The Patriarchs To Abraham.

Little information is unfortunately to be obtained from Assyro-Babylonian sources concerning the patriarchs from Shem to Abraham. It is true that certain comparisons can be made in the matter of the names, but these, when more precise information comes to light, may be found to be more or less erroneous. As a matter of fact, with one or two exceptions, it is probable that we have nothing from Babylonian sources bearing on the patriarchs who preceded Abraham at all.

Nevertheless, there are one or two things that may be put forward in a more or less tentative way, and these may well be discussed with this reservation in this place.

As we have seen, it was the custom of the early Babylonians to deify the early rulers of their race, and as a well-known example of this, the case of the god Merodach will at once occur to the mind. As has been shown, this deity is none other than the long-known and enigmatical hero Nimrod, and it is probable that, if we had more and more complete sources of information, other instances would be found. This being the case, it may be permitted to the student to try to find similar instances of deification by the Babylonians of the men of old who were their ancestors in common with the Jews and other nations of the ancient East.

To begin with Shem, the name of the ancestor of the Semitic race. As a word, this means, in Hebrew, “name.” Now, the Assyro-Babylonian equivalent and cognate word is šumu, “name,” and this naturally leads one to ask whether Shem may not have been designated “He of the Name” par excellence, and [pg 142] deified under that appellation. If this be the case, we may perhaps see the word Shem in certain names of kings and others of the second dynasty of Babylon (that to which Ḫammurabi or Amraphel belonged, and which held the power from about 2230 to 1967 b.c.). Sumu-abi, the name of the first ruler of the dynasty, would then mean “Shem is my father,” Sumu-la-ili would mean “a name to his god,” with a punning allusion to the deified ancestor of the Semitic nations.

Other names, not royal, are Sumu-Upê, apparently, “Shem of Opis”; Sumu-Dagan, “Shem is Dagon,” or “Name of Dagon”; Sumu-ḫatnu, “Shem is a protection”; Sumu-atar, “Shem is great,” and the form Samu-la-ili for Sumu-la-ili leads one to ask whether Samia may not be for Sumia, “my Shem,” a pet name abbreviated from a longer one similar to those already quoted; Sumu-ya (= Sumia) also occurs. All these forms, being written with s, instead of š, like Samsu-iluna for Šamšu-iluna, betray foreign (so-called Arabic) influence, and are not native Babylonian. That the Babylonians had at this time names compounded with the native representative of Sumu is shown by the contracts of that time, where the name Šumum-libši, “let there be a name,” occurs. Many later instances of this are to be found.15

From other than Bible sources there is but little that can be gathered concerning the descendants of Shem, though in this, as in many other things, one lives in hopes of something coming to light later on. And such a record, as may readily be imagined, would be of the greatest interest and value. Shem, as one of those born before the Flood, must certainly on that [pg 143] account have been renowned (as we have just seen he was, if it be true that he was deified) among other nations of Semitic stock than the Hebrews. To all appearance, the lives of the patriarchs decreased greatly after the Flood, and are represented, in the Bible narrative, as gradually assuming the average duration of those who attain a hoary old age at the present day. It is noteworthy that his eldest son was born two years after the Flood, and if this have any ethnic meaning, it ought to point to the foundation of the settlement known as Arpachshad at about that period, though it could not have attained to the renown of a well-known and recognized community until some time after that date.

The theory that Arpachshad represents a community is rather supported by the fact that it is mentioned in Gen. x. 22, where it is accompanied by the names of Elam, Asshur, Lud, and Aram, which were later, as we know, names of nationalities. Indeed, the long lives of the patriarchs of this exceedingly early period are best explained if we suppose that they represent a people or community.

There is a considerable amount of difference of opinion as to the correct identification of the Arpachshad of Gen. ix. 10, though nearly every critic places the country it represents in the same tract. It has been identified with Arrapkha, or Arrapachitis, in Assyria. Schrader makes it to be for Arpa-cheshed, “the coast of the Chaldeans.” Prof. Hommel, who is always ready with a seductive and probable etymology, suggests that Arpachshad is an Egyptianized way of writing Ur of the Chaldees—Ar-pa-Cheshed, for Ur-pa-Cheshed.

This, it must be admitted, is a possible etymology, for Egyptianized words were really used in that district in ancient times. This is shown in the name of Merodach, Asari, which is apparently connected with the Egyptian Osiris, just as one of the [pg 144] names of the Sun-god Šamaš, Amna, is probably an Akkadianized form of the Egyptian Ammon, and even the Egyptian word for “year,” ronpet, made, probably by early Babylonian scribes, into a kind of pun, became, by the change of a vowel, ran pet, “name of heaven,” transcribed, by those same scribes, into mu-anna, which, in its ordinary signification, means likewise “name of heaven,” in Akkadian; the whole being used with the meaning of ronpet, i.e. “year.” It will thus be seen that there is but little that is unlikely in Prof. Hommel's etymology of Arpachshad, and that the explanation which he gives may turn out to be correct.16

In any case, we may take it that the consensus of opinion favours the supposition that the name in question refers to Babylonia, and if this be the case, Abraham, the father of the Hebrew nation, as well as of other peoples, was really, as has been supposed, of Babylonian or Chaldean origin. This is also implied by the statement in Gen. xi. 28, that Ur of the Chaldees was the land of the nativity of Haran, Abraham's brother, who died in the country of his birth before the family of Terah went to settle at Haran, on the way to Canaan. The theory of the identity of Arpachshad is moreover important, because it is contended that Ur of the Chaldees was not in Babylonia, but is to be identified with the site known as Urfa, in Mesopotamia.

Concerning the names of Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, and Nahor, there is not much that can be said. To all appearance they are not Babylonian names, or, rather, they receive little or no illustration from [pg 145] Babylonian sources. Nothing is recorded concerning these patriarchs except their ages at the time their eldest sons were born, and at what age they died. The question whether the Hebrews derived their name from their ancestor Eber is not set at rest by any passage in the Bible, nor is there any statement in secular literature which would enable this to be decided. To all appearance, it is needful to keep the name of Eber distinct from that of the Hebrews, notwithstanding that they are from the same root. If, however, the Hebrews were “the men from beyond,” then Eber may well have been “the man from beyond,” indicating for his time a migration similar to that of Abraham. In this way, if in no other, the names may be connected.

We have seen that in many cases the names of these “genealogical tables” are regarded as nationalities, and, indeed, there is sufficient justification for such a theory on account of many of the names appearing as those of well-known nations. This being conceded, it would probably not be too much to regard the names of the patriarchs from Shelah to Serug as indicating ethnical historical events. Thus Shelah might mean “extension,” indicating the time when the Semitic race began to go beyond its ancient borders. Treating the other names in the same way, Eber would mean the period when that race crossed some river into another district; Peleg would mean that, at the time referred to, that race, or a portion of it, was divided into small states, as Babylonia was at the period preceding that of the dynasty of Amraphel; whilst Reu would mean “friendliness,” denoting the time when those states were united under one head, and the old dissensions ceased. Serug would then mean something like “interweaving,” perhaps referring to the time when the various races (? of Babylonia) intermingled. These explanations of the names receive a certain amount of confirmation from [pg 146] the parallel list in Gen. x. 25, where to the name Peleg the note is added, “for in his days was the earth divided.”

With regard to Nahor and his son Terah the Jews had other traditions, and they speak thus concerning them—

“Terah, son of Nahor, was the chief officer of king Nimrod, and a great favourite with his royal master. And when his wife Amtheta, the daughter of Kar-Nebo, bare him a son, she called his name Abram, meaning ‘great father.’ And Terah was seventy years old when his son Abram was born.”

Here we have, in Amtheta, a doubtful Babylonian name, in Kar-Nebo a possible Babylonian name, and in the meaning of Abram a signification that does not militate against the indications given by the tablets of Babylonia and Assyria. This being the case, it would seem that there were trustworthy data to go upon for certain facts connected with Abraham's ancestors, and that these facts were known to the Jews of earlier ages. The Talmudic account of the wonders seen at the birth of Abram, however, are not sufficiently worthy of credence to allow of repetition here, notwithstanding their reference to Terah and Abraham's youth.

Eusebius quotes the following from Eupolemus concerning Abraham—

“He saith, moreover, that in the tenth generation in a city of Babylonia, called Camarina (which, by some, is called the city of Urie, and which signifyeth a city of the Chaldeans), there lived, the thirteenth in descent, (a man named) Abraham, a man of a noble race, and superior to all others in wisdom.

“Of him they relate that he was the inventor of astrology and the Chaldean magic, and that on account of his eminent piety he was esteemed by God. It is further said that under the directions of God he removed and lived in Phœnicia, and there taught the [pg 147] Phœnicians the motions of the sun and moon, and all other things; for which reason he was held in great reverence by their king” (Praep. Evan. 9).

Nicolas of Damascus, apparently wishing to glorify his own city, states that Abram was king of Damascus, and went there, with an army, from that part of the country which is situated above Babylon of the Chaldeans, afterwards transferring his dwelling to the land which was at that time called Canaan, but is now called Judea. Justin also states that Abraham lived at Damascus, from which city he traces the origin of the Jews.

According to the most trustworthy traditions, therefore, as well as from the Bible itself, Abraham was of Chaldean or Babylonian origin. If the city of Urie or Ur be, as he says, that which was also called Camarina, this would in all probability be the Aramean form of the Arabic qamar, “the moon,” and the name Camarina would be due to the fact that the Moon-god, Sin or Nannara, was worshipped there. It is also noteworthy that the city whither the family of Terah emigrated, Haran (in Assyro-Babylonian, Ḫarran), was likewise a centre of lunar worship, and some have sought to see in that a reason for choosing that settlement. In connection with this it may be remarked, that in the Talmud Terah, the father of Abraham, is represented as an idolater, reproved by his son Abraham for foolish and wicked superstition.

We see, therefore, from the eleventh chapter of Genesis, that Abraham was a Babylonian from Ur, now known as Mugheir (Muqayyar), or (better still) from that part of the country which lay north of Babylon, known by the non-Semitic inhabitants as Uri, and by the Semitic population as Akkad. As the family of Terah was a pastoral one, they must have pastured their flocks in this district until they heard of those more fruitful tracts in the west, and decided to emigrate thither. And here it may be noted that [pg 148] they did not, by thus quitting their fatherland, go to swear allegiance to another ruler, for the sway of the king of Babylon extended to the farthest limits of the patriarch's wanderings, and wherever he went, Babylonian and Aramean or Chaldean would enable him to make himself understood. He was, therefore, always as it were in his own land, under the governors of the same king who ruled in the place of his birth.

The name of the patriarch, moreover, seems to betray the place of his origin. The first name that he bore was Abram, which has already been compared with the Abu-ramu, “honoured father,” of the Assyrian eponym-lists (in this place an official by whose name the year 677, the 5th year of Esarhaddon, was distinguished). At an earlier date than this the name has not been found, and the element ram, ramu, rame, etc., seems to be rare. Ranke's list gives only Sumu-ramê, “the name is established,” or “Sumu (? Shem) is established,” or something similar, but ramê here is probably not connected with the second syllable of Abram's name. The name of Sarah has been compared with the Assyro-Babylonian šarratu, “queen,” but seems not to occur in the inscriptions. Isaak is also absent, but Ishmael, under the form of Išme-îlu (meaning “(the) god has heard”) occurs, as well as others in which îlu is replaced by Êa, Sin, and Addu or Adad (Hadad).

When, however, it was revealed to Abram that he was to stay in the Promised Land, a change was made in his name—he was no longer known by the Assyro-Babylonian name Abram, “honoured father,” but, in view of the destiny appointed for him, he was to be called Abraham, “father of a multitude of nations.”

The first stratum of the Hebrew nation was, therefore to all appearance, Babylonian, the second stratum Aramean, probably a kindred stock, whilst the third was to all appearance Canaanitish. All these must have left their trace on the Hebrew character, and, [pg 149] like most mixed races, they showed at all times superior intelligence in many ways. They were good diplomates, brave warriors, divine lawgivers, and they excelled in literary skill. One great defect they had—among their many defects—they were stiffnecked to a fatal degree. Had their kings been less obstinate and better rulers, conciliating their subjects instead of exasperating them, the nation might have outlasted the power of Rome, and built upon its ruins in their land a kingdom dominating the Semitic world in the nearer East to the present day.

Of all the characters of early Bible history, there is hardly one which stands out with greater prominence than the patriarch Abraham. And not only is it his history and personality that is important—the historical facts touched upon in the course of his biography are equally so. Facts concerning the ancient East, from Babylonia on the east to Egypt on the west, face the reader as he goes through that attractive narrative, and make him wonder at the state of society, the political situation, and the beliefs of the people which should have made his migrations possible, brought about the monotheistic belief which characterizes his life and that of his descendants, and enabled him and his sons after him to attain such a goodly store of the riches of this world.

To begin with Babylonia, his native place. As is well known, that country had already been in existence as a collection of communities far advanced in arts, sciences, and literature, at an exceedingly early date, and many of the small kingdoms of which it consisted had become united under Ḫammurabi (Amraphel) into one single state, making it one of the greatest powers at the time. Of course, it is not by any means improbable that something similar to this had existed before, but if so, we have no record of the fact, though it is certain that different states had from time to time become predominant and powerful to an extent hardly [pg 150] conceivable. The influence, if not the sway, of Sargon of Agadé, who reigned about 3800 years before Christ, for example, extended from Elam on the east to the Mediterranean on the west—a vast tract of territory to acknowledge the suzerainty of so small a state.

Babylonia, therefore, with a long history behind it, was beginning to feel, to all appearance, a new national life. It had passed the days when the larger states boasted strength begotten of mere size, and when the smaller states sought mutual protection against the larger, finding in that alone, or in the acknowledgment of an overlord, the security upon which their existence as separate states depended. There is every probability that it was at this time that the legends which formed the basis of Babylonian national literature were collected and copied, thus assuring their preservation. It is also probable that the translations from Akkadian of the numerous inscriptions written in that language, and the bilingual lists, syllabaries, and other texts of a similar nature, belong to this period.

The social condition of Babylonia itself at this time is now fairly well known. The ancient Akkadian laws were still in force, but as they did not provide for all the possibilities that might arise, a large series of legal enactments was compiled, in which points were decided in a very common-sense and just manner. It is noteworthy that the number of tablets of a legal nature is very numerous, and arouses the suspicion that the Babylonians were exceedingly fond of litigation, due, no doubt, to the tendency they had to overreach each other. It is therefore very probable that this is the reason why we meet with that remarkable contract of the purchase of the field of Machpelah from the children of Heth. One would have imagined that the frequent protestations, made by the head of the tribe there located, to the effect that he gave the field and the cave to Abraham, would have been sufficient, [pg 151] especially at that solemn moment of the burial of Sarah, and that the matter could have been put upon a legal footing later on. But no, the patriarch was determined to have the matter placed beyond dispute there and then, and knowing how prone the Babylonians (with whom he had passed his youth) were to deny a contract, and try to get back again, by perjury, what they had already parted with for value, the matter was at once placed beyond the possibility of being disputed in any court of law.17

[pg 152]