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.
In all probability there is one thing that will be considered as
noteworthy, and that is, that as far as our records go, there is no
reference whatever to any expedition to the West-land, and if that be due
simply to the imperfection of the records which have come down to us, all
that can be said is, that it is a noteworthy coincidence.(46) It must not
be supposed, however, that it in any wise invalidates the trustworthiness
of the narrative in the 14th chapter of Genesis—there is plenty of room in
the mutilated list (of which I have given such a translation as is
possible) for a date referring to this to have been recorded, though we
must keep in mind the possibility, that if the Babylonian king considered
that disaster had in any way overtaken his arms, he may not have recorded
it at all. Then there is the fact, that the expedition was undertaken in
conjunction with allies—Chedorlaomer, Tidal, and Arioch—for none of whom,
in all probability, Ḫammurabi had any sympathy. The Elamite was a
conqueror from a land over which the Babylonians of earlier ages had held
sway, and Arioch had dominion over a neighbouring tract, to which
Ḫammurabi himself laid claim, and over which, as the texts above
translated show, he afterwards ruled. Ḫammurabi, moreover, claimed also
the West-land—_mât Amurrī_, the land of Amurrū—as his hereditary
possession, and he found himself obliged to aid Chedorlaomer, Tidal, and
Arioch to subjugate it—indeed, it was Chedorlaomer whom the five kings had
acknowledged for twelve years as their overlord, and against whom, in the
thirteenth, they rebelled. It is, therefore, likely that Ḫammurabi
regarded himself as having been forced by circumstances to aid
Chedorlaomer to reconquer what really belonged to Babylonia, and the
probability that he would cause it to be used as one of the events to date
by, is on that account still less, even if the news of any success which
he might have considered himself entitled to reached his own domain in
time to be utilized for such a purpose.
It has been shown on p. 155 that Ammi-ṭitana, the third in succession from
Ḫammurabi, claimed the sovereignty of the land of Amurrū, and from an
inscription accompanying a portrait of Ḫammurabi discovered by Mr. Rassam,
we learn that he, too, claimed sovereignty over it. Sargon of Agadé held
sway over the tract centuries before, so that he probably reckoned that,
by right of inheritance, it was his. It would therefore be natural that he
should omit to mention as an event to be remembered, an expedition to a
country which ought never to have thrown off his dominion.
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