is no doubt right, but the second is very widely questioned by Assyriologists.[1]
There is, moreover, nothing to show that the king in
question, whatever his name, belonged to the age of Ḫammurabi.[2]
(4) (
Hebrew characters) (GEL Θαργαλ, S (Syriac characters)) was identified by Pinches with a
"Tu-ud-ḫul-a, son of Gaz. . .," who is named once on the tablets
already spoken of (see Schr. SBBA, 1895, xli. 961 ff.). The resemblance
to Tid'al is very close, and is naturally convincing to those who find
'Ariok and Kedorla'omer in the same document; there is, however, no
indication that Tudḫula was a king, or that he was contemporary with
Ḫammurabi and Rîm-Sin (King, op. cit.).—(Hebrew characters) can hardly be the usual
word for 'nations' (GVT), either as an indefinite expression (Tu.) or
as a "verschämtes et cetera" (Ho.). We seem to require a proper
name (S has (Syriac characters)); and many accept the suggestion of Rawlinson,
that Guti (a people N of the Upper Zab) should be read. Peiser (309)
thinks that (Hebrew characters) is an attempt to render the common Babylonian title
šar kiššati.
The royal names in v.2 are of a different character from those of v.1.
Several circumstances suggest that they are fictitious. Jewish exegesis
gives a sinister interpretation to all four (TJ, Ber. R. § 42, Ra.); and
even modern scholars like Tu. and Nö. recognise in the first two a play
on the words (Hebrew characters) (evil) and (Hebrew characters) (wickedness). And can it be accidental
that they fall into two alliterative pairs, or that each king's name
contains exactly as many letters as that of his city? On the other side,
it may be urged (a) that the textual tradition is too uncertain to justify
any conclusions based on the Heb. (see the footnote); (b) the namelessness
of the fifth king shows that the writer must have had traditional
authority for the other four; and (c) Sanibu occurs as the name of an
Ammonite king in an inscr. of Tiglath-pileser IV. (Del. Par. 294, KIB,
ii. 21). These considerations do not remove the impression of artificiality
which the list produces. Since the names are not repeated in v.8,
it is quite possible they are late insertions in the text, and, of course (on
that view), unhistorical.—(Hebrew characters) is elsewhere a royal name (3632).
- ↑ e.g. by King, Zimmern (KAT3, 4861), Peiser (who reads it Kudur-tur-bit, l.c. 310), Jen., Bezold, al.
- ↑ There is no doubt some difficulty in finding room for a king Kudur-lagamar alongside of Kudur-mabug (who, if not actually king of Elam, was certainly the over-lord of Arad-Sin and Rîm-Sin) in the time of Ḫammurabi; but in our ignorance of the situation that difficulty must not be pressed. It has, however, induced Langdon (Dri., Gen7, Add. xxxii.) to revive a conjecture of G. Smith, that Kudur-mabug and the Kudur-lagamar of this chapter are one and the same person. It does not appear that any fresh facts have come to light to make the guess more convincing than it was when first propounded.
read Kudur-lakhkha-mal; but the reading appears to be purely conjectural; and, unless it should be corroborated, nothing can be built upon it.
