DECENT ORIENTAL DISCOVEKIES ON OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. 10 i 



names have been deciphered in the cuneiform inscriptions. 

 Amraphel, King of Shinar (the Bible name for Babylonia), has 

 been identified with the well-known Hammurabi, one of the 

 most notable rulers of Babylonia, who reigned for the lengthened 

 period of forty-three years, and put an end to the dominant 

 power of Elam. He is described in one of his inscriptions as 

 King of Martu or the West-land, meaning in the language of 

 the cuneiform records, Syria, I^hcenicia, and Palestine. Arioch, 

 King of EUasar, was long ago identified by the late Mr. George 

 Smith with Eri-Aku, King of Larsa, ISTippur, and Ur. Of these 

 tw o kings. Dr. Pinches writes : — 



" The identification of Eri-Aku with the Arioch of Genesis xiv, 

 and Hammurabi, or Ammurapi, with the Amraphel of the same 

 book, can hardly admit of a doubt." Op. cit, p. 218. 



The third king, Chedorlaoiner, king of Elam, is identified 

 with great probability with Kudur-lahgumal, styled in an 

 inscription king of the land of Elam, who at one time invaded 

 Babylonia, pluudered its cities and temples, and exercised 

 sovereignty in Babylonia itself. Tidal, king of nations — of 

 Goyim, the Picvised Version translates it — is with probability 

 identified with Tudliula or Tidal, son of Gazza, mentioned in 

 the same inscriptions. Goyim is supposed to be the same as 

 Gutium — corresponding to the eastern part of Kurdistan. 



Opinions of various Critics. 



Erom what has been revealed by the cuneiform inscriptions 

 in reference to these kings, it would appear that those critics 

 who denied their historical character were a little too hasty in 

 their scepticism. Dr. Driver, indeed, in a contribution of his 

 to^ a comparatively recent work, Authority and Archmology, in 

 which he vigorously strives to minimise the bearing of these 

 identifications of the kings on the general veracity of the 

 narrative, goes on to state : — 



" The historical character of the four kings themselves has never 

 been seriously questioned." Authority and Archceology (1899), p. 45. 



It seems very difficult to understand how Dr. Driver could 

 make this statement in face of the opinions wliich were openly 

 expressed as to the historical — or, rather, the unhistorical — 

 character of the four Mesopotamian kings by well-known 

 critics writing some years 'ago. 



Hitzig, for instance, professor of theology in Heidelberg, 

 writing in 1869, expressed the brilliant idea that the expedition 

 of Chedorlaoiner was merely an adumbration thrown back 



