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.
Yet Assyria was a most remarkable power, and produced a number of really
great rulers and generals. The Assyrian kings retained for a long time
their dominion over fairly distant tracts, and made themselves greatly
feared by all the nations around. As is well known, they had made great
advances in the art of sculpture, so much so that visitors to the British
Museum, on seeing the wonderful hunting-scenes in the Assyrian
side-gallery, have been heard to express the opinion that Greek artists
must either have originated them, or influenced their production. Their
literature was naturally influenced by that of Babylonia, but one has only
to read the historical records of Tiglath-pileser I., who declaims his
successes in forceful and elegant paragraphs; Sennacherib, with his wealth
of words; or Assur-banî-âpli, who in moderate and elegant phrases tells of
the successes of his soldiers and generals, to see that, when occasion
arose, they could produce literary works as good as the best of ancient
times.
It will probably be a matter of regret to many people, but the name of
Nimrod, which we have been accustomed to associate with the pleasures and
perils of the chase for so many hundred years, must now be relegated to
the domain of words misunderstood or purposely changed for reasons that
can without much difficulty be divined.
It is not Nimrod alone that comes under this category—Nibhaz (2 Kings
xvii. 31), judging from the Greek, is in the same case, Nisroch (2 Kings
xix. 37) is certainly so, and Abed-nego for Abed-nebo is a well-known
instance.
But why, it will be asked, should these names have been intentionally
changed? The answer is simple. All these names were, or contained, the
names of heathen deities, and this offended the strongly monotheistic
Hebrew scribe who, at a certain period, was copying the portions of the
Hebrew Bible in which they occur, so he defaced them, adding or changing a
letter, and thus making them unrecognizable, and in all probability
ridiculous as well. A different punctuation (vowelling) completed the
work, and the names were then in such a form that pious and orthodox lips
could pronounce them without fear of defilement.
Nibhaz is probably for some such name as Aba-hazar, Nisroch is for Assur
or Assuraku, and Nimrod is, by similar changes, for Amaruduk or Amarudu
(original Akkadian), Maruduk or Marduk (Assyro-Babylonian). The change was
brought about by making the root triliteral, and the ending _uk_ (_ak_ in
Merodach-baladan) disappearing first, Marduk appeared as Marad. This was
connected with the root Marad, “to be rebellious,” and the word was still
further mutilated, or, rather, deformed by having a (_ni_) attached,
assimilating it to a certain extent to the “niphal forms” of the Hebrew
verbs, and making a change altogether in conformity with the genius of the
Hebrew language. This alteration is also clearly visible in Nibhaz and
Nisroch, which fully confirm the explanation here given.
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