Part 13 (1/2)
It is not Nimrod alone that comes under this category-Nibhaz (2 Kings xvii. 31), judging from the Greek, is in the same case, Nisroch (2 Kings xix. 37) is certainly so, and Abed-nego for Abed-nebo is a well-known instance.
But why, it will be asked, should these names have been intentionally changed? The answer is simple. All these names were, or contained, the names of heathen deities, and this offended the strongly monotheistic Hebrew scribe who, at a certain period, was copying the portions of the Hebrew Bible in which they occur, so he defaced them, adding or changing a letter, and thus making them unrecognizable, and in all probability ridiculous as well. A different punctuation (vowelling) completed the work, and the names were then in such a form that pious and orthodox lips could p.r.o.nounce them without fear of defilement.
Nibhaz is probably for some such name as Aba-hazar, Nisroch is for a.s.sur or a.s.suraku, and Nimrod is, by similar changes, for Amaruduk or Amarudu (original Akkadian), Maruduk or Marduk (a.s.syro-Babylonian). The change was brought about by making the root triliteral, and the ending _uk_ (_ak_ in Merodach-baladan) disappearing first, Marduk appeared as Marad. This was connected with the root Marad, ”to be rebellious,” and the word was still further mutilated, or, rather, deformed by having a (_ni_) attached, a.s.similating it to a certain extent to the ”niphal forms” of the Hebrew verbs, and making a change altogether in conformity with the genius of the Hebrew language. This alteration is also clearly visible in Nibhaz and Nisroch, which fully confirm the explanation here given.
From a linguistic point of view, therefore, the identification of Nimrod as a changed form of Merodach is fully justified.
But there is another and a potent reason for eliminating Nimrod from the list of Babylonian heroes, and that is, the fact that his name is nowhere found in the extensive literature which has come down to us. His identification with Gidubar was destroyed when it was discovered that the true reading of that doubtful name was not, as it was expected that it would be, a Babylonian form of Nimrod, but something entirely different, namely, Gilgame. Moreover, there is some doubt whether the personage represented on the cylinder-seals struggling with lions and bulls be really Gilgame (Gidubar)-his prowess in hunting does not seem to be emphasized in the legend recounting his exploits (see pp. 92-111)-he is in all probability the wild man of the woods who became his great friend and counsellor, the satyr-like figure who is represented as accompanying and imitating the hunter being simply one of those beings who, the Babylonians imagined, existed in wild and waste places, for that this creature is not, as was at first supposed, ea-bani, the friend of Gilgame, is not only proved by the fact that in the legend he is described as a man with hairy body and hair long like that of a woman, but also by the incontestable circ.u.mstance that this satyr-like creature is, on certain cylinders, represented more than once, and in such a way that the repet.i.tion cannot be attributed to the exigencies of the design. Moreover, he is sometimes represented in positions that seem to have no connection with the Gilgame-legend at all.
It would seem therefore to be certain that Gilgame is not Nimrod; that as he had little or no fame as a ”great hunter before the Lord,” it cannot be he who is represented on the cylinder-seals; and that, in all probability, the hunter there represented is ea-bani, who overcame the divine bull before Erech, and a lion after the defeat of ?umbaba, in both cases, however, a.s.sisted by his royal patron.
But, it may be asked, how is it that Nimrod, otherwise Merodach, is described as ”the mighty hunter before the Lord”?
The explanation is very simple, and remarkably conclusive in its way.
Merodach, in the legend of the Creation, there appears as the greatest hunter (using the word in the Hebrew sense of ”entrapper”) that ever lived. For did he not, when Tiamtu, the great dragon of chaos and disorder, tried to usurp the dominion of the G.o.ds, and bring ruin on their fair work, chase and entrap her, thereby winning the throne of the kingdom of heaven, and laying the universe under an everlasting debt to him? With his net he caught and held her fast, and, standing on her body, slew her.
This was the feat of a real _gibbor ?ayid_, a ”hero in hunting,” or entrapping with a net, for _?ayid_, ”hunting,” is from the same root as Sidon, the name of the ancient ”fis.h.i.+ng town,” renowned of old, and still existing at the present day.
The Tower Of Babel.
There is no doubt that one of the most striking and attractive episodes of the sacred narrative of Genesis is the Tower of Babel. It has attracted the attention of all from its circ.u.mstantial details, and has, as an authoritative narrative, had the full belief of all the faithful for many thousand years. This being the case, it is needful to go rather carefully into the matter, not only to try to account for its origin, but also to satisfy the believer of to-day with regard to the story being a real historical fact.
”Of these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands,”-”These are the sons of Ham, after their families,”-”These are the sons of Shem, after their families,” says the author of Genesis in ch. x. 5, 20, and 31, and then he adds, in slightly varying words, ”after their tongues, in their lands, in their nations.”
Yet, after this (ch. xi. 1) we have the statement, ”And the whole earth was of _one_ language, and of _one_ speech.” Moreover, how was it possible that the whole of the nations of the earth there enumerated in the tenth chapter should have had their origin at Babel, the beginning of Nimrod's (Merodach's) kingdom, coeval with Erech, Akkad, and Calneh, in the land of s.h.i.+nar? The effect of such a statement as this would surely be to make the language of Nimrod the primitive language of the world, unless, indeed, all the languages of the earth resulting from the confusion of tongues were regarded as new, the primitive speech of man having been destroyed on that occasion. Then, again, as we know, the building of the city was not stopped, for it continued until it became the greatest and most important centre in the known world when it was at the height of its glory.
With the best will in the world, therefore, there seems to be no escape from regarding both the story of the Tower of Babel, and the reference to Nimrod and a.s.shur in the foregoing chapter as interpolations, giving statements from ancient and possibly fairly well-known records, recording what was commonly believed in the ancient East in those early ages. It is also noteworthy, that both extracts, referring as they do, to Babylonia, are probably on that account from a Babylonian source. May it not be possible, that they have been inserted in the sacred narrative as statements of what was the common opinion among the more well-informed inhabitants of Western Asia at the time, without any claim to an inspired authority being either stated or implied? This would seem to be the most reasonable way of looking at the matter, and would take away what might well be regarded as a great difficulty to the believer in good faith.
If this be conceded, we can with the greater ease a.n.a.lyze this portion of the eleventh chapter of Genesis, and estimate it at its true value.
In any case, there is great improbability that the statement that the whole earth was of one language and of one speech, was ever believed, by thinking men at the time as an actual historical fact. A better translation would be ”the whole land,” that is, the whole tract of country from the mountains of Elam to the Mediterranean Sea, rather than ”the whole earth.” The same word is used when the ”land” of Israel is spoken of, and also when ”the land of Egypt” is referred to. It will thus be seen that no violence whatever is done to the text if the restricted use of the word be accepted.
That this is, in a sense, provable as an historical fact, we shall see in the sequel.
Having thus in a measure cleared the way, the various points of the first nine verses of the eleventh chapter of Genesis may be taken in order.
”As they journeyed in the east” apparently refers to the remembrance of the migrations that many a nation, handing down its traditions from mouth to mouth, must have preserved in ancient times. Whilst thus engaged, ”they found a plain in the land of s.h.i.+nar; and they dwelt there”-a statement which would seem to point to the migrants having been wandering about in various districts, some of them mountainous-like Armenia on the north of a.s.syria, and Elam and other mountainous tracts on the east. This would seem to agree with the migration which, from the evidence of the monuments of Babylonia, the Akkadians apparently made before they settled in that country. And here it may be noted, in support of that fact, that the ideograph(14) for Akkad, Uri or Ura in Akkadian, and Akkadu in Semitic Babylonian, not only stood for Akkad, but also (often used in the a.s.syrian letters) for Ararat (Ur?u), and likewise (this in a syllabary only) for Amurru, the land of the Amorites, or Phnicia. Both these being districts more or less mountainous, it is only reasonable to suppose that the original home of the Akkadians was likewise of the same nature, and that they were not aborigines of the Babylonian plain. The Akkadians at least, therefore, ”journeyed in the east.”
In the expression ”they found a plain in the land of s.h.i.+nar,” we have a reference to the old name of a district of Babylonia, generally regarded as the umer of the Babylonian inscriptions, called Kingi or Kengi ”the country” _par excellence_ in the native tongue of the inhabitants. The land of s.h.i.+nar here spoken of, if this explanation be correct, not merely contained a plain-it was, in fact, itself a large plain, through which the rivers Tigris and Euphrates ran, and it was covered, when the land had been brought into a really good state of cultivation, by a network of ca.n.a.ls connected with them. It must, when the ancient Akkadians first settled there, have been a land of remarkable fertility, and would be so still were it brought into the same efficient state of cultivation, with irrigation and drainage, such as the old inhabitants effected.
Here, having settled down, they built a city and a tower, using brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar-just as they are proved to have done from the remains of cities found in the country at the present day. That Babylon was the site of the first settlement of the nature of a city is conceivable, and it is very possible that the first tower in Babylonia, which in later times had many towers, as had also a.s.syria, was situated in that ancient city. Everything points, therefore, to the correctness of the statements made in this portion of the sacred narrative. According to native tradition, however (and this seems to be supported by the statements in ch. x. 10), there were other important cities on the Babylonian plain of almost equal antiquity, namely, Erech, Akkad, and Calneh, which last is identified with Niffer (see p. 126). Notwithstanding the extensive ruins, proof of the same remote date for Babylon will doubtless be difficult to obtain, on account of the country around and a large portion of the site of the city being so marshy. The result of this condition of things will in all probability be, that very few remains of a really ancient date will be discovered in a condition to render services to archaeology. To this must also be added the fact, that the city, being the capital for some thousands of years, underwent many changes at the hands of its various kings, partly from the necessity of keeping in good repair the many comparatively perishable brick monuments that the city contained, and partly from a desire to add more to the glories of the city than any of their predecessors had done.
”And they said, Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, and its top (lit. head) shall be in the heavens.” To all appearance, this means simply that they would build a very high structure,-to many a student of the sacred text it has seemed that the writer only intended to say, that the tower (_migdol_) that they were about to build was to be very high. The mountains of Elam were not so very far off, and travellers from that part would have been able to a.s.sure them that the heavens would not be appreciably nearer on account of their being a few hundred cubits above the surface of the earth, even if traditions of their fathers' wanderings had not a.s.sured them of the same thing. They wished simply to make them a name and a rallying-point, ”lest,” as the sacred text has it, ”we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”
And here a few remarks upon the temple-towers of the Babylonians might not be out of place.
As has already been stated, most of the princ.i.p.al towns of Babylonia each possessed one. That of Babylon (called u-ana in the list published in the _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. ii., pl. 50) was named e-temen-ana, ”the temple of the foundation-stone of Heaven”; that of Borsippa, near to Babylon, was called e-ur-imina-ana, generally translated ”the temple of the seven spheres of heaven,” on account of its being dedicated to the sun, moon, and planets. This was a high and ma.s.sive tower in seven stages, each coloured with an emblematic tint indicating the heavenly body with which each stage was a.s.sociated. At Niffer the tower seems to have had three names, or else there were three towers (which is unlikely), the princ.i.p.al one being Im-ur-sag. Agade, the Akkad of Gen. x.
10, had two of these temple-towers, e-Dadia, apparently meaning ”the temple of the (divine) Presence,” and e-u-gala or e-igi-e-di, the latter apparently meaning ”the temple of the wonder (of mankind),” which was dedicated to the G.o.d Tammuz. At Cuthah there was the temple of Nannara (Nan-naros); at Ur the temple e-u-gan-du-du; at Erech e-gipara-imina, ”the temple of the seven enclosures”; at Larsa e-dur-an-ki, ”the Temple of the bond of heaven and earth.”