17 - The Chaldeans

CHAPTER XVII THE CHALDEANS

It is futile to suppose that we can define the vocabulary which the writer of an ancient document must have used. To say that a given ancient record cannot have been written before a certain date because a certain word or phrase occurs in it, is to assume a knowledge which we to-day seldom possess. Almost every new find of documents in what ever language written presents to us a number of words which before its discovery were unknown to us. Thus, the papyrus containing the Mimes of Herodas, first published in 1891, revealed a large number of Greek vocables which were not made known in other Greek works of antiquity and were not to be found in our standard classical dictionaries. So, also, Greek papyri, ostraka, and inscriptions have enlarged our knowledge of the so-called Hellenistic Greek, until it has required the rewriting of our grammars and a readjustment of all our conceptions of the origin and use of the common Greek language of New Testament times. The recent finds of Aramaic documents in Egypt have in like manner caused a revolution in our ideas of the Aramaic of the times of Ezra. Not merely do they necessitate a revision of all our previous theories with regard to the orthography, phonology, morphology, and syntax of the Aramaic language; they also supplement the vocabulary with a large number of hitherto undiscovered terms. Above all, they make known to us a large number of foreign words which the Arameans of that time and country have adopted from their rulers and neighbors. So that, when we survey the whole field of foreign words in the various Aramaic dialects, and especially in Egypto-Aramaic, there are found among other peculiarities the following:

I. 1. Many foreign words are to be found in use in but one Aramaic document.

2. Some words known to be foreign can be identified with no terms found as yet in the original language from which they are to be derived.

3. Some words, whose foreign origin is certain, are found in use in Aramaic documents long before they are found in use in the original language from which they were derived.

4. Some foreign words are found in use in an early document although they are not found again for hundreds of years.

5. Aramaic words which have been supposed to be borrowed are sometimes found to have been native, or at last Semitic.

6. Some are found in different documents and in different dialects, but are confined to one age and derived from one source dating from the same period.1

II. 1. Further, of pure Aramaic words, some are found in the early documents which are not found again the Aramaic dialects for hundreds of years.

2. Secondly, some are used in one dialect alone.

3. thirdly, some are used in documents from one age alone.2

Since no one of these nine statements can be denied it will be a reckless man who will assert that a word cannot have been used by a writer of the sixth century B.C., because that word has been found in no other known author of that time, or in fact, of any other time. We simply do not know enough to make these assertions, and we might as well admit it. To say that a writer of Aramaic of the sixth century B.C. cannot have used the word "Chaldean" or the Greek names of three musical instruments is merely to make an assertion that lies beyond the bounds of proof. The desire to find fault and to depreciate the genuineness of Daniel overrides the historic-philological judgment of those who say it. Neither history or philology supports such an assertion, as I shall attempt in the following discussion to show. Before entering upon this discussion, however, the following caveat must be entered, to wit: that even though it may be impossible to demonstrate when or how certain foreign words came into a language, the time of their coming there cannot commonly be determined by the date at which they first appear in another document, whether this other document be in the language from which the word has been derived, or in the language that has derived the word. All analogy, based on records already found, would lead us to believe that hundreds of both native and foreign words were used by the ancient Arameans that have hitherto been discovered in no Aramaic document.3 The accumulating finds in Greek teach us that there were doubtless thousands of Greek loan words in common use that have never been used by the classical writers that have come down to us. Any one of these words might have been borrowed by the Arameans and others who came in contact with the Greeks who used them. Again, new discoveries in the Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, and all other ancient languages are always revealing to us afresh our ignorance of the fullness of their vocabularies, and of the origin and use of their words. Cognizant of this universal lack of knowledge of the vocabularies of ancient languages, and refusing to be bound by mere assertions that a given word cannot have been used by a given writer at a given time, inasmuch as we do not happen to know that some other writer of that same time or of dome time previous used it, I pass on to a consideration of the objections made to the book of Daniel on the assumption that its author has employed certain words which could not have been used in the sixth century B.C. I shall, at present, confine myself to a discussion of the word "Chaldean," as to which the critics of Daniel assert that it cannot have been used as early as the sixth century B.C. to denote the Babylonian astrologers, inasmuch, they say, as it is not found in use in this sense until a much later time.

OBJECTIONS STATED

Professor Cornill says: "The manner in which the term kasdim (Chaldean), exactly like the Latin Chaldæus, is used in the sense of soothsayer and astrologer (Daniel 2:2, Daniel 2:4, Daniel 2:5, Daniel 2:10; Daniel 5:7, Daniel 5:11) is inconceivable at a time when the Chaldeans were the ruling people of the world."4 Professor Driver states the objection as follows: The "Chaldeans" are synonymous in Daniel (Daniel 1:4; Daniel 2:2; etc.) with the caste of wise men. This sense "is unknown to the Ass. Bab. language, has, wherever it occurs, formed itself after the end of the Babylonian empire, and is thus an indication of the post-exilic composition of the Book" (Schrader, The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, 2nd edition, p. 249). It dates, namely, from a time when practically the only "Chaldeans" known belonged to the caste in question (comp. Meinhold, Beiträge, p. 28).5 Professor Meinhold, to whom Dr. Driver refers, says in the passage cited as follows:

Wonderful above all things appears to us the use of the name Kasdim. For while Kasdim everywhere else in the Old Testament is a designation of the Babylonian people, we find here alongside of this common meaning (Daniel 3:8; Daniel 5:30) that of Magians which is also known from the profane historians. As to what particular kind of Magians these are is not clear, since Kasdim is at times the general designation of the totality of all classes of wise men (Daniel 2:10) and at times is a special designation of a division of the same (Daniel 4:4; Daniel 5:10). This striking appearance is only to be explained by the fact that the Jews of the exile had first learned something of the Chaldeans as a special division of the wise men within the totality of the Babylonian nation. Everywhere in the Old Testament kasdim appears rather as the most general name of the whole people. The more specific meaning, however, shows that the specific meaning, however, shows that the knowledge of the kingdom of the Chaldeans had only been retained in the memory of the priest and wise men of succeeding times. While everything else had soon passed away and disappeared in the course of time, the castes, because of a religious kind, could still long be retained in remembrance. They were the only remains of the Chaldeans. They were the Chaldeans. Thus is explained the later use of the name. An exilic author could, however, not write thus.6 ASSUMPTIONS INVOLVED There are here the following assumptions:

I. That the term kasdim to denote the ruling nation in Babylon passed away from the remembrance of succeeding times, while the use of it to denote the wise men remained.

II. 1.That the original of the word kasdim, in the sense of a priestly class, is not found on the monuments.

2. That the word Chaldean as used for priest, or wise man, is of the same origin, or meaning, as the word Chaldean as used to denote a people.

3. That the absence of the term in its priestly sense from the Assyrio-Babylonian monuments proves that it was not employed by the Babylonians in common speech to denote a certain class of wise men.

III. That the apparent absence of the word from the Assyrio-Babylonian language is a proof that it was not used in the Aramaic language.

ANSWER TO ASSUMPTIONS

I. Taking up the assumptions in the order named, we shall discuss the first two heads: first, the use of the word to denote a people, and secondly, its use to denote a priestly class.

1. It is admitted that in the scriptures outside of Daniel the word always denoted a people. In Daniel, also, it is employed to denote a people; once in the Hebrew portion, Daniel 9:1, where it is said that Darius had been "made king over the realm of the Chaldeans"; and once in the Aramaic, in Daniel 5:30, where it is said that "Belshazzar the Chaldean king (or king of the Chaldeans) was slain." In Daniel 1:4, the Chaldeans may be the people, but it is more probable that the priestly class is meant. On the monuments we find this sense, with one or two possible exceptions, only in those inscriptions which come from Assyria. The documents from the Persian, Greek, and Parthian periods never use it to denote a people; and those from the Babylonian of the time preceding Cyrus never employ it in this sense, save perhaps once. This exception is in an inscription of Nabunaid addressed to the gods Shamash and Ai of Sippar, in which he mentions the cedars (erinu) of Amanus and of the land of Kal- Daniel7 Since we have no evidence from any other source that the cedars were a product of the Chaldea south of Babylon, it is most probable that some other land with a similar name was meant by Nabunaid. It is a most remarkable circumstance that none of the documents from Babylonia, not even those of the Chaldean kings themselves, with the possible exception of this one instance just noted, ever speak of either the Chaldean land or people. The Assyrians, however, frequently mention both the land and the people of the Kaldu, from the time of Ashurnas?irabal (885-860 B.C.), down to the time of Ashurbanipal (668-626 B.C.).

After the time of Ashurbanipal neither the land nor the people of the Chaldeans is mentioned till the time of Sophocles8 and Herodotus (464-424 B.C.), the latter of whom says that the Chaldeans served among the Assyrians who went against Greece in Xerxes’ army, under Otaspes, son of Artachæus.9 The Chaldeans of whom Xenophon speaks10 were near the Black Sea and may possibly have been the descendants of the Chaldeans of Bit-Yakin whom Sargon carried away and settled in Kummuh. The next writer to speak of the southern Chaldeans is Berosus, himself a Chaldean priest who lived in the time of Alexander the Great. In his Chaldean History, he speaks of a great number of people as inhabiting Chaldea, and of ten early kings of the Chaldeans who ruled before the time of Abraham, and of the Chaldean language, and of the Chaldean kings beginning with Nabonasar.11 He says further that Nebuchadnezzar exceeded in his exploits all that had reigned before him in Babylon and Chaldea and that his father, Nabopolassar, was king of Babylon and of the Chaldeans.12 Strabo, who was born about 54 B.C., says in his Geography13 that there was a tribe of Chaldeans and a district of Babylonia inhabited by them near the Persian Gulf; and further, that Babylonia was bounded on the south by the Persian Gulf and the Chaldeans.14 Again, he says that the Babylonians and the nation of the Chaldeans possessed the country at the mouth of the Euphrates.15 Again, he speaks of acity called Gerra in a deep gulf inhabited by Chaldean fugitives from Babylon,16 and of the marsh lands of the Chaldeans made by the overflowing of the Euphrates.17 Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews,18 calls Nebuchadnezzar "king of Babylon and Chaldea," and speaks of the "kings of Chaldea."19 Alexander Polyhistor, who lived in the second century B.C., speaks of Saracus king of the Chaldeans, and of Nabopolassar who obtained the empire of the Chaldeans.20 Polyhistor states, also, that after the deluge, Evixius held possession of the country of the Chaldeans during the period of four neri; that 49 kings of the Chaldeans ruled Babylon for 458 years; that there was a king of the Chaldeans whose name was Phulus (Pul); that Sardanapalus the Chaldean reigned 21 years; and that Neglisarus reigned over the Chaldeans four years.21

It will be seen from the above references that the people and country of the Chaldeans are mentioned on the monuments as existing from about 850 B.C., and in the Greek historians as existing from immediately after the flood, to the time of Christ.

2. Secondly, we shall consider the use of the word "Chaldean" to denote a priestly class. In this sense the word is found in Daniel in the following places.

(a) In Hebrew, (1) in Daniel 1:4, where it is said that the king of Babylon commanded the master of his eunuchs to teach certain Jewish youths "the language and the tongue of the Chaldeans."

(2) In Daniel 2:2, "the king commanded to call the magicians, and the enchanters, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to tell the king his dreams."

(3) In Daniel 2:4, the Chaldeans speak to the king "in the Aramaic language."

(b) In Aramaic, (1) in Daniel 2:5, "The king answered and said to the Chaldeans."

(2) In Daniel 2:10, "The Chaldeans answered before the king and said, There is not a man upon the earth that can show the king’s matter, forasmuch as no king, lord, or ruler, hath asked such a thing of any magician, or enchanter, or Chaldean."

(3) In Daniel 3:8, "Certain Chaldeans came near and brought accusation against the Jews."

(4) In Daniel 4:7, Nebuchadnezzar says, "Then came in the magicians, the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers; and I told the dream before them."

(5) In Daniel 5:7, "The king [Belshazzar] cried aloud to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. The king spake and said to the wise men of Babylon," etc.

(6) In Daniel 5:11-12, the queen says that Nebuchadnezzar had made Daniel "master of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and soothsayers; forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and showing of dark sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel." In the classical writers, it is used in this sense first by Herodotus, who flourished from 464 to 424 B.C.; that is, contemporaneously with the whole reign of Artaxerxes I, called Longimanus, the successor of Xerxes the son of Darius Hystaspis. It will be noted that Herodotus died about one hundred years after the death of Cambyses the son of Cyrus, and little more than a century after the death of the Daniel who is the hero and supposed author of our book. Herodotus never mentions a Chaldean people save once, and that incidentally; but he does speak at length of the Chaldean priests. His statements are as follows: In the middle of each division of the city of Babylon, fortified buildings were erected, in one of which was the precinct of Jupiter Bel, which in my time was still in existence. In the midst of this precinct was a tower of eight emplacements and in the uppermost of these a spacious temple in which was a large couch handsomely furnished, but no statue; nor did any mortal pass the night there except only a native woman, chosen by the god of the whole nation, as the Chaldeans, who are priests of this deity, say. These same priests assert, though I cannot credit what they say, that the god himself comes to this temple. There is, also, another temple below, within the precinct at Babylon; in it is a large golden statue of Jupiter erected, and near it is placed a large table of gold, the throne also and the step are of gold, which together weigh 800 talents as the Chaldeans affirm. Outside the temple is a golden altar and another large altar where full-grown sheep are sacrificed; for on the golden altar only sucklings may be offered. On the great altar the Chaldeans consume yearly a thousand talents of frankincense when they celebrate the festival of this god. There was also at that time within the precincts of this temple a statue of solid gold, twelve cubits high. I, indeed, did not see it. I only relate what is said by the Chaldeans.

Ctesias, the Greek physician of Artaxerxes II, who wrote about 400 B.C., speaks of the Chaldeans as having hindered Darius Hystaspis from viewing the dead body of Sphendidates the Magian.22 Aristotle, who was the tutor of Alexander the Great, mentions the Chaldean astrologers.23

Arrian, in his great work on the Expedition of Alexander, has much to say about these Chaldean priests. This Arrian was a Greek historian, a Roman general, prefect of Cappadocia under Hadrian, who reigned from 117 to 138 A.D. He was conversant with philosophy, being a pupil of Epictetus and publisher of his lectures. He wrote a treatise on military tactics, another on the geography of the Black Sea, and another on that of the Red Sea, and was a friend and correspondent of Pliny the Younger. He was, therefore, well fitted to write a history of the expedition of Alexander against Persia. This he has done in seven volumes which he claims in his proem to be based upon a work by Aristobulus, who marched along with Alexander; and on another work by Ptolemy Lagus, who not only marched with him, but, as Arrian says, "since he was a king, it would have been shameful for him to lie." Both, he says, wrote without expectation of any reward, since Alexander was already dead when they composed their memoirs. So Arrian pronounces them both most worthy of credence. Trained geographer, philosopher, historian, politician, general, and writer, as he was, he might well be trusted to have transcribed the essence at least of his authorities; and having proclaimed and praised the truthfulness of his sources, it may be supposed that he tried himself also to be truthful. Senator, consul, and prefect of Rome, it is altogether probable that he was a capable, as well as an experienced, judge of documentary, as well as oral, testimony.

Arrian, then, says with references to the Chaldeans, as follows:

Alexander, having hastened from Arbela, went forward straight to Babylon; and when he was not far from Babylon he led his army drawn up in battle array; and the Babylonians in a body met him with their priests and rulers bearing gifts as each one was able, and surrounding the city, and acropolis, and the treasure. And Alexander, having come to Babylon, gave orders to build again the temples which Xerxes had destroyed, both the altar and also the temple of Bel, who is the god whom the Babylonians deem especially worthy of honor. There indeed, also, he met the Chaldeans, and whatever seemed good to the Chaldeans with reference to religious matters in Babylon he did; both other things, and to Bel, also, he sacrificed as these directed.24 Later, he says that when Alexander was returning form India and was marching to Babylon, the wise men of the Chaldeans met him and, drawing him aside from his companions, besought him to hold up his advance on Babylon; for an oracle had come to them from the god Bel that his going to Babylon at that time would not be for his good. Alexander answered them: "Who guesses well, is the best prophet." Whereupon the Chaldeans said, "Do thou, oh king! not go to the west nor come hither leading an army of occupation; but go rather to the east." (Bk. VII, 16.) He says further that

Alexander was suspicious of the Chaldeans, because at that time they managed the affairs of Bel, and he though that the so-called prophecy was meant for their profit rather than for his good.25 Refusing to follow their advice but attempting to evade the consequences predicted, he nevertheless did as their prediction had implied that he would.26

Berosus, our next witness, informs us concerning himself, that he lived in the age of Alexander the son of Philip. He speaks of the writings of the Chaldeans27 and of their wisdom,28 and "of a certain man among them in the tenth generation after the deluge who was renowned for his justice and great exploits and for his skill in the celestial sciences";29 and of their having been accurately acquainted only since the time of Nabonassar with the heavenly motions.30 He says that the affairs of Nebuchadnezzar had been faithfully conducted by Chaldeans and that the principal person among them had preserved the kingdom for him after the death of his father and before his return from Palestine.31

Mehasthenes, who lived and occupied important official positions under Seleucus Nicator, wrote about 300 B.C., that the Chaldeans related certain facts about Nebuchadnezzar’s having been preserved by some god, so as to foretell to them the downfall of Babylon through the Medes and Persians.32

Abydenus, a pupil of Berosus, speaks of Pythagoras, who lived about the time of Daniel, as a "follower of the wisdom of the Chaldeans."33 Strabo, who fluorished from 54 B.C., one of the most reliable of ancient writers, says that in Babylonia there was a dwelling place for the native philosophers, called Chaldeans, who are for the most part concerned with astronomy; but some are also given to casting nativities, which the others do not permit. There is also a tribe of the Chaldeans and a district of Babylonia near to the Arabs and to the Persian Sea. And there are of the Chaldean astronomers several kinds. For some are called Orchenoi, and others Borsippenoi, and there are others more, as it were, in sects, holding different dogmas concerning the same things.34

Diodorus Siculus, who lived in the time of Cæsar and Augustus, in his History, Book II, 9, says that "the Chaldeans made observations of the stars from the tower of the temple of Jupiter, whom the Babylonians call Bel." Again, he says in chapter 24, that

Belesus, who understood how to destroy the hegemony of the Assyrians, was the most notable of the priests whom the Babylonians call Chaldeans. Having, then, the greatest experience in astrology and soothsaying, he foretold the future to the multitude just as it fell out. In chapter 29, he says that it does not seem out of place for him to narrate a few words concerning those who were called in Babylon Chaldeans and their antiquity, that he may omit nothing worthy of mention. The Chaldeans, then, being the most ancient Babylonians have a position in the determination of the policy of government something like that of the priests of Egypt. For being assigned to the service of the gods they pass their whole life philosophizing, having the greatest glory in astrology. They pat much attention, also, to soothsaying, making predictions concerning future events, and purifications, and sacrifices, and with various kinds of incantations they attempt to bring about the avoidance of evil and the accomplishment of good. And they have experience also in divination by birds and show the interpretation of dreams and omens. Not unwisely, also, do they act in matters concerning hierscopy and are supposedly accurately to hit the mark. This philosophy is handed down from father to son in a race which is freed from all other services.

Finally, Quintus Curtius Rufus, probably of the second century A.D., says that early in the expedition of Alexander "The Chaldeans had explained a singular dream of Pharnabazus to mean that the empire of the Persians would pass over to the Greeks."35 Further on, he says that "as Alexander was approaching Babylon, he was met by Bagophones, the custodian of the citadel, who was followed by gifts of herds of sheep and horses; and next to these came the Magi, singing their native song according to their custom. After these, the Chaldeans and not only the seers (priests) of the Babylonians, but even the skilled workmen, advanced with the harps of their own class; the last mentioned were wont to sing the praises of the kings; the Chaldeans to manifest the movements of the stars, and the fixed changes of the seasons. Then, last of all, marched the Babylonian horsemen, with their own peculiar dress and with special horse-trappings, required more for luxury that for magnificence."36 Further he says that

"when Alexander, on his return from India, was 300 stadia from the city [Babylon], the seers warned him not to enter since there was a portent of danger. But he scorned their predictions as being vain and mere fabrications. Therefore, when the envoys had been given audience he set sail for the land of the Arabs, laughing at the Chaldeans, who predicted danger in the city."37

Afterwards, when Alexander was brought dead to Babylon, it was the Babylonians who "looked down, some from the walls, others each from the roof on his own house, to see the funeral cortège pass through the streets";38 but the Egyptians and Chaldeans were "ordered to attend the dead body in their own fashion."39 From the above extracts, it is evident that Quintus Curtius, whatever may have been the sources of his information as to the life of Alexander, sought to make a clear distinction between the Babylonians and the Chaldeans who were in Babylon at the time of Alexander’s conquest of Persia. According to him, therefore, the former were the people and the latter were the priestly class as early as 330 B.C.

Summing up, then, the testimony of the ancient classical writers who have written about Babylon, we find that they make a distinction between the Babylonian, or Chaldean, people or peoples on the one hand, and the Chaldean priests or astrologers on the other; and that this distinction is held by them to have existed from the earliest times in which they respectively wrote.

II. We shall consider together the assumptions as to the origin, meaning, and use of the word Chaldean upon the Babylonian monuments.

It may justly be asked in view of all the references in the classical writers of Greece and Rome to the Chaldeans as the wise men of Babylon, if there is no evidence on the monuments to corroborate the other authorities. If there were no evidence on the monuments from Babylon, we must remember, that the case would be the same as to the Chaldeans as astrologers that it is as to the Chaldeans as a nation. But we are in better case with regard to the use of the term to denote astrologers, than we are with regard to its use to denote a nation. For we are still inclined to believe that a good argument can be made in favor of the galdu of the inscriptions being the same as the Chaldean priest of classical sources and of the Chaldeans of Daniel. It may be argued:

First, the galdu in Babylonian would according to the laws of phonetic change become kaldu in Assyrian, Chaldaios in Greek, and kasday in Hebrew and Aramaic. The change of g to k is found in the word e-gal, "great house," "palace," or "temple," which becomes e-kal in Assyrian, hekal in Hebrew. Compare also the Greek kamelos, "camel," in Assyrian, gammalu.40 The change from l to s before d is found in the Hebrew Kasdim for the Assyrian Kaldi, from an original Babylonian Kaldu or Kasdu. After the analogy of the change from Kaldu to Kasd the Hebrew would change galdu to kasd. K in Assyrian and Hebrew frequently is represented by ch in Greek and Latin. So that there is no reasonable ground for denying that galdu might be Chaldean, as far as the phonetics are concerned.

Moreover, it shows an ingenuity almost surpassing belief in a writer of the middle of the second century B.C., who derived from the Greeks the notion of what the Chaldaioi were, to suppose that he would deliberately change Kaldim to Kasdim. This was a law of change in Babylonian, Assyrian, and Hebrew, but not as between Greek and Hebrew, or Greek and Aramaic.41 The Aramaic version and dialects outside of Daniel consistently use Kaldi to denote the astrologers and Kasdi to denote the people of Chaldea.42 The author of Daniel, forsooth, was the only writer who confounded the distinction between them! It seems more likely that an author living in Babylon in a time when words which had a sibilant, or an l, before a dental were often written in both ways (as iltu, ishtu; iltansih, ishtanish) would have written Kasdim for Kaldim, than that an author living in the second century in Palestine and deriving a word and its meaning from the Greek should have changed ld to sd, contrary to the usage of the Greek in words derived from the Aramaic languages, and of the Arameans and Hebrews in words derived from the Greek.43

Secondly, that old Accadian double words like gal and du were often taken over into Semitic, still preserving the double sense of the original compound words, may be abundantly shown. E.g., e = "house," gal = "great," e-gal = "palace" (Hebrew, "temple," also); e = "house," kur = "land" or "mountain," e-kur = "temple of the land, or mountain"; dup = "tablet," sar = "writer," dupsar = "writer of tablets";and many others.

Thirdly, that the meaning of galdu can be reconciled with the duties of the Chaldeans is certainly probable; at least, we can see no sufficient reason for denying on this ground that Gal-du and Chaldean are the same.

III. The last assumption, that is, that "the absence of the term from the Babylonian monuments44 would prove that it could not have been used by the Aramean and Hebrew writers," is a most unjustifiable assertion. We could multiply analogies to show that writers in foreign languages often use terms when speaking of a given nation and its affairs, which a writer in the language of the nation spoken of would never use. For example and in point, Dr. Meinhold, in his statement of this very objection to the book of Daniel of which we are now speaking, uses the term "Magian" as a description of the wise men of Babylon. Yet this word never appears on any Babylonian monument and is never found in Babylonian at all except in the Babylonian recension of the Behistun Inscription of Darius Hystaspis. There Darius used it correctly to describe the Magian usurper Gumatu, or Smerdis. But why should Dr. Meinhold call the Babylonian men by this Medo-Persian word? Simply because the term has been adopted into the German language as a designation of a class of heathen priests practicing certain arts. So, also, the Arameans and Hebrews probably used the word Chaldean to denote a certain class of wise men in Babylon, who practiced certain arts. They may have derived the term from galdu, "the master-builder," or from the Kaldu, the conquering tribe of Nabopolassar, because of certain arts practised by them. The term Chaldean to denote this class may not have been used in Babylonian at all any more then Magian was. But will anyone tell us by what term this class should have been designated by an Aramean writer of the sixth century B.C.? If we go to the Syriac for information, no term will be found that would cover such a class of star-gazers and dream interpreters and fortune tellers as the Chaldeans of Daniel probably were. No other Aramean dialect will help us to a term. The ancient versions suggest no other equivalent designation to take its place. Pray, what term would the critics of Daniel suggest as a substitute? The ancient Hebrews, the Arameans, the Greeks and Romans, early and late, all use the word Chaldean in some form or other to denote this special class of Babylonian wise men. It is appropriate, distinctive, and general, in its meaning and use. As to its origin and antiquity no one knows for certain anything except negatively. And let it be remembered that no amount of negative evidence from the Babylonian can ever countervail the positive evidence to be derived from the fact of the use of this term in the Aramaic of the book of Daniel.

CONCLUSION The conclusion of the discussion about the use of the word "Chaldean" by the author of Daniel is that there is no evidence to show that he does not employ the term consistently and that it may not have been used in Aramaic as a designation of a class of Babylonian wise men, or priests, as early as the sixth century B.C.

Excursus on the Chaldeans

All are agreed that the sign gal may mean in Semitic Babylonian rabu, “great, chief.” The sign du denotes the idea of “making,” of “building,” or “constructing,” being used in Assyrian for such words as banu, epešu, šakanu, zak?apu, elu, emu, nadu, patak?u, and ritu. The compound gal–du might, therefore, be rendered “rab banie in Babylonian, i.e.,” chief of the builders,” or “constructors,” and the plural would be “the chiefs of the constructors.” So far all interpreters would probably agree. It differs from dim–gal = banu–rabu which means “chief builder”; just as bitu rabu, “great house,” differs from rab biti, “major domo,” or “master of the house.” The standard passages to determine the use of dim–gal are the Nies inscription of Sargon,1 the Prism inscription of Sennacherib, Col. vi, 40–46, the building inscriptions of Esarhaddon, and the Zikkurat inscription of Nabopolassar, Col. ii, 14–37.The first reads: The king says that “according to the command of the god Mur the dim–gal–la and ummanu knowing the command (or work), with bright bricks he (i.e., Sargon) elevated its turrets (i.e., of the temple of Eanna) and completed its work.”2 The Prism inscription of Sennacherib reads: In a favorite month, on an auspicious day, I caused to be made on this foundation in the wisdom of my heart a palace of pilu–stone and cedar–wood in the style of the land of the Hittites and as the seat of my lordship, by the art of skillful master–builders (tim–kal–li–e), a lofty palace in the style of Assyria which far surpassed the former one in size and ornamentation.

Esarhaddon mentions them twice. In the first passage, he says “The wise master–builders (dim–gal–li) who form the plan, I assembled and laid the foundation of Esaggil and fixed its cornerstone… I made its measurements according to its earlier plans.”3 In the second passage he speaks of “(the wise architects) who formed the plan.”4 In Nabopolassar’s Zikkurat inscription we read: By the commission of Ea, by the advice of Marduk, by the command of Nebo and Nerba, in the great–heartedness which God my creator created within me, in my great chamber I called a council. My skilled workmen (lit. the wise sons of ummani) I sent out. I took a reed and with a measuring reed I measured the dimensions. The master–builders (ameluti dim–gal–e) fixed the limits and established the boundaries. According to the advice of Shamash, Ramman, and Marduk I made decisions and in my heart I kept them. I treasured in memory the measurements. The great gods by a decision caused me to know the future days.

Before discussing these passages, we shall give two more, which do not mention the dimgals, but do speak of the wise ummani and the fortunate day and month. These are both from the time Nabunaid. The first reads as follows: The pinnacles of the temple [of the sun–god of Sippara] had bowed down and its walls were leaning [?]. I saw it and was much afraid and terrified. In order to lay aright the foundation, to establish the boundaries of his temple, to build a holy place and chambers suitable for his godhead, I prayed daily to him and yearly brought offerings, and sought from him my mandate (purussia aprussu). Shamash, the exalted lord, from of old had called me; Shamash and Ramman had laid upon me the grace of the fulfillment of my righteous mandate, of the accomplishment of my mission, and the establishment of the temple. I trusted entirely to the righteous mandate, which cannot be gainsaid, and grasped the hand of Shamash, my lord, and caused him to dwell in another house. Right and left, before and behind, I searched the holy place and the heart of the chambers. I assembled the elders of the city, the sons of Babylon, the wise mathematicians, the inmates of the house of Mummu [= the dwelling place of Ea, the god of wisdom] the guardian of the decree (piristi) of the great gods, establisher of the royal person [?]. I ordered them to the council and thus I spoke to them: Search for the old foundation; seek for the sanctuary of Shamash, the judge, that I may make an enduring house for Shamash and for Malkatu, my lords. With hearty prayer to Shamash, my lord, with supplications to the great gods, all the sons of the wise men (ummanu) laid bare the old foundation… With joy and rejoicing I laid on the old platform, I strengthened its underground supports and raised its pinnacles like a lofty peak.5 The second reads thus: In the tenth year, in the days of my happy reign, in my enduring kingdom, which Shamash loves, Shamash the great lord thought on the seat [of his heart’s desire], he wanted to see the top of the tower of his habitation (?) raised higher than it had been before… He commanded me, Nabunaid, the king, his care–taker, to restore Ebarra to its former place, to make it as in the days of old the seat of his heart’s desire. At the word of Marduk, the great lord, the winds were let loose, the floods came, swept away the débris, uncovered the foundations, and revealed their contour.6 Nabunaid, having been commanded to restore the temple, says:

I raised my hands and prayed to Marduk; O Bel! chief of the gods, prince Marduk, without thee no dwelling is founded, no boundaries are prepared. Without thee, what can anybody do? Lord at thy exalted command may I do what seemeth good to thee. To build the holy place of Shamash, Ramman, and Nergal, —even that temple I sought, and a gracious oracle for the length of my days and the building of the temple they wrote… Sufficient grace for the peace of my days… he fixed in my commission (tertiia)… the workmen (ummanati) of Shamash and Marduk… to build Ebarra, the glorious sanctuary, the lofty chamber, I sent. A wise workman (ummanu mudu) sought in the place where the foundation had appeared, and recognized the insignia (simatim). In a favorable month, on a lucky day, I began to lay the bricks of Ebarra… according to the insignia upon (the foundation) of Hammurabi the old king. I rebuilt that temple as it had been before.7 From these passages it is evident that the dimgals made the measurements and designed the ornamentation of the palaces and temples. Arrian tell us that: the expenses of the restoration of the temple of Bell which Alexander had ordered were to be met by the revenues of the lands and treasures which had been dedicated to that god. These treasures had been placed under the stewardship of the Chaldeans, and had formerly been used for the refitting of the temple and sacrifices which were offered to the god.8 The Chaldeans, then, of the time of Alexander (whom Arrian in the same chapter carefully distinguished from the Babylonians who had been ordered to clear away the dust from the old foundations), not merely prepared the sacrifices and farmed the revenues, but directed the repairs and restorations of the temple of Bel.

These skilled workmen, the wise sons of the ummani, these wise dimgals, who fixed the limits and established the boundaries, and by whose art (shipru, “commission”) the size and ornamentation of the temples and palaces were determined; —all acted under the commission (shipru) of Ea, according to the advice of Marduk and the command of Nebo. As Bezaleel and Aholiab did all things according to the pattern (tabnith) of the tabernacle and the pattern of the instruments “which the Lord had showed them in the mount,” so, these architects and artists of Nineveh and Babylon are said to have erected their buildings after the commissions, the advice, and orders, of the gods. Just as God filled Bezaleel with wisdom and understanding and knowledge in all kinds of workmanship and gave to everyone who was of heart a heart of wisdom9 to execute the work of the tabernacle; so, the dimgals and ummanus of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon and Nabopolassar and Nabunaid are said to have had wisdom and skill for their work from Ea, the god of wisdom, and Nebo the builder of cities, and Marduk the lord of all. These wise master–builders of the Babylonians, like the Bezaleels and Aholiabs of the Jews, were not building after their own patterns, but according to those that had been revealed to them by the chiefs of the builders, the Moseses, the Galdus, the Chaldeans, also had received from their gods. The earthly temples were copies of the houses in the skies.10 The men who delimited the houses of the gods in the heavens; who fixed the boundaries of the temples, the earthly houses of the gods; who determined (as we shall see below) the horoscopes, the houses of the nativities, ofmen; —these were the astrologers, call them in your language by what special name you please. The classical writers and Daniel call them Chaldeans. The Assyrio–Babylonian dimgal and the Babylonian galdu would both be excellent names to denote this class of men, who on the heavenward side studied the will of the gods, the plans of their houses and their destinies for men, in the shies; and on their earthward side, revealed the plans of the temples and the destines of men. The galdus and dimgals were the masters of the builders, the chiefs of the wise workmen, the master–builders, under whose direction the ummanus and mashmashus and kali worked as subordinates, —unless, indeed, these last were merely names of sub–classes of the former. The Greeks and Daniel, and the Babylonian contract tablets, would then agree in making frequent mention of the genus galdu; whereas, as yet, we have found on the astrological tables the mention of the species alone. An Aramean writer, when bringing a foreign term into his native language, may well be excused for introducing the general term; for it must be remembered that no one of the specific Babylonian terms for astrologer has as yet been found in any Aramaic dialect, unless the asheph, or ashshaph, of Daniel be classed as one. Neither masmashu, kalu, baru, nor zimmeru, has ever yet been found in Aramaic. The chiefs of the builders, —the heads of the department of astrology, would be the natural ones for Nebuchadnezzar to call to his council, just as Nabopolassar is said above to have sent out his wise workmen from the council of his great chamber. The Babylonian name for the chief of the builders is galdu. The writer of Daniel may rightly have called them in Aramaic Chaldeans; inasmuch as the name galdu in the sense of master–builder is found on the Babylonian tablets as early at least as the 14th year of Shamashumukin, king of Babylon, who reigned from 668 to 648 B.C.11

Finally, that banu, the Babylonian equivalent of the Sumerian du, “to build,” was used in a tropical sense for the construction of other than material objects is evident. For, first, it often means “beget.” In this sense it is used of both gods and men, and this in innumerable cases and in all times and places.

Again, it is used of oracles and decisions of the gods. Thus Nebo is called the banu pirishti, “the creator of decisions”12 and Damkina the banat shimti, “creator of fate”13 and “the wise king the creator of fate.”14

These decisions which had been created (banu) by the gods were, doubtless, made known in the houses of decision15 where the gods decreed the days of eternity and the fate of one’s life.16 These decisions, also, are said to have been revealed to the baru, or seer, who was the special guardian of the decrees of heaven and earth, to whom the gods opened up (petu) or spoke (tamu) the word of fate (tamit pirishti).17 So, Ninib is the god without whom the decisions (purussu) of heaven and earth cannot be decided;18 as whose mighty priest (ishipu) Ashurnas?irpal was called by Ninib himself,19 whose father had been a priest (shangu) of Ashur. The decrees of fate (shimati) by which his fate (shimtu) was righteously decided, had come out of the mouth of the great gods.20 In view of the above statements about the decisions of the gods which directed the life of men, the question is natural to ask, how did the gods reveal their will? And the answer is, through the inspection of livers and cups, by dreams and visions, and by many other ways; but especially by the phenomena connected with the starry heavens. In the religious belief of the Babylonians, as Delitzsch and Winckler and Jeremias have clearly shown, the vents of the earth were directed by the gods whose seats were in the stars; and the things of earth were but the copies of the things in heaven. It was there, above, that was built by them the house of our fate. The movements of the stars, the eclipses of sun and moon, the appearances of clouds, the bursting of storms and thunder —such were some of the ways by which the gods declared their decisions which had been made, or built (banu), in the heavenly counsel–chambers. as the gods had built in heaven, the astrologers built on earth. Nebo, the spokesman and interpreter of the gods of heaven and earth, was the heavenly builder (banu purishti) and his earthly representative (the banu, or gal–du) constructed what he had revealed to them through star and cloud and storm and earthquake, and made it known to men.21 The temple of the god on earth was built after the fashion of his house in heaven, and was oriented and constructed with the intention that the former house as well as the latter might be the means of revealing the will of the god. The chief of all the builders was he who showed men where and how to construct their buildings and their lives, the plans for which were mysteries (pirishtu) opened up (petu) for them to read n the prototypes and figures of heaven.

But, it will be said, why then do we not find this name, or these signs, employed in the astrological reports expressly and clearly to denote the astrologers? No completely satisfactory answer can be given to this question. It can, however, be paralleled by some questions which are equally hard to answer. For example, why is it that the gal–du is not mentioned on any of the building inscriptions? Why is it that he is never mentioned anywhere as concerned even in any building operations or transactions? Why is it that the signs occur so often on the business tablets from Babylon, but in those from Assyria scarcely ever, if at all? Why is the name Kal–du used by the Assyrians to denote the Chaldean people and country and by the Babylonians not at all? Why is the land, or people, or even a single man, never expressly called Chaldean on the monuments of Babylon? On the contract tablets we have a large number of patronymics, such as Accadian, Aramaean, Arabean, Assyrian, Babylonian, Hittite, Persian, and Egyptian22 Why not Chaldean? In Assyrian, we find Kal–du used for individuals, the country, and the people.23

Why do the Babylonians use the signs dup–sar to denote the scribe, and the Assyrians almost always a–ba? Why is banu the common word for builder on the contract tablets and in the Code of Hammurabi, but ummanu in the building inscriptions? Why does dim–gal denote builder on the building inscriptions (three or four times in all) and yet never occur on the contract tablets? Why were the astrological reports signed and prepared by the azu, and the us–ku and the mashmashu and the aba and the dupsar and the rab aba and the rab dupsar and the rab ashipi and the mar Borsippi and the mar Urukai and others? And may not all of these have been sub–classes of the gal–du, or Chaldean?

Here is a fine list of questions all calling for an answer and as yet unanswerable. When can answer them we may be able to answer the one about gal–du (= rab banie) and dim (= banu). Until then, let us all be willing to acknowledge that our ignorance as to the sign and meaning of a term, or as to the time when it was first used, proves nothing.

Finally, in view of the fact that the kindred peoples of Assyria and Babylonia use different signs and names to denote the same thing, why may not the Greeks and Arameans and Hebrews, also, have done the same? If we could prove that neither Assyrian, nor Babylonian, denoted the astrologer by the term Chaldean, how would this prove that others did not? Different nations, different customs. Different languages, different names.

Besides, it is to be noted in its bearing upon the Babylonian origin of the Aramaic of Daniel that the other names employed to denote the wise men whom Nebuchadnezzar called up before him are not as a whole found in any Aramaic dialect except that of Daniel, and some of them nowhere else but Daniel. The word Chaldean used in Hebrew first in the accounts of Joseph and Moses to denote the Egyptian soothsayer, is generally supposed to be an Egyptian word. It means possibly “sacred scribe,” or “chief of the enchanters,” or “spellbinder.” If this be the true meaning, it corresponds very closely to the Babylonian duspar, “tablet–writer,” or “scribe,” or to the Babylonian baru, “seer.” Chartom is not found in Syriac; nor is it in common use in any Aramaic dialect, being used merely in versions and commentaries, or in references to the original Hebrew and Aramaic passages which contain it. The second class mentioned in Daniel 2:10, the ashshaph, is never found in any Aramaic dialect, except Syria, and there but seldom. The fourth class of Daniel 2:27, the gazerin, is not called by this name in any other Aramaic dialect. In meaning, it would correspond to the Babylonian mushim shimti, “decider of fate.” The other class mentioned frequently in Daniel, that of the wise men (h?akkimmin), may be taken as a general term, or it may correspond to the mudu, or imgu, of the Babylonians both words of frequent occurrence on the Assyrio–Babylonian monuments. In the Hebrew portion of Daniel, kasdim, chartom, and ’ashshaf are used to denote classes of wise men; and in addition, the term mekashshefim is found in Daniel 2:2, where Nebuchadnezzar is said to have called the last named, among others, to make known and to interpret his dream. The root of this last word and several of its derivatives are found frequently in Assyrio–Babylonian as technical terms for witchcraft, one of its derivatives meaning “poison” or “philter.” In Syriac, the only Aramaic dialect where the root is employed, it is used in a good sense, of prayer and supplication. It will be noted that Daniel is not said to have anything to do with the mekashshefim, a wizard being expressly forbidden by the law of Deuteronomy 18:10, and especially by the law of Exodus 22:17. That a word having a purely physical signification should pass on to a second sense having a moral or religious meaning, is supported by the analogy of all languages. Such English words as deacon, minister, and baptize, illustrate this change of signification. The Semitic languages, also, are rich in this kind of words with transferred or developed meanings. We need not go outside the words relating to astrology and magic to find them. For example, beth, “house,” becomes the division of the zodiac where a certain god is supposed to dwell; as, the house of Jupiter, etc. This use is found in Arabic,24 and in Syriac.25 So the Babylonian epeshu, “to bewitch,” is probably connected with epeshu, “to do”; then, “to be wise.” So the Arabic sana’a and bana, “to make”; then, “to educate.” So, also, the Babylonian ummanu, “workmen”; then, a kind of priest. According to Behrens,26 ummanu is a synonym of mashmashu, a kind of priest.27 This connection between “work” and sorcery may be seen perhaps also in h?arrash, which in Hebrew means “workman” and in Aramaic “sorcerer.” From the word for “builder” the Aramaic and New Hebrew derive the sense “builder of doctrine” (Gelehrter).

Another point in favor of the gal–du’s being closely allied to the scribes and priest, is to be found in the fact that so often in its occurrence on the contract tablets after the name of a witness it is met with in the immediate vicinity of the name and title of shangu, “priest,” and dupsar, “scribe.”28 The banu, or builder, is seldom found in this position, but the gal–du, or chief of the builders, frequently.

Further, there is evidence on the contract tablets that the galdus stood to the shangus (i.e., priests) in a blood relationship differing from that in which the shangus stood to the banus or ordinary builders.29

Now, Zimmern holds that the Babylonian priests formed a close corporation which transplanted itself from father to son. He bases this view (1) on a statement of Diodorus Siculus (ii, 29) that the knowledge of the Chaldeans was transmitted from father to son; (2) on the fact that the seers and other priests are frequently called “sons of seers,” etc.; and (3) upon the continuity of the priesthood and of its most holy traditions. The passage from Diodorus reads as follows: “Among the Chaldeans, philosophy is handed down in families (ek genous), a son receiving from his father, and being freed from all other public services.”

Examples under (2) are found on the Ritual Tablets i, 1, 7, 38, et al. Under (3), Professor Zimmern shows30 that the baru had to be of priestly blood and education and that this was true of all the priests. Thus in the Ritual Tablets No. 24, we read: The cunning wise man who guards the secret of the great gods causes his son whom he loves to swear on the tablet and before Shamash and Hadad, causes him to learn “When the sons of the seers” [that is, the tablets beginning with this phrase]. The abkal of the oil, of long genealogy, a scion of Enme–dur–an–ki, king of Sippar, establisher of the holy cup [and] elevator of the cedar [staff] a creature of Nin–har–sag–ga of priestly blood, of noble decent, perfect in stature and in growth, shall approach before Shamash and Hadad in the place of vision and decision.31

If then, Zimmern and Diodorus Siculus are right in stating that the Babylonian priests held their office by family inheritance (and we know certainly that the Hebrew and Egyptian priests did thus inherit their official rights), it is obvious that since shangus could be and were sons, or grandsons, of galdus, both must have been of the priestly race. It is well to call special attention to the fact that Diodorus calls these priests the Chaldeans. If, as we have argued above, galdu is the same as “Chaldean,” the galdu might well be the general term; that is, all the shangus would be galdus, but galdus would not all be shangus, — just as all the Jewish priest were Levites, but the Levites were not all priests.

Further, we find no example of anyone who was called both a banu, and a gal–du. Nor among the hundreds of names mentioned in Tallquist’s Book of Names (Namenbuch) is anyone at one time called a galdu and at another time a banu.32

Whether the baru, the ashipu, the zimmeru, and others performing priestly functions were also galdus, or in what relation any of these stood to either the shangus, or the galdu, the records give us no information.33 No man whose name is given in the Tallquist tablets, is called either baru, ashipu, zimmeru, or mashmashu; while shangu and galdu each occur hundreds of times. If the sign rid in the inscriptions from the reign of Sin–shar–ishkun, king of Assyria, published by Evetts in his Babylon. Texte, p. 90, be read nappahu, then a priest in Assyria might be a son of a smith. But if we read the sign ummanu, it may mean an ummanu priest.34 As to the relation in which the dupsar, or scribe, stood to the galdu, we are not prepared to make any positive statements. It is clear that a galdu might have a son who was a scribe.35

Lastly, if the galdus were priests we can account reasonably for such texts as that found in Peek’s collection, number 4, which Pinches translates: “The fruit due, again applied for, in the district of Sippar, from the Chaldeans.”36 These galdus can scarcely have been a community of architects, but may well have been a fellowship of priests; since, as Dr. Peiser says in his Sketch of Babylonian Society,37 certain portions of the land were given over into the possession of the temples, so that the support of the temples and priests to be derived from the income of the land might not be interfered with. The view of Dr. Peiser derivedfrom the monuments is supported by the testimony of Arrian in his Expedition of Alexander,38 where he says that The Chaldeans did not wish Alexander to come to Babylon lest he should take away from them the income derived from the possessions of the temple of Bel (to which much land and much gold had been dedicated by the Assyrian kings), that he might with it reconstruct the Temple of Bel which had been destroyed by Xerxes. As we indicated above, we shall now proceed to discuss more fully the question as to what these constructors built. The obvious answer would be, houses, of course. But what kind of houses? Or, what were the duties of the “chief of the builders” in their relation to houses? It will, perhaps, not be known to all my readers that among astrologers the word “house” was used to denote the parts of the heavens. There was the house of Mars, and the house of Jupiter, and the house of the Sun, etc. An astrologer who constructed horoscopes may very well have been called a builder, or the chief of the builders. Unfortunately, the astrological and magical texts so far published in Assyrio–Babylonian give us no horoscopes in the narrower sense of nativities; but the Arabic, Syriac, and the Aramaic of Onkelos, all use the phrase “house of nativity, or birth” to denote a child’s horoscope.37 A better word than “builder” for the one who constructed this house cannot be suggested. Unfortunately, again, the Assyrio–Babylonian texts so far published give us no certain word for astrologer. Baru, “seer,” may have included the duties of astrologer or star–gazer but his functions were certainly much wider, as Zimmern has clearly shown.38 The dupsar, or scribe, was specifically the writer of a tablet, though he may, of course, have been an astrologer also. The signs A–BA, which in Assyrian denote the scribe, might denote the astrologer, also; but no one is sure as yet how to read these signs in Assyrian, nor what they mean exactly. Galdu, because of its meaning as well as because of its being the phonetic equivalent of Chaldaios, may well have been the name for astrologer among the Babylonians. That the word should be spelled in its Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek forms, in the same way as kaldu, the name of the nation, does not prove an identity of origin. The English word “host” has three distinct meanings, one derived from the Latin hostia, “sacrifice,” one from the Latin hostis, “enemy,” and one from the Latin hospes, “entertainer.” Many words in all languages are homonymous and homophonous, without being homogenous, or homologous.

Moreover, the duties of astrologers were not confined to making horoscopes of nativities. It is clear from the monuments that someone was called upon to orient and lay out the temples and palaces, perhaps all houses, before they were constructed. The plans of the temples, at least, may well have been drawn up by someone connected with the worship of the god in whose honor the temple was to be built. As each god had his particular ceremonies and a distinctive temple for his proper worship, we can readily perceive how the records speak of a galdu of the god Shamash39 and of a galdu of the god Marduk.40 As the streets, walls, embankments, and public buildings needed to be oriented and constructed, we can understand how, also, there could be a galdu of the city of Babylon.41

Moreover, since buildings could be commenced only on a lucky day and in a lucky month, it may well have been the duty of the chief of the builders to determine when the day had arrived on which it would be fortunate to begin operations. Again and again the kings reiterate that a building was begun on a lucky day. Who better than the astrologer could determine this? And since building could not be commenced without his permission, he might for this reason, also, be called galdu —chief of the builders.

Again, Schrank says that the mashmashu and kalu seem to have taken part in the festive initiation of new buildings, canals, etc. Thus Sennacherib sends a mashmashu and a kalu to open a canal and42 a kalu takes part in the rebuilding of temples.43

Further, it is frequently said that ceremonies took place at the initiation of repairs, or laying of the foundation, or at the commencement of the removal of the débris from the ruins of an old temple, or at the dedication of a new, or renewed, building. For example, at the laying of the foundation of the temple of Sin in Harran, Nabunaid says that he did it with incantations and with the commission of the god Libittu, the lord of foundations and bricks, on the fortunate day and in the favorable month which Shamash and Ramman had made known to him in a vision; and that he poured out on its walls palm–wine, wine, oil, and honey.44

Again, further on in the same inscription Nabunaid says he laid the bricks of the temple of the Sun at Sippar upon the foundation of Naram–Sim which Shamash made known to him in a vision (biri), with joy and rejoicing, in a favorable month on a fortunate day, anointing with oil the written name of Naram–Sin and offering sacrifices.45 Further on, he speaks of having sanctified it and made it fit to be a temple of his godhead.46

It will be noticed, also, that no step is taken by any king, at least in regard to building, without some intimation of the will of the gods.47

Some of the names by which the mediums or interpreters of these communications from the gods were called are baru, “seer,”;48 mahhu, “priest”;49 shabru, “interpreter” (?);50 ashipu, “enchanter”;51 kalu or mashmashu.52 No building operations seem to have been commenced without a sign from the gods through one of these methods of communication. These priests and seers, and others of like import, could cause or prevent any building enterprises. They were the real masters of the building trade unions, the “bosses of the jobs.” They could declare a strike or assumption of operations. Taking them all together, no better term could be suggested by which to name them than galdu, rab banie, “the chiefs of the builders.”53

Again, banu is used in series of synonymous expressions to denote the men who were connected with the oracles of the gods, with astrology, with building and with wise men in general. In so far as any of these wise men had to do with the construction of the houses of the gods;54 or with the horoscope, or house of one’s nativity; or with the building of temples; or with the building of “fates,” or even of thoughts, —they might each be called a banu, or builder. Their chiefs might well have been called gal–du = rab banie, “chiefs of the builders.” Inasmuch as this kind of building was their highest function, we can easily understand how the foreign Greeks and Hebrews and Arameans may have adopted the phrase used to denote the highest officials of the cult, or profession, as a general term including all the sub–classes under it. We can understand, also, why the Babylonian contract tablets name so many galdus and almost entirely fail to mention the other classes named above, except the scribes, or dupsarri. The shangu (“priest”), dupsar, and the galdu, the three titles met with so often on the tablets, will thus represent the learned classes, who transacted the business of the community both sacred and profane. And where visions and dreams are concerned, as is the case in Daniel, the galdu would be the man for the work.

Before closing the discussion of the meaning of the word Chaldean, it may be well to call attention to two remarkable facts to be gleaned from the astrological and contract tablets. The first is that the signs gal and du, which are found so often on the contract tablets of Babylonia, are scarcely, if ever, found on any documents from Assyria.55 Babylonia was the country of the galdu according to the cuneiform documents; and it was the region of the Chaldean priests according to Daniel, Herodotus, Ctesias, Berosus, Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, and Arrian. The other fact is the noteworthy agreement of Strabo and the Assyrian astrological reports with regard to the localities where the different classes of astrologers resided. Strabo says (Bk. XVI, 1) that there were many kinds of Chaldean astrologers, such as Orchenoi, Borsippenoi, and many others. Now, many of Thompson’s Astrological Reports are by men who are called sons of Borsippa or sons of Uruk (i.e., Orchenoi); and an ummanu of Borsippa is mentioned in Thompson’s Late Babylonian Letters, i, obv. 6. The reports and letters were written in the 7th century B.C. During all this time the astrologers of Borsippa and Uruk held their place of preëminence as astrologers; and Strabo calls them both Chaldeans.

If, therefore, anyone object to deriving “Chaldean” from gal–du, chief of the builders,” he may still hold that the name as used for priests was derived from the name as used for a people. For the name Kaldu, or Chaldean, for the people and country and individuals of Chaldea, is found from the time of Shalmanezer III, 850 B.C. to the time of Arrian and Quintus Curtius. During any part of this time, therefore, if we derive the name Chaldean as applied to the Chaldean priests from the name of the Chaldean people, these priests may have been found in Babylon exercising the functions of astrologers and have been called Chaldeans after the ruling people, just as other astrologers were found in Borsippa and Uruk, and named after the cities where they dwelt and performed their duties. That is, if the astrologers of Borsippa could be called Borsippenes, the astrologers of Chaldea may have been rightly called Chaldeans; the one from the city, the other from the country, or nation, to which they respectively belonged. The sub–classes are mentioned by Strabo as well as the general term; Daniel mentions the general term alone.56 In conclusion, let it be remembered that the astrological reports thus far published, which give the names of the writers, are almost al Assyrian; and that the astrological reports of Strassmaier, Epping, and Kugler do not give the native names for the astronomers who drew them up, nor even the signs used to denote those names. Bu even if they did give many signs, or names, to denote astrologers, it would not prove that Daniel was wrong in using Chaldean to denote them. For first, Daniel was writing in Aramaic and not in Babylonian; and secondly, the subscriptions of the writers of the Astrological Reports with half a dozen or more groups of signs and at least a dozen different ways of describing them, to denote the writers of the reports should warn us not to be too certain that gal–du may not also have been properly used to denote them. In concluding this long discussion of the origin, meaning, and use of the word Chaldean to denote a priestly class, let us sum up by saying that we think we have shown that it is not certain that the word does not occur upon the Babylonian monuments inasmuch as it probably is the same as the word gal–du which is frequently found on them; that, secondly, if Chaldean be not the Aramaic and Hebrew form of gal–du, it may have been the same in origin, though different in meaning, as the Assyrian Kal–du, which was employed to denote the tribe living south of Babylon whose kings ruled over Babylon in the time of Daniel, inasmuch as priestly functions were often delegated to a tribe, or class, as has been the case among the Jews, the Egyptians, the Medes, and the people of Lystra; and thirdly, that even if the word were absent from the Babylonian monuments as a designation of the astrologers that such a class with such a name did not exist, any more that the absence of the name as a designation of the tribe, or people, of the Chaldeans proves that such a people did not exist.

ADDENDUM TO EXCURSUS

Since writing the above the most important evidence to show that the banu and gal–du were included in the sodality of the priests and seers has appeared in the Yale cylinder of Nabunaid.57 At the dedication of his daughter, Bel–shalti–Nannar, to Sin and Nikkal for the service of divination (ina shibir ashipitim) in the temple of Egipar, he says that he endowed the temple richly with fields, gardens, servants, herds, and flocks; and that “in order that the priesthood of Egishshirgal and the houses of the gods might not incur sin, he remitted the taxes, established the income, and purified and sanctified to Sin and Nikkal the chief priest,58 the inspector of property,59 the seer, the engis?u, the imprecator, the gal–du, the banu, the dullah??h?a, the overseer of the gallum, the custodian, the lagaru, the maker of supplications, the singers who rejoice the hearts of the gods, —the solidarity of those whose names are named.”60 From this passage it is manifest that the gal–du and banu are said to be in sodality, or assembly, of the ramku–priests. Their names are placed after those of the enu–ishibi, the baru, and the ariru, and before those of the lagaru, and the zammeru. They are said, also, to have been named with names, that is, to have been dedicated to the service of the gods with the giving of a new name, just as in the same inscription the daughter of Nabunaid received a new name at her dedication.61