200 BARTON— PATRIARCHAL NARRATIVES [April 17, 



becomes Arad-malkua, or Arad-malaku. Tudkhula, the supposed 

 Tidal, is not called in the document a king at all. To identify him 

 with "Tidal, king of the nations," is a purely fanciful procedure. 



It should be noted that in the documents which record these 

 names Arad-malaku, the supposed Eri-aku, takes no part in the wars 

 described; it is his son, Dursil-ilani (who, by the way, has a good 

 Semitic name) who is represented as the contemporary of Kuku- 

 kumal, the supposed Cherdorlaomar. It should be further noted, 

 that these documents represent a complete conquest of Babylon by 

 Elam — a conquest so complete that : 



" In their faithful counsel unto Kukukumal, king of Elam, 



They [the gods] established the fixed advance, which to them seemed 

 good. 

 "In Babylon, the city of the gods, Marduk set his [Kukukumal's] throne, 



All, even the Sodomites of the plundered temples, obey him. 



Ravens build their nests ; birds dwell [therein] ; 



The ravens croak(?), shrieking they hatch their young [in it]. 



To the dog crunching the bone the Lady ... is favorable. 



The snake hisses, the evil one spits poison." 



This quotation from the second of the documents published by 

 Pinches describes a complete subjugation and desolation of Babylon 

 by Kukukumal, king of Elam. This definitely excludes the possi- 

 bility that Kukukumal could have acted in harmony with Hammu- 

 rapi, as Cherdorlaomar is said to have done. Indeed, it shows that 

 he was not a contemporary of Hammurapi at all, for during his 

 powerful reign there was no such conquest of Babylon by Elam. 

 There were many conquests of Babylonia by the Elamites, and this 

 must refer to some other period. In the documents themselves there 

 is evidence that another period is intended, for Babylon is called by 

 its Cassite name, Kar-duniash, a name that it did not bear until three 

 or four hundred years after Hammurapi. 



If the fourteenth chapter of Genesis was influenced at all by 

 these documents, it is only another proof that the critics have been 

 right, and that the chapter is not an authority as history. 



Bryn Mawr College, 

 April 17, 1913. 



