George A. Barton

ABRAHAM AND ARCHÆOLOGY

Abraham Hired an Ox. Abraham Leased a Farm. Abraham Paid His Rent. Who Was This Abraham? Travel between Babylonia and Palestine. Hammurapi, King of the Westland. Kudur-Mabug. Kings Supposed by Some to be those of Genesis 14.

ArchÆological investigation has brought to light a number of texts believed by scholars to illumine the Biblical accounts of Abraham. It is the purpose of this chapter to translate and discuss these.

The documents which naturally attract us first are some contracts from Babylonia in which an Abraham was one of the contracting parties. They are as follows:

1. Abraham Hired an Ox.[415]

1. One ox broken to the yoke,

2. an ox from Ibni-Sin, son of Sin-imgurani,

3. from Ibni-Sin

4. through the agency of Kishti-Nabium,

5. son of Eteru,

6. Abarama, son of Awel-Ishtar,

7. for one month has hired.

8. For one month

9. one shekel of silver

10. he will pay.

11. Of it ½ shekel of silver

12. from the hand of

13. Abarama

14. Kishti-Nabium

15. has received.

16. In the presence of Idin-Urash, son of Idin-Labibaal,

17. in the presence of AwÊlÊ, son of Urri-bani,

18. in the presence of Beliyatum, scribe.

19. Month of the mission of Ishtar (i. e., Ulul), day 20th,

20. The year Ammizadugga, the king (built)

21. the wall of Ammizadugga, (i. e., Ammizadugga’s 11th year).

22. Tablet of Kishti-Nabium.

This tablet shows how Abarama (Abraham), a farmer, hired an ox for a month. The tablet, as the last line shows, is the copy made for Kishti-Nabium, the agent. In such business transactions three copies were often made, one for each of the contracting parties and one for the scribe. The date of this tablet is 1965 B. C. Ammizadugga was the tenth king of that first dynasty of Babylon, of which Hammurapi was the sixth.

2. Abraham Leased a Farm.[416]

1. To the patrician

2. speak,

3. saying, Gimil-Marduk (wishes that)

4. Shamash and Marduk may give thee health!

5. Mayest thou have peace, mayest thou have health!

6. May the god who protects thee thy head in luck

7. hold!

8. (To enquire) concerning thy health I am sending.

9. May thy welfare before Shamash and Marduk

10. be eternal!

11. Concerning the 400 shars of land, the field of Sin-idinam,

12. which to Abamrama

13. to lease, thou hast sent;

14. the land-steward (?) and scribe

15. appeared and

16. on behalf of Sin-idinam

17. I took that up.

18. The 400 shars of land to Abamrama

19. as thou hast directed

20. I have leased.

21. Concerning thy dispatches I shall not be negligent.

It appears from this document that Abamrama, who is none other than a Babylonian Abraham, was a small farmer, who leased a small tract of land.

3. Abraham Paid His Rent.[417]

This document, dated two years after that in which the ox was hired, shows how Abamrama (Abraham) paid a part of his rent.

The name Abamrama (Abraham) occurs in two other documents published in the same volume (no. 101, and no. 102), where, in defining the boundaries of other fields of Sin-idinam, they are said to be bounded on one side by the field of Abamrama. As these documents mention the name of Abamrama only incidentally, they are not translated here.

4. Who Was This Abraham?

These documents, which relate to the business of a Babylonian Abraham, come from Dilbat, about eight miles south of Borsippa, which was just across the Euphrates from Babylon. It is clear that this Abraham was a small farmer, who hired a tract of land from a larger land-owner. He also hired an ox wherewith to work his land, and paid the rent of the land and the hire of the ox as a good citizen should. This Abraham was not the Biblical patriarch. The patriarch’s father was Terah and his brother Nahor; the father of this Babylonian Abraham was Awel-Ishtar, and his brother Iddatum (ibid., no. 101, 9). The Abraham of the Bible was a monotheist according to Genesis; the ancestors of the Babylonian Abraham worshiped the goddess Ishtar, who corresponded to the Canaanitish Ashtoreth. The Bible connects the patriarch with Ur and Haran; this Abraham lived about half-way between these two cities.

Up to the present time this Babylonian Abraham is the only person known to us other than the Biblical patriarch, who, in that period of history, bore the name. He is the only one known to us outside the Biblical record.[418] The only other occurrence of the name outside the Bible is in the name of a place in Palestine, probably near Hebron, which Sheshonk I, the Biblical Shishak, calls “The Field of Abram.”[419] As Shishak lived much later (945-924 B. C.), being a contemporary of Rehoboam the son of Solomon, this Egyptian place name is not so significant. The Babylonian Abraham mentioned in the documents just translated is welcome proof that Abraham was a personal name in Babylonia near the time in which the Bible places the patriarch. With these documents Gen. 11:27-25:10 should be compared.

Another Babylonian contract is of interest in connection with the migration of Abraham.5. Travel between Babylonia and Palestine.

The date of the above interesting document has not been identified with certainty. It is thought by some to belong to the reign of Shamsu-iluna, the successor of Hammurapi. The writing clearly shows that at any rate it comes from the period of this dynasty. That is, it comes from the period to which Gen. 14 assigns the migration of Abraham. Kittim in the contract is the word used in the Hebrew of Jer. 2:10 and Ezek. 27:6 for the coast lands of the Mediterranean. It undoubtedly has that meaning here. This contract was written in Sippar, the Agade of earlier times, a town on the Euphrates a little to the north of Babylon. It reveals the fact that at the time the document was written there was so much travel between Babylonia and the Mediterranean coast that a man could not lease a wagon for a year without danger that it might be driven over the long route to Syria or Palestine. Against such wear upon his vehicle the particular wagon-owner of our document protected himself.

When, therefore, Abraham went out from his land and his kindred, he was going to no unknown land. The tide of commerce and of emigration had opened the way. Apparently it was no more remarkable for him to do it than for an Irishman to come to America half a century ago, or for a south European to come today.

6. Hammurapi, King of the Westland.

It is thought by many scholars that Hammurapi was the Amraphel of Genesis 14. The following inscription[421] relates to this king:

This inscription is quoted here for two reasons: 1. It was erected “for the life of Hammurapi,” who is supposed by many to be the Amraphel of Gen. 14:1. Amraphel is supposed to be a corruption of Hammurapi, thus Amrapi. The final l of Amraphel is a difficulty. While many Assyriologists, from Schrader onward, have recognized the equivalence, it is now seriously questioned by Jensen and Eduard Meyer, and absolutely rejected by Bezold. It must be said that, if Amraphel is intended for Hammurapi, the name had undergone corruption before it was placed in the Biblical record.[422] 2. In this inscription Hammurapi is called “king of MAR-TU,” or the Westland, a name by which the Babylonians often designated Syria and Palestine. MAR-TU simply means “sunset,” but was used like the Arabic magrib as the designation of a region. There is no reason to doubt that here it designates Syria and Palestine, so that, if Amraphel is Hammurapi, this is confirmatory of his connection with the West.

7. Kudur-Mabug.

The following inscription[423] has also often been brought into the discussion of Genesis 14:

This inscription has often been brought into connection with Abraham, partly because some have seen in Kudur-Mabug the Chedorlaomer of Gen. 14:1, and partly because Kudur-Mabug in it calls himself “Father” or governor of the Westland. If, however, Kudur-Mabug was intended by the name Chedorlaomer, the name had been corrupted beyond all recognition in the Biblical tradition before Gen. 14 was written. In reality there is no reason to suppose that Kudur-Mabug and Chedorlaomer are the same. As to the term “Westland,” it probably does not here designate Palestine, but either the western part of Elam or the southern part of Babylonia. Babylonia lay to the west of Elam, and Kudur-Mabug placed on the throne of Larsa, a city of South Babylonia, first his son, Arad-Sin, and then his son, Rim-Sin, and apparently maintained an over-lordship over both of them. “Westland” accordingly means in his inscription, not Palestine, but Babylonia. One of Kudur-Mabug’s sons calls his father “Father” (or governor) of Emutbal, a region of Elam. It is a mistake, therefore, to bring Kudur-Mabug into connection with Abraham and Gen. 14.[424]8. Kings Supposed by Some to be Those Mentioned in Gen. 14.

Some fragmentary tablets from the Persian period, not earlier than the fourth century B. C., contain references which have been brought by some scholars into connection with Abraham and the fourteenth of Genesis. The texts read as follows:

I[425]

II

Two other similar fragmentary texts belonging to the series are published as noted above, but it is unnecessary to quote them here. The two fragments which we have translated contain the most important references, and are sufficient to enable the reader to make up his mind as to the bearing of these texts upon the fourteenth of Genesis.

Pinches and Sayce read the name of the Elamite king, Kukukumal, Kudurlakhmal, and identify it with Chedorlaomer. Pinches so reads it, hesitatingly; Sayce, confidently. There is no reason for so reading it, except the desire to discover Chedorlaomer. The first three syllables are represented in the cuneiform by the same sign—a sign the most frequent value of which is ku. It does sometimes have the value dur, but never lakh. King reads it Kukukumal, and there is really no reason for reading it otherwise.

Another name which occurs twice is written in the two places with a slight difference of spelling. It is according to the most natural reading of the signs, Arad-Malkua, or Arad-Malaku. Sayce and Pinches read Eri-eaku and identified him with “Arioch, king of Elassar,” (Gen. 14:1). While this is a possible reading, it is only secured by giving to the signs their Sumerian, instead of their Semitic values, and, as the documents are in Semitic, this is probably wrong. The name is to be read Arad-Malkua. Another name, Tudkhula, which occurs in the first document, has been identified by the same scholars with “Tidal, king of the nations” (Gen. 14:1), but in this text there is no evidence that Tudkhula was a king at all, and the identification is purely fanciful. It should be noted also that Arad-Malkua, the supposed Eri-eaku, does not himself take any part in the wars here recorded; it is his son, Dursil-ilÂni, who is represented as a contemporary of Kukukumal, the supposed Chedorlaomer.

It should be further noted that these documents represent a complete conquest of Babylon by Elam—a conquest in which Babylon itself is laid desolate. It is not certain just what part Dursil-ilÂni played in the story. He may have been a vassal king under Kukukumal, or the Babylonian upon whom the hopes of the people centered, to free them from the yoke of Elam. It is clear, however, that the events mentioned in these documents are not in harmony with the supposition that these monarchs acted as allies of Hammurapi in the invasion of Palestine. Hammurapi is excluded from the account. Kukukumal conquered and desolated the very city in which Hammurapi had his throne. Kukukumal must, accordingly, have lived at some other period of the history, and the supposed confirmation of the account of the fourteenth chapter of Genesis has not yet been found.

As already stated, these tablets are not earlier than the fourth century B. C. The events which they record were probably much later than the time of Abraham. Babylon is called by its Cassite name, Kar-duniash, a name which it did not bear until some hundreds of years after the time of Hammurapi. Many times in the course of Babylonian history was the country overrun by Elam, and there is no real reason to suppose that the war here referred to belongs to the age of Hammurapi.