The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and BabyloniaPinches, Theophilus G. (Theophilus Goldridge)
Religion
The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia
Pinches, Theophilus G. (Theophilus Goldridge)
Bible. Old Testament -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.
Much has been written concerning this interesting chapter of the Bible.
The earlier critics were of opinion that it was impossible that the power
of the Elamites should have extended so far at such an early epoch. Later
on, when it was shown that the Elamites really had power—and that even
earlier than the time of Abraham—the objection of the critics was, that
none of the names mentioned in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis really
existed in the inscriptions. The history of Abraham was a romance, and the
names of the Eastern kings with whom he came into contact equally so. It
was true that there were Elamite names commencing with the element Kudur,
the Chedor of the sacred text, but Chedorlaomer did not occur, Amraphel
and Tidal were equally wanting, and that Arioch was the same as Eri-Aku or
Rim-Aku could not be proved.
The first step in solving the riddle was that made by Prof. Eberhard
Schrader, who suggested that Amraphel was none other than the well-known
Babylonian king Ḫammurabi. This, naturally, was a theory which did not
soon find acceptance—at least by all the Assyriologists. There were,
however, two things in its favour—this king ruled sufficiently near to the
time of Abraham, and he overcame a ruler named Rim-Sin or Rim-Aku,
identified by the late George Smith with the Arioch of the chapter we are
now considering. Concerning the latter ruler, Rim-Aku, there is still some
doubt, but the difficulties which attended the identification of Ḫammurabi
with Amraphel have now practically disappeared. The first step was the
discovery of the form Ammurabi in one of the numerous contracts drawn up
during his reign at Sippara, the city of the Sun-god. This form shows that
the guttural was not the hard guttural _kh_, but the softer _h_. Yet
another step nearer the Biblical form is that given by Ašaridu, who, in a
letter to “the great and noble Asnapper,” writes as follows—
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account