CHAPTER IX

BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN ROOM (PLATE VI.)

THIS room is a veritable storehouse of objects which are full of interest to the Bible student. It contains all sorts of inscribed antiquities and historical records, not only of the kings already mentioned, but of those who lived at the dawn of history and also of those who reigned as late as a century B.C.

The large inscribed monument on the right of the doorway is a cast of the celebrated Code of Laws of Khammurabi1 or Hammurabi. He is supposed to be identical with the Amraphel 2 king of Shinar, mentioned in Gen. 14. The twenty-eight columns of text contain a very remarkable series of laws, and the fact that such a wise code should have existed in the time of Abraham has been urged as a proof that the Mosaic law was not a revelation from God, but a copy from Babylon. As we have already noticed (see p. 38), there is clear evidence from God's words concerning Abraham, that He had already given a charge," "commandments," "statutes," and "laws." 3 How God gave these laws we do not

1 This name is often spelt Hammurabi, but the spelling on the labels and in the Guides has been followed.

2 "In Babylonian ilu is 'god,' the Hebrew el, and Ammu-rapi ilu would be 'Khammu-rabi the god.' Now Ammu-rapi ilu is letter for letter the Amraphel of Genesis."-Prof. Sayce in Mon. Facts and Higher Critical Fancies, p. 60.

3 Gen. 26. 5.

know. On the upper part of the stone the king is represented "in the traditional attitude of worship, in the act of receiving them from the Sun-god, who is seated on a mountain"; and it may be that there is here a much corrupted record of a real fact.

Khammurabi's code1 seems to explain several of the customs of the patriarchs, such as Sarah giving Hagar to Abraham, Rachel giving Bilhah to Jacob, because they were childless. A provision covering this is in the code. There are also laws concerning the adoption of a slave, thus making him a freeman and the heir of his adopted father, reminding us of Abraham's reference to Eliezer.2 There are many laws against theft of any kind, a death penalty being attached to robbery from the palace. This reminds us of the supposed theft of Joseph's cup, and explains the fear of his brethren.3 The customs represented in Gen. 24. where Abraham seeks a wife for his son, the giving of gifts, etc., are all in keeping with the code. Another law illustrates the adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh by their grandfather Jacob.1

Before this code of Khammurabi was found, the critics had been saying that the Book of Deuteronomy was written in the days of Josiah, and the other books of Moses subsequently. "This discovery undermined the very foundations of 'the critical hypothesis.' But instead of repenting of their error and folly, the critics turned round, and, with amazing effrontery, declared that the Mosaic code was borrowed from Babylon. This is a most reasonable conclusion on the part of those who regard the Mosaic law as a purely human code. But

1 For a translation of the Code see T. G. Pinches, LL.D., in The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Appendix.

2 Gen. 15. 2, 3.

3 Gen. 44. 9.

4 Gen. 48. 5.

UR, ERECH, AND LARSA

59 here the critic is hoist with his own petard.' For if the Mosaic law were based on the Hammurabi code, it could not have been framed in the days of Josiah long ages after Hammurabi had been forgotten. This Hammurabi discovery is one of many that led Professor Sayce to declare that the answer of archæology to the theories of modern "criticism" is complete; the Law preceded the Prophets, and did not follow them.' But even this is not all. It is a canon of ‘criticism' with these men that no Biblical statement is ever to be accepted unless confirmed by some pagan authority; Gen. 14. was therefore dismissed as fable on account of its naming Amraphel as a king of Babylon. But Amraphel is only another form of the name of Hammurabi, who now stands out as one of the great historical characters of the past."1

In the Wall-Cases on the left is a remarkable series of bricks from the ruins of royal palaces in Babylon and Assyria. The date of many of these inscribed relics is extremely remote. At the left of the doorway we find those which speak of days when history and legend are inextricably mixed. Beginning at No. 12 we notice that many are stamped with the names of kings of Ur, Frech, and Larsa, and some of them mention also the building of temples to the Moon-god Nannar. The cities of Ur and Erech were sacked by the Elamite dynasty already referred to, and we have seen how Ashur-bani-pal restored the image of the goddess Nana which had been carried to Elam sixteen hundred years before (see p. 28, and Nineveh Gallery, Case D., 45-48). These bricks give evidence that Abraham's early home in Ur of the Chaldees was in one of the greatest cities of the day.

The bricks numbered from 59 to 69 refer to the next 1 Sir Robert Anderson in In Defence, p. 171-2.