The Cuneiform inscriptions and the Old Testament; - The Search For ...

GENESIS X. dd
(reigned after 668), a circumstance which the reader must
bear in mind.*
* Comp. Keilinsch. u. Gesch. pp. 522— 543. The question might
be asked, whether we should actually refer the 'Semitic' Lud of the
race-table to these Lydians who lived far away in Asia Miuor and
only obtained for themselves a more conspicuous position in history
at a comparatively late period. This presumes that we are not disposed
either to assign so late a date for the composition of the race-table
(see however below), or to assume that there existed an ancient Lydian
empire extending as far as the interior of Syria— see A. Wiedemann,
Geschichte Aegyptens 1880 p. 24; to the latter hypothesis, indeed, there
are many objections. But the further conjecture of the same savant and
of earlier authorities appears to me moi'e worthy of consideration viz.
that the Biblical Lud, whom Wiedemann and Champollion in fact both
take to signify Lydians, is identical with the Ruten or Luten repea-
tedly mentioned in the Aegyptian inscriptions (especially of Tutmes III),
a name in which the final -en is regarded by Wiedemann as forming a
denominative. The name Rut-Lud might surely have existed in the
language of the Kanaanites and Hebrews to represent the region between
the Euphrates and the Orontes inhabited by the non-Kanaanite Chattaeans
who are omitted in the race-table,—a region included by the Aegyp-
tians under the term Ruten. It is just this region, moreover, which
would have admirably fitted into the gap between Assur and Arpakshad
on the one side (see above) and Aram on the other. But, again, I am
informed by my colleague A. Erman that the denominative force, sup-
posed to belong to the final - n in Ruten , is very doubtful, and also
that the dental in the Aegyptian word is different from what one would
anticipate if Ruten were equivalent to Lud. So we must characterize
this explanation as at least problematical at present. Lastly I would
observe that, if in support of the inclusion of the Lydians of Asia
Minor among the Semites we rely on Herodot I. 7, where the Heraclid
Agron is called son of Ninus , whence we infer that Lydia once
belonged to the Assyrian empire, this at all events does not apply to the
ancient time. And moreover the kingdom of Mermnads never formed
a constituent part of Assur:—even at the time of Asurbanipal Lydia
sustained only international, scarcely political relations (as Noldeke sup-
poses, Bibel-Lexicon IV, 93), towards Assyria. It is only when the Assy-
rian empire fell to pieces and the Lydians succeeded in part to the in-
heritance of proud Assyria, that the legend of the descent of the ancient
dominant dynasty from Ninus, son of Bel, could have arisen. If the fact
of Lydia having once belonged to Assyria were the reason why Lud
7*