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.
Of course, one of the principal things confirming the identification of
Ḫammurabi with Amraphel would naturally be the occurrence of one or more
of the names recorded in Gen. xiv., in conjunction with his, or in such a
way that a connection could be established. This, naturally, is difficult,
principally on account of our having no continuous history of the period
to which these rulers belong. Nevertheless, a close examination of the
inscriptions suggests in what way confirmation of the events narrated with
reference to Amraphel and his allies might be sought.
Reference has already been made to Rîm-Sin, king of Yamutbālu (or
Emutbālu), who appears to have been defeated by Ḫammurabi in the
thirty-first regnal year. From this time the dominions of Rîm-Sin
evidently formed part of the Babylonian Empire, and were never again
separated from it as long as it existed.
Notwithstanding the early identification of Rîm-Sin with Eri-Sin or
Eri-Aku by the late George Smith, considerable doubt has been thrown on
the identity of these two names by the fact, that in inscriptions
containing the name of Kudur-mabuk, the father, the name of his son is
written with _Eri_ as the first element—not _Rîm_. This, it must be
admitted, is a considerable difficulty. Winckler, however, in the
_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, Band III., 1 Hälfte, pp. 88-89, publishes
a text given by Lenormant, _Textes Inédits_, No. 70, in which the name of
the son of Kudur-mabuk is written Ri-im-Sin, and if this be correctly
copied, it would seem to settle the matter of their identity. It is to be
noted that they are both called king of Uriwa, king of Larsa, and king of
Šumer and Akkad. In the inscriptions Eri-Aku or Eri-Sin also calls himself
_adda Emutbala_, “father of Yamutbālu,” and, as the colophon-date of the
31st year of Ḫammurabi shows, Rîm-Sin or Rîm-Aku was also king of that
region.
In these circumstances, there is hardly any doubt that they were at least
closely connected, if not (as has been supposed since the time of the
Assyriologist George Smith) actually identical. It is therefore worthy of
mention, that M. F. Thureau-Dangin, the well-known French Assyriologist,
suggests that Eri-Aku and Rîm-Sin were brothers, sons of Kudur-mabuk, and
successively kings of Larsa (_Les Inscriptions de Šumer et d’Akkad_, p.
300, n. 3). This would not only account for their having the same
parentage, but also for their claiming the same titles. It can therefore
not be said, that Ḫammurabi became the enemy of his old ally—it was
against his brother that he fought.
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