Skip to main content

Full text of "Recent Assyro-Babylonian Literature"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 


Hebrew and Babylonian Literature. The Haskell Lectures 
delivered at Oberlin College in 1913, and since revised and 
enlarged, by Morris Jastrow, Jr., Ph.D., Professor of 
Semitic Languages in the University of Pennsylvania. New 
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1914. pp. 376. 

Professor Jastrow, the noted exponent of Babylonian- 
Assyrian religion, has given us a highly interesting book. Though 
the problems under consideration have continually occupied the 
attention of scholars, and have been discussed from all points of 
view, since the decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions, yet 
under the genial treatment of the author, even well-known views 
assume a different aspect which arrests the attention of the 
reader. It looks as if the author, like some other scholars, 
has not remained quite untouched by the gentle wave of con- 
servatism which in recent years made its appearance in the 
scholarly world. His book seems to present an attempt at 
reconciling opposite views of the moderns and the conservatives. 
By this treatment, certain inconsistencies and an appearance of 
eclecticism are unavoidable. But we earnestly hope that what 
the author says about the Hebrew traditions will become true 
of all the scholars who feel that higher criticism is not the path 
leading to truth, and yet still linger at the cross-way : ' We cannot 
expect a sudden departure from the normal.' The ideas which 
we consider inconsistencies are due to ' survivals of older views '. 

The aim of this work is to give some of the aspects presented 
by a comparison of the Hebrew and Babylonian civilizations. 
The author has as little sympathy with those who draw com- 
parisons to prove the dependency of Hebrew ideas upon those 
of Babylonia-Assyria, as with the conservatives whose sole aim 
VOL. V. 615 S s 


appears to be towards securing confirmation of the data presented 
by biblical records. He holds that we must apply to both the 
Hebrew and Babylonian traditions the factor of evolution and 
the assumption of a progress in religious thought. The Hebrews 
were subject to outside influences, like all other ethnic groups. 
The differentiating factor in their history is to be found in the 
outcome and not in its beginnings. Gradual growth must be 
assumed, and not a sudden departure from the normal. But 
the former involves survivals of older views and customs. We 
must therefore trace the process of growth in both traditions 
to show how far older views survived, and how far they were 

But the fact that the Babylonian religious ideas, since the 
days of Hammurabi, to say the least, did not undergo any 
perceptible change, and thus for a period of about two thousand 
years remained stationary, apparently disproves the author's 
assumption of a gradual growth. It is true, the author antici- 
pated this objection in his remark : ' The materialistic aspect of 
Babylonian and Assyrian civilizations prevented the fuller 
development of an ethical and spiritual factor in the growth 
of religious thought' (p. 220). However, the author will not 
maintain that the religions of the Egyptians, Phoenicians, and 
of all other ethnic groups in the vicinity of Israel were less 
materialistic than that of the Babylonians. Hence, if he is 
right 'that at one time the Hebrews shared, to all practical 
intent, the religion of their surroundings' (p. 25), the exceptional 
development of Israel's religious thought must either be con- 
sidered a sudden departure from the normal, or we will have 
to assume that from the very beginnings of Israel's history there 
were no materialistic factors in its religious conceptions. Both 
assumptions are highly improbable. Thus, in this way, we will 
never arrive at the solution of the problem. We have to reckon 
with the factor of personality. The Hebrew ethical and spiritual 
conceptions did not develop among the people, but were carried 
into it and maintained, under the worst conditions, by the great 
personalities of Israel. 


The book consists of five chapters and an Appendix. The 
first chapter deals with the relations between the Hebrews and 
Babylonians. The agreement between the traditions of both 
regarding the stories of the creation and deluge is due to the 
early contact when the Terahites emigrated from Ur, and not 
to that in the captivity. The Hebrews were in no mood to 
assimilate ideas from those who appeared to them in the light 
of ruthless destroyers. This opinion was already expressed by 
Renan in his History of the People of Israel. Besides, the 
religious thought of the masses was too advanced, even in the 
eighth century, to take up traditions which arose among a people 
in an early state of culture. They were incorporated, because 
they formed for many centuries part and parcel of the people's 
traditions. When they were submitted to the new ideals set up 
by the prophets, their original character was modified, until in 
the post-exilic period they assumed their present literary shape. 

But if the Hebrews did not take over these stories in the 
captivity, what reason has the author for his assertion that their 
present literary shape was fixed in post-exilic times? The 
contention that the religious thought of the Hebrews in the 
eighth century was more advanced than that of other nations 
is not borne out by the biblical records. The prophets accuse 
them of idolatry and of all possible vices. Admitting the factor 
of evolution, was not there plenty of time for the growth of 
religious thought from Hammurabi to Moses ? 

The second chapter discusses the Hebrew and Babylonian 
accounts of creation. Several versions of them were current 
among both the Hebrews and Babylonians. The second 
Hebrew version has few points in common with the Babylonian 
versions, while the first contains many points of resemblance 
to the main type of the Babylonian creation stories. In the 
second, however, there is still a trace of the earlier materialism, 
while in the first, all traces of any materialistic aspects have 
been intentionally removed. 

Seeing, however, that in the second version which belongs 
to a far less advanced period than the first, all traces of nature- 

s s a 


myths had been removed, we do not comprehend why the 
post-exilic compilers of the Priestly Code did not do the same 
in the first version. The. author's suggestion, that the compiler 
did not wish to cut himself loose from popular traditions, is 
improbable. If the first version originally contained myths, 
they must have been distinct and plain as in the Babylonian 
stories of creation. In the former, however, in its present 
shape, the myths are so hidden and veiled that no scholar ever 
thought of them before the decipherment of the cuneiform 
inscriptions. Therefore, we can hardly believe that the con- 
temporaries of the compiler were so sagacious as to recognize 
in his version their ancient favourite tales. The only myth we 
can find in the Priestly Code is its mythical existence. 

In the third chapter, the author raises the old question, 
whether the Babylonians had an institution similar to the 
Hebrew sabbath. He answers it in the affirmative, but holds 
that the Hebrew sabbath is an expression of religious ideas 
utterly distinct from those which we find in the Babylonian 

However, as far as the biblical records are concerned, this 
question ought never to have been raised. The very fact that 
sabbath is connected with the creation of the world shows 
that the Bible does not claim it to be specifically Hebrew. 
Sabbath was observed before the promulgation of the Decalogue. 
Thus it must have been an ancient Semitic institution, the 
preservation of which is solely due to Israel. For this institution 
it is quite irrelevant whether the Babylonians had a similar day 
of rest. 

The two last chapters deal with the views of life after death 
and the Hebrew and Babylonian ethics. The early conception 
of sheol 'hades' among the Hebrews differed in no essential 
point from that among the Babylonians. In all periods of 
Babylonian history we find the relationship to the gods never 
rising above a materialistic level. Their limitations of ethics 
show themselves also in what they regarded as the real aim 
of life : material blessings. The Hebrews started out with no 


better equipment for the development of ethics than the 
Babylonians or any of the nations by which they were sur- 
rounded. But they rose superior to their surroundings. The 
prophets' conception of sin and atonement contrasts with that 
which we find in Babylonian penitential compositions. The 
sin implied in the latter is the neglect of some rite or some 
festival, while in the former, the thought throughout is that 
sin can only be forgiven, if there is a disposition to lead a life 
pleasing to a righteous power. 

But it is beyond doubt that the Pentateuch, like the 
Babylonians, regards material blessings as the real aim of life, 
being the only reward promised Israel for its obedience to the 
Divine commandments. The prophets could not have had 
a superior conception. They threaten Israel for its disobedience 
to the law with the loss of the material blessings. What else 
can we expect ? A distinction between material and spiritual 
blessings presupposes a pure conception of life after death and 
the doctrine of personal retribution. If these doctrines had 
not yet been developed, what else could have been the aim 
of life, if not material blessings? If, however, the conception 
of the prophets was more spiritual than that of the Mosaic Code, 
this fact alone ought to be regarded as incontrovertible proof 
that the latter dates from an earlier period. 

As to the Babylonian conception of sin and atonement, it 
would be wrong to assert that the Babylonians did not include 
ethical faults and failings in their idea of sin. The Shurpu 
Series enumerates all possible transgressions on account of 
which the gods turn away from the sinner, and the demons take 
possession of him and plague him with all kinds of diseases. 
Thus, on this point, there is hardly any difference between the 
Hebrew and Babylonian conceptions. However, it seems that 
in the Babylonian religion, the sinner was forgiven social crimes 
without being required to make amends, while in that of Israel, 
sins of this kind could not be expiated without making amends. 

In the Appendix, the author discusses the Hebrew and 
Babylonian accounts of the deluge, and deals especially with 


the version found by Dr. Poebel in the Museum of the 
University of Pennsylvania, which he regards as the prototype 
of that on the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamish Epic. But this 
version is written in Sumerian, and it is very precarious to draw 
conclusions from a Sumerian text, as the science of Sumerology 
has not yet quite outgrown its infancy. 

Die biblische und die babylonische Gottesidee. Die israelitische 
Gottesauffassung im Lichte der altorientalischen Religions- 
geschichte. Von D. Dr. Johannes Hehn, o. Professor an 
der Universitat Wiirzburg. Mit 1 1 Abbildungen. Leipzig : 


The present volume deals with the frequently ventilated 
question, whether the biblical conception of the godhead is 
similar to that of the Babylonians and other oriental nations. 
It is a work of high scientific value, and its results will radically 
influence biblical research in that direction. The literature is 
consulted on all points concerned. It, therefore, contains such 
an amount of information on this subject hardly to be found 
elsewhere. The discussion of the various theories is absolutely 
fair and free from bias. Though the author on the vital points 
seems to be rather conservative, his book does not make the 
impression that he is looking for confirmation of preconceived 
points of view. The book consists of six chapters which discuss 
so many subjects of high importance that it is hardly possible 
to present a succinct summary of their contents. We can give 
only a few of the salient points and leading ideas. 

The first chapter outlines the fundamental views of the 
Babylonians on the essence of the Godhead. The universe 
is governed by an infinite host of personal powers. In an earlier 
stage of culture, they were thought of as being within the cosmos ; 
later, however, the latter became personified in the triad Anum, 
Bel and Ea. Babylonian cosmogony being theogony, their cos- 
mology must needs be theology. The multitude of the divine 
beings continually grows with the recognition and conception 


of the powers of nature as separate elements. The solar planet 
being the centre of life, such a religion must be in the first 
place a solar cult. Though an astral religion, there is a dualism 
in the conception of the gods, they being conceived as persons 
and at the same time as stars in heaven. The Babylonians never 
succeeded in completely personifying them. The sexual differen- 
tiation in nature is reflected in the conception of masculine and 
feminine deities. Being persons, the gods had to be equipped 
with all human qualities. 

The second chapter deals with the position of the Babylonians 
towards monotheism. The tendency of the Babylonian theology 
being specification of the elementary powers and consequently 
continual increase of deities, monotheistic tendencies are not 
to be expected. However, there is a certain inclination towards 
pantheism. 'The totality of the gods' is represented by the 
septenary supreme power, the seven planets. Notwithstanding 
this amalgamation, the other gods do not lose their separate 
existence and independent position. As to the attributes of the 
gods, Anum is the sum total of the godhead, theoretically at 
least ; Enlil is the representative of sovereignty ; Ea is the 
personification of the principle of wisdom and of the power of 
creation ; Nannar appeared in a certain period as universal 
godhead. But there was practically a solar monotheism — the 
most prominent gods being solar deities — as well as a national 
monotheism, as the deity of a certain territory occupied there 
the highest position. Now and then we find also an ' affective ' 
monotheism, that is to say, a certain deity became supreme on 
account of being preferred by a certain ruler or in a certain 
period. The transfer of attributes from one deity to another 
played a prominent part. By this procedure many of the gods 
became in every respect identical. 

The third chapter investigates the relations of the religious 
beliefs of the peoples of Western Asia to the Babylonian religion 
and their attitude towards monotheism. The claim that the 
fundamental religious conceptions of the Semites originated in 
Babylonia is neither historical nor psychological. Similar 


physical and cultural conditions will develop independently a 
similarity of religious conceptions. Certain forms, however, 
show distinct traces of Babylonian origin. The solar planet is 
also in the West the ruling factor. The religions of Phoenicia, 
Canaan, the Aramaeans, Hittites, Nabataeans and North and 
South Arabs are in the main similar to that of Babylonia, and 
do not show any advance towards Monotheism. But a pan- 
theistic 'monism', regarding all the powers of nature as the 
world-pervading spirit, was developed in the Roman period, 
under the influence of philosophy, Judaism, and Christianity. 

The fourth chapter investigates the question concerning the 
existence of an ancient common Semitic god ilu or el, and the 
meaning and use of the divine designations ilu, el, ildni, elim, 
and elohim. The view that there was an ancient Semitic god 
ilu-el, who was the universal deity, the embodiment of divine 
power, and that polytheism belongs to a later period, is contrary 
to the real development and to the biblical records. The term 
ilu-el does not define the metaphysical essence of the godhead. 
It became a divine appellative in a later period. Among the 
Aramaeans, Phoenicians, and South Arabs, where it occurs 
alongside of the names of other gods, it was, like ba'al and 
tnelek, a mere appellative, and not a reminiscence of an ancient 
universal deity. The meaning of it as ' the God ' par excellence 
presupposes a monotheistic conception. 

The fifth chapter inquires into the meaning of the names 
Jahweh, Jahweh Sebaot, El-Elyon, and El-Shaddai. The intro- 
duction of the name of Jahweh into the religion of Israel was 
not an innovation. This name was known before in the pro- 
nunciation Jahu or Jaho. It was changed into Jahweh for the 
purpose of an interpretation which was of special importance 
for Israel. The name is not Babylonian, as there was no 
Babylonian god Jau. The appellation Jahweh Sebaot corresponds 
to the Babylonian bel kishshati ' the lord of all humanity '. 
El-Elyon is not the name of an old Canaanite deity. It expresses 
a religious conception, nearly on a level with the biblical mono- 
theism, of those who were not worshippers of Jahweh. El- 


Shaddai means ' the highest God ', and thus is synonymous with 

The sixth chapter draws a comparison between the essential 
features of the Hebrew and Babylonian religions. The national- 
historical character of the religion of Israel is the basis of the 
biblical conception of the Godhead. Jahweh is the centre of 
the union of Israel. He became the national God, because 
Israel was His creation. This monotheism was not the out- 
come of philosophical speculations and reflections on His 
relations to the other gods and to the cosmos. He is trans- 
cendental and cannot be represented by images. There may 
have been images of Jahweh, but they were prohibited by the 
official religion. There was always an antagonism and a gap 
between the prophetic Mosaic religion and the popular religious 
conceptions. Anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms could 
not be avoided, as man cannot think of God as person without 
transferring to Him human attributes. Jahweh being for Israel 
the only authority, the cause of everything, there is no room 
for personifications of natural phenomena and for beings which 
can be won or conquered by magic. Exclusiveness and in- 
tolerance are a natural outcome of the divine unity. As the 
God of the victors, He did not become the head of the 
Canaanite pantheon, at the conquest of Canaan. He is the 
God of the people, not of the ruling dynasty. Being the embodi- 
ment of justice, the fundament of the Hebrew constitution, the 
monotheism of Israel is purely ethical. This conception was 
bound to lead to universalism. 

Though we have nothing but praise for the book as a whole, 
there are some important points which will have to be re- 
considered. Concerning the fundamental conceptions of the 
Babylonian religion, the starting-point is a strict line drawn 
between that of the Sumerians and that of the Babylonian 
Semites. The solar cult is of Sumerian origin. It undoubtedly 
originated among an agricultural people, to whom the solar 
planet was an absolutely beneficial deity, the centre of life. 
The fact that most of the chief Babylonian gods bear a solar 


character, while the god of storm phenomena plays only a 
secondary part, evidently shows that the birthplace of the solar 
cult was Babylonia, the vegetation of which was not dependent 
upon rain. In any other country, except Egypt, the god of 
rain is just as important as the sun-god. 

To the inhabitants of the Arabian desert, however, the solar 
planet, though source of vegetation and thus necessary, appears 
as a terrible deity, and therefore could hardly have become 
their chief god. The same holds true of f he beneficent storm- 
god. His thunder and lightning inspire them with terror, 
and they have no way of protection against him. The night is 
the only time in which they find respite from their sufferings 
from the heat, and are able to continue their migrations. They 
see in the lunar planet the ruler of the night. He becomes 
their protector, and therefore, chief god. Hence, the Semitic 
nomads must have had a lunar cult. But as soon as they 
had settled in Babylonia, and had become agriculturists, the 
sun was bound to become their chief god. The Semitic tribe, 
to whom the Hammurabi dynasty belonged, was in all probability 
in a nomadic state, when it entered Babylonia. Four of 
Hammurabi's predecessors bear names compounded either with 
Sin ' the moon-god ' or with Sumu, an equivalent of Sin, because 
the lunar planet was still the chief god of the immigrants. 
Hammurabi, however, calls his son Samsu-iluna 'the sun is 
our god'. This great promoter of civilization announced 
thereby a new era in the religious conceptions of the immigrants 
and effected the complete amalgamation with the old inhabitants 
of the country. Hence, if the deities of the West Semites bear 
a solar character, we may see in this fact Babylonian influence. 

Seeing that the lunar planet was the chief god of the Semitic 
nomads, the meaning of ilu-el as ' the God y par excellence deserves 
consideration. The moon being always surrounded by com- 
panions, the stars, the idea of plurality suggested itself, and the 
moon was given a plural designation elohim. The Hebrew 
calendar shows undeniable traces of a former lunar cult, not to 
mention historical traditions, as the association of Abraham 


with Ur and Harran, the chief centres of the moon worship, 
the name of mount Sinai, undoubtedly connected with the name 
of the moon-god Sin, and the promulgation of the Decalogue in 
the third month Sivan which is called ' the month of the god 
Sin '. It is interesting to notice that the idea of monotheism 
is more conceivable in a solar than in a lunar religion, as the 
moon has associates which the sun has not. Hence the Hebrew 
monotheism is not the result of evolution. 

As to the etymology of ilu-el, none of the explanations dis- 
cussed by the author is satisfactory. May we suggest that it 
was among all Semites a loan-word from the Sumerian Hi ' to be 
high ' ? But we must admit that it is hardly a coincidence that 
in Babylonian Ana means ' the highest god ' and ana is also the 
preposition ' to ', and that the same is true of Hebrew el. The 
often occurring phrase T' ?K? (pNjB* 'it is (not) in the power of 
my hand ' does not prove that el is derived from a root 71K ' to 
be powerful ', and means ' power '. It is more likely that this 
phrase is a figure of speech, and literally means ' my hand is to 
god'. The idea expressed may be either of a close connexion 
with the god, which suggests power, or of a far-reaching hand 
from which even a god cannot escape, or of a hand which is 
superhuman, and rightly belongs to a divine being. 

Concerning the etymology of El-Shaddai, the present writer 
agrees with the author that Shaddai is connected with Babylonian 
shadu, ' mountain ', and means ' the highest God '. But this ety- 
mology will not explain the ending at of Shaddai. Seeing that 
the summus deus is depicted by the Babylonians as rising between 
two mountains, which according to Winckler and others, is the 
highest point, called the nibiru, the pass between the two peaks 
of the Mountain of the World, may we suggest that Shaddai 
is a dual form, and El-Shaddai originally meant ' the God of the 
two Mountains ' ? 

The appellation Jahweh Sebaot involves a highly important 
problem. It is noteworthy that the term Sebaot, either in con- 
nexion with Jahweh, or with elohim, or with both, occurs about 
three hundred times in the Old Testament, and is used by 


nearly all the prophets, but it is nowhere found in the Pentateuch, 
nor in the Books of Joshua and the Judges. The omission of 
Jahweh Sebaot in these books may fairly be taken as a criterion 
for determining their age. According to the modern critics, 
a Jewish priest in Babylon wrote the whole history of Israel, 
beginning with the creation of the world down to the Babylonian 
captivity. This work is called the Priestly Code. This author 
was responsible for the literary style of these books. Seeing, 
however, that the appellation Jahweh Sebaot was used hundreds 
of times by the prophets, and must have been current among 
the people, shall we believe that the use of this divine designation 
did not occur to this author until he arrived at the compilation 
of the Book of Samuel ? The author of Deuteronomy did not 
make use of this designation either. It is, therefore, obvious 
that the designation Jahweh Sebaot came into vogue at the 
period of Samuel, when we meet with it for the first time. That 
is generally admitted. But then we must draw the conclusion 
that the present literary shape of the earlier Books of the Old 
Testament belongs to an earlier period. The only objection 
to this conclusion is the remarkable fact that Jahweh Sebaot is 
never used by Ezekiel. This prophet is indeed suspected of 
having had a hand in the composition of the Pentateuch. The 
critics will have to maintain that the first seven biblical books 
were composed by this prophet. The other exilic prophets are 
just as fond of this designation as their pre-exilic predecessors. 

The current opinion is, that Jahweh Sebaot means ' the Lord 
of the hosts of Israel '. Seeing, however, that in the Pentateuch 
Israel is frequently referred to as ' the hosts of Jahweh ', it is 
strange that it never occurred to Moses or Joshua to speak 
of God as ' the Lord of the hosts '. On the other hand, we 
should have expected, at least once, the variation ' the Lord 
of the hosts of Israel '. We therefore believe in the other explana- 
tion that Sebaot refers to the heavenly hosts, the stars and 

Polytheism rests upon the idea that each deity has a limited 
sphere of activity. Therefore, one has to be on good terms 


with all deities, and none ought to be neglected. In the popular 
Hebrew conception, Jahweh also was a deity with a limited 
sphere, and was most likely identified with some planet. Thus 
the people did not see any reason why they should not sacrifice 
to other gods as well. The prophets denounced this conception 
by proclaiming the God of Israel as Jahweh Sebaot, ' He who 
brought the Sebaot into existence'. He, therefore, is 'the God 
of the Sebaot', whose sphere is unlimited; for, all natural 
phenomena being identified with the stars and planets, it follows 
that the ruler of the heavenly host must possess unlimited power. 
May we suppose that Ezekiel was careful not to use an expression 
which implied a gross insult to the Babylonian astral religion ? 

The Latest Light on Bible Lands, by P. S. P. Handcock, M.A., 
Lecturer of the Palestine Exploration Fund. London : 
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1913. 
pp. 371 and 103 illustrations. 

The author of this volume gained, two years ago, a well- 
deserved reputation as an able and painstaking scholar by his 
work Mesopotamian Archaeology. His present work, which covers 
a wide field also, shows a combination of industry and ability. 
His object is to present a concise account of the excavations 
made in Babylonia, Assyria, Egypt, Syria, and Palestine, in 
so far as they throw light upon the Old Testament. This account 
will enable the reader to form some estimate of the inferences 
which may be drawn legitimately from them. For the most, 
the author's endeavour has been to allow the facts to speak for 
themselves. Only here and there, where it appeared necessary, 
he criticized theories which appeared to him to rest upon 
insufficient data. 

The book consists of seven chapters and two Appendices. 
The first chapter surveys the Babylonian civilization and shows 
the light thrown by the excavations upon the earlier chapters 
of the Book of Genesis. After this introduction, it turns to 
the historical period of the Old Testament literature, the time 


of Hammurabi. The second and third chapters deal with the 
Hebrews and the land of Canaan before the time of the Exodus. 
They contain numerous discussions of interesting problems, 
as the sites of the store-cities, Pithom and Ramses, the identity 
of the Pharaoh of the Exodus, the identification of the Habiri 
with the Hebrews, the condition of Canaan before it was con- 
quered by Israel, &c. The fourth and fifth chapters inform 
us about the status of Israel in Canaan and in the captivity down 
to the time of the Maccabees. They give a brief sketch of the 
Egyptian history from the time of Meneptah down to the 
overthrow of the nineteenth dynasty to which this king belongs. 
Starting with Shishak's invasion of Palestine, they describe the 
relations of Judah and Israel with the Assyrians and Babylonians, 
and outline the history of the Jews under the Persians, Ptolemies, 
and Seleucids, which is illustrated by the Murashu tablets and 
the Elephantine papyri. The sixth and seventh chapters give 
an account of the excavations carried on in Jerusalem, Lachish, 
Gezer, Jericho, Samaria, Megiddo, &c. The two Appendices 
deal with the North Semitic inscriptions and the Hittites. 

It is a book well worth reading, as it contains a great amount 
of useful information, not only for the general reader, but also 
for biblical students. However, we must add that the inferences 
which the author draws from the records are not always con- 
vincing. It looks as if in biblical exegesis he is too much 
dependent on Driver, who in his later years had become more 
and more radical. 

There are a few points to which the present writer takes 
exception. The author declines to accept the identification of 
the Habiri, of the Amarna tablets with 'Ibrim, ' Hebrews ', on 
philological grounds, contending that Hebrew ayin is rendered 
into Babylonian heth only when it has a hard sound. He 
evidently overlooked the fact that the words ?j?3, VHT, py, ~isy, 
ivy, which etymologically have an ayin with a soft sound, are 
written in the Amarna tablets with heth (see Bohl, Die Sprache 
der Amarnabriefe, 6). Besides proper names, as Ha-ab-di-ili 
alongside of Ab-di-ili-, Ha-atn-mu-ra-bi, alongside of Am-mu-ra-bi, 


show that West Semitic ayin with the soft sound is rendered 
into Babylonian heth. 

The author is wrong in believing that the acceptance of the 
identification of Habiri with '3rim would entail the repudiation 
of vital elements in the Hebrew records. Nothing compels us 
to identify ' the 'Ibrim ' of the Amarna tablets with the Israelites 
in Egypt If we survey all the passages in which the term 'Ibrim 
occurs, we find that there must have been other nationalities 
besides the Israelites which were designated as Hebrews. The 
very fact that the Israelites are called Hebrews only by the 
non-Semitic Egyptians and Philistines, but never by any of their 
Semitic neighbours, seems to indicate that the latter belonged 
to the Hebrew race as well. If it had not been the case, the 
Moabite king Mesha would undoubtedly have called his enemies, 
the Israelites, by the name of 'Ibrim. This term designates all 
the descendants of 'Eber. The author obviously did not consult 
BOhl's book, Die Kanaaniier und Hebrder, Leipzig, 1911, which 
thoroughly discusses this problem. A close investigation will 
even show that the term '3ri in the laws of slavery (Exod. 21. 2 ; 
Deut. 15. 12) originally included all the members of the Hebrew 
race, and did not refer to the Israelites only. 

The author's opinion that there is no objection to the identi- 
fication of Habiri with Hebron is unfounded. The root "Ofl, 
from which the name Hebron is derived, is rendered in the 
Amarna tablets into ibru (Knudtzon's edition, 126, 16). 

Manetho's story about the expulsion of the Hyksos need not 
be discredited, but it does not follow therefrom that the Israelites 
had been expelled at the same time. The latter undoubtedly 
came to Egypt during the rule of the Hyksos. This fact of 
course explains the high position of Joseph in this country. 
Being relations of the expelled ruling tribe, the Israelites naturally 
were suspected of being disloyal to the new dynasty and were 
treated as enemies. Their oppression must have taken place 
under a regime which immediately succeeded that of the Hyksos, 
thus under the eighteenth dynasty. There is no good reason 
to assume that they were oppressed two hundred and fifty years 


later, under Ramses II. The Israelites never had a better 
opportunity to leave Egypt than at the death of Amenophis IV, 
the last king of the eighteenth dynasty, 1350 b. c, when Egypt 
was torn by civil strife, caused by the religious reforms of this 
king, and its prestige was very low abroad. Bohl {I.e., p. 92) 
had already rightly contended that we have no reason to doubt 
Jephthah's date of three hundred years from his time to that 
of the Exodus (Judges n. 26). Now seeing that in Jephthah's 
time Israel was oppressed by the Philistines and the Ammonites 
(ibid. 10. 7), and that Saul had to contend with the same enemies, 
we may reasonably conclude that the period of Saul and Samuel 
immediately followed that of Jephthah. Assigning forty years 
to the former and forty to David, the accession of Solomon 
took place 380 years after the Exodus, 970 B.C., a date which 
is historically undeniable. The error in the date of four hundred 
and eighty years given in 1 Kings 6. 1 could be easily explained 
by the assumption that the digits were expressed by perpen- 
dicular strokes, as in other Semitic inscriptions, and the 
transcriber read 'four', instead of 'three'. 

The author mentions the opinions of Alfred Jeremias and 
Professor Naville that the Decalogue or the Mosaic Books 
were originally written in cuneiform characters. These opinions 
would have some justification if there were reason to doubt 
the existence of the Phoenician characters in Moses' time. 
The author, however, has called attention to the existence of 
a Phoenician inscription of the fifteenth century B.C. (p. 280). 
We thus see that the Phoenician characters were known before 
the time of Moses. 

The Bible and the Spade. Edgar J. Banks, Ph.D., Field Director 
of the recent Babylonian Expedition of University of 
Chicago. New York: Association Press, 19 13. pp. 193 
and 19 illustrations. 

This work was written for the general reader who has neither 
time nor patience to read the accounts of Oriental discoveries 


by specialists. Each of the chapters, except the first which 
briefly outlines the history of the excavations, is headed by 
a biblical verse as a motto which is illustrated by the results o 
the discoveries. It contains forty-seven short chapters. Its purpose 
is to impress the reader that the biblical stories are not of a 
legendary character, but real history. It is a readable book, 
and many a reader will feel indebted to the author for the 
pleasant and useful time spent in its perusal. Books of this 
kind deserve recommendation. The work of destruction in 
biblical exegesis has been going on for a long time. In con- 
sequence, scepticism regarding the truth of 1 the biblical narratives 
spreads among all classes of the people. Therefore, the knowledge 
that the Bible contains many facts which find confirmation in 
Babylonian and Egyptian records will check their hasty judgement 
and inspire them with more reverence for the Scriptures. 

We notice that the author in saying : ' even as late as the year 
70 a.d., during the revolt of Bar-Cochbar' (p. 166) evidently 
mixed up two historical events. The revolt of Bar-Cochba (not 
Cochbar) occurred 130 c.e., about sixty years after the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem. 

The Philistines :■ their History and Civilization. By R. A. Steward 
Macalister, M.A., F.S.A., Professor of Celtic Archaeology, 
University College, Dublin. The Schweich Lectures, 191 1. 
London : published for the British Academy by Humphrey 
Milford, Oxford University Press, Amen Corner, London, 
E.C., 1913. pp. 136 and n illustrations. 

Many theories about the origin of the Philistines have been 
put forward by modern scholars. Some, like Stade, Tiele, and 
Schwally, assigned to them a Semitic origin. The prevailing 
opinion, however, is that they were non-Semites. As far as the 
biblical records are concerned, the evidence is in the favour of the 
latter view. The Philistines played a prominent part in the early 
history of the Israelites, and were their inveterate enemies. Yet 
in the stories of the patriarchs, we find them in intercourse, alliance, 
VOL. V. T t 


and covenant with Abraham and Isaac. The enmity to their 
descendants can be explained only by the assumption that the 
inhabitants of the country subsequently called Philistaea, were 
supplanted by other tribes. The latter adopted in the course 
of time the Canaanite language, yet still continued in their 
hostile attitude to the Semites whom they had subjugated. 
Biblical tradition has recognized them as immigrants from 
Caphtor (Amos 9. 7). The fact that the struggles with the 
Philistines began in the times of Jephthah and Samson, 
according to the biblical records, apparently indicates that the 
former inhabitants of these territories had been on friendly terms 
with the Israelites. The non-circumcision of the Philistines 
strongly favours the theory of their non-Semitic origin. 

The author of the present work who in the years 1899-1900 
discovered several Philistine localities, and in 1902-1905 and 
1907 excavated Gezer, is no doubt a reliable authority on 
Palestinian archaeology. In the present volume, full of informa- 
tion old and new and highly suggestive, he attempts to collect 
in a convenient form the data about the Philistines. But we 
regret to say that he is not unbiased. It looks as if this book 
were especially written for the purpose of vindicating the honour 
of the Aryan Philistines whose name in modern times has 
become a technical term for a person impervious to a higher 
influence of art and civilization. He maintains that they have 
been grievously wronged, as the Philistines were the real carriers 
of art and civilization in Palestine. He is even inclined to give 
them credit for the invention of the alphabet. 

The book consists of four chapters which deal with the 
origin, history, land, and civilization of the Philistines. On the 
basis of the Hebrew and Egyptian records and a comparison 
of the Minoan civilizations, he arrives at the conclusion that the 
Philistines were a people composed of several clans, derived from 
Crete and the south-west corner of Asia Minor. From a papyrus 
containing the personal report of the adventures of an Egyptian 
messenger to the Lebanon, he proves that the domain of the 
Philistines was more extensive than the scanty strip of land 


allowed to them in biblical maps. But this conclusion rests on 
the assumption that the Zakkala mentioned in the papyrus 
formed one of the Philistine clans and were identical with the 
Kasluhlm (Gen. 10. 14), which is rather precarious. His sugges- 
tion that Sisera was a Philistine deserves consideration. In his 
description of the Philistine cities, he especially deals with 
Ekron, the site of which is wrongly identified with the present 
village Akir, demonstrating by the route of the wanderings of 
the Ark that it is identical with the present village Dhikerin, though 
etymologically there can be no direct connexion between these 
two names. Highly interesting, though in a great many points 
unconvincing, is the fourth chapter, in which the author in- 
vestigates the language, organization, religion, and the place 
of the Philistines in history and civilization. 

Ancient Babylonia. By C. H. W. Johns, Litt.D., Master of 
St. Catharine College, Cambridge. {The Cambridge Manuals 
of Science and Literature) Cambridge : at the University 
Press, 19 13. pp. 148. 8 illustrations and 1 map. 

The author's book Ancient Assyria, published in the Cambridge 
Manuals, has now been followed by a companion volume which 
succinctly outlines the history of Ancient Babylonia. Coming 
from the pen of this great scholar, there is no need to say that 
it is, like the former, a reliable work. Considering the historical 
sources which from the Hammurabi period down to the second 
half of the eighth century are very scanty, and the limited space 
allotted to these Manuals, the author has done the best possible 
to acquaint the reader with the general character of Babylonian 
history. Still in such a work it is inevitable that there should 
not be some slight details capable of improvement or correction. 

In the present, it is nigh impossible to give the exact dates 
of the Babylonian rulers. But one would expect, at least, 
approximate dates. It could be done in cases where Babylonian 
kings were contemporaries of those of Assyria whose dates are 
known. The reader has not always the time nor the opportunity 
to look up the dates in the Manual of the Assyrian history. 

T t a 


It is surprising to find that An-ni Kishki, in the Dates of 
Sumu-abu and Sumu-la-ilu is rendered by the author : ' the god 
Jau of Kish.' Now there is no doubt that it cannot be translated 
' Anu of Kish '. The Date lists are written in classic Sumerian, 
and in that case we should expect the casus obliquus An-na, 
instead of the casus rectus An-ni. To read Ana-ni, as does 
Schorr (Altbabyl. Rechtsurk., p. 583), is impossible. Linguistically, 
there is no objection against the rendering of NI by Jau (cf. S a , 
col. I, 19). But in that case we would have to assume that the 
worship of Jau (= Jahweh) existed in Babylonia already in the third 
millennium B.C. This opinion was indeed held by scholars, but 
it was based upon the belief that the god Ja-pi-um (=Ja-wi-um) 
is mentioned in the oath formulae on tablets from Kish, in the 
reigns of Rim-Anum and Sumu-abu. Now, however, it is well 
known that Ja-pi-um is not the name of a god, but of a king 
who was a contemporary of Samu-abu and Rim-Anum (see p. 64). 
If NI is to be read Jau, we could assume that the name Ja-pi-um 
is a hypocoristicon of a name compounded with Jau. Seeing, 
however, that NI is also to be read Hi = NI NI (S a , col. I, 20), 
and there are weighty reasons to believe in the existence of an 
ancient West Semitic god El, the reading Hi = El, in the Dates, 
may also be considered. 

Handbuch der altorientalischen Geisteskultur. Von Lie. Dr. Alfred 
Jeremias, Pfarrer der Lutherkirche, Privatdozent an der 
Universitat zu Leipzig. Mit 215 Bildern nach den Monu- 
menten und zwei Sternkarten. Leipzig : J. C. Hinrichs'sche 

BUCHHANDLUNG, 1913. pp. 366. 

This work is a most interesting contribution to the history 
of religion. This praise will be willingly bestowed upon it even 
by those who deny that Babylonia played such an important 
part in the development of religious thought. The less we are 
inclined to agree with the so-called Pan-Babylonian, the more 
we must admire the ingenuity of the scholars, especially of the 
late Hugo Winckler, who were able to erect such a splendid 


edifice upon a fictitious ground. It offers also a useful lesson, 
which in our iconoclastic age is not out of season, in demon- 
strating that not all ingenious systems must needs be true. 
However, as to its validity, let us not judge hastily. It must be 
borne in mind that this system has aroused the most violent 
opposition among those who are believers in higher criticism. 
Pan-Babylonian is a natural enemy of the latter, though it is 
also opposed by the conservatives. Those who look with con- 
sternation at the havoc wrought in the mind of modem theologians 
by higher criticism must feel indebted to the originators of a 
theory by which a destructive system is challenged. 

The Pan-Babylonians maintain that the whole civilization of 
the Euphrates valley points to the existence of a scientific and at 
the same time religious system founded upon an astronomical 
theory. From there it spread over the whole world and developed 
into many forms. For, the conception of the universe, as we 
find it expressed in all parts of the world, entirely precludes the 
possibility of an independent origin in different places, by the 
exact repetition which only transmission by a migration can 
satisfactorily explain. A natural deduction from this theory 
must be that Israel which ethnically and geographically stood 
near to the Babylonians must have possessed in the beginnings 
of its history a high grade of civilization, and could not have 
been a people with peasant religious conceptions. A theory of 
this kind cannot be agreeable to the higher critics whose pet 
theories are not a whit less fictitious than the Pan-Baby lonism 
they oppose. 

The most serious objection to the fundamental principle of 
this theory is that made by the astronomer Kugler, who contended 
that Babylonian astronomy does not date from an earlier period 
than the eighth century. However, the author of this volume 
has with many proofs ably demonstrated that Kugler is wrong 
on this point (see pp. 130-6). 

Kugler, however, has made another objection to this theory 
which, as the author admits, is absolutely incontrovertible. It 
concerns the theory of the Ages which has the most important 


bearing upon the Babylonian religious development in the Pan- 
Babylonian system and the biblical interpretation. It has been 
asserted that in the most remote period the vernal equinox was 
in the Zodiacal sign of Gemini ' the Twins ', Sin and Nergal, i. e. 
moon and sun, in which the former took the foremost place. 
Therefore an Age of Gemini must have been an age of the moon- 
god. From about three thousand onward, the actual position 
of the vernal equinox was in the Taurus ' Bull ', and the calendar 
was consequently behindhand, its reform having been carried 
out by Sargon of Akkad. The advancement of the vernal point 
was used by Hammurabi to glorify his own reign as the beginning 
of a new epoch. This new Age of Taurus bears a solar character. 
Marduk who was exalted by Hammurabi to the position of the 
chief of the gods is essentially the sun-god. In the eighth 
century, the vernal equinox retrograded into the sign of Aries 
'Ram', and the calendar was again reformed by Nabu-nasir. 
Upon the theory of the Ages is based the assumption that 
Oriental stories endow the bringer of a new era with the motifs 
of the astral figure who represents the beginning of a new Age. 

Kugler, however, has proved that the Age of Gemini passed 
about 1,500 years before Sargon ; thus his birth was not coincident 
with the new position of the vernal equinox. The Age of Taurus 
ended before Hammurabi ; thus the elevation of Marduk has no 
connexion with this Age. The Age of Aries lasted till about the 
Christian era. 

The present writer in his review of the author's work The Old- 
Testament in the Light of the Ancient East, 191 1, in this periodical 
(New Series, III, p. 579), found a great difficulty in reconciling 
the theory of the Ages with the biblical calendar. Seeing that 
in the Age of Taurus the year began with Iyar, the question 
presented itself: The Exodus having taken place in this Age, 
how could Nisan have been fixed as the beginning of the year ? 
We see now that the biblical records are correct, as usual. The 
Exodus took place in the Age of Aries, in which Nisan was the 
beginning of the year. 

The author is indeed compelled to admit that the division 


of the time into Ages was based upon a wrong calculation, but 
still maintains its theoretical existence which served for a 
mythological application. This contention does not seem to 
be convincing. In the opinion of the present writer, however, 
the existence of such a theoretical system is not impossible. 
Jeroboam who introduced the worship of the Bull into Israel 
transferred the Feast of Tabernacles into the eighth month 
' which he had devised of his own heart '. He evidently, without 
considering the actual position of the equinox, fixed Iyar as the 
first month, in accordance with the Age of Taurus ' the Bull ', the 
worship of which he had introduced. The same may have been 
done by Hammurabi. 

The author was evidently aware of the fact that by the down- 
fall of the theory of the Ages, the application of the Ancient 
Oriental Teaching to the biblical literature was bound to en- 
counter insurmountable difficulties. He therefore, for the present, 
left the Bible alone and confined himself to the exposition of the 
Babylonian religious system. 

Another difficulty is to be found in the idea of a pre-estab- 
lished harmony between a celestial and a terrestrial image. It is 
admitted that in practice it is things terrestrial which are reflected 
in the heavens, but in theory it is the other way : the type is in 
the heavens. Then, how can the Pan-Babylonians assert that 
the whole organization of the Babylonian state was based upon 
an astronomical system? The political organization of the 
Babylonians must have been complete in all details before the 
astronomical system was developed, since the celestial world was 
a mirror of Babylonia. 

But whatever objections we may have to some details, 
there is no justification for condemning the Babylonian theory 
altogether. Even if it is in many essential points open to 
criticism, the value of this work is not impaired thereby. It will 
always remain an exceedingly useful book of reference for the 
interpretation of religious texts. It contains a vast amount of 
learning, and is highly suggestive on every page. 


Babylonian Liturgies. Sumerian Texts from the early period and 
from the Library of Ashurbanipal. For the most part trans- 
literated and translated, with introduction and index, by 
Stephen Langdon, Shillito Reader of Assyriology, Oxford. 
With 75 plates. Paris: Lifrairie Paul Geuthner, 1913. 

pp. LII+I5I. 

There is no need to dwell upon the importance of Babylonian 
iturgies for the history of the Babylonian religion. Where else 
can we expect to find the religious conceptions of the Babylonians 
more clearly expressed than in their prayer books? Of more 
general interest is the bearing they have upon biblical research. 
It is hardly to be doubted that a close relationship exists between 
the Hebrew Psalms and the Babylonian liturgies, though this 
semblance is limited to the poetical form of both, and not to 
their contents ; for the world of religious thought and feeling in 
Israel is incomparably deeper than that of Babylon. Now bearing 
in mind the high antiquity of the Babylonian liturgies, as most 
of them date from a remote period, the late dates generally 
assigned to the Hebrew Psalms are unwarranted. An early 
Babylonian influence upon the Hebrew religious conceptions 
cannot be denied. Hence, it would have been strange, if the 
Hebrews in a very early period of their history had not possessed 
liturgies similar to those of the Babylonians. Moreover, we may 
reasonably assume that the earliest literature of a primitive 
people consists of liturgies which were chanted during the 
sacrifices, in the honour of the deity. Those of the Hebrews 
may have undergone certain modifications to fit in with the 
conditions and the religious conceptions of the people. But on 
the whole, they may date back to a very early period. These 
problems can be solved only by a close comparison of the 
Babylonian liturgies with the Hebrew Psalms. In recent years, 
the material of this branch of literature at our disposal has been 
greatly increased by the publications of Zimmern, Thureau- 
Dangin, Scheil, and Radau. We now possess liturgies even from 
the time of the classical Sumerian period. 

The name of the author of the present volume needs no 


introduction to the scholarly world, and his works no recommen- 
dation. He is well known both as Assyriologist and expert in 
Sumerology of high repute, by his works, Sumerian and Babylonian 
Psalms (Paris, 1909), A Sumerian Grammar (Paris, 191 1), and 
numerous other valuable contributions to Assyriology. The texts 
published in this volume consist of 209 numbers. They are for 
the most part small fragments of Sumerian liturgies copied for 
the Library of Ashurbanipal. None of the originals in their 
final form antedate the Cassite period. Not a few are duplicates 
of texts published before. There are several the contents of 
which are doubtful. The value of many would be insignificant 
but for the notes of the author, in which he shows that they 
are lost portions of already published liturgies. The introduction 
is a highly meritorious piece of work. It gives a preliminary 
history of Babylonian public worship. From the technical name 
for the psalmist in the pre-Sargonic period, the author infers 
that liturgical services originated among the Sumerians. He 
describes at length the names and the offices of the various 
kinds of psalmists and musicians who officiated at the services, 
the musical instruments used thereby, the technical liturgical 
terms, the character of the liturgies, the origin of longer litanies, 
the strophical arrangement and the metrical measures. We learn 
that the guilds of the psalmists became in a later age a kind of 
college which studied and edited the official liturgical literature. 
Interesting is the description of the ritual by which a bull, the 
symbol of the lyre, was consecrated to preside over this college, 
and a tambourine was dedicated. The texts containing the 
incantations used in these rituals are transliterated and translated. 
The index is a useful contribution to the history of Babylonian 
culture and religion. We should call it a glossary. It gives the 
names of the deities, temples, and their titles. The latter are 
for the most part translated. It contains a great many longer 
notes, in which the subjects under consideration are discussed. 

The author also gives a transliteration and translation ot 
a text published by Hugo Radau, BE., XXIX, Nos. 2-3, which 
are variants. No. 2 is the original and came from the ancient 


Sumerian Library of Nippur, while No. 3 is a neo-Babylonian 
copy with an interlinear Semitic translation, published by 
Georg Reisner, Sumerisch-Babylonische Hymnen, No. 71. 
Radau, who discovered the variant text of Reisner, has trans- 
literated and translated both the original and its variant in his 
work cited above, pp. 63-74. Now it may interest some readers 
to know that in some portions of the text, where the Semitic 
translation is missing, there is not the least resemblance between 
the translations of Radau and of our author. Both are recognized 
as authorities on Sumerology, and yet one or both of them must 
be wide of the mark. Let us compare the following passages : 

Radau. Langdon. 

(2) When ravaging enemies (2) Cool waters causing 
as if with darkness the land abundance, which as the 
with desolation (destruction) morning light are brought into 
had filled. a barren land. 

(3) When the gods of the (3) Which the gods of the 
country into captivity they had land caused to flow. 


(8) A haven of safety no- (8) The cities mourn (?) 

body finds. and men plant no more. 

(10) The rivulets (canals) (10) The little canals where 

make precious (to rise), the men perform hand-washings, 

innocent into the dust, oh do give life to the soil no more, 
not cast ! 

The present writer, however, believes that our author's trans- 
lation is more probable. These translations are characteristic 
of the present state of Sumerology, and teach us to receive with 
scepticism sensational announcements of newly discovered creation 
and deluge stories, written in Sumerian, which are claimed to be 
more in agreement with the biblical versions than the Semitic 
Babylonian stories. The translations are liable to be wrong 
altogether, if there are no Semitic translations to control the 
Sumerian text. 


Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkm&ler der Koniglichen Museen zu 
Berlin. Herausgegeben von der Vorderasiatischen Abteilung. 
Heft II u. X. Sumerische Kultlieder aits altbabylonischer 
Zeit. Von Heinrich Zimmern. Erste Reihe. Mit 8 Licht- 
drucktafeln. Zweite Reihe. Mit 2 Lichtdrucktafeln. Leipzig : 


!9i3- PP- 56. 

The texts published in the present volumes consist of hymns 
to various deities, prayers, incantations, &c. They are written 
in Sumerian and belong to an old Babylonian period. Texts of 
this kind are of high importance for our knowledge of the 
Babylonian religion, in demonstrating that the bilingual hymns 
and incantations of the Library of Ashurbanipal, of the neo- 
Babylonian and the Persian-Greek periods are not products of 
a late age, but present, as far as the Sumerian part is concerned, 
exact copies of the ancient Sumerian texts, with the exception of 
some slight deviations, a few additions and transformations. The 
texts of the Berlin Museum came from North Babylonia, Babylon, 
and Sippar, and are not of the same age as those excavated in 
South Babylonia, at Nippur and Telloh. The latter may claim 
a higher antiquity; their lowest date may be under the dynasty of 
Isin ; while the former belong to the time of Hammurabi or of his 
immediate predecessor or successor. 

The 216 numbers of religious texts contained in the present 
volumes are, as far as their external form is concerned, not of the 
same quality. There are tablets with several columns and large 
dimensions which, even in the choice and shaping of the clay, 
and especially in the script, frequently very minute, impress one 
that great care was bestowed upon their execution. They fre- 
quently contain a whole series of hymns, and were evidently 
manufactured for the temple libraries, where they were preserved 
as norms for later ages. But there are others of small size, with 
one column, of inferior and not carefully prepared clay and 
coarse large script. These latter evidently were of ephemeral 
character, being either school copies or votive offerings to 
some gods. 


A great help to the study of these texts is the catalogue of 
the editor, Professor Zimmem. It describes the form of each 
tablet, gives the beginning of each hymn, in order to know to 
what series it belongs, and informs us of the parallels and 
duplicates in other publications. For the present, the parallels 
to the bilingual texts are of special interest. The contents of the 
other texts will hardly be an object of study to the great majority 
of the Assyriologists who are not experts in Sumerology. The 
editor, however, announces in the introduction his intention to 
publish in a number of the Leipziger Semitistische Studien a 
complete transliteration, with numerous restorations from parallels 
and duplicates, and, as far as possible, a translation of these texts. 
We hope that this work will soon make its appearance. 

Grandzuge der Sumerischen Grammatik. Von Friedrich De- 
litzsch. Leipzig : J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 
1914. pp. 158. 
Kleine Sumerische Sprachlehre filr Nichtassyriologen. Grammatik, 
Vokabular,Textproben. Von Friedrich Delitzsch. Leipzig: 
J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1914. pp. 142. 
The influence of Sumerian in Babylonian-Assyrian culture 
has been in recent years almost universally recognized. Some 
knowledge of this language is indispensable to a thorough under- 
standing of Babylonian grammar as well as of Babylonian 
religion, law, and literature. Students of Assyriology have 
been for a long time looking forward to a reliable guide leading 
them into the bewildering labyrinth of this singular language. 
Though its structure is now established upon a scientific basis, a 
succinct grammar which should put the results within easy reach 
of the students was still wanting. Stephen Langdon's work, pub- 
lished a few years ago {A Sumerian Grammar and Chrestomathy, 
Paris, 191 1), is too technical to serve as a book of reference. 
Nevertheless, it will be of inestimable service to one who is 
desirous of making himself acquainted with all the problems 
of Sumerology, and has patience enough to study this book 


In works of Friedrich Delitzsch, who, by his grammatical 
and lexicographical works, did more than any other scholar for 
the spread of Assyriology, we expect to find both utility and 
soundness. In respect to the former point, the present works 
fully come up to our expectations. Concerning the latter, there 
are still many points which partly cannot be regarded as final, and 
partly remain unsolved problems. However, the fault does not 
lie with the author, but with the present state of Sumerology, 
which has not yet quite outgrown its infancy. The author 
frankly admits that there still remains plenty of room for im- 
provement and correction, and indicated it by the title of the 
first volume, Fundamental Features of Sumerian Grammar. 
Seeing, however, that the second volume, though primarily 
intended for the general linguist, clearly and briefly outlines 
the grammatical rules, it is to be regretted that the first volume 
which is intended for Assyriologists is not more extensive. From 
what we read we gain the impression that the author on many 
points has a great deal to say, and restricted himself to a mere 
hint for the sake of brevity. However, for this drawback the 
author is not to blame either. From the preface to the second 
volume we learn that the publication of this work was an 

In the first volume the grammar is preceded by a list of 
sources of the Sumerian literature from which the examples 
quoted are taken. This list itself is a useful help to the study 
of Sumerian. Many a student will feel indebted to the author 
for informing him where to look for Sumerian, bilingual, and 
eme-sal texts. The introduction discusses the bilingual in- 
scriptions. The views expressed are well known and generally 
admitted. Owing to the difference in the mode of speech 
between the Sumerians and the Semites, the Semitic translations 
are not always reliable. From the many mistakes we learn that, 
as a rule, the Semitic priests did not possess a thorough know- 
ledge of the Sumerian language. Even the Sumerian-Akkadian 
vocabularies should not be implicitly relied upon, as they contain 
a great many Semiticisms. 


A special feature of this grammar is the sharp distinction 
drawn between the eme-ku and erne-sal forms. This distinction 
would be necessary, if the author did share the current opinion 
that erne-sal represents decayed Sumerian forms. But he rightly 
contends that erne-sal is just as ancient as the so-called classical 
forms of eme-ku. The bewildering number of the personal pre- 
fixes are classified and illustrated by many examples, [without 
suggesting any explanation for this singular phenomenon. The 
solution of this puzzle remains an important task for future 
research. The contention that mu, ma, as prefixes for the first 
person singular, are identical with the pronouns ma, mu for the 
first person singular, is unconvincing, since the same prefixes are 
used for the third person as well. We would rather see in all 
the prefixes erne, ema, mu, ma, mi, mun, man, mil), im, um, am 
derivations from the root me ' to be '. The nasal pronunciation 
of m may have brought forth the prefixes ne, ni, in, an, nen, neb. 
On the other hand, an interchange of the labials m and b may have 
developed the prefixes ba, bi, ban, bab, ib, ab, ub. The prefix al 
may have been caused by an interchange of the liquids. However, 
the existence of special prefixes nen, neb, ban, bab, mun, man, mib 
is not beyond doubt. The final n and b in these forms may stand 
for the infixes ni and bi, indicating the object, which in Semitic 
often remain untranslated. 

The second volume is a model grammar. The contents and 
the arrangement are on the whole the same as in the former. 
The results are presented in a lucid and brief way, without being 
encumbered by discussions which require a knowledge of cunei- 
form. Each paragraph is illustrated by a few examples, with 
omission of the sources. The few selections from Sumerian 
literature have an interlinear literal translation, with notes re- 
ferring to the paragraphs under consideration. It also contains 
a glossary. 

The author's assertion, in the preface to the first volume, that 
the results presented in his grammar are based upon his own 
investigations, without having been influenced by opinions of 
other scholars, strikes one as singular. We do not doubt his 


assertion, though we cannot understand how he knows of the 
achievements of Thureau-Dangin, to whom, as pioneer of 
Sumerological research, the present first volume is dedicated. As 
a matter of fact, there is not the least reference to any scholar in 
the whole book. Langdon's grammar is of course ignored. It is 
a new departure in scientific research. It was customary to credit 
scholars with the results of their studies, even if the author 
subsequently arrived at the identical results. 

Die Namen der Korperteile im Assyrisch^Babylonischen. Eine 
lexikalisch-etymologische Studie. Von Harri Holma. 
Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 191 1. pp. xix+183. 

The present volume is one of the most valuable contributions 
to Semitic philology made in the last decade. Its author, a 
Helsingfors scholar, investigates the names of the parts of the 
body in the Babylonian-Assyrian literature. He compares them 
with those in all other Semitic languages and frequently also 
with those in Egyptian, Coptic, and other idioms. The literature 
in which these names occur, their ideograms and the various 
views concerning their meanings, are thoroughly discussed. The 
introduction is highly suggestive. The bibliography and the 
indices are useful. A special feature of this work is a German- 
Assyrian glossary. Thus it is in every respect a splendid lexical- 
etymological study, and it will take an honourable place among 
the prominent works on comparative philology. 

However, this subject is not only of importance philologically. 
It is also in other respects of great interest. In the first place, it 
touches a problem of ethnology. We find that the names of the 
head, eye, nose, mouth, lip, ear, heart, &c, are in all Semitic 
languages identical. Therefore, it is evident that these names 
date from a prehistoric time when the Semites still formed 
a united ethnological group. Seeing that many of them are 
identical with those of Egypt, we may conclude that they had 
already existed when the Egyptians separated themselves from 
the common home of the Semites and Hamites, and migrated to 
the West. 


It further involves a problem of anthropology, the acquisition 
of speech by primitive man. In his first reflections on his 
relation to nature, his own body was the nearest field of experi- 
ment. The functions of the members of his own body were the 
first actions which attracted his attention. They must have been 
known to him in the earliest state of his development. Hence, 
in Semitic, as in all other languages, they represent the oldest 
stock of human speech. The oldest linear measures are designated 
by all nations by members of the human body. Seeing in all 
things of nature reflections of his own being, primitive man 
designated inanimate objects by the names of parts of his own 
body, as, for instance, pi abulli ' the mouth of the gate ', risk nari 
' the head of the river ', lishan girri ' the tongue of the fire ', appu 
isi 'the nose of the tree', &c. Similar traces of anthropomorphisms 
are found in all languages. The primitive origin of these names is 
best seen in a great number of prepositions which originally were 
names of the parts of human body, in construct state, as muh 
' upon ' (crown of the head), kirib ' in ' (the intestines), &c, &c. 
It is a peculiarity of the Semites to express abstract ideas by 
concrete things. 

From an anthropological point of view it is interesting to 
notice that the Semites did not distinguish between the upper 
and lower, front and back extremities. They did not coin 
special names for the fingers and the toes. The same is true 
of other languages. They date from a time when man did not 
distinguish between biped and quadruped beings. The dis- 
tinction between the names of the members of the human body 
and those of animals belongs, as was recognized long ago, to 
a later period. 

Prom the names of the various parts of the body we may 
infer that the Babylonians, previously to the time of the cunei- 
form records, that is, in a prehistoric age, had a relatively good 
knowledge of anatomy. The same must be true of the other 
Semites. It will explain the fact, in the opinion of the present 
writer, that the Rabbis possessed an exact knowledge of animal 
anatomy, as especially seen in the Tractate Hulin. This problem 


naturally involves the question concerning the age of Babylonian 

Seeing that the names of the parts of the body had their origin 
in a primitive age, we find an explanation for the singular fact that 
many of them, which must have attracted the first attention of 
primitive man, are biliteral, as pit ' mouth ', idu ' hand ', damu 
'blood', &c. They belong to a time when the Semitic tri- 
radicalism had not yet been developed. It is also noteworthy that 
none of the primitive names are formed with prefixes. The suffix 
ami in lishanu ' tongue ', and girdnu ' throat ', &c, was added in 
a later age. 

Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan, 
Parts I, II. 

Babylonian Business Transactions of the first millennium B.C. 
By Albert T. Clay, Ph.D., William M. Laffan Professor 
of Assyriology and Babylonian Literature, Yale University. 
New York, mcmxii. pp. 49, plates of autographed texts 50, 
heliotype reproductions IV. 

Legal Documents from Erech, dated in the Seleucid Era (312-65 
B.C.), by Albert T. Clay, Ph.D., LL.D., William M. Laffan 
Professor of Assyriology and Babylonian Literature, Yale 
University. New York, mcmxiii. pp. 89, plates of autograph 
reproductions 50, heliotype reproductions VII. 

Professor Clay, who for many years has been engaged in 
augmenting the material of cuneiform inscriptions at our disposal 
by publishing several highly valuable volumes of business and 
legal documents from the Cassite and neo-Babylonian periods in 
the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, has again placed 
scholars under obligation by making accessible a large number of 
Babylonian records of the Morgan Library Collection. The 
documents published in the present volumes cover a period of 
six hundred years (743-139), at least, with the exception of the 
first two numbers in the first volume which the author for 
VOL. V. U u 


palaeographic considerations rightly assigns to Nabuchadnezzar I 
(about 1150 b.c). The following two numbers are dated in the 
tenth and thirteenth year of Nabu-shum-ishkun. Historians 
generally assign to this king, the predecessor of Nabu-nasir, 
a reign of six years (753-748). The author, therefore, contends 
that the number of years which this king reigned must be 
increased at least to thirteen. This date is now indeed given 
by Johns {Ancient Babylonia, 1913, p. 114). Seeing, however, 
that palaeographically these texts may just as well belong to the 
tenth century, as there is no great difference between them and 
those of Nabuchadnezzar I, it is possible to assign them to the 
reign of Nabu-shum-ishkun I, who was a contemporary of the 
Assyrian kings Adad-nirari III and Tukulti-Ninib II (911-885). 

The first volume consists of an introduction, an index of 
proper names, a catalogue, and 102 documents. The latter are 
for the most part personal contracts : land titles, rental of houses, 
sales of slaves, promissory notes, mortgages, assignments of 
obligations and agreements on oath to perform certain duties. 
The first 28, as well as other texts, belong to the class known as 
'Temple Administrative Archives'. These contain principally 
payments to individuals in the Temple service, or are receipts for 
expenditures made in the interests of the Temple. 

From the names of the places which are mentioned in the 
documents we learn their provenance. Twenty came from Baby- 
lon, twelve from Borsippa, ten from Dilbat, three from Sippar, 
two from Nippur, one from Cutha, and one from Erech. Several 
others came from less known localities. Nos. 2-28 do not 
contain any reference to the place where they were written. But 
they are said to have been found at Senkereh, the ancient Larsa, 
in South Babylonia. 

The chief value of the texts from the early period is of a 
palaeographic character, because they are the first published 
documents of the age they represent. The oldest Babylonian 
document from this period, hitherto known, dates from the reign 
of Shalmaneser V. They are valuable also on account of the 
foreign names contained in them, many of which are West 


Semitic. We notice that in No. 26, 7, the name Shamash-la-sha-da- 
is to be read Shamash-ia-da- '. The other West Semitic name 
Man-nu-ia-da- (ibid., 8, 14) is omitted in the index. 

The author is evidently right in identifying Nabu-mukin-zer, 
of No. 22, with the name of the king Ukin-zer, in the Babylonian 
King List A. This identification has already been made by 
Rogers {Cuneiform Parallels, Chronological Table). But Rogers 
does not seem to have known of this text, as it is dated in the 
fourth year of this king's reign, and he nevertheless, in accordance 
with the King List, assigns to Nabu-mukin-zer a reign of three 
years. Johns (I.e., p. 114) does not accept this identification, 
and thinks it probable that this king was the predecessor of 
Nabu-shum-ishkun II, a suggestion which the author also con- 
siders possible, though hardly probable. 

Nos. 23-8 are dated by the years of the king's reign 
without containing the king's name. Are there palaeographic 
considerations which determined the author to place them after 
Nabu-mukin-zer? The date of No. 23 seems remarkable. It 
contains after shattu 4 (kam) sha sharri, mu (hardly zir) nu 
tuk u. Is it to be read shuma la ishu(u), and does it mean ' in 
the fourth year of the king who has no name'? The author 
assigns, with a question-mark, No. 87 to Darius II, the successor 
of Artaxerxes I. But it is quite impossible, as this tablet is dated 
in the twenty-ninth year of Darius (cf. line 4) and Darius II 
reigned only twenty-one years (424-404). Besides, the title 
' king of Babylon ' was never borne by Xerxes' successors. 

The author calls special attention to No. 98, which is dated 
at Erech, 190 b.c. It contains no less than fifteen names 
compounded with Anu, indicating that the worship of this deity 
seems to have predominated in this city to the very latest period. 
This phenomenon, however, is not altogether surprising, as we 
already know of a contract of the reign of Seleucus II, dated at 
Erech, which contains sixteen names compounded with Anu (see 
K.B., IV, p. 3i3ff.), and since it was customary in that period to 
name the child after his grandfather, the same names were bound 
to reappear again and again. What we find more remarkable is 

u u a 


the fact that the name of Anu is, without exception, written with 
the sign for the number sixty. This writing is never found in 
historical and religious inscriptions, and occurs only twice in 
proper names, in the reign of Cyrus, dated at Erech (see ibid., 
p. 268), and in that of Darius (see Tallqvist (Babyl. NamenbucK). 
The representation of Anu by the number sixty designates him as 
the highest God. The documents of the second volume contain 
sixty-nine names compounded with Anu, borne, by more than seven 
hundred persons, and in all of them Anu is invariably written with 
the same sign. This large number can hardly find its explanation 
in the fact that Anu was the chief god of this city. We do not 
proportionally find so many names compounded with Shamash 
in Sippar or with Marduk in Babylon. Only the future can tell 
whether Anu was so conspicuous in proper names in the pre- 
Seleucid periods. If it should be found that it was not the case, 
we would be compelled to assume that the worship of Anu came 
into prominence in the Seleucid era. The highest Babylonian 
god Anu was in all probability, as we shall farther see, identified 
with the highest Greek god Zeus, whose cult may have pre- 
dominated under the Seleucids. The remarkable fact that we 
do not find the well-known temple E-an-na in these texts, but 
instead we meet with the names Esh-gal and Blt-rlsh ' the temple 
of the chief ' (?), indicates a certain change or reform in the 
religious institutions of Erech. 

The second volume contains an introduction, indices of proper 
names, a catalogue, and fifty-six contracts with nine transliterations 
and translations of selected texts. The documents, with only a few 
exceptions, are identified with the Temple or Temple property and 
income. The stipulation that it is Temple property, in the assign- 
ments of rights and transfers, indicates that the documents belonged 
to the Temple archives. Nineteen of these documents refer to the 
assignments of rights to receive the offerings made to temples or 
shrines at Erech. The fact that these documents belonged to the 
Temple archives explains, in the writer's opinion, the complete 
absence of Hebrew names, though there undoubtedly existed 
a great Jewish community in Erech, as in all Babylonian cities. 


The pious Babylonian Jews had of course not the least connexion 
with the temples. 

The Greek names in these documents are philologically and 
historically of high importance. They seemingly show that there 
were a number of Greeks at Erech. In a few instances, however, 
we find that these 'Greeks' were of Babylonian extraction; for 
example, An-H-'-i-ku-su (Antiochus) was grandson of Anu-balat- 
su-ikbi; Di-i-pa-ni- (Diophanes) was grandson of Kidin-Anu; 
Ni-ik-ar-qu-su (Nikarchos) was son of Ahlutu, Sec. In a few 
cases we find that Babylonians assumed a second Greek name. 
If we may judge from a few instances, it seems that the assumed 
Greek names were not taken at random, but corresponded more 
or less to their Babylonian names. A personal name compounded 
with the name of a deity indicates that its bearer was under the 
special protection of the same deity and its servant. The bearer 
of the name Nana-iddin ' Nana has given ' was, as it were, the 
property of this goddess, to whom he owed his existence. Nana-. 
Ishtar, the goddess of fertility and vegetation, was no doubt 
identified with Demeter, the Greek goddess of fertility and 
vegetation. We indeed find that the bearer of the name 
Nana-iddin assumed a Greek name Di-me-H-ri-ia (Demetrios) 
'belonging to Demeter'. It is hardly a coincidence that a 
certain Anu-uballit, the bearer of a name compounded with 
Anu, assumed a Greek name Di-i-pa-tu-su compounded with 
Dios. It seems to indicate that Anu was identified with Zeus. 
The title reshu 'the chief par excellence may have become an 
equivalent of Anu, the chief of the gods. The temple Blt-resh 
may mean, as suggested, 'the temple of the chief. There 
indeed occurs the name Ardi-resh 'servant of the chief, as 
variant of Ardi-Bit-resh. Hence, the bearer of the name Anu- 
balat-su-ikbi 'Anu has commanded that he should live', may 
have assumed the Greek name Ki-ip-lu-u (Kephalaios) ' belonging 
to the chief. The name Di-'-du-ur-e-su (Diodoros) may be 
a translation of Kishti-Anu or Nidinti-Anu 'gift of Anu', 
Di-'-pa-ni- (Diophanes), of Niir-Anu 'light of Anu', Di-'-ki- 
te-e-su (Diokedes), of Kidin-Anu 'charge of Anu', &c. These 


suggestions, however, do not involve the question, whether the 
Babylonians were imbued with Greek culture. We must bear in 
mind that all the persons in these texts were connected with the 
temples. The fact that many of them had the right to enjoy 
portions of the Temple income seems to indicate that they belonged 
to priestly families. Therefore, some of them may have been well 
acquainted with Greek lore. 

Le JPrisme d'Assarhaddon, Roi d'Assyrie, 681-668. Par V. Scheil, 
Membre de l'Institut, Directeur d'£tudes a l'Ecole Pratique 
des Hautes Eludes. Paris : £douard Champion, 1914. 
pp. 56 and 7 plates of photographed texts. 

The great French scholar, Father Scheil, to whom Assyriology 
is so much indebted for his numerous publications of cuneiform 
texts and valuable contributions, again publishes in this booklet 
several new inscriptions which historically and philologically are 
of high interest. No. 1 contains an historical inscription of the 
king Esarhaddon, of whose reign many details have been hitherto 
unknown. The text of this inscription which is given in photo- 
graphed reproductions (plates 1-5), is transliterated, translated, 
and commented upon. In the first column, Esarhaddon tells us 
that he was co-regent of his father and, on the advice of Shamash 
and Adad, proclaimed heir to the throne. His father assembled 
the royal house and they took the oath of allegiance to him, but 
an evil spirit came upon them, and they revolted. In the second 
column, he informs us of the defeat of his rival, and of his care 
for the gods who assisted him in overcoming his foes. The third 
column deals with his campaign against Sidon and its confederates. 
Several towns in the environments of Sidon are mentioned here 
for the first time. In the fourth column we are told about the 
subjugation of the Arabs. Of special interest for the history of 
religion are the names of Arabian deities : ilu Da-a-a, ilu Nu-fca-a-a, 
ilu E-bi-ir-il-lu, iu A-tar-ku-ru-ma-a-a. The last two columns 
recapitulate various campaigns, tell about the king's relations 
with Elam and Gutium, and finish with the usual information 


about the restoration of the palace ; the inscription is in some 
parts fragmentary. 

There is another inscription which involves a problem of his- 
torical importance. It reads : * I am Ashur-e-til-ilani-mukin-apli, 
king of the kishshati, king of Assyria, son of Sennacherib, king 
of the kishshati, king of Assyria, son of Sargon, king of the 
kishshati, king of Assyria.' It tells about restorations of temples of 
Assyria and Babylonia. Seeing that the successor of Sennacherib 
was Esarhaddon, the question arises : Who was this Ashur-e- 
til-ilani-mukin-apli who claimed to be son and successor of 
Sennacherib ? The author is inclined to identify him with Esar- 
haddon. Hugo Winckler (Altorient. Forsch., II, pp. 53-9; 
183-6) has already identified Ashur-e-til-ilani-ukin(-in)-ni (III R, 
16, 2. 9) and Ashur-e-til-mukin-apli {ibid., 16, 8) with the latter. 
But it is hard to believe in this identification. We would have 
to assume with Winckler that the original name of this king was 
Ashur-ah-iddina, who according to the will of his father was to be 
named when he became king Ashur-etil-mukin-apli, that, as a 
matter of fact, on his accession he assumed the name Ashur- 
etil-ilani-mukin-apli ; in official documents, however, he was 
called Ashur-etil-ilani-ukin-ni, and as soon as he was firmly 
established on his throne he assumed his original name 
Ashur-ah-iddina. Winckler's contention that Esarhaddon as 
Ashur-e-til-ilani-ukin-ni did not bear the title 'king of the kish- 
shati', as this title was a special designation of the rulers of 
Harran which at that time was in possession of his brother, the 
rival king, would be disproved by our inscription, in which he 
is named 'king of the kishshati'. Its contents show also that 
it was not written at the time of this king's accession, as it 
enumerates restorations of temples in Assyria and Babylonia. 
May we assume that Ashur-e-til-ilani-mukin-apli was the name of 
a brother of Esarhaddon who maintained himself as rival king for 
a considerable time ? 

Another interesting inscription is a prism of Sin-shar-ish-kun, 
the last king of Assyria, of whom hitherto very little was known. 
It deals with the building of a temple for Nabu and his consort 


Tashmetu. The text is given in autography with transliteration 
and translation. 

Urkunden des altbabylonischen Zivil- und Prozessrechts. Bearbeitet 
von M. Schorr. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek.) Leipzig: 


The substantial contents of the present work correspond 
to its voluminous appearance. The author has made a special 
study of old Babylonian legal documents and published valuable 
contributions to this branch of literature, and, therefore, may be 
looked upon as authority on this subject. The present volume 
deals with a selection from the old Babylonian legal documents 
of the period of the Hammurabi dynasty, consisting of various 
categories. Each category is treated separately, and has a general 
introduction in which the whole material is surveyed. The 
transliterations and translations of the documents are frequently 
accompanied by brief notes which deal with linguistic and 
antiquarian matters. Each document is headed by a note con- 
taining information about its provenance, first editor and its 
contents. The documents are divided into three main sections : 
family laws, such as marriage and divorce, laws of obligations, 
such as loans, and lawsuits. Each main section is again divided 
into subdivisions. The conclusions drawn from the various 
documents are given and thoroughly discussed in the subdivisions. 

It is quite natural that the norms laid down in the Code 
of Hammurabi should form the key to the interpretation of these 
documents. The vast number of Babylonian contracts would 
be incomprehensible, if there had not been already in the most 
remote period a general law, that the validity of every transaction 
rests upon a written document attested by witnesses. But it 
is due to the character of a legal code that it does not regulate 
all practical questions of legal procedure and commercial inter- 
course. These regulations can be gleaned only from the legal 
documents. The relation of the latter to the Babylonian Code 
is somewhat similar to that of the Talmud to the biblical laws. 


A comparison between the Code and the documents also shows 
a contrast between theory and practice. We see that the codifi- 
cation of the laws by Hammurabi was influenced by the older 
legal procedure, and that, owing to social changes, the laws have 
undergone modifications in a later period. These problems are 
discussed in the introductions to the divisions. Each of them 
is headed by a reference to a section of the Code the regulations 
of which are put into practice in the transactions. 

Of immense value is the general introduction to this work. 
It describes at length, under several headings, the literature of 
old Babylonian jurisprudence, the various names by which the 
documents are designated in the cuneiform inscriptions, their 
form and depositories, script and language, their schematic 
character, the oath formulae in the documents, the witnesses, 
the seals and the dates. A useful addition to this work are the 
Babylonian and Sumerian glossaries and all the dates of the 
Hammurabi period. It is a work of high merit in every respect 
and will prove exceedingly useful to students who are interested 
in the Babylonian legal literature. 

Das Priester- und Beamtentum der altbabylonischen Kontrakte. 
Mit einer Zusammenstellung samtlicher Kontrakte der I. 
Dynastie von Babylon in Regestenform. Ein Beitrag zur 
altbabylonischen Kulturgeschichte von Dr. phil. et theol. 
Ernest Lindl, ao. Professor an der Universitat Miinchen. 
{Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums. Zweiter 
Erganzungsband.) Paderborn : Ferdinand Schoningh, 
!9i3- PP- 5*4- 

If the main contents of this work had not been an afterthought, 
the author would have reversed its titles and called it : A Classifi- 
cation of all legal documents of the time of the First Babylonian 
dynasty with a special reference to the priesthood and officialdom. 
It is exactly what this book does. The classification takes up 
about four hundred pages, while that of the priesthood and 
officialdom is dealt with on about eighty pages. The latter are 


of course of no small importance for Babylonian history and 
religion. Seeing, however, that these names have already been 
mentioned in the former classification, an index might have served 
the same purpose. 

This work is on the whole and in details a valuable contribu- 
tion to Assyriological studies. It puts the entire material of the 
Old Babylonian contracts of the Hammurabi period, extant at 
present, at the student's disposal. It will be a useful help to 
those who are not thoroughly acquainted with the various kinds 
of Old Babylonian cursive writing. 

It briefly presents the contents of each document, the names 
of the contracting parties and of the witnesses, the deities in 
the oath formulae, the place of the transaction and the dates. 
The arrangement was intended to be chronological. But after 
a small part had been printed, new publications made their 
appearance, and the author deemed it advisable for the sake of 
completeness to make addenda. The same happened several 
times. By this interruption of the chronological order, for which 
the author is not responsible, the survey of the material is some- 
what laborious. In undated documents, the author always refers 
to other documents which are dated, where the identical names 
occur, and we thus learn to what period the former belong. 
Especially useful are the many transliterations and translations 
of technical legal terms. 

Interesting is the historical Appendix (chapter VI), in which 
the author investigates the thirty years Isin era of Rim-Sin or 
Eri-Aku, the contemporary of Hammurabi. Among others, the 
author contends that Warad-Sin and Rim-sin are identical, and 
not brothers, as generally believed. As king of the Sumerian 
city Larsa, his name was written ideographically Warad-Sin, while 
after the conquest of the Semitic city Isin, his name was written 
syllabically Ri-im-Sin or Ri-im-Aku. 

Zur Gotterlehre in den altbabylonischen Konigsinschriften. Mit 
einem ausfiihrlichen Register der auf die Gotterlehre beziig- 
lichen Stellen. Von Dr. P. Tharsicius Paffrath, O.F.M., 


Lector der Theologie. (Sfudien zur Geschichte und Kultur 
des Altertums. Sechster Band, 5. und 6. Heft.) Paderborn : 
Ferdinand SchOningh, 1913. pp. 226 and 8 illustrations. 

A work of this kind has been a desideratum for a long time. 
It may be designated as a prolegomena to a history of the 
Babylonian religion, though not in the full sense of the term, 
as the material upon which this investigation rests is not 
complete. The post-Hammurabi literature ought to have been 
consulted as well. New discoveries of earlier Babylonian 
documents may of course lead to different conclusions. But 
in the present state of the science, it tells us everything we want 
to know about the position, attributes, and mutual relations 
of the various deities from the earliest Babylonian times down 
to the Hammurabi dynasty. It thus presents a vivid picture of 
the development and formation of the Babylonian pantheon. 

Of special interest is the chapter which investigates the 
positions of Anu and Enlil in ancient Babylonia. The former, 
the highest god of the Babylonians, does not occur in historical 
inscriptions of Lagash previous to the time of Urukagina. From 
this fact, the author concludes that the introduction of Anu's cult 
was due to a political change, the conquest of Lagash by 
Lugalzaggisi who was king of Erech, the centre of Anu's cult, 
in South Babylonia. If the author is right, we have also here, 
as in the case of Marduk, an example how religious conceptions 
are influenced by political changes. The fact, that the elevation 
of Anu remained, theoretically at least, permanent in Lagash and 
throughout Babylonia, would indicate that the rule of Erech lasted 
for a considerable period. According to these conclusions, Radau 
(Sumerian Hymns and Prayers to God Ninib, Introduction) is 
evidently wrong in regarding the age of Anu as prehistoric. 

Of interest is also the author's conclusion, that in ancient 
Babylonia the prevailing tendency was multiplication and not 
reduction of the deities. Then, the question whether there were 
monotheistic tendencies in the Babylonian religion, will have to 
be answered in the negative. However, we must remember that 
the tendency to the multiplication of gods was the result of 
political conditions. Ancient Babylonia consisted of many 


independent localities. Each of them was anxious to be on 
good terms with all the personified powers of nature. Therefore, 
each town erected temples and shrines to these deities and 
worshipped them under different names. As soon as the country 
was united, it was natural that the process of multiplication should 
give way to that of reduction. In a united Babylonia, each 
phenomenon of nature ought to have been represented by a 
single deity. Hence, triplets or duplicates logically had not the 
least right of existence. Theoretically there may have been, 
in a later age, a tendency to the reduction of gods ; practically, 
however, it was checked by the priests of the superfluous deities. 

Les Lettres de Hammurapi a Sin-idinnam. Transcription, Tra- 
duction et Commentaire. Par F. Charles Jean, Professeur 
de Sciences Bibliques. Pre'ce'ddes d'une jfitude sur deux carac- 
teres du style Assyro-Babylonien. Paris : Victor Lecoffre, 
1913. pp. 280. 

The letters of Hammurabi are historically of peculiar interest, 
as they present the great Babylonian legislator as administrator 
of his empire, and show the justification of his claim as being 
' king of righteousness '. He personally supervised and controlled 
all departments of his government. They also demonstrate the 
effective supervision which he exercised over the decisions of the 
courts in districts which were situated at some distance from the 
capital. From these letters which are addressed to a high official 
who was in all probability governor of Larsa, in South Babylonia, 
we may infer that Hammurabi stood in correspondence with all 
the governors of his empire, and was interested in the minutest 
affairs of all his subjects. 

The present volume contains fifty-five letters of Hammurabi 
in transliteration and translation arranged according to the 
subjects. These letters had already been published in 1898-1900 
by L. W. King, with transliterations and translations, in his book 
The Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, London. Seeing 
that King's book had been published before the Code of 
Hammurabi was discovered and before a great many documents 
of the Hammurabi period were edited, one naturally expects to 


find in a recent publication of the same subject some improve- 
ments on the previous edition, since the author declares : ' Notre 
traduction est faite directement sur le texte cun^iforme ' (p. 75). 
In comparing letter by letter the text with both transliterations 
and translations, the present writer was rather disappointed in 
this respect. He found that both are identical to the minutest 
details. The author, however, is not to blame for having accepted 
King's rendering of the contents after having convinced himself 
of its exactness by a comparison with the original. But we are 
surprised to find that the author everywhere accepted King's 
reading of proper names, which is in many points incorrect. One 
who deals with documents of the Hammurabi period ought to 
make a thorough study of proper names, and especially consult 
Ranke's work Early Babylonian Personal Names. The author 
reads with King : Ana-tni-ni-shu-e-mid, Mi-ni-Shamash, Mi-ni-Sin, 
Mi-ni-Mar-tu, without knowing that mi-ni in these names is to be 
read silli(-li) ; Ilu-ka-Sin, Ilu-ka-Shamash, E-nu-ka-Ishtar, instead 
of Jlu-bi-Sin, Jlu-bi-Shamash, E-til-bi-Ishtar, without being aware 
of the fact that KA in these names is an ideogram for/« ' mouth ' 
and frequently changes with bi Shum-ma-an-la-ilu, instead of 
Shttm-ma-ilu-la-ilu, A-ni-ellati for A-li-ellati, Ma-sha-tum for 
Ma-ta-lum, which is of course identical with Hebrew nriD 
' gift '. He even reads with King A-bu-um-wa-ga . . . , without 
knowing that the name A-bu-um-wa-kar often occurs in the 
Hammurabi period. That the author mistook Babylonian LI 
for the Roman numerals 51 (p. 130, 10) may be due to absent- 
mindedness. The misprints in the registration numbers make 
a comparison of the letters with the cuneiform text somewhat 

However, in spite of these inaccuracies, the book is not with- 
out merits. From numerous foot-notes containing well-known 
facts, we may infer that the book was written for non-Assyriologists, 
evidently for students of theology, who are interested only in the 
contents, not in the proper names. It contains also a useful 
description of the style of the cuneiform literature of both 
Babylonians and Assyrians. 


Le Code de HamouraM, et ses Ortgines. Apercu sommaire du 
Droit chaldden par Dominique Mirande, President de 
Chambre Honoraire a la Cour d'Appel de Paris. Paris : 
Ernest Leroux, 19 13. pp. 84. 

The present work consists of four discourses delivered with 
French esprit and vivacity. The first discourse, entitled 'The 
Prehistoric Chaldaea', discussed various theories concerning the 
geological periods, the origin of human race and other philo- 
sophical topics. The second contains reflections on the early 
history of Shumer and Akkad. The third is called 'A visit to 
the Museum of the Louvre', which gives a description of the 
Code of Hammurabi, of its being discovered at Susa, and how 
it was carried to this city in the twelfth century B.C. by the king 
of Elam, Shutruk-nahunte, illustrating it by examples from the 
ancient and modern history. The fourth discusses the Babylonian 
legal principles which are illustrated by extracts from the Code 
and other legal documents. 

The work is written for the general reader, though for this 
purpose it contains too much erudition. The venerable author 
is a former President of the Paris Court of Appeals, and has 
devoted, as he informs us, half a century to the study and 
application of French jurisprudence. The marvellous discoveries 
of recent years suggested to him this work, for the principal 
elements of which he is indebted to the lectures of the French 
scholars Flach and Fossey. Thus being an amateur, he is not 
to blame for some inaccuracies and obsolete views found in his 
work. He places Sargon of Akkad about twelve hundred or 
one thousand years after Manishtusu (pp. 2, 26, 34), while the 
latter actually was the successor of the former. Sin-idinnam, 
the governor under Hammurabi, is identified by the author with 
the king of Larsa of the same name. This identification was 
suggested eighteen years ago by Father Scheil {Revue Biblique, 
vol. V, p. 600 f.), but is now generally recognized as nigh 
impossible. The biblical name Amraphel is still explained as 
a Babylonian translation Ammu-rapaltu of the West Semitic 


name Hammurabi, an interpretation discarded long ago. His 
transliteration of Sumerian words is peculiar, as, for example, who 
would recognize in Kadanjuraki the Sumerian name Ka-dingir- 
ra-ki of Babylon, or in Sin-turki the other Sumerian name 
Tin-tir-ki of this city ? 

Le Palais de Darius I er . Simple notice par M. L. Pillet, 
Architecte dipldme par le Gouvernement. Paris : Paul 
Geuthnee, i 9 14. pp. 106, illustrations 32 and a map. 

One might be inclined to think that a book which describes 
the ruins of King Darius's palace should be of interest only to 
an architect, and has no connexion with Semitic studies. Yet 
there is a reason why a Semitist should also be interested in the 
architecture of this king's palace. The Book of Esther contains 
a description of some parts of the palace of the king Ahasuerus. 
This palace was utterly destroyed by Alexander the Great. If 
the author of this book did not live in the Persian period, as the 
modern critics generally contend, he could not have been 
acquainted with the structure of this palace. Thus the question 
whether this book is historical largely depends upon a com- 
parison of its description with the excavated ruins of this palace. 
Students who are not acquainted with the work of M. Dieulafoy, 
L'Acropole de Suse, Paris, 1890, will find in this work some useful 
information on the subject. However, the book is especially 
written for visitors to the Parisian Museums, as the author 
declares, to give them some information about the history of 
Susa, and not for students. The author also reviews the history 
of the excavations at Susa. The book is pleasant reading and 
instructive. Interesting are its beautiful illustrations, especially 
Nos. 22, 23, 26, in which the palace is presented in its former 

Dropsie College. Jacob Hoschander.