Legends of Babylon and Egypt in Relation to Hebrew Tradition.pdf

in the first lecture we noted some newly recovered evidence upon this point. Moreover, the dynasty to which
Hammurabi belonged came originally from the north-eastern border of Canaan and Hammurabi himself exercised
authority in the west. Thus a plausible case could be made out by exponents of this theory, especially as many parallels
were noted between the Mosaic legislation and that contained in Hammurabi's Code. But it is now generally
recognized that the features common to both the Hebrew and the Babylonian legal systems may be paralleled to-day in
the Semitic East and elsewhere,[1] and cannot therefore be cited as evidence of cultural contact. Thus the hypothesis
that the Hebrew patriarchs were subjects of Babylon in Palestine is not required as an explanation of the facts; and our
first period still stands or falls by the question of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, which must be decided on
quite other grounds. Those who do not accept the traditional view will probably be content to rule this first period out.
[1] See Cook, /The Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi/, p. 281 f.; Driver, /Genesis/, p. xxxvi f.; and cf. Johns,
"The Laws of Babylonia and the Laws of the Hebrew Peoples/ (Schweich Lectures, 1912), pp. 50 ff.
During the second period, that of the settlement in Canaan, the Hebrews came into contact with a people who had used
the Babylonian language as the common medium of communication throughout the Near East. It is an interesting fact
that among the numerous letters found at Tell el-Amarna were two texts of quite a different character. These were
legends, both in the form of school exercises, which had been written out for practice in the Babylonian tongue. One
of them was the legend of Adapa, in which we noted just now a distant resemblance to the Hebrew story of Paradise. It
seems to me we are here standing on rather firmer ground; and provisionally we might place the beginning of our
process after the time of Hebrew contact with the Canaanites.
Under the earlier Hebrew monarchy there was no fresh influx of Babylonian culture into Palestine. That does not occur
till our last main period, the later Judaean monarchy, when, in consequence of the westward advance of Assyria, the
civilization of Babylon was once more carried among the petty Syrian states. Israel was first drawn into the circle of
Assyrian influence, when Arab fought as the ally of Benhadad of Damascus at the battle of Karkar in 854 B.C.; and
from that date onward the nation was menaced by the invading power. In 734 B.C., at the invitation of Ahaz of Judah,
Tiglath-Pileser IV definitely intervened in the affairs of Israel. For Ahaz purchased his help against the allied armies of
Israel and Syria in the Syro-Ephraimitish war. Tiglath-pileser threw his forces against Damascus and Israel, and Ahaz
became his vassal.[1] To this period, when Ahaz, like Panammu II, "ran at the wheel of his lord, the king of Assyria",
we may ascribe the first marked invasion of Assyrian influence over Judah. Traces of it may be seen in the altar which
Ahaz caused to be erected in Jerusalem after the pattern of the Assyrian altar at Damascus.[2] We saw in the first
lecture, in the monuments we have recovered of Panammu I and of Bar-rekub, how the life of another small Syrian
state was inevitably changed and thrown into new channels by the presence of Tiglath-pileser and his armies in the
West.
[1] 2 Kings xvi. 7 ff.
[2] 2 Kings xvi. 10 ff.
Hezekiah's resistance checked the action of Assyrian influence on Judah for a time. But it was intensified under his son
Manasseh, when Judah again became tributary to Assyria, and in the house of the Lord altars were built to all the host
of heaven.[1] Towards the close of his long reign Manasseh himself was summoned by Ashur-bani-pal to Babylon.[2]
So when in the year 586 B.C. the Jewish exiles came to Babylon they could not have found in its mythology an
entirely new and unfamiliar subject. They must have recognized several of its stories as akin to those they had
assimilated and now regarded as their own. And this would naturally have inclined them to further study and
comparison.
[1] 2 Kings xxi. 5.
[2] Cf. 2 Chron. xxxiii. 11 ff.
The answer I have outlined to this problem is the one that appears to me most probable, but I do not suggest that it is
the only possible one that can be given. What I do suggest is that the Hebrews must have gained some acquaintance
with the legends of Babylon in pre-exilic times. And it depends on our reading of the evidence into which of the three
main periods the beginning of the process may be traced.