The Chaldean Account Of Genesis (Illustrated Edition)

Chapter II 

Babylonian And Assyrian Literature

Babylonian literature — Kouyunjik library — Fragmentary condition — Arrangement of tablets — Subjects — Dates — Babylonian source of literature — Literary period — Babylonian Chronology — Akkad — Sumir — Urukk, king of Ur — Hammurabi — Babylonian astrology — War of Gods — Izdubar legends — Creation and fall — Syllabaries and bilingual tablets — Assyrian copies — Difficulties as to date — Mutilated condition — Babylonian library — Assyrian empire — City of Assur — Library at Calah — Sargon of Assyria — Sennacherib — Removal of Library to Nineveh — Assurbanipal or Sardanapalus — His additions to library — Description of contents — Later Babylonian libraries

In order to understand the position of these legends it is necessary to give some account of the wonderful literature of the Ancient Babylonians and their copyists, the Assyrians. The fragments of terra cotta tablets containing these legends were found in the debris which covers the palaces called the South West Palace and the North Palace at Kouyunjik; the former building being of the age of Sennacherib, the latter belonging to the time of Assurbanipal. The tablets, which are of all sizes, from one inch long to over a foot square, are nearly all in fragments, and in consequence of the changes which have taken place in the ruins the fragments of the same tablet are sometimes scattered widely apart. It appears from a consideration of the present positions of the fragments that they were originally in the upper chambers of the palace, and have fallen on the de struction of the building. In some of the lower chambers they lay covering the whole floor, in other cases they lay in groups or patches on the pavement, and there are occasional clusters of fragments at various heights in the earth which covers the build ings. The other fragments are scattered singly through all the upper earth which covers the floors and walls of the palace. Different fragments of the same tablets and cylinders are found in separate chambers which have no immediate connection with each other, showing that the present distribution of the fragments has nothing to do with the original position of the tablets.

A consideration of the inscriptions shows that these tablets have been arranged according to their subjects in various positions in the libraries. Stories or subjects were commenced on tablets and continued on other tablets of the same size and form, in some cases the number of tablets in a series and on a single subject amounting to over one hundred.

Each subject or series of tablets had a title, the title being formed by the first phrase or part of phrase in the subject. Thus, the series of Astrolo gical tablets, numbering over seventy tablets, bore the title u When the gods Aim, Elu," this being the commencement of the first tablet. At the end of every tablet in each series was written its number in the work, thus : u the first tablet of When the gods Anu, Elu," the second tablet of " When the gods Ami, Elu," &c. &c.; and, further to preserve the proper position of each tablet, every one except the last in a series had at the end a catch phrase, consist ing of the first line of the following tablet. There were beside, catalogues of these documents written like them on clay tablets, and other small oval tablets with titles upon them, apparently labels for the various series of works. All these arrangements show the care taken with respect to literary matters. There were regular libraries or chambers, probably on the upper floors of the palaces, appointed for the store of the tablets, arid custodians or librarians to take charge of them. It is probable that all these regulations were of great antiquity, and were copied like the tablets from the Babylonians.

Judging from the fragments discovered, it appears probable that there were in the Royal Library at Nineveh over 10,000 inscribed tablets, including almost every subject in ancient literature.

In considering a subject like the present one it is a point of the utmost importance to define as closely as possible the date of our present copies of the legends, and the most probable period at which the original copies may have been inscribed. By far the greatest number of the tablets brought from Nineveh belong to the age of Assurbanipal, who reigned over Assyria B.C. 670, and every copy of the Genesis legends yet found was inscribed during his reign. The statements on the present tablets are conclusive on this point, and have not been called in question, but it is equally stated and acknowledged on all hands that these tablets are not the originals, but are only copies from earlier texts. It is unfortunate that the date of the original copies is never preserved, and thus a wide door is thrown open for difference of opinion on this point. The Assyrians acknowledge themselves that this literature was borrowed from Babylonian sources, and of course it is to Babylonia we have to look to ascertain the approximate dates of the original documents. The difficulty here is increased by the following considerations : it appears that at an early period in Babylonian history a great literary development took place, and numerous works were produced which embodied the prevailing myths, religion, and science of that day. Written many of them in a noble style of poetry, and appealing to the strongest feelings of the people on one side, or registering the highest efforts of their science on the other, these texts became the standards for Babylonian literature, and later generations were content to copy these writings instead of making new works for themselves. Clay, the material on which they were written, was everywhere abundant, copies were multiplied, and by the veneration in which they were held these texts fixed and stereotyped the style of Babylonian literature, and the language in which they were written remained the classical style in the country down to the Persian conquest. Thus it happens that texts of Rim-agu, Sargon, and Hammurabi, who were one thousand years before Nebuchad nezzar and Nabonidus, show the same language as the texts of these later kings, there being no sensible difference in style to match the long interval between them.

There is, however, reason to believe that, although the language of devotion and literature remained fixed, the speech of the bulk of the people was gradually modified ; and in the time of Assurbanipal, when the Assyrians copied the Genesis legends, the common speech of the day was in very different style. The private letters and despatches of this age which have been discovered differ widely from the language of the contemporary public documents and religious writings, showing the change the language had undergone since the style of these was fixed. We have a slightly similar case in England, where the language of devotion and the style of the Bible differ in several respects from those of the English of to-day.

These considerations show the difficulty of fixing the age of a document from its style, and the difficulty is further increased by the uncertainty which hangs over all Babylonian chronology.

Chronology is always a thorny subject, and dry and unsatisfactory to most persons beside; some notice must, however, be taken of it here, in order to show the reasons for the dates and epochs fixed upon for the Genesis legends.

In this case the later chronology is not in question, and it is best to start with the generally received date of about B.C. 1300 for the conquest of Babylonia by Tugultininip, king of Assyria. Before this date we have a period of about 250 years, during which a foreign race ruled at Babylon. Berosus calls these foreigners Arabs, but nothing is known as to their original home or race. It is supposed that this race came into Babylonia, or obtained dominion there under a king named Hammurabi, whose date is thus fixed about B.C. 1550. Many scholars do not agree to this, and consider Hammurabi much more ancient; no one, however, fixes him later than the sixteenth century B.C., so that the date B.C. 1550 may be accepted as the most moderate one possible for the epoch of Hammurabi. The date of Hammurabi is of consequence in the question, because there is no evidence of these legends being written after his epoch.

This circumstance may be accounted for by the fact that during the period following the conquest of Hammurabi the government was in the hands of foreigners, and was much more centralized than it had been before, Babylon being, so far as we know, the sole capital, the great cities which had been centres of literature suffering a decline.

Before the time of Hammurabi, there ruled several races of kings, of whom we possess numerous monuments. These monarchs principally reigned at the cities of Ur, Karrak, Larsa, and Akkad. Their inscriptions do not determine the length of their rule, but they probably covered the period from B.C. 2000 to 1550. The name of the monarch in whose time we have the first satisfactory evidence of contemporary monuments is read Urukh, and in the present state of our researches he may be fixed B.C. 2000. It must, however, be remarked that many scholars place him at a much earlier date. From the time of Urukh to that of Hammurabi the title of honour principally taken by the kings is " King of Sumir and Akkad," that is, King of Lower and Upper Babylonia. It appears probable that previous to the reign of Urukh the two divisions of Sumir and Akkad were separate monarchies ; and it is therefore likely that any lite rature written before B.C. 2000 will show evidences of this division.

The rough outlines of Babylonian chronology at this period may...