Mesopotamia and the Bible Mark W.

Chavalas
(Eds.) pdf download

https://ebookgate.com/product/mesopotamia-and-the-bible-mark-w-
chavalas-eds/

Get Instant Ebook Downloads – Browse at https://ebookgate.com

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

First And Second Samuel Interpretation A Bible Commentary

For Teaching And Preaching Vol 29 Walter Brueggemann

https://ebookgate.com/product/first-and-second-samuel-interpretation-
a-bible-commentary-for-teaching-and-preaching-vol-29-walter-
brueggemann/
ebookgate.com

An Introduction to the Bible J. W. Rogerson

https://ebookgate.com/product/an-introduction-to-the-bible-j-w-
rogerson/

ebookgate.com

John Through the Centuries Blackwell Bible Commentaries

1st Edition Mark J. Edwards

https://ebookgate.com/product/john-through-the-centuries-blackwell-
bible-commentaries-1st-edition-mark-j-edwards/

ebookgate.com

The Wiersbe Bible Commentary New Testament Second Edition

Warren W. Wiersbe

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-wiersbe-bible-commentary-new-
testament-second-edition-warren-w-wiersbe/

ebookgate.com
Adobe Dreamweaver CS5 Bible 1st Edition Joseph W. Lowery

https://ebookgate.com/product/adobe-dreamweaver-cs5-bible-1st-edition-
joseph-w-lowery/

ebookgate.com

Originalism in theology and law comparing perspectives on

the Bible and the Constitution 1st Edition Mark J. Boone

https://ebookgate.com/product/originalism-in-theology-and-law-
comparing-perspectives-on-the-bible-and-the-constitution-1st-edition-
mark-j-boone/
ebookgate.com

Search Scripture Well Karaite Exegetes and the Origins of

the Jewish Bible Commentary in the Islamic East Etudes Sur
Le Judaisme Medieval No 29 Daniel Frank
https://ebookgate.com/product/search-scripture-well-karaite-exegetes-
and-the-origins-of-the-jewish-bible-commentary-in-the-islamic-east-
etudes-sur-le-judaisme-medieval-no-29-daniel-frank/
ebookgate.com

The Archaeology of Mesopotamia Theories and Approaches 1st

Edition Roger Matthews

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-archaeology-of-mesopotamia-theories-
and-approaches-1st-edition-roger-matthews/

ebookgate.com

The Synoptic Problem A Way Through the Maze Understanding

the Bible and Its World 2005 reprint Edition Mark Goodacre

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-synoptic-problem-a-way-through-the-
maze-understanding-the-bible-and-its-world-2005-reprint-edition-mark-
goodacre/
ebookgate.com
JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
SUPPLEMENT SERIES

341

Editors
David J.A. Clines
Philip R. Davies

Executive Editor
Andrew Mein

Editorial Board
Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, J. Cheryl Exum, John Goldingay,
Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, John Jarick,
Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller

Sheffield Academic Press

A Continuum imprint
This page intentionally left blank
Mesopotamia and the Bible

Comparative Explorations

edited by

Mark W. Chavalas and

K. Lawson Younger, Jr

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Supplement Series 341
Copyright © 2002 Sheffield Academic Press

First published in 2002 by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd, an imprint of

Continuum.
This edition published in 2003 by T&T Clark International, an imprint of
Continuum.
The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX
15 East 26th Street, New York, NY 10010

www.continuumbooks.com

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press

Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Biddies Ltd.,
Guildford and King's Lynn

ISBN 0567-08231-8
 CONTENTS

Preface 7
Abbreviations 9
List of Contributors 19

MARK W. CHAVALAS
Assyriology and Biblical Studies: A Century of Tension 21

STEVEN W. HOLLOWAY
The Quest for Sargon, Pul, and Tiglath-Pileser in
the Nineteenth Century 68

RICHARD E. AVERBECK
Sumer, the Bible, and Comparative Method:
Historiography and Temple Building 88

MARK W. CHAVALAS
Syria and Northern Mesopotamia to the End of
the Third Millennium BCE 126

RONALD A. VEENKER
Syro-Mesopotamia: The Old Babylonian Period 149

VICTOR H. MATTHEWS
Syria to the Early Second Millennium 168

DAVID C. DEUEL
Apprehending Kidnappers by Correspondence
at Provincial Arrapha 191

RICHARD S. HESS
The Bible and Alalakh 209
6 Mesopotamia and the Bible

DANIEL E. FLEMING
Emar: On the Road from Harran to Hebron 222

WAYNE T. PITARD
Voices from the Dust: The Tablets from Ugarit and the Bible 251

WILLIAM SCHNIEDEWIND
The Rise of the Aramean States 276

K. LAWSON YOUNGER, JR
Recent Study on Sargon II, King of Assyria:
Implications for Biblical Studies 288

BILL T. ARNOLD
What has Nebuchadnezzar to do with David?
On the Neo-Babylonian Period and Early Israel 330

EDWIN YAMAUCHI
The Eastern Jewish Diaspora under the Babylonians 356

Index of References 378

Index of Authors 386
 PREFACE

At the 1994 meeting of the Near East Archeological Society in Aurora, IL,
Vice-President Bryant Wood asked Mark Chavalas to organize a panel
noting the relationship of Mesopotamia to biblical studies. Thus, a double
panel was organized, entitled 'Syro-Mesopotamia and the Bible' for the
Near East Archeological Society, presented on 17 November 1995, in
Philadelphia, PA, The panels were:
First Plenary Session
Wayne T. Pitard, University of Illinois:
'Whispers from the Dust: North Syrian Funerary Customs and
their Relationship to Israel'
A. The Early and Middle Bronze Ages
Richard Averbeck, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School:
'Sumerians, Temple Building, and the Bible'
Mark W. Chavalas, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse:
'Inland Syria in the Third and Second Millennia BC'
David Deuel, The Masters Seminary:
'Administration by Mail in Fifteenth Century Assyria'
Second Plenary Session,
Wayne Pitard, University of Illinois:
'Voices from the Dust: The Bible and the Great Libraries from
Ugarit'
B. The Middle and Late Bronze Ages
Daniel Fleming, New York University:
'Emar: On the Road from Harran to Hebron'
K. Lawson Younger, Jr, LeTourneau University:
"The Inscriptions of Sargon II in Light of Recent Research'
Bill Arnold, Asbury Theological Seminary:
'Light from Babylonia and the Rise of Israelite Literature'
8 Mesopotamia and the Bible

It was decided to publish the proceedings in a slightly altered and

expanded format, and thus William Schniedewind, Richard Hess, Edwin
Yamauchi, Ronald Veenker, Steven Holloway, and Victor Matthews were
asked to add papers on areas of Syro-Mesopotamia not addressed in the
original panel. In addition, Wayne Pitard collapsed his two plenary
sessions into one paper. Some might question the addition of papers
concerning Ugarit and Alalakh (as well as information concerning Ebla) to
a book devoted to Mesopotamia and the Bible. However, in this book we
will take a very loose definition of Mesopotamia as encompassing some
regions of Syria immediately west of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley that
were obviously connected culturally to traditional Mesopotamia.
The contributors were given only the most general geographic and
chronological parameters concerning their papers. They were not specifi-
cally asked per se to write on the relationship of their subject to biblical
studies (e.g. 'Nuzi and the Bible'; although some did do this), but to write
on their own interests (implicitly offering the reader an opportunity to
either make comparisons/contrasts with the Bible, or to see how their par-
ticular subject sheds light [if any] on the biblical text). Thus, this volume
is not intended to be an exhaustive overview of Mesopotamian civiliza-
tion, but a description of certain aspects of that civilization that may (or
may not) help the reader place the Bible in its greater ancient Near Eastern
context. The emphasis, however, is placed primarily on Mesopotamia and
its relationship to biblical studies.

Mark W. Chavalas
K. Lawson Younger, Jr
 ABBREVIATIONS

AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research

AAA Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology (University of
Liverpool)
AAAS Annales archeologiques arabes syriennes
AAT Agypten und Altes Testament
AB Anchor Bible
ABC A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Locust
Valley, NY: J.J. Augustin, 1975)
ABD David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary
(New York: Doubleday, 1992)
ABL R.F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters
(London/Chicago, 1892-1914)
ActSum Acta Sumerologica
AfO Archivfur Orientforschung
AMI G.I. Davies, Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions: Corpus and
Concordance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991)
AHw Wolfram von Soden, Akkadisches Handworterbuch
(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1959-81)
AION Annali dell 'istituto orientate di Napoli
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AJBI Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute
AKA E.A. Budge and L.W. King, The Annals of the Kings of
Assyria (Volume 1; London: British Musuem, 1902)
AnBib Analecta biblica
AnBoll Analecta Bollandiana
ANET James B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating
to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1950)
AnOr Analecta oriental ia
AnSt Anatolian Studies
AO Aula Orientalis. Revista de estudios del proximo oriente
antiguo
AOSup Aula Orientalis Supplementa
AOAT(S) Alter Orient und Altes Testament (Sonderreihe)
AoF Altorientalische Forschungen
AOS American Oriental Series
AOTS D. Winton Thomas (ed.), Archaeology and Old Testament
Study: Jubilee Volume of the Society for Old Testament Study
1917-1967 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967)
10 Mesopotamia and the Bible

AQ Anthropological Quarterly
ARAB D.D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (2
vols.; Chicago, 1926-27)
ARI A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions (2 vols.;
Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1972-76)
ARM Archives royales de Mari
ArOr Archiv orientdlni
AS Assyriological Studies
Asarh R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Konigs von Assyrien
(AfO Beiheft, 9; Graz: Ernst Weidner, 1956)
ASOR American Schools of Oriental Research
ASORDS American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series
Assur Assur. Monographic Journals of the Near East (Malibu:
Undena, California)
Assyria 1995 S. Parpola and R.M. Whiting (eds.), Assyria 1995:
Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-
Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 7-11,
1995 (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1997)
AT D.J. Wiseman, The Alalakh Texts (Occasional Publications of
the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 2; London:
British Institute of Archaeology, 1953)
AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies
BA Biblical Archaeologist
BAL2 R. Borger, Babylonische-assyrische Lesestiicke (AnOr, 54;
Rome, 1979,2nd edn)
BaM Bagdader Mitteilungen
BARev Biblical Archaeology Review
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BASORSup Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research,
Supplements
BAT 1985 Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International
Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April, 1984
(Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985)
BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research
BBVO Berliner Beitrage zum Vorderen Orient. Berlin
BCSMS Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies
BeO Bibbia e oriente
Bib Biblica
BibOr Biblica et orientalia
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester
BM British Museum
BO Bibliotheca orientalis
BR Bible Review
BSac Bibliotheca Sacra
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
BWANT Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament
BZA W Beihefte zur ZA W
CAD Ignace I. Gelb et al. (eds.), The Assyrian Dictionary of the
 Abbreviations 11

Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago:

Oriental Institute, 1956-)
CANE J.M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (4
vols.; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995)
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Monograph Series
CH R.F. Harper, The Code of Hammurabi
COS W.W. Hallo and K.L. Younger (eds.), The Context of
Scripture (3 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997-2002)
CTN Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud
DDD K. van der Toom, B. Becking and P.W. van der Horst (eds.),
The Dictionary of Deities and Demons (Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1995)
DOTT D. Winton Thomas (ed.), Documents from Old Testament
Times (London: Nelson, 1958)
EA J.A. Knudtzon, et al (eds.), Die El-Amama-Tafeln
(Vorderasiatische Bibliothek, 2; Leipzig, 1915)
Edom and Seir D. V. Edelman (ed.), You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite For He is
Your Brother: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition
(Archaeology and Biblical Studies, 3; Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1995)
EEM P. Bienkowski (ed.), Early Edom andMoab: The Beginning of
the Iron Age in Southern Jordan (Sheffield Archaeological
Monographs, 7; Sheffield: J.R. Collis Publications in
association with National Museums and Galleries on Mersey-
side, 1992)
El Eretz-Israel
Emar M.W. Chavalas, (ed.), Emar: The History, Religion, and
Culture of a Syrian Town in the Late Bronze Age (Bethesda:
CDL Press, 1996)
EvQ Evangelical Quarterly
FAOS Freiburger Altorientalische Studien
FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament
FTH A.R. Millard, J.K. Hoffmeier and D.W. Baker (eds.), Faith,
Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in its
Near Eastern Context (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994)
GAG W. von Soden, Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik (AnOr,
33; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1952)
HAR Hebrew Annual Review
HANES History of the Ancient Near East/Studies
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HSS Harvard Semitic Studies
HSS 5 Excavations at Nuzi 1: E. Chiera, 'Texts of Varied Contents'
(1929)
HSS 9 Excavations at Nuzi 2: R.H. Pfeiffer, 'The Archives of
Shilwa-teshub Son of the King' (1932)
HSS 13 Excavations at Nuzi 4: R.H. Pfeiffer and E.R. Lacheman,
'Miscellaneous Texts from Nuzi' (1942)
12 Mesopotamia and the Bible

HSS 14 Excavations atNuzi 5: E.R. Lacheman, 'Miscellaneous Texts

from Nuzi, Part II: The Palace and Temple Archives' (1950)
HSS 15 Excavations at Nuzi 6: E.R. Lacheman, 'The Administrative
Archives' (1955)
HSS 16 Excavations atNuzi 7: E.R. Lacheman, 'Economic and Social
Documents' (1958)
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
ICC International Critical Commentary
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
IOS Israel Oriental Studies
ISBE Geoffrey Bromiley (ed.), The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia (4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rev. edn,
1979-88)
JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JARCE Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies
JEN Joint Expedition with the Iraq Museum at Nuzi
JEN 2 Texts 101 -221: E. Chiera, 'Declarations in Court' (Paris,
1930)
JEN 4 Texts 321 -427: E. Chiera, 'Proceedings in Court'
(Philadelphia, 1934)
JEN 5 Texts 428-559: E. Chiera, 'Mixed Texts' (Philadelphia, 1934)
JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
JPOS Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society
JRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
JSSSup Journal of Semitic Studies, Supplement Series
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
KAI H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaanaische und aramaische
Inschriften (3 vols.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1962-64)
Khorsabad A. Caubet (ed.), Khorsabad, lepalais de Sargon II, roi
d'Assyrie. Actes du collogue organise au musee du Louvre par
le Service culturel les 21 et 22 Janvier 1994 (Louvre
conferences et colloques; Paris: La documentation Franfaise,
1995)
KTU M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartin, Keilalphabetische
Texte aus Ugarit einschliesslich der keilalphabetischen Texte
aufierhalb Ugarits. Teil 1 Transkription (AOAT, 24/1;
Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1976)
 Abbreviations 13

KTU2 M. Dietrich, O. Loretz and J. Sanmartin, The Cuneiform

Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places
(KTU: Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995, 2nd enlarged edn)
KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazkoi (Staatliche Museen zu
Berlin, Vorderasiatische Abteilung; Berlin: Akademie Verlag,
1921-)
La Bible et I 'orient La Bible et I 'orient: travaux du premiere congres
d'archeologie et d'orientalisme biblique (Saint-Cloud, 23-25
Avril, 1954) (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1954)
LEC Library of Early Christianity
MANE Monographs of the Ancient Near East
MARI Mori, Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires
Mari in Retrospect G.D. Young (ed.), Mori in Retrospect: Fifty Years ofMari and
Mori Studies (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992)
MDOG Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn
H.-J. Nissen and J. Renger (eds.), Mesopotamien und seine
Nachbarn: Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im
Alten Vorderasien vom 4. bis 1, Jahrtausend v. Chr. (RAI 25;
BBVO, 1; Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1982)
NABU Nouvelles assyriologiques breves et utilitaires
NBD J.D. Douglas et al. (eds.), New Bible Dictionary (Leicester:
Inter-Varsity Press, 2nd edn, 1982)
NEA Near Eastern Archaeology
NEAEHL E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological
Excavations in the Holy Land (Jerusalem: The Israel
Exploration Society & Carta, 1993)
NEASB Near East Archaeology Society Bulletin
NHSAS M.W, Chavalas and J. Hayes (eds.), New Horizons in the
Study of Ancient Syria (Malibu: Undena, 1992)
NIDOTE Willem A. VanGemeren (ed.), New International Dictionary
of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (5 vols.; Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1997)
OA Oriens Antiquus. Rivista del Centro per le Antichita e la Storia
dell'Arte del Vicino Oriente
OEANE E.M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology
in the Near East (5 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1997)
OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis
OCPR E. Matsushima (ed.), Official Cult and Popular Religion in the
Ancient Near East: Papers of the First Colloquium on the
Ancient Near East—The City and its Life, held at the Middle
Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March
20-22, 1992 (Heidelberg: Winter, 1993)
OIP The University of Chicago, Oriental Institute Publications
OLZ Orientalische Literaturzeitung
Or Orientalia
OrSu Orientalia Suecana
14 Mesopotamia and the Bible

PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly

PKB J. A. Brinkman, A Political History ofPost-Kassite Babylonia,
1158-722 B.C. (AnOr, 43; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1968)
PLAMAP O. Bar-Yosef and A. Khazanov (eds.), Pastoralism in the
Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological
Perspectives (Monographs in World Archaeology, 10;
Madison, WI: Prehistory Press, 1992)
PNA S. Parpola, K. Radner, H. Baker, et al. (eds.), The
Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Helsinki: The
Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1998-)
POTW A.J. Hoerth, G.L. Mattingly and E.M. Yamauchi (eds.),
Peoples of the Old Testament World (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1994)
Power and Propaganda
M.T. Larsen (ed.), Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on
Ancient Empires (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979)
PPS Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
PRS Perspectives in Religious Studies
PSBA Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology
RA Revue d 'assyriologie et d 'archeologie orientale
RAI Recontre Assyriologique Internationale
RB Revue biblique
RHR Revue de I 'histoire des religions
RIMA 1 The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods.
Volume 1: A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Third and
Second Millennia BC (To 1115BC) (Toronto: University of
Toronto, 1987)
RIMA 2 The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods.
Volume 2: A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First
Millennium BC (1114-859 BC) (Toronto: University of
Toronto, 1991)
RIMA 3 The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods.
Volume 3: A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First
Millennium Bdl (858-745 BC) (Toronto: University of
Toronto, 1996)
RIME 2 Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early Periods. Volume 2:
D. Frayne, Sargonic and Gutian Periods (Toronto: University
of Toronto, 1993)
RIME 3.1 The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early Periods.
Volume 3.1: D.O. Edzard, Gudea and His Dynasty (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1997)
RIME 3.2 Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early Periods. Volume
3.2: D. Frayne, Ur IIIPeriod (2112-2004 BC) (Toronto:
University of Toronto, 1997)
RIME 4 Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early Periods. Volume 4:
D. Frayne, Old Babylonian Period (2003-1595 BC) (Toronto:
University of Toronto, 1990)
 Abbreviations 15

RivB Rivista biblica italiana

RIA E. Ebeling and B. Meissner et al. (eds.) Reallexikon der
Assyriologie
RSP L. Fisher and S. Rummel (eds.), Ras Shamra Parallels: The
Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible (3 vols.; Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1975-81)
SAA State Archives of Assyria
SAAB State Archives of Assyria Bulletin
SAAS State Archives of Assyria Studies
SANE Sources from the Ancient Near East
SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations. Chicago: The
Oriental Institute
SBL Society of Biblical Literature
SBLDS SBL Dissertation Series
SBLMS SBL Monograph Series
SBLRBS SBL Resources for Biblical Study
SBLWAW SBL Writings of the Ancient World
SCCNH Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the
Humans
SHCANE Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East
ScrHier Scripta Hierosolymitana
SEL Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico
SHAJ Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan
SIC 1 C.D. Evans, W.W. Hallo and J.B. White (eds.), Scripture in
Context: Essays on the Comparative Method (Pittsburgh
Theological Monograph Series, 34; Pittsburgh: Pickwick,
1980)
SIC 2 W.W. Hallo, J.C. Moyer and L.G. Perdue (eds.), Scripture in
Context, II. More Essays on the Comparative Method
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983)
SIC 3 W.W. Hallo, B.W. Jones and G.L. Mattingly (eds.), The Bible
in the Light of Cuneiform Literature: Scripture in Context, III.
(Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies, 8. Lewiston: The
Edward Mellen Press, 1990)
SIC 4 K.L. Younger, Jr, W.W. Hallo and B.F. Batto (eds.), The
Canon in Comparative Perspective: Scripture in Context, IV.
(Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies, 11; Lewiston, NY:
The Edwin Mellen Press, 1991)
SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
SMIM J.A. Dearman (ed.), Studies in the Mesha Inscription and
Moab (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989)
Studies Ahlstrom W. Barrick and J. Spencer (eds.), In the Shelter ofElyon:
Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of
Gosta W. Ahlstrom (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984)
Studies Albright H. Goedicke (ed.), Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William
Foxwell Albright (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1971)
16 Mesopotamia and the Bible

Studies Archer W. Kaiser and R. Youngblood (eds.), A Tribute to Gleason

Archer (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986)
Studies Astour G.D. Young, M.W. Chavalas and R.E. Averbeck (eds.),
Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons: Studies in Honor
of Michael C. Astour on His 80th Birthday (Bethesda: CDL
Press, 1997)
Studies Barr S.E. Balentine and J. Barton (eds.), Language, Theology, and
the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1994)
Studies Birot J.M. Durand and J.R. Kupper (eds.), Miscellanea Babylonica:
Melanges Offerts a Maurice Birot (Paris: Editions Recherche
sur les civilisations, 1985)
Studies Borger S.M. Maul (ed.), Festschrift fur Rykle Borger zu seinem 65.
Geburtstag am 24. Mai 1994: tikip santakki mala basmu
(Groningen: Styx, 1998)
Studies Bounni P. Matthiae et al., (eds.), Resurrecting the Past: A Joint
Tribute to Adnan Bounni (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor
hetNabijeOosten, 1990)
Studies Braidwood T.C. Young et al. (eds.), The Hilly Flanks and Beyond: Essays
in the Prehistory of Southwestern Asia Presented to Robert J.
Braidwood (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984)
Studies Cross P.D. Miller, P.D. Hanson and S.D. McBride (eds.), Ancient
Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987)
Studies Freedman C.L. Meyers and M. O'Connor (eds.), The Word of the Lord
Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in
Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1983)
Studies Garelli D. Charpin and F. Joannes (eds.), Marchands, Diplomates et
empereurs: Etudes sur la civilisation mesopotamienne offertes
a P. Garelli (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations,
1991)
Studies Gibson N. Wyatt, W.G.E. Watson and J.B. Lloyd (eds.), Ugarit,
Religion and Culture. Proceedings of the Inter-national
Colloquium on Ugarit, Religion and Culture Edinburgh, July
1994. Essays Presented in Honour of Professor John C. L.
Gibson (UBL, 12; Miinster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996)
Studies Harrison A. Gileadi (ed.), Israel's Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in
Honor of Roland K. Harrison (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1988)
Studies Heltzer Y. Avishur and R. Deutsch (eds.), Michael. Historical,
Epigraphical and Biblical Studies in Honor of Prof. Michael
Heltzer (Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center Publications, 1999)
Studies Kaufmann M. Haran (ed.), Studies in Bible and Jewish Religion:
Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, 1960)
Studies King M.D. Coogan, J.C. Exum and L.E. Stager (eds.), Scripture and
Other Artifacts: Essays on Archaeology and the Bible in
 Abbreviations 17

Honor of Philip J. King (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John

Knox Press, 1994)
Studies Kraus G. van Driel et al. (eds.), Zikir Sumim: Assyriological Studies
Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of his Seventieth
Birthday (Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten Studia
Francisci Scholten Memoriae Dicata, 5; Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1982)
Studies Lacheman M.A. Morrison and D.I. Owen (eds.), In Honor of Ernest R.
Lacheman on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday (SCCNH, 1; Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981)
Studies Landsberger H.G. Giiterbock and T. Jacobsen (eds.), Studies in Honor of
Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-fifth Birthday April 21,
1965 (AS, 16; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965)
Studies Lambdin D.M. Golomb (ed.), 'Working with No Data': Semitic and
Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin (Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987)
Studies van Loon O.M.C. Haex, H.H. Curvers and P.M.M.G. Akkermans (eds.),
To the Euphrates and Beyond: Archaeological Studies in
Honour ofMaurits N. van Loon (Rotterdam/Brookfield: A.A.
Balkema, 1989)
Studies Loretz M. Dietrich and I. Kottsieper (eds.), 'Und Mose schrieb dieses
Liedauf: Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alien Orient.
Festschrift fur Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70.
Lebensjahres mit Beitragen von Freunden, Schiilern und
Kollegen (AOAT, 250; Miinster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998)
Studies Mendenhall H.B. Huffmon, F.A. Spina and A.R.W. Green (eds.), The
Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E.
Mendenhall (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983)
Studies Moron T. Abusch, J. Huehnergard and P. Steinkeller (eds.), Lingering
over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in
Honor of William L Moron (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990)
Studies Pope J. Marks and R. Good (eds.), Lave and Death in the Ancient
Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope (Guilford:
Four Quarters Publishing Company, 1987)
Studies Sjoberg H. Behrens et al. (eds.), DUMUE2 DU-BA-A: Studies in
Honor ofAke W. Sjoberg (Philadelphia: The University
Museum, 1989)
Studies von Soden M. Dietrich and O. Loretz (eds.), Vom Alten Orient von Soden
zum Alten Testament. Festschrift fur Wolfram Freiherrn von
Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1993 (AOAT;
Kevelaer. Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1995)
Studies Speiser W.W. Hallo (ed.), Essays in Memory ofE.A. Speiser (New
Haven: American Oriental Society, 1968)
Studies Tadmor M. Cogan and I. Eph'al (eds.), Ah, Assyria, ...Studies in
Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography
Presented to Hayim Tadmor (ScrHier, 33; Jerusalem: The
Magnes Press, 1991)
18 Mesopotamia and the Bible

Studies Wright P.M. Cross et al. (eds.), Magnolia Dei: Essays on the Bible
and Archaeology in Memory ofG. Ernest Wright (Garden
City, NY: Doubleday, 1976)
Studies Young J.E. Coleson and V.H. Matthews (eds.), Go to the Land I Will
Show You: Studies in Honor ofDwight W. Young (Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996)
TAD B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents
from Ancient Egypt (4 vols.; Jerusalem: The Hebrew
University, 1986-1999)
TCS Texts from Cuneiform Sources
TDOT G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theological
Dictionary of the Old Testament
TFS S. Dalley and J.N. Postgate, The Tablets from Fort
Shalmaneser (CTN, 3; Oxford: British School of
Archaeology, 1984)
TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung
TRu Theologische Rundschau
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift
UB G.J. Brooke, A.H.W.Curtis and J.F. Healey (eds.), Ugarit and
the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Ugarit and the Bible. Manchester, September 1992 (UBL, 11;
Miinster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994)
UBL Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
Unity and Diversity H. Goedicke and J.J.M. Roberts (eds.), Unity and Diversity:
Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient
Near East (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press,
1975)
Ugarit in Retrospect G.D. Young (ed.), Ugarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit
and Ugaritic (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1979)
VAB Vorderasiatische Bibliothek
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Vetus Testamentum, Supplements
WO Die Welt des Orients
WZHB Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt- Universitdt zu
Berlin
WZKM Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes
YNER Yale Near Eastern Researches
YOS Yale Oriental Series. Babylonian Texts
ZA Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie
ZAH Zeitschrift jur Althebraistik
ZAS Zeitschrift Jur agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde
ZA W Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenldndischen Gesellschaft
ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palastina-Vereins
 LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Bill T. Arnold, Asbury Theological Seminary

Richard E. Averbeck, Trinity International University—Divinity School

Mark W. Chavalas, University of Wisconsin—La Crosse

David C. Deuel, Brandon, Florida

Daniel E. Fleming, New York University

Richard S. Hess, Denver Seminary

Steven W. Holloway, American Theological Library Association

Victor H. Matthews, Southwest Missouri State University

Wayne T. Pitard, The University of Illinois

William Schniedewind, University of California, Los Angeles

Ronald A. Veenker, Western Kentucky University

Edwin Yamauchi, Miami University

K. Lawson Younger Jr, Trinity International University—Divinity School

This page intentionally left blank
 ASSYRIOLOGY AND BIBLICAL STUDIES:
A CENTURY AND A HALF OF TENSION

Mark W. Chavalas

What is the reason for these efforts in remote, inhospitable, and dangerous
lands? What is the reason for this expensive rooting through rubble many
thousands of years old, all the way down to the water table, where no gold
and no silver is to be found? What is the reason for the competition among
nations to secure excavation rights to these deserted mounds, and the more
the better? Moreover, what is the source of the ever-increasing, self-
sacrificing interest, on both sides of the Atlantic, allotted to the excavations
in Babylonia and Assyria?
To these questions there is one answer, even if not the whole answer
which points to what for the most part is the motive and the goal, namely,
the Bible (Delitzsch 1906: 1).

So began F. Delitzsch's famous inaugural lecture for the German Oriental

Society entitled, 'Babel und Bibel', 13 January 1902, in Berlin. However,
those who believed that the excavations in Mesopotamia had the primary
purpose of illuminating the Bible and verifying its historicity were to be
disappointed with the remainder of Delitzsch's first and succeeding lec-
tures, as he spoke from the standpoint of an Assyriologist who attempted
to show the primacy and superiority of Babel (Mesopotamia) over the
Bible. The tension between the two disciplines of Assyriology and biblical
studies in the past century and a half has often been acute and has never
adequately been defined. In fact, any comparative study of issues concern-
ing the two has often been considered a hazardous affair.! Assyriology, of
course, is by definition a new discipline, and has often been considered
an intruder by biblicists (Kraus 1969: 69-73). On the other hand, the
Assyriologist has often had to work under the shadow of the biblicists,
who have for the most part considered Assyriology an auxiliary to biblical
studies. They often have had to connect their work for relevance to biblical

1. See the discussion by van der Toorn 1985: 1 -8.

22 Mesopotamia and the Bible

studies. Of course, many Assyriologists in the early period maintained a

traditional doctrinal orthodoxy. Assyriology remains a subject for special-
ists; there never has been an assyriological equivalent to Egyptomania,
except for the Amorite hypothesis. The Assyriologist must admit that
ironically it was the Bible that helped illuminate the newly found cunei-
form documents in the nineteenth century, as it provided transcriptions of
five of the names of the Assyrian kings.2 For some biblical scholars, the
impact of Assyriology upon biblical studies has been minimal, an unten-
able position for those of us who attempt to bridge both fields.3 When one
scrapes away the superficial similarities, however, the two disciplines have
thus developed almost wholly independent of each other. In some respects,
scholars of the two disciplines are not always properly trained or well
suited to do comparative studies.4 Too often scholars have taken 'in-
ventorial' approach to comparisons, listing various parallel phenomena
without making clear their significance (Malul 1990: 32). Although it is
certainly legitimate to look for parallels (Veenhof 1995), the methodo-
logical criteria for studying Mesopotamia and the Bible have not been
adequately articulated. There needs to be a systematic manner in the
approach to the comparative method.5 Most would agree that the biblical
scholar must examine the immediate and wider biblical context before
resorting to searching for external evidences from Mesopotamia, and the
general context of those external sources also. One must also ask whether
or not the phenomenon in question existed outside the stream of the
ancient Near Eastern tradition, of which both the biblical and Meso-
potamian cultures were a part (Malul 1990: 93-97).
On the whole, the biblical scholars have made but superficial use of
Assyriological research, mainly because of the high degree of speciali-
zation needed to work with its data (Millard 1989: 24). Furthermore, a
great number of Assyriologists neither have an interest in biblical studies,
nor do they see many obvious and direct connections to the Old Testa-
ment, while Old Testament scholars are often too concerned with theo-
logical matters to become interested in immersing themselves in technical

2. Also, see the discussion by Tadmor 1985: 262.

3. Notice the lack of attention to ancient Near Eastern matters in some of the
major works devoted to the history of Old Testament scholarship; Kraeling 1955; Hahn
1956; Kraus 1956; Greenslade 1963.
4. See the discussion of this issue in regards to biblical scholars studying Ugaritic
religion; see Killers 1985.
5. This is one of the themes of Barr 1987.
 CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 23

matters (in fact, some biblical scholars were drawn to Assyriology because
of its comparative lack of theological controversies; this has certainly been
the case in Great Britain and North America). The cuneiform material
accessible to the biblical scholar is limited to the relatively few fully
edited and annotated texts. At any rate, it is not surprising to see a tension
between the two disciplines. In spite of this, it is strongly urged that the
two disciplines continue to interact, as long as they retain their own
methodology and autonomy (see Tadmor 1985: 266).
In this introduction, I will attempt to trace some of the major develop-
ments of the relationship between the two fields since the discovery and
subsequent decipherment of'Babylonic' cuneiform in the mid-nineteenth
century.
The two disciplines are very different. Assyriology studies a dead
civilization. When Xenophon, the Greek general and historian, traversed
the boundaries of Assyria at the beginning of the fourth century BCE, he
traveled past both Nimrud and Nineveh. Although he noticed both of these
cities, he called them by their Greek names, and assumed that the region
was part of Media, and that the two cities were destroyed by the Persians.
Thus, he was unaware that they were two of the great Assyrian capitals,
which had become abandoned mounds in the preceding two centuries.6
The Bible and various Greek sources became powerful factors in keeping
alive the memory of Mesopotamian civilization. Yet it was not simply the
interest in biblical studies that drove the Europeans to the Tigris-Euphrates
Valley in the early nineteenth century. France and Great Britain were
looking for land routes to India and took great efforts to exert their
influence on these areas. Archeology was thus an unconscious extension of
European imperialism.
Because of the spiritual connections with the Old Testament, those in
the West are the remote descendants of the Mesopotamians.7 Assyriology's
importance to world history is only now being discussed by Assyriologists.8
However, Assyriologists have rarely been able to synthesize their massive
data base for the public. Furthermore, biblical scholars have been much

6. Xenophon, Anabasis 1.4.6-12. Other classical period authors, including Hero-

dotus and Ptolemy were better versed about this area. I thank Michael C. Astour for the
preceding observation.
7. See Bottero (1992: 15-25) who argues that Assyriology should be at the center
of the social sciences, since it contains our cultural 'family documents'.
8. See, for example, Hallo 1996.
24 Mesopotamia and the Bible

more prone to search for comparative data than have Assyriologists.9 The
two civilizations of Mesopotamia and Israel must be studied independently
of each other, while recognizing the intimate relationship of the two
(Saggs 1978: 5). Comparisons between the two were often done early on
in regards to polemic.10 The two traditions should be seen as two con-
temporary systems in the ancient Near East, and not necessarily
exclusively in context with each other. Searching for direct comparisons
can be methodologically unsound, causing one to omit great amounts of
relevant data. Clearly, Mesopotamia and Israel (including Syria) were part
of a greater cultural continuum (van der Toorn 1996: 4).
The study of Syro-Mesopotamian civilization has advanced greatly in
the past 25 years. Of special import is the renewed interest in Eastern or
'Mesopotamian' Syria, where new archeological finds have radically
altered our understanding of not only the ancient Near East, but of the
Bible as well. Although there have recently been some brief descriptions
of Mesopotamian connections and the Bible,11 there has been no detailed
synthesis in English of the Tigris-Euphrates region in regards to the Bible
in many years.12
From the beginning, scholars were intrigued by the possibilities of
studying the two disciplines, and either emphasized the similarities or
stressed differences.13 At the outset of the nineteenth century the Anglican
Church retained a supremacy over biblical studies that was not seen in
either Germany or France. Thus, when German and French historical and
literary criticism of the Bible began to filter into Great Britain there was a
sharp reaction. These 'Germanisms' as they were called (the propensity to
view many Old Testament stories as mythical and to de-emphasize the
importance of the Old Testament) were considered a threat to the
understanding of the divine inspiration of Scripture (Chadwick 1966:628).
There was a fear that the Bible would be 'polluted' by being too close to a

9. Sj6berg (1984: 217) found it necessary to state that he comes to the Old
Testament with 'the eyes of an Assyriologist'.
10. E.g. in terms of religion, see Vriezen 1968.
11. E.g. Hoerth, Mattingly and Yamauchi 1994.
12. E.g. Larue 1967; Parrot 1955; 1958. A number of Assyriologists have worked
on comparative themes of Mesopotamia and the Bible late in their career; see now von
Soden 1985 (this is not in fact a synthesis but a collection of some of von Soden's
previously published works on biblical and assyriological themes) and Bottero 1986-
92; 1993a; and 1994.
13. Talmon 1978a: 332; for a critique of finding comparisons as a modern variation
of the long history of the effort to deny Israel any innovation, see Greenspahn 1991.
 CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 25

pagan tradition (i.e. Mesopotamia). Ironically, the British and French

Enlightenment which had been imported to Germany had now returned in
an altered form to a country was had previously been cool to biblical
criticism. However, the fact that historical criticism was presently being
done in Homeric studies made it easier for scholars to be open to the
'Germanisms' (Kraeling 1955: 89-97). However, the first impressions of
the cuneiform tablets had little impact on nineteenth-century biblical
criticism.
The first major excavations were done by the French, under P.E. Botta,
who had knowingly begun working at Nineveh in 1842.14 Of course, the
ancient name of the mound was Ninua, a fact which was known by the
Medieval Arab geographers and Jewish travelers (e.g. Benjamin of Tudela
in the twelfth century AD), but not to the European travelers or, for the
most part, the European adventurers (Grayson 1997: 106). Though Botta
soon left Nineveh, he directed his attentions to Khorsabad, where he found
the palace of the Assyrian king Sargon II. Ironically, he mistakenly
thought he had discovered Nineveh (see Budge 1925: 67). Botta's dis-
coveries at Khorsabad, though, created an immense interest in Mesopo-
tamian antiquities in Europe. Although the French government sponsored
work on drawing the reliefs that had been brought to Paris, Botta never
received the public recognition afforded many other adventurers to the
Middle East. Nonetheless, the French government subsidized the magnifi-
cent volumes produced by Botta, although they were only accessible to a
small number of persons (not including Layard!) (McCall 1998:198). At
any rate, A. de Longperier was able to read the name Sargon, King of
Assyria on one of the monuments, identifying him with the same
mentioned in Isa. 20.1, the first name of a Mesopotamian king to be read
by a modern scholar from outside the biblical text.15 Furthermore, V. Place
succeeded Botta at Khorsabad and found more of the layout of the city of
Sargon II (Place 1867-70).
Soon thereafter the Englishman, A.H. Layard, began work at Nimrud in
1845.16 Like Botta, he also thought he had found Nineveh, and his famous
work, Nineveh and its Remains is in fact primarily a discussion of material

14. Botta and Flandin 1849-50; Botta 1843-44. For a recent discussion of the
French involvement in the mid-nineteenth century, see Fontan (ed.) 1994.
15. Moorey 1991:8. For French interest in Mesopotamian and biblical connections,
seeVigouroux 1877.
16. Layard 1849; 1849-53; 1853. A compendium of Layard's (and Botta's) work
was done by Bonomi 1852.
26 Mesopotamia and the Bible

from Nimrud. Layard found at Nimrud the first dramatic sculptural link to
the Old Testament, the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III and the citation
concerning Jehu of Israel. This, of course, was not proven until the obelisk
was deciphered years later. At this early date there was a general under-
standing that the Assyrians and Babylonians led away the Israelites and
Judahites captive (Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar were household
names to the European public).17 Layard's finds were quickly disseminated
and became topics for newspapers and popular journals. They impressed
British and American societies who were still immersed in Old Testament
piety. They not only hoped that Layard's investigations would help
provide the correct understanding of Scripture, they were convinced that
the Bible had been vindicated by his finds, especially since they believed
that it confirmed the destruction of the Assyrian cities as foretold by the
biblical prophets. Thus, Layard had to step very carefully as he came to
conclusions about the finds and their relevance to the Old Testament,
knowing that controversies were brewing back home. But, as long as the
texts could not be read with any certainty, nothing could be firmly
established.18 Others, however, were more cynical and supposed that if
Layard attached biblical importance to his discoveries, he would become
more famous and receive the backing of the religious public.I9 Thus,
Layard created a sensation with his books, both in Europe and America.20
Many of the responses by theologians about the finds were premature and
often irresponsible, as they tried to appeal to religious sensibilities
(Kildahl 1959: 2-20). However, much of the hoopla about theological
fears of the budding discipline of Assyriology was soon displaced with
Darwin's revolutionary ideas.
Although both Botta and Layard knew their Bible as well as their
classics, neither appeared to be interested in trying to prove the historical

17. Hincks in 1849 had deciphered the names of Esarhaddon and Sennacherib in
the Layard's reliefs (185 Ib: 977); and Grotefend read Shalmaneser (Moorey 1991:10).
See Hincks 1851b; 1852; and H.C. Rawlinson found the names of the Israelite and
Judahite kings of Jehu and Menahem in the Assyrian annals, e.g., see Rawlinson 1850.
Also see Hincks 1853; 1850.
18. See the discussion in Larsen 1996: 155-64.
19. See Saggs 1984: 306; and Bamett 1960. Layard did not hesitate to make
biblical correlations, e.g., 18491:75-76. Unfortunately, many of his preliminary ideas
were preached from British pulpits, giving rise to widespread 'logorrhea', according to
Kildahl 1959: 55-59, 147-49.
20. Others quickly followed with works of the same ilk; see Vaux 1855; Bonomi
1869. For Layard's influence in Britain and the US, see Kildahl 1959.
 CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 27

veracity of either traditions in regards to Mesopotamia. Of course, the

public was interested in the elucidation of the Old Testament, while
academics saw in their work an interesting specimen for understanding the
evolution of the arts through sculpture and the like (Larsen 1996:68). But
the academic world was somewhat slow in incorporating the material
uncovered by them.
In 1852, now ten years after the first excavations in the Tigris-Euphrates
region, J.C. Hoefer published Chaldee, Assyrie, Medie, Babylonie, Meso-
potamie, Phenicie, Palmyrene,2] where he collected all of the biblical and
classical references to Mesopotamia, as well as descriptions of the area
by travelers from medieval times to his present. Little, however, was
discussed about the new finds. In the same year, E. Hincks and H.C.
Rawlinson were able to partially decipher Sennacherib's account of the
invasion of Judah, which appears to be remarkably similar to the biblical
account in 2 Kgs 18.13-16.22 At last, many thought there was now
convincing proof of the connections of Assyria and Israel, and that the
Assyrian texts really did contain information that would help explain Old
Testament passages. Although there was initial enthusiasm from the reli-
gious community, theologians were not able to explain the discrepancies
in the two accounts. Ten years later Rawlinson published a provisional
chronology of Assyrian history that provided a datum point for comparing
it with biblical history. He also was able to figure out an account of
Shalmaneser Ill's war with Jehu of Israel, which provoked great interest in
Great Britain.23 However, even Rawlinson's brother George, an Anglican
clergyman, felt that the investigation of the Assyrian palaces had to be
stopped because they came 'uncomfortably close to the holy text'.24 Henry
saw this as 'downright rot'.25 At any rate, the decipherment of Assyrian
cuneiform caused Assyriology to be acknowledged as a legitimate dis-
cipline.26 Although there were apparent contradictions in the Assyrian and

21. Paris: Firmin Didot Freres, 1852.

22. See the discussion by Hincks and Rawlinson in Layard 1853: 118-24.
23. His magnum opus was H. Rawlinson 1860-84.
24. Although he came to see the usefulness of Mesopotamian studies on shedding
light upon the Old Testament world; see G. Rawlinson 1862: vi; 1859; 1871.
25. British Library 38977,219-24,31 March 1847 (as listed in Larsen 1996:366);
but see G. Rawlinson 1885. At any rate, Hincks was more open to stating biblical
connections than was Rawlinson: see Hincks 1862a; 1862b.
26. The decipherment became official when Rawlinson, Talbot, Hincks and Oppert
(1857) independently translated an inscription of Tiglath Pileser I.
28 Mesopotamia and the Bible

biblical records, the two disciplines were intertwined, and continued to

retain close ties, at least for the time being. By this time, over 50 personal
and place names from the Bible had been identified in the Assyrian
records (Layard 1849: 626-28). In fact, the natural link between the two
disciplines was recognized by the founding of the Society of Biblical
Archaeology in London in 1870. The Society's goal was to investigate the
archeology and history of Assyria, as well as other biblical lands.
Arguably, the most sensational find of the early periods was made by
George Smith, who had been enthralled with the Bible since he was a
youth, and was almost obsessed with knowing more about the historical
books of the Old Testament (Smith 1875:9). On 3 December 1872, Smith
addressed the Society of Biblical Archaeology and revealed a Babylonian
account of the flood story, causing an ecclesiastical and scientific sensation
in both Britain and France, even greater than that of Layard's time. Public
interest in Mesopotamia was renewed. The flood texts were viewed by
the public at the British Museum with great interest. Assyriology was
now viewed as a sword to pierce the emerging German school of'Higher
Criticism', which was seen to be undermining the authority of the Old
Testament.27 Smith was offered funding to find the missing portion of
the tablet back in northern Iraq. Although the Bible had had priority as
having the oldest records of humanity, this new-found deluge text clearly
delineated a problem.28 How was there an earlier version of the Holy
Text? Did it no longer have chronological priority? Smith refrained from
providing his own interpretation. Was this just a later perverted version
from a different religious system, or the origin of all flood stories? In
retrospect, these issues ultimately caused the public to be wary of the
Assyriology, a discipline which was not regarded as being encumbered
with the authority of Scripture. It is at this point that the two disciplines
began to drift further apart (Tadmor 1985: 265). Hebrew scholars began
to suspect many of the Assyriologist's translations of texts. Based upon
the cumulative effect of Assyriological discoveries and finds in other
fields, the British resistance to biblical criticism was weakened (Kraeling
1955: 92).

27. Wiseman 1962: 11; Saggs 1999: 78. Many of these scholars, such as J. Well-
hausen and R. Smith, were Semiticists who were drawn to biblical comparisons with
Arabic studies, rather than Assyriology.
28. Smith 1876. B. Denys, in a review of Smith's work (The Chaldean Account of
Genesis [London: Thomas Scott, 1877]), was one of the few who appreciated the
seriousness of the issue.
 CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 29

Smith's successors in the British Museum continued in his tradition of

looking for biblical parallels. W. Boscawen caused a public excitement by
claiming that many of the difficulties in the book of Daniel, including the
identity of Darius the Mede, had been cleared up.29 Another Assyriologist
interested in biblical connections was A.H. Sayce, an Anglican priest who
was a prolific writer who periodically attempted to prove historical details
of the Old Testament from Assyrian and Babylonian sources.30 Sayce
identified Nimrod with Gilgamesh, and while others identified from
cuneiform sources the kings who fought with Abraham in Genesis 14.
Others who were influenced by Smith were T. Pinches (1902), and
indirectly S.R. Driver (1904), C.H.W. Johns (who became interested in
Assyriology as a boy by reading the works of G. Smith [see Johns 1914]),
A.T. Clay (1915; 1922), and L.W. King.31 We are even told by Wallis
Budge that one wealthy banker paid an Assyriologist a retaining fee to
look for biblical parallels (Budge 1925: 271). Many imaginary parallels
concerning creation (see Delano 1985), paradise,32 the fall of man, Cain
and Abel, and the Tower of Babel were reputedly found.33 At any rate, by
the end of the nineteenth century, Sayce was confident to say that the
'wave of historical skepticism' was ending before its spirit and principles
had influenced popular thought (Sayce 1894b).
American involvement (which was slow in manifesting itself)34 in the
Near East stemmed profoundly from its interest in the historical veracity
of the Bible and its interest in Semitic studies (see Brown 1888-89; 1909).
In fact, the American Oriental Society was formed in 1842, just about the

29. Boscawen's best known work was Boscawen 1903.

30. E.g. see Sayce 1885; 1888; 1891; 1894a; 1895; 1907.
31. King 1918. For a study of King's impact on biblical and Assyriological studies,
see Smith 1968.
32. E.g. see Neuman 1876: 66-67. Neuman, an American doctor of divinity, was
convinced that 'disentombing' the dead past would go far to strengthen the faith of the
weak and to dissipate the doubts of others (see Larsen 1992).
33. Observe the full title of Smith's work; The Chaldean Account of Genesis
containing the Description of the Creation, Fall of Man, the Deluge, the Tower of
Babel, the Times of the Patriarchs, and Nimrod; Babylonian Fables, and Legends of
the Gods; from the Cuneiform Inscriptions (Smith 1876).
34. Kildahl (1959: 194-212) argues that the Americans were too preoccupied with
domestic concerns until after the Civil War. There were only a handful of works
describing the relationship of the new finds to the Bible; e.g. Davis 1852; Kidder 1851;
Ward 1870; Tufton 1874; Merrill 1885. For an recent overview of American involve-
ment in the Near East, see Kuklick 1996.
30 Mesopotamia and the Bible

same time as Botta's excavations. A large number of relics were sent to

the US by American missionaries who lived in the Near East. Many of
these items ended up in religious institutions, which provided a religious
context for their interpretation.35 Nathaniel Schmidt, a professor at Colgate
Divinity School, was actually put on trial for heresy and dismissed, as
many of his translations and interpretations of cuneiform texts were
considered contrary to Scripture.36
Many Americans went to Germany to study Assyriology with F.
Delitzsch, since there was no chair of Assyriology in either America or
Great Britain. These included Hilprecht (1903),37 F. Brown (the first to
teach Akkadian in America),38 G. Barton,39 and M. Jastrow (1914), while
W.F. Albright40 and R.W. Rogers (1908) studied with the German P.
Haupt in the US41; all wrote of the connections of the two fields. Brown,
along with Driver, took issue with Sayce's uncritical view that Scripture
had been confirmed by the findings of archeology (Brown 1896: 67;

35. E.g. Andover Theological Seminary, Episcopal Seminary (Alexandria, VA),

and Auburn Theological Seminary; see Merrill 1885. Other religious schools which
taught Akkadian included Baptist Theological Seminary (Newton Centre, MA),
Protestant Episcopal Seminary (Philadelphia, PA), and the Summer School of Hebrew
(Chicago, IL); see Adler 1887.
36. Schmidt left Colgate for Cornell in 1896, where he was able to flourish under
markedly different circumstances; see Bishop 1962:327. Later on during his tenure at
Cornell, Schmidt suffered persecution, not because of heretical' Assyriological views,
but because he refused to buy Liberty bonds during World War I (p. 429).
37. Hilprecht taught Old Testament theology at the University of Erlangen in
Germany and came to Philadelphia in 1886 to become the editor of the Sunday School
Times (see the discussion in Meade 1974: 35-37.
38. At Union Theological Seminary at New York, beginning in 1880. For his work
on bridging the two disciplines, see Brown (1891), where he warned theologians not to
discount the factual discoveries made by Assyriology nor to cause these facts to be fit
into the corresponding biblical model. Brown, like W.F, Albright later, eventually
devoted more time to Hebrew studies.
39. Barton 1916 was immensely popular and was reprinted many times.
40. It will be remembered that the great orientalist Albright began his career in
Assyriology, and was somewhat skeptical of the historicity of the biblical traditions:
see Long 1993. His unpublished doctoral dissertation was on the Assyrian flood
account (1916a). Many of his early articles were assyriological in nature; e.g. 1915;
1916b.
41. See Meade 1974. Haupt was editor of The Sacred Books of the Old Testament
(Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1893-1904), where he assembled scholars to do critical
editions of Old Testament books.
 CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 31

Driver 1909; Sayce 1894a). Brown, however, was a positivist when it

came to the historicity of Scripture in its relationship with the Assyrian
texts:
When an Assyrian statement can be equally well explained in two different
ways, we have the right, and are bound, as we should be in all historical
study, to take that explanation which harmonizes with a corresponding
Biblical statement (Brown 1891: 23).

With the impetus of de Sarzec's spectacular finds at Tello in the 1880s, the
American Oriental Society, Archeological Institute of America, and the
Society of Biblical Literature all began lobbying for an American expe-
dition to Babylonia. A number of scholars (acting on their own, and not as
representatives of any of the societies) came together to organize an
expedition that would find material that supported contemporary interpre-
tations of the Old Testament (Ward 1886:5). A team was assembled to dig
at Nippur in southern Mesopotamia, headed by the Reverend J. Peters and
the German trained Assyriologist H.V. Hilprecht. Though the two did not
always see eye to eye, the expeditions (1889-1900) collected thousands of
texts which continue to be housed at the University Museum of the
University of Pennsylvania and studied by Assyriologists.42 The French
finds at Susa of the Code of Hammurabi about this time also spurred
interest in biblical parallels (see Cook 1904). Assyriology was also
beginning to flourish in the late nineteenth century in Italy, Scandinavia,
and Holland (Budge 1925: 241-44).
The Germans also showed an interest in making biblical connections
with the Near East by at least 1880.43 E. Schrader published Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament (1885-88), a model of thorough
scholarship that helped lead to the founding of the Deutsche Orient
Gesellschaft (German Oriental Society) in 1898,44 which led to the
German excavations in Babylon and Assur. We are told that 'every student
of Hebrew or of Assyrian consulted it, every Old Testament commentator
quoted from it or made reference to it' (see Rogers 1912: xvii). Thus, it led
many to be interested in biblical comparisons. In particular, H. Gunkel
attacked the recent arguments of J. Wellhausen for the late dating of

42. See Hilprecht 1908; and Peters 1899. See the recent evaluation of the
controversy in Kuklick 1996: 123-40.
43. For German (esp. in Berlin) work in the Near East, see Renger 1979. Schrader
published a volume on Israelite prehistory as early as 1863. Also see Delitzsch 1881.
44. One of its purposes was to elucidate the world of the Bible; see Larsen 1987:
102.
32 Mesopotamia and the Bible

Genesis 1 by showing close parallels with it and Babylonian mythology,45

while F. Hommel (1897) studied comparative traditions of Israel and
Babylonia.46
By the end of the nineteenth century Old Testament scholars still
ignored much of the textual material that might have put Babylonian
civilization in a good light. They naively argued for the great superiority
of Hebrew monotheism. But the Assyriologists fought back and defended
the ethical and spiritual system of Babylonia, and even its ethical superi-
ority. F. Delitzsch47 argued against the high-handed manner with which his
subject was viewed by Old Testament scholars.48 Some argued that many
Hebrew ideas actually originated in Mesopotamia and were borrowed by
Israel. Much of this is understandable, if one realizes that before this,
Assyriology had been seen as less than an auxiliary science of Old Testa-
ment and classical antiquity studies (see Zimmern 1889). The idea of
Babylonian primacy was perfected by Delitzsch in 1902-1903.49 In his
lectures, he argued that Israel could only be studied in light of Babylonia,
and in fact Israelite civilization was derived from Babylonia. Thus,
comparative analysis was ultimately not productive, since Babylonia was
the source of Hebrew civilization. He then argued that many Babylonian
features were still clung to by the Judeo-Christian religious tradition (by
way of the Old Testament). Thus, in a series of lectures, Assyriology went
from an innocent scholarly pursuit to a discipline that had direct relevance
to modern religion. Delitzsch also claimed that the divine name Yahweh
was found in the Hammurabi code.50 In the second lecture, Delitzsch
argued against the divine inspiration of Scripture, went so far as to say that
the Old Testament had dubious relevance for Christianity, and claimed

45. Gunkel 1885. Gunkel took issue with Wellhausen's isolationist view, as he
refused to recognize the influence of Egypt and Mesopotamia upon Israelite literature.
46. Also done by the Dutch; e.g. Eerdmans 1891.
47. Budge (1925:289) tells us that Delitzsch 'had heard a supernatural voice which
assured him that he was to be George Smith's successor'. One can only assume that it
was Enki, the friend of humankind.
48. He also had an antipathy for the Old Testament; see the discussion by Finkel-
stein 1958: 432.
49. Delitzsch 1902. There have been numerous discussions by Assyriologists and
others of Delitzsch's famous lectures. In the early years, see e.g., Kittel 1903; Hommel
1902; Jensen 1902; and D. Gunkel 1903. For more recent reviews, see e.g., Finkelstein
1958; Reventlow 1983; Ebach 1986: 26-44; Huffinon 1987; Johanning 1988; Lehn-
mann 1994; and Larsen 1995.
50. Since disproved, see Huffmon 1971.
 CH AVAL AS Assyriology an d Biblical Studies 33

that Jesus was a Galilean and not even a Semite.51 He also countered that
the Old Testament was intellectually inferior to the Babylonian tradition.
Predictably, the religious communities in Germany, Great Britain, and the
US reacted negatively to his lectures. H. Gunkel (1904) complained about
his naivety in knowledge of biblical interpretation and the history of
religion. However, biblical scholars could not argue with him concerning
Assyriological matters. Others vehemently argued against the idea of
the ethical inferiority of the Old Testament, but primarily from doctrinal
rather than strictly academic grounds.52 The third lecture bordered on anti-
Semitism, as Delitzsch emphasized the non-Semitic roots of Mesopo-
tamian civilization. Delitzsch went so far as to say that, since the Old
Testament was entirely superfluous to the Christian church, one should
rather read German cultural folk epics. He even advocated replacing the
Old Testament with W. Schwaner's Germanen-Bibel cms heiligen Schriften
germanischer Volker, which was a compilation of German folk traditions
and theological ideas (Schwaner 1910). In fact, the Israelite Scriptures
should no longer be considered as stemming from divine revelation, since
they did not stand up to the scrutiny of science and scholarship. Those
who continued to believe in the Scriptures were steeped in ignorance and
apathy. Moreover, he was explicit in his defense of German nationalism,
and the fact that those Germans who studied the tablets and excavated on
the mounds of Mesopotamia did it for 'Germany's honor'. Most scholars,
however, did not argue with his thesis directly. Delitzsch did show that
the Babylonians had reached a high level of ethical and spiritual thought.
Although many of his arguments can easily be refuted today (e.g. the
Babylonian connections with the Hebrew Sabbath), they could not be so at
the turn of the century because of an imprecise knowledge of Akkadian.
The biblical scholars refused to appreciate Babylonian religion on its own
terms and merits (see Finkelstein 1958: 438). The famous German New
Testament scholar A. Harnack (1903) said that Delitszch had said nothing
new, although the general public was now part of the debate.
The response of the Assyriologists was to be very cautious and circum-
spect; in fact, most withdrew from the public scene. Delitzsch, however,
was profoundly influential in the field because he trained many German,
British, and American Assyriologists, including, R.F. Harper, D.G. Lyon,
R.W. Rogers (1912), P. Haupt, C. Bezold, P. Jensen, and H. Zimmern.

51. For this treatment, see Davies 1975.

52. See Skinner 1910; even the Assyriologist Heidel (1946) indirectly hinted at the
inferiority of Babylonian religion.
34 Mesopotamia and the Bible

Delitzsch's lectures had an impact not only on Assyriology and biblical

studies but on critical theology as well (Larsen 1995:97). The triumphant
view that Assyriology and its discoveries had vindicated the biblical
record and its historicity had been permanently marred. After all, Israel
was only a small part of a much larger ancient Near Eastern world that had
constant interaction with each other (see Winckler 1906a: 15).
Delitzsch made public the views of many Assyriologists, who now
espoused to a school of thought called 'Pan-Babylonianism', championed
by H. Winckler, who argued that all world myths were reflections of
Babylonian astral religion which had developed about 3000 BCE.53 H.
Zimmern argued that the Babylonian creation epic was an older version of
the New Testament and that the story of Christ's passion was nothing but a
repetition of the 'myth of Bel-Marduk of Babylon' ,54 P. Jensen argued that
the Mesopotamian myths (Gilgamesh in particular) were the foundation
for all world folk tales, including the Bible (Jensen 1890; 1906; 1924).
Israelite history was simply a series of repetitions of the Gilgamesh story.
Even the story of Jesus of Nazareth was simply a retelling of Gilgamesh.
In fact, the Kaiser himself jumped on the 'Babel bandwagon' and argued
that Jesus was a non-Jew who actually opposed the message of the Old
Testament. Other German scholars at the turn of the century argued for all
cosmology and other items coming from Babylon.55 Delitzsch himself
continued to hold to his views (Delitzsch 1920; 1921). The Pan-Baby-
lonians, however, were considered indiscriminate in their hypotheses, and
most of their extreme ideas were rejected by both biblical and Assyrio-
logical scholars.56 Pan-Babylonism did leave its mark to some extent on
biblical studies. For example, Old Testament scholars such as H. Gunkel57
and A. Jeremias (1911) began to examine literary types in the Old
Testament in the light of Mesopotamian literature. Biblical scholars now

53. Evidently first coined by Jeremias (1906) in his preface; also see 1904.
Jeremias (1903) also commented on Delitzsch's famous lectures. Pan-babylonianism
was spread largely through the efforts of Winckler 1901; 1905; and 1907a.
54. Zimmern 1906-18; 1901; 1910. Also see Radau 1908.
55. Winckler also discussed Pan-Babylonianism, Babel undBibel, and other issues
in 1906b; 1906c; 1907b.
56. E.g. Schmidt 1908 and Kugel 1910. Clay (1890) led the charge to discredit
Pan-Babylonism in America.
57. Though Gunkel complained about the extreme methods of Delitzsch, he took
advantage of using Mesopotamian literary themes to understand the Old Testament;
see Gunkel 1904.
 CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 35

began to accept the fact that the Bible could be studied in the context of
the ancient Near East (see Kittel 1921; Gressman 1924). Thus, the massive
corpus of Assyriological literature began to be used to illuminate the
entirety of ancient Near Eastern culture, not just ad hoc Old Testament
literary and historical problems.58
By the 1920s Assyriologists began to de-emphasize the theme of
origins, and were now intent to stress the distinctive elements of Meso-
potamian civilization.59 Thus, they attempted to assert their autonomy,60
calling for the study of Mesopotamia for its own sake.61 B. Landsberger
argued that any culture is conceptually autonomous (like the great German
thinker Johann Herder)62 and would be misunderstood if viewed from the
concepts of another culture.63 But Landsberger understood that because of
the sheer amount of textual material the Assyriologist has at his/her dis-
posal, they have rarely been afforded the time to reflect upon their
discipline and determine its long-term goals. At any rate, the Assyriologist
has left undefined its relationship with biblical studies, let alone its
relationship to world history (Wiseman 1962).

Ur
The 1920s also saw a flurry of spectacular discoveries in Mesopotamia
that appeared to have relevance to the Bible. At the site of Ur (the biblical
Ur of the Chaldees), C.L. Woolley, a follower of Sayce (rather than S.R.
Driver), was not only convinced he had found the city of Abraham
(Woolley 1936), but also believed he had found the biblical flood, which
he announced to the world in 1929. He was contrasted by the Assyriologist
S. Langdon, who argued that the flood deposits found at Kish more closely
resembled that mentioned in the Gilgamesh epic (Woolley 1930). These

58. See the discussion by Saggs 1969: 13.

59. Although see Hehn 1913; Stummer 1922; and Bonkamp 1939.
60. Still, some comparative studies of Israel and Mesopotamia continued: e.g.
Ermoni 1910 and Castellino 1940.
61. E.g. Landsberger 1926; even Landsberger (1967) occasionally wrote on biblical
comparisons; as did his colleague, Poebel 1932.
62. Even Herder had dreamt of the rediscovery of the ancient Near East for the
purposes of understanding the origins of European civilization; see the discussion in
Larsen 1987: 96-97.
63. Oppenheim (1977: 21-22) has echoed this concern about scholars who have
attempted to connect Assyriological data with the Old Testament in some acceptable
way, and others who find haphazard comparisons.
36 Mesopotamia and the Bible

ideas have spawned many articles which have discussed the flood's his-
toricity (or lack thereof).64

Nuzi
The cuneiform texts discovered at the excavations at Nuzi (1925-31) have
long been a mine of comparative information for the Old Testament.65 E.
Chiera, the first director of the Nuzi excavations had received a Bachelor
of Divinity and Master of Theology from Crozer Theological Seminary,
and was thus sensitive to these issues. Furthermore, R.H. Pfeiffer, also one
of the Nuzi directors, was educated at the Theological School of Geneva
and received a Bachelor of Divinity from the University of Geneva in
1915. Very soon after their discovery, there was a flurry of scholarship
observing the striking putative parallels to the biblical Patriarchs in the
socio-economic and legal spheres.66 The consensus was that the two also
must have shared the same chronological proximity.
However, in the past generation there has been no consensus as to the
relative importance of the Nuzi material for biblical studies, especially
with the impetus of the publication of other Nuzi texts.67 There has been a
re-evaluation,68 and some have rejected any Nuzi connections to the Bible
altogether.69 However, the academic pendulum has swung back to the
middle, with what B. Eichler calls a 'more sobering and responsible
attitude toward the usefulness and importance of the Nuzi tablets and the
Bible' (Eichler 1989:107-19). Though the Nuzi-biblical parallels cannot
solve chronological issues, they are a source of documentation for the
socio-economic practices in Mesopotamia, which will help illuminate
biblical law and practices (Selman 1983; Eichler 1989: 107-19). Thus,
many have agreed with the rules of comparative method listed by W.M.
Clark (1977: 143), although there are still many concerns about biblical

64. See Mallowan 1964; Raikes 1966. However, there are skeptics (Lenzen 1964)
and those who hold to the symbolic meaning of the flood (Kilmer 1972; Carter 1977).
65. View the preliminary statements by S. Smith 1926.
66. E.g. S. Smith 1932; Chiera 1932-33; Ginsberg and Maisler 1933; Mendelsohn
1935; Gordon 1935a; 1935b; 1935c; 1935d; 1936; 1937; 1940; Burrows 1937; 1940;
Lewy 1938; 1939; 1940; Speiser 1938; 1940; 1964; 1955; 1967; Albright 1961.
67. See the discussion in Eichler 1989: 112.
68. Beginning with de Vaux 1949; Greenberg 1962; Van Seters 1968; 1969; Mullo-
Weir 1967-68; 1967; and Freedman 1970.
69. Van Seters 1975:65-103; Thompson 1974: 196-297; 1978. Also, see Thomp-
son's most recent work 1999.
 CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 37

connections (Morrison 1983). Other text collections (e.g. from Alalakh

and Emar) show that the Nuzi customs may have been common through-
out a wide chronological and geographic range, while others have argued
that first millennium BCE customs are more relevant for the biblical sphere
(or not relevant at all).70

Ugarit
Arguably, over the past 70 years there has been more written concerning
the relationship of Ugarit and the Bible than any other single Syro-
Mesopotamian site. The first generation saw a flurry of activity to show
numerous parallels with Ugarit and the Bible, both real and imagined, as
P. Craigie has noted.71 There was the usual novelty of studying newly
found materials that led to hasty conclusions (Craigie 1979a), but on the
whole there was not much excess in comparative studies.72 There were,
however, specific studies that elucidated comparisons between Psalm 29
and selections of Ugaritic poetry,73 although many have seen these con-
nections as more complicated than first supposed (Fensham 1963a; Craigie
1972; 1979b). Ginsberg (1945) also saw a comparison with Deut. 14.21
and an Ugaritic text that had a line that Virolleaud translated 'cook a kid in
milk' (Virolleaud 1933), although some have argued that this connection
is tenuous (Craigie 1977a). By the 1960s new developments arose. New
mythical and liturgical texts from Ugarit were discovered that initially
raised excitement among comparative scholars (see Gray 1978). However,
some argued that the connections between the two were ambiguous at
best, and problematic (see Smith 1952). M. Dahood argued that the
Hebrew language had to be relearned in light of new data from Ugarit.74
But, over the years, many have claimed that a 'Pan-Ugaritism' has

70. Again, see Van Seters 1968; 1975; and Thompson 1974.
71. Albright (1966: 6-7) was at the forefront of this.
72. See Jack 1935; de Vaux 1937; Baumgartner 1938; 1940; 1941; 1947; Dussaud
1937; de Langhe 1945; Patton 1944; Ginsberg 1945; andCoppens 1946. Later surveys
include Rainey 1965; Kapelrud 1965; Jacob 1960; Pfeiffer 1962; Gray 1957; 1978;
Barker 1976; Mihalic 1981; Gazelles 1985; O'Connor 1987; and Loretz 1990a.
73. Ginsberg (1938) theorized about the idea that Ps. 29 was originally a Phoenican
hymn. This was substantiated by Gaster 1946-47; Cross 1950; Freedman 1972.
74. Dahood 1962; 1966-70; 1968; and numerous articles in 1972-81. For a recent
critique of Dahood's comparisons, see Loretz 1972; 1987; 1990b; Talmon 1978b;
Schroer 1980; Caquot 1988; Curtis 1994; and Barr 1994.
38 Mesopotamia and the Bible

resulted,75 primarily because of the large Claremont project directed by L.

Fisher (Fisher et al. 1972-81) and the large amount of works by Dietrich
and Loretz.76
The past 30 years has seen a reasoned analysis of comparisons in many
areas.77 Craigie has argued that the literary comparisons of Ugarit and
Israel are flawed since the two traditions used different literary forms
(Fisher and Knutson 1969; Craigie 1971). Others have argued against the
comparative school of Dahood (Stuart 1976). Still, comparative analysis of
poetic imagery (e.g. Watson 1976; Cross 1973: 112-44; Craigie 1974;
1978), parallel word pairs (Cassuto 1971: 25-32), and poetic meter con-
tinue (Gibson 1978:140; Loretz and Kottsieper 1987). J. Barr (1968) has
urged caution for the use of Ugaritic to establish new etymologies for
Hebrew. Others have argued a connection of feudalism in Ugarit and in
the Bible (see Gray 1952). There have been many comparisons of Ugaritic
and Hebrew religion, most of which emphasized the undeniable contrasts
between the two, but later studies have shown a continuity between
them.78 Hebrew Poetry and Ugaritic connections have been studied by
Albright (1944) and his students.79 At any rate, the recent works on Ugarit
and the Bible are numerous.80

Mori
Mari is a prime example of the need of caution of the use of the com-
parative method, since interesting comparisons can often lead to shallow
or extreme conclusions. Both W.F. Albright (1956:256) and A. Parrot, the
great excavator of Mari (the son of a Lutheran minister and devout in his
own right), succumbed to making direct but ultimately unconvincing
connections between the Mari population and the Patriarchs, and the tribe

75. Criticized by de Moor and van der Lugt 1974; Craigie 1977b; Donner 1967;
and Held 1974.
76. Ugarit Forschungen and Alter Orient undAltes Testament.
77. For a comparison of the literary relationships, see Craigie 1971; and Healey
1984.
78. Kaiser 1962; Habel 1964; Clifford 1972; Schmidt 1966; Miller 1973; Albright
1968; van der Toorn 1991; L'Heureux 1974; de Moor and Sandars 1991.
79. Cross and Freedman 1948; 1950; Cross 1955; 1968; 1973; Freedman 1976; and
Robertson 1972.
80. Curtis 1985; Craigie 1983; Brooke, Curtis and Healey 1994; Pope 1994; and
Petersen 1998. A recent ASORPlenary Session in Orlando, Florida (18 November 1998)
featured A.R. Millard and D. Pardee speaking on the subject of 'Ugarit and the Bible'.
 CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 39

Benjamin, in particular.81 Parrot, however, did revitalize biblical arche-

ology for the French-speaking public in a way not seen since Botta.
Since the commencement of the publication of Man texts after World
War II, and because of the connection of Man being in the reputed home-
land of the patriarchs (Gibson 1962; Mathews 1981; 1986), there have
been numerous examples of comparative research in the field of personal
names (e.g. Jean 1954), tribal organization (Malamat 1962; 1968), rituals
(Speiser 1958), and other various Israelite customs (Gazelles 1967; Mala-
mat 1973). One of the most discussed comparisons are the Man prophetic
texts.82 However, E. Noort has argued that the relationship between the
two prophetic traditions is ambiguous at best.83 But the Israelite and Mari
material need to be seen as two separate corpora, even if similar (Malamat
1989:27-29). He advocates a typological or phenomoenological method.
Efforts should be concentrated on examining typical phenomena, seeking
out common sets of concepts and practices and institutions. One must not
forget the immense chronological gap between the two corpora. When
such similarities are seen in aggregate, they cannot simply be seen as
representing common patterns of human nature.84 Proper comparisons also
involve the contrasting approach. The very nature of the source material is
fundamentally different, as the Mari texts are first hand daily material,
while the biblical text has been processed, and composed later than its
events (see Malamat 1983). As with Ugarit, there are many current studies
on the relationship of Mari and the Bible.85

Alalakh
When Woolley began working at Alalakh in 1937, he was interested in
finding evidence of cultural connections between Syria and the eastern
Mediterranean area.86 Though not directly related to the Bible, the Alalakh

81. Parrot 1950; 1954; 1962; 1967. Mari had been a site of major concern for bibli-
cal scholars soon after the commencement of the excavations; see Bea 1940.
82. Among the more recent are: Schult 1966; Huffrnon 1968; Buss 1969; Moran
1969; Ross 1970; Craghan 1975; Ellermeier 1977; Schmitt 1982; Sasson 1983; Mala-
mat 1987; Parker 1993; and Barstad 1993.
83. Noort 1977; and the review by Sasson 1980.
84. On the comparative approach, see Gelb 1980; Millard 1983; and Lemaire 1985.
85. See the 'Table ronde sur Mari et la Bible', in RA 92.1-2 (1998) and 93.1
(1999); and Malamat 1998.
86. The excavations were from 1937-39 and 1946-^9; see Woolley 1955, and a
more popular account, Woolley 1953.
40 Mesopotamia and the Bible

material has been considered to shed light on the greater Syro-Palestinian

context of the Bible (see Tsevat 1958). The ubiquitous Habiru have also
been found there, but are viewed as an important mercenary class in the
Alalakh texts. This term, of course, has been compared to the biblical term
Hebrew on many occasions.87 Moreover, some Assyriologists have argued
that the biographical inscription of Idrimi appears to anticipate the bio-
graphical stories of Joseph and David (Oppenheim 1955; Buccellati 1962),
and has even been compared to the Jepthah story in Judges 11,88 At any
rate, the Alalakh material has been considered a valuable source of com-
parative (and contrastive) material (see Wiseman 1967). Like Nuzi, the
customs (e.g. marriage contracts) at Alalakh have been compared to the
Patriarchal periods, although it is admitted that the parallels from Alalakh
are less clear (Hess 1994:204). Certainly the connection of Alalakh hupsu
('poor') with Hebrew hopsi ('poor') is vague at best (Hess 1994: 208-
209). As with Nuzi, J. Van Seters has rejected the Alalakh comparisons
with the Patriarchal narratives (Van Seters 1975:100-103). R. Hess in this
volume argues that the cumulative weight of comparisons with the Bible
shows a common cultural milieu for both. He argues that we need to view
Alalakh comparisons on a case by case basis (Hess 1994: 199-215).

Ebla
No Syro-Mesopotamian site in recent memory has appealed to the reli-
gious sensibilities of those interested in biblical studies more than Tell
Mardikh/Ebla.89 The Italians under, P. Matthiae, labored there for over 12
years before they uncovered a large cache of cuneiform tablets in the room
of a palace (1974-76).90 The epigrapher G. Pettinato (1980) called the
script used there 'proto-Canaanite', a potential ancestor to biblical Hebrew.
For the next five years many exceptional and unsubstantiated claims were
made about the significance of the Ebla texts and their relationship to the
Bible, many of which came from those who had nevej seen the texts, or
were not familiar with cuneiform. Nonetheless, there was also much

87. There are numerous studies concerning the Habiru; Bottero 1954; Greenberg
1955; Loretz 1984a; and Na'aman 1986.
88. Greenstein and Marcus 1976:76-77. At any rate, the Alalakh material has been
considered a valuable source of comparative (and contrastive) material.
89. For an overview of the controversies of Ebla and the Bible to 1979, see
Bermant and Weitzman 1979.
90. General works on Ebla include, Matthiae 1981; and Pettinato 1981.
 CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 41

speculation among the scholarly world (Pettinato 1976; 1980; Freedman

1978). D.N. Freedman made his conclusions about the earlier historical
context for the biblical patriarchs based upon unpublished Ebla tablets,
which were preliminarily read by M. Dahood and Pettinato.91 Dahood
made many preliminary statements concerning the connection between
Ugaritic forms and Eblaite (e.g. the fact that Ebla sheds light on the Minor
Prophets).92 The present consensus is that Ebla has no bearing on the
Minor Prophets, the historical accuracy of the biblical Patriarchs, Yahweh
worship, or Sodom and Gomorrah (see Merrill 1983). Many of these
preliminary analyses came into the popular press as truth, and thus great
amounts of misinformation leaked to the public.93
The second epigrapher, A. Archi spent some effort in refuting many of
the premises of Dahood and Pettinato, ignoring most of the sensational-
ism, primarily from the American press (Archi 1979; 1981). He argued
that the supposed evidence for Yahweh at Ebla was questionable and
ambiguous, and that the kings of Ebla were not anointed like the kings of
Israel (contra Pettinato 1977), the function of Eblaite judges does not
appear to be like that of Israel, there is no Genesis creation story (Pettinato
1977:231 -32), and Ebla place names do not easily correspond to the Bible
names or the 'cities of the plain'.94 The Eblaite connections with the
Hebrew language are unclear.95
The excitement concerning the Ebla material has somewhat died down.
In Pettinato's more recent works there is still a discussion concerning
biblical connections, primarily in the field of geography (Pettinato 1991:
179-80; Hallo 1992). The trend has been to exhibit the fact that Ebla has
an importance all of its own as an incipient Old Syrian civilization at the
advent of urbanism. Thus, in the past 15 years, only a miniscule amount of
effort has been put to comparisons of Ebla and the Bible, compared to the
large amount of work on the civilization of Ebla itself. This is preferable.96

91. Dahood and Pettinato 1982 (a large bibliography of newspaper and popular
articles was compiled by M. O'Connor: 331-35); Dahood 1978; 1979; 1981a; 1982;
1984; and 1987.
92. Dahood 1983a; and Shea 1983. Greenfield (1988) argues that a little restraint
would have stopped some of these extraordinary theories.
93. With the help of H. Shanks, editor of BARev.
94. Echoed by Biggs 1980.
95. Dahood 1978: 81-112. For a reasoned view of Ebla in its Palestinian context,
see Vigano and Pardee 1984.
96. See for language, Dahood 1982; 1984; Miiller 1984; Baldacci 1987; Althann
1983. For religion, see Dahood 1981b; 1983b; Muller 1981; and Loretz 1984b.
42 Mesopotamia and the Bible

Emar
Although it has not had the publicity of either Ebla, Man, or for that
matter Ugarit, the texts of Emar may shed more light on biblical customs
than do the other textual corpora. Emar is physically closer to Israel than
any of the others. Emar was fated to be in the background of the Ebla
controversies of the late 1970s and 1980s. The construction of the Tabqa
Dam in Syria caused the Middle Euphrates site of Emar to be regarded as
a salvage project, commenced by a French team in 1972 (see Margueron
1995). Six seasons of work were sandwiched into five years (1972-76; see
Pitard 1996: 14). Nearly 2000 texts were found, most of which were
published a decade later by D. Arnaud (1985-86). Thus, the excitement
surrounding the other textual corpora has been slow in coming with Emar.
The research concerning Emar and biblical studies has thus far been
reasoned and tentative (see, e.g., Arnaud 1979; 1981; Tsukimoto 1989;
Fleming 1995). This, however, in light of past experience, is likely to
change. Emar was evidently not ever a great kingdom in its own right. The
site of Imar was mentioned in both the Ebla and Man archives, and later
became a Hittite protectorate in the Late Bronze Age. The relationship of
Emar to biblical studies is, as D. Fleming says in this volume, most
striking in the religious sphere. The concept of anointing is found at Emar,
as the NIN.DINGER priestess is anointed on the first day of the festival
(Fleming 1992). The Emar festivals have various requirements that may be
compared to the Levitical regulations (Fleming 1995: 144), and the
elements of the biblical festival system have some correspondence to the
zukru calendar (Fleming 1995: 144; and his essay in this volume, see
below). Emar also has the prophetic office ofnabu, already well known at
Man (Fleming 1995: 145). Others have argued that the Emar inheritance
texts bear a resemblance to the Nuzi material, and thus to Genesis 31 (see
Huehnergard 1985), while still others claim that Emar 'provides an
empirical model for the Mesopotamian textual tradition, exemplifying the
possibilities of transmission to Iron Age Israel' (Hoskisson 1991:21-32).
B. Schmidt has recognized connections concerning the care of the dead at
Emar and Israel (Schmidt 1992). Fleming concludes that Emar's mixed
urban and small-town Syrian communal life offers a closer social
comparison for Israel that even Ugarit (Fleming 1995: 147). At any rate,
Emar's indigenous ritual texts represent a unique source of understanding
ancient Syrian religions, with texts that are distinct from the Ugaritic
corpus.
 CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 43

Synthesis
The tendency in the last 30 years has been to overemphasize the impor-
tance of new discoveries to the Old Testament, and then when the flaws
become obvious, approach comparative data from the standpoint of skepti-
cism, causing many to completely ignore comparative material altogether
(Roberts 1985:96). Scholars have had difficulty between 'paralellomania'
and isolating the culture in question. The comparative method has been
attacked as a form of'pseudorthodoxzy'.97 One scholar who has attempted
the middle ground between the comparative and contrastive methods is
W.W. Hallo, who espouses a contextual method, which emphasizes both
similarities (comparative) and differences (contrastive), also looking for
diachronic and synchronic variations.98 Hallo's goal, 'is not to find the key
to every biblical phenomenon in some ancient Near Eastern precedent, but
rather to silhouette the biblical text against its wider literary and cultural
environment' (Hallo 1991: 24). Thus, we must not succumb either to
'parallelomania'99 or to 'parallellophobia'.100
Since World War II there has been an explosion of comparative studies
of Israel and Mesopotamia from scholars of both fields. There have been a
number of collections of primary source materials from the ancient Near
East and their relationships to the Bible.101 The primary English volumes
were compiled by J. Pritchard and others.102 Other works include general
studies (Miiller 1991), literature,103 pictoral studies (Keel 1974; 1977;

97. M. Smith 1969 and even advocating a 'contrasting' method; Hallo 1977 but see
the caveat by Roberts 1976.
98. Apparently first coined by Parker (1979-80) who emphasizes both simi larities
(comparative) and differences (contrastive), also looking for diachronic and synchronic
variations (Hallo 1980). Hallo has led four National Endowment for the Humanities
Summer Seminars which have had this as its primary theme: SIC 1; SIC 2; SIC 3; SIC
4. See the review of S7C 1 by Pardee 1985; also see van der loom 1985.
99. Sandmel (1962) describes it as 'that extravagance among scholars which first
overdoes Hie supposed similarity in passages and then proceeds to describe source and
derivation as if implying literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined
direction', p. 1.
100. See the discussion of Ratner and Zuckerman 1986.
101. Since the publication of Winckler 1892; Gressman 1909; and Galling 1950.
102. Since 1945, see, DOTT; ANET; Beyerlin 1978; COS; and Matthews and
Benjamin 1997.
103. Lambert 1954; Kramer 1959; Lowenstam 1980; Soil 1988; Walton 1989; and
Gordon and Rendsberg 1997.
44 Mesopotamia and the Bible

1978), women (Frymer-Kensky 1989; 1992; van derToorn 1994), sacrifice

(Hallo 1987), religion,104 prophecy (H. Weippert 1985; Millard 1985),
cosmology (Heidel 1946; 1951; Lambert 1965; Saggs 1978), law,105
treaties,106 hymns and psalms,107 wisdom,108 death and the afterlife (Lewis
1989; Tropper 1989; 1994), genealogies (Malamat 1968; Wilson 1977),
and historical literature (Speiser 1957; Albrektson 1967; Younger 1990;
and various contributions in FTH).
Many have viewed the past century and a half of relations of Meso-
potamia and the Bible to be cyclical in nature.109 Typically, there was a
furor because of the announcement of a rumor that a large archive was
found that had the potential of verifying the biblical text. Often, unverified
statements were made by conservative Old Testament scholars who were
concerned about the historicity of the text (which is not to say that the
subject of historicity has no place in biblical studies). Of course, the
publication of a selected portion of an archive causes excitement because
of the supposed biblical parallels. However, the publication of a larger
corpus permits the more precise contexts for many of these parallels, but
the Assyriologist then shows the uniqueness of the area in question. The
philologist begins to show that the linguistic parallels are superficial. It
often takes time for the biblical scholar interested in parallels to appreciate
the Assyriologist's contributions. J. Sasson has promoted some goals that
should be set forth before making biblical connections; what are the

104. de Fraine 1954; Draffkorn 1957; de Jonge 1959; Moran 1965; Gamper 1966;
Weippert 1972; McKay 1973; Cogan 1974; Wright 1987; Gammie and Perdue 1990;
Dietrich and Loretz 1992; Bottero 1993b; and van der Toorn 1997.
105. Szlechter 1954; Mendenhall 1954; Greenberg 1960; Yaron 1970; Paul 1970;
Lambert 1972; Boecker 1980; van der Toorn 1985; Westbrook 1985; and Epstein
1986.
106. Other than Mendenhall (1955), most biblical scholars have either ignored or
paid scant attention to Wiseman's publication of the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon
(Wiseman 1958). Mendenhall wrote before their discovery. This is in spite of the fact
that Assyriologists have shown stark similarities between the treaties and Deut. 28
(Borger 1961; and Frankena 1965). See Fensham 1962; 1963b; Killers 1964; 1969;
Weinfeld 1970; 1973; and McCarthy 1978.
107. A few works were devoted to this before World War II, e.g., Driver 1926; and
Widengren 1936. More recent works include Dalglish 1962; Hallo 1968; Gerstenberger
1971; and Ferris 1992.
108. Noth and Winton Thomas 1955; Gray 1970; Cooper 1971; Sasson 1973;
Waltke 1979; and Weinfeld 1988.
109. Sasson 1980: 128-30. Much of the remainder of the paragraph comes from
Sasson, and Greenspahn 1991: 6.
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
 – No hát alugyék tovább; én majd kijárom magamat a havon.
– Vigye magával a fustélyomat, valami kóbor kuvasz meg ne
riaszsza.
Az utolsó fegyverét is átadta neki: a nehéz ólmos botot.
Kadarkuthy aztán végig járta a falut, megkerülte a tavat; nagy
időre került vissza a lévita házához; senki sem vette észre. Aluszik
ilyenkor minden jó ember, minden jó kutya.
Mikor benyitott a pitvarajtón, ott látta a hárságyon aludni Guthay
Lőrinczet; mélyen aludt, föl sem neszelt az ő bejöttére. Ő nála volt
kés is, ólmos bot is. A botot odatette az alvó mellé, a kést beleszúrta
a kenyérbe az asztalon.
«Majd holnap!»
Azzal öltözetestül levágta magát a gyékényre, mely nyoszolyája
elé volt terítve s ott aludt reggelig csöndesen.
 A FARKASVADÁSZAT.

Egy jó eredménye volt Kadarkuthy éjszakai háborgásának: az,

hogy a karácsony második ünnepére tervezett keresztelési
czeremonia elmaradt.
Mikor az embert mély álmából fölébresztik s aztán sok ideig nem
tud ujból elaludni: olyankor rendesen megszállják az ébrenlevő
gondolatok, előveszi a jobbik eszét.
Guthay Lőrincz végzett jurista és theologus volt.
Meggondolta, hogy az a keresztelés nincs ám elvégezve a
korsónál és a medenczénél: azután következik még a kalamáris.
Akármilyen zugban legyen is Barátfalva, az ott végbement
kikeresztelkedési aktusról referálni kell a seniornak Miskolczon, hogy
az megint jelentést tehessen róla a tractusnak, a tractus végre a
superintendensnek, s ehez a jelentéshez okvetlenül hozzá kell
csatolni a kikeresztelt neophita dócéját, mely konstatálja, hogy az
valósággal Mózes-hitü volt. Mivelhogy zsidót megkeresztelni stante
pede szabad, a mint az maga úgy kivánja; de hogyha a convertita
netalántán római katholikus találna lenni, akkor annak előbb hat heti
megpróbáltatáson kell átesni, a mit ha a kálvinista lelkipásztor nem
respektál, bizony deficzientiába esik, még hüvösre is kerülhet.
Ezt az álmatlanság órájában végiggondolva, s más egyéb
indiciumokat is összevetve, arra a megnyugtató elhatározásra jutott
Guthay Lőrincz, hogy az ő Herminája nem lesz ennek a vendég
úrnak a keresztanyja.
 Valoszinű, hogy az a keresztanyaság volt a legerősebb
argumentum, bárha nincs is benne a jus ecclesiasticumban, sem a
komjáti kánonokban.
Annálfogva, másnap reggelre kelve, azzal az enunciatióval lepte
meg a lévita a vendégét, hogy «kedves atyámfia az Úrban; jelentem
kegyelmednek, hogy a mai szent napról elmarad a keresztelési
czeremonia, minthogy én nekem előbb hivatalos megkeresést kell
intéznem Bözöd-Ujfaluba.»
– Bözöd-Ujfalúba? rebegé a vendég úr. (Soha se hallotta hirét!)
– Az ám, oda. Az a székelyföldi magyar zsidóknak a Sionja: ott
van a rabbinusuk és a matrikulájuk; onnan kell megkapnom a
hivatalos kivonatot, miszerint Barra Áron a magyar zsidó község
tagjai közé fölavattatott. Anélkül nekem baptizálnom nem szabad. S
a míg a posta a székelyföldről megfordul, bizony beletelik egy pár
hónap.
Kadarkuthy boszusan ütött az asztalra. Ő már úgy számított erre
a komédiára a templomban. Ez ő neki nimbust adott volna, a mi a
nőszivekre veszedelmes.
Vigasztaló kárpótlásul aztán megbiztatá a lévita, hogy eképen
elmaradván a keresztelés, elmarad a paszita is; nem kell végig enni,
inni egy parasztlakomát: egy órával több idő jut a vágások
bejárására; rövid kolláció után rögtön hozzá kezdhetnek a vendég úr
tulajdonképeni czéljainak utóléréséhez. A déli órák különösen
alkalmasok a kovarczomok megvizsgálásához. Nagyító üveget is
fognak vinni magukkal.
Ebben tehát meg kellett nyugodni.
De annyit még is megtett a vendég úr, hogy elment a kálvinista
templomba; odáig legalább elkisérhette a szép asszonyt: ott pedig
gyönyörködhetett benne, szemközt ülvén vele a presbiteri padon.
Illendő is volt, hogy beletanuljon a kálvinisták szokásaiba, a kik
mikor imádkoznak, nem térdepelnek le, hanem felállnak s a míg a
lelkipásztoruk prédikál, az asszonyok a szemeiket törlik, a férfiak
buzgón szundikálnak, az iskolás gyerekek énekelnek.
Az istentisztelet után pedig a lévita lakásán elköltve a
kolbászkákkal ékesitett korhelylevest, azonnal hozzá kezdtek a
felfedező expeditióhoz ők hárman: a lévita, a vendég úr és biró
uram.
Egész naplementéig járták a hegyszakadékokat; néhol kötélen
eregették le egymást; vittek magukkal csákányt is, meg kalapácsot is
a turzáshoz.
Kadarkuthynak ezt mind végig kellett élvezni. Hisz ő neki van
mind ezekre szüksége! Közbe-közbe elárulta a szakértelmét,
elnevezve a Fluszspatot békasónak.
Késő este vetette őket haza a faluba. Biró uram a maga háza
előtt búcsút vett a két úrtól. A vendég úr megköszönte neki szépen a
szíves kalauzolást.
– Adja Isten, hogy jó legyen belőle; áldáskodék Danavár uram.
A lévita és vendége pihenőre tért a vendégszobába.
A Makka felhozta az asztalra a sonkát, meg a forró sörlevest.
Kimentette a tiszteletesnét, a mért nem jöhet. A Laczikát ápolja. A
gyerek megterhelte a gyomrát mézeskalácscsal, de szerencsére
kihányt mindent, most aztán székifű-herbatejet itat vele az anyja.
Majd el múlik a baja holnapra. Ezért nem kell aggságoskodni az
apának.
Falatozás közben aztán előhozakodott vele a vendég úr, hogy ő
egészen meg van elégedve a fölfedezett bányával, teleppel, az
erdőséggel, s már most csak arra kéri a tiszteletes urát, sziveskedjék
ezen birtok földesurának egy ajánlólevelet irni a vállalkozó üveghutás
részére, a ki ez erdők és telepek használatát hajlandó lenne
harminczkét esztendőre akár évenkint fizetendő árendába, akár
egyszerre lefizetendő árért zálogba kivenni. Tegye meg ezt a
barátságot.
 A lévita elsápadt. Arczán valami elbámuló kifejezés kövesült meg.
– Bocsánatot kérek, azt én nem tehetem, rebegé suttogó
hangon.
– Miért nem teheti?
– Meggyónom őszintén. Ennek a körülfekvő birtoknak az
ezerkétszáz holdas erdőnek, a birtokosa báró Kadarkuthy Viktor.
Erről a bárónak nem volt tudomása. Atyja birtokainak
összeirásából ki volt hagyva a bükkségi erdő.
Talán szándékosan hagyatta ki az öreg Kadarkuthy, hogy Guthay
Lőrinczet jobban elrejtse? vagy talán azért hogy úgy sem
jövedelmezett semmit? Az is lehet, hogy azon erdőségek közé
tartozott, melyek felett a kamara és a birtokosok között félszázados
processusok folytak s csak József császár alatt irattak át a
birtokosaik nevére.
– Nos aztán? kérdezé a vendég úr, ha ennek a birtoknak a
tulajdonosa báró Kadarkuthy Viktor, miért ne irhatna ahoz
ajánlólevelet a számomra a tiszteletes úr?
– Azt is meggyónom.
– Kegyelmed gyónik? Hiszen kegyelmed kálvinista.
– Hát ez is azon gyarlóságaim közé tartozik, melyek a fölszentelt
papi méltóságból disqualificálnak. Én a gyónást jó intézménynek
tartom, s nem értem, hogy ezt Luther és Calvin minek hagyatták el a
követőikkel. Nekem is egy nehéz teher nyomja a lelkemet; régóta
nyomja. Megkönnyebbülök, ha egyszer kényszerítve vagyok azt
valakinek elmondani. Most itt van a kényszerítő pillanat. El kell
mondanom, hogy én évek előtt, igaz, hogy éretlen ifjonczi elmével,
igaz, hogy csábító és rábeszélő befolyások alatt, felvettem
Kadarkuthy Viktornak a nevét, s ez álorczásság alatt őrületes
vétkeket halmoztam egymásra: nagy, fényes nevű családokat
hoztam gyalázatba, s azok között saját tisztes agg szülőimet.
Eszeveszett kalandjaimra saját atyám mondta ki e halálitéletet:
«nem gondoltál arra, hogy egyszer az igazi Kadarkuthy Viktor eléd
toppan, számon kéri tőled, mit követtél el az ő nevében? és megöl!
Irgalom nélkül, megérdemlett halállal öl meg?»
(A vendég úr többet is tudott. Az agg lelkész halálos óráján
tudatta a sértett boszuállóval, hogy fiára hol találhat.)
– Még ez nem volt elég, folytatá a lévita a vallomást. Az igazi
Kadarkuthy Viktor hazaérkezett külföldről arra a hirre, hogy idehaza
valaki az ő nevét még hiresebbé teszi.
(«Mint ő maga tette azt külföldön».)
– Az öreg báró nem akart ráismerni a fiára: elfogatta a hajdúival,
mint betörő rablót s bezáratta a vármegye tömlöczébe. Engem pedig
összeházasított annak a jegyesével, egy angyali szépségü és jóságú
leánynyal a legelőkelőbb nemesi családból.
(A vendég úr a kése hegyét dugta a fogai közé, hogy össze ne
csikorgassa azokat.)
– Atyám az esküvő után jött oda a menyegzői vigalomba, hogy
engemet, a vőlegényt, elfogjon, békóba verjen, elhurczoljon magával
s az igazi Kadarkuthy Viktorral a börtönben kicseréljen. Ebből az
őrült helyzetből nem volt más szabadító út, mint az öngyilkosság.
Éjszaka volt, mikor a Dunán átkeltünk csónakkal; én lehuztam
kezeimről a békókat s a hullámok közé vetettem magamat. Meg
akartam halni. A lelkem kivánta. Hanem ez az ostoba test
ellentmondott. A mint a vizfenék kavicsát érzé, erőre kapott az
életösztön. Kitünő úszó és búvár voltam, kiúsztam a partra úgy, hogy
a csónakban levők a nagy hullámoktól nem vettek észre. Mindenkire
nézve halott voltam, csak arra az angyalra nézve nem, a kivel
egymásnak hűséget esküdtünk. Most ez az angyal itt van a barátfalvi
lévita-lakban és osztozik velem a gyér örömökben és sürű
bánatokban.
Kadarkuthy Viktor közel volt hozzá, hogy elordítsa a harczkiáltást:
 «Kapd fel hát azt a másik kést! aztán rohanjunk egymásra s
végezzük el a dolgunkat késsel!»
– Már most érteni fogja kegyelmed, úgy-e bár, hogy én nem
irhatok báró Kadarkuthy Viktornak? Nem irhatom neki, hogy én,
Guthay Lőrincz, a te dæmonod, nem haltam meg, itt vagyok! És
velem együtt itt van az a nő is, a ki a te nevedet viseli s az én
gyermekemet ápolja. És én nekem kell itt vezeklenem ebben a
világból kimaradt hegyzugban az én nagy büneimért, a miknek
terheit nem rakhatom le egy pap kezébe s nem várhatok felőlük
bünbocsánatot.
Az erős férfi két karjára hajtá le a fejét és sírt töredelmesen.
Kadarkuthy Viktor szívében megrezzent az az ideg (vagy
micsoda), a mi az elérzékenyülést fölébreszti. Egy pillanatig közel
volt hozzá, hogy arra a lehajtott főre rá tegye kezét s így szóljon
hozzá:
– Te meggyóntál nekem. Megbántad a vétkeidet. Én pap nem
vagyok, hanem vagyok a te halálosan megsértett ellenséged! Ego te
absolvo.
Rövid volt a pillanat. Nem azért jöttünk ide!
– Belátom, tiszteletes uram, hogy ezek szerint kegyelmed
csakugyan nem intézhet levelet az uradalom birtokosához. Majd
elvégeztetem ezt egy fiskálissal. Most tehát hagyjuk a bánatot a ló
fejének, az elég nagy hozzá; a székely lúfőnek semmi köze ehez a
históriához. Én, becsületemre mondom, hogy tekintve a
tekintendőket, még is inkább lennék Guthay Lőrincz, mint
Kadarkuthy Viktor. Már most hát készüljünk a farkasvadászathoz.
Guthay Lőrincz felugrott a helyéről, megtörülte a szemeit s
nagyot nyújtózott. Kinyújtózta a hátából az elérzékenyedést. A
farkasleshez kemény szív kell. Az nem olyan mulatság, mint a
hajtóvadászat, a hol embercsoportok lármája kergeti a fölriadt
dúvadat a vadász puskavége elé. A farkaslesnél a dúvad is
vadászszámba megy. Ő meg a jáger irhájára ácsingózik.
A lévita levette a puskákat és vadásztáskákat a falról.
– Vannak kegyelmednek patronjai? kérdezé a vendégétől.
– Nincsenek. Nem vesződöm velük.
– Én mindig hordok magammal tizenkettőt. Szükség esetén
megoszthatom azt kegyelmeddel.
– Lehetne rá szükség?
– Találkozhatunk egész csapat ordassal s az nem fut el, ha egy
párt leterítenek közüle.
– Hiszen a lesgunyhóban ráérünk újra tölteni.
De a lesgunyhóig ballagtunkban is találkozhatunk velük. Arra az
esetre is van nálam egy stratagéma.
Guthay Lőrincz megmutatta, hogy mi az? A bajonett alkalmazása
vadászpuskára. Egy háromszegletü dákos, a mit ráspolyból
köszörültek ki, agancsnyélbe ütve, mely szorosan beleillik a puska
csövébe.
– Ez hatalmas védő eszköz. A farkas nem állja ki ennek a
háromszegletü törnek a döfését. Már egyszer vettem hasznát kritikus
helyzetben. De ezt el ne mondjuk az asszonyomnak.
– Nem fogja neki senki elmondani.
– Kegyelmednek is adhatok ilyent: nekem van kettő.
– Nem tudok vele bánni. Én támadó farkas ellen jobbnak találom
a puskatussal védekezést.
– Én nem. A farkas feje nagy ütéseket elbir. Aztán a puskaagy
ketté törhetik, s akkor az egész fegyver hasznavehetetlen.
 – De hiszen ketten vagyunk, négy lövésünk van: ön is biztos lövő,
én is; olyan csapat ordas csak nem jön ránk, hogy ha négyet
leterítünk közüle, a többi még dolgot adjon.
– Igaz. S az esetben is, ha egymásnak vetjük a hátunkat,
megfelelünk akárhánynak.
– Úgy bizony, egymásnak vetjük a hátunkat.
Kadarkuthy sötét kigyószemei nagyot villantak Guthay Lőrincz
felé. A márczos korsóból tele tölté a két poharat.
– No ezt a Szent János áldását ürítsük még ki egy «bruder»-re. A
vadászoknak tegezni kell egymást. Azzal egymásra köszönték a
poharaikat s testvériséget ittak…
A lévita a fali klepsidrára nézett.
– Kilencz az óra. Két óráig eltart, a míg a leshelyre kiballagunk:
addig sötét van.
– Odatalálunk az erdőn keresztül?
– Az ösvényt mutatják a mészszel jelzett faderekak.
– Akkor hát mehetünk.
– Kegyelmed csak bandukoljon előre a tó mentében, nekem még
egy kis végeznivalóm van.
Tudta ám jól Kadarkuthy, hogy mi végeznivalója van még itthon
Guthay Lőrincznek: épen azért megkérdezte, hogy mi a dolga?
– Hát még a csalétekül kiteendő malaczot kell elővennem a
ketreczéből; azt zsákba téve viszem magammal.
– Nem fog az visitani az úton?
– Jól tartottam aludtejjel, a zsákban hallgatni fog.
 – No, hát én megyek előre, mondá Kadarkuthy s magában
gondolá: «no csak eredj te a feleségedhez, kis fiadhoz, megcsókolni
őket búcsú fejében; utolsó csókod lesz.»
Guthay Lőrincz csakugyan odament: a kandallószobából nyiló
kicsiny hálókamarába, a hol a felesége volt a kis fiával. Aludtak már
mind a ketten. Az asztalon égő mécs pisla világánál láthatta őket. A
kis fiú odasimult az anyjához, picziny kezét annak az arczára téve. Az
anyának és a gyermeknek az arcza egymás felé volt fordulva, mintha
csókot akarnának váltani.
Valami ösztönszerü sejtelem úgy nógatta, úgy ösztökélte, hogy
ezt a két kedves arczot megcsókolja…
… Nem! Nem szabad! Fölébresztené őket. S ezeknek nem szabad
azt megtudniok, hogy ő most farkaslesre indul. A gyermek
bizonyosan azt mondaná: «ne menj a farkasokra, táti! én félek!» s
akkor nem mehetne. Úgy kell neki settenkedve ellopozni hazulról.
A cseléd tudja azt egyedül a háznál. A Makka fönmaradt tollat
fosztani. Neki kell az eltávozó úr után bezárni az ajtót.
Guthay Lőrincz azután a fás-szinből előhozza a kéthónapos
malaczot, zsákba kötve a vállára veti s utána siet az előre ballagott
vadásztársnak.
A tó gátjánál utóléri, akkor aztán ő megy előre, a ki ismeri a
járást a tó tulsó partján kezdődő erdőben. Az az ősrengeteg eltart a
hegytetőig; csupa óriási bükkfák.
Beszélni útközben nem szabad. A léptek hangját eltompítja a
lehullott haraszt. (A farkasnak éles hallása van.) A puskacsöveket is
bedugták száraz falevéllel, hogy a puskaporszagot meg ne érezze a
dúvad.
A hegytetőre fölhágva, egy vizmosás vágányán kellett leszállniok
a völgybe. Itt volt a farkasok birodalma.
 Ez a völgy még jobban el volt rejtve, mint az a másik, a melyben
a barátfalvi házikók bujkálnak.
Itt megszünt a bükkerdő.
Valamikor, tán tizenöt év előtt, az istennyila fölgyujtotta az itteni
erdőt s az hosszu pásztában leégett. Ezen a pusztaságon aztán nem
nőtt ki többet a bükkfa.
E völgynek a lonkáját aztán félkörben elfoglalta a mogyoró. Ez a
másutt csivatag cserjének ismert csemete itt a leégett erdő talaján
több öles, karvastagságu szálfának sarjadt föl, és olyan sürűségben,
hogy azon más állat, mint szarvorrú, vagy elefánt keresztül nem
törhet. És e mogyoró-erdő szélében mered föl egy óriási vén bükkfa,
tiz ölnyi magasan, mely csodára megmaradt a nagy erdőégésből.
A mogyorópagonyon túl kezdődik aztán a növényanarchiának az
országa. Minden elátkozott bozót egymással összegubanczolva:
galagonya, kökény, bangíta, ostormén, veres gyűrű, som, borbolya,
bodza, csipke-rózsa, kecskerágó összeszőve-fonva a vadszeder
indáitól, az iszalag köteleitől, vad komlótól: egy félelmetes berek. S
ennek a bozótnak még télen is tarka szine van; nem hull le a levele,
megmarad zöldnek, vagy megsárgul, megveresedik, közte a
korallpiros bogyók, csipkék, méregcseresnyék, miktől még a madár is
elriad. Az egészet fölveri az a nehéz bűz, a mitől az embert a
hideglelés kerülgeti. Jó lakás ez a farkasoknak.
A bozótot a mogyoróligettől elválasztja egy tisztás, melynek a
közepén, mint egy kerek virágágy, pompázik egy hangafa bokor.
S ettől a bokortól mintegy hatvan lépésnyire van a vadász
leskunyhó.
De nem hasonlít az semmiféle emberi lakáshoz. Otromba
mészkövek vannak halomba rakva rendetlenül; közeiket benőtte a
moha; a teteje a somkórók és vadsóskák virágágya; köröskörül
elhatalmasodott rajta a vadszeder s annak a lelógó indái takarják az
alacsony ajtót, a minek a fölnyításához csak parasztfortélylyal lehet
jutni.
– Várj itt csendesen, – monda Guthay Lőrincz a vadásztársának,
– amig a csalétket kikötöm; majd utóbb kinyitom a lesgunyhó
ajtaját.
Azzal odavitte a hátán hozott zsákot ahoz a kerek bokorhoz, s
abba befurakodva kihúzta belőle a malacot s aztán megkötötte a
lábánál fogva egy bokor tövéhez. Az rögtön elkezdett malac szokás
szerint keservesen visítani.
Amint Guthay Lőrinc előjött a hangafa bokorból, meglepetve
hallotta a nagy károgást a feje fölött. Egész sereg varjú jött nagy
lármával zajongva a ködös égen, melyet akkor kezdett derengetni a
hegyek mögül kibukkanó hold. – A varjúk, lehettek ötvenen is, mind
megszálltak azon az egyetlen kimagasló vén bükkfán. Kálvinista
varjúk voltak. Igy híjja őket a népajk azért, hogy ezek hússal élnek
(odaértve a férgeket is), megkülömböztetésül a pápista varjúktól, a
kik csak a vetést eszik. Amazok egészen feketék, emezeknek a hátuk
szürke.
Ezek az előposták!
Valami nagy dolog van készülőben ott a titokteljes ciher mélyén.
Lőrinc a lesgunyhóhoz sietett vissza.
– Áron barátom! mondá. – Nyissuk ki sebtén a lesgunyhó ajtaját
s azután reteszeljük el magunkat.
Erre Kadarkuthy Viktor megdobbantá a földet a puskája agyával,
s azt mondá:
– Mi nem megyünk be a lesgunyhóba, hanem idekinn maradunk.
Én nem vagyok a te Áron barátod, hanem vagyok Kadarhuthy Viktor,
aki azért keresett föl, hogy veled erre az életre leszámoljon.
 Ennek a névnek a hallatára csak lehajtotta a fejét Guthay Lőrincz.
Nem volt ellene semmi védelme.
– Évek óta kereslek, most rád találtam – folytatá Kadarkuthy – a
többit tudod. Ott van az a nagy magányos bükkfa: odáig egy
puskalövés. Te eredj oda, én itt maradok a lesgunyhó előtt, – ottan
állj fel. S akkor aztán kezdjünk el egymásra lövöldözni, amig
egyikünk hasra nem fekszik. Az lő előbb, aki akar!
Guthay Lőrinc nem szólt semmit, csak a fejével bólintott.
– S nehogy azt hidd, hogy ez itt közöttünk valami lovagias
komédia akar lenni: megmondom neked azt is, hogy én nem azért
akarlak megölni, hogy a nevemet bitoroltad, hogy miattad tömlöcben
penészhedtem, hanem a feleségedért, akit magamévá akarok tenni.
Most már tudod, hogy mit tégy?
Guthay Lőrinc szótlanul megfordult s ballagott a nagy bükkfa felé.
A varjúsereg a terepélyfa ágán nagy örvendező károgással fogadta;
úgy lebegtették a szárnyaikat jó kedvükben.
Vagy talán nem neki beszéltek?
Itt hát a vég! Az elkerülhetetlen fátum! Az apa által kimondott
itélet ime beteljesedik.
Guthay Lőrincnek a lelkéhez nem fér az, hogy ő ellenfelét
párbajban megölje. Tehát ő maga fog elesni.
Teljesedjék az Úr akaratja.
Odatámaszkodott félvállal a vén bükkfa mohos oldalához.
Egy rövid indulatroham megdobbant a szívében, mikor arra
gondolt, hogy ez a halálos ellenfél az ő kincseit akarja magáévá
tenni, a feleségét és kis fiát. – Hátha megelőzné? Hátha ő lőné
agyon?
De hát aztán mi következik?
 Lehet-e neki azzal a véres kézzel a feleségét, gyermekét
megölelni?
Lehet-e neki azzal a véres kézzel az Úr vacsoráját osztani a
jámbor hívek között?
S a megölt ellenfél gyilkosát üldözni fogják. Elfusson-e a világba?
Hová? Neje nélkül, gyermeke nélkül? Vagy azokat is vigye magával?
Teljesüljön a fátum!
Ámde a fátumnak ötletei vannak.
Amig azt a hatvan lépést a lesgunyhótól a bükkfáig végig mérte
Guthay Lőrincz, valami csörtető zörej kezdett támadni a sürű
bozótban, s egyszerre csak a gubancos ciherből kiugrott két farkas.
Egy szikár kan, meg egy szoptatós nőstény, azzal a fenyegető
kurrogással, mely a kutyafajnál a támadást jelenti. Mind a kettő
Kadarkuthy felé rohant; Guthayt nem látták a bükkfától.
Kadarkuthy mintegy negyven lépésnyire bevárta őket s akkor egy
jól célzott lövéssel leteríté a himfarkast.
A mint az elterűlt a havon, a nősténye ott maradt mellette, a
himje véres száját nyalogatva.
Kadarkuthy nem lőtt rá. Tartogatta a második lövést. A bozótból
még egyre hangzott a csörtetés. Néhány perc mulva kiugrott az
előbbi farkasok által tört résen egy harmadik ordas.
Ez már vén kókler volt, ismerte a vadásztempókat. Nem egyenes
vonalban tört a lesgunyhó előtti vadász felé, hanem hol lesunyva a
fejét, hol félreugrálva, hogy a vadászt megtéveszsze.
Kadarkuthy megtartá a hidegvérét: hagyta az ordast közelebb
jönni, puskáját arcához emelve. Egyszer aztán eldördült a lövés,
mely után az ordas leült a két hátulsó lábára s elkezdett vért okádni.
A golyó szügyen találta.
 De abban a pillanatban, amint a második lövés eldördült, egymás
után három farkas ugrott elő a ciherből, ezek egymás nyomán futva,
száguldtak a vadász felé.
Kadarkuthy most bánta már, hogy nem engedte a lesgunyhó
ajtóját felnyitni. Megpróbálta azt berugni; de igen erős szerkezete
volt; nem kilincsre járt, hanem reteszre.
Most már csak a puskaagyban volt a védelem.
A puskacsővet két marokra fogva, a legelső farkast, amely
egyenesen a torkának rohant (valami szeleburdi fiatal szuka lehetett)
ugy sújtotta főbe a puska agyával, hogy az nagyot ordított s aztán
szűkölve, nyafogva oldalgott félre, véres orrát a hóba furkálva.
A másik két farkas fogait csattogtatva torpant meg.
Kadarkuthy bátor férfi volt. A puskát magasra emelte, biztatta a
dúvadakat: «gyertek! gyertek!»
A farkas is elővette a maga furfangját, amit ilyenkor szokott
használni. Az egyik háttal fordult a vadász felé s elkezdte a két
hátulsó lábával gyorsan szórni a havat a vadász szeme közé, mig a
másik meglapulva hasmánt csúszott feléje közelebb, hogy aztán egy
ugrással a hószórástól elvakult embernek a vállára szökhessen.
Kadarkuthy az egyik kezével a szemét takarta el a hószórás elől,
a másik is elég volt súlyos ütésre a fölemelt puskával.
Ekkor egy új veszedelem támadt. Az a nőstény farkas, mely a
hime mellett maradt, egyszerre felriadt s dühös ordítással rohant a
lesgunyhó felé s egy hatalmas szökéssel felugrott annak a tetejére,
ott azután végig hasalt, csak a fejét dugta elő a szederindák közül,
véres száját nyalva a hosszú nyelvével; s a közben vérre éheztét
kifejező «nyau» hangokat hallatva.
A havat szóró farkas csukló csahintásokkal jelenté jó kedvét, a
hasmánt közeledő mélyen dörmögő kurrogással a haragját. Olyan
közelre jöttek már a vadászhoz, hogy akármelyiket lesújthatta volna.
– De nem tehette azt; mert amint a kunyhóajtóból előlép, a kunyhó
tetején ácsingózó ordas egyszerre le fog rá ugrani s hátulról rántja
le.
Guthay Lőrincz karra vetett puskával nézte ezt az ádáz
küzdelmet.
Bizony ordália ez! Istenitélet. Ime előjöttek azok a vadak, a kik
Eliézer megcsúfolóit összetépték; a sors azok által tesz igazságot. Itt
most össze fogják tépni, széthurczolni azt a halálos ellenséget, a
kinek kiengesztelhetetlen haragja, akinek gonosz luxuriese az ő
életét követelte áldozatul. A saját életét veszti el.
Neki nem kell egyebet tenni, mint nézni. Elnézni a halálos tusáját,
kétségbeesését annak a másiknak.
De hát el fogja-e ezt viselni az ő lelke?
A kétségbeesésnek e paroxismusában elordítá magát Kadarkuthy:
«ember! segíts!»
A borzasztó, emberéhez nem hasonlitó üvöltést viszhangozá a
mogyoróliget fala.
Arra két lövés dördült el, pillanatnyi közökben.
Az egyik lövésre a gunyhó tetején leskelődő farkas bukfenczezett
le Kadarkuthy lába elé, a másikra a havat szóró ordas vágta magát
hanyatt, négy lábával kalimpázva. Guthay Lőrincz «holó–holó–holó!»
kiáltozással rohant elő a bükkfa mellől szuronyos fegyverével, mire
az ugrásra készülő ordas egyszerre felriadt, oldalt szökött, s aztán
odarohanva a bezuzott orru párjához, annak megkapta a fülét, s ugy
vonszolta el magával a fülénél fogva: lompos farkával ütögetve hátul
gyorsabb szaladásra. Eltüntek a bozótban.
– Nem törött el a puskaagy? – Ez volt az első szava Guthay
Lőrincznek Kadarkuthy Viktorhoz.
A kérdezett szótlanúl mutatta a fegyverét: ép volt.
 – Akkor hát újra megtölthetjük a puskáinkat s kezdhetjük a
párbajt.
Kadarkuthy erre a szóra eldobta a puskát a kezéből.
– Jaj, ne beszélj róla, – rebegé fogvaczogva. – Hiszen úgy
reszketek. A hideg ráz. Fogd meg a kezemet.
Odanyújtá a kezét Guthay Lőrincznek. Olyan hideg volt az, mint
egy halottnak a keze.
– Csinálj tüzet inkább.
A lévita erre odament a lesgunyhóhoz, fölnyitotta annak az
ajtaját. A puskavesszővel kellett benyúlni az ajtó likán s úgy emelni
föl a reteszt. Odabenn aztán volt tűzszerszám. A gunyhó közelében
volt fölmáglyázva a targaly, azt csak meg kellett gyújtani az égő
csóvával: a tűz vigan ropogva égett.
Kadarkuthy Viktor térdre ereszkedett a tűz mellé, s kezeit
összetette a mellén: fázott, reszketett. Szemei merően bámultak a
lobogó tűzbe; még most is a pokoli rémképeket látta maga előtt.
Ajkai valamit motyogtak csendesen: «van Isten! van Isten!»
Azután odainté Lőrinczet.
– Ülj mellém. Ölelj meg. Úgy reszketek. Nincsen egy csöpp
szivem sem. Megették a farkasok! Ne hagyj nekik széttépni!
Guthay Lőrincz odaült a térdeplő férfi mellé s átölelte annak a
vállát.
– Ne félj! Elvertük a czudár bestiákat. Ott hevernek a havon.
Kettőt te öltél meg, kettőt én.
Erre a szóra elkezdett Kadarkuthynak az arcza nyavalyatörős
vigyorgásra torzulni.
– Azokban laktak az ördögök, – suttogá. – A mi lelkünket
megszálló ördögök. Most megszabadultunk tőlük. Úgy-e nem fogunk
egymásra haragudni többé soha?
Guthay Lőrincz mély megilletődést érzett. Valami nagy változást
vett észre Kadarkuthyn, mely külső jelben tanusítá a nagy lelki
fordulatot; de nem szólt neki felőle.
Kadarkuthy odahúzta magához Guthay fejét, hogy a fülébe
súghassa:
– Én teneked a lelkemmel tartozom. Te a lelkemet adtad vissza.
Eddig nem volt.
A lévita vette észre, hogy vadásztársa félrebeszél.
Hirtelen fölvett egy marék havat s azzal erősen bedörzsölte
annak az arczát, orrát, füleit. Ettől magához tért.
– Köszönöm, pajtás! – szólt aztán régi szokott hangján. – Nagyon
elcsigázott ez a hajczihő. Most már eszemen vagyok. Nem fogok
bolondokat beszélni. Te kiegyenlítetted a tartozásodat ellenemben;
de én még nem, a mivel neked tartozom. Eredj haza a feleségedhez,
s mondd el neki, hogy az ő férjét nem üldözi senki a világon többé.
Te visszatérhetsz az emberi társaságba. Asszonyoddal
megesküdhetel igaz hit szerint, hogy viselje a te nevedet. Szülőid
meghaltak. Az öreg Malárdyból alázatos ember lett. Fia elvette a te
szülőid fogadott leányát. A két család közti átok megszünt. A
feleséged szép vagyont örökölt; Durday őrnagy ráhagyta egész
birtokát, ha tíz év alatt elő fog kerülni. Ellenkező esetben a városi
kórház alapítványáúl fog az szolgálni. Ezentúl gond nélkül élhettek
szülővárosodban; te a tudományoknak élhetsz, tisztességes állást
szerezhetsz; egy makula nem lesz a neveden. Én úgy elhagyom ezt
az országot, hogy soha vissza nem térek többet. Én megbocsátottam
neked s másnak nincs megbocsátani valója.
Guthay Lőrincz megszorítá Kadarkuthy Viktor feléje nyujtott
kezét; most már forró volt az.
– A bocsánatot köszönöm, ezt örömmel fogadom. De azon túl
semmit. Én a feleségemnek el nem mondhatom ennek a mostani
órának a történetét; mert azzal egész életére szerencsétlenné
tenném. Ő pedig most boldog, meg van elégedve. S az ő boldogsága
az én sorsom is. A birtokra, a mit neki hagyományoztak, a város
gyámoltalan lázárainak szüksége van, nekünk nincs. A mi kenyerünk
hiveink szivében van s az jó termő föld. A fiamat arra fogom nevelni,
hogy esze és szorgalma után megéljen. A pénz elgurúl, a földbirtok
elszalad a kényeztetett úrfiak kezéből és lába alól; hanem a szegény
ember fiának a munkakedve dominium és capitalis, a mi nem vész el
soha. Mi itt maradunk a barátfalvi völgyben. Külömbség csak az lesz
ránk nézve, hogy most már ki is járhatunk belőle.
– Így is jó, – mondá Kadarkuthy fölállva a tűz mellől. – Most hát
töltsük meg újra a fegyvereinket s aztán te majd vezess el a
kocsiutig, a melyen Szent Péterre eljutok, a hol egy emberem vár
reám, a kivel tudatnom kell, hogy élek.
– Hanem előbb ezeket az elejtett farkasokat czipeljük be a
lesgunyhóba, mert ez most rám nézve egy capitalis, a mivel ki lesz
elégítve az orgonácskám ára.
– Félsz, hogy ellopja valaki őket?
– Nem valaki, de valami. A farkasok visszajönnek s a megölt
pajtásaikat fölfalják.
– Ah! A kannibálok? A saját testvéreiket.
– Te soha sem láttál farkast?
– Soha! Hiszen Párisból jövök, s ott «louve»-nak a fortificatio
nimfáit hívják.
– Akkor elég jól viselted magadat a farkasok első rendez-vous-
jában.
Azzal aztán segített Kadarkuthy Guthaynak a vadászzsákmányt a
lesgunyhóba behordani. Majd holnap eljönnek a munkások a
bundáikért.
 – De biz ezt a kis ártatlan malaczot sem hagyom itt prédára, –
mondá a lévita s odament a hangafa bokorhoz. A kis malacznak már
volt annyi esze, hogy a nagy farkasvonítás közben meg ne
nyikkanjon, hanem elbújjon a páfrán közé. – Majd mikor a falú
végéhez érünk, kieresztem a zsákból; hazatalál ez magától.
Azután sáscsutakból fáklyákat készítettek a vadászok, s azokat
meggyújtva, hatoltak ki a veszedelmes völgyből, föl a vízválasztóig.
A szekérútnál, a keresztfa előtt, megölelték egymást, úgy váltak el.
Hermina soha sem tudta meg, hogy mi történt ezen a
réméjszakán, a farkasok völgyében.
Welcome to Our Bookstore - The Ultimate Destination for Book Lovers
Are you passionate about books and eager to explore new worlds of
knowledge? At our website, we offer a vast collection of books that
cater to every interest and age group. From classic literature to
specialized publications, self-help books, and children’s stories, we
have it all! Each book is a gateway to new adventures, helping you
expand your knowledge and nourish your soul
Experience Convenient and Enjoyable Book Shopping Our website is more
than just an online bookstore—it’s a bridge connecting readers to the
timeless values of culture and wisdom. With a sleek and user-friendly
interface and a smart search system, you can find your favorite books
quickly and easily. Enjoy special promotions, fast home delivery, and
a seamless shopping experience that saves you time and enhances your
love for reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!

ebookgate.com