Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/361

 is no doubt right, but the second is very widely questioned by Assyriologists. There is, moreover, nothing to show that the king in question, whatever his name, belonged to the age of Ḫammurabi. (4) (G$3$, S ) was identified by Pinches with a "Tu-ud-ḫul-a, son of Gaz," who is named once on the tablets already spoken of (see Schr. SBBA, 1895, xli. 961 ff.). The resemblance to Tid'al is very close, and is naturally convincing to those who find 'Ariok and Kedorla'omer in the same document; there is, however, no indication that Tudḫula was a king, or that he was contemporary with Ḫammurabi and Rîm-Sin (King, op. cit.).— can hardly be the usual word for 'nations' (GVT), either as an indefinite expression (Tu.) or as a "verschämtes et cetera" (Ho.). We seem to require a proper name (S has ); and many accept the suggestion of Rawlinson, that Guti (a people N of the Upper Zab) should be read. Peiser (309) thinks that is an attempt to render the common Babylonian title šar kiššati.

The royal names in v.$1$ are of a different character from those of v.$7$. Several circumstances suggest that they are fictitious. Jewish exegesis gives a sinister interpretation to all four (T$EL$, Ber. R. § 42, Ra.); and even modern scholars like Tu. and Nö. recognise in the first two a play on the words (evil) and  (wickedness). And can it be accidental that they fall into two alliterative pairs, or that each king's name contains exactly as many letters as that of his city? On the other side, it may be urged (a) that the textual tradition is too uncertain to justify any conclusions based on the Heb. (see the footnote); (b) the namelessness of the fifth king shows that the writer must have had traditional authority for the other four; and (c) Sanibu occurs as the name of an Ammonite king in an inscr. of Tiglath-pileser (Del. Par. 294, KIB, ii. 21). These considerations do not remove the impression of artificiality which the list produces. Since the names are not repeated in v.$2$, it is quite possible they are late insertions in the text, and, of course (on that view), unhistorical.— is elsewhere a royal name (36$1$).