and D a ga n are fo u n d

in the oath formu la The tablets said to have been
.

fo u n d at E d D e ir s u pport the views of those who have

-

h e ld that his worship radiated from the highlands

betwe e n Palesti n e a n d Mesopotamia .

LA HMU A ND LA H AMU .

The god L a hm u and goddess L a ha m u which oc c u r ,

in the Mardu k Tiamat l e gend and in a few syllabaries

-

and i ncantation texts also appear to be Amoritish,

.

The fact that they play no part in the pantheon indi

cates foreign origin As h as been pointed ou t by others
La hm u probably is one of the elements in B eth—
,
.

L ehem ‘

which w as the name of two cities in Palesti n e .

Other distinctively S emitic gods may be regarded in

the same way S everal of those discu ssed above u nde r
.

the headi n g Other D eities may prove event u ally to

”
,

h ave been solar in their original habitat ; b u t more

evidence mu st be forth c omi n g before this can be det e r
mined This mu ch can be said they are in all probability
.
,

West S emitic d e ities .

Beside s the argu me nt based on the c u ltu re an d relig ~

ion the Babylon ian script off ers strong evid e nce in
,

su pport of this thesis .

1 48 A M U RRU H OM E OF N O RT HE R N S E M I TE S
is a well established fact that the northern gro u p
It
of S emi tic lang u ages i e the A moraic Aramaic and ,
. .
, ,

As s e Babylonian are more closely related to each

-
,

other than they are to the l an gu ages of the so u thern

gro u p namely Arabic and Abyssinian I nasmu ch as
, ,
.

there are so many elements that the northern c u lt ures

have in common it seems natural to assu me that they,

had a common origin ; and the qu estion arises w hich is

the earlier .

The Babylonian script as is u nderstood is an adap , ,

tati on of the S u merian c u neiform system for the S emitic

lan gu age that was bro u ght into the cou ntry ; and in
that script the weak er consonants or ra di cals are elided ,

or contracted or appear as vowels A st u dy of the

,
.

script of the Northern gro u p makes it m Ost difficu lt to

un derstand if the Babyloni an is the older l an gu age
, ,

how the weak radi cals which had di sappeared sho u ld , ,

have been restored and the roots correctly introdu ced ,

in the alphabetic script of the Western lang u ages F or .

example it is di ffic u lt to u nderstand how B él Uru and

, ,

Ti a m a t or the corresponding b el u r i m and tam da

’
, , ,

co u ld be correctly introdu ced as 5173 WW and Dl a W ,

.

Nat u rally some Babylonian loan words are fo un d in

‘

the West b u t wou ld we not expect generally to fin d

,

many pec u liar formations d u e to this transportation ,

and trans formation The di ff erences in the verbal .

formation and other pec u liarities of the Babylonian

, ,

di cri m i tio sh o ul d h re fter b e erci ed i decl ri g

More s na n e a e x s
n a n

w ords w h ich th B b yl o i d He b re w h
e a e i co m m o to b
n an an av n n e

of B b y l o i o ri g i
a n an n .
 A M U RRU I N W E S T S EM I T I C
I NS C RI PT I ON S

IN the Old Testament the only form of the name ,

of the land k no w n as A m u rru generally recognized , ,

refers to the inh abitants and appears with the Gentilic

,

endi ng i e AI Il OI l ( j DN LXX is Vi p pp h g ) , and

,
.
l
.
,
l ‘

,
o a

i n nearly every instance the word h as the article The .

Amorites are considered to be the descendan ts of the

fou rth son of C anaan (cf Ge n and 1 Chron . . .

1 They form part of the ancient inhabit an ts of

Palestin e an d yet u nder th e name are incl u ded the
,

Can aanites Girgashi tes Hi ttites Hivites Jeb u sites

, , , ,

and Pe ri zite s and once (Ge n 1 5 : 1 9—2 1 ) the Kenites

,
.
,

Keniz z ites Kadmonites and Rephaim F rom the Old

,
.

Testament it woul d seem that Am orite history reached

f ar back into antiqui ty and that the people had main
,

ta in e d their identity do w n to the Hebrew period As .

a nation however they had then beg u n to disintegrate

, ,

and were los ing prestige The do m ination Of the Hit .

ti te s in the middle of the second millenni u m do u btless

brou ght this abo u t Bu t there is every indication that
.

they were originally an extensive and powerf ul people ,

whose chief location w as the mou ntaino u s region north

of what we now recognize as Palestine covering the ,

district it seems as far north as the Orontes ; in other

, ,

words to the Hittite land

,
 A M U R RU I N W ES T S E M I T I C I N S C R I PT I O N S 151

In the Old Testament they a re ge n erally represented

as a people livi n g in the highlands Palestine in the .

early p eriod seems to have been extensively controlled

by the Amorites Macalister i n the excavations at
.
,

Gezer fin ds traces of a people he calls Amorites at a

,

date which he fixes abo u t 25 0 0 B C Nat urally there .

may be more ancien t sites in the land than Gezer where

the A morites lived Af ter this period the occ u pation
.

of the city seems to have been s u pplanted by t he

I sr a elites abo u t the middle of the second millenni u m
,
.

Altho u gh the Am orites had their day and ceased to be

a factor as a people they held vario u s cities for centu ries
,

su cceeding the occu pation of Cana an by I srael .

‘

As is well known fo u r fif th s of the letters fo u nd in

,
-

E g ypt at Tel e l Am arna which represent the official

-
,

an d frie n dly correspondence in the Babylonian lang u age

of Arn e n oph i s I II and I V in the fifteenth cent u ry B C . .

,

consist of reports and comm u n ications from vassals of

the E gyptian kings in Western As ia I n thi s great l and .

the names of districts are practically all S emi tic as

A m u rru N a kri m a A m qi Z i ri —
,

,
B a sha n i and Ga r As
, ,
.

geog raphical names frequ ently are retained from one

era to another we reali z e that the inhabitants of the
,

land prior to this age in all probability were S emitic .

We reach the same c oncl u sion when s u ch names of the

F or a d isc ussio of
orite b sed u po th Ol d Test
n th e Am s a n e a

m e t see W M Mul l er i
n . th .rticl e Am orites i th Jewi sh
,
n e a
“ ”
n e

E y l p di ; S y ce
nc c o ce i a H t i g s D ictio ry f th B i b l e ; or
a ,
n as n
’
na o e

B r to i th O Vol um e D ictio ry p 271 Al so B rto i b id

a n, n e ne na ,
. . a n ,

p 1 10
. th
,
C
on itese
“
a n a an .
”
1 52 A M U RR U HOM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
cities are tak en into con sideration as S u rri S i du n a , , ,

Gu bl a Qi de shu Uru s a li m and others some of which

, , ,

at least are considered to have had a great antiqui ty .

The predo m inance of S emi tic personal names is s o

evident in these letters that it is only necessary to
mention the fact The consideration of the names .

A bdi As hi rta hi s s on A zi ru and others i ndicates their

-
, , ,

S emitic origin F urther it is su fficient to recall that the

.
,

letters from this great region betray the fact that the
native tongu e Of the writer is Hebraic In other words .
,

these letters mak e us acqu ai nted with the fact that the
c ul tu re of thi s l an d which is S emitic is of a highly
, ,

developed character indi cati n g that back of what we, ,

have become familiar with there mu st be a long period ,

of development covering millenni u m s The names .

clearly indicate also that the chief deity of this region

w as solar who as we have seen above appears un der
, , ,

di fferent names or epithets as Uru A da d Mi lku , , , ,

Ura sh N I N I R S ha m a sh etc
,
-
, ,
.

The theory advanced years ago that the Amorites ,

‘

depicted on the walls of the E gyptian temples and tombs

with short and pointed beards bl u e eyes and reddi sh ,

hair high forehead and rather promi nen t ch e e k bones

, ,

thin lips and straight noses show that they phy si ol og i ,

cally were I ndo E uropae an s does not seem to h ave

-
,

fo u nd acceptance The monu ments show that the

.

Am orites represent in practically every instance a S emitic

people (see p This wo u ld imply that in that age
.

S ay ce ,
r
E a ly H istory 0
} th e He b re w s , p 42
. .
 1 54 A M U RR U HOM E OF N O RT H R E N S EM I T E S
some are called Am orites that term may have been ,

us ed very early in the sense that it was in later biblical

times when all the peoples were incl u ded un der that
,

general name (se e above ) Mam re E shcol and Aner , ,

(An ram ) Og and S i h on are mentioned as A morites

‘
. .

In Josh u a 1 0 3 Hoham of Hebron Piram of Jarm u th

,
2
, ,

Ja ph i a of Lachish and D ebir of E glon are mentioned as

,

Am orite kings These names which can be derived from

.
,

S emitic stems throw light u pon the sit u ation The name
,
.

of A doni Z ede k the k ing of Jer u salem who associated

-
, ,

hims e lf with the others contains well recognized S e mi tic ,

elements The same is tr u e of Mal k i Z ede k k ing of

.
-
,

S alem (p erhaps Jer u salem se e A ppendix ) of an early , ,

p eriod .

I t is u nf ort un ate that we do not have more names of

persons in the Old Testament who c an be identified
u nmista k ably as Amorites I t is certain however that .
, ,

a large p ercentage of Old Testament names of the early

p eriod in Palestine are S emi tic the same as the names in ,

the Amarna letters which represent the inhabitants of ,

Canaan prior to the entrance of I srael We have there .

,

fore every indication that not only the lang u age of

,

the l an d w as what is called Hebraic b u t the names ,

and religio u s c u lt indicate at least that most Of the

inhabitants were S emitic .

r p er h p s co t i s th e lem e t 0 i m oo g d S i ; ”
p
v
o a n a n e n ,
. e .
,
n- o n

see b o e
a v .

Hoh m i fo u d i Mi e
2
a s f m m n H h m ; cf Hom m el
n n a an
,
o . au a .
,

A cie t He b rew Tr di tio p 2 2 1 f

n n J ph i is p erh ps fo u d i th
a n, . . a a a n n e

Mi e ps m
n a an
'
I l y pi ; cf Ho m m e l A cie t Heb rew Tr ditio
r -
a
‘
a .
,
n n a n,

p 2 48 f
. .
 A M U RRU I N W ES T S E M I TI C I N S C R I P TI O N S 1 55

The Old Testament s u pplies u s with only scanty

ethnological data concerning the A morites ; b u t if
Macalister is correct in his statement that the pre
I sraelitish Amorites who occ u pied Gezer were ethn ologic
ally S emitic we have one very important fact established
,
.

Altho u gh we know that Aryans or perhaps Tu ranians

w ere also there we may concl u de that most of the people
,

who lived in that great region which geographi cally ,

was called Amu rr u from a very early period not only

,

spo k e a S emi tic langu age b u t in the early p eriod were

,

S emi tes and that the land was at a very early time an
,

import ant center of S emitic c u ltu re .

The people from Am u rr u who appear in the Baby

loni an tablets generally bear S emitic names The re .

l ig i on of Am u rr u that fo u nd its way into the E u phrates

valley as we have tried to s h ow is S emi tic
,
I n short ,
.
,

everythi n g points to the fact that the do m inant p eo p le

in the Westland were S emi tes in the millenni u m s pre
cedin g the Amarna or biblical age This being tr u e an d .
,

bearing in mi nd that the solar worship of the Babylonian

S e m ites goes bac k to A mu rr u we sho u ld find m an y ,

traces of t h e worshi p in that l an d in which it w as

indi geno u s .

I nasmu ch as the A morites figure s o 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 hi ef deity of this people whose name is w ritten A m u rru
‘
,

o u th A r b i th ere is
In S a m e t h t see m s to b co m p o u ded
an a na a e n

w it h t h is e l e m e t m ass ki g of S b
n ,
cf Li d b r k i E ph em ri s
,
n a a, . z a s ,
e ,

I I, p . 38 7 .
 1 56 A M U RRU H OM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
Uru ,
etc as well as WIR in the Aramaic of Babylonia
.
,
'
.

I n this connection a most interesting passage is to be

fou nd in Job 3 1 26 where in parallelism with moon , ,
”

"
me i nstead of S hemesh sun is fou nd The name ,
“
,
”
.

of the deity seems to be foun d in N b x Wl N l l l Wl N

’
W1 ’
,
’
,
'

fl WlN and WW WW The element Ur is u s u ally trans

’ ' ’ ’
.

lated light flame or fi e ry

“
,
The S eptu agint shows,
.
”

that Ur not the c orn m on Or light is meant

’
,
’
, ,
”
.

These names therefore are to be explained : My

, ,
“

Uru ,
”
or simply Uru (with a k ose suffix) ; Uru “ “ ”

is G do
”
Uru is Jahweh
,
—
li k e Uri Ma rdu k and Uru ,
”

m i lk i se e above ; and S h a d d a i is Uru cf “ ”

.
, ,

an d both W1}! and my being also equ ivalents

to the names of deities Before consider ing other occ u r .

renees of the names in the Old Testament let u s inqu i re ,

whether it occ u rs in the Amarna letters .

Many of the letters fou nd at Amarna having been

written in the fifteenth cent u ry B C in Am urr u and . .
, ,

referring to the land it is nat u ral to expect to fin d ,

in them both the name of the co u ntry and of the god ,

A m u rru or Uru A m u rru as the name of the land has

.
, ,

long ago been recogni z ed b u t not the deity The god , .

,

however is also fo u nd in the Am arna letters in th e

, ,

name M i l kuru I n these epistles we fin d a Mi lki i li

.
-

and an I l i — m i l ki A parallel formation compo un ded.

with Uru wo u ld be Mi l k uru with which Uru m i lki ,

-

of the S ennacherib inscription may be compared

Thi s same name written Mi l ki —
.

U ri belongs to a slave
,
- -
,

in an As syrian doc u ment dated in the reign of S argon ,

.
‘

l
Of K B . . .
,
N , p . 1 12 .
1 58 A M U R RU HOM E O F N O RTH E RN S E M I T E S

E l Ur
-
s u ggested for comparison with the He
deity the name of the antedil u vian Babyloni an king
accordi ng to Berosu s namely Al p g Li d zb arski in a , ,
’
u a .
,

review of the inscription which has since appeared ‘

,

also adm i ts that the comparison with this name is in vi t

ing Grimme properly regarded W) to be equ ivalent to
.
2

A war Babylonian A m a ru Mardu k .

Unqu estionably Wl represents the sun deity Uru

'
-
.

I t is a most interesting and important fact that this

Aramaic inscription which belongs to the earliest k nown ,

in that langu age shows that Z ak ir k ing of Hamath and

, ,

La as h dedicated the stele which he erects to E l Ur

‘
-
.
,

The comparison of E l Ur wit h the first name Of the -

antedil u vi an Babylonian king 71 1 p seems to be most ,

re as onable Bu t not alone the first of the list b u t the

.
,

second third fifth and perhaps the ninth contain the

, , , ,

name of the deity : Al p 9 (A la pa u ru s A l a poru s) ’

/ a 7ra 0
, ,

Ap l l p g M r l p "? and perhaps u p o m c F or a f u ller

“

c a o a a/ a a .
,

disc us sion of these names see Part I .

The u se of E l (5K) in connection with the name

Ur (W 1 ) is most interest ing especially when we recall ,

E l S h a d da i ( WW 7R) and E l E lyon ( W

-
‘ ’
W l
I? 7&2) of -

the Old Testament Originally as mentioned above .

, ,

these may have been epithets b u t were not considered ,

as su ch later on Pre fixi n g the word for God seems

.
” “

to have been a characteristic of the Western S emites .

Compare also A l Na shhu m i lki A l S i I l Tehi ri — a bi

- -
,
-
’ 2
,
-
,

Ze tr lb l tt 1 9 0 8 p 5 8 2
I/ i t
. n a a , , . .

2
Orie t Lit Z eit 1 9 0 9 p 1 6
n . . .
, ,
. .

2
Joh s A ssy ri D oom sd y Book p
n ,
an a ,
. 15 .
 A M U RRU I N W E S T S E M I TI C I N S CR I PTI ONS 1 59

Tehri —
I l— n uri and Bari ki —
I l Ta m me sh ‘
Il Ta me sh—
’

,
-
,
-
di n i ,
2

I l Ta m m esh i la i -
,
3
I l Ta mm e sh n a ta n n u ,
‘
I l Ta m m e sh
n ttr,
5
A b i I l Te m esh,
- -
etc The Re v °
I l Teri
- -
ha n a n a ,
7
. .

D r Jo h ns th us regarded the A l which is prefixed to the

.

two examples fo u nd in his texts Professor Hi l pre c h t .

,

in his E ditorial Preface to my Ba b ylon i a n E xpe di ti on ,

vol X p X I I I as k ed : Bu t where did the Assyrians

.
,
.
,
“

ever prono un ce the word for god ( n o in connec ‘ ’

tion w ith the god s name immediately followi ng in their ’

inscriptions ? He f urther said : I do not believe

” “

that the people abo u t Ha rra n prono un ced it either .

A l in the name qu oted can scarcely be anything else

than the article til or cl k nown from Li dzb a rsk i s list ‘
’

,
’

of proper names to have been u sed in conn ection with

certain deities ”
Cf U DW
” "
N WDP 79 3 5N DWJ ( The
' ’
“

N WDJ ( The moon —

. .
,

fi ntb W god etc Tall‘ ‘ “

.

q vi st accepted Hi l pre c h t s view

‘ ’
.

I n the first place the names qu oted from Li d zb ar ,

ski s work to prove the point at issu e are not West

’

S e m itic nor Aramaic b u t are S inaitic or Arabic An d ,

.

as a matter of fact it is not kn own that the article w as

u sed i n Old Arabic ; an d f u rther even if it was as in , ,

the late period it wo u ld not have been u sed with a ,

Cf Cl y B
. a ,
. E .
,
X .

2
S tr ssm ier
a a ,
k .
,
3 63 : 4 .

a .
,
583 18 .

a .
,
49 7 : 4 .

Cyr , 5 8
. 6 .

a .
,
638 : 4 .

2
Cy r .
,
1 77 : 3 .

Neu b a b y lon i s che s Na m en b u ch p , . 28 8 .

 1 60 A M U RR U H OM E O F N O RT HE R N S E M I T E S

proper name li k e S hemesh As stated the names are .

,

Aramaean and the A ramaic did not have an article ;

s o Jo hn s was right in considering this element A l to be

the word for god “

.
”

These writings W) for t he deity s name enable u s ’

to explain satisfactorily some West S emitic names .

Coo k e calls attention to the prefix W) in jDlWl a name

‘ '
,

of a priest of Baal ham mon in a North P un ic inscription

-

from Algiers and also i n jDDW) in a P u nic inscription

,

from Th u g g a in E astern N u midia DB in the latter

,
.

do u btless me an s prefect (compare the As syrian

” “

s h a kn u ) and is also a divine name or epithet cf

, ,
.

" The name co u ld mean U ru is S ha kn u

”
like
j {
fl D D .
,

Uru m i l k W JDWPand l W W 1 also contains the element

‘
- ’ ‘

"
3 3 and l W) both appearing elsewhere as personal names
1 .

If W ) in West S e m itic inscriptions represents the

deity Uru it is reasonable to expect the name written
,

W in the Hebrew script as initial 1 u su ally passes into

’
,

The personal name ( L XX l p fi l ) according to ,

e o aa
,

J u dges 6 : 3 2 is ex p lained let Baal contend as if

,
“
,

it were a J u ssi ve form S cholars appreciating the .

,

di ffic u lties involved in this explanation have pro ,

posed that the root is WW as in 7N W

’ '
W and 5K W (see
’ ’ ’
a ,

Brown s He b Di c p ’
.The transliterations of the
.
,
.

L XX namely l pfi /l I p fi l I p fi l seem
’ ’ ’
a aa ea o aa , e a aa ,
, , , , ,

to s u pport the proposed ch an ge Ye t in all probability .

the name is to be interpreted Ur is Baal “

.

2
N orth S em itic I cri ptio s p ns n ,
. 1 46 .

2
Li d b k i Nord E pi g
z a rs ,
. .

2
Cf Li d b r k i N rd E pi g
. z a s ,
o . .
1 62 A MU RR U H O M E O F N O RTH E RN S E M I T E S

w as af terwards us ed as a title of a deity Hoff m an .

‘

translates l l WD A don is lebt

‘ ’ ' ”
This is not i m pos
“
.

sible b u t a better explanation wo u ld be to tak e WD

,

(M a r a r —
) as another form of W1 ( W ) etc in other words ,
.
,

the element u nder di sc u ssion Thro u gh the kindn ess of .

Professor Montgomery my attention h as been called to

the name of a god or demon i e a de poten ti ze d deity ,
. .
, ,

written NIWDRWD in Pognon I n scri pti on s S em i ti qu es ,

’

(p . The same demon occ u rs in a S yriac incantation

bowl p u blished by S t il be In the light of the above facts ?
,

it seems reasonable to identify thi s god or demon with the

once important deity or epithet of the ancient A morites ,

whose c u lt had practically disappeared as far as we ,

k now at the time this inscription was written

,
Thi s .

may acco u nt for the writing A and TUR US H for the -

first element of Bir Hadad ; that is the signs which had -

,

the val u e m a r were us ed (see p .

This form of the name seems to be fo u nd also in

the name of the land and mo un tain WWD of Genesis t
’

and 2 Chronicles 3 : 1 S iegfried and S tade .

regarded the name as a W ortspiel mit ”NW? ” “

Concerning the reading of t h e Peshitta which makes

it N W1 DN
’
of the D river thinks
“

“
it has some claim to be considered the original one .

The S ept u agint tr an sliterates the name of the mo u nt

u pon which S olomon b u i lt the temple 2 Chronicles 3 1 , ,

1
Z . A .
,
XI, p . 240 .

J dische B b ylo ische Z b rt

2
a - a n au e e z te , p . 22 .

F 2
oth er e pl tio s of th
or x an a n e n am e ,
se e D river i n Has ti
n gs
'

D icti ry f th Bi ble p 43 4
ona o e ,
. .
 A M U RR U I N W E S T S EM I TI C I NS C RI P T I O N S 1 63

Too Ap op e m . When we
onsider the meaning of the
c
n ame Jer u salem (se e Appendix) and the p assage ,

i n E ze k iel 1 6 3 concerning the city namely thy “

, ,

father w as an Amorite and thy mother a Hittite ,

it seems reasonable to su ppose that the name Am u rr u

is contained in it and that th e readi n g preserved by
,

the S ept u agint has the f u ller form an d also that the ,

place whither Abraham went to sacrifice I saac which ,

bears the same name w as in all probability the Amorite

,

lan d or rather Am ori a proper which w as north of

, ,

Canaan ; for after h e had j o u rneyed from S o u thern

Canaan three days he saw afar off the l an d Moriah
,
.

Th e etymolog y of ancient geographical names o ffers

many di ffic u lties due to the fact that they m a y be of
,

great antiqui ty or belong to an era of which we h ave

,

little or no literat u re The names m a y even belong to a

.

p eople whose exi stence is shro u ded in obsc u rity and ,

altho u gh they are contin u ed in use their traditional ,

pronun ciation may have su ff ered so mu ch that they are

of comparatively little val u e in determi n ing the original
signification A great many names of Pal estin e are
.

kn own to be of Pre I sraelitish origin Thi s we learn not

-
.

only from the Ol d Te stament b u t from the Amarna

tablets as well a s from the lists of s u ch E gyptian k ings as
,

Th oth m e s II I and these (see p 1 5 1 ) are generally S emitic

.
, . .

Another personal name the etymology of w hi ch ,

is regarded as obsc u re is D J DD WD I t occ u rs twice

’ ’
,
.

in 1 Chronicles 8 : 3 4 and once in 9 : 40 in which , ,

"
verse also the vari an t 59 : 1 WD is foun d S ome .

( Bro wn and Bu h l ) regard the latter name as an error ,

1 64 A M U RR U HOM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
whi le others (S iegfried a n d S ta de and Gray ) consider
’W
the f ul ler form an error f or D The tran s l i tera .

tion of the S eptu agint whi c h is M p fl l s u pports the

,
e t aa/
,

latter view Brown translates Baal is

.
“

Gray translates Hero of Baal The latter is reason

‘ “
.

able b u t it seems to me in th e light Of the above that

, , ,

the name more probably me an s M a r is Baal

“
.
”

H b er ew Prop r N
e a m es , p 20 1 ,. n ot e 3 .
 I . U R OF THE C HA LD EE S

F OR more than two tho u sand ye ars eff orts have been
made to identify the site of Ur of the Chaldees the “
,

home of Abraham In recent cent u ries Urfa or Orfa .

,

which the Gree k s called E dessa had been regarded as ,

the ancient city S ir Henry Rawl inson in 1 855 fo un d

.
‘

bric k s at Mu qayyar in S o u thern Babylonia from which ,

he gathered that the ancient name of the city was Hu r .

S u bseq u ently it was fo u nd that the reading of the name

was Uru m m a and in late Babyloni an Uru i e with
, ,
. .
,

a final vowel The almost general acceptance of thi s

.

identification is du e to the fact that no attractive reasons

have been given for an y other site D illman and Kittel .

have strongly opposed this i de n ti fic ati on b u t ever ,

2

si nce Rawlinson h as advanced his view the n u mber o f

those who have accepted it h as steadi ly increased so ,

that now it has become qu ite general Witho u t .

attempting an exhau stive treatment Of the su bj ect let ,

us briefly review the facts u pon w hi ch it rests .

The Ol d Testament says Terah took Abram and

S arai his wife Lot his grandson and bro u ght them forth
, ,

from Ur of the Chaldees to go into the land of Canaan ;

F or a d isc ssio
ell refere ces to th l iter t re th
u n ,
as w as n e a u on e

s u b ject see Pi ch es i H sti g s B i b l e D i ti ry I V p 8 35

,
n ,
n a n
’
c ona , ,
.
,

an d Ch e y e i E cy cl o p di B i bl ic I V
n ,
n n ae a a, .

2
D ill m Ge esis Ed 6 p 2 1 3 f d Kittel Gesch i hte d r
an ,
n , .
, . .
,
an ,
c e

He braer, 17 .
1 68 A M U R RU H OM E O F N O RTH E R N S E M I T E S

an d they came u nto Haran and dwelt there After .

the death of Terah the Lord said u nto A braham , ,

Ge t thee ou t Of thy co u ntry and from thy k ingdom

“ '

, ,

an d from thy father s ho u se u nto a land that I will

’
,

s how thee .

S t S tephen (see Acts 7 : 2 4) spea k s of the place

.
,

as being in Mesopotamia While this is rather indefinite .

,

and do u btless an admission that the exact site was not

k nown it does not point to S h u m e r or S o u thern Baby
, ,

lonia as the co u ntry

,
.

E u pol e m u s who lived abo u t 1 5 0 B C as q u oted

,
. .
,

by E us ebi u s speak s of the place of Abraham who was

, ,

the inventor of astrology and Chaldean magic as a ,

city of Babylonia called K p pw q which is called a a

'

by some the city of As E u pol e m us w as dis

c us sing Hebrew history i t wo u ld seem that he reflects ,

the opinion of the Jews at that time .

The mention of Camarina Offered a reason for th e

identification with Mu qayyar the Uru m m a Of the ,

e arly inscriptions or the U772 of the later period becau se

, ,

of the Arabic word qa m a r meaning moon and b e ,

“
,

caus e Mu qayyar in ancient days w as dedicated to a

moon deity ; b u t especially becau se Terah Abraham s ,
’

father whom we learn from tradition was an idolater

, ,

j o u rneyed to Har an another ci ty dedicated to the moon

,

god where he remained u ntil hi s death It is f u rther

,
.

conject u red that in this late period the ancient name

was go ing ou t of use becau se of the way E u pol e m us ,

s pea k s of t h e city .

The Talmu d however as well as some later Arabian

, ,
 1 70 A M U R RU H O M E O F N O RT H E R N S E M I T E S

the argu ment h as little in it To identify Ca m a ri n a .

with Uru m ma becaus e qa m a r in Arabic me an s moon ” “

is certainly precario us .

Another di ffic u lty lies in the designation Ur of

the Chaldeans The geographi cal term Chaldea or
.

Ka hl u written by the Gree k s X l a r althou gh the

,
a a oc
,

origin Of the name is not u nderstood does not seem , ,

especially in the early period to incl u de Lower Baby ,

lonia The word is probably preserved apart from

.
,

Ur Ka sdi m in A ri a Kesed (A rpha xa d perhaps Urfa )

-
,
-
, ,

and in Kesed one of the tribes descend ing from Nahor

,

( Ge n . However the traditions as preserved , ,

by Berosu s connect the Babylonians with the Chalde an s

,
.

The argu ment advanced in favor of Uru m m a as

t h e site of Ur becau se of the Chaldean district so u th
,

of the city has little or nothing in its favor That region

,
.

w as know n as Bi t Ya ki n being inhabited by Chaldeans

-
,

only some time after 800 B C Ya ki n which name .

,

implies that it is West S emitic was probably borne by ,

a man who was known as a Chaldean Hi s estate s

,

i e B i t Ya ki n developed into a commu nity of su ffi

. .
,
-
,

cient importance to cau se Assyria considerable difficu lty

in retaining Babylonia with which it was allied in , ,

endeavoring to regain independence .

The name Abram as already mentioned in Part I , ,

h as at last been fo u nd in the c un eiform literat u re belong

ing to the patriarch s age In the tablets from Tell ’
.

De i l a m Di lb at) abou t twenty mi les sou th of ,

Babylon which are now in the Berlin Mu se u m the name

, ,

—
is written A b a ra m a A b a m ra m and A b a m ra ma
- ‘
,
-
.

S U g
ee d Bei nrA V I 5 p 60
na , . zu ss .
, , , . .
 UR OF TH E C HA L D EE S
Bu t it does not f oll ow necessarily that th e man who bore
the name was a Babylonian becau se he w as the s on Of
Awil — I shtar a m an bearing a Babylonian name
,
In .

the same texts there are many examples of men bearin g

West S emitic names who gave their children Bab y l o
nian names ; and the reverse is also fo u nd in these as
well as in the texts of the other p e riods This res u lted .

from mixed marriages The texts Show that many .

‘

Western S emites lived in Di lb at at this time Bu t what .

is more important than all else in showin g that the name

i s West S emitic is the fact that the element ra m h as not
,

been fou nd to e x ist in the thou sands of k nown Ba b yl o

nian names whereas it is a comm on West S emi tic
,

element .

The first element of the name A bra m is fo u nd

in all the S emi tic dialects b u t the second element ,

i s W estern S e m itic I n the Hebrew besides Abram

.
, ,

and m a n urns c ram r m e rn xx and

, ,
-
,
p
,

DW1 IW occ u r
’
I n the Phoenician inscriptions compare
.

-
b ran u m nb n and m a n S e e also the name in the
‘
.
,

Murashu texts A ddu ra m m u (B E Vol X ) Thi s

,
-
.
,
. .

element ra m may be translated high or li k e E lyon ,

may have been an epithet of a deity Moreover all .

,

the ancient traditions Show that A bra m w as an Aramaean .

The genealogical list of his an cestors in Genesis XI shows

that they were Ara m ee an s certainly not Babyloni an s , ,

The names of hi s immediate fami ly are Ara m ze an .

Nahor the name of his brother is fo u nd in the place

, ,

Se e Cl ay , Li ght on th e Ol d T est m e t from

a n e
B a b l p 40 3 , . .
1 72 A M U R RU HOM E OF N O RT HE RN S EM I T E S
name Ti l N a hi ri of the Ha rra n censu s Compare al s o .

Johns D eeds a n d D ocu m en ts 420 : 3 ; 42 1 : 5 ; and the

, ,

p ersonal names N a ha rdu and N a hi ri Milk ah as .

,

above shou ld be connected with the epithet Ma li k

, .

Jiscah in form is also West S emitic When Abram .

was commanded to leave Haran he is told to go ,

ou t of his cou ntry and from his k indred Wh en .

E lie z er was sent for I saac s wife he was told to go to

’
,

Abraham s cou ntry and to his ki ndred in the city of

’
,

Nahor When Jacob fled from his brother h e went to

.

the ancestral home and there obtained his wi fe Th e

, .

names Bethu el and L aban are West S emitic In later .

years their descendants were called Ara m man s ( compare

Genesis 25 : 2 0 I n short every bit of evidence
, ,

that can be brou ght to bear u pon the su bject p oints to

the fact that A braham was not a Babyloni an by descent ,

b u t that his ancestral home was in Aram If Ur is .

located in Babylonia it then can reasonably b e as ked

,

why he shou ld have lived in that land .

Bu t notwithstanding all that h a s been said with

,

reference to the identification of Ur schol ars as well as ,

the ancients seem to th ink that Terah and Abram went

to Haran from a city some distance away and that ,

Chald aea in this connection very probably me an s Baby

lonia The Babylonian Jews as well as others of ancient
.
‘
,

times so u ght for the city in that land

,
.

In identifyin g a city as Ur there are a n u mber of

, ,

conditions which sho u ld be satisfactorily met F irst .

,

Kittel a r g u es th t
a Ka s di m Ka ldi m is th e l an d Ka ld i a i n
r e i
A m n a .
1 74 A M U RRU H OM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
even asserted that the A morites of the West came from
this district (see above ) Concerning the way these
.

Western S emites came to live in this locality we can ,

only theori z e Bu t knowing the later c u stom of deport

.

i ng people and know i ng also the acco u nt of Ch e d or

,

l s omer s campaign how he carri e d away Lot and the

’
,

people of S odom and Gomorrah we mi ght s u ggest that ,

they or their ancestors had been carried into exile by

some previo u s E lamite or Babylonian conqu eror .

A parallel to this case can be fo u nd in the B u si ness

D ocu m e n ts of the Mu ra sha S on s of N i ppu r In them .
,

towns called A shk elon Gaz a Heshbon Bit Tab a la i

, , ,
-

are located in the vicinity of Nipp u r in the fifth cent u ry

BC . I n other words West S emitic names are intro

,

d u ce d for the towns occ u pied by the Jews in captivi ty .

I n these tablets also a great many Jewish names have

been fo u nd the descendants of the people whom Neb u
,

c h a d re zza r placed there in exile The name of the .

city Ba rs i p above Carchemish Of Gu dea s time do u bt ’

less is the origin of the Babylonian Borsi ppa .

An d finally having shown that the West S emitic

,

name M A R TU = A m u rru W1Nor Ur and that this is

-
,

the name of the town in the vicinity of S ippar we have the ,

only city name Urof the time of Abraham that is know n .

Thu s all the req u irements that can reasonably be

laid down in t he identification of the city have been
satisfied The city is in Chaldaea 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
p eople and its name is the same as is w ritten in the
,

Old Testament .
 II . THE N A ME J E R U S A L EM

THE name Jer usalem h as had in the past many

di fferent interpretations As a Hebrew name formerly .
,

it h as been considered to mean The abode of

peace ”
,
The possession of peace
“
S alem s posses ,
” “ ’

sion,
”
A fo u ndation of peace
“ ”
F o u ndation of S h a ,
“

lem etc The discovery of the A marna tablets which

,
.
,

contain the writ ing U ru sa li m resembling the form - - -

,

Ursa li m m u of the i nscription of S ennacherib threw ,

new light on the s u bject Considered in connection .

with the S yriac which is Uri shl em scholars realized

, ,

that Jer us alem which Sho u ld have been written in

,

c u neiform something li k e Ya rusha li m was a disg u ised ,

or perhaps an incorrect writing This was f urther .

corroborated by the writing 0 5m m in the Naba

taean inscriptions The tr an slation City of S alem
.
“
,
”

“
City of Peace or Place of S afety then became
,
” “
,
”

pop u lar for nearly all scholars seem to have concl u ded
,

that the elements of the name are a compou nd of UR U ,

which in S u merian mean s city and the S emitic “

,
”

sha li m peace or safety

,
“ “ ” ”
F or example i n his .
,

editorial notes to the text of I saiah Hau pt accepts ,

‘

an d f u lly disc u sses the name from this point of view :

The di alectical form of the S u merian URU is E RI ,

which passed into the Hebrew WJ) city ’

The u ,
“

Pol ych rom e B i b l e , p . 100

1 76 A M U R RU HOM E OF N O RTH R N S E EM I T E S
vowel after a in Uru sa li m he says is the S u meri an , ,

vowel of prolongation The i in the S yriac Hau pt .

,

f u rt her states is the vowel of the constr u ct state

,
.

I ru sha li m from whi ch the comm on form of Jer u salem

,

is derived represents the dialectic form of Uru The

,
.

u after r in I ru sha l i m may be d u e to dissimilation .

Pi n ches who also accepted the S u merian origin Of the

,

first element appreciated the diffic u lty in the genitival

,

relation of the two elements in translating City of

Peace and s u ggested the me an ing The city peace
,
” ” “
,

mak ing it a cou nterpart to or an explanation of the

name S ha l em Peace in Genesis
”
,
“
,

The theory that the first element is from the S u

meri an and me an s city is frau ght with diffic u lties
” “
.

In the first place if the theory is correct that the Hebraic

,

or Arn ora i c my is derived from the dialectical form

E RI going back to the pu re S um erian URU we mus t
, ,

assu me that in Uru sa li m we have preserved not the form

from which W? is su p posed to have been derived
’
,

namely E RI b u t the original S u merian URU ; or the

, ,

name wou ld be compoun ded with p u re S um erian an d

S emitic elements Fu rther inasmu ch as we have .
,

similar formations as I r S hem esh I r N a ha sh etc ‘

,
‘
,
.
,

belonging to the early p eriod if the first element of the ,

”
name UR U means city does it not seem str an ge that
“
,

it shou ld have been u nrecognized by the ancients that

t he element had that meaning ? S ome S u merian loan
words in Hebrew are known b u t these are traced back ,

Cf . The Old T est m e

a nt i n th e L g h t i f
o th e Historica l I n s cri p
ti on s , etc .
, p 2 39
. f .
1 78 A M U RRU H OM E OF N O RTH R N S E EM I TE S
the occ u pation of I srael when the A morites were the ,

dominant people of the land .

The name or epithet of the chi ef deity as we have ,

seen of t hi s people w as Uru and a reasonable explana

, ,

tion of Jer us alem is that it is compou nded with that

“ ”

name and sha li m me an ing perhaps Uru is appeased, .

The second element sha li m is S emitic as above stated , ,

being very comm only u sed in the formation Of Baby

lonian an d As syrian names I t is also foun d in W est .

S emi tic personal names cf ab u se r / s cro wn and ,

.
, ,

DDWD J ‘
Compare also the city S ha lem of Genesis
.

1 4 w hich may be the same name in an abbreviated

,

f orm Compare also the altar name Ya hw eh S ha l om

.
-

of the Old Testament F or su ch a theophoro u s .

name as Urn sha li m compare the two altar names

-
,

Ya hw eh j i reh and Ya hw eh n i s si also the passage in

- -
,

Jere m i ah 36 : 1 6 where it is said Jer us alem shall be

,

called Jehovah is our righteou sness (W

“
WW? ”

B u t especially compare names li k e Ya b n i — cl J carce l , ,

o —
J sep cl etc also the large n u mber of place names
h ,
.
,

of verbal f orma tion ; se e Glossary in Hommel s S ou th ’

A ra bi c Chrestom a thy u nder letter y ,

.

This gives rise to the qu estion whether the nam e

was orig inally a place name or whether it was the ,

name of an individ u al which was afterward applied ,

to the estate manor or town As an original place

,
.

name we can compare the names qu oted above and ,

also s u ch Babylonian names as N I N IB a sha b shu —i qb i ? - -

S e e Li d z b a rs k i , Ha n d b u ch ,
and Cooke ,
N orth S em i ti c I n s cri p
tio ns .

2
B E . .
,
V ol I X , 5 1
. : 5 .
 TH E NA ME OF J E R U S A L EM
-
in which case the name Uru sha li m
E lli l l i m m a ssu , ‘ -
,

Uru is appeased mi ght have been given to the place ,

on its being reb ui lt after an enemy had destroyed it ,

perhaps when a fo u ndation sacrifice had been offered ,

as at Jericho However if the first element is the name?

,

of t h e deity Uru sha li m appears more likely to be the

,
-

n ame of an i ndivid u al do u btless an Am orite the father , ,

of the city who perhap s was in p ossession of the hill

,
”

kn own as Moriah or more correctly Am ori a h (see above ,

in Part I I ) As is kn o w n there are many place .

,

names among the ancient S e m itic as well as other peoples

that were once personal names .

The second explanation o ff ered is that t he first

element is to be regarded as the name of the coun try ,

namely A m u rru Uru in view of su ch names as Aram

, ,

Z obah Aram ,
an d especially if S ha l em

is the original name of the city which later became the ,

capital of a petty p rincipality as the S yrian p laces ,

qu oted were This view fin ds su pport in the Am arna .

letters for the land or coun try of t h e city Jer us alem

,

is several times referred to Th at is l ike Ara m (or .

,

S yria) Maachah or Aram D am as c us we wo u ld have

-
,
-
,

Urn S ha le m mean i ng the Am orite S ha le m I f these

-
,
.

com p ou nds are s o common in connection with A ra m ,

why shou ld not the same be fo u nd to be the case

B . E .
,
V ol . XV for ,
wh ich Meiss n er s g g ests th r d i g t
u e ea n a

B él n a pli s su ( S HI -M A S -S U
) , Gatl i n g i sche Geleh rte A z eig e 1 90 8
n n, ,

No 2 p 1 43
=
. . .
,

Of . 1 Ki n g s
2
Cf S O A. . r b ic M
a a in
'
M i sr an Ho m m e l , A u fsatze
,
u . A b ha ndl
1 80 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
with Uru or A m u rru ? I f thi s theory is correct then ,

S halem of Genesis 1 4 is very li k ely to be identified wit h

Uru sa li m j us t as Maachah w as k nown as Aram
-
,

Maachah ‘
.

The writ ing Jer us alem in the Hebrew which ,

di ff ers so g reatly from the As syrian Ursa li m m u is ,

not very di ffic u lt to explain The loss of the initial .

R as in W153 E l Ur af ter which the 1 being initial passes

, , ,

i nto in Hebrew o ffers no di ffic u lty The use of the ,

.

long vowel following Wmu st then be regarded as a join

,
W
ing vowel as in formations li e DTDN WDIDN The
k ’
.

Masoretic pointing is li k e j qa tte l which in Arabic is e

,

l u and in As syrian u qa t i
j a tti t l
“

u g ,
.

r d (1 9 1 1s ) i North er S yri w i th e rl y p eriod

A pa n n a as n e a an

Am orite cit y me m y b from th root 1 9 1 to e te d “ ”

Th . e na a e e ,
x n ,

h e ce 1 9 1 3
n terr ce cf D H Mull er I hr II fm“
b t it
a ,
”
. . .
,
nsc . o us .
’
u

al so m y m e eith er Ur P d i th Am orit 1 9 or Ur i
a an - a ,
. e .
,
e e ,
u s

re q ui ted from 11 1 9 t re d eem re q i te cf

, H am s ,
d “
o ,
u ,
”
.
,
an
‘
in 1 9 Thi s fi ds s pp ort i th c ei form i scri p tio w h ere th
n u n e un n ns , e

M rp — d —
.

m e i writte b t o ce i H r p er
al u
na s n u n a - a a a ,
a ,

L etters Pt VI I N 6 8 5 O 1 9
,
. I th i cri p tio of G d e
,
o . city ,
v . . n e ns n u a, a

Ur b el o g i g to thi s s m e d i trict i referre d to f Th r

u - a z, n n a s ,
s ,
o . u eau

D g i V B p 21 G d e i i scrip tio s p e k s of b ri g i g from u a n an n n a n n

t i of A m rr u m rb l e for r p d—
an n, . .
,
. .

Ti d th m o
anu, e un d cf V B 70
a n u ,
a u -
a a ,
. . .
,

6 1 7 b t th m e
,
i g of th p ss g e d oes t see m to b
u e an n d er e a a no e un

stoo d I f th seco d or th i r d e pl tio g i e b ov h o l d

. e n x an a n v n a e s u

p rov correct t h ere r ot h er g eo g r ph ic l

e ,
m es of th Am ori t a e a a na e e

di trict th t ym ol ogy of w h ich is cert i th t sh o l d b

s ,
e e un a n, a u e

co si d r d ; for e m pl Ur-bi ll m tc f th e ea rl y pe ri od
n e e xa e, u ,
e . o .
1 82 A M U RRU HO M E O F N O RTH E RN S EM I T E S
now read the name S ha r— Ga n i sha rri some of whom -
,

considered Ga n i to be the name of a god by reason of ,

the identification of su ch a deity by S c h e i l .

‘

A recent fin d at S us a of two portions of a large

monolith pu blished by Gau tier and later by S c h e i l
, ,
2
,
3

contai ns a cartou che in front of the ki ng s image in ’

,

whi ch hi s name is written S ha rra GI sha rru The -

name i s read by these scholars S ha rru —

.

u ki n the k ing
“
, ,

the same as the name of the late As syrian k in g known ,

to us as S argon who is referred to in the Old Testament ; ,

and as mentioned above has been regarded hi therto

, ,

as the same as the s u pposed abbreviated form of S ha r

ga n i s-
ha r ali b u t to be read
-
S h a r Ga n i
,
—
s ha rri or S ha rya n i -

sha rri .

S ch e i l considered however S ha rru GI as another

4
, ,
-

than S ha r— Ga n i sha rri I nasmu ch as S ha rru u ki n in a

-
.
-

tablet fo u nd at Tello bestows u pon Na rdm — S i n the

5

pa te s i shi p of S hi rpurl a S c h e i l arg u ed that they were ,

father and son ; while S ha r— Ga n i sha rri he considered -

to be another k ing of Ak k ad belonging to the same

dynasty b u t who followed the other r ul ers This
,
.

view is also advanced by Hal evy ?

Th ure a u D an gin too k exception to this concl u sion
-
7
,

becau se of the name S h a rru — u ki n i li S argon is my -

,

D el . en P erse ,
I, p . 1 6, u . 3 .

2
Re c de . tr av .
,
V ol . XX VI I , pp . 1 76 f .

2
D el . en Perse X , , p . 4 .

Del Perse X pp 4 f
. en , ,
. .

2
Cf Rec ei l de T bl ettes Ch ld
. u a a e e n n es , No 8 3 . .

2
Re u e S ém iti qu e 1 9 0 8 pp 3 77 if
v , ,
. .

2
0 L Z
. 1 90 8 pp 3 1 3 f
. .
, , . .
 THE NAM E OF S AR G ON
god fou nd on an u ndated tablet which he assigns to
,

the time of Naram S i n The S ha rru GI of the text -

.
-

pu blished by Gau tier and S eheil he placed in the Kish

dynasty preceding the Ak k ad dynasty and; proposed
, ,

that we have the following order Of r ul ers of Kish :

S ha r ru GI M a n i s htu su Uru m a u sh ; an d of Ak k ad
- -
, ,
- -
,

S ha r Ga n i sha rri and N a ram S i n

- - -
.

Ki ng also considers S ha rru GI of the new stele

‘ -
,

p u blished by Gau tier and S c h e i l to be a still earlier ,

k i ng of Kish u sing two texts to prove his point

,
In .

one however which was p u blished by S c h e i l the only

, , ,
2

trace of the name is the last character at the

end of the first l ine ; which reading the au thor a c k n ow l
edges to be do u btf u l The other inscription qu oted .

is also of a k ing of Kish fo un d at Tello of which the only ,

part of the name that is preserved is the first sig n ,

namely S ha rru King therefore proposes the read ing

,
.
, ,

S ha rru GI -
a deity GI ) instead of S ha rra ken u ,
-
,

and considers that this k ing of Kish is not to be i de n ti

fie d with S ha r— Ga n i sha rri the father of N aram S in -
,
-
,

k i n g of Akk ad In order to explain why in the late

.

Assyrian and Babylonian tradition S argon was called

k ing of Agade or Ak k ad and the father of Naram ,

S i n he says I t is clear therefore that the name of

“
, , , ,

S argon k i ng of Kish has been borrowed for the k ing of

, ,

Ak k ad whose real name S ha r Ga n i —

,
sha rri has dis ,
-
,

appeared .
”

I n short S c h e i l s order is : S ha rra u ki n ki ng of

’
-
,

Proceedi g s f th S ociety n o e f
o B bli ic a l A rch ol ogy XXX
ae , , p 240 . .

2
D l e Perse I p 4
. en , ,
. .
1 84 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O RTH E RN S E M IT E S
Akkad , is followed by N c ram S i n hi s son and later by -
, ,

a certain S ha r g a n i sha rri Th ure a u D angi n and King

- - -

mak e S ha rru GI a ki ng of Ki sh and S ha r Ga n i —

.

-
sha rri ,
-
,

followed by his son N ardm S i n k ings of Ak k ad -

,
.

I t is not improbable that there w as another kin g

of t his era by the name of S argon who belonged to the ,

dynasty of Ki sh b u t it mus t be recognized that the ,

theory advanced is exceedingly precario us becau se ,

concerning the one i nscription it shou ld be said that

other r u lers names begin with L UGAL ; and concern
’

ing the other inscription the GI is so un certai n that ,

S c h e i l altho u gh when he originally p u blished the

,

translation of the text read ‘

later he did not 2

even s u ggest t hat mu ch Until therefore more evi ,

dence is forthcomi ng that there was a S ha rru —

.
,

GI of the
Kish dynasty the theory that the so called S ha n i Ga n i
,
- -

sha rri the father of Naram S i n was credited with the

,
-
,

achievements of the still greater predecessor and that ,

the conf u sion is to be acco u nted for becau se both were

great conqu erors of the same age and that both belonged ,

to the S emi tic wave of domination and restored the

S ippar temple and becau se their names are not di s
,

similar (w ith which the writer di ffers se e below ) , ,

mu st for the present be considered as rather qu estion

able .

The names u sed by D horme to prove that URU 2

in these names following L UGAL is to be read ri are

‘
Del . en Perse I I , p 4, n
,
. ote .

2
Sa iso de ou i es
n F ll a S p pa i r p ,
. 96 .

2
0 . L Z . .
,
1 9 0 7, p 230 . .
1 86 A M U R RU H OM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
Not only is the format i on and meaning pec u liar b u t ,

where i n this period or in any other does the charac , ,

ter L UGAL regu larly have a phonetic complement ri

or ru ? Or if it i s considered to be a phonogram where
, ,

in this age or i n any other does L UGAL regu l arly have

the phonetic val u e sha r Wh en the scribe in the .

Man i sh tu s u Obelisk wrote the name S argon phoneti c

ally we find S hci r ru — GI cf also S har ru i li S har ru -
.
- - -
,
-

duri etc I n the bric k inscription of Naram S in

,
.
-
,

pu blished by S ch e i l S har ru is twice written Thi s ,

1 -
?

mu st be regarded not only as a serio u s obj ection to

the readi ng b u t proof that it is i ncorrect ; for it ,

cou ld not be inf erred that on s u ch mon u ments as the

Obelis k or the votive obj ects of S argon fo u nd at Nipp u r ,

and Tello or in the date formu l as or in the so called

, ,
-

name B i n Ga n i — sha rri etc we wo u ld expect su ch

-
,
.
,

grap hical expediencies or as the Ge rmans say S pie , ,

l ere i e n
”
F or these an d other reasons we are there
.
2
,

2
D el . en Perse ,
I I , PI 1 3 . 1 .

2
Cf . al so S hd r l
i g of K tu V r B i b I p 225 ; S har ri -
a -a k , k n u ,
o . .
, ,
.
-

i h t q l R
s f
-a - A Pl VI I I 1 8 9 7 ;
a ,
w e ll ev .ll th m es
ss m .
,
.
,
as as a e na co

p o d e d w ith S h er r m i R k e P erso l N m es
un -
u n an ,
na a .

Wh t h 2
b ee s id co cer i g L UGA L l so ppl ies to th
a as n a n n n a a e

H m m ur b i Co d e
a g I l L UGA L UR U I I I 1 6
a sc rcel y,
e . .
,
-
u ,
: ,
c an a

b etr sl te d g d of k i g s or g d of ki g Th ori g i l
an a
“
o n
”
o n .
”
e na

tr sl tio th di vi e city ki g see m to b m ore re so b l e b t

an a n ,
“
e n n ,
s e a na ,
u

p erh p s t fi l Th ere i
a no p ss g e h o w e er t h t seem s to
na . s on e a a ,
v
,
a

su pport th re di g i th H m m r b i p erio d D r P b l h c ll e d
e a n n e a u a . . oe e as a

a tte tio to it (cf Z A XX I p

n n I Ki g L etters V l I I
. . .
, ,
. n n
’
s ,
o .
,

N 58 C l I I 3 7 L UGA L L UGA L E NE —
o .
,
o . I R is fo u d I te t ,
-
n . n x

N 5 7 of th s m e ol u m e th S e m itic tr s l tio of t h is te t
O . e a v e an a n x

re d s sh rr i L UGA L U RU
a a a n -
.
 T HE NA M E OF SAR G ON 1 87

fore compelled to ret u rn to the reading L UGAL URU ,

instead of sha r—
,

ri or sha rri ( ri ) ; and the q u estion arises -

whether the combination of characters be read S ha rya n i

sha r d li
-
sha rg a n i sha r d li or S h a r g a n i L UGA L UR U ?
, ,
-

I n the light of what follows if L UGA L URU is ,

c onsidered to be a title it seems to me there is no di ffi ,

c u lty whatever i n identifyi n g the traditional S ha rru

k én u with the father of Naram —S in hitherto k nown
as S ha r ga n i sha r—
,

- d li and S ha r Ga n i —
- -
sha rri ; and at the -

same time all other diffic u lties vanish In other .

words the S ha rru GI of the stele p u blished by Gau tier

,
-

and S eheil is the same r u ler who is mentioned as bestow

ing the pate si shi p of Tello u pon Naram S in in the texts -

p u blished by Th u re a u D angin and was the f ather of -

,

Naram S i n -
.

The well k no w n tradition of S argon in the chronicles

-

an d omen texts as well as in the cylinder Of Nabonid u s

, ,

in which his name is written S ha rru kén u show us -

,

1 that he w as not of royal descent having been reared

, ,

by Akk i the irrigator ; 2 that he w as followed by

‘
,

Naram— S in who w as his son ; 3 that he w as k ing of

, ,

Ak k ad ; 4 that he conqu ered A m u rru ; 5 and that he

, ,

c onqu ered E lam .

1 The inscription of S ha rga n i sha r URU as well

.
,

as the dating of tablets in his reign show that he does ,

not claim royal ancestry be ing the son of a comm oner ,

D a ti —
,

E lli l ; 2 that Naram S in w as king of this dyn a sty

,
-
,

A -b i u l i- di Of th e l g e e d d oes
n n ot m e th t h did t k o w
an a e no n

f t h er s me bu t l ike th p erso n al n a m e refers to p ost h u m o u s

’
h is a na ,
e a

c h il d .
 1 88 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O RT H RN S E EM I TE S
and i n all probability the son an d su ccessor of S ha rga n i ,

especially by reas on of the fact that D r Haynes fo u nd .

that the pavement laid in the tem p le at Nippu r by

Naram— S i n consisted of bric ks intermingled with those
of S ha rya n i as well as the fact that both by their in scri p
,

tions tell u s that they were devotees of the S hamas h

temple at S ippar both had the same scribe namely , , ,

Lu ga l u s u m ga l patesi of S h irpu rl a an d becau se of th e

- -
, ,

b u llce referred to below which were fo u nd at Tello ;

, ,

3 that he also was king of Akk ad ; 4 that he conqu ered

, ,

A m u rru ; 5 and that he conqu ered E lam

‘
,
?

The recently p u blished inscription Of S ha r ru — GI -

by S cheil shows that he too r u led over S hi rpu rl a and

a

that he made Naram—

,

S i n patesi of that city Unless .

it is assu med with King that this is another S argon

, ,

b u t then we mu st add who was s u cceeded by another ,

NaramS in and that both r u led S h irpurl a as did S ha r

-
, ,

g a n i and his son — w e m u st recogni z e a most pec u liar

combination of coincidences .

At Bi sm y a Ban k s fo u nd brick stamps of ,

Naram -

S in b u ilder of the Temple of Nan a and also b u l l ce

”
, ,

which contained the seal impression of S ha rya n i sha r

UR U .The bric k stamps are of the same general -

character as those fo u nd at Nipp u r belonging to Naram

S in . I t seems to me that inasmu ch as we know that
S ha rru GI appoi n ted Naram S i n as patesi of S h i rpurl a
- -
,

and that the b u ll ce of S ha rya n i sha r URU addressed to ,

Cf . Th u re a u - D a n g in , V B . .
,
I , p 22 5
. .

2
Cf . i b id .
, p . 225 .

2
Cf . Del . en Perse X , , pp 4 . f .
1 90 A M U R RU H OM E OF N ORTH RN S E EM I TE S
There remains to be considered the u s u al L UGA L
UR U which follows S ha rya n i B i n ga n i an d also the
”

, ,

name Ub i n of the Man ish tu su Obelisk The original .

explanation that it was a title city king does not ”

, ,

seem u nreasonable and mu ch can be said in its favor

, .

E ven if L UGAL UR U is to be explained otherwise in

the S argonic period it is not un li k ely that the title in
,

so m e periods me an s ki ng of the city .

”

I n the light of these i n 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 wo u ld li k e to propose another possible expl an ation ,

namely that Uru here means the coun try and that the
, ,

name and title S ha rgdn i shar Uru means S argon “

,

k ing of Uri By this title was recognized the suzer

”
.

a i n ty of Uri ,
which in the S u merian inscriptions
—
was written KI B UR B UR - —
Ki Uri “
Land Uru , ,
”

and later in Babylonia A kka d or MA R TU (se e below)

,
-
.

This land Uri extended from what was know n as E n gi

(S h um e r) to the shores of the Mediterranean (see above
in Part I I ) The fact does not seem to be ordi narily
.

appreciated that some o f the earliest r u lers known by

their records show that t hey e x tended their conqu ests
over this p art of Western Asia In fact in the few .

inscriptions that have come down to us this st an ds

ou t p romi nently These ex peditions were not raids
.

f or the p urp ose of p l u ndering b u t were for conqu est

, ,

and were equ al in extent in the way o f holding the

,

l an ds in su bjection with those of the later periods The

,
.

omen texts which h ad been re edited in the late period

,
-
,
 THE NA ME OF S AR G ON
credit S argo n with the title sha r ki b ra t a rb a i m i e ’

,
. .
,

k ing of the fo u r al tho u gh there is no

“

verification of this fact in the inscriptions of S argon

thus far p u blished How is this to be explained ? .

Th e inscriptions thu s far kn own do u btless belon g

to the early part of hi s reign when he had conqu ered
only MA RTU whi ch gave hi m the title ki ng of Uri
,

(sha r Uri ) ; b u t in later years by reason of certain ,

additional conqu ests he w as able to assu me the title ,

which embraced a qu asi worldwide dominion ; or he -

may have preferred the less pretentious title even ,

after he h ad accomplished this work Thi s c an be .

inferred from what is written in the omen texts fo u nd

in As h urb an i pa l s library whi ch mention E lam in the
’

E as t and S u b artu in the North as well as other ,

important lands as having been invaded The chron ,

.

i oles of early kings referring to S argon say : Af ter 2 “

wards in his old age all the lan ds revolted again st him
afterwards he attac k ed the land S u b a rtu
in his mi ght etc They also state : S argon who
,
”
.
3 “
,

marched against the co un try of the West and conqu ered ,

the co u ntry of the West his hand su bdu ed the [fo u r ] ,

qu arters ”
We have a parallel case in the reign of
.

D u n gi where in the later years of his ru le he conqu ered

,

the fo u r qu arters and handed down to his s u ccessor

“ ”

the title e xactly as did S argon (see below )

,
.

This title namely King of the fo u r q u arters

, , ,

Cf . Kin g Ch ron icle s I I p 2 7

, , ,
. .

2
Cf . Ki n g Ch ron ic le s I I p 6
, , ,
. .

2
I bi d .
, p . 27 .
1 92 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
Naram S in inherited I n other words the title of
-
.
,

Naram S in as well as that of S argon in the omen text s

-
,

i e sha r ki bra t a rb a i m was a te rm i n u s te chn i cu s imply

’
!
. .
, , ,

ing vi rt u ally a sovereignty which extended north east , ,

sou th an d west of the c e n ter of the empire which in the ,

case of S argon was A kka d (A GA DE ) i e the city - -

,
. .
,

Akk ad as the capital The omen texts Show that the

.

fo u r qu arters referred to were Am u rru S u b a rtu E lam , ,

and A ccad (which do u btless inclu ded E n gi ) .

B i n ga n i the s on of Naram—
,
S i n did not as far as we , ,

kn ow enj oy the title King of the fo u r qu arters ”

.
,

One or more Of the coun tries may in his day have

regained independence The title which he alone co u ld .

boast of was Ki ng of Uri L u g a l—

“
za gg i si a n d E n sha g
.

ku shan n a u sed the title lu g a l ka ta m m a king of the

“
,

world the dominion which extended from the lower

”
,
“

se a of the Ti g ris 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

-
Ki ng of E n g i and
Uri In other words he was k ing over S h u m e r i e ,
. .
,

S ou thern Babylonia and also the Uri region which

, ,

extended from S h u m e r to the Mediterranean se a His .

n u mero us references to A m u rru and its prod u cts alone

wo u ld imply that he reigned in that land D u n gi .

us ed the same title ; b u t in several of his inscriptions

he called hi mself lu ga l ou u b da ta b ta b— b a which i s

- - -
,

the S u merian for sha r ki bra t a rb a i m king of the fo ur ’

,

qu arters I n t h e dates of the latter half of his reign

.
”

we learn that he made notable conq u ests These do u bt .

less enabled him to u se the all important and compre

1 94 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I TE S
S ome time after the forego i ng w as w ritten and in
shap e for the pr inter I fo un d (F ebr u ary 7 1 9 0 9 ) in
, ,

the L ibrary Collection of Mr J Pierpont Morgan of . .

,

New York City a fragment of a tablet of S argon w hich

, ,

h ad j u st been shi pped from E ngland by D r C H W . . . .

John s F ollo w ing is the tr an sliteration of the fragment

.

ru —
A n a ku S ha — -
ki i n - -

d
n a ra a m
- -
I shta r
m u - te- li —
ik
ki i b
- - —
ra - a a i
-
ti —
i r bi — in
-
tw rw ru

Thi s perhaps is to be translated as follows : I S argon

beloved of I shta r a of the fo u r qu arters ”

the kingdom of the fo u r qu arters )

The special val u e of t his fragment is the c on fir
mation of the view above advanced In connection with
the name and titles of S argon Nat u rally it is possible .
,

to assu me that it was iss u ed by an other S argon who was ,

“
ki ng of the fou r qu arters b u t as mentioned above , , ,

the exi stence of s u ch mu st first be proved The fr ag .

ment shows that the f u ll name of the k ing w as S ha ru ki n ;

an d f u rther that in this tablet he no longer calls himse lf
,

k ing of Uri (sha r Uru ) b u t speaks of his k ingdom

“ ”
,

as the ki bra t i rb i ti n whi ch s u bstantiates the view that

,
‘

after he had conqu ered the territory embraced in the

title King of the fou r q u arters he was in a position
“ ”
,

to assu me it and to h and on to his son Naram S i n

,
-
.

Nu tio i ste d of m im m tio

nna n n a a n .
 IV . THE N A ME N I N I B -

INp u blish ing the Archives of the Muras h u S ons of

Nipp u r in 1 90 4 the writer fo u nd a large n u mber of
, ,

doc u ments which contained short reference notes called ,

i n legal p arlance endorsements These reference “ ”

.

notes were scratched or written with ink on the tablet

in the Aramaic l an g u age for the benefit of t h e archive
k eeper On several of these tablets were fo u nd names
.
‘

which were compo un ded with the name of the deity

NI N I R e g N I N I B i ddi n a
-
,
Bu t instead of findi n g
. .
,
-
.

an yt hing li k e w h at had been proposed namely A dar , , ,

Nindar Ni n rag Nin Urash and Nisroch there w as

, ,
-
,

written in each instanc e lWW1JN Before fin ding an .

additional tablet which contained the Aramaic equ iv

alen t there seemed to be some dou bt wh ether the
,

middle character sho u ld be read W or 1 altho u gh ,

preference was given to the latter Another example .

,

however w as fo un d which confirmed the preferred

,

readi ng .

The res u lt of the discovery of this Aramaic

eq u ivalent instead of solving the problem seemed to
, ,

mak e the obsc u rity which surroun ded the pron un ciation
Se e Cl ay, Ba b yl o i n an E xp editio n, f L ig ht th
V ol . X , pp 5 . on e

Old T est m t from B

a en a b el p 3 9 4
,
. d ,
Ar m ic E dorse m e ts
an a a n n on

th e D oc m e ts of th
u n e Mu ras hu So s H r per M em ori l V ol u m e
n ,
a a ,

Ori g i d Re l N m e of NI N I B J A
“
I , pp 28 9 f
. .
,
an d Th e n an a a -
, . .

O S , 1 90 7
. . .
1 96 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O R T HE R N S EM I T E S
still denser The writer at the same ti m e had several .

theories in mi nd wi th reference to the vocalization and

mean i n g of the characters b u t none were p u blished as , ,

they did not seem s u fficiently satisfactory S ome of .

these however have been pu blished by others

, ,
.
‘

i teresti g coll ectio of vie w s

Th e n th A r m ic q i
n n on e a a e u va

le tn d th i terp ret tio s of it w hi ch foll o w s h o w s h w di er

an e n a n o v

sifi d h e b ee th as derst d i g of sch ol rs Professor Hil pr h t

n e un an n a . ec ,

i h i e di tori l p ref ce to m y M
n s h u te ts
a B E V l X)
a u ra s x . .
,
o .
,

w e ll i rticl e i Th S u d y S ch ol Ti m es S e p te m b er 25
as n an a n e n a o , ,

1 9 0 4 took e ce p tio to m y re di g
, d re d tw ch r cters di f fer
x n a n an a o a a

e tl y i HW DR I e pl i i g th
n ,
. e .
,
me h
‘
p ro p ose d
. m n x a n n e na e co

p ri so w ith NI N S HA H Lor d of th B r
a n th - S y ri c ,
“
e ea e a

JW1 RJ d re g r d e d it i d e tic l w ith th b i b l ic l Ni r h i w h ose

,
an a n a e a s oc ,
n

tem pl e t Ni e eh S e ch erib w orshi p e d Th S y ri c form

a n v nn a . e a ,

h o w ever i P 1 3 3 ( cf J tro w R l B b
,
s d A V l I p . as ,
e . a . un ss .
,
o .
,
.

w h ic h of co rse m k e th com p riso i m p ossib l e F urth er

u a s e a n .
,

th fi l ch r cter of th A r m ic of NI N I B i
e na a a t n b t n e a a -
s no u ,

as I h d m i t i ed a d w h ich h s i ce b ee prove d correct Th

a n a n , an as n n . e

re di g of 1 i ste d of 1 i sp ired series of oth er re di g s w hi ch

a n n a n a a n

foll o w Professor Zi mm er .
q u oted b y Professor Hil pr h t i Th n , as ec n e

S u d y S chool Ti m es (S e p te m b er 25
n a re d blpr ht b él ,
a s

pi ri h ti s L or d of d ecisio
,
“
Professor Pri ce i th J u r l n .
”
n ,
n e o na

of B i bl ic l L iter tu re ( l 1 90 5 pa foll o w e d i re d i g E
a vo .
,
. n a n nu

ré ht
s Th chi ef l or d
u,
“
D r Pi ch es b o u t th s m e tim e i
e .
”
. n
,
a e a ,
n

th Jou r l f th Roy l A si tic S ociety (J u ry

e na o e re d E a a an a ,
a n

ré h th s E
e ré h t Th p rim e l l or d
nu Professor Joh s
s u,
“
e a va .
”
n ,

E posi tory Ti m es ( D ece m b er

x p 1 4 1 re d Ur ht d ,
.
,
a as u, an on

p 1 4 1 i bi d A r ht Prof ssor S y ce i th s m e jo ur l ( D ece m as u e a n e a na

e q i l e t to th Assy ri I —ri hti

.
,
. .
,

b r reg r d e d it
Lor d of th mi tre th S u m eri for Ni —
e ,
a as u va n e an n a s ,

e Ur sh I th Re u e
,
e an n a . n e v

S é m iti qu ( 1 90 5 p e Prof ssor H l e y o ff ere d th re d i g

, . e a v e a n

L or d of l i f e or p refer b l y E“ ”
E n pi h ti na s ,
w h ti E ,
a n -n a as u

na mm h ti seig e r d e to u t q i est d o u é d e vie de m o u e m e t

as ,
“
n u cc u v n ,

d e to u te cre t re i m ée L ter ( cf i b ida up th an s me .

”
a . .
,
. e a

sch ol r o ffere d tw ot h er e pl tio s r ri h ti sei g e r d e

a o x an a n : e u s a ,
“
n u
198 A M U RRU H OM E O F N O RT HE R N S E M I T E S

improved u pon F or the change of r to sh compare .

,

m a rtu m ( T UR S A L ) dau ghter (Jensen

” “
m a sh l u m -
, ,

Z A IV p
. .
,
s hi pi shti for s hi pi rti in the Mu ras h fi
,
.

D oc u ments ; the Ne e Babyloni an personal name Ma sh -

tu ku written M a rtu ku in the Cassite period ; also the

,

deity A shka i ti A rka i ti and the article by Jensen

’ ’
, ,

Z A V II p 1 79 F or an exact parallel to the E N .

MA RT U B el A m u rru cf E N—
. . .
, ,

KA S B él Ha rra n
-
.
-
,

in the name index of Johns D eeds a n d D ocu m en ts an d , ,

D oom sda y B ook ; b u t especially D I NGI R M A R TU - -

“
the deity of A m u rru ”
I n arg ui ng for an Am orite .

origin of N I N I B or better expressed that it represented

-
, , ,

a deity Of Amu rr u as others had done reference was‘

, ,

made to the West S emitic name A b di NI N IB the city - -

,
“Z
N I N IB according to the collation of Kn u dtzon
“ -
,
2

and the name of a place or temple in or near Jer u salem

in the di strict of the city ) called Bi t NI N I B - -
.
3

In the same paper it was s u ggested that NI N 1 B was -

originally the chief goddess B a a tu t A m u rru which ‘

,

perhaps was A shta rti ; and that at some center in Baby

lonia probably Di l b at the deity appeared as the consort
, ,

of IB who later was kno w n as Ura sh I n other wor ds

,
.
,

the theory is that the god of the West when introd u ced ,

at a certain center in Babylonia was w ritten by the ,

S u merian c hirog ra ph ers I B w h ic h con veyed to t h em ,

Cf Zim m er K
. n, . A . T 2, . p . 41 1 .

2
Cf B A I V p. . .
, ,
. 1 14 .

2
Cf K B . . .
,
V .
 TH E NA M E NI N IR -
1 99

the idea represented by the Western solar deity ; and ‘

hi s consort s name probably As h ta rti w as written

’
, ,

NI N I B ? L ater as was the case in so m an y instances

-
,

when N I N I B became masc u linized in certain q u arters

-
,
2

the deity w as regarded as the Lord pa r exce llen ce

” “

of Am u rr u i e Ba a l A m u rru when the S u merian

,
. .
,
‘
,

equ ivalent E N M A R TU Lord A m u rru was intro - -

,
“
,
”

d u ce d An d this S u merian form li k e E N L IL was

.
,
-
,

handed do w n into later times as the Aramaic form of ,

the name shows Of co urse it is not necessary to waste .

,

space in showing how E N M A R TU like E N LIL - -

,
-
,

co u ld pass into Babylonian as E n wa shtu and E lli l and ,

be reprodu c ed i n Aramaic as lWW11 N an d D7R 2

. .

Another theory concerning the read ing and u nder

st an ding of the name by the help of the Aramaic
now becomes more plau sible I n di scu ssing the name .

Gi lg a—Mesh it became apparent that the name is West

S e mi tic written i n S u merian and t h at it perhaps con
, ,

tains the name of the mou ntain god Ma sh which is ,

to be identified wit h Ma sh ( WD) of Genesis 1 0 : 23 .

I t w as f u rther shown that in Nineveh there w as a

temple E MAS H MA S H which is written E MI S H
- -
,
-

It to ote th t Zi m m er (K A T p
is i teresti n i
ng n a n . . .
2
,
. n

disc ssi g B i t NI N I B of Jer s l e m g i st H u p t ( Jos h u

- - a a,
u n u a ,
as a a n

Poly B i b p
. wh s y s th t NI N I B represe ts Y h w eh
.
,
. o a a - n a ,

a ss m es m o g th oth er p ossib il ities th t it m b desi g tio

u a n e a av e a na n

of a na ti e deit y S h m sh or E1
v ,
a a .

I t is
2
t i m pro b b l e t h t NI N M A R th
no m e of th deit y i a a -
,
e na e n

C irs u of w h o m U Ni D g i d oth ers w ere p tro s re p rese ts

r- n a, un an a n n

—
, ,

s m e g d ; cf l so th p erso l me U
.

d ’
th e a o NI N M A R . a e na na r-
“

( V B I p t 1 p 1 48 N
. .
, ,
.
,
.
,
O .

Cf B rto S m i tic O i g i
2
. a n ,
e r n
20 0 A M U R RU H OM E O F N ORTH E RN S E M I T E S

MI S H in the Hammu rabi Code ; and also that th e

temple of the West S emi tic Nergal at On tha is called
E—MI S H L A M and that the temple at A gade is called
-
,

E UL M A S H
- -
The element was also Shown to be in
the names D i Ma sh qi Ka rke— Mi sh etc (see Part II )
- -
, ,
. .

I n Bezold s Ca ta logu e of the Kou yu n j i k Col l ecti on ‘

’
,

and in Brii n n ow s Classified List NO 1 778 the following ’

,
.
,

formu la is fo un d :
Ma MAS H a— NI N IB
d
-
a sh ma -
shu -

Thi s considered in con nection with the ideogram

MA S H whi ch was co mm only u sed i n writing the name
,

of the deity becomes especially interesting Then also

,
.

in Bezold s Ca ta logu e the following is written :

’ 2

d
Ma -
aos hu u
d
Ma -
a s h- tu m m are S i n .

“
The god Mashu and Mashtu m children of Sin .

Mashtu therefore w as originally the femi n ine of

, ,

M ash N I N I B originally w as femi nine and later

.
-

became masc u lini z ed (see above ) In a gro u p of gods .

given in connection wi th their consorts in Harper s ’

L etters NI N 1 B follows N I N I B as if his co un terpart

2 - -
‘
, ,

which very likely is d u e to the fact that at that time

the god and his consort bore one and the same name .

This change in sex nat u rally points to a mis u nderstand

ing at some time N I N IB therefore co u ld be regarded .
-

K .
,
7790 , p . 875 .

2
It is of cou rse n ot im p ossi b l e th t NI N IB is
a -
a m i t ke for Gu l
s a a .

2
K .
,
6335 , p . 81 .

V ol I V No 3 5 8
.
, . .
 V . THE N A ME YA HW E H

WI TH t h e discovery of the name Yahweh in th e

c u neiform literat u re exclu sive of proper names u nder , ,

the form J aw u (m ) (see page the qu estion arises

whether it throws an y light on the ancient pron un ciation
of the divine name .

Before the discovery of t he Aramaic papyri at

Ass u an certain scholars claimed that Y ahweh is i d e n ti
,

cal with the Can aanitic deity J one which they said i s
fo u nd in J a u ha —
,

zi J a u b i di etc S ince the di sc ovl

- -
,
- - -
,
.

ery of the As su an papyri in which 1 71 occ u rs for t h e

’
,
‘

divine name it seems that scholars generally have

,

adopted the reading J dhu This concl u sion however .

, ,

cann ot be maintained .

I n a former wor k I endeavored to show that the 2

divine name of the pre Christian period was practically -

identical with the pron u nciation which Th e odore t

informs u s he Obtained from the S amaritans namely ,
’
I fla s whi ch is also foun d in a S amaritan letter in
,

Arabic to de S acy namely J a hw a or J a hw e and the ,

2
, ,

pron u nciation whi ch has been accepted for years ,

namely J a hw eh This as has been claimed is preserved

.
,

S S ch ee Ar m
a h P py r
au , k d
a p 25 D ie J u de
a i sc e a u sur u n en , . .
“
n

i nE l ph eti ante ih re G ott ich t m n so der

n n an n n w f i ri h
n n '
n n o
'

i c

na ch V org g d er Ass y rer die A ss p r ch e J d h u eh m e

an u a a nn .
”

L i g ht
2
th Old Test m e t fro m B b el p 2 47f
on e a n a , . .

2
S Mo t g o m ery J r l f B i bl ic l L iter tu re XX V 1 90 6
ee n , ou n a o a a , , ,

20 2
 TH E NA M E Y A HW E H 20 3

in d ( J a a m a ) an element in Jewish names in the

a - -

Ne e Babylonian period and in J awu (m ) on the tablet

-
2

in the Morgan Library Collection (see p 89 ) and on one in .

the possession of Professor D elitzsch which came from ,

the same so u rce .

The chief objection to the pron u nciation t u is to

be fo u nd in the writing i 1 1 W the Old Testament form
’ '

t
,

of the name whi ch also occ u rs on the Moabite stone

,
.

Can it be said that the Hebrew writers in I srael and

Moab did not know how to write the divine name ?
What does the additional final letter mean ? D id they
add it to Obsc u re the pron un ciation ? Or did the Jews ,

prono u nce the name one way in Palestine and an other ,

way in E gypt and still another way in Babylon ia ? ,

The writer maintains that t ’

1 W as well as d u
’
,
t ,

( J awi and J dw a ) all represent the same pron u nciation ;

an d as above that this pron u nciation is preserved in the
, ,

Greek I fl in the Arabic J a hwe an d in the accepted

’
a e
, ,

modern transcription J a hwe or J a hw eh .

As the first element in personal names Yahweh ,

occ u rs in the Assy rian historical inscriptions as J a u in -

Ja—
,

u ha zi an d J a u b i di ; and in the Ne e Babylonian ’

- - - -

period as J a — hu u J a a h u —u and J a a —
hu in J a hu u
-
,
- - - - -

n a ta n n u etc ? Perhaps also it is to be fo u nd in J a u

,
-

Cl y L ight th Ol d Test m e t from B b el

See a , on e a n a , p 2 48
. .

2
Pi ch es Proc S B i b A rch XV 1 3 ff w
n , . oc . . .
, , .
, as th e fir t to
s

c ll tte tio to th ese m es

a a n n na .

2
S Cl y B E V l X p 1 9 d L ight th
ee a , . o .
, .
, an on e Old T est a m en t

f rom B b el p 24 1 f
a , . .
20 4 A M U RRU HO M E OF N O RT H E RN S EM I T E S
b an i of
Cassite period
th e J of the Ha m ,
‘
an d in a u m -E l

m ura b i p e riod (s e e below ) .

A s the second element i n personal names it occ u rs

in A s hi ra t J a —
w i in the Hamm u rabi p eriod of V S V I I
-
.
,

1 5 7 : 7 a n d in A hi — J a— m i ( J a w i ) of the Ta an n e k tablet ;
'
-

a—
,

an d in the Assyrian histo rical inscription s as J a — u

and J a u in Ha za qi —
-
J a—a— u etc in the Gezer tablet in ,
.
,

N a ta n —J a u also in the Ne e Babylonian tabl e ts as J a

-
,
-

a m a (d
-
a) in N a ta n n u J a a m a etc It is not i m - - -
.
2

probable that i t occ u rs also in other forms as in Ha —

, ,

an ,

ni which owing to their u ncertainty are not

, ,

incl u ded in the dis c u ssions ?

As s u ming that J dw u (m ) of the early period the only ,

form known where in c un eiform it is not compo un ded

with other elements represents the divi n e name it can , ,

be shown that the same pron u nciation also represent s

the element when written in the Hebrew script .

The form 1 W as the first element when reprodu ced

”
1 ,

in c u neiform in the As syrian period became J a u where ,

-
,

the h between the two vowels w as elided ; an d in the

Ne e Babylonian period it became J a hu u J a a hu an d
- - -
,
- -

J a— a— hu u wh ere the h is represented by the Babylonian

-
,

h The explanation of the Ma ssore ti c 1W u s u ally o ffered

'

’
. t

is the one proposed by the late Professor Franz

D elitzsch namely : 1 71 1W I t seems to me
‘ ’ = ’
,
t

‘
See Cl y B E V l XV p 3 2
a , . .
, o .
, . .

2
See L i g ht th Old Test m e t p 2 44
on e a n , . .

2
On th ese see J stro w Jou r l f B i b l ic l L iter t re
, a , na o a a u , XI V .

p . 1 0 8 if d D i h
an Zeit fur A XX I I p 1 25 ff
a c es , . ss .
, , . .

Se e Z A W I I 1 73 f ; 28 0 ff
. .
, . .
20 6 A M U R RU HO M E O F N O RT H E RN S E M I T E S

u ncontracted name in which case h owever a reason

, , ,

mu st be given why it is not apocopated inasmu ch as th e ,

element i n Hebrew names is always shortened Thi s i s .

also shown by the S ept u agin t My own su ggestion i s .

‘

that the Babylonian scribes recognized the element a s

the name of the Hebrew god and that in their sc h ools ,

they were tau ght to w rite the f u ll name of the deity

when it appeared as the second element in names Th e .

name therefore was not written as they heard it b u t

, , , ,

as they treated their own Babylonian names accordin g ,

to fixed r u les Wh en we consider that Hebrew names

.

compoun ded w ith J dm a occ u r more frequ ently in th e

Murash fi doc um ents than Babylonian names com
po un ded with their own promi nent deities su ch as A ddu ,

Ba u E a etc we can readily un derstand that this cou ld

, ,
.
,

be an adopted orthography Of the twenty fiv e or more .

-

di fferent names compou nded with J am a some of which ,

occ u r very Often there is not a single variation from th e

,

form J a a m a ; and in every instance it is witho u t the

- -

determi native for deity An illu stration of su ch an .

adopted writing is to be seen in A N ME S H or i lu l - p

,

whi ch represents t h e West S emitic DR ?

Another and p erfectly reasonable theory is t h at

either the final vowel of J am a was not pronoun ced
distinctly b u t as a light overhanging vowel li k e J aw“;
, ,

or it was not prono u nced at all li k e J aw In other , .

words J dw a or J aw (a ) stands for the apocopated form of

,

the divine name J akw u This apocopation or shortening

.

i t
L g h on the Old T ta m es e t p 247
n , . .

2
See Cl a y Ol d T a m n
,
est e t d S e m itic S tu dies
an , I p 316
, . .
 TH E NA M E Y A HW E H 207

of the final vowel w as du e to the emph as is being placed

on the first syllable of the divine name e g N a ta n ,
. .
,

J d hwu became N a ta n J a hw (u ) -

S u c h an explan ation also acco un ts for the change to

W so commonly fo u nd in the Old Testament and in
, ,

the As s u an papyri the final w be i ng ap oco p ated It , .

shoul d be added that the Massoretic pointing while ,

p ossible according to phonetic laws is not s u pported by ,

the S eptu agint w hic h u s u ally transliterates this endi n g

,

me. I t wo u ld ap p ear therefore that 711 71 as well as , ,

1

were pronou nced J and that this pron u ncia

tion was in u se as early a s the Hamm u rabi period .

F u rthermore Yahweh being probably of A ram aean

,

orig in 1 W may be the Aramaean form of the name

’
,
t
,

inasmu ch as the As su an papyri are written in Aramai c .

These concl us ions necessitate the reconsideration of

su ch names as J a w i i lu and J a w i i lu which S ayce - -
‘ - -
, ,

D elitzsch and others have regarded as containing the

divine name These names as is well k nown can also
be read J a pi —
.
, ,

I n addition to the fact that there is

’
El .

not a single in stance in the Hebrew literatu re where the '

name Yahweh remained un changed when appearing as

a first element in proper names the West S e m itic name
Ja — —
,

p a E l also of the
,
2
H amm u rabi period ma k es it q u ite ,

reasonable that the readi ng sho u ld be J a pi or J a pi ’

instead of J a w i or J a wi ; and that the stem of the

’

element is probably WEJlW to cover ”

The name co ul d t ,
“
.

Cf . C T . VI I I ,
20 , an d VI I I , 3 4 , 5 44 4; an d Ra n ke ,
B E . .
,

VI, 1 , 17 : 38 .

2
Un g n a d V S , . 5, VI I I , 16 39 .
20 8 A M U R RU HOM E OF N O RTH RN S E EM I TE S
be tr an slated as h as been stated God has covered
On the other hand the name J a u u m —
, , ,

protected ”
. El
,
- -
,

belongin g to the early pe riod probably represents the

,

di vi ne name becaus e the element appears in the short

,

ened form exactly as fou nd in later perio ds ‘

.

1
i
L g ht on the Old Testa m e n t, p 2 3 7
. .
21 0 A M U RR U H OM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
A n u - ra m 1 44 ,
B a r- iks a 1 45 ,

A psu 4 7 5 3 B a rs i p 1 74
r i rto G eor e
, , ,

A a b a 24 77 , 8 3 Ba n g A 1 3 1 7 , 43 ,
r d
, , , .
, ,

A a -S in 1 1 0 44 8 3 1 14 1 2 4 , 1 41 , 1 5 1
r u
, , , , ,

A a l l , 77 1 69 1 9 9
r
,

A a m 24 Bau , 3 8
r D sc us B a y t- s ha —
,

A am - ama , 1 79 ra 1 27
r t eir u t
,

Ara a 75 ,
B 76 ,

Ard a ta 6 7 B él , 20 3 7 4 7 1 0 2
r esed rr
, , , ,

A i a -K 1 70 B él - Ha a n 1 9 8
r Be d d
, ,

A g a m a n 1 0 4 1 20 nh a a 87
eros s
, , ,

A ri 1 3 1 0 4 B u , 6 3 68 1 70
r d e — t
, , , ,

B th A n a h 1 4 3
‘
A pa
‘

1 80 , ,

A rpa dda (u ) 1 8 0 B eth-D a g a n , 1 46

rt er es et e
,

A ax x I 68 B h l 1 28
Le e
,

ru r u
,

A 64 B eth- h m 1 47
e t——
, ,

As h b l 1 2 3 B e h s ha E l 1 2 7
er et e
, ,

As h 65 B hs h a n 1 28
s er e es
, ,

A h a 1 40 B eth-S h m h 1 25
et u e
,

s ir t i
,

A h a -J a w 20 6 B h l 1 72
e zo d C r
, ,

A s h i rta 38 B l a l 20 0
A- h — m a— Bi — i n -g a — ni—
s r ri
,

s ir
, ,

li k 1 3 9 ha - 1 85
i is
, ,

B l g a i ll
’
A sh ta rti 1 98 , 1 9 9 -
h 79
A s h -ta r— Ti l —
, ,

la 1 0 3 BI L -L I L 1 1 3 1 1 4 ,

s ur
,

A h 1 38 B i l a qqu 79
s ur i dd
, .

A h b a n pa l , 1 7 , 46 , B i r-A a 1 23
B i r— dd
,

60 98 Ha a 1 32
B i r—
,

stro o
,

A l gy 1 5 n a pi s h ti m , 80 1 34
B i r— u ur
, ,

A th ta ra 1 41 n a p i s h ti m - s 80 ,

u u sti e
,

A g n 51 B is m a y a 1 42 ,

u es
,

A r 43 B i t- NI N- I B 1 98
ki
,

u r us
,

A 69 B i t- Ya n 1 70
— ork
, ,

A w a -a r- i l u m , 1 20 B F 103
Cr
,

A w a -a r-ka -si r 1 20 B ro c k e l m a n n a l 84

A wa — ro Fr ci
, , ,

a r-s a -na - bu 1 20 B wn an s 1 63 1 64
u do
, , ,

si
,

A w a -a r- - qi r 1 20 ,
B run n ow R l ph ,1 15 1 17 , , ,

a watu 105 1 20 1 2 3 20 0
u Fr z
, , ,

a w él u 105 B hl an 1 63
A w i l— B U ( S I R) —
, ,

s r
,

I h ta 1 71 NE - NE 1 1 9 1 3 3
B UR—
, , ,

A -fwi - l u -ti m 1 0 6 B UR 1 0 2 1 1 3
ir— B UR- B UR—
, , ,

A -wi - tu m 1 0 6 DA 1 1 2
—
, ,

A z i ru 1 5 2 Bu r S i n 1 1 8 1 9 3
B u —
uz r
, , ,

K UR-GA L , 8 2
‘
B a a l 38 B uzur — Uru 8 2
o
,

e
,

Bab l 9 1 By b l s 1 5 7 ,

o
,

B a b y l n 1 42
C i 65
,

B a e th g e n F 1 28 a n

C pp doci t ets
,

ks
, .
,

Ba n E J 1 1 4 1 42 1 88
, . .
, , ,
a a an ab l , 3 7 3 9 43
, ,
 I N D EX
C rm el 8 7
a o
E l - E l y n 1 58
Ch m p oll io 29 E ie zer
, ,

a n l 40 1 29
i
,

Ch edorl o m er 98
, ,

a E l l l 3 7 4 7 48 5 6 9 5 1 1 7
C st ti 1 0 3 i i
, , , , , , ,

on an a E ll l - b an , 3 9
Cooke G A 27 1 2 3 1 5 7 e u
,

1 60 ll 107
o
.
, .
, , , , ,

1 78 E l h i m 1 24
C ry 5 2
,

o E l -S ha dd a i 1 27 1 58
Eu
,

Cr i g J A l e der 1 3 9
, ,

a x an l l 57 59
O th E l—
, . , , ,

n 1 15 a Ur 6 4 1 5 8
Cy r s 38 9 8
, , ,

u , ,
E - M A S H- M A S H 78 1 2 6 , ,

E -M I S H- M I S H 78
E— —
,

D a g a n , 38 , 1 46 M I S H LA M 78
ue
,

D a i c h es S a m l , 20 6 20 7 E m u tb a l 9 7
sc us E i
, , ,

Da m a 1 2 6 1 28 , 1 3 0 ng 13
ri us
, , ,

Da I I 68 E N- GI -D U 8 1
Da —
ti i
,

E l l l 6 7 1 87 E N-Kl -D U 8 1
id
, , ,

Da v 17 E N- M A R- T U 1 2 1
E N— s u
, ,

D a ( v) on u s 6 3 M a h t 1 2 1 1 22
e ttre J du r —
, , ,

D la A 99 E n - m e- a n -k i 66
e it zsc Fr z —
, .
,

D l h an 20 6 20 7 E n -n a -Z u i n 1 4 6
D e it zsc riedric E oc
, , , ,

l h F h 3 6 3 7 49 n h 66 6 9
E os
, , , , , , ,

5 7, 7 1 , 8 0 , 8 9 , 1 0 5 1 0 7 1 1 9 , , , n h , 64
1 20 1 2 5 , 1 28 , 1 6 1 E n s ha g ku s ha n n a 1 9 2 ,

Der
, ,

1 30 E n vd s h tu 1 9 9
de c Ere us
, ,

S a y 20 4 b 52
D or e Erec
, ,

h m P 1 23 1 8 4 , 1 8 5 h 76 78 1 2 6 1 42
D u s res ki
, .
, , , , , ,

h l Ha la a 1 28 E h ga l 3 3
’

u r
, ,

D h l S ha a 1 28
’
E ri 1 77
D i r ek r
, ,

a b i 9 7 98 1 0 3 1 9 3 , , , ,
E ri a 1 1 2 ,

Di l b a t, 1 98 E ri -A k u 1 9 3
Erid u
,

D i ll m a n n A 72 1 6 7 45 47 5 3
rdu k
, .
, , , , ,

DI -M a E sh b a a l 1 23
‘
116 -

D i— s — su
, ,

m a h qi 79 1 2 9 20 0 E h 38
E t io ic e
, , , ,

D i m -m a s -qa 1 3 0 h p l an guag 83
D ri er
, ,

v S R 44 1 62 eti m m u 51
E trusc s
, .
, ,

D UM U- UR U , 1 1 0 an 23
D i E z ekie
,

un g 9 7 1 1 8 1 28 , 1 9 2 l 1 63
—
, , , ,

d ur 1 3 0 E UL -M A S H 7 1 , 1 26
,

—
E - UL L A M 78 ,
,

E a 47 5 3 E u pol e m u s 1 68
Euse i us
,

E a— i
, ,

b an 8 1 b 52 ,

ed r
,

Eb U as h 1 2 3
-

Deir G l il ee
,

Ed -
1 47 a 60
Edo
, ,

m 98 , GA L - UR-RA 1 1 3 ,

E dora n c h u s 6 3 6 9 g a m d ru 5 6
Egyp ti
, , ,

an 32 Ga r 1 5 1
Eh u d 1 7 G u tier
, ,

a 1 82 , 1 8 3
El m 9 7 e i i
, ,

a , g m n 16 ,
21 2 A M U RR U HO M E OF N O R TH R N S E EM I T E S
G e z er 24 H ero ot s
d u 35 1 42
G ideo 1 7
, , ,

n Hil pre c h t H V 4 3 , . . 78 , 1 1 8 ,
G il e d 6 0
, , ,

a 1 24 , 1 3 2 , 1 5 9 , 1 8 1 , 20 7
G i l g m sh 50 73 74 76 i ke
,

a e , , , , 77 Hn , W J , 1 12 . .

79 8 1 1 22 1 2 6 1 29 hi rtu , 1 0 6
Gi m i l A i m 1 4 3 ittite
, , , ,

- n H 32
Gi m i l— o
, ,

Si 96 1 9 3 n H ha m 1 5 4
o e
, , ,

GI R UR U 1 1 0 H m m l , F , 30 , 63 6 5 , 6 6 , 77 ,
G I S H—B I L—
-
.
, ,

GI S H B I L—
GA 79 , 78 , 8 0 8 4 , 1 1 8 , 1 54 ,
,

GA M I S H 78
- -
1 6 1 , 1 78 , 1 79 , 1 8 1
ore
,

GI S H TU M A S H 78 - - H b , 87
G r y G B 1 64 ro z
,

a H n y , F , 1 97
G ree k s 2 2 u er P
.
, .
, .

H b , E , 1 09 1 1 0 , 1 1 1 , 1 1 2
G ri m m e H 1 45 1 58 di — —
. .
, ,

, , H u - -i b Ti l l a
, 1 03
G bl u 1 52a
Gu de 3 1 9 7 1 0 3 1 20
,

a , , , , , 1 28 , I R 38
i u
,

1 3 6 1 80 1 9 3 bb 1 07
Gul 38 20 0
, ,
,

a , , I b g a tu m 1 0 6 ,

G g
un 1 93unu I b i -S i n 1 9 3
Gu kel H 3 6 44 5 1 5 5
,

ur
,

n , .
, , , , , 71 , I g - k a p ka pu , 1 40
72 73 , i hi r 1 0 6
jo
,

I n , 60
Ha g a r 40 k
I un - pi - Uru 1 1 3
Ha l e v y J
, ,

42 , 1 0 7 , 1 8 2 1 97 i l i 1 24
Ha l i a 1 40 e iri
.
, , ,

,
I l - T h -a b i 1 58 ,

Ha l i g a lb a t I l ya pi a 1 5 4
’
1 40 -

Ha l i J a um r
, ,

-
90 I l u -a a pa 1 0 1
Ha l i l i 1 40
, ,

I M -M A R T U , 1 0 0
Ha l l u 1 40
,

i m tut 1 0 5
t 1 57
, ,

Ha m a h i n uh 1 0 5
u r b i 40 ri
,

Ha m m 4 1 4 6 5 9 78 , a I - -i r- Ti l -la 1 0 3
I r— rdu k
, , , , , ,

79 8 9 9 7 9 8 , 1 0 7 1 1 1 1 1 6 ,
‘
Ma 1 76
— s
, , , , , ,

I r Na ha h 1 76
‘
1 1 7 1 86 1 9 3
e es
, , ,

Ha na 1 47 I r-S h m h 1 76
‘
, ,

H a -
a n -u i - i a 20 6 I ru s h a l i m 1 76
r —rr
, ,

Ha an 1 6 I sh b i U a 1 1 0
r Ce s u s s ir—
s r ri
, ,

Ha a n n 1 45 I- h ha - , 1 8 5
r er D
,

Ha p , R F 1 24 1 80 20 0 I s h m e - a g a n 1 46 , 1 93
ti s J es s tr
. .
, , , ,

Has n g , a m , 1 5 1 , 1 6 2 1 6 7 I h a 1 6 38 1 4 1
str
, , , ,

Ha u ha m 1 5 4 I h a -ki - Ti l -la , 1 0 3
u t P s u
,

Ha p a ul 8 0 , 1 1 5 , 1 4 1 , 1 76 , I h m 1 33
si d t
, , ,

1 99 I n y n as y 9 6
ti
,

h i wi ru , 1 0 5
f
I - -D a -g a n 1 47
s J
,

Ha y n e H 1 88
z or
, . .
,

Ha , 60 J a b n i -E l 1 78
e ro J co
,

H b n 1 54 a b 18
e J J ht
,

H hn 56 a i 86
er o J h
, ,

H m n , 1 26 a - u -u , 20 5
21 4 A M U RRU HOM E OF N O RT HE R N S EM I T E S
M A S H M A S H 38 - Na b i l - idri
1 44
us r
, ,

M a sh tu ku 1 9 8 N a b u-m p i s h ti m - u 80
r
, ,

M d s h tu m 1 9 8 20 0 20 1 Na b i t a pa 1 44
‘
-
, , , ,

M d sh u 38 1 0 1 26 1 28 20 0 Na ha rd u 1 72
Me g iddo 24 27 ir
, , , , , ,

Na h i 1 72
Me in h ol d J 5 6
, , ,

Na hri m a 1 5 1
Meissn er B r un o 8 1 1 0 3 1 0 5
, ,

, , , , , nam d ru , 1 0 7
1 0 7 , 1 1 5 , 1 73 , 1 79 Na m ra tu m , 1 0 6
e t
M n an , J , 1 8 1 Na m ta 3 3 r
e es
.
,

M n , 30 Na n ci , 38
ll ES H
i 78 Na n n a 9 7 , 1 6 9 r
M es h q Np t i
, ,

e , 1 29 1 3 1 a h a l , 60
— r
,

M e th d S a la h 66 , Na a m -S in 1 1 5 ,

M e th u-s ha - E l 66 , 1 2 7 Na s hhi 1 3 2
i r
, ,

M e - T lla 1 0 3 na wa u , 1 0 5
e er Ed u r d
,

M y a 54 96, 97 e u c dr zz r
N b h a e a 68 9 8
—ri
, ,

er
, , ,

M i l-ki - U 1 3 4 1 56 , , N g a l , 3 3 3 7 38 1 1 4 1 1 5 1 1 7 , , , , , ,

M i l k uru 1 0 2 1 2 1 1 26 1 3 3
NE - UR U—
, , ,

M i -s ha -E l 1 27 GA L , 9 5 , 1 1 5 1 1 9
ie se
, ,

M I S H 78 N l n 60
-ki —
ik
, ,

Ti l-la 1 0 3 N ha l 9 5
it i
, ,

M an n 3 2 38 4 3 NI N-GA L 9 5
o
M ab 98
, , ,

—
Ni n g i r— su , 1 4 6
,

o t o er J es
,

M n g m y am A 50 , 1 2 1 , ,
Ni n -Gi rsu 4 8 1 3 1 , ,

1 5 7 , 1 6 2 1 9 7 20 4 NI N-I B 3 7 38 8 9 1 2 1 1 2 6
oore
, , , , , , , ,

M , G A , 23 1 3 4 1 78
or Li r r Co ectio
. .
,

M g a n b a y ll n NI N-I B -i dd i n a 1 9 5 ,

51 88 , 8 9 1 1 4 , 1 9 4 , 20 5 , NI N-NE 1 15
ori
,

M ah 87 NI N-M A R 1 9 9
os ic Code
, ,

M a , 41 Ni n ra g 1 9 5
oses i ur
,

M , 1 7 N pp 47
isi Nis
,

Mt N r 75
. in 9 7
i i
,

i d
,

Mt S n a , 1 45 N s i n y n as y 9 5 t
u r Nisroc
.
,

M q a y y a , 1 6 7, 1 68 h , 1 95
M ull , er D H , 1 80 N1 TA 1 1 3
er o
. .
,

Mul l W Ma x 29 , 30 , 1 27, 1 5 7 N a h 76
u rik
.
, , ,

M - Ti d n u m
, 96 NOl d e k e Th , 47
eodore
o ck
,

M u r-a r-n a -ti m 1 20 N wa W 26

M u r—
, , .
,

b a bi l l u 1 20 n u -u h 5 5 76 8 0
i i
, , , ,

M UH- bn 1 3 4 Nu ha s h s h i , 1 2 9
i ii i
,

M u r-n i s qi , 1 20 Nuh- l b b - l an , 5 6
—
M u r s i pa rru 1 20 Ni l k-n a pi s h ti m , 8 0
uss
,

M -A
rn ol t W 79 , 8 0 , 1 0 7 , , .
,
n u m u s hda 1 97 ,

1 1 2 1 20 1 4 1
, , Nu sh k u , 3 7 , 1 3 2
M u tu -s h a -I rkhu , 6 6
f

Og 1 5 4
o id u s te d
,

Na b n 98 Ol m s a A T 103
ri
, , . .
,

Na b u 1 44 , Om 98 ,
 IN DEX
O ppe rt J 1 8 1 , e
S al m 1 5 4
ri
,

O re s 6 9 , S a m a a 60
u
,

O ti a rte s 6 4 , S a m -c l 1 0 2
so
,

S a m n , 1 25
-k l
pa '

w 79 S a n c h o n i a th a n 5 2
P r 87
,

r
,

a an S a a h 40
P to L B 1 3
,

r o
,

a n S a g n 90 9 7 1 8 1
Ped i h 1 40
.
,

r it u
, , ,

a a S a pan 5 7, 1 3 3 1 36
Ped h el 1 40
, , ,

a S a ru g i 1 8 9
Peiser Fel i 1 0 2
,

ce
,

,
x, S a y , A H 29 3 7 44 , 4 6 , 5 5
Pc p y 30
. .
, , , ,

6 3 66 76 8 9 1 2 5 1 4 1 1 4 6
Per 8 0
, , , , , , , ,

1 47 1 5 1 , 1 5 2 , 1 6 1 , 1 8 1
Petrie F 29 30
, ,

e ei P
S h l, V 73 8 0 1 1 0 1 8 2
Ph il isti 9 8
, , . .
, , , ,

a 1 83 1 84 1 86 1 88
Ph ici 9 8
,

c r der
, , ,

aen a, S h a E , 80
Pi ch es T G 3 7 c c er
.
,

n , 4 6 5 4 , 78
. .
, , , , S hum a h 26
du
,

103, 1 1 0 , 1 1 9 , 1 25 1 6 1 1 6 7 , , , S ha -A d , 1 27
1 76 , 1 8 1 , 20 5 , 20 7 s ha b a ttu m 56
Pir
,

, 80 s h a b a th , 6 1
Pi ra m , 1 5 4 S ha - m i eri - h
s u 1 30
Pir eser
,

pi s h ti m
80 S halm a n I I 98
-n a

r o
, ,

Poe b e l A n 78 8 1 , , , ,
106 , 1 12 , S h a -M as h 79 1 27 , ,

1 37, 1 5 7 1 73 1 8 1 S h a m as h 80 100
Po o
, , , , ,

gn n H 50 , 6 4 , .
, ,
1 24 , 1 45 , 1 0 4 , 1 0 7 1 1 8 , 1 23 , 1 2 5 ,

1 5 7 1 62 s
S ha m a h-l i -m e - ri 1 0 6
Pri ce J
,

s ir
,

D 1 00 S ha m a h - l i -wi -
Pu di —
n , . .
, 106
s
,

E l , 1 40 S ha m a h -na pi s h ti m 8 0
S ha -NI TA s h u 1 30 — ,

r —
,

am a 1 70 s ha - pa t tu m , 5 5

O
,

en a n , 65 S HA R-GA - NI -L UGA L - UR U
Qi de s hu , 1 5 2 1 81
OI -M A
S H 1 29 S h a rg a n i —ha -d l i 1 3 1
s r
s r G i s rri
,

i -M a h - i
O q , 1 28 S h a - a n - ha 1 1 3 1 82
r
, ,

S h a -la -a h 1 8 6
m ese
,

Ra I I 99 , 1 03 S ha rra pu , 1 1 6
—
s
ke Her m an n r ri
,

Ra n , 5 4 79 9 0
, , , , S ha - -i s h - ta qa l 1 8 6 ,

96 1 0 6 1 09 , 1 10 1 12 1 13 S ha ru ki n 1 9 4
S h i -m i Ti l — —
, , , , , ,

1 23 , 1 27 1 6 1 , 1 73 1 8 6 1 9 3 la 1 0 3
r
, , , , ,

20 9 S h in a 91
iss er J u ik
,

Re n , 99 1 1 3 , S h m -M a l 1 34 ,

Ri m -A k u 1 9 3 Shu m er 1 3
— u
, ,

Ri m A n m 8 9 Shu q am un a 1 1 4
Sh —ur — k i Ti l —
, ,

Ri m -S i n 6 4 1 1 1 la 1 0 3
o ers ido
, , ,

R g ,
R W 22 , 5 5 . .
, , S n 98
,

Rn se ll in i 29 S i du n a 1 5 2
ie fried
, ,

S g C 1 62
i o
.
, ,

S a b b a h , 5 5 60 t 61 S h n 1 45 1 5 4
i u
,

c Ed u rd
, , ,

S a h au , a , 20 4 S man , 1 04
21 6 A M U RRU H OM E N O RT HE RN S EM I T ES
S in 1 6 1 45 200
i
, , ,

S in a 8 7
ir
,

S i n m ag -
1 93 ,

S i n i d din a m 1 9 2
-
r uu
U b a T t 66 -

o e
,

s r
,

S i n u he n v l 2 9 U-b i i n ha -ri 1 8 5
- -

i r
,
,

S pp a 4 7 9 8 1 73 UD 8 0
ser
, , ,
,

Si a 1 45 , UD HUL -GA L , 58
-

S i t 80 , UD T U 1 0 0
-
,

S i t n a pi s h ti m
-
80 u m m an u 65
te u er g el —
,
,

S na C 26 Um n a p i s h ti m 8 0
tr s m ier J N 1 4
, .
,

rt u r
,

S as a , . 80 Un g n a d A h 8 1 8 4 86 1 0 5
, , , , , ,
1 0 5 1 5 9 1 6 2 1 68 1 06 1 4 5 1 47 1 70 2 0 9
S t u b e R 1 62
, , ,
, , , ,

, .
, Ur 1 6 95
, ,

S b ll
u 97
sa a UR A 1 1 3
-

S um u b u m 8 9
,

r ru
,
-a
, U a t 75
r
,

S UR , 101 U as h 8 9 1 22
i u
, ,

Ur b l l m 1 8 0
-

d t
,

Ta an n e k 24 , 2 7 3 7
‘
U r y n as y 9 6 9 7
Ta -i - Ti l — —
, , , ,

la , 1 0 3 Ur E n g u r 1 9 2
t rf
,

a b a h 76 U a 1 0 3 1 6 7 1 70
Ur-ha —
, , , ,

Ta ll q vi s t K L 1 0 1 1 27 , .
,
l u - u b 1 20 ,

1 3 3 , 1 44 Uri 1 3 1 0 2 1 9 2
ud
, , ,

Ta l m 68 Uri (or E ri ) -A k u 1 1 2
uz ri
, ,

Ta m m 1 6 , 20 , U- -g a l -la 1 1 5 ,

Ta rk h u 1 3 6 , Ur-k a ri n n u 1 2 0 ,

Ur-Ka s di m 1 70
Te h om 4 9 5 0
Te - hi — i p Ti l — la , 1 0 3
,

— ,

—
U —
ri Ma 117 rdu k
,

e
,

T la 10 3 Ur-NI N-I B 1 1 8 1 9 3
e
, , ,

T ll -D e il a m , 1 70 Ur-NI N -M A R 1 9 9
e r
,

T l l e l -A m a n a , 3 2 38 Ur-P a d 1 8 0
e rr
, ,

T l l e l -Mu tes se l i m 2 6 U a 109 1 1 3 1 1 4

er rr i
, , , ,

T a h 1 68 U a b an -
109
Th u re a u — a n g n , F , 1 1 1 D i rr
, ,

U a -BA -TI L 1 0 9
rr
.
, ,

1 43 1 80 1 8 1 , 1 8 2 , 1 8 4 , U a -g a l 8 2 1 1 5
u rr
, , , ,

1 88 a 1 05
t
,
’
Ti a m a 46 48 1 48 Urs a li m m u 1 0 5 1 75 , 1 8 0
ru
,

ti
, , , ,
’
a m tu 49 5 0 5 3 , , ,
U t 1 02 ,

Ti d a n u 9 7 , Uru ,
1 09
Ti d n u 9 6 1 0 2 1 0 3 Uru -A z 1 8 0
ie e C
, , , ,

T l P , 1 41 , 1 8 1 Uru ( UR U) -B A -S A G-S A G 1 1 2
— ,
. .
,

Ti g l a th p i l e s e r I , 6 0 9 8 UR U D I NGI R RA 1 1 0
i
, ,

T ll a 1 0 2 1 0 3 , , UR U KA OI N A i 1 2 1 1 3
- -
,

Ti l l a h 1 0 3 Uru ( UR U) ki b i 1 1 2 -

iri UR U-L I G—
, ,

Ti l - Na h 1 72 GA 1 1 0
i ki
, ,

Ti -m a -a s h -g i 1 2 9 , UR U-m l
Ti - m i - Ti l -l a 1 0 3 Uru m m a 1 6 7
— UR U—
, ,

Ti ra - m a s - qi 1 29 M U 1 10
—
, ,

Toff te e n , O A , 9 . . Uru M U US H, 1 1 2
-