by
Damien F. Mackey
Many times have we read that the
famous ‘Law Code’ of Hammurabi has clear parallels with the Torah of Moses, the
inevitable conclusion by historians being that
Moses the Lawgiver must have
borrowed much from Hammurabi.
Such a Hebrew dependence upon
Hammurabi becomes impossible, however, when Hammurabi himself is located to his
true historical era well after Moses, to become a contemporary of the
universally-influential kings David and Solomon of Israel.
Introduction
Since Hammurabi of Babylon was a
contemporary of kings David and Solomon of Israel:
then, according to the testimony of
I Kings 10:23-29, it would likely have been the Hebrew Davidides, rather than
the Babylonians, who was the major source of cultural influence:
King Solomon was greater in riches
and wisdom than all the other kings of the earth. The whole world sought audience
with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart. Year after year,
everyone who came brought a gift—articles of silver and gold, robes, weapons
and spices, and horses and mules.
Solomon accumulated chariots and
horses; he had fourteen hundred chariots and twelve thousand horses, which he
kept in the chariot cities and also with him in Jerusalem. The king made silver
as common in Jerusalem as stones, and cedar as plentiful as sycamore-fig trees
in the foothills. Solomon’s horses were imported from Egypt and from Kue—the
royal merchants purchased them from Kue at the current price. They imported a
chariot from Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for a hundred
and fifty. They also exported them to all the kings of the Hittites and of the
Arameans.
Clearly David’s and Solomon’s
influence was permeating to every corner of the ancient world. This would
explain why Mosaïc Law, now somewhat modified, would re-emerge in, for
instance, the Hittite code of laws (“all the kings of the Hittites”).
Does Hammurabi Figure in the Bible?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the very
least, Hammurabi must figure in the Bible as one amongst the un-named kings of
the world who visited King Solomon in all his splendour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David S. Farkas, who is certain
that Hammurabi does figure in the
Bible - but who, having him in early Genesis, has mistakenly sought for
Hammurabi way too early, writes as follows (http://jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/393/jbq_393_Hammurabi.pdf):
IN SEARCH OF THE
BIBLICAL HAMMURABI
….
The
relationship between the Code of Hammurabi and some portions of the Bible is
taken for granted by scholars today. Much has been written about the striking similarities
between the goring ox of Exodus 21 and the same poor beast in what is called LH
251 of Hammurabi's Code. Just as striking are the contrasts between the Torah
Law and Hammurabi's Code (see: LH 16, 19, 106, 197, 209, 210, 229 and 230) in
the laws of runaway slaves, the rejection of cross-generational civil
punishment, and even the famous lex talionis.
These have all
been analyzed and re-analyzed in light of what was learned with the discovery
of Hammurabi's Code in 1901.1 Yet it seems to me that Hammurabi himself poses a
far greater biblical mystery than anything written in his Code. For beyond
confronting the questions posed by the similarities between the Bible and the
Code, one must grapple with a more fundamental problem: Why isn't Hammurabi himself
mentioned in the Bible?
[End
of quote]
The specific answer that Farkas will eventually give to his question: “Why isn't
Hammurabi himself mentioned in the Bible?” will be this multi-identifying one: “…
scholars identify Hammurabi with Amraphel, and the sages identify Amraphel with
Nimrod. This leads us to the conclusion that, based on midrashic tradition,
Amraphel, Nimrod and Hammurabi are all the same person”.
Swing and a miss!
At the very
least, Hammurabi must figure in the Bible as one amongst the un-named kings of
the world who visited King Solomon in all his splendour.
“Hammurabi [who] was apparently
not of Babylonian origin, the so-called "Dynasty of Babylon," to
which he belonged, having probably come from the West” (http://biblehub.com/topical/h/hammurabi.htm),
shapes up very well, in fact, as a king somewhat in the mould of David and
Solomon. His four-decade reign, with conquests, but largely peaceful. His
greatness and fame, and extensive building. His Hebrew-like Laws and sometime
wisdom. Admittedly polytheistic, but had not Solomon, too, later, veered in
that same direction?
According to a
Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Babylonian_Dynasty) Hammurabi’s Babylonian Code was most like
that of the Hebrews (though chronological reasons would prevent Wikipedia, and
others of a conventional persuasion, from recognising any dependence of the
Code upon the Hebrew version):
Of all the ancient legislations, that of the
Hebrews alone can stand comparison with the Babylonian Code. The many points of
resemblance between the two, the Babylonian origin of the father of the Hebrew
race, the long relations of Babylon with the land of Amurru, have prompted
modern scholars to investigate whether the undeniable relation of the two codes
is not one of dependence. …. Needless to notice that Hammurabi is in no wise
indebted to the Hebrew Law [sic].
That Moses and
the tradition he fostered had been utterly essential to David, and afterwards,
to the young Solomon, and that the latter had been prepared by his father, king
David, to live by Moses’ laws and statutes, is apparent from these words of
counsel given to him by his ageing father (1 Kings 2:2): ‘Be strong, be
courageous, and keep the charge of the Lord your God, walking in his ways and
keeping his statues, his commandments, his ordinances, and his testimonies, as
it is written in the Law of Moses, so that you may prosper in all that you do
and wherever you turn’.
Rit Nosotro in
an article also entitled “Hammurabi”, reiterates the parallels between the
Scriptures (now including the New Testament) and the Law of Hammurabi:
There are also some interesting speculations
showing some parallels between the Bible and the life and laws
of Hammurabi. One theme concept in both the Levitical law and the Code of
Hammurabi that repeat … again and again are, namely: “eye for eye, tooth for
tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound,
bruise for bruise”. (Exodus 21:24-25). Although Hammurabi did not know it,
the principles in his laws reflected the Biblical principle of sowing and
reaping as found in Galatians 6:78 and Proverbs 22:8: “Do not be deceived, God
cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows”. (Galatians 6:7) [200].
“He who sows wickedness reaps trouble”. (Proverbs
22:8a).
“Hammurabi did
not know it”, so Nosotro writes, but perhaps he really did know some of it. “[Solomon]
composed three thousand proverbs, and his songs numbered a thousand and
five”. (1 Kings 4:32).
Ecclesiastes
Likewise we
read in the Book of Ecclesiastes of king Solomon (12:9-14):
Epilogue
Besides being wise, the Teacher [Qoheleth]
also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging
many proverbs. The Teacher sought to find pleasing words, and he wrote
words of truth plainly. The sayings of the wise are like goads, and like nails
firmly fixed are the collected sayings that are given by one shepherd. Of
anything beyond these, my child, beware. Of making many books there is no
end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh. The end of the matter: all has
been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for that is the whole duty of
everyone. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every secret
thing, whether good or evil. ….
Now Hammurabi’s Code too, just like Solomon’s
Ecclesiastes, starts with a Preface (similarly the Book of Proverbs has a
Prologue) and ends with an Epilogue, in which we find an echo of many of
Solomon’s above sentiments, and others, beginning with Hammurabi as wise, as a
teacher, and as a protecting shepherd king. These common ‘buzz words’ I shall identify as we go along.
Let us consider firstly Hammurabi’s
Epilogue, in relation to Solomon’s (Ecclesiastes’) Epilogue above (buzz words
given in italics):
HAMMURABI'S CODE OF LAWS
Translated by L. W. King
THE EPILOGUE
LAWS of justice which Hammurabi, the wise king,
established. A righteous law, and pious statute did he teach the
land. Hammurabi, the protecting king am I. I have not withdrawn myself from the
men, whom Bel gave to me, the rule over whom Marduk gave to me, I was not
negligent, but I made them a peaceful abiding-place. I expounded all great
difficulties, I made the light shine upon them. ... I am the salvation-bearing shepherd ..
. .
Wisdom 1:1: “Love righteousness, you rulers of the earth …”.
Ecclesiastes 9:1: “ … how the righteous and
the wise … are in the hand of God”.
1 Kings 4:29: “God gave Solomon very great wisdom,
discernment, and breadth of understanding, as vast as the sand on the
seashore”.
As we are going to find, Solomon was not shy
about broadcasting his wisdom and the fact that he had exceeded all others
in it.
For example (Ecclesiastes 1:16): “I said to
myself, ‘I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over
Jerusalem before me; and my mind has great experience of wisdom and
knowledge’.”
Similarly, Knight writes of Hammurabi: “The
conclusion of the inscription sounds like a hymn of high-keyed self-praise”.
Indeed, that Hammurabi had no doubt in his own mind that he was the wisest of
all is evident from this next statement (Epilogue): “… there is no wisdom like
unto mine …”.
However, just as Solomon, in his ‘Prayer for
Wisdom’ (Book of Wisdom 7:15-17), had attributed his wisdom to God:
“May God grant me to speak with judgment, and
to have thoughts worthy of what I have received; for He is the guide even of
wisdom and the corrector of the wise. For both we and our words are in His
hand, as are all understanding and skill in crafts. For it is He who gave me
unerring knowledge of what exists …”[,]
so did the polytheistic Hammurabi attribute
his wisdom to the Babylonian gods (Epilogue):
“… with the keen vision with which Ea endowed
me, with the wisdom that Marduk gave me, I have … subdued the earth, brought
prosperity to the land, guaranteed security to the inhabitants in their homes;
a disturber was not permitted. The great gods have called me …”.
“I, the Teacher, when king over Israel in
Jerusalem applied my mind to seek and search out by wisdom all that is done
under heaven …”. Eccl. 1:12.
“I turned my mind to know and to search out
and to seek wisdom and the sum of things, and to know that wickedness is folly
and that foolishness is madness”. Eccl. 7:25.
Solomon too, like Hammurabi, exhorted other
kings and officials to follow his way.
Compare for instance Wisdom 6:1-9:
Listen therefore, O kings, and understand;
learn, O judges of the ends of the earth. Give ear you that rule over
multitudes, and boast of many nations. For your dominion was given you from the
Lord, and your sovereignty from the Most High; he will search out your works
and inquire into your plans. Because as servants of his kingdom you did not
rule rightly, or keep the law, or walk according to the purpose of God, he will
come upon you terribly and swiftly, because severe judgment falls on those in
high places. For the lowliest may be pardoned in mercy, but the mighty will be
mightily tested. For the Lord of all will not stand in awe of anyone, or show
deference to greatness; because he himself made both small and great, and he
takes thought for all alike. But a strict inquiry is in store for the mighty.
To you then, O monarchs, my words are directed, so that you may learn wisdom
and not transgress [,]
with these parts of Hammurabi’s Epilogue:
In future time, through all coming
generations, let the king, who may be in the land, observe the words of
righteousness which I have written on my monument; let him not alter the law of
the land which I have given, the edicts which I have enacted; my monument let
him not mar. If such a ruler have wisdom, and be able to keep his land in
order, he shall observe the words which I have written in this inscription; the
rule, statute, and law of the land which I have given; the decisions which I
have made will this inscription show him; let him rule his subjects
accordingly, speak justice to them, give right decisions, root out the
miscreants and criminals from this land, and grant prosperity to his subjects.
And, more threateningly:
If a succeeding ruler considers my words,
which I have written in this my inscription, if he do not annul my law, nor
corrupt my words, nor change my monument, then may Shamash lengthen that king’s
reign, as he has that of me, the king of righteousness, that he may reign in
righteousness over his subjects. If this ruler do not esteem my words, which I
have written in my inscription, if he despise my curses, and fear not the curse
of God, if he destroy the law which I have given, corrupt my words, change my
monument, efface my name, write his name there, or on account of the curses
commission another so to do, that man, whether king or ruler, patesi, or
commoner, no matter what he be, may the great God (Anu), the Father of the
gods, who has ordered my rule, withdraw from him the glory of royalty, break
his scepter, curse his destiny. May Bel, the lord, who fixeth destiny, whose
command cannot be altered, who has made my kingdom great, order a rebellion
which his hand cannot control; may he let the wind of the overthrow of his
habitation blow, may he ordain the years of his rule in groaning, years of
scarcity, years of famine, darkness without light, death with seeing eyes be
fated to him; may he (Bel) order with his potent mouth the destruction of his
city, the dispersion of his subjects, the cutting off of his rule, the removal
of his name and memory from the land. May Belit, the great Mother, whose
command is potent in E-Kur (the Babylonian Olympus), the Mistress, who harkens
graciously to my petitions, in the seat of judgment and decision (where Bel
fixes destiny), turn his affairs evil before Bel, and put the devastation of
his land, the destruction of his subjects, the pouring out of his life like
water into the mouth of King Bel.
And in the same fashion Hammurabi goes on and
on, before similarly concluding:
May he lament the loss of his life-power, and
may the great gods of heaven and earth, the Anunaki, altogether inflict a curse
and evil upon the confines of the temple, the walls of this E-barra (the Sun
temple of Sippara), upon his dominion, his land, his warriors, his subjects,
and his troops. May Bel curse him with the potent curses of his mouth that
cannot be altered, and may they come upon him forthwith.
Hebrew and Babylonian Calendars
With King Solomon identified as the
polymathic Senenmut (Senmut) of 18th dynasty Egypt, and with the era
of King Solomon actually contemporaneous with Hammurabi of Babylon, then the
genius displayed by Senenmut ought to be apparent also in First Dynasty
Babylon.
Introduction
King Solomon’s arrival in 18th dynasty Egypt, as
Senenmut, “was a direct result of” - as I had surmised in:
Solomon and Sheba
“Queen Hatshepsut's visit to Jerusalem as the
Queen of Sheba. ‘King Solomon gave to the queen of Sheba all that she
desired, whatever she asked ...’ (I Kings 10: 13)”.
It seems that the beautiful queen was quite in
awe of King Solomon and everything associated with him. I continued in the same
article:
She was so convinced by what
he told her that ‘there was no more spirit in her’ (cf. I Kings 10:3,
5). Hatshepsut regarded Senenmut as her mentor and he claimed to have been an
influence in Egypt ‘since [Hatshepsut's] youth’ [28]. One of his Cairo statues
says he was one ‘whose opinion [Hatshepsut] has desired for [herself], who
pleases the mistress of [Egypt] with his utterance’ [27] and he was both ‘chief
spokesman of her estate’ (i.e. the material wealth and properties of the royal
household were under his supervision) and ‘judge in the entire land’ of Egypt.
Similarly, Solomon was called ‘judge' of Israel (Wisdom 9:7). Wilson [29]
recognised that Hatshepsut perceived Senenmut as ‘an adviser’, though ‘In what
manner he forged the bonds which brought him into close relations with his
royal mistress and by which he won not only her trust but possibly even her
love is a closed page of history’. Dorman notes, in relation to Winlock [30],
that Queen Hatshepsut gave Senenmut his first government posts, ‘linking him
closely to the royal family by giving him charge of princess Neferura'.
What had impressed the young
queen during her visit to Jerusalem? It was Solomon's civil and religious
administration. His military organisation was also efficient, and - despite
enemies later like Hadad in Edom and Rezon in Damascus (1 Kings 11:14-25) - he
was never really seriously challenged during his entire 40-year reign. In fact,
the era of Solomon and Hatshepsut (in revisionist terms) was one of singular
peace.
[End of quote]
As noted in the same article,
Davidic and Solomonic wisdom, literature, religious imagery, love poetry and
cultic practice - and even (Hiramic) Phoenician-inspired architecture - had
overflowed from Israel into Egypt at this time. Hebrew influence can be found
everywhere. Those historians who are bound to a faulty chronology, however,
will always of necessity have to give the precedence to Egypt over Israel.
But the reality is the reverse.
“After Hatshepsut had
completed her Punt expedition”, I wrote, “she gathered her nobles and
proclaimed the great things she had done. Senenmut and Nehesi had places of
honour”. Then she addressed them in terms that recall the Book of Genesis:
Hatshepsut reminded them of
Amon's oracle commanding her to ‘... establish for him a Punt in his house, to
plant the trees of God's Land beside his temple in his garden, according as he
commanded’ [95]. At the conclusion of her speech there is further scriptural
image ‘I have made for [Amon-Ra] a Punt in his garden at Thebes ... it is big
enough for him to walk about in’; Baikie [96] noted that this is ‘a phrase
which seems to take one back to the Book of Genesis and its picture of God
walking in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the evening’. This inscription
speaks of Amon-Ra's love for Hatshepsut in terms almost identical to those used
by the Queen of Sheba about the God of Israel's love for Solomon and his
nation.
Compare the italicised parts
of Hatshepsut's
‘... according to the command
of ... Amon ... in order to bring for him the marvels of every country, because
he so much loves the King of ... Egypt, Maatkara [i.e. Hatshepsut], for
his father Amen-Ra, Lord of Heaven, Lord of Earth, more than
the other kings who have been in this land for ever ...’ [97].
with the italicised words in a song of praise spoken to
Solomon by the Queen of Sheba ‘Blessed be the Lord your God, who
has delighted in you and set you on the throne as king for the Lord your God! Because your God
loved Israel and would establish them for ever ...’ (II Chronicles 98) [98].
[End of quotes]
This was only one of various
scriptural examples that I noted.
Little wonder, then, that - given
king David’s and king Solomon’s universal influence - we should find similar
Hebrew influences in contemporary (revised) Babylon. And we have already
discussed Hammurabi’s Law Code in this regard.
But, just to refresh our minds, Benjamin
Jones writes in
Exodus: The Hammurabi Code
.... "The Covenant Code,
the set of laws given by Yahweh to Moses, who conveyed them to the Israelites,
bears a marked similarity to the law codes of Mesopotamia, including, in
particular, the Code of Hammurabi. Many of the same moral and legal issues are
addressed, and both the presentation of themes and the narrative style of the
two documents bear a strong resemblance to one another".
Jones then asks:
"This similarity begs the
question: what was the inspiration for the Covenant Code? Do the similarities
between the Law of Hammurabi and the Covenant Code reflect similarities between
the legal systems of Babylon and Judah, with the two systems and records
developing simultaneously? Or was the law in Exodus appropriated directly from
the laws of Hammurabi, as a philosophical or scholarly exercise?"
[End of quote]
Interesting, in our revised
context, is the precise nature of this “Covenant Code”, to use the above
description of it. If, as M. van de Mieroop will state, it points less to a Law
Code than to a celebration of a King of Justice, then it is very David and Solomon
like - for these two were each renowned as being the archetypal Just King.
Solomon was also a teaching king
(Ecclesiastes 12:9-11): “Not only was the
Teacher wise, but he also imparted knowledge to the people. He pondered and
searched out and set in order many proverbs. The Teacher searched to find just the right words, and
what he wrote was upright and true. The words
of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like firmly embedded
nails—given by one shepherd”.
Senenmut, too, was also primarily,
as we read above, a Judge: “judge in the entire land [of Egypt]”.
Like King Solomon, Hammurabi was a
Teacher of Justice. ‘May any wronged man hear my precious words’. Van de
Mieroop (A History of the Ancient Near
East ca. 3000-323 BC) writes on pp. 106-107:
The function of the
[Hammurabic] law code itself has been much debated, but consensus is growing
that the modern designation of it is wrong: it is not a code of law but a
monument presenting Hammurabi as an exemplary king of justice. The text is best
known to us from a 2-meter-high black diorite stele almost fully covered with
an inscription …. Framed between a prologue and epilogue are listed some three
hundred statements, all structured on the same pattern: “if …, then …”. For
example “If a man commits a robbery and is caught, that man will be killed” (§
22). While dealing with many areas of life, the entries do not, by far, cover
all possible crimes …. Moreover, the many legal documents of the period, including
records of law cases, never make reference to the code. Instead of a list of
legal precepts, the entire monument is a vivid expression of Hammurabi as a
king who provides justice in his land. He said himself:
"May any wronged man who
has a case come before my statue as king of justice, and may he have my
inscribed stele read aloud to him. May he hear my precious words and may my
stele clarify his case or him. May he examine his lawsuit and may he calm his
(troubled) heart. May he say: “Hammurabi …. provided just ways for the land”.
…".
To prove his ability to
guarantee justice, Hammurabi listed these three hundred-some cases, and thus
urged future kings to study and follow his example".
[End of quotes]
Calendrical
Reform
Some of
the amazing breadth of knowledge - including matters astronomical - and
practical skill of King Solomon (Wisdom 7:15-21):
May God grant me to speak as he would wish and conceive thoughts worthy of the gifts I have received, since he is both guide to Wisdom and director of sages;
for we are in his
hand, yes, ourselves and our sayings, and all intellectual and all practical knowledge.
He it was who gave
me sure knowledge of what exists, to understand the structure of the world and the action of
the elements,
the beginning, end
and middle of the times, the alternation of the solstices and the succession of
the seasons,
the natures of
animals and the instincts of wild beasts, the powers of spirits and human
mental processes, the varieties of plants and the medical properties of roots.
And now I
understand everything, hidden or visible, for Wisdom, the designer of all
things, has instructed me.
are
reflected in what we know of Senenmut with regard to, for example, his
incredible funerary complex. This is what I wrote about it in “Solomon and
Sheba”:
Senenmut's Astronomical
Ceiling
The versatility of Senenmut is
revealed in the paintings of his funerary complex. As Grimal has noted [69]:
‘[Senenmut's] constructions
show that he was an architect, but other dimensions of his career are
suggested by the presence of an astronomical ceiling in his tomb at Deir
el-Bahri and about 150 ostraca in his tomb at Qurna, including several drawings
(notably two plans of the tomb itself), as well as lists, calculations, various
reports and some copies of religious, funerary and literary texts ...’.
Senenmut's tomb complex has
some significant features:
· the
lowest chambers of tomb 353 were within the sacred precincts of
Hatshepsut's temple.
· in
numerous niches there are reliefs depicting Senenmut praying on behalf of
Hatshepsut. This usurpation of royal property and/or privilege has amazed
historians [70],
· at
the same time, a new corpus of funerary texts - what Assmann [71] calls
‘liturgies’ - was introduced into Egypt. [Interestingly, in the light of my
claim that Egypt was at this time influenced by the era of Joseph, these
liturgies are based upon ‘sequences attested only on Middle Kingdom coffins’
[72].
· among
the literary texts was the famous Egyptian folktale, the Story of Sinuhe.
I have argued [73] that this story is a conflation of biblical stories
pertaining to Moses (especially), but perhaps also to David and to Joseph.
Senenmut enjoyed the Story of Sinuhe [74].
· of
special interest is the astronomical information in tomb 353, particularly the
ceiling of Chamber A [75]. Senenmut's ceiling is the earliest astronomical
ceiling known. We are reminded again of Solomon's encyclopaedic knowledge of
astronomy and calendars (Wisdom 7:17-19). The ceiling is divided into two parts
by transverse bands of texts, the central section of which contains the names
‘Hatshepsut’ and ‘Senenmut’ [76]. The southern half contains a list of decans
derived from coffins of the Middle Kingdom period that had served as ‘a
prototype’ for a family of decanal lists that survived until the Ptolemaïc
period; whilst ‘The northern half is decorated with the earliest preserved
depiction of the northern constellations; four planets (Mars, Venus, Jupiter,
Saturn) are also portrayed with them, and the lunar calendar is represented by
twelve large circles’. [77]
[End
of quote]
King Hammurabi of Babylon made changes to fix flaws in the ancient
Babylonian calendar. Not surprisingly do we find that ‘the Hebrews and
Babylonians used similar calendar adjustments’ (http://theos-sphragis.info/hebrew_babylonian_intercalation.html):
Hebrew and Babylonian Calendar Intercalation
….
12-Month Luni-Solar Calendar
Both the Hebrews and Babylonians used similar calendar adjustments
to keep their calendars synchronized with the Sun, moon and seasons. They both
employed a system of adding entire months to their calendars (intercalation)
during 7 particular years (embolismic years - years in which a month is
intercalated) out of every 19 years. This was a repeating cycle.
The Babylonian's employed a spring calendar starting with the
month of Nisanu:
In the period covered by
this study the Babylonian calendar year was composed of lunar months, which
began when the thin crescent of the new moon was first visible in the sky at
sunset. Since the lunar year was about eleven days shorter than the solar year,
it was necessary at intervals to intercalate a thirteenth month, either a
second Ululu (the sixth month) or a second Addaru (the twelfth month) in order
that New year's Day, Nisanu 1, should not fall much before the spring of the
year (late March and early April).
Richard
A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Babylonian
Chronology, 626 B.C.-A.D. 75, 3rd ed.
Providence: Brown University Press (1956) p. 1
Providence: Brown University Press (1956) p. 1
Both the Babylonians and Hebrews employed solar-lunar calendrics
of 12 months of alternating duration of 30 and 29 days:
Babylonian
|
Hebrew ( sacred / civil )
|
||
30-day months
|
29-day months
|
30-day months
|
29-day months
|
Nisanu 1
|
Aiaru 2
|
Nisan 1/7
|
Iyar 2/8
|
Simanu 3
|
Duzu 4
|
Sivan 3/9
|
Tammuz 4/10
|
Abu 5
|
Ululu 6
|
Av 5/11
|
Elul 6/12
|
Tashritu 7
|
Arahsamnu 8
|
Tishri 7/1
|
Heshvan 8/2
|
Kislimnu 9
|
Tebetu 10
|
Kislev 9/3
|
Tevet 10/4
|
Shabatu 11
|
Addaru 12
|
Shevat 11/5
|
Adar 12/6
|
Above, each month name is followed by its numerical sequence in
the calendar year. The table reads left-to-right, then next row down.
Further, the Hebrews employed two calendars, a "civil"
and a "sacred", with the sacred calendar following the civil by 6
months. Each Hebrew month's sequence in both the civil and sacred calendar is
designated by the "s/c" following each month's name, where
"s" is that month's number in the sacred calender and
"c" is that month's number in the civil calender. So the
Hebrew side of the table (reading left to right, then next row) shows Nisan,
Iyar, Sivan and Tammuz as the first 4 months of the sacred calendar and
Tishri, Heshvan, Kislev and Tevet as the first 4 months of the civil
calendar.
Summing 6 30-day months plus 6 29-day months yields a total of 354
days, the "common regular" length year, which is short of the actual 365.24
(approximate) day solar year. This is an error rate of 11 days per year,
every year or about 1 month every three years. If the calendar is not
adjusted, after only two decades the actual observed seasons would be reversed
relative to what the calendar declared, e.g. the season would actually be
winter when the calendar reported summer months.
To fix this, the Babylonians (and seemingly the Hebrews to some
extent) surmised that a 19-year Lunar cycle existed (sometimes called the
Metonic cycle) and that if additional months were periodically inserted to
correct the calendar, the calendar would be re-synchronized with the actual
observed solar year. During that 19-year cycle the Babylonians (and presumably
Hebrews with some variation) would insert at 7 different times an additional
29-day month. This insertion of extra months to correct the calendar is called
"intercalation".
Ancient history is vague on precisely whom to credit with
developing intercalation and when it was methodically adopted by the Hebrews.
The Sumerian cultures circa 2100 B.C. seem to be the earliest in employing some
form of it; then Hammurabi standardized the Babylonian lunar calendar circa
1750 B.C. [sic] ….
[End of
quote]
I
suggest that the astronomical genius, King Solomon (Senenmut), would have been
a source of great inspiration with regard to Babylonian calendrics.
Epic Literature
During the Old Babylonian era of
King Hammurabi there arose classic literature such as the Atrahasis Epic and
the Epic of Gilgamesh whose biblical similarities have long been noted.
Introduction
As we read in:
Solomon and Sheba
the tombs of Senenmut - our Solomon in Egypt (the
Solon of the Greeks) - reveal his enjoyment of literature, for example the famous Egyptian folktale, the Story of Sinuhe (TSS). The reason for this may not be hard
to find if Senenmut were indeed Solomon, and if, as I have suggested in various
articles - with reference to professor E. Anati’s opinion that TSS ‘shares
a common matrix’ with the Exodus account of Moses - e.g. my:
that Sinuhe
was a modified Egyptian version of Moses himself.
Highly popular tales such as TSS and the Old Babylonian Atrahasis and Gilgamesh would have
undergone significant changes and modifications down through the years, with
our current versions of the Old Babylonian epics being late neo-Assyrian copies
dating to the C7th BC era of Ashurbanipal - hence, well after their original
composition at about the time of Solomon, according to this present series.
The
Atrahasis Epic
This document with its abundant Book of
Genesis-like parallels is typically considered to have influenced the biblical
text. My take on it would be, instead, that it was - as in the case of the
famous “Covenant Code”, or Law Code, of Hammurabi (see Part One of this series: https://www.academia.edu/25899658/Solomonic_Influence_on_Hammurabi_s_Babylon)
- inspired by the universally known and acclaimed Israelite (Jewish) kings,
David and Solomon, based upon their profound knowledge of the Torah.
The same comment would apply to the original Epic
of Gilgamesh.
Atrahasis and other like documents are discussed
in relation to Genesis in the following (http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2007/02/23/Genesis-and-Ancient-Near-Eastern-Stories-of-Creation-and-Flood-Part-III.aspx):
Creation
and Flood
Until recently, the Creation and the Flood have often been treated as separate units. One of the reasons for this may be that initially discovered ancient Mesopotamian documents provided either a Creation myth without the Flood story (“Enuma elish” and others) or the Flood story without a Creation motif (“Gilgamesh Epic,” tablet XI), all in seventh-century neo-Assyrian copies from the Nineveh of Ashurbanipal’s time.1 Therefore, scholars were busy comparing Genesis 1 with “Enuma elish,” and Genesis 6–8 with “Gilgamesh” XI, without integrating these two sections of Genesis.
However, we now have some evidence that the “continuous narrative of the first era of human existence” in the ancient Near East covered both the Creation and the Flood, as Millard (1994: 116) and others have noted. For example, the “Atra-Hasis Epic” from the Old Babylonian Period (ca. 1630 BC) [sic], which Lambert and Millard presented in 1969 in a thorough study, with the text and its translation,2 covers the history of man from his creation to the Flood. This history was widely known in ancient Mesopotamia, and a similar tradition with the same overall structure was known in the early second millennium BC.
Recently Jacobsen suggested the existence of a Sumerian version of such a tradition. According to him, the Sumerian Deluge Tablet from Nippur, which gives not only an account of the Flood but also a list of five cities before the Flood like those in the Sumerian King List,3 may be combined with another Sumerian fragment from Ur and a later bilingual fragment from Nineveh. This combined text, which he names the “Eridu Genesis” (1994: 129–30),4 comprises: (1) the creation of man, (2) the institution of kingship, (3) the founding of the first cities and (4) the great Flood. While Jacobsen’s reconstruction of two Sumerian fragmentary texts (ca. 1600 BC) and one Sumerian-Akkadian bilingual fragment (ca. 600 BC) from three different places remains hypothetical, it seems that an overall tradition linking Creation, early kings, and the Flood existed in Babylonia from early times (Millard 1994:125).
The article continues, now introducing the standard biblical scholarship of the confusion-fostering JEDP theory with its underlying false notion of biblical dependence upon pagan literature. For my own view on all of this, see e.g.:
Preferring P. J. Wiseman to un-wise JEDP
Comparative Approach. Biblical scholars have accepted the view that a similar tradition, which links Creation and the Flood, is also reflected in the overall literary structure of Genesis 1–11. Coats, following Clark, notes that in the Sumerian King List and the 'Atra-Hasis Epic', "various narrative elements are set together in something of the same series as the OT primeval saga" (1983: 38).
According to Clark, "in his total outline P is influenced by the King List tradition which had now (in some editions) incorporated the flood narrative."
As for “J,” he proposes that "J is basically dependent on the tradition of the Atrahasis epic for his outline of the primeval history including the sequence of creation, repeated sin, punishment, and divine grace culminating in the flood" (1971:187–88).
A number of scholars have made a thorough study of “Atra-Hasis” and its relevance to Genesis research.6 For example, Kikawada, who abandons the source analysis of Genesis, studied the structural similarities between “Atra-Hasis” and Genesis 1–11 as a whole. According to him, both compositions used the same literary convention, “a five point outline,” consisting of (1) creation: man, (2) first threat, (3) second threat, (4) final threat: flood, (5) resolution, narrating primeval history up to the time of a great flood, followed by a solution to the problem that persisted throughout the pre-flood history, namely “increase of population.”
….
The
similarities between the Genesis account and the “Atra-Hasis Epic” do not
support the idea that Genesis is a direct borrowing from the Mesopotamian but
do indicate that Mesopotamian materials could have served as models for Genesis
1–11, as Jacobsen holds (1994:141). P.D. Miller also admits that "there
were Mesopotamian models that anticipate the structure of Genesis 1–11 as a
whole" (1994:150).
K.A. Kitchen notes a similar outline, namely “creation-flood-later times,” and a common theme, namely “creation, crisis, continuance of man,” of the “primeval proto-history” in the “Atra-Hasis Epic,” the Sumerian Flood story, and the Sumerian King List, as well as in the Genesis account. He recognizes here a common literary heritage, formulated in each case in Mesopotamia in the early 2nd millennium BC (1977: 31). ….
[End of quotes]
The
Epic of Gilgamesh
Shawna Dolansky has noted,
like many others, the obvious similarities between this highly popular Old
Babylonian Epic and Genesis, though she thinks that “it is difficult to state with any
certainty that the Epic directly influenced the stories of the Bible”. This is what she
has written (http://www.bibleodyssey.org/places/related-articles/gilgamesh-and-the-bible.aspx):
Gilgamesh
and the Bible
The Epic of Gilgamesh, a literary product of Mesopotamia, contains many of the same themes
and motifs as the Hebrew Bible.
Of these, the best-known is probably the Epic’s flood story, which reads a lot
like the biblical tale of Noah’s ark (Gen 6-9). But the Epic also includes a character
whose story bears even more similarities to stories in the Hebrew Bible: Gilgamesh’s
possession of a plant of immortality is thwarted by a serpent (compare Gen 3), he wrestles in the night with a divinely
appointed assailant who proclaims the hero’s identity and predicts that he will
prevail over all others (compare Gen 32:23-32), and he is taught
that the greatest response to mortality is to live life in appreciation of
those things which make us truly human (compare Eccl 9:7-10).
The Gilgamesh Epic was familiar in the biblical world: copies have been
found at Megiddo, Emar,
Northern Anatolia, and Nineveh. It shares many motifs and ideas (such as
the Flood) with other ancient Near Eastern texts. Because of this, it is
difficult to state with any certainty that the Epic directly influenced the stories of the Bible. For example, it was
widely believed that dreams could be divinely inspired, cryptic forecasts of
the future. So when Joseph dreamed of sheaves of corn and bowing stars (Gen 37:5-11), the author was
probably not copying Gilgamesh’s oracular dreams. Likewise, the idea that it is
mortality—the impetus behind Gilgamesh’s quest—that separates gods and humans
is found in other Mesopotamian and Egyptian writings, as well as in Gen 3:22.
In the Epic, the gods create Enkidu, who
runs wild with the animals in the open country, as a companion for
Gilgamesh. There are particularly interesting similarities between the
Garden of Eden story in Genesis and the story of Enkidu’s movement from nature
to culture and civilization. In both stories, a woman is responsible for the
transition of a man who had once eaten and drunk with the animals to a state of
estrangement from nature. Once Enkidu is rejected by the animal world, the
woman Shamhat gives him clothing and teaches him to drink beer and eat
bread—all technological developments that separate humans from animals.
In Genesis, once Adam has eaten the fruit of the tree of
knowledge, he covers his nudity and is sentenced to a life of cultivating food
by harsh labor. This is the cost of divine
knowledge. In Gilgamesh, when Enkidu becomes estranged from the animals,
Shamhat tells him that he has become “like a god.” Later, on his deathbed,
Enkidu laments his removal from a state of nature, only to be reminded by the
god Shamash that while civilized life is more fraught with difficulty and the
knowledge of one’s own mortality, it is a worthwhile price for cultural
knowledge and awareness.
Dolansky will proceed to make an observation about the Epic of Gilgamesh that I find to be most fascinating in light of what I wrote in Part One about Hammurabi’s Law Code being influenced by Israelite wisdom, e. g. King Solomon’s Ecclesiastes. She begins (my emphasis): “The closest parallel between a biblical text and the Epic of Gilgamesh is seen in the wording of several passages in Ecclesiastes, where a strong argument can be made for direct copying”. And then continues:
The author of Ecclesiastes frequently laments the
futility of “chasing after the wind” (for example, Eccl 1:6, Eccl 1:14, Eccl 1:17, Eccl 2:11, Eccl 2:17, Eccl 2:26, Eccl 5:16, etc.), a notion reminiscent of
Gilgamesh’s advice to the dying Enkidu: “Mankind can number his days. Whatever
he may achieve, it is only wind” (Yale Tablet, Old Babylonian
Version). Earlier in the story, Gilgamesh persuaded Enkidu that two are
stronger than one in a speech containing the phrase, “A three-stranded cord is
hardest to break” (Standard Babylonian Version, IV, iv). Similarly, Ecclesiastes
tells us, “Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their
work…. Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of
three strands is not quickly broken” (Eccl 4:9-12). These may simply
be common sayings picked up by both authors, but Eccl 9:7-9 seems to directly
quote [sic] the barmaid Siduri’s advice to Gilgamesh on how to deal with his
existential angst:
When the gods created mankind,
They appointed death for mankind,
Kept eternal life in their own hands.
So, Gilgamesh, let your stomach be full,
Day and night enjoy yourself in every way,
Every day arrange for pleasures.
Day and night, dance and play,
Wear fresh clothes.
Keep your head washed, bathe in water,
Appreciate the child who holds your hand,
Let your wife enjoy herself in your lap.
(Meisner Tablet)
This advice sums up the message of both the Epic of Gilgamesh and Ecclesiastes, two texts that wrestle with the search for meaning in the face of human mortality.
Shawna Dolansky, "Gilgamesh and the
Bible" ….
[End
of quotes]
But there may be yet more.
For apparent likenesses
between the epic hero, Gilgamesh and the biblical strong man, Nimrod, see my:
Tightening the Geography and Archaeology for Early
Genesis. Part Two: The Epoch of Gilgamesh
