Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/360

 widely recognised by Assyriologists. It is, however, questioned by Jen. , absolutely rejected by Bezold, and pronounced 'problematical' by Mey. GA$2$, ii. 551.—(On, see 10$10$.)—(2) (cf. Dn. 2$14$, Jth. 1$6$), it seems, is now satisfactorily identified with Eri-agu, the Sumerian equivalent of Arad-Sin, a king of Larsa, who was succeeded by his more famous brother, Rîm-Sin, the ruler who was conquered by Ḫammurabi in the 31st year of the latter's reign (KAT$3$, 16, 19). The two brothers, sons of the Elamite Kudurmabug, were first distinguished by Thureau-Dangin in 1907 (Sumer. und Akkad. Königsinschr. 210 f.; cf. King, Chronicles concerning early Bab. Kings, vol. i. 68$2$; Mey. GA$2$, ii. p. 550 f.). Formerly the two names and persons were confused; and Schrader's attempt to identify Rîm-Sin with Arioch, though accepted by many, was reasonably contested by the more cautious Assyriologists, e.g. Jen. (ZDMG, 1896, 247 ff.), Bezold (op. cit. 27, 56), and Zimmern (KAT$3$, 367). The objections do not hold against the equation Arioch = Eriagu = Arad-Sin, provided Arad-Sin be kept distinct from Rîm-Sin. The discovery by Pinches in 1892 of the name Eri-[E]aku or Eri-Ekua stands on a somewhat different footing. The tablets on which these names occur are admittedly late (not earlier than the 4th cent. ); the identity of the names with Eri-Aku is called in question by King; who further points out that this Eri-Ekua is not styled a king, that there is nothing to connect him with Larsa, and that consequently we have no reason to suppose him the same as either of the well-known contemporaries of Ḫammurabi. The real significance of the discovery lies in the coincidence that on these same late fragments (and nowhere else) the two remaining names of the v. are supposed to occur.—(3)  unquestionably stands for Kudur-lagamar, a genuine Elamite proper name, containing the name of a known Elamite divinity Lagamar (KAT$3$, 485), preceded by a word which appears as a component of theophorous Elamite names (Kudur-mabug, Kudur-Nanḫundi, etc.). It is extremely doubtful, however, if the actual name has yet been found outside of this chapter. The "sensational" announcement of Scheil (1896), that he had read it (Ku-dur-nu-uḫ-ga-mar) in a letter of Ḫammurabi to Sinidinnam, king of Larsa, has been disposed of by the brilliant refutation of King (op. cit. xxv-xxxix. Cf. also Del. BA, iv. 90). There remains the prior discovery of the Pinches fragments, on which there is mentioned thrice a king of Elam whose name, it was thought, might be read Kudur-laḫ-mal or Kudur-laḫ-gu-mal. The first element (Kudur)