LITERATURE Eduard Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, 2te Auflage. Band I, 2te Hälfte. Stuttgart. 1909. Robert W. Rogers, History of Babylonia and Assyria, Vol. I. New York. 1900. C. Niebuhr, Die Chronologie der Geschichte Israels, Aegyptens, Babyloniens und Assyriens, 2000-700 vor Christi. Leipzig. 1896. C. F. Lehmann-Haupt, Zwei Hauptprobleme der altorientalischen Chronologie. Leipzig. 1898. L. W. King, Chronicles Concerning Early Babylonian Kings. Two Volumes. London. 1907. [Very important.] W. J. Beecher, The Dated Events of the Old Testament. Philadelphia. 1908. W. S. Auchincloss, Chronology of the Holy Bible, with an Introduction by A. H. Sayce. New York. 1911. S. R. Driver, ARTICLE, Old Testament Chronology, Encyclopædia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, Vol. III, p. 865f. [Important.] Karl Marti, ARTICLE, Chronology A, Old Testament, Encyclopædia Biblica, Vol. I, col. 773f. R. Kittel and Robert W. Rogers, ARTICLE, Time, Biblical Reckoning of, The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopædia, Vol. XI, p. 442f. Morris Jastrow, Jr., Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in Babylonia and Assyria. New York. 1911. (Chronological Lists, p. 419f.) I. HAMMURAPI The city of Babylon was one of the early cities of Babylonia, and the allusions to it in the days of Sargon I seem to imply that it achieved a position of influence even in the earliest period. It was, however, displaced by its rivals, and for many centuries we either hear nothing of it at all, or discern it as the center of a district in a kingdom ruled from another city. For centuries Ur was the chief city in Babylonia, to be followed in its turn by Isin and then by Larsa. Babylon had produced no man able to conquer these kingdoms and lift his city into hegemony over them. About two thousand years before Christ there began to rule in Babylon a dynasty one of whose kings was able to bring his city to a position of such power that it was able to conquer both the south and the north. From that time the influence of the city extends almost without a break to the period of the Seleucides. No capital in the world has ever been the center of so much power, wealth, and culture for a period so vast. It was Hammurapi who made Babylon so great, and Hammurapi must ever be counted among the greatest kings who have ever ruled among men, whether he be considered as a conqueror in battle, as a statesman welding diverse city kingdoms into one, as a builder of great public works, or as a ruler codifying custom into law and enforcing public justice over all his domain. The preparations for Hammurapi, as so often in human history, seem inadequate. The Babylonian King Lists give some names of rulers, of whom in some cases we know nothing, and are able, perhaps justly, to infer that there was very little to know. The first name in the dynasty is Sumu-abu, of whom we know nothing. The next is Sumu-la-ilu, who is not called the son of the predecessor, and from whom also no historical inscriptions have come down to us. He was succeeded by Zabu, his son, who erected a temple in Sippar. It is curious to observe that in the various business documents which have come down to us from this period, none of these rulers is called king. Apil-Sin, who follows, is also without this title, and Sin-muballit is only so called in a passing allusion in one tablet. It seems a fair inference, from all the facts that are accessible to us, that these rulers were not kings at all, but princes in Babylon, raised by later ages to the dignity of kingship in order to provide a dignified background for the great king Hammurapi. Not until he arose did the dynasty of Babylon really begin. His predecessors are shadowy names; he is a living personality. living personality. No king like unto him had arisen before him, and none quite his equal in all sides of his nature was ever to arise in Babylonia after him. Other kings had indeed made empires, as Sargon, but they were of short duration, and posterity had no great influences to ascribe to them. Hammurapi did not reach his dignity and influence without a long struggle, and however strongly we feel his force as a statesman, we must remember that he was first of all a soldier. When he came to rule in Babylon his city acknowledged the overlordship of the Elamites, who had long been ruling in Babylonia. They had built great buildings, and so evidenced their hold and indicated their determination to continue in the land; but in spite of all their power and the superiority of their actual position, Hammurapi was able to break in pieces the Elamite rule and at the same time deprive |