lleged to imply the existence of monotheism; for
example, _Yasma-ilu_, which may be translated "God hears," implying the
existence of but one God. However, it might mean also "_a_ god hears,"
or "god"--referring to one of many--"hears," the giver of the name
singling out the one for special consideration. And as there are clear
indications of polytheism in southern Arabia, where the name is found,
the name, in all probability, means the latter, thus implying
polytheism. The same may be said of the names found in Babylonia.
Whatever the primary meaning of _ilu_, these names do not in themselves
prove the existence of monotheism. They may be translated in perfect
accord with logic and grammar as admitting the existence of more than
one god. Indeed, the historical facts demand such interpretation. If
we find, for example, "Sin-muballit" ("the moon-god brings to life") as
the name of the father of Hammurabi, and "Shamshu-iluna" (in all
probability, "the sun-god is our god") as that of his son, the facts
surely indicate that the monotheism of the period was not very
distinct. The testimony of the Code of Hammurabi points in the same
direction, as also the most spiritual utterances of religion in the
Euphrates valley, the penitential psalms.

{220}

It is seen, then, that facts do not warrant the claim, made by some,
that that upon which rests the significance of the Bible in the world's
history, namely, monotheism, was taken over by the Hebrews from the
Babylonians. Josh. 24. 2 remains uncontradicted: "Your fathers dwelt
of old time beyond the River, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and
the father of Nahor; and _they served other gods_." It is only in
Israel that we find a clearly developed monotheism. Assumption and
facts are not quite the same.

Another important point, to which attention has already been called, is
the marked difference which obtains between the literature of the Old
Testament and that uncovered by archaeology. True, there are points of
contact; indeed, strange it would be if there were none; for, like the
Babylonians, the Hebrews were Semites. Surely, it is not strange that
nations of the same race, originally in the same home, should possess
similar traditions, customs, beliefs, and practices. When they left
their common home they carried with them their common traditions,
customs, and beliefs; in their new homes they developed them and
impressed upon them their own individualities. W