A
	^Wi^H
Glass	7 . -
Book_	.W^

COPYRIGHT DfiPOSIT

\

\

The Book of

GENESIS

IN THE Light of Modern Knowledge

BY

REV. ELWOOD WORCESTER, D. D.

New York

McCLURE, PHILLIPS & CO M. CM. I.

CHALDEAN TEMPLE

Restored liy Ch. Chipiez, Perrot and Chlpiez Histoid of Art in Antli^iUty '

H

THF ' BF.APY OF

CONGRESS, Two CopiEB Received

MAY. 15 1901

Copyright entry

CLASS ^XXc No

COPY B.

Copyright, 1901, by McClure, Phillips & Co,

€d tl^e ^vivit of ilijeljjon ^omerbUle IKultjSott:

Among the charges brought unjustly, as I beheve, against Moses, one is that he forgot the name of his Father-in-law, calling him in- discriminately, now Jethro, now Reuel, now Raguel, and again Hobab. Although I hardly dare hope that any tidings of these poor pages will reach you in the pure sphere you now inhabit, I place your name here in benediction of these studies, and in memory of the two great occasions of my life when your hands rested in blessing on my head. While I do not imagine that you would have agreed with all the contents of this book, I please myself by thinking that you would have enjoyed reading it.

Preface

1 OFFER this work to the pubHc for what it is worth. For a good many years it has been our custom in St. Stephen's Church, in the Sun- day afternoon services, to dehver a series of lec- tures on the Bible or on some other subject connected with the Christian rehgion. In this way these lectures were prepared and delivered in the winter of 1898-99. This circumstance in itself defines their scope, and it may be regarded as a sufficient excuse for their limitations. In this task I had primarily in view a congregation of from five hundred to a thousand persons whom I desired to instruct and interest. It will be ap- parent to men accustomed to address audiences that many matters important in themselves must of necessity be excluded from such a presenta- tion, and that the purely critical problems arising would have to be dealt with very lightly. So much have I lost by my mode of treatment. But, on the other hand, I am certain that the con- sciousness of the audience to which the results of my studies must be submitted, in other respects has been a distinct advantage. This book does not attempt to teach scholars, though possibly some may find useful material in it. Still less does it pretend to be a complete commentary on the earher chapters of Genesis. But its contents

(Wi)

REFACE

"have been listened to with serious atention by a large number of persons. It may therefore find a place with the reading public between technical hand-books which are instructive, but which no- body reads, and mere popular effusions which are read but which do not instruct. Many of the opinions advanced in this book may meet with opposition; but it cannot be said that they are stated recklessly or without due regard to conse- quences. On the contrary, so much have I been impressed with the unique importance of the sacred Narrative, and with the impossibility of attaining certainty in such comparisons as it suggests, that I have minimized rather than mag- nified its resemblances to the Sacred Books of the Nations.

The other limitation imposed upon me I can- not speak of so hopefully. Composed piece-meal, week by week, for the most part late at night, as one of the duties of a busy life, these lectures must necessarily lack the coherence of thought and execution which should belong to works of this order. If the stream deepens as it flows, I do not think that this should be regarded as a fault. In discussing so many complicated questions as to which no unanimity of opinion yet prevails, I do not deceive myself with the hope that I have not fallen into error more than once. But I trust that both spirit and letter will bear testimony to my desire to know and to speak the truth. I am aware that the critical apparatus I have employed is too simple. Scholars, should any do me the honor of glancing at these pages, will miss the familiar J\ y, etc. Distinctions so refined I de- spaired of being able to make plain even to a very

(viii)

Preface

intelligent audience. Neither, to tell the truth, have I ever succeeded in convincing myself of their necessity. It is quite true that in the so-called document of the Jehovist a good many indepen- dent narratives occur which have little to do with one another, and which stand in no relation to the story of the Flood. Instead of referring these, however, to different Hebrew writers (J^ J^ etc.), it seems to me simpler and often quite as satis- factory to suppose with Dillmann that these nar- ratives were collected, arranged and rewritten by one writer. Naturally these little tales are not consistent with one another or with the Flood, for they arose entirely independently. Each one, for the most part, formed the subject of a sep- arate tradition, and only when they were placed side by side in a narrative supposed to be con- tinuous, would their inconsistencies appear. As to their failure to square with all the conse- quences of the Flood, even critics appear to find it difficult to disabuse their minds of the idea that the Flood really happened. I admit that several Jehovists, or several strata in the Jehovist docu- ment, are often a convenient hypothesis. Still there remains the curious similarity of style in these strata to be accounted for.

I have carried these lectures through the story of the Tower of Babel. There ends what I may call the cosmical portion of Genesis, with all its fascinating afBliations with the cosmogonies of the great lettered peoples of antiquity. The re- mainder of the book is of a dififerent order and demands different treatment.

It remains for me to acknowledge my debts, if I cannot pay them. It will be evident to any one

Preface

in the least familiar with these subjects that such a work as this, to possess any value, cannot be original in a strict sense. On the contrary, I have felt it a duty to keep constantly before my mind the opinions of the great scholars in this field and to state my problems on lines laid down by good usage. Though I have spared no effort to reach the freshest and best sources, I trust that I have follovv^ed no writer in a servile spirit, and especially that I have appropriated no man's thoughts without due acknowledgment. The first conception and the general plan of these studies were suggested to me by Lenormant. In their execution, while I have consulted Lenor- mant constantly, the age of his great work has re- moved the temptation to adopt too many of his brilliant suggestions. On the general criticism of the Pentateuch and of Genesis I have used Hupfeld, Dillmann, Addis, Holzinger, and es- pecially Bacon's masterly treatise. Of the com- mentators I owe most to the incomparable Dill- mann, though I have received valuable aid from Holzinger's " Genesis," Budde's " Urgeschich- te," and from various works of Wellhausen. The first volume of the long-expected Encyclopaedia Biblica appeared after these lectures were com- posed and delivered. In revising certain state- ments, however, I have taken advantage of a few of its luminous and clean-cut articles, even when I could not altogether agree with them. (See especially ^' Cherubim " and " Ararat.") I can- not help expressing my astonishment that the ill- timed parsimony of the publishers has clothed this great work, which is destined for many years to be the authoritative Bible dictionary of the Eng-

(x)

Preface

lish language, in type which seems expressly de- signed to rob poor students of what eyesight they possess. Its poverty of archaeological illustra- tion also places the Encyclopaedia Biblica years behind such works as Roscher's '' Lexikon der Griechischen und Romischen Mythologie/' the Polychrome Bible, and even behind little hand- books like Riehm's.

As regards the Polychrome Bible, I have used it when I could, and have deeply regretted that its commentary on Genesis is still '' forthcom- ing." In all things pertaining to Babylonian mythology, and on several concrete problems of Genesis, I have found Dr. Jastrow's admirable '' Religion of Babylonia and Assyria " helpful and suggestive. I gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness to this distinguished scholar, not only for the benefit I have derived from his pub- Hshed works, but for his kindness in supplying me with books from time to time, for which other- wise I should have had to send across the water. As to the translations of the text of Genesis which appear in these lectures, I hardly know what to say. I have performed this work with the He- brew Bible before me. I have also consulted con- stantly the excellent English translation of Addis, the German versions of Kautsch and Socin, and of Zunz. I have also made use of Dillmann's and Delitzsch's accurate renderings, and, less fre- quently, of Lenormant's translation of the eadier chapters. The resulting translation, which I think is quite accurate, cannot be assigned to any source. For translations from the Babylonian cuneiform I have depended chiefly on the works of Schrader, Jensen, Jeremias, Jastrow, and

(xi)

Preface

Zimmern. In all matters pertaining to classical mythology I have employed, where I could, Roscher's superb Lexikon, which now nearly reaches the letter P. When Roscher failed me, I was obliged to fall back on Creuzer's good old '* Symbolik." On matters of archaeology and art I have used Perrot and Chipiez's great " Histoire de I'Art dans TAntiquite," and sometimes Mas- pero.

The fulness of treatment accorded to the Flood tradition I trust will be justified by the impor- tance and interest of the subject. The explana- tion I have offered of the origin of the Flood myth, which really differs radically from Brin- ton's, is, so far as I am aware, original, and I feel some curiosity as to how it will be received. I have no doubt I shall be accused of tearing down with one hand what I have built with the other. But, after long consideration of the problem of the Flood myths of mankind, I am satisfied that they are the product of many factors, and that both mythical and naturalistic elements helped to form them. The Flo€4.. table of Schwarz ap- pended to this volume, wh-kh he compiled from the works of Lenormant ai^d Andree, is es- pecially valuable on account of Schwarz's ethno- logical notes. In this connection I must also mention the interesting notes on P^iser's frag- ment prepared for me by Dr. George .^, Barton, of Bryn Mawr. [See Appendix L]

Lastly, may I express the hope that this work may be not unacceptable to sincere lovers of the Bible ? Inadequate as its treatment of the great theme is, and however numerous the errors into which I may have fallen, I am certain that the

' 0^)

Preface

general method I have pursued is correct and fruitful. Happily, the time is past when we need fear that the Bible will suffer any real harm from the most serious investigation or from the most searching comparison with other sacred lit- eratures, provided such comparisons be made in a fair and honorable spirit. The sun in heaven has not shone less brightly since we learned that it is composed of the same elements that form the other celestial bodies. It still remains our sun, the source of Hfe to us. And the Bible is still our Bible, a book apart, to which the noblest tributes have been paid by the profoundest schol- ars. Among these, alas ! I cannot for an instant place myself. Yet the study of the Bible has been one of the chief solaces of my life, and it was with the desire and hope of communicating the same happiness to others that I undertook this work. At this late date of the world's history, unless the long-silent voice of Israel should again be raised to God, and the inexhaustible genius of that peo- ple which alone is strong enough to grapple with the Infinite, should deliver itself from worldly snares and return to its obvious destiny, it is im- probable that any more Sacred Books will be written. Hence the unique importance of those which we possess. Let those to whom these words seem extravagant reflect that no book is accounted by us of divine revelation which was not written by a Jew, and that from the day when the Hebrew element disappeared from the Chris- tian Church " inspired " works ceased to be pro- duced. Why did the stream of inspiration which had maintained itself so long and so gloriously under the Old Dispensation dry up so suddenly

(xiii)

Pr

EFACE

under the New? Because there were no more great Jews in the Church, and because Greek genius did not know the Hebrew secret of min- gUng ice and fire, ardent faith with cool intelU- gence, by which man divines the incomprehensi- ble. The Greeks produced skeptics, and, under Christian influence, they produced believers, but we should search their roll of fame in vain for an Isaiah, a Jeremiah, a Job, or a Koheleth, in whom these two fundamental antitheses of the human soul attain a higher synthesis. Neither, to tell the truth, was the moral strength of paganism able to sustain the crushing burden of a divine vocation which Israel had borne for a thousand years, and which, having once laid down, Israel has never been willing to resume.

I have tried to express my deep sense of the in- spiration of Genesis, not by the wearisome reit- eration of meaningless phrases, but by exhibiting the true and innate grandeur of the Book. There is one misconception, however, against which I would especially warn younger readers. It might be supposed from the frequent comparisons I have made between Genesis and the sacred Htera- tures of the Gentiles that such parallels may be found for most of the religious conceptions of the Old Testament. On the contrary, from the point at which these lectures close, such resemblances as I have pointed out diminish rapidly, and in the period of Israel's classical and perfect develop- ment, in the compositions of the great Prophets, " the beggarly elements " of this world fade al- most entirely. The problem of cosmogony is one at which all talented nations of the world have worked. In this dark field the speculations

(xiv)

Preface

of one people have been seized on eagerly by others. But the higher problem of God and humanity was understood by Israel in a unique sense. In that domain Israel is not the pupil, but the teacher from whom we must still learn. As to the sacred Hteratures of the old world, which a too narrow sense of inspiration has caused us to undervalue, the time is at hand when we shall perceive that we do not necessarily honor our father in dishonoring our grandfather. And yet I confess that the more I have read in the great ethnical Scriptures, the more I am convinced of the supreme excellence of our own. I express here my obligation to my wife, but for whose friendly interest and intelligent co- operation this work would not have reached completion.

Elwood Worcester.

The Rectory of St. Stephen's Church, Philadelphia, November, 1900.

(XV)

List of Chapters

CHAPTER PAGE

I. A General Introduction . . . . i

II. Critical Survey fg

III. Composition of Genesis and Character of

Its Narratives 36

IV. What Is the Book of Genesis? ... 55 V. The Eternal Problem 70

VI. The Creation Story 88

VII. The Chaos Monster in the Old Testament 127 VIII. Adam and Eve . . . . . . .148

IX. The Garden and the Fall .... 164

X. Eden in the Mythology of the Nations . 184 XI. Eden in the Mythology of the Nations —

Continued . . . . . . .210

XII. The Epic of Izdubar and the Legend of

Adapa , . 234

XIII. Cain and Abel 257

XTV. The Antediluvian Patriarchs . . . 278

(xvii)

List of Chapters

CHAPTER PAGE

XV. The Sons of God and the Daughters of

Men and the End of the Old World . 303 XVI. The Two Stories of the Deluge. . . 323 XVII. The End of the Deluge. The Flood Tradi- tion in Antiquity 343

XVIII. The Flood Traditions of Babylon . . 374

XIX. The Flood Traditions of Primitive Peoples 412

XX. Origin of Flood Myths of Mankind . . 438 XXI. The Physical Causes of Our Deluge. The

Discovery of the Vine .... 466

XXII. The Tradition of the Tower of Babel . 491

Appendix I. Notes on Peiser's Flood Map . . 523 Appendix II. Table of Traditions Relating to

the Flood 527

Appendix III. Enoch 553

(xviii]

Illustrations

PAGE

The Battle of Tiamat and Marduk . . . 114

The Serpent and the Tree 198

Genii and the Tree 202

Genii and the Tree 203

Izdubar and Eabani 235

Scorpion-Men 240

Little Noah's Ark Found in Vetulonia , . 361

Sit-Napistim in His Ark 389

Sit-Napistim in His Ark 391

Basil 514

BiRS-NiMRUD 515

;xix)

charts

Chaldean Temple Frontispiece.

xx)

OPPOSITE PAGE

The Babylonian Conception of the World . . log

The Old Hebrew Conception of the World . . iii

Map of the City of Babylon 491

The Babylonian Flood Map 523

The Book of

GENESIS

IN THE Light of Modern Knowledge

Chapter One: A General Introduction

1 BEGIN this discussion with a great deal of pleasure and with some trepidation. The book that we are to study is the oldest and, in some respects, the grandest and the most difficult book of the Old Testament. Outside of the four Gospels, probably no book has influ- enced the thought of the world so much as the Book of Genesis. For ages it has been regarded as the sacred repository, the infallible witness of those truths which man most desires to know. The reason of its vast importance is this. It deals in a masterly way with the beginnings of things, and the beginnings of things are always the most difficult and the most interesting. The world of effects, of nature, of orderly progression, has its charm and its importance, but the world of causes is the peculiar domain of God and of those great intelligences which endeavor to penetrate the secrets of God. That is the lesson

0)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

which we of the latter half of this century have thoroughly learned. Auguste Comte once said in an inspired moment, " You can know little of any idea until you know the history of that idea/' and Darwin showed us how to trace the history of our ideas back to their origins. The best thought of the latter half of this century has been little more than a study of origins. That is why this book, the first rational attempt at a study of origins, has so great a fascination for us to-day. The Book of Genesis has been studied during the past fifty years as it was never studied before, and its real character is understood now as never be- fore. It is true that with the rise of modern knowledge Genesis has been attacked on many sides. It is also true that for us its ideas in the field of positive science have not the absolute value that they once had. And yet the old book has not lost its importance. Like a huge cube of granite cut by some giant of old, it has resisted all the attacks of time. It has been " overturned " again and again, but it makes little difference which face is uppermost. It is still grand, solid, imposing. If this great block has been set for centuries in the path of progress to discourage investigation and to ruin science, that is not the fault of the block itself, but of the pygmies who placed it there. The Book of Genesis was not written to impede progress and to ruin science. On the contrary, its grand opening verse, '' In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," as Renan says, ''swept away at one breath the whole brood of chimeras and mythological fancies which had darkened knowledge from the beginning." Who can estimate the indebtedness

(2)

Method of Treatment

of subsequent science to the opening verses of Genesis, which laid the eternal foundation of all sane thought — one God, one solitary, unique cause of all that happens. Heathen wisdom with all its subtlety failed to apprehend that truth.

In my opinion, a comprehensive and really fruitful study of the Book of Genesis ought to in- clude three distinct parts. First, we ought to de- termine exactly what this book is and what it actually wishes to teach. Second, we should at- tempt to ascertain the sources from which its ideas are derived, and its relation to other works of the same sort. Third, we cannot altogether re- fuse to ask, how do those ideas square with what we know of the universe to-day? We should remember, however, that the real problem of to-day is. not, are the views of Genesis scientifi- cally true, but, how did they originate? Let me speak of these three points a little more fully.

It is of the first importance in studying any book, and especially a scientific book, that we should know when and by whom it was written. The writings of Aristotle were marvels of wis- dom in their day, but if they were to be put forth now for the first time, without any preface ex- plaining when and by whom they were written, they would be regarded as the work of an ex- ceedingly clever lunatic. We are accustomed to regard the Book of Genesis as a single composi- tion, Avritten at one time, by one man; but we shall see before long that the Book of Genesis is not a single composition, written at one time, by one man, but a collection of compositions, writ- ten at different times by different men, and then brought together and woven into one more or

(3)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

less continuous narrative. This accounts for the strange repetitions, inconsistencies, and contra- dictions of the book, such as the two accounts of the creation and of the flood, and the f wo seizures of Sarah, over which men Hke Ingersoll make merry, and which would be inexcusable if the whole book were the work of a single mind. To make this important matter plainer, let me cite an almost parallel case in Christendom.* In the lat- ter half of the second century a celebrated Chris- tian writer named Tatian, then living in Rome, made up his mind to reduce our four Gospels to one Gospel. It seemed to him that one con- tinuous narrative of the Saviour's life, containing all the events preserved by the four Evangelists, would be more satisfactory than four accounts, the very number of which might give rise to some suspicion. He called his work the " Diates- saron," i.e., '' Harmony of the Four." This book became very popular in the church until, on ac- count of the heresies of which Tatian was sus- pected, its use was prohibited, and for centuries the book was lost. Within the past twenty-five years large portions of this work have been re- covered, and they are in the hands of scholars. Now, in this " Diatessaron " of Tatian, in which he tried to weave the strands of the four Gospels into one continuous story, we find the same con- tradictions, the same repetitions and inconsisten- cies that we find in the Book of Genesis. Only, happily for us, the four Gospels are still extant, so that we can say with certainty how those contradictions and discrepancies arose. This

* T borrow this illustration from Bacon's " Genesis of Genesis," pp. 5 and 6.

Three Narratives in One

story, we say, is the result of Tatian's attempt to piece together such a chapter of St. Matthew with such a chapter of St. John. That repeti- tion occurred because the story had already been told by St. Mark; but Tatian, for certain rea- sons, wished to incorporate into his book the corresponding chapter of St. Luke. So, in reading his book we are not puzzled at all. We know what it is— an attempt to combine four narratives in one narrative. In the Book of Genesis a similar attempt was made by some un- known writer, who lived long before the time of Christ, to reduce at least three narratives to one narrative. He had all three before him, and he was able to choose what seemed to him the finest passages and to weave them together into one book. In doing this he was obliged, of course, to take a great many liberties to make them fit together, and even then he was not able to pre- vent the seams and stitches from being seen, and a good many contradictory statements from slip- ping in. Unfortunately, the three original sources have completely perished, and yet they were so different from each other in style, in the range of their ideas, in their names for the Deity, etc., that scholars have little difficulty in separat- ing the book into its original parts. The new polychrome edition of Genesis will have these three principal narratives, or documents, as they are called, printed in three colors, so that the reader can tell at a glance which one he is reading. I might compare the book as it stands in our Bible to a cord of three strands, red, white and blue. As we look at the cord the effect is confusing, here a little red, there some white, and there some

(5)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

blue. But when we get hold of the ends of those threads and unravel them, we find that they are continuous, and if we persevere we have at last a red thread, a white thread, and a blue thread, each slighter and less imposing than the whole cord, but independent. It is criticism that enables us to unravel the Book of Genesis, and when our task is done, we find that these three documents run not only through the Book of Genesis, but through the whole Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua as well. I shall not attempt to prove this now. I do not even ask you to believe it because I say it is true. I ask you to believe only what you see with your own eyes and what your own judg- ment pronounces true. I touch on these mat- ters here merely to chow you that Genesis is by no means so simple a book as most persons suppose, and that to know what kind of book it is, one must study it with the utmost care. It is just because so few persons have had the patience to study this work as it ought to be studied that many of the criticisms passed upon it are more childish than the passages they criticise. If the Book of Genesis pretended to be a literal history of the world, from the day of creation down to the descent into Egypt, like histories written to-day in the age of printing and newspapers, then there might be some rea- son in asking who was Cain's wife, or why Cain was afraid that everybody would kill him when there was no one in the world but his father and mother ; or how it happened that after Isaac was born of parents so old that his birth was a sort of miracle, Abraham became the father of several other sons in the ordinary course of nature. But

Futility of Ignorant Criticism

as soon as we get a true insight into the char- acter of the composition, we shall see that these inconsistencies are mere trifles, and only to be expected. I shall notice the discrepancies when they are forced on our attention, but I shall not go out of my way to seek them. Hundreds of sceptics have had their little scoff at the Book of Genesis on account of matters of this kind. But scoffs do not advance science nor make people religious. Any strolling vagabond, as Strauss says, can stuff a turnip into the town pump. Neither, on the other hand, shall I try to prove that every statement of Genesis, nor even its gen- eral theory of the origin of the world, is in com- plete agreement with the most recent results of modern science. I gladly leave that task to those who are sufflciently ignorant both of science and of Genesis. My own firm conviction is that the Book is so great in itself that it does not need the assistance of maladroit apologists.

The second part of a comprehensive study of Genesis, as I conceive it, would consist in a com- parison of its account of the creation and the origin of man, with similar accounts contained in the sacred books of other nations, and es- pecially in the books of other members of the Semitic family. I know that there are persons who shrink from a comparison of our religion, in any stage of its development, with the re- ligions of the world, but I think that their timidity is based on scepticism rather than on faith. In what a situation, they say, should we find ourselves if we discovered that other re- ligions possessed our conceptions and our history in an older, purer, richer form than our own. and

_

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

we were forced to admit that our narratives, if not inferior, were borrowed from the Gentiles, rather than inspired by God! These persons really undervalue their religion, and perhaps they will never know how the religion of the Bible is inspired until they compare it with the best that man has been able to do and to think outside the religion of the Old Testament and of Chris- tianity. Just as a man who knows only his own language does not know that very well, so he who knows only his own religion knows it imper- fectly. But to those who are acquainted with the historical sciences I need not say that this method of prudent and fruitful comparison has almost recreated the past.

Not to be tedious, there is the wonderful literature of Babylon unearthed by the labors of men like Rawlinson and Layard and George Smith. At first it was a mere puzzle — slabs of clay covered with arrowheads and combinations of arrowheads in every conceivable arrangement. Gradually a little light begins to dawn. A proper name here and there is identified, a town whose name is known supplies a few more signifi- cant signs. Certain words like prepositions, articles, etc., recurring again and again, are iden- tified. So it goes on, the light constantly grow- ing stronger and broader, until at last we find ourselves in the possession of a new language, or rather of an old language, which, but for the patient toil of these illustrious men, would have perished forever. Dictionaries of what is left of the old cuneiform inscriptions are slowly and painfully prepared. Their grammar, syntax, and the etymology of their words are studied, and the

(8) ~

Value of Prudent Comparison

language turns out to be an old Semitic idiom, connected by a thousand ties with Hebrew on the one side and with Arabic on the other. Armed with this powerful instrument, schol- ars return to the inscriptions, and now, instead of unintelligible arrowheads on clay, they find thoughts. The sign has become significant. The intelHgence of men of to-day is confronted with the intelligence of men who lived and died thousands of years ago. Is not the world the richer ?

But, you say, how do these discoveries affect the Book of Genesis? In this way. We find here a sister people that has preserved a good many of the old family traditions, a people that developed a great national literature, which is ab- solutely independent of the Hebrew Hterature, but which reflects a great deal of light upon it. In that literature there is also a Book of Genesis, or rather chapters of such a book. Here also we find an account of the creation of the world and of man, perhaps also of the fall of man, and a wonderful account of the deluge.

Although this is not the place to enter mi- nutely into the details of the comparison, I may briefly indicate some of its grand results. First of all, we find the genuine antiquity of our Book of Genesis abundantly vindicated. Before the Babylonian inscriptions were thoroughly under- stood, and after the Mosaic authorship of Gene- sis had been generally abandoned and it was ad- mitted that the Book in its present form was not older than the Exile, a good many persons con- ceived the idea that the contents of Genesis were not very old. In other words, it was believed

_

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

that Genesis was a manufactured book, com- posed throughout by anonymous writers in an advanced stage of Hterary art. If this were true, it would be a book of Httle vakie. Its traditions and wonderful stories, instead of coming down to us hoary from an immeasur- able past, would be but the inventions of clever Jews who lived only five hundred years be- fore Christ. It was imagined, therefore, that Genesis was not a sincere work. The very archaic simplicity of its limpid and matchless style was thought to be a piece of literary embellishment, Hke the forged poems of Ossian, palmed off on an unsuspecting age by an older and more skilful Macpherson.

But that dream, which would simply destroy Genesis for most persons, is shattered into frag- ments by the discovery of the Genesis of Babylon, which George Smith called the '' Chaldean Gen- esis." For here, unmistakably, we have a series of narratives coined at the same mint, though of inferior metal, and representing the oldest tradi- tions of another Semitic people, entirely inde- pendent of the Hebrew traditions. But this may point to the fact that there was a time, before these two branches of the Semitic family had dif- ferentiated so much that they ceased to speak and to understand each other's language, when the old traditions of creation, the flood, etc., were the common possession of the peoples which after- ward became Hebrews and Babylonians. When we reflect on the great age of the Babylonian civilization, which scholars believe they can trace in the ruins of buried cities to at least four thou- sand years before Christ, we see that criticism,

The Old Dilemma

far from diminishing the real age of the Book of Genesis, has added to its age hundreds if not thousands of years.

There is one other general result of this com- parison of the Hebrew and the Chaldean Genesis, which is of even greater interest. If Moses, in the fourteenth century B.C., really wrote the Book of Genesis in the sense of being the actual composer of its pages without the assistance of tradition,^ we should be confronted with a very singular dilemma. Either God miraculously supplied Moses with exact knowledge of the past history of the world, which of himself he could not know, or else Moses wrote these things entirely out of his own head. In the first case, the scientific errors of the book, its con- tradictions and repetitions, would be unthink- able ; and in the second case, the work would lose almost all its value and importance. The histori- cal parts, narratives of events which happened thousands of years before Moses' birth, would fall to the ground.

That is the old dilemma which has inspired centuries of fruitless strife, and which has caused the Book of Genesis to stand, as I have said, hke a great cube of granite, in the way of all rational progress. As long as we state the problem in these terms, it is impossible to escape. Hundreds of pseudo-scientific works have been written to prove that the scientific statements of Genesis are literally correct, but they all either do utter violence to the real Genesis, or they fail to es- tablish their point. Nevertheless, the Book of Genesis is true ; it is a sincere and noble composi- tion that retains its grandeur and nobility and

(")

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

its inestimable religious value in spite of all scoffers, from Voltaire to Ingersoll. It is plain, then, that we must state the problem in a different way, in order, on the one hand, to free ourselves from the crushing despot- ism of authority that has reared itself under the name of this book; and, on the other hand, in order to hold the real sacredness and inspira- tion of Genesis high and inviolate. It -is one of the greatest services of the historical, compara- tive, or, if you please, the critical method of studying the Scripture that it enables us to state the problem and to solve it in a way that causes the old bitter antithesis of Genesis and Progress, of revelation and science, almost to disappear, without the sacrifice of anything we ought to de- fend. As soon as we see that for many of the great narratives of Genesis there are correspond- ing narratives in Chaldea whose resemblance is unmistakable, it becomes absurd to suppose that those narratives originated with Moses or with any later Hebrew writer. Certainly the Chaldeans did not borrow their accounts of crea- tion from the Hebrews, and it is the opinion of many of the best scholars that the Hebrews did not borrow their accounts from Chaldea at the time of the Exile. Therefore, it is not impos- sible to suppose that they are two forms of the same primitive Semitic tradition, immeasurably older than most other portions of the Old Testa- ment— a point, however, on which I do not in- sist. This also does away with the magical, miraculous conception of inspiration which has done so much harm both to religion and to sci- ence. If every word, if every statement of our

-_

Inspiration of Genesis

Genesis is miraculously inspired and so is per- fectly true, then at least some words and some statements of the Chaldean Genesis are inspired in the same way, for they are practically identical. But, you ask, what does all this lead to ? Where, then, does the inspiration of Genesis come in ? In what is it superior to those old Babylonian crea- tion myths, which may be interesting to scholars, but which no Christian of good sense would dream of making part of his religion?

That question does not trouble me. I have read many of those writings, and when in the course of these studies you read them and com- pare them point by point with our Genesis, it will not trouble you. You will see then wherein the inspiration of Genesis consists. Inspiration, breathing in, the drawing of God into the heart, is one of the most difftcult words in language to define, so difficult that no definition of in- spiration has ever been accepted by the Church. It is the vibration of the chord in the heart, a peculiar quality of composition easy to feel, but hard to describe. Let us take the only other parallel case we possess, the inspiration of genius. Shakespeare, as is well known, derived the ma- terials out of which he spun many of his great dramas from certain old chronicles and collec- tions of tales, such as the " Gesta Romanorum." Anything barer, more meagre, than these old chronicle narratives it would be hard to conceive; certainly there is nothing inspired in them. Yet, outside of himself, that was all Shakes- peare had. But those simple events, passing through the alembic of his imagination, become portentous and symbolical. Those forgotten

(13)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

men and women, recreated by him, and risen, as it were, from the dead, infused by his mighty pur- pose and animated by his passion, hve again a Hfe a thousand times more real than when they walked the earth. Their lives, through him, at- tain a universal, a permanent significance. In them human life seems brought to a focus, and on their strength or weakness the final outcome of life seems to be staked. This we feel and admit to be inspiration. Somehow, Shakespeare has breathed in the universal spirit, and he com- municates that living breath to his creations, making them live and partake to a certain extent of universal and enduring life. That is why they have the power to move us all.

So, with even higher and grander genius, the author or the authors of the Book of Genesis, having found these old Semitic traditions, which originally were a mere mass of mythology, in- vested them with a form of classic and flawless purity, and gave them a significance which has touched the heart of the better part of humanity, and changed the meaning of the world. If out of all the myriad books of earth the chapters were to be selected that have borne the great- est fruits, the first would be those of the Sermon on the Mount, the second would be the first chap- ter of Genesis. The only safe test with which I am acquainted of the inspiration of any book is the effect that book is able to produce. '' Up to this moment it has never been given to charlatanism or mediocrity to produce anything permanently great." Judged by its results, we must pro- nounce the Book of Genesis to be one of the most truly inspired works ever produced, and

_

Attitude of Other Inspired Writers

yet a work not above criticism nor free from error.

What encourages me to believe that this view- is correct is the fact that the Book of Genesis was plainly regarded in this light by other inspired writers of the Old Testament. The man, who- ever he was, who put the book into its present form and gave it, so to speak, its finishing touches, could not have regarded the account of creation in the first chapter as final or as liter- ally binding in all respects. If he had so re- garded it, he certainly would not have added a second account in the very next chapter con- tradicting the first in so many particulars. The prophets and the writers of many of the psalms never imagined that God had taken any man into His confidence so far as to tell him the whole scheme of creation exactly as it happened. On the contrary, they have their own ideas on that subject, which differ widely from the plan laid down in Genesis. Job specifically and pointedly represents God as saying :

" Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the

earth ? If thou hast skill, declare ! Who took the measure thereof, Or who stretched the line upon it ? Wherever are the columns of her foundations sunk ? Or who laid her corner stone When the morning stars sang- together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy ? "

Let me take only one other instance. The nar- rative of the Book of Genesis which has had the most profound effect on the thought of the world is the story of the Fall. Out of this simple, poetic

~" 05)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

narrative has grown up a vast dogma, which at last includes in its domain a large part of human life. Millions of men have accepted it literally, and have shaped their lives accordingly. Espe- cially since the Protestant Reformation has the hideous doctrine of a total depravity supposed to spring from Adam's transgression rested like a nightmare on the conscience of a large part of Christendom. It is true, we are growing restive under that doctrine now. It seems to us strange that God, having made everything so good, should be completely defeated by Satan at the very outset, and we cannot help fearing if He was so defeated once. He may be again, and all the results of human sacrifice and toil may be lost in a single day. The doctrine that man was created perfect is also opposed to all that science is able to teach us in regard to human history, which shows us man slowly struggling upward from the humblest terrestrial beginnings. So, as Chris- tians and believers in the Bible, but also as sane and rational men, we hardly know how we ought to regard this matter. But then, in the very mo- ment of our perplexity and doubt, the compara- tive method I have already spoken of suggests that we should inquire how the saints of old, the prophets and other inspired men of God regarded this narrative, and to our surprise we find that they did not take it literally at all. They under- stood far better than we its true significance. They did not associate the sinfulness of man with the transgression of Adam. In fact, outside the account of Genesis, the sin of Adam is only once mentioned in the Old Testament, where Job casually says : '' If I covered my transgression

06) '

Human Sin Not Referred to Adam

like Adam by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom." * Even Cain is not bound in any way to follow his father's example, for the Lord said unto Cain, '' Sin lurks before the door and its de- sire is for thee, but thou shouldst rule over it." And yet the Old Testament has enough to say of sin. " God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagina- tion of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." There is indeed an original sin, but it does not spring from the transgression of Adam. It lies in the carnal nature of man. '' Be- hold, I was shapen in wickedness and in sin did my mother conceive me." The prophets also speak of a '' Fall." But it is not the fall of Adam, it is Israel's fall from its ideal and destiny. '' Be- hold the Lord's hand is not shortened that it can- not save, neither is his ear heavy that it cannot hear. But your iniquities have separated be- tween you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you that he will not hear." " But now, O Lord, thou art our Father, we are the clay and thou our potter, and we all are the work of thy hand." f The prophets trace the root of this sinfulness to many things, to the people's love of worldly possessions, which makes them proud and forgetful of God, to sensuality and lust and to the fear of man ; but to Adam, or to his sin, not once. J

This certainly encourages us. It shows us that it is possible to reverence the Book of Gen- esis without being slavishly bound so as to take literally what was written poetically and figura-

* Job, xxxi. 33. f Isaiah, Ixiv. 8.

^: Schultz, " Alttestamentliche Theologie," 677 ff.

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

lively. It gives us faith in our method, and hope that we can truly appreciate and reverence this noble book without giving up all that, as educated men and women, we are bound to believe of the workings of God in the history of the world. In other words, we may hope that the antagonism between Revelation and Reason is not final.

(i8)

Proof of Composite Authorship

Chapter Two: Critical Survey

IN the first chapter two assertions were made. First, that the Book of Genesis in its present form was not written by Moses ; and second, that it is not a single composition, written at one time by one man, but a combination of at least three different compositions, combined like a cord twisted out of three threads into one more or less continuous narrative. I shall now try to a certain extent to make those assertions good. It does not seem to me necessary at this point to go very minutely into the analysis of the book, but I want to lay the main facts of the compo- sition of Genesis so plainly before you that you will be able to recognize the three different documents when we shall have occasion to study them later on. A great deal of the proof in re- gard to Genesis applies just as well to the compo- sition of the whole Pentateuch and to the Book of Joshua, for the same documents run through them all. But as Genesis is the book we are now studying, I shall pay particular attention to that, and take most of my examples and illustrations from Genesis alone.

Before we begin this examination, it may be worth while to cast a rapid glance over the study of the Pentateuch, and to learn a little about the

0^9)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

men who have brought our knowledge of this part of the Bible to its present condition. I shall mention only a few of the earHer names. The first writer, so far as I know, to throw doubt on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, was the celebrated Jewish grammarian, Aben Ezra,* who died about 1168. ' Aben Ezra's criticism is so shrewd and yet so guarded that it is worth quot- ing : " If you penetrate the secret of the Twelve [last verses of Deuteronomy containing the death of Moses], also ' and Moses wrote,' also ' and the Canaanite was then in the land,' and ' in the mountain of the Lord it shall be seen,' and ' his bedstead »vas an iron bedstead,' you will discover the truth." What truth will be discovered Aben Ezra is careful not to say; but he dismisses the matter with the significant hint, '' He who under- stands will hold his tongue." But when we turn to the passages he indicates we find that they are among the very ones which have caused later writers to doubt that Moses wrote the Penta- teuch. The last twelve verses of Deuteronomy, giving an account of Moses' death, could not very well have been written by him. True, some Jewish writers pretend that Moses described his own death scene in advance, but to the most orthodox Christian commentators that has seemed too absurd. " And Moses wrote " raises the question which is still disputed, whether writ- ing was known to the Hebrews at the time of Moses. The expression, " and the Canaanite was then in the land," would certainly seem to have been written at a time when the Canaanite was in the land no longer, in other words, centuries after

* "Comment, on Genesis," xii, 6.

Early Critics

the death of Moses. This is still regarded as a very strong argument. Very similar is the ex- pression, " In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen," taken from the account of the sacrifice of Isaac. The whole sentence runs, " As it is said to this day, Jehovah-jireh, that is, in the mount of the Lord it shall be seen," in other words, a long time after. Lastly, Aben Ezra mentions the iron bedstead of Og, the King of Bashan, which the author of Deuteronomy says was still preserved at his time, evidently because he did not believe that men at the time of Moses slept on iron bedsteads.

For a long time these sagacious hints of Aben Ezra were not followed up. In the seventeenth century, Thomas Hobbes, the celebrated Eng- lish philosopher, mentions them in the " Levi- athan;"* and Spinoza, the great Jewish pan- theist, went so far dS to question the Mosaic authorship of most of the Pentateuch, for which he was stabbed three times at the door of the synagogue and obliged to leave his home.

The next great step was taken in the last cen- tury by the French physician, Jean Astruc, to whom belongs the credit of discovering the secret of Genesis that had been hidden for so many ages. Astruc did not doubt that Moses had composed the Pentateuch, but he believed that Moses had before him several older docu- ments which he combined. He was led to this conclusion by the most important discovery that up to the present time has been made in this sub- ject. Astruc called attention to the fact that in the Book of Genesis two different names are em-

* Chap, xxxiii.

(21)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

ployed for the Deity, Jehovah and Elohim, and that these two names are not used indiscrimi- nately, but with entire consistency, one document always using the word Elohim (God), and the other always using the word Jehovah. This clue in the hands of later scholars has been used with entire success to separate these two documents. If you would satisfy yourself on this point, read the first chapter of Genesis down to the middle of the fourth verse of chapter second, and then the remainder of the second chapter, and you will not doubt that they are two entirely independent accounts. The styles are different and the ideas are also different. The first uses Elohim and the second Jehovah (Jahveh) Elohim,

I shall not attempt to carry this short list much further, though there is one other name I wish to mention. Every science has its martyrs and the science of the Pentateuch has had its share. But one of the most unjust actions ever per- formed in the name of this collection of writings was the deposition of John Colenso, English Bishop of Natal, in South Africa, only a little more than thirty years ago. It is admitted on all sides that Bishop Colenso was a wise and good man. Many of his mathematical writings were favorably received at Oxford and Cambridge. His sermons were edifying and it was confessed even by his enemies that he had labored with true apostolic zeal in his difficult field in South Africa. Colenso, however, was a great scholar, one of the greatest students of the Bible the Eng- lish Church has produced. He wrote a fine work on the Pentateuch, whose value is now gen^ erally admitted. But at the time Colenso wrote,

^ (II)

Bishop Colenso

comparatively little was known of these subjects in England, and what was known was not liked. It must be admitted also that his criticism was very negative. Colenso was cited to return to England for trial. The trial seems to have been a mere farce, as few of his critics were in a position to know whether Colenso's views were true or false. But Colenso was deposed from his see by the vote of forty bishops, who afterwards tried to have him excommunicated.* Against this fresh injustice, however, the Low Church bishops, to their great credit, protested, and the sentence was not carried out. I ought to add that Co- lenso, so far as I know, is the only man of promi- nence in the English Church, of late years, to suffer punishment for wishing to study the Old Testament with open eyes. As soon as the Church of England fairly grasped the situation and saw the reasonableness of the views put for- ward by Bishop Colenso, with her infallible good sense and love of justice she allowed no one else to be persecuted for holding them. Dr. McCon- nell, in his article on Matthew Arnold, in the '' Churchman," goes so far as to say that Co- lenso's views on the Pentateuch are now held by nine-tenths of the English bishops. How far this is true I do not know, but there is every reason to believe that in a general way they are the views of Dr. Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, and so long as he, or men of like liberality, continue to shape the destinies of the English Church, it is

* I have been informed by a personal friend of Colenso's that the Bishop's popularity was such that the verdict of the English court was disregarded in South Africa and he remained in peace- able possession of his cathedral in Natal until his death.

(23)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

improbable that sincere and devout scholars will be interfered with. Nothing has done the Epis- copal Church more good, nothing has attracted to her more rninds of the better class, than her wise and enlightened tolerance. The most sui- cidal policy a church at the present age of civili- zation can pursue is to expel and humiliate her scholars. Every church that is to hold its own for the next century, God knows will have need of them. Every scholar who comes to us because he is persecuted and driven out of his own church, brings others in his train and we gain not only in numbers, but in reputation for tolerance and good manners, which will bring us thou- sands more.

The names of other writers in this field I will not mention, as they would be unknown to most of us. But I should like to say that the historical, or, if you please, the critical method of studying the Bible, is not a fad in the hands of a few special- ists. It is part of a universal method of studying the history of the past which will never be aban- doned so long as history remains a science. Its results are now incorporated into every first class work of reference, such as the Encyclopaedia Bri- tannica ; it has evoked the labors of the most dis- tinguished scholars of all lands, and its results have risen slowly into a science that is now recog- nized the world over. As regards the Book of Genesis, the general result of a century's work is something like this. Moses is not believed to be the author of the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch is not the composition of any one man, nor of any one time. It does not, however, consist of a number of fragments thrown together hap-

(^4)

Repetitions in Genesis

hazard, but, on the contrary, of three or four separate documents or compositions, well de- fined and for the most part easy to detach from one another, which run through the entire Pen- tateuch and the Book of Joshua. That brings me back precisely to the point at which I started. But you are still waiting for the proof. Let me see if I can render it.

That the Book of Genesis is not the work of one mind is proved, among other things, by the numerous repetitions it contains, some of which contradict each other so flatly that we are obliged to choose either one or the other, but cannot take both. No good writer composes in this way. As late as the fifth chapter, after the story of the Creation and of Adam has been told and dis- missed, the narrative seems to begin all over again. " This is the book of the generations of Adam : in the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him." So the story that Abraham on a visit to Egypt pretended that Sarah was not his wife, but his sister, is told first in the twelfth chapter, where she was seized by Pharaoh, and again in almost the same language in the twentieth chapter, where she was seized by Abimelech, King of Gerar; and, strangely, the same story is told a third time in the twenty-sixth chapter, of Isaac and Rebekah. Isaac pretends that Rebekah is his sister, just as Abraham pre- tended that Sarah was his sister ; and Abimelech steals Rebekah just as he had formerly seized Sarah, and relinquishes her, just as he had done before. Of course it may be said that the episode occurred three separate times, but this is very improbable. It is also an inconsistency that

(25)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Sarah, who some time before was represented as ninety years old, and, as the New Testament says, " as good as dead," should still be so beautiful as to attract the attention of the whole country. Similarly, the story of Hagar's expulsion from the tent of Abraham is related twice, and each tiriie her life is saved by divine intervention ; and the second time Ishmael, who was at least four- teen years old, is represented as a little child whom Hagar carries in her arms. The first ex- pulsion was before Ishmael was born, the second w^hen he was fourteen. So the covenant of God with Abraham is related twice, and Isaac's birth is promised twice. No one ought to expect to find these stories in exactly the same form ; they are not in the same form, and the reason why they are not is because they represent two independ- ent traditions of the same event. The meaning of Isaac's name is explained in three ways. Firstty, it is Abraham who laughs ; secondly, it is Sarah who laughs with incredulity, though she denied it and said, '' I laughed not ; " and thirdly, it is God who makes Sarah laugh. '' And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh, so that all they that hear will laugh with me." So the name of Esau, considered as the father of Edom (red), is explained in two ways. Firstly, it is because he was red when born. Secondly, Esau said to Jacob, " Feed me with that red pottage, for I am faint. Therefore his name was called Esau." In the two accounts of the Flood, Noah is told in chap- ter sixth, '' Of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark," and in the seventh chapter, " Of every clean and un- clean beasts thou shalt take to thee by sevens."

Inconsistencies

We may also mention the great impropriety of speaking of clean and unclean beasts at the time of the Flood, ages before such distinc- tions had been drawn. Twice we are told that the waters were forty days upon the earth, and again that they increased for one hundred and fifty days. In the eleventh chapter, just after a long account has been given of the dispersion of the descendants of Noah to all parts of the earth, the story goes back to the Tower of Babel, and im- agines all men still living together and speaking one language, and the story of the confusion of tongues is told to show how they came to sep- arate. In the sixth chapter, the limit of man's age is fixed at one hundred and twenty years, but soon after, Noah is represented as nine hundred and fifty years old when he died, and many of his descendants are from two hundred to five hun- dred years old.

I might go on multiplying these instances in- definitely, but, not to be wearisome, I will men- tion only the most striking example of all — the two accounts of Creation. In the first chapter, animals were madebefore man; and in the second chapter (beginning at verse 5), animals were made after man, and were brought to him to re- ceive their names. In the first chapter plants and green herbs were made long before man. In the second chapter, verse 5, the Hebrew reads, '' Not a shrub of the field was then upon the earth, and not a herb of the field had sprouted, because Jehovah Elohim had not yet made it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. And Jehovah Elohim formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed in his nos-

(27)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

trils the breath of Hfe, and man became a Hving being." "^

In the first chapter, the dry ground rises out of the waters ; in the second, the whole earth is dry because it has not rained. In the first chapter man and woman were made together. '^ And Elohim created man in His own image, in the image of Elohim He created him, male and fe- male created He them." In the second chapter man was made first, and woman afterward was taken out of his side. In the first chapter, creation occupied six separate days; in the second chap- ter, only one day. Lastly, in the first chapter, Elohim is the Creator ; in the second, it is Jeho- vah Elohim who makes all things.

Examples of this sort prove conclusively that the Book of Genesis, as it lies before us, was not a single composition, the work of one mind. On that supposition, these contradictions and varia- tions would be unthinkable, unless the author wrote with reckless haste and cared nothing about contradicting himself half a dozen times in as many sentences. But as soon as we get the right point of view, it becomes very natural. There were at least three narratives lying before the author who gave the book its present form, all venerable, all beloved, and all telling much the same story in different ways. What more natural for this author, wishing to incorporate into his work as many of these priceless stories as pos- sible and knowing that the people were accus- tomed to hear these old narratives in. different forms, than to sacrifice just as little of them as he could, and even to admit two or more versions

* Lenormant's translation.

(28)

Mosaic Authorship Questioned

of the same story, where all seemed to him beau- tiful and to teach good lessons ? These examples are fatal to the supposition that Moses or any other one man was the author, in a literal sense, of this book. But at the same time, may it not have been Moses who collected the various tra- ditions and who gave the Book of Genesis the form in which it now lies before us ? That is an entirely different question, but it is an important question, and I do not think I need apologize for discussing it with you at some length. Let us see first what reason we have for associating Moses with this work at all."^

The Book of Genesis does not bear the name of Moses. Nowhere in the book is it said that Moses was its author. In the later books of the Pentateuch, where Moses is mentioned, it is al- ways in the third person. We have seen already that Genesis was not the work of one mind. It remains to ascertain if it could have been brought to its present form at the time of Moses. Now the only way to determine such a question is to observe whether the book contains allusions to events that happened after Moses' death. If so, the book, in its present form, must be later than Moses. If, for example, we were trying to find out whether George Washington wrote a certain work, we should have to proceed in ex- actly the same way. If the book contained no reference to events after the year 1799, when Washington died, it would not be historically

* The Jewish tradition that Moses is the author of the Penta- teuch rests on the late authority of Philo, Josephus and the Talmud. From the synagogue this belief passed into the New Testament, and thence into Christian versions of the Bible, and into the old church lists of the books of the Old Testament.

(^9)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

impossible that Washington wrote it. But if the book referred to cities which were not then in existence, or to Presidents who followed Washington, or to the Mexican War, no one in his senses could imagine that the book was written by the Father of his Country. In the Book of Genesis, it is true, there are no such glar- ing anachronisms as those I have mentioned, and yet there are a good many little indications that the book in its present form was put to- gether many centuries after the death of Moses.

When we read, for example, that when Abra- ham went to Sichem '' the Canaanite was still in the land," we can hardly doubt that this passage was written at a time when the Canaanite was no longer there and when people had even forgot- ten that he once dwelt there. Or when in the thirty-sixth chapter it is said, " These are the kings who reigned in Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel," we should most naturally suppose that this chapter was written after kings were known in Israel, at the earliest, in the time of Saul. In the same way, Joseph says to the butler of Pharaoh, '' I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews," meaning, of course, the land of Canaan. Now that land was not in any sense the land of the Israelites until some time after the death of Moses. '' Abraham," we read in the fourteenth chapter, '' pursued them to Dan." Dan was the chief city of the tribe of Dan when the children of Israel had divided the land long after Moses' death. Before that it was called Lachish. Again, the author who gave the book its present form

(3^) '

Argumekt from Laws

undoubtedly lived in Canaan. To him the coun- try east of Jordan is beyond Jordan. The west he always describes as toward the sea, and the south as toward the desert. To him the sun rises from beyond Jordan, whereas to Moses it would set beyond Jordan. Add to this that Moses' father- in-law is called by three different names, Reuel, Jethro and Hobab. Whatever were Moses' re- lations with his father-in-law, it is improbable that he did not know his name. All this becomes much plainer and more convincing if, instead of confining ourselves to single passages in Gen- esis, we take the Pentateuch as a whole ; and we have a perfect right to do so, since those who claim that Moses was the author of Genesis also claim that he wrote the whole Penta- teuch. And they are right to this extent, that the same documents we find in Genesis run through the whole Pentateuch. This is a much more satisfactory and interesting task, although it is a shghtly different one. In the later books of the Pentateuch, in Exodus, Deuteronomy and Leviticus, we find a highly organized system of civil and religious law, and elaborate rules for worship and ritual which purport to have been delivered by Moses. Were those laws known to anyone for hundreds of years after Moses? Were they enforced? That is a very simple question and easily answered, and its answer ought to be conclusive. The Constitution of the United States, for example, was framed in the year 1787, and finally ratified in the year 1789, March 4th. Now if anyone seriously told you that he had reasons for believing that the Constitution of the United States was in effect at least a hundred

(31)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

years before that date, you would naturally say, " Show me some proof that it was in effect at this time." And if, on reviewing the history of the colonies during the eighteenth century, you found no indication that anyone knew of the Con- sitution, but rather that men constantly violated its prescriptions without being aware that they were breaking the supreme law of the land; if judges and the governors of the colonies showed no signs of ever having heard of the Con- stitution, you would regard that, I presume, as sufficient proof that the Constitution was not then in existence. You may think this a strong comparison, but really it is not too strong. The whole Book of Leviticus, and to a certain extent Deuteronomy, rest on the assumption that Jehovah can be worshipped acceptably only in one place; that outside this supreme sanctuary no altar might be built, no incense rise, no sacri- fice might be offered, and that in this sanctuary no one but the anointed sons of Aaron might serve, assisted by the Levites. Nobody else might even enter the holy place (" the stranger that Cometh nigh shall be put to death "), and to build an altar to God anywhere else is an act of the highest sacrilege. Of all this the older history knows nothing at all. Samuel, the little Eph- raimite boy, was accustomed to sleep in the sanc- tuary. He lies down to sleep in the temple of the Lord, where the ark was, before the lamp of God had gone out. David was accustomed to enter the holy place whenever he chose; and Samuel, Elijah and Elisha, far from thinking that there was only one sacred place where God could be worshipped acceptably, worshipped God freely

_

Argument from Sacrifice

and built altars to Him wherever they hap- pened to be. Elijah rebuilds the altar on Carmel and '' mourns to God " that men have cast his altars down. We can only say, therefore, that these great prophets could have known nothing of the commands of Leviticus and Deuteronomy which they constantly violated. In the Book of Exodus, moreover, it distinctly says, '' An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and in every place where I record my name I will come unto thee and bless thee."

It is very much the same with regard to sac- rifice. In Exodus and Leviticus, the most minute rules are laid down regulating the sacrifice of animals and religious feasts. Sacrifice is as- sumed to be the highest form of worship that God enjoined upon Moses. If there is one thing on which these books insist, it is the constant of- fering of sacrifice. Therefore it almost takes our breath away when we read in the prophet Jere- miah, " Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, add burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat ye flesh [i.e., eat them], for I spake not unto your forefathers nor commanded them in the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt concern- ing burnt offerings or sacrifices, but this thing I commanded them, saying. Hearken unto my voice and I will be your God and ye shall be my people." *

Also Micah, vi. 6-8, " Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before Him with burnt of- ferings, with calves of a year old ? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams or with ten

*Jer. vii. 21-23.

(33)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul ? He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord re- quire of thee but to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God? "

Also Amos, V. 21, '' I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Yea, though ye offer me your burnt offerings and meat offerings, I will not accept them ; neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take away from me the noise of thy songs ; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judgment roll down as waters and righteousness as a mighty stream. Did ye bring unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel ? ' '

Also Isaiah, i. 11-12, " To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord. I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts, and I dehght not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. When ye come before me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample my courts ? " It may be said that these great prophets only condemn sac- rifice because it is not attended by moral reforma- tion. But if they were aware of these books of the Pentateuch, nine-tenths of which are taken up with enjoining sacrifice on divine authority, under the threat of terrible punishment, how could they assert that Jehovah had never com- manded it, or inquire ironically when and where Jehovah had ever demanded it? In other words, men like Isaiah, Jeremiah and Micah knew noth- ing of the existence of a large part of the Penta-

(34)

Legal Codes Require Revision

teuch ; but, if they did not know it, as Bacon per- tinently asks, who did ? '''

Lastly, a general statement of principles like the Magna Charta or the Constitution of the United States may stand for centuries with but few modifications, because it is so general and abstract; but a positive code of civil, criminal and canon law requires to be modified con- stantly to meet the changing conditions of society as they arise. A code of laws unchanged for five hundred years would be a dead letter to any liv- ing people. Hence we cannot suppose that the laws of Exodus, Deuteronomy and Leviticus, which were actually in effect from the fifth cen- tury, were composed by Moses nine hundred years before.

* For a clear and explicit statement of the critical questions treated in this lecture, I refer the reader to the excellent work of Bacon, "Genesis of Genesis," chap, ii.

(35)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Chapter Three :

Composition of Genesis and Character of Its Narratives

A GREAT part of our first two chapters was taken up in showing that the Book of Gen- esis as it stands to-day is not a single composi- tion, the work of one mind, but a compilation, a weaving together of at least three narratives into one narrative. I have called it a cord composed of three strands. The time is come, if our work is to be solid and in any sense scientific, for you to see this with your own eyes. I cannot help re- gretting that the polychrome edition of Genesis is not yet in print. If we could see the Book of Genesis resolved into its parts on a printed page ; if we could see our red thread, our white thread, and our blue thread separated from one another and displayed, so that without any difficulty we could study each one and compare one with an- other, it would not only be much easier for us to believe in their existence, but we could not help noticing their peculiarities for ourselves. Let me, however, attempt to do in a rough way what the polychrome Genesis will do in an infi- nitely better way. There is one thing, however, for which I am very anxious ; that is, to be under- stood. I shall therefore sacrifice a great deal in order to be clear and simple. I know from ex-

(36)

Proofs of Composite Authorship

perience that these subjects are very difficult to grasp for the first time.

I suppose all persons who read the Bible at all, even if they do not read it very carefully, must have been struck by the complete difference of style and order of ideas they encounter in passing from one chapter of Genesis to another. Open- ing the book at random, my eye falls on the inimi- table story of the murder of Abel. I see at once that it is an exquisite piece of literature. It would be hard to find in a few words a character more vigorously and finely depicted than Cain's. The whole tragedy is enacted before our eyes. We see him, sullen and lowering with jealousy, follow Abel into some lonely place. We see the savage, murderous resolution quickly embraced and more quickly carried into effect. We hear the shriek of Abel as he falls dying to the ground, and the earth drinks up the blood of the first victim of human violence. The Lord ap- pears with His question, '' Where is Abel thy brother? " implying that He has seen the awful deed. Cain tries to carry it off with a defiant air, very much as we turn away those who accuse us of wrong. " Am I my brother's keeper?" Then God shows Cain that the eternal secrecy on which we all count has deceived him. " What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground," and soon all Cain's bold defiance is turned into abject fear. God curses him, whereas for Adam's sin He had only cursed the ground, and affixes to him for all time the *'mark of Cain." In every fibre ©f this sombre story we feel the hand of a great artist, a master in the art of expression, and a man of such

" (37)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

knowledge of human nature and of such ele- vated moral views that the best writer among us to-day could not touch his story without injur- ing it. That little narrative is classical; it is a masterpiece so perfect that to-day we shudder as we read it.

I read along a few verses and my eye is caught by a little poem. It is the sword song of Lamech : " And Lamech said unto his wives,

' Adah and Zillah, hear my voice. Ye wives of Lamech, hearken to my speech. For I have slain a man for wounding me, And a young- man for bruising me. If Cain avenged himself seven fold, Truly Lamech seventy and seven fold.' "

It seems to be the voice of an inhabitant of the stone age that is singing this murderous little chant. Some hairy, savage cave dweller, armed with a stone club, is chanting his crimes aloud to the delight of his two half-human wives, Adah and Zillah. Of the deep religious feeling and lofty morality of the story of Cain, with its in- tense respect for human life, there is not one trace. Lamech shouts with cannibalistic joy over the fact that he has killed two men. He declares himself superior to Cain, who has killed only one, and he promises himself the pleas- ure of killing seventy-five more. Of remorse, of the thought of God, there is not a hint, and we feel instinctively that this little savage, if he ever existed, never heard of the God who spoke to Cain's conscience.

Now those are two stories taken, probably, from two of our documents; both old, but the

story of Lamech I think all will feel is the older. __ _ _ _

Lamech's Song and Genealogy

As a matter of fact, that strange little song is in all probability the oldest thing in the Bible and one of the oldest pieces of human composition. It comes down to us like those rude pictures, so full of life, of an extinct mammoth or a woolly ele- phant, scrawled by some savage on the wall of his den ten thousand years ago, worthless artistically, but of inestimable value in determining the past history of our race.

I read only a few verses further and my eye falls on a third passage entirely unlike the other two : ''Adam lived a hundred and thirty years and begot a son in his own image after his own like- ness, and called his name Seth, and the days of Adam after he begot Seth were eight hundred years, and he begot sons and daughters. And all the years Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died." So it goes on to Seth, and from Seth to Enos, and from Enos to Cainan, and from Cainan to Mahalaleel. So it goes on through Jared and Enoch, and Methuselah who outstripped them all in Hving nine hundred and sixty-nine years, and ends, oddly enough, with this same Lamech, who is here represented as the father of Noah.

I think almost anyone can feel that this passage is entirely different from the story of Cain or the song of Lamech. The style, in the first place, is very peculiar. It is the dry style of the annahst. He has certain formulas which he uses over and over again. All his heroes do the same thing — they beget children, and they die at a very advanced age. This passage is not moral, and it is not immoral ; it is not poetry, and it is not history. In short, it is nothing but an example of

(39)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

that peculiar species of flora so highly prized by many in our days — a genealogical tree.

But now I find, although I was not aware of it when I set out, that I have cited specimens of two and perhaps of the three different documents of the Book of Genesis. The story of Cain was told by '' the Jehovist ; " the story of Lamech was pos- sibly told by the writer we call '' the Elohist," and the genealogical tree is certainly the work of *'the Priestly Writer," whose book we call " the Priests' Code."

It would be wrong, of course, to try to con- struct the characteristics of these three writers from only three fragments taken by chance, yet there are several important facts found here that are worth noticing. In the first place, the Jehovist is not only a fine and interesting writer, but a man of deep spiritual insight. He knows how to de- scribe the nature of sin, the hardening of con- science and the awakening of conscience, in a most telling way, which is all the more impressive because it is told in the form of a story that no child could ever forget. He is a master of the resources of language, and a profoundly moral man. There is another fact of great importance. He uses the name of Jehovah or Jahveh alone. Cain brings the fruit of his ground as an offering to Jahveh. Jahveh has respect to him. Jahveh says to Cain, ''Why art thou wroth?" So on through the whole story.

The song of Lamech is not so satisfactory. It

is absolutely unique, and we are not certain that it

was originally contained in the work of him we

call the Elohist. But supposing it to be his work,

we see that it is wholly different from the work of __ _

Authors Compared

the Jehovist. It is not moral, it is not religious, and apparently it is not history. It is just a little piece of folk-lore which would strike the attention of a writer who was intent on preserving the tra- ditions of his people. But there is one important fact in this story which we must not overlook. Lamech knows the history of Cain very well. He .does not take warning by its moral, and perhaps as he knew the story it did not possess the same form it has now. But, as we have seen, Lamech's song is very old, perhaps the oldest thing in the Bible ; therefore, the tradition of Cain's murder must be older still.

Passing from this to the genealogical tree of him whom we call the Priestly Writer, we notice that he also uses Elohim for the name of God, like the Elohist, but his style is so peculiar and his material so homogeneous that we are at little loss in picking out his work. He is very careful never to use the word Jehovah in the Book of Genesis. He waits until God makes himself known to Moses in Exodus. In the sixth chapter of Exo- dus we read : *' God spake unto Moses and said, I am Jehovah and I appeared unto Abraham, Isaac and Jacob by the name God Almighty (El Schaddai), but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them." The Jehovist, however, does not take this view. Speaking of Enos, the grandson of Adam, he says, " Then began men to call on the name of Jehovah." There are one or two other things I wish to call attention to. The Priestly Writer's style is simple, and, at times, grand and impressive, but very dry. His history is entirely unlike the lively, warm, highly colored story of Cain. He loves to relate the genealogies

(41)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

of families, like the one we have just read. In so doing he constantly uses the same language. That helps us to discover him. Let me give you one example. Again and again he says, " This is the book of the generations of Adam." " These are the generations of the heaven and the earth when they were created," " These are the genera- tions of Noah." In speaking of Adam he says, " Adam begat a son in his own likeness after his own image." We turn back to the first chapter of Genesis and read in almost the same words, '' God said, let us make man in our own image after our Hkeness;" ''God created man in His own image." So that we are sure it was this Priestly Writer who wrote the most wonderful chapter of our book, and one of the most wonderful pages man has ever penned — the first chapter of Genesis.

Having thus introduced you to the three prin- cipal sources which together make up our Book of Genesis and all the Pentateuch as well, with the exception of Deuteronomy, I wish now to char- acterize them a little more broadly and to show how much, or rather how little, we know of their authors. Of the men themselves, indeed, we know almost nothing. If their works ever bore their names, the names have utterly disappeared.

The Priest's Code runs through the Penta- teuch and forms a considerable part of the books of Exodus and Leviticus. As the legal and ritual parts of those books were not known to early history or to the prophets, it is safe to infer that the Priestly narrative in its present form is not very old. The Book of Leviticus, e.g., as a book, is later than the Prophet Ezekiel, who died about 572 B.C., and probably as late as Ezra (444

Priestly Writer

B.C.). That does not prevent the contents of the book from being very ancient, an important fact which we shall see further illustrated when we study the first chapter of Genesis. The chief in- terest of this writer, as we should expect from the compiler of Leviticus, is in the laws, institutions, and customs of Israel, and he loves to explain their origins. He tells us the story of the first Sabbath, when God rested from all His work. He tells us how God made the rainbow to appear in the cloud as a token of his covenant with Noah. He wishes to explain the origin of circumcision, but he is confronted with the fact that many other tribes besides the IsraeHtes practised it, so he is constrained to refer it back to Abraham that it may appear that the nations supposed to have descended from Abraham learned circum- cision from him. Although this Priestly Writer sometimes deals with history, it is chiefly for the sake of accounting for certain laws or customs. Even in his inimitable first chapter of Genesis he does not tell the story of creation out of love for natural science, but in order to show what ar- rangements were made for man, and by what means the chosen people were gradually formed, and from what noble. God-fearing men they were descended. Accordingly he is very much inter- ested in family history, which sometimes contracts to a mere thread. We see in his writings none of the warmth of feeling of the Jehovist. He pre- sents few interesting anecdotes; he paints few great characters. One feels that he is always in a hurry to get through, but is prevented by his innumerable repetitions. His language is dry, stiff and legal, with the frequent reiteration of

(43)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

certain favorite forms of expression. We can always tell when a new chapter of his work begins in Genesis, for he always introduces it in the same way, '' These are the generations of Adam," " This is the genealogy of Noah," etc.

On the other hand, his views of the Deity are very elevated, if somewhat cold. He is an abso- lute monotheist. Elohim is the unique cause of all that exists. The few slight traces of older forms of belief distinguishable in the first chapter of Genesis are there only because he did not wish to do too much violence to traditions as old as the hills, and we maybe thankful that he did not ruth- lessly destroy them, for, as we shall soon see, they give us a world to think about. We feel the dif- ference at once in passing from the Priestly nar- rative of the first chapter of Genesis to the Je- hovist's account in the second chapter. The Je- hovist's story is warmer, more picturesque, more anthropomorphic, but it fails in sublimity and in the absolute simplicity of logic and' of language that makes the first chapter sui generis. Elohim creates one thing after another in a perfectly log- ical sequence by His word. There is the same monotony and paucity of expression which we always observe in the Priest's Code, but the story is so short and the thought. so grand that the style sustains it. In the first chapter the point of view of the writer is with God Himself in space. What we lose in richness of color and in variety of form is more than made up by the grand simplicity of outline which meets our eye at this height. The Jehovist, elsewhere so superior to him, and whose story at once becomes fraught with tremendous interest as soon as he reaches the moral life of

—

Compositions of Priestly Writer

man, in his account of creation is distinctly in- ferior. Instead of ascending to heaven with Elo- him, he makes his Jehovah descend to earth. Jehovah is in creation, not above it. He has to work with his hands, fashioning man out of clay like a maker of images, taking a rib out of Adam's side. He cannot create by a mere fiat. In fact, the first account, the story of the Priestly Writer, so far outshines the second, the work of the Jeho- vist, that we almost forget that two accounts exist.

For the rest, the Priestly Writer holds aus- tere and simple views of God. The God who makes coats for men, comes down and converses with them familiarly, sups with Abraham and makes Sarah laugh, is not his Creator, whom he carefully shields from every suspicion of famil- iarity. He even goes so far as to avoid all men- tion of angels and dreams, and, true to the prin- ciple laid^ down in Leviticus of one supreme shrine and one altar, he avoids all mention of the old shrines and sacred places of Canaan which the other two writers love to associate with the lives of the patriarchs.

The principal passages in Genesis from his pen, besides the first chapter, are :

1. The genealogies of the ten antediluvian patriarchs and the genealogies generally.

2. The story of the Flood, except some verses written by the Jehovist.

3. Possibly the strange fourteenth chapter relating Abraham's war with Chedorlaomer and his allies, and the episode of Melchizedek, King of Salem, which, however, has a very foreign sound.

4. God's covenant with Abraham by circum-

—

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

cision, the promise of Isaac, the purchase of the cave of Machpelah, and a very brief account of the famihes of Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob.

All we can say of the author himself is that he used the old narratives in the peculiar way we have described, and that in all probability he was a priest in Jerusalem, living at a much later time than the Elohist and the Jehovist. Judging from his part in the work of Leviticus, he lived not much before 450 B.C.

The tw^o remaining narrators, the Elohist and the Jehovist, as a rule are easy to distinguish in Genesis 'on account of the different names they employ for the Deity, but they are not so easy to describe, as they resemble each other far more than either resembles the Priestly Writer. On the whole, we may say that the Elohist, while a sincerely religious writer, is less exclusively so than the Jehovist. He is also very much interested in the traditions and legends of his people, for which the Priestly Writer cared ab- solutely nothing. He has preserved many names, such as Eliezer, the steward of Abraham; Poti- phar, the Egyptian master of Joseph ; Deborah, the prophetess, etc. He likes to recount old local traditions, like the story of the heap of stones Laban and Jacob erected as a witness of their friendship, and he tells us what each one called it. He is careful to inform us how many pieces of silver Jacob paid for the piece of ground he bought from the children of Haran. He is very fond of associating old landmarks with important acts in the lives of the patriarchs, e.g., Jacob's dream of the ladder, and tlie stone he set up at Bethel to mark this event. He recounts

(46)

Characteristics of Elohist

without the least hesitation Jacob's strange meet- ing with the Mahanaim — the host of God's angels — which the Priestly Writer assuredly would have suppressed. He relates the charming story of Jacob's love for Rachel, which so occupied his thoughts that seven years seemed but a few days in passing. He also tells how Laban deceived him by substituting Leah, which makes us doubt whether Jacob could have loved Racliel so much after all. He also composed certain portions of the story of Joseph. The parts of this story that most interested the Elohist are those weird and bizarre dreams which come from his pen, and are of the very stuff that dreams are made of. The singular dreams of the butler and baker which Joseph so cleverly explained, the vine with the three branches wliose grapes the butler pressed into Pharaoh's cup, the basket of bake-meats which the birds lifted up and which implied that the unlucky butler's head would soon share the same fate, Pharaoh's uncanny dream of the fat and lean cattle, on which so much is made to de- pend, are his creations. He also paints for us many pleasing pictures of family life in the olden times, the free, grand life of patriarchal days, and he draws fine portraits of those splendid grave men, wandering like little kings from place to place, with their numerous wives, their chil- dren, whom they dearly loved, their camels, their flocks, and their slaves. He tells the story, per- haps the most touching in the Old Testament, of Abraham's wilhngness to sacrifice his child to God, and he shows us also how, after Abra- ham's faith had been tried to the uttermost, the grand, ennobling conviction comes to him that

(47)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

God does not desire the sacrifice of the life He gave. It is precisely such a story as this that proves the real inspiration of Genesis. It has no counterpart in the literature of any other people.

The work of the Elohist begins comparatively late in Genesis. Except for a few important frag- ments we find no trace of him before the twen- tieth chapter, when he begins by telling how Abimelech stole Sarah. There is every reason to believe that his work was originally of much wider scope, but the compiler of Genesis, making use of the Priestly Writer and the Jehovist for the earlier chapters, permitted that portion of the Elohist's work to perish, which is a great pity.

In our Genesis the principal narrations from the pen of the Elohist are :

1. The capture of Sarah by Abimelech.

2. The story of Isaac and Ishmael ; how Hagar was driven out the second time.

3. Abraham's covenant with Abimelech at the wells of water.

4. The sacrifice of Isaac.

5. Isaac's blessing; how Jacob supplanted Esau.

6. Jacob's dream at Bethel.

7. His service with Laban ; Leah and Rachel.

8. Jacob's children; how the twelve patri- archs were born and named.

9. His return to his home, and the meeting with Esau.

10. Part of the story of Joseph, especially in regard to his dreams and the dreams ^ the Egyptians.

(48)

Characteristics of Jehovist

11. Joseph's revelation to his brethren.

12. How Jacob came into Egypt.

In regard to the personaHty of the Elohist Ht- tle is known, and it does not seem to me that it would be worth while painfully to gather and compare the few hints he lets fall. I will merely say that he is believed to have lived in the eighth century B.C., or more than three hundred years before the Priestly Writer, but whether in the Northern Kingdom or in Judah is not certain.

We have seen that the Priestly Writer and the Elohist are great, each in his own way. If any proof of this statement is needed, it is enough to say that the Priestly Writer wrote the first chap- ter of Genesis and that the Elohist wrote the story of the sacrifice of Isaac. The Jehovist, of whom I now wish to speak, is in some respects quite the equal of either, and in one respect he is superior to both. He is more original. While using the old narratives freely like the Elohist, he knows how to extract more spiritual truth from them. He scarcely ever tells a story for love of the story itself. In telling it he makes it throw some light on the moral life of man. We have seen how little it was possible to gather from the writings of our other two authors in regard to the men themselves. They are too objective. The Jehovist, on the contrary, is intensely sub- jective. He is, I may say, a passionate writer, haunted by ideals. It is therefore very probable that in relating the old stock of traditions he modified them far more than did either the Elo- hist or the Priestly Writer, but, on the other hand, he h'as stamped them with the sign manual of a great genius. Passing through the conscience of

(49)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

the Jehovist, these old stories are freed from their earthly dross and become forever living symbols of the spiritual Hfe. Who knows how much virtue this man has created, or how much of our moral life we owe to the religious genius of him who for want of a better name we can only call the Jehovist ?

In the Jehovist we meet for the first time with a profound philosophy of life. He is penetrated with the sense of man's sin, and he sets himself to discover its causes. In attempting to solve the problem of the origin of man's iniquity, he wrote those chapters of Genesis which have borne the greatest fruits. As I said at the beginning, these fruits are not all good, and yet who would carp at a man strong enough to bind the faith of the world for nearly three thousand years, and who has caused humanity to accept the most humil- iating truths in regard to itself rather than doubt his word? By his short story of the Temptation and the Fall he has produced effects incom- parably greater than all the Councils of the Church have produced. Probably the same num- ber of words has never created an equal result. The philosophy of the Jehovist is eminently pessimistic, and it is just this philosophy which is always most popular. Schopenhauer and Von Hartmann are read with a passionate interest which no one accords to Kant or Aristotle. They deal with matters we all can understand. They move our hearts, while the others only fatigue our intellects; but they see only part of the truth.

The Jehovist is also the author of that terrible idea which it has taken millenniums to eradicate, namely, that God begrudges man knowledge,

(50)

His Pessimism

and that man's independent efforts to elevate himself and to better his condition are almost in- sults to God, or at best sacrilegious efforts to pen- etrate into God's domain. Each step in the path of progress is a crime. All that is added to earth is stolen from heaven. Every onward movement in the development of humanity is in defiance of God's will. Again and again God repents of creating the human race.* God wished for a single man, who with his wife would inhabit a delicious garden forever. Man by his unreason- able thirst for knowledge disturbed this scheme. Accordingly he is cast out and the earth is cursed. The first town is built by the race of the accursed murderer and evildoer, Cain. God intended to create one human race speaking one language. But men made use of the power of numbers and cooperation to build the Tower of Babel in their mad attempt to scale heaven itself. Accordingly God scatters them over the face of the earth and confounds their speech. The beauty of the daughters of men only served to tempt celestial beings, ^to cause the angels to leave their first estate, as the Apostle Jude says, and to produce a monstrous race of sinners, all the thoughts of whose hearts were to produce evil continually. Accordingly God resolves to destroy the whole world which He made, with the sole exception of the righteous Noah and his family.

In spite of the painful melancholy of these nar- rations, they possess a charm and teach a lesson that will never die. Such narratives as the Fall, the fratricide of Cain, and the Flood, under the

* Several of the following sentences are quoted by memory from Renan.

(51)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

simplest garb contain truths of such depth that we may explain away the myth as much as we please without affecting them in the least. Light shines on the face of the abyss, and yet the deep remains deep.

If we look a little further into the work of the Jehovist we shall see that he has all the resources of a very great writer, — above all, power to en- chain the attention and to touch the conscience. He makes free use of tradition, and yet in this respect he is, like Shakespeare, grand and un- trammelled. He passes easily from prose to po- etry, as when Adam first sees his wife and ex- claims :

" Bone is this of my bones And flesh of my flesh."

Or in the old canticle of Noah :

" Blessed be Jahveh, the God of Shem, And let Canaan be his servant. God enlarge Japheth, And let him dwell in the tents of Shem."

Or in the splendid blessing of Jacob, which is his work :

" Gather yourselves together that ye may hear what shall befall you in the latter days; Assemble yourselves and hear, ye sons of Jacob."

Ordinarily, as Renan says, in everything per- taining to the relations of the sexes, to love and marriage, the Jehovist is " profound, sensitive, chaste, and mysterious." The pure and idyllic loves of Isaac and Rebecca, of Jacob and Rachel, are his creations. He has traced for us the grand conception of Abraham, the friend of God, and

Compositions of Jehovist

he has told almost the whole story of Joseph, in some respects the finest, the most perfect story of the Bible. '' How is it possible that the author of such masterpieces should be unknown? The same question is now asked of the Homeric poems, of nearly all the grand epics, and in short of all the books produced from popular tradi- tions. Books of this kind are of no special value to the first generations, well acquainted with the traditions they embody, and by the time the priceless character of the work is discovered the name of the author has disappeared."

The following is the list of the principal com- positions of the Jehovist :

1. The second account of creation. Cain and Abel.

2. The first genealogy. The poem of Lamech (doubtful).

3. The sons of God and daughters of men.

4. The second account of the Deluge. Dis- covery of the vine.

5. Table of Shemites. Tower of Babel.

6. God's promise to Abraham. Seizure of Sarah by Pharaoh.

7. The separation of Abraham and Lot.

8. God's covenant with Abraham. Sarah and Hagar.

9. Visit of the three angels. Destruction of Sodom. Lot's daughters..

10. Isaac and Rebekah.

11. Esau's repudiation of his birthright. Isaac's denial of Rebekah in Gerar. Covenant of Abimelech and Isaac.

12. Part of Jacob's deception of Isaac. Part of Jacob's dream.

(53)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

13. Part of the story of Jacob, Rachel, and Leah. How Jacob outwitted Laban and ob- tained his flocks.

14. Part of the story of Joseph.

15. Jacob's blessing.

(54)

Genesis a Collection of Stori

ES

Chapter Four : What Is the Book of Genesis?

WE come now to a question of importance, our answer to which will determine to a large extent our attitude toward the Book of Genesis : What is the Book of Genesis ? We all, I presume, admit that it is an inspired book, but what form does inspiration take in this book? Plainly it is not a law book, it is not poetry, it does not profess to be prophecy. What is it then ? There is one definition on which we shall all agree. It is a narrative, or, rather, it is a collec- tion of narratives. From the first chapter to the last it is just a series of stories. Beginning with the account of the Creation, through the antedi- luvian patriarchs to Noah, and from Abraham to Abraham's great-grandson Joseph, it is noth- ing but a collection of the most wonderful and fascinating stories in the world. If you wish proof of this, leave it to the children, who are the best judges of the merit of stories. Read your boy or girl some of the best stories of Homer, and then the story of the Flood or the story of Joseph, and see which makes the deeper impres- sion.

But what is the nature of these stories? Are they history or are they something else? How- ever we shall ultimately answer this question, I

(55)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

think we shall again all agree that the narratives of Genesis are very different from the history that is written to-day. The most casual reader must feel that. I pick up Green's " History of the EngHsh People," and the first thing I notice is that Green devotes as much space to the reign of a single king as the Book of Genesis devotes to the history of the world from Creation to the descent into Egypt. Plainly then, the two works are planned on a different scale. A work planned Hke Green's and treating of the times and the nations treated by the Book of Genesis would consist of at least a thousand volumes. The Book of Genesis must therefore be much con- densed. We look at the book and we find that this is so. Sometimes a nation is merely named and dismissed. Sometimes its whole history is contained in a few anecdotes of certain persons supposed to have founded that nation.

That, however, is not the most striking peculi- arity of Genesis. As we read the compact chap- ters of Green, another still more important differ- ence presents itself to us. Everything in English history occurs in a perfectly natural way. The task which Green sets himself is simply to de- scribe what has happened, and to account for im- portant events on purely natural grounds. Such things as the immediate interference of God, immediate messages from God, prophetical dreams, etc., are never mentioned. And yet Green is very far from denying the reality or power of religion. On the contrary, he devotes much time to showing the place and power of the church and of religious belief. But he does not feel it necessary to call in the least su-

(56)

Supernatural in Genesis

pernatural interference to show how England became what it is or what it was in any part of its history. It would be a mistake to suppose that Green is peculiar in this respect. If we take any other first-class work, Hke Mommsen's " His- tory of Rome " or Grote's '^ History of Greece," we shall see that it is written in exactly the same way so far as its attitude toward the supernatu- ral is concerned. We turn to Genesis, how- ever, and we feel the difference. There God ap- pears to men constantly, under one form or an- other. He speaks to them face to face. He engages in long conversations with Abraham; He sups with him. He makes clothes for Adam and Eve. He appears to Jacob in a dream. He curses one man and He blesses another. It is this element of the immediate, visible, sometimes tangible presence of God, and His active inter- ference in the affairs of men, which makes certain parts of the Bible, but by no means the whole Bible, so different from any other book in which we are accustomed to place confidence. If a man to-day were to write the history of our late war with Spain in the style of Genesis, it would be painful to<us in the highest degree, and we should set that writer down either as utterly deluded or as a daring blasphemer.

One answer, of course, is very easy. God, it may be said, does not appear to men in this way now, and He has not actively interfered with the history of England as He formerly interfered with Noah and Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. That answer may satisfy some minds, and those that are satisfied with it may remain so for a little while longer. But I imagine that the

(57)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

great majority of educated persons will find it less easy to believe that God has changed so much than to believe that man's views of God have changed, and that what at one time seemed perfectly natural for God to do seems not only on natural grounds improbable, but on moral grounds impossible for God to do to-day.

That there is nothing irreligious in this view is shown by the fact that most of the inspired men of the Old and New Testaments held it as firmly as we do. The Priestly Writer, the author of the first chapter of Genesis, was very careful to suppress all immediate physical mani- festations of the Deity such as those which the Jehovist delights to recount. He would not even mention the appearance of angels, and apparently he had no confidence in dreams. As we descend the stream of Old Testament tradition, we find the conception of God con- stantly growing purer, higher, more transcen- dent and more spiritual. In the time of Adam and Eve and at the time of Abraham, God is said to have showed Himself visibly in human or quasi-human form. But at the time of Moses, God was believed to appear in this way no longer. At most, Jehovah manifested His presence by some sign like the burning bush, or permitted Moses to stand in the cleft of the rock and see His hinder parts in the furious, desolating whirl- wind of the storm, a grand manifestation of the power of nature. To see God, we are told, is to die. We descend a little further to one of the earlier prophets, to Elijah, for example, and we find the idea of God still more transcendent and at the same time more awful. Elijah standing

(58)

Gradual Elimination of Supernatural

upon Horeb, not far from where Moses stood, and seeing the same terrible phenomena of a mountain storm, declared that he found God neither in the strong wind that rent the mount nor in the earthquake nor in the fire, but in the still, small voice which we may yet hear. Lastly, St. John absolutely denies the reality of any of these physical manifestations of God by saying, " No man hath seen God at any time." If then we suppose that God in the days of old showed Himself so familiarly, ate, drank, and talked with men, we must suppose that He was much nearer to a man like Cain or Jacob than He was to a man like Isaiah or Jeremiah, who, far from pretending to have enjoyed any such visible manifestations of God, declared "Thou art a God that hidest Thyself." We may even rever- ently say, in that case God was more immediately visible to Cain and Jacob than He was to our Blessed Lord Himself. For Jesus never spoke of seeing God with his eyes, but by the faith of the heart. One of Christ's great claims on reason- able men is that He absolutely eschewed visions and dreams, and saw God only and constantly through the inward eye of the soul.

These considerations will probably have weight with thoughtful minds. But even if you reject the view I put forward that it is man and not God who has changed, I think you will agree with me that in respect to its attitude toward the super- natural the Book of Genesis differs widely from history as it is written to-day.

The third difference I notice between Genesis and history as it is written to-day is that Genesis is immediately and transparently religious, and

(59)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

that modern history is not immediately and transparently religious. I do not mean to say that any serious and noble treatment of history does not contain great and saving religious truth ; I know the contrary from my own experi- ence. The more philosophical history is, the more religious it is. But at the same time the re- ligious lessons of history are not for all. They are not transparent. They require long search, care- ful sifting of characters and events, and a trained historical sense, and so the religious truths of history reach few and affect very few. But the charm and glory of Genesis is that its re- ligious lessons lie transparently on the surface, where they are visible to all and affect all. No one can mistake the lesson taught in the story of Cain and Abel. No one can fail to be impressed with the story of the Fall. We may sum this up by merely saying that the immediate purpose of Genesis is a religious purpose, and however it attains that purpose it attains it marvellously well.

There is only one other difference I want you to notice between the Book of Genesis and his- tory as it is written to-day, but that difference is radical. If you pick up any really good modern history you will see that the first concern of the writer is to obtain authentic sources for what he wishes to write about, and by authentic sources I mean the writings of veracious men who lived at or near the time when the events occurred which they undertook to narrate. Where plenty of such contemporary documents exist, as, e.g., in the history of the Rebellion, history may be absolutely authentic. I do not say that history

Sources of History

ever is absolutely authentic. There is always the personal equation to take into account, the bias, prejudice, or ignorance of the historian, which prevents a perfect history from being writ- ten. But at all events the materials are at hand, and if the historian does not make proper use of them it is his own fault. It is very different when the contemporary records are few. Then, to write authentic history becomes difficult, and when the records fail altogether, when, for ex- ample, we go back to a time when no records were kept, and even to a time when writing was unknown, we leave the field of exact authentic history altogether and enter a field where all is conjectural and all but the main facts uncertain. Finally we reach the realm of ancient myth and saga, always interesting and often exceedingly important, but which is no longer pure history, but history idealized.

This is so vital a point, not only for the comprehension of Genesis, but for the philo- sophical comprehension of all history, that I will not apologize for lingering over it a few minutes. We turn back to the earliest history of Britain during the last century before Christ and the first century of our era and we find that we possess a good deal of perfectly authentic information in regard to the island and its people. It was the age of the Roman invasions. In the year 55 B.C. the great general and historian, Julius Caesar, visited the island and recorded his impressions of it in his celebrated Commentaries. Agricola, the next Roman invader, was fortunate enough to find a first-class historian in Tacitus, who de- voted a volume to his deeds. So for several hun-

(61)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

dred years we know a good deal about Britain, because we see it in the light of contemporary history, the history of the Romans. But as soon as we attempt to go behind the records of the Romans, the light fails and we find ourselves groping in darkness. Of Britain before the ad- vent of Julius Caesar we know but little. We can barely puzzle out the names and locations of a few tribes and form a general idea of the lan- guage and customs of the people, but anything like authentic, detailed history is impossible.

And yet among all ancient nations that have preserved their traditions, behind their authen- tic detailed history is another history which is not authentic, in the sense that it is not a nar- rative of matters of fact, but which is often more wonderful, more instructive than history itself because it represents the free genius of the peo- ple in its creative epoch. This is the age of myth and saga. Perhaps I can better illustrate my meaning from the Greeks and Romans.

Behind the authentic history of Rome lies a long period of legendary or mythical history. This mythical history resembles the Book of Genesis in one respect, it is full of the super- natural. Romulus and Remus are the sons of Mars by a human mother Rhea Silvia. When thrown out into the Tiber to drown they are rescued and brought up by a she-wolf. Having grown to manhood, they found together the city of Rome, but a quarrel arising as to whose name the city shall bear, Romulus kills Remus some- what as Cain killed Abel. We go back a little further to ^neas, the ancestor of Romulus, whose adventures are described by Virgil, and

—

ALUE OF IVIYTH

M^

the supernatural element becomes stronger, ^neas himself is the son of the goddess Venus, and his divine mother appears to him now in one form, now in another. Miracles and prodigies take place. Juno is continually plotting against him. She persuades ^olus, the god of the winds, to overwhelm him in the deep, and he is scarcely saved from a watery grave by the inter- position of Neptune. His dead father Anchises stands beside him in a dream at night to give him warning of coming dangers. He descends into Hades and sees there many shades of the illus- trious dead, etc., etc.

It is precisely the same in Greece, except that in Homer's poems we see this old mythical le- gendary lore in all its original naivete and good faith, whereas Virgil lived at a time of advanced thought, when these myths were no longer taken seriously.

Now, although we may not understand any of these stories literally, we should make a great mistake if we supposed that they form an unim- portant part of any literature which possesses them, or that they are not able to teach truths often profounder than the truths of history. What portion of Greek literature, or of any pro- fane hterature, is superior to Homer ? Where do we obtain finer, truer views of Greece than in these very mythical stories? What historical character possesses the reality of flesh and blood of Odysseus or Priam ? Where else do we obtain such an insight into the domestic, moral, re- ligious life of the people ? It is not only matters of fact that are true. Poetry also teaches truths. Does it detract from the parables of Jesus that

(^3)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

not one of them, so far as we know, is based on fact; that is to say, on the experience of any man or woman who ever lived ? Would they be as per- fect as they are, as well able to teach a purely re- ligious lesson if they were limited to the mere re- cital of something that had actually taken place?

Without further preface, a large part of Gen- esis belongs to this class of composition. As we have seen, it consists for the most part of nar- ratives which are not history as we understand history, and which therefore we can only call myth and saga. Now I am extremely anxious that no one should take offence at this word, as if we wished to evacuate Genesis of any of its veracity or importance. On the contrary, we shall see that the living, spiritual truth of the book shines clearer than ever, and at the same time we shall be relieved from the embarrass- ment of understanding literally those strange parts of the book which we find it so difficult to believe. Above all, we shall escape from the impossible task of reconciling God's govern- ment of the world as we know it with His gov- ernment of the world as it is recorded in Genesis.

At all events, that is the fact. The narratives of Genesis are not history as we understand it; they are largely mythical, that is to say, history idealized. Does that in any way affect their in- spiration or religious value? In speaking for myself I can only say, not in the least ; it enhances their value. Or, as the Archbishop of Canter- bury puts it, in words which have become famous, " Why may not the Holy Ghost make use of myth? " And the true answer is, some kinds of myth are better adapted to impart rehgious truth

(6^)

How Myths Arise

than any history. But before we quarrel with the word let us see what it means.

Wherever in any literature we find ancient traditions, loved by the people and repeated for a long time before they are reduced to writ- ing, there we find myth. This rule is without an exception. Whether these narratives take the form of poetry or prose, their mythical character is unmistakable. Every nation, therefore, that has preserved the recollection of its own remote past, possesses myths, and these myths, as in the poems of Homer and the Vedic hymns, are often the grandest portion of its literature.

Let me give you an example of the natural tendency toward myth-making that exists to- day. The history of every great man who has profoundly touched the heart of the people ex- ists in two forms. One is the form of sober his- tory, of painstaking, sifting, critical biography. The other is the form which that life takes in the hearts of the people, which is almost always grander, richer, more moving, but less true to fact. It is this unconscious, poetic, myth-making faculty which casts their halo, their crown of glory around certain heads. Balzac, in " The Country Doctor," makes an old soldier tell the story of Napoleon's campaigns. The story is full of marvels, of the impossible, but it shows the im- pression Napoleon made on his soldiers. In that respect it is truer to life than those long, crit- ical histories with which we are deluged to-day, and which with all their accuracy are untrue to fact simply because the man they take to pieces and put together could never accomplish what Napoleon actually did. So the Washington who

(6s)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

exists in the hearts of patriotic Americans is a grander character, more harmonious, larger and better than any *' Real Washington." The writer who attempts to tear off the halo of glory, the noble robe with which the love of his countrymen has invested Washington, and to show us the real man, must expect to make him- self unpopular ; no one beHeves him. In a little while the facts of the book are forgotten, but the myth remains. We prefer to preserve our ideal untarnished by the touch of soiling reality. What makes these old traditions so perfect is that they are not the work of one man; they are not re- stricted by the limitations of one mind. A con- siderable portion of humanity has worked over them. As they pass from lip to lip and from ear to ear they gradually assume a perfect form, and it is in this final and perfect form that they are preserved. Their perfection and absolute natu- ralness they owe to the fact that they are not writ- ten but told. Once commit a thing to writing and it is fixed and dead, it cannot grow any more. " What I have written I have written." But the spoken word is alive ; it can undergo a thousand changes and modifications.

There is another reason for the peculiar quality of these ancient stories. They are the creation of the childhood of every people. They repre- sent the world seen through childhood's eyes, a world of tender poetry and of perfect trust, un- troubled by the thought of what is possible or im- possible. Hence we do not see that hard and false distinction of natural and supernatural. Heaven and earth meet and blend with each other.

~ (66)

Myth Cannot be Treated as History

It is hardly necessary for me to give further proof of the mythical nature of these narratives. The stories of Creation, of Paradise, the story of the Fall, of Noah's Flood, and the Tower of Babel, are all of this character, and what proves it conclusively is that several of these stories exist in other forms in the traditions of other nations. The truth does not lie in the supposed fact, but in the lesson that is drawn from it. If we reject the view I have proposed and attempt to treat the narratives as authentic history of matters of fact, we soon see that they run like quicksilver be- tween our fingers. Who was present at Crea- tion? To whom was such a revelation made? And if you say God exactly informed some man long afterward of what He did, there remains the double difficulty, first, that several statements of that account clash with what we know of Crea- tion, e. g., the existence of a solid firmament over the earth ; and secondly, that we have two inde- pendent accounts which contradict each other in many particulars. Again, on the supposition that this is actual history, the taunts and jeers of men like Ingersoll are absolutely unanswerable. One may very well ask whom did Cain marry, when Adam and Eve are represented as the only hu- man beings alive. Or how could one man or even a man and his wife build a city? Or is it probable that an ark of the dimensions given could include two specimens of all the species of animals and birds known to exist ? And on what did the carnivorous animals subsist? Or how can one speak of a flood rising fifteen feet above the peaks of the highest mountains, occurring at at a time when Babylon, in the valley of the

(67)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Euphrates, and Egypt, in the valley of the Nile, had already reached an advanced state of civiliza- tion which was not affected by the Flood? It seems to me puerile to discuss questions of this sort as matters of fact any longer.

But, on the other hand, as soon as we recog- nize these stories for what they are, popular Semitic traditions of an illimitable past, given an eternally true and beautiful setting by men truty inspired by God, we can appreciate them ; we can learn from them the truths of God they are so well able to teach us, without stultifying all our thought by trying to believe the impos- sible. The Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowl- edge of good and evil grow only on the soil of faith. Giants who are the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men, antediluvians living nine hundred years apiece, are no part of that humanity whose days are three score years and ten. We admit then at once that these are myths and sagas; that is to say, narratives told a thousand times, in the tent, beside the desert well, under the pleasant shade, or by the camp fire at night, antedating the knowledge of writ- ing by hundreds or perhaps thousands of years. They are the unconscious product of youth, so perfect because so unconscious, marked by all childhood's happy disregard of reality, and true in precisely the same sense in which Shakes- peare and Milton are true ; that is to say, true to nature, morally and spiritually true forever. No characters in the Old Testament possess more reality than Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. What are the men of authentic history, like Heze- kiah, Jeroboam, and Ahab, beside them? Hu-

Greatness of Mythical Characters

manity has stamped these men with its universal genius, though without destroying one of their purely human traits. They are men still, not gods or demigods. They live now by virtue of their relations to God. All the rest is fallen away, hence their lives are so well adapted to teach us.

(69)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Chapter Five:

The Eternal Problem

BEFORE discussing the story of Creation contained in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, we must answer the question, Why is it that the Word of God naturally begins with the Creation of the world ? That this is the natural point of departure for the Book of the Revelation of God, I think we all feel. In the boldness with which the Book of Genesis launches itself, like an eagle from the mountain peak, there is the height of art, but it is the art of the eagle, which knows how to balance herself on nothing, and to throw her clear and powerful glance over all creation. All nations that are sufficiently civilized to know how to write, have made some effort to account for the beginnings of things, and, however widely those accounts differ from one another, they agree that the world as it is now is not eternal, but that it had a beginning. When in the course of time science is born, it also sets itself first of all the task of accounting for the beginnings of things. That was the case in Greece. Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Empedocles, Democ- ritus of Abdera, Athenagoras — in short, all those illustrious men who laid the foundation of rational science — devoted their lives to the same

(7^)

Religion in Search for a Creator

problems. What did the world come from, and how did it reach its present condition ?

But if we look a little further we shall see that the motive of religion in asking this question is radically different from the motive of science, and its method of answering it is entirely unlike the scientific method. For religion the question, ''Who made the world?" is altogether a practical and personal question. It is man's search for a soul to confront his soul. Who made the world ? Who made me ? What question that the heart of man can frame or his lips answer is as personal as this? I find myself surrounded here by that strange, mysterious, splendid, terrible thing called Nature, on which I am absolutely depend- ent for the air I breathe, for the food I eat and the water I drink. What is this Nature? Is it good, is it bad, or is it neither? I see at once that it is not a being like myself. Mother of all life, it seems to have no individual life of its own, at least none that I can grasp. Sometimes it seems to be kind and to love men. The sun shines, the val- leys stand thick with corn, the birds sing, the pa- tient cows are waiting to give their milk, children are laughing and playing, girls are gathering the purple grapes, men are cutting the golden corn, working hard, and happy in their work. Nature is certainly good, she cares for man. — But now it is winter. The sun scarcely lifts his pale face above the horizon. With every revolution of the earth the night grows blacker and the cold more bitter. The birds fly away to softer climes, and the child of man, who cannot fly, freezes. Round the desolate hovel the wolves howl at night, and one wolf in particular, named

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

hunger and desolation, whose tooth is sharpest, howls louder than all the rest. No help comes, no help will come. Nature is certainly indifferent, she cares nothing for man. — Again, the tempest arises and smites the little house. The great trees of the forest are sighing and bending and lashing each other with furious arms. The house falls, crushing father and mother, and leaving the little lambs defenceless and alone. Nature is evil, she hates man.

Or again, here am I. Whence came I here? Through the long, long ages of the past where was I ? In a few years my place shall know me no more. Where shall I then be? Where are those I loved whom now I see no more? Above all, why am I he.re ? For what purpose was I put into this world without my consent? What ought I to do while I am here? All round me I see great energies capable of crushing me. Whose are they, and what are they? Are they good or are they evil? Are they many, as my eye tells me, or are they one, as my heart some- times tells me? Is there anywhere One who loves me ? Is there a law, obeying which, I shall be blessed here and hereafter ? If so, how shall I find that One and obey that law?

These, I take it, are questions men have asked themselves from the beginning. Until they are answered, and to some extent correctly an- swered, life remains a mere nightmare, a terror to the conscience. The universe presses on us be- neficently or menacingly. It demands of us some grand affirmation of faith, and will not leave us in peace until our souls are united to it in love and trust. Some answer to these questions we

(7^)

Evils of False Religious Views

must give. But it makes a difference what form of religious faith we have in regard to this su- preme challenge, Who is the maker and master of this world? As a man thinks in his heart, so is he. Every god, no matter how base and blood- stained and cruel and immoral he may be, is real to those who believe in him. Those persons who have any conception of the blighting misery that evil reHgions have inflicted on their votaries will understand this. It would hardly be an exaggera- tion to say that all the sorrows and hardships and sufferings that dog the life of man are insignifi- cant in comparison with the terrors of conscience, the fear of the unknown, the self-inflicted tor- tures man has endured in his endeavor to serve and placate a bad god who is supposed to take pleasure in human suffering.

If we were to attempt to recapitulate all the answers the various religions of the world have returned to this supreme question, we should never have done. No answer that can be framed J : so dreadful or so absurd that someone has not sacrificed his life and happiness to it. No altar is so bloody, no swarm of devils so numerous or so obscene that some men have not offered their dearest and best on that altar and fallen down before those devils in reverence and awe. But so far as religion is concerned, only one of those answers is true. By whatever means we come to it, or however we may differ as to the par- ticulars, for religion the sole correct answer to the problem of Creation is this: There is One God, one supreme Master of life, whom Nature did not make, but who made Nature. To Him we all belong. This Supreme Being is good, and

(73)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

He made everything not only good of its kind, but with a good intention, for a good purpose. As the end and goal of Creation on this earth He made man, and made him in His own image. By this we do not mean that God possesses bodily form. If He possesses a body, it is no less a body than the infinite universe. The image in which God created man is the image of His spiritual nature. Hence man, like God, is to a certain ex- tent a creator. He is not incapable of following the working of God's mind,"^ he can employ the forces of God. But far more important is the fact that, unlike all other animals, he feels his re- lation to God. He loves God and strives to imi- tate God in his life.

It is the glory of Genesis that every one of these essential truths is set forth in language of unequalled simplicity and sublimity. When we turn from our Book to the creation-myths of even the most enlightened nations and read of gods cutting ofif their own heads and mingling blood with clay, of the marriage of gods and god- desses, of the death of gods and the birth of gods, and all those fantastic legends which seem to us too ridiculous ever to have been credited, we feel that we are face to face with aberrations of the human mind dangerously like lunacy, with which we cannot associate our religious life for a moment. They can tell us nothing about God. Better no god than that swarm of fantastic ab- surdities. We turn from them to the calm sanity, the dignity, the justice, of Genesis, and we feel at once that these are our own ideas, only expressed better than we can express them. However the

* Evidenced by Mathematics, Mechanics, Physics, etc.

—

The Longing for Peace

authcr came by his astonishing statement of fact, he reveals God to us. He places God, Nature, and man in their proper relations. Therein we find the true inspiration of Genesis.

Up to this time we. have been considering the problem of Creation in its religious aspect only. That, to be sure, comes first in point of time, and is most important. But it is not the only aspect of the problem ; there is also the scientific aspect. If the heart requires reassurance, consolation and faith, the intellect requires knowledge. These two ways of approaching the study of Creation are quite distinct. The motives are different, the methods are different, and the results are differ- ent. And yet, after all, every man has only one soul, and that soul has no watertight bulkheads. Sooner or later, all that we have taken into our soul mingles, and the mind is constantly striving to create peace and harmony between its faith and its knowledge. Some men never attain this peace. Strange as it sounds, they believe one thing and know the contrary to be true. But that is an unhappy and unnecessary condition of mind, and one in which, in the long run, faith will lose and scepticism, if not hypocrisy, will prevail.

This, then, I assume as an axiom. The relig- ious and the scientific attitudes of mind toward Creation and toward Nature generally, though very different, are both legitimate; and while perfect reconciliation between them is impossible, since one is constantly changing, yet they will finally be reconciled. Meanwhile it is possible for us to be sincerely religious and at the same time to be faithful disciples of science. I have no doubt that this principle will be attacked on both

(75)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

sides. On one side there are a great many re- ligious men who regard the problem of Creation exclusively as a religious problem, a mere matter of faith and divine revelation ; and, on the other hand, there are a few men who deny all revelation and faith, and who admire science chiefly because they see in it a weapon capable, as they think, of destroying religion. Epicurus, one of the great- est physicists of antiquity, was candid enough to say, " If the thought of the gods and of death were not injuring us, we should have no need to study Nature." But to both these objections it is enough to say that neither science nor even re- ligion alone is able to satisfy the whole man. As long as man remains man, one of his chief pleas- ures will be to think. But, on the other hand, man is not a mere thinking machine, an instru- ment a little more complicated than those adding machines used in banks or the so-called chess automata we see in museums. Man, in addi- tion to his mind, has also a soul. He has a beautiful, moving, pathetic life, a life which daily demands of him right feeling, right action. His relations with his fellow-men are emotional and affectionate, not merely calculating. He is great enough to perceive the littleness of what can legitimately be called science, in comparison with the needs of his soul. Looked at from any point of view, it is character rather than intellect that has made man great in the past, and to-day man is developing in spirituality and religious- ness far more rapidly than he is developing in intellectual capacity. Francis Galton says that in point of intellect we are now as far be- low the Athenians of the age of Pericles as the

(76)

Man Forever a Religious Being

African negroes are below us. But in all that pertains to the religious and moral life we are almost as much above them. I think, there- fore, as Renan somewhere says, that those per- sons who, in dreaming of a perfect humanity, rep- resent it to themselves as a humanity without re- ligion, are entirely wrong. The very reverse is what they ought to say. The Chinese are a peo- ple almost without religion, and they are the least spiritual and most commonplace people in the world. The religious faculty develops so rap- idly with the development of our other powers, that a humanity twice as wise and as strong as ours would be more than twice as religious. A humanity five times, ten times as great as ours, might be altogether religious.

Returning to our subject, the interest of reli- gion in Creation is very practical. It is a matter of the heart and life. We want to know who made this world and who made us, that we may know what our life ought to be and whom we ought to serve and obey. All that we need to know on that subject, so far as our religious life is concerned, is contained in the first chap- ter of Genesis and in a few simple sayings of Jesus in the Gospel. Now, the impulses that move science to trace things back to their begin- nings are of a totally different order. To reli- gion, the whole matter is summed up in one brief statement of the Nicene Creed, " I beheve in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible," but you may be very sure that the Nicene Creed does not figure in works of cosmic science. Such a statement means nothing at all to science, if for

(77)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

no other reason, because it is an act of faith, whereas science is concerned exclusively with knowledge. Science does not profess to be able to say with confidence who made the world, and though the vast majority of the greatest men of science beUeve in God as we do, yet with them, as with us, it is a matter of faith and nothing else. The very idea of creation out of nothing is re- pugnant to science. It contradicts its funda- mental axioms that matter is indestructible and was always and will be always the same in amount, and that energy can be transformed, but neither increased nor diminished. When science attempts to account for the present condition of the universe it proceeds in a totally different way from the way of religion. It does not consult the needs of its own heart, for it has no heart. It does not content itself with the general impres- sion of order and harmony and wonder which the universe makes on our minds. It cannot sum up the results of its elaborate investigations in a few sublime sentences. To say God made the world and made it well is to say a thing that science can neither prove nor disprove. It is an assertion be- fore which science stands absolutely helpless, and which will not help it, except indirectly, one step on its way. Science, well aware of its own limi- tations, does not attempt to ask that question at all. It does not even seek to explain how anything came into existence, because that too is veiled forever from all human knowledge. It is impossible for us to imagine how any non- existent thing acquired existence. The real prob- lems of science are of a totally different order. Its task is discharged by logical reasoning, or on

(78)

Spirit And Mechanics

the humble but safe and sure path of empirical observation. Much of the impatience which re- ligious men have felt with the negations of sci- ence they have felt on account of their ignorance of the necessary limitations of science. Kant said long ago, that science exists only so far as it can prove its statements by mathematics. Du Bois- Reymond, while not altogether denying Kant's assertion, wishes to substitute for the word math- ematics the word mechanics. He insists that the whole problem of natural science is to account for events by mechanical causes. Now, to attempt by mechanics to find God, who is a Spirit if He is anything, is almost as stupid as Lalande's at- tempt to see God through his telescope. Or, rather, it is exactly like seeking the soul of our friend through the mechanism of the brain. We find something, but what we find is the mechan- ical reaction, which can be measured, not intelli- gence and love. As long as science sticks to its business it cannot help being mechanical, and when it becomes devout and appreciative, when it attempts to translate purely mechanical forces into love, purpose, and intelligence, it ceases to be scientific and becomes religious. Knowledge, although it does not cease, becomes fused with faith.

The Book of Genesis, as we have said, ap- proaches the study of Creation solely from the side of religion. Its purpose is to show the world in its relation to God, not to give us a scientific account of the origin of the world by mechanical causes. It is tVue, as every one knows, that a cer- tain number of pseudo-scientific statements have slipped into the Book of Genesis, but they were

(79)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

not the original ideas of the authors of Genesis; they were only very ancient traditions which the authors of Genesis accepted with the rest of the world of their day.

Let us look at some of these statements. God is said to have created light on the first day, long before the creation of the sun, moon and stars. Apparently that is a contradiction — and it is a con- tradiction.'^ Some persons have tried to explain this away by saying that the writer had the neb- ular hypothesis in mind, and that, before sun, moon and stars were formed, while they were still whirling masses of attenuated vapor, they emitted light. But no real student of the Bible would entertain that idea for a moment. No writer of the Bible, no writer for ages after the Bible was written — so far as I know, no one be- fore Kant and Laplace — had any idea of the neb- ular hypothesis; and besides, at the time when the moon was a whirling mass of nebulous matter, the earth was in the same condition, and no life, of course, was possible. The author of the first chapter of Genesis plainly conceived of light and darkness as separate objects. When the light came forth it was day. When the light withdrew into its home behind the firmament and the dark- ness came forth, it was night. He did not believe that all the light that exists comes from the sun, the moon and the stars, or he would not have rep- resented the light as created on the first day and the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day. And yet, as we shall see hereafter, this is not so much a scientific error as the bondage* of the writer

* Physiologically, light first existed when there was a seeing eye to perceive it.

(So)

The Firmament

to an old mythical tradition, which, though he softened, he did not wish to omit entirely. In its older form light and darkness, which have here paled to mere abstractions, were two deities.

Another strange conception is that of the firmament. Scientific writers, for the most part, have let this pass, because, not being Hebrew scholars, they did not very well understand what the author meant by the expression. Our Eng- lish Bible translates it correctly '' firmament," i.e., something solid and firm. The Hebrew word Rakia means something beaten out, Hke a thin plate of metal, and this is the way it was conceived both by the Hebrews and Babylonians and by other ancient peoples. How did any thoughtful people come by such a strange idea ? It is not difficult to see. In the first place, there are the sun, moon and stars moving across the sky, sometimes visible and sometimes invisible. What supports them ? There must be some firm and solid substance in which they are set or they would certainly fall to the earth. This substance is also opaque, or else we should see them all the time. When sun, moon and stars have accom- plished their journey and have lighted the earth for their allotted time, they slip behind the firma- ment and make their way back to the old starting point. That is the way people reasoned, and it is not bad reasoning either, only all the premises are false. Then again it sometimes rains and some- times snows. Where do rain and hail and snow come from ? To persons totally ignorant of the processes of evaporation and condensation only one answer was likely to suggest itself. In addi-

(8i)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

tion to the earthly waters of lake and sea and river, God has heavenly reservoirs, from which He sometimes sends down rain and hail and snow. Why do they not fall all at once and drown us? It is because they are restrained and kept in their place by the same solid firmament that holds the sun, moon and stars. '' And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament, and it was so." But if this is the case, how do the rain and hail and snow get out ? The answer is not difficult. The firmament has windows which God occasion- ally opens. How often have you read in the Bible, " I will open the windows of Heaven," but did you ever think what it meant? When God wished to drown the earth in the Flood, he opened the windows of Heaven. There is another way also by which that end was accomplished. The fountains of the great abyss were broken up. But that idea is so strange and so important that I shall not speak of it now, but shall reserve it for a time when I can do justice to it.

There are two other statements of the first chapter of Genesis with which modern science has come sharply into conflict. If we persist in regarding Genesis as a literal statement of mat- ters of fact, it constantly presents to us insuper- able difficulties, and we are driven to the miser- able expedient of either rejecting this noble and inspired book bodily, or of abandoning all sane and real science of Nature. Let us do neither the one nor the other. The two conceptions re- ferred to now are the order of Creation and the time required for Creation.

The Order of Creation

I. The order of Creation as laid down in the first chapter of Genesis is not, so far as we know, Hterally and scientificahy correct, because it rep- resents the earth as created and even as clothed with vegetable Hfe before the creation of the sun. According to all sound scientific theory, the sun, the centre of the system to which the earth be- longs, came into being first, while the earth is believed to have been thrown off from the cool- ing, contracting sun as a nebulous ring. But whether the nebular hypothesis is true or false (for, after all, it is a mere theory, and, as such, may be abandoned at any time), it is certain that neither fruit-tree, nor herb, nor grass ever grew on this earth without sunlight. And yet the thought of our writer from his point of view is not so absurd as it may seem. To him this earth was the centre of the universe. Far from imagin- ing the relative size and importance of the sun, to him the sun was a comparatively Httle thing. It was not even the source of all the light that falls on the earth. Its first function was to serve as a basis for the calendar, to preside over the des- tinies of men, with the moon to be for signs and seasons, days and years, and to rule the day hke a little king. From a scientific point of view that is all wrong, but from the religious point of view, which is interested exclusively in showing how God prepared the earth for human habitation, it is more than half right.

So again, in regard to the order of plant life. The order of Genesis is, first, plant life, then fish and birds, then cattle and other mammals, rep- tiles and insect life, and lastly man. In spite of minor difficulties, this list is amazingly correct.

(83)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

It is certainly interesting that our author asso- ciates birds and all flying things with fish and places them before mammals, which is just where evolutionary science would place them. Rep- tiles, however, are introduced too late. It is true Professor Huxley entered a long and, it seems to me, rather futile controversy * to prove that we do not know that plants were cre- ated before low forms of animal life. But, logically, it would appear that they were cre- ated first, because plants can derive their nour- ishment directly from inorganic matter, whereas animals can only digest organic matter, that is to say, either plants or other animals. Sup- pose two animals were created before plants. What could they live on ? A first meal, of course, would be at hand. One would eat the other. But where would the second meal come from ? I do not see that the case would be different if, in- stead of two animals, two hundred or two thou- sand were brought forth at the same time. The more there were, the more mouths to feed. So, again, the author has certainly introduced man with wonderful skill and in the right place. He is not so much the centre of creation, as the end and goal of life on this earth, to which every other form of life is subordinate.

2. The statements of Genesis in regard to the time consumed in Creation and the time which has elapsed since are considered by most persons the most glaring discrepancies of all. Those who know little or nothing about the other controversies waged in the name of this book

* " The Interpreters of Genesis and the Interpreters of Nature," and " Mr. Gladstone and Genesis."

(8^0

The Old Controversy with Geology

are aware of the controversy of the six days and the six thousand years, which for more than a century blocked the path of geology and stood in the way of a rational science of the earth. Give us time, said the geologists, and we will account for everything on purely natural principles. But time was just what the theologians refused to give. Perhaps they did not care to see every- thing explained on purely natural principles. But, as usual, the Book of Genesis was made to bear the brunt of the battle. For a long time the six days of Genesis were raised as a fatal objec- tion to every explanation of the earth which re- quired the lapse of immense periods of time, and even after the six days were no longer taken lit- erally it was thought necessary to maintain that the world was created barely four thousand years before Christ.

At present this controversy is not material, but I should like you to see the real position of Gene- sis on the subject. I admit without hesitation that the six days of Creation are conceived in Genesis as ordinary days of twenty-four hours. Each day begins with morning and concludes with even- ing, and what makes this more certain is that the seventh day is identified with the Jewish Sabbath. The commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day, which has been recited by Jews and Christians alike for thousands of years, and which we still recite, is based on the assertion that on this day God rested after the labor of Creation.

But, on the other hand, we ought to remember that the only reason why geology requires so much time is because it attempts to explain the

(8s)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

creation of the earth mechanically, i.e., scientifi- cally, by natural causes. Geologists have no special love or reverence for time itself. They would be glad enough to shorten the time to please us if they could do so. The only reason why they want so much time is that they do not see how the world could have reached its present condition by mechanical causes in a shorter time. Here we see a striking example of the absolute difference between the scientific and the religious method. The author of Genesis has nothing to say about mechanical causes. Had he wished to describe how the world was made by natural agencies, he would probably have asked as much time as any one. There is another fact which, so far as I know, nobody has noticed. The Priestly Writer, who knew the science of Babylon so well, had before his eyes a Babylonian account of Creation which allowed long periods of time to elapse between its several acts, and this account our writer frequently uses. But in this instance he rejects it and substitutes his six days, because he is not describing creation by natural causes, but, to use Dillmann's expression, '' creation by the word of God," for whom time does not exist.

I know perfectly well that this is not scientific, it is not even true to fact. But it is religiously true to those who believe that God is the Maker of this world. It is part of that simple and ideal- istic system of imparting truth under the form of myth which distinguishes all this great Book of ours. The thought underlying the system is a true one. It would not make the account of Creation a whit more impressive if our writer had

(86)

The Six Days

copied the extravagant figures of the Babylonian or Indian cosmogonies in place of his own six days. In my opinion the brilliancy of the picture would be dimmed by so much diffusion. The error lies with those who attempt to interpret materially and scientifically what was intended religiously and ideally.

(87)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Chapter Six: ^he Creation Story

WE have been a long time In reaching the first chapter of Genesis, but in our more general and comprehensive survey of the book we have learned much that we could not have got at so easily in any other way. However, we have had enough by way of introduction. The method I now propose to follow is to give, as far as possible, a correct, literal translation of the first chapter of Genesis and an explanation of its wonderful verses just sufficient to enable us to know what they mean to tell us, and then to go back and consider in detail the problems with which this chapter abounds.

Every Hebrew scholar must remember the feeling of awe and admiration he experienced when he first spelled out these majestic words and then read them over and over until their flow and rhythm were impressed upon his mem- ory forever. Even in English much of the charm of these sentences is preserved. In their monotonous repetitions and their sure advance they seem to run parallel to the very processes of creation they describe; but in Hebrew, the noble melody and collocation of sounds, and the sustained energy of thought, reach a perfection

(8^

The First Creation Story

of expression beyond which the art of words can- not go :

^'B'reshith bara Elohim eth hasshamayim v'eth haarez. V'haarez hayatha thohu v'vohu, v'cho- shek al pne th'hom. V'ruach Elohim m'rach- epheth al p'ne hammayim. Vayyomer Elohim y'hi or, vayy'hi or. Vayyar Elohim eth haor ki tov, etc."

1. In the beginning [or, in the very beginning] Elo- him created the heavens and the earth. [Or, In the be- ginning when Elohim created the heavens and the earth.]

2. And the earth was a waste and an empty chaos, and darkness was on the face of the abyss,i and the Spirit of God was brooding [tenderly] on the waters. 2

3. And Elohim said, " Let light be," and light was.

4. And Elohim saw the light that it was good, and Elohim separated the light from the darkness.

5. And Elohim called the light day, and the darkness called He night, and it became evening and it became morning, one day [or, a first day].

6. And Elohim said, " Let there be a firmament between the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

7. And Elohim made the firmament, and separated the waters that are beneath from those that are above the firmament.

8. And Elohim named the firmament Heaven; and there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

9. And Elohim said, " Let the waters which are beneath the Heaven gather together into one place and let the dry [land] appear." And it was so.

1 The author carefully refrains from saying that God created either darkness or chaos. The preexistence of both is tacitly assumed. What God created is cosmos and light. The conception of chaos in all genuinely ancient cosmogonies is the great poetical datum from which the narratives proceed.

2 The brooding Spirit as a creative principle with Its Implication of gradual self-development, as Wellhausen pointed out, is quite distinct from the creative word of which the remainder of this chapter speaks. The merging of these two conceptions indicates that this cosmogony is composite, and that it was derived from more than one source.

(89)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

10. And Elohim named the dry land earth, and He named the gathering of the waters seas. And Elohim saw that it was good.

11. And Klohim said, " Let the earth produce the green blade, the herb which yields seed, fruit trees which bring forth fruit after their kind in which their seed is contained upon the earth." And it was so.^

12. And the earth brought forth the green blade, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree bearing fruit which has its seeds in itself after its kind. And Elohim saw that it was good.

13. And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

14. And Elohim said, " Let luminaries come into exist- ence in the firmament of Heaven to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, for [reckoning] the fixed times, and for [numbering] the days and the years.

15. " And let them be for lights in the firmament of Heaven to give light upon the earth." And it was so.

16. And Elohim made the two great luminaries, the greater luminary to rule over the day, the lesser luminary to rule over the night, and also the stars. 2

17. 18. And Elohim set them in the firmament of Heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over day and night and to divide the light from dimness. And Elohim saw that it was good.

19. And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

20. And Elohim said, " Let the waters swarm with a swarm of living beings, and let fowls fly over the earth in

^ It will be noticed that God does not " make " plant and tree. The earth itself at God's command is deemed sufficient for their production. The evolutionary idea of the development of the organic from the inorganic is found here. This thought would be naturally suggested by the new life of each succeeding springtide.

2 The functions assigned to the luminaries which are to serve as signs, as the basis of the calendar, and as rulers of the day and night, are among the most antique concep- tions of this chapter. In the recognition of the stars as " signs," we discern the ancient science of astrology. The conception of the sun and moon as '' rulers " of day and night hardly grew on the soil of Israel's revealed religion. It is rather, as Gunkel says, the faint echo of an earlier adoration of the heavenly bodies, against which Job warns

(90)

Creation of Animals and Man

the face of the firmament of Heaven." [Or, " on the front side of the firmament," the side turned towards us.]

21. And Elohim created great sea monsters and all the living, moving things with which the waters swarm, and also all winged fowl after their kind. And Elohim saw that it was good.

22, 23. And Elohim blessed them, saying, " Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters of the sea, and let the fowl multiply on the land." And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24. And Elohim said, " Let the earth bring forth living beings after their kinds, the cattle, the reptiles, and the wild beasts after their kinds." And it was so.

25. And Elohim made the wild beasts after their kinds, the cattle after their kind, and every reptile [literally, creep- ing things] of the ground after its kind. And Elohim saw that it was good.

26. And Elohim said, " Let us make man in our image,i according to our likeness, and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, over the birds of the air, over the cat- tle and over all the earth, and over every reptile that creeps upon the earth."

27. And Elohim created man in His image, in the image of Elohim He created him,^ male and female created He them.

1 This expression far exceeds the limits of the so-called plural of majesty or excellence, and points "to a plurality of divine beings whose assistance was required in this chef- d'oeuvre, or at least to other Elohim in the service of the Creator, as the Targum and Philo admit. Two other ex- pressions in the early chapters of Genesis — " the man has become like one of us," and " Go to, let us go down " — certainly exceed the limits of strict monotheism. These conceptions could have arisen only in very early times, and as nothing in the present narrative warrants such ex- pressions, in each instance we must assume that something (the assembly of heavenly beings) has fallen from the text. Job also (chapter xxxviii. 7), in his account of creation, represents the morning stars as singing together, and the sons of Elohim as shouting for joy.

- What that image of God is in which man was created the Book of Genesis does not attempt to determine. We prefer to think of the image of God's spiritual nature, and in the absence of definite indication to the contrary, we have the right to conceive of it thus. From other expres- sions of Genesis, however — e. g., that Adam begot a son

(90

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

28. And Elohim blessed them, and said to them, " Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. Have do- minion over the fishes of the sea, over the fowl of the air and over every living being that moves over the earth."

29. And Elohim said, " Behold, I give you every plant bearing seed that is upon the surface of all the earth, and every tree that has a fruit producing seed. That shall be food for you,

30. "And to every animal of the ground and to every fowl of the air and to every reptile on the earth having in itself a breath of Hfe, I give all green herbs for food." And it was so.

31. And Elohim saw all that He had made, and lo! it was very good. And there was evening and there was morn- ing, a sixth day.

Chapter II. :

1. So the heavens and the earth were finished and all their host.

2. And Elohim finished on the seventh day His work which He had made. [A difficulty. We should either ex- pect " finished on the sixth day," or else we must under- stand " had done with on the seventh day."] And on the seventh day He rested from all His work which He had made.i

3. And Elohim blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on this day He rested from all His work which He had created and made.

4. This is the genealogy of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

in his own image, and that the shedding of human blood is an injury to the image of God — it would appear that " the image of God " was not originally understood in an exclusively spiritual sense.

1 The six days of creative activity and the Sabbath of rest occur in no other ancient cosmogony. This concep- tion, therefore, appears to be a late and an exclusively Hebraic belief. Elohim's inspection of each day's work to see if it be good, with the implied possibility of failure, is very naive. The Zoroastrian cosmogony also divides creation into six acts, not only in the Bundahesh, but also in the Zend Avesta (Visparad vii. 4; Yasna xix. 2, 4, and 8). The Zoroastrian order is sky, water, earth, cattle, plants,

(92)

Influence of Ancient Tradition

There, in plain English, is an approximately correct translation of the first account of Crea- tion, about which so many books have been writ- ten. What can we make of it? Those who have followed the discussion thus far will know, at least in a general way, what to expect. In the first place, this story is not the original production of the Priestly Writer of this first chapter of Gene- sis. It contains the remains of many old tradi- tions, which we shall have Httle difficulty in dis- covering and separating. Secondly, I believe that those traditions were not borrowed wholesale at a late date, e. g., from the Babylonians and the Per- sians at the time of the Exile, but that, on tlie con- trary, they may even be part of a primitive Sem- itic inheritance as old as the people themselves. Thirdly, those traditions, before they reached us, have passed through the soul of a truly inspired man, in consequence of which they differ abso- lutely from all similar attempts to describe Crea- tion. We shall find many resemblances with other literatures, but the difference is always sharper and deeper than the resemblance.

The two features which distinguish this ac- count of Genesis from all similar accounts what- ever, are the conception of God and the concep- tion of man. In the first place, God is anterior to Creation and there is none beside Him. Elo- him has no father, no mother, no wife. The fe- male principle, the distinction of sex, source of endless immoralities to almost every other an- cient religion, is not exactly suppressed : it does not exist. There is not the slightest trace of it. How does this happen? Matthew Arnold tried to explain it by saying that the Jews had a talent

(93)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

for morality, just as Renan thinks they had a genius for monotheism ! Where did they get that talent, and how does it happen that when such tal- ents were being distributed other nations did not come in for their share ? The writers of Genesis certainly did not get their pure views of God from the society they depict, which is polygamous to the core, and which they describe apparently without a suspicion that polygamy is an evil thing. When I see plainly that the God of this chapter is a peculiar being, pure and good and wise and one, as God must be, I prefer to believe that the man who drew this picture of Him was peculiarly inspired in this sense : he had a concep- tion of God which other men of his day did not possess, and which, after all these years of prog- ress, our hearts tell us is true.

*' In the beginning God created." There is something wonderful in that bold statement of fact. Other accounts of Creation become a sort of family history of the gods. One god with his wife begets another. Or it is the world that makes God, not God that makes the world, and so, at last, there results a hopeless jumble of worlds, gods and demigods, gradually tapering down to men. In Genesis the distinctions are drawn with absolute clearness. There is noth- ing magical about Nature. It is just the plain everyday world we know. When man appears, he appears as a man, not as some mythical mon- ster with whom we have no kith or kin. Ex- cept that Adam and Noah and Abraham lived longer than we live, and were built on a larger scale, they were human beings exactly like us. In order to make this plainer, it will now be almost

Hindu Creation Story

necessary for me to set before you briefly other accounts of Creation as they were handed down by the great civilized nations of antiquity. I will begin with India.

The Hindu account of Creation is contained in the Law Book of Manu. It is talented, but too prolix, so that I shall give only the most impor- tant features of it. The ancient sages are repre- sented as coming to Manu, who himself is con-, ceived as a god, and asking him to explain to them the origin of all things. And Manu says :

Listen: This universe existed in the shape of darkness unperceived, destitute of distinctive marks, unattainable by reason, . . . wholly immersed, as it were in deep sleep.

Then the divine, self-existent One, indiscernible himself, but making all the great elements discernible, appeared with irresistible power, dispelling the darkness.

He, desiring to produce many beings from his own body [here the mischief begins] first with a thought created the waters and placed his seed m them. That seed became a golden egg, in brilliancy like the sun. In that egg, he himself was born as Brahman, the progenitor of the whole world. [Already God has become part of Nature.]

The divine One resided in that egg during a whole year. Then, by his thought alone, he divided it into two halves. And out of these two halves he made heaven and earth.

Then he goes on to create a long list of mental qualities, gods, demons, and other mythical be- ings. Then he divides himself and becomes half male, half female; and from that union a certain Virag is born, who, in turn, becomes a creator. In all this the religious element simply melts away. One creator passes Into another so rapidly that it is hard to say who created any- thing. In other words, God is swamped in the processes of Nature. There are two points, how-

(95)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

ever, to be remembered. Nature begins with chaos, and the world is developed out of an egg.

According to the Greek doctrine represented by Hesiod, first of all was Chaos, then Gaea (earth), Tartarus (the bottomless abyss), and Eros (love), the active, uniting principle. Out of chaos came Erebus (primeval darkness), and Nyx (night). Their children are Sleep, Death, Dreams, Deceit, Old Age, etc. On the other hand, the Earth of herself first brought forth Uranos (the starry heavens), and Pontus (the salt depths of the sea), and then, with Uranos as her husband, the ocean that surrounds the world. Then the story passes into the genealogy of the gods, who are conceived as the product of Na- ture.

I notice three things. First, that everything here begins with chaos; secondly, that the gods were not considered equal to the task of making the world — the world made them; thirdly, that the broad-bosomed, fertile earth is the principal creator. Of any really religious elements there is not a trace.

The cosmogony of the Egyptians is of excep- tional interest to us, not only on account of its great age but also on account of the close rela- tions which existed from the earhest times be- tween the Egyptians and the Hebrews. Al- though the Biblical saying, '' Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," has not the importance in this connection that it once had, yet this statement is, doubtless, a recognition of the fact that the two nations possessed many traditions in common. This has become more certain since the Semitic character of the Egyp-

(96)

Egyptian Cosmogonies

tian civilization lias been established. Unfor- tunately, although we have numerous allusions to the creation of the world and of man in old Egyptian hymns and inscriptions, we find no one authoritative and detailed cosmogony like our own creation story. This, however, is only to be expected. The Egyptians were a poly- theistic people, and from the earliest times pos- sessed important cities in which priestly schools flourished; it was therefore natural that each of these schools should elaborate its own cosmo- gony, in which the local deity was praised as the chief creator. At Elephantine the creator was called Chnum (or Hnuniu), the builder or archi- tect. He forms man out of clay with the assist- ance of his wheel. The pictures represent him as turning the potter's wheel with his foot, form- ing a human figure which is usually represented as a child. Beside him rests the world egg of clay, which he has already fashioned. At Mem- phis, the oldest royal city of Egypt, Ptah, the builder, was regarded as the creator of all things. In particular he created the Hght god. At Her- mopolis it was Thoth who made the world by the word of his mouth, '^ speaking it into existence." In Thebes the honor of creation was ascribed to Amon, the invisible god. East of the Nile, in Heliopolis (Onu), the chief deity was the sun god Tum or Atum. He is the creator and re- vealer in his capacity of god of light. It was also said that earth and sky were two lovers clasped in each other's embrace and lost in primeval waters. In most of these cities the creator was regarded as a male deity, but in some of the priestly schools (e. g., at Sai's and Tentyra) the

(97)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

primal fertile matter was personified as a female deity, Neith, Hathor, etc. Many of these ac- counts are couched in obscure mythological terms, whose meaning escapes us. The most important statement of creation that Brugsch Bey * is able to bring forward runs as follows. It is undoubtedly taken from genuinely ancient Egyptian sources, although I believe it is not found in a single inscription.

In the beginning neither Heaven nor Earth existed. Surrounded by thick darkness, a chaos of primeval water [named Nun] filled everything, and concealed in its bosom male and female germs, the beginnings of the future world. The divine primal Spirit which is inseparable from the ele- ment of primeval water, felt a longing to create, and His Word awakened the world to life, whose form and whose objects were previously mirrored in his eye. Their physi- cal outlines and colors corresponded after their creation to the truth — that is, to the original thought of the divine Spirit in regard to his future work. The first creative act began with the formation of an egg, out of which broke forth primeval waters, out of which broke forth the light of day (Ra), the immediate cause (ra) of life on earth. In the rising sun the almightiness of the divine soul em- bodied itself in its most splendid form.

This brief statement may be regarded as the norm of all ancient Egyptian cosmogonies. The world begins with a dark, fruitful, watery chaos, in which the germs of all things are con- tained. Whether this preexisting substance be called Nun, Ptah, Thoth, or Hnumu, the idea remains the same. But this chaos, in- stead of being a hostile element which resists the creator, is in closest union with the divine Spirit. In Egypt the sharp dualism of Babylo- nian speculation is transformed into an unresist-

* " Religion und Mythologie," p. loi.

_

Egyptian Creation Hymn

iiig evolution of chaos into cosmos. The first step of this process, as in Genesis, is the breaking forth of Hght. In fact, the account of creation is plainly modelled on the phenomenon of the breaking of the new day. As the sun rises out of the dark waters and thick clouds, and having risen reveals the world, so the world itself origi- nally rose out of chaos. In some of the Egyp- tion creation hymns these two phenomena are so closely intertwined as to be almost indistinguish- able.

Although detailed cosmogonies are rare in Egypt, perhaps no other ancient literature con- tains so many creation hymns. In these hymns the work of the Creator is frequently set forth with some poetic beauty and with great variety of detail. I add a few verses taken from Brugsch Bey. In most of these creation is regarded as still going on.'''

Father of the gods, author of men,

Who hast suspended the heaven and estabHshed the earth,

Maker of what is, Creator of what is to be.

Father of the gods, author of men. Creator of animals, ruler of all that is. Creator of fruit-trees, maker of the plant which nourishes the cattle.

Creator of the world, who hast suspended the heaven and

established the earth, Author of men, who didst divide them according to their

species;

Creator of their being, who didst distinguish the color of

one from that of his neighbor. He created the mountain, the gold, the silver, and the

sapphire according to his pleasure.

* '* Religion und Mythologie der alten /Egypter," and " Stein- schrift und Bibelwort," BerHn, 1891.

LofC.

(99)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

This last verse reminds us a little of the gold, bedolach and onyx of Havilah, which are intro- duced so unexpectedly into our second Creation

story.

A Hymn to Hnumu.

Maker of the stars, author of the gods, he the existent one, alone, unborn, incomprehensible, before whom none other was, for he is the father of those whom he created. V/hen he formed the gods, moulded the goddesses, brought forth man and woman, birds, fish, the wild animal, the tame animal, and every reptile, he suspended the heaven and made fast the earth, let the waters pour out, and cre- ated everything which has existence.

In another ancient hymn a king addresses his

god in these words :

I draw near to thee, holy architect, creator of the gods, maker of the egg, who is without an equal. By thy will was the potter's wheel brought to thee, and thy majesty modelled gods and men on it. Thou art the great, exalted god who at the beginning first didst make this world.

Naturally much interest was felt by the Egyp- tians in the creation of man. On this subject opinion wavered in Egypt, as it did among the writers of Genesis. While some inscriptions and hymns represent man as a physical product of the deity, or as called into being by the word of God, the more popular belief was that the Cre- ator had modelled man out of clay with the aid of a potter's wheel. The inscriptions affirm that this image was without life until the Creator breathed into its nose and infused his soul into the clay. This tallies exactly with the words of the Jehovist. The most poetic conception of the origin of man was that man sprang from the tears shed by the deity. The origin of this be- lief, however, seems to have been a mere play on words. It is as if the English word for man was tearer, hence he is supposed to spring from tears.

(loo)

Egyptian Creation Hymns

His eye wept (rimi) and out of his tears came mankind (rome).*

In a long hymn of Theban origin, Amon is in- voked as follows :

He is the only god who made everything that is.

He alone and solitary creates what will be.

Men come forth from his eyes and gods from his mouth.

He is the maker of the plant which nourishes the herds, And of the trees which bear their fruits for men. He gives to the fish of the river their food,

And to the birds under the heaven.

And gives breath to all that comes forth from the egg.

He feeds the grasshopper.

He sustains the spider and what creeps and hops after its

kind. He gives food to the mice in their holes And nourishes what flies in every thicket.

Hail to thee who hast created all these, Thou alone, solitary, with copious hand.

The line which speaks of " the spider and what creeps and hops after its kind," reminds us strongly of our Priestly Writer. Was it from Egypt, the land of the scarab — the land in whose plagues insects played so prominent a part — that our writer derived his infatuation for "creeping things"? Although the Egyptian cosmogony presents fewer points of similarity to ours than the Babylonian, in the monotheism of its thought and in its freedom from sexual al- lusions it is closely akin to the spirit of Genesis. Its general conception of physical conditions is

* Brugsch is inclined to derive this word from an Egyptian root, ruf?i, to think. This lends unexpected support to the deri- vation of the word man from the Sanskrit root ??ian (Skeat), which also means to think. The secondary meaning of rtem, according to Brugsch, is " to lift one's self," " to be high," which again is closely akin to the old derivation of Anthropos. See " Stein- schrift u. Bibelwort," p. 17.

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

much the same, and in regard to the method of Creation it wavers Hke Genesis between the evo- lution of the world egg and creation by the word of God. The potter and the clay are also ad- mitted. Lastly, the passive nature of chaos and its intimate association with the spirit of God, while differing from the transcendent idea of Genesis in one respect, in another respect approach the conception of the Priestly Writer much more nearly than does " raging Tiamat." In view of these considerations, it would be rash to say that our Creation story was derived from Babylonia alone, or that it came late to the Hebrews.

The Persian account of Creation is so closely bound up with the reHgious ideas associated with the name of Zoroaster as to be unintelligible ex- cept as a part of that system. Our principal authority is the Bundahesh, although in this, as in many other instances, the statements of the Bundahesh often rest on the Avesta. According to the conceptions of the Zoroastrians, the crea- tion of the material world followed the creation of the spiritual worlds of good and evil. These two kingdoms have divided as light and dark- ness; between them lay the neutral territory of empty space. In this intermediate field, which became the field of battle of the two spiritual spheres, arose the material world. The dilTer- ence between the material and the spiritual world is not merely that the material world con- sists of gross, corporeal substance, while the spir- itual world is fine and invisible. The chief dif- ference is that the material world is finite and destructible, while the good side of the spiritual world is eternal, without beginning or end. The

ZOROASTRIAN CoSMOGONY

material world, on the contrary, had a begmning, and its duration is limited to the brief span of twelve thousand years. It has no independent place nor right of its own, but serves only as a battlefield of good and evil. Like everything else, the material world was created by the good being, Ahura Mazda. It was made by him to accomplish his beneficent purpose of self-revela- tion and the victory of goodness.

The struggle between good and evil, between Ahura Mazda and Angro Mainyu, had long con- tinued before this material world arose. Already had Angro Mainyu made his attack on the light. A truce of nine thousand years had been con- cluded between the two forces because Ahura Mazda felt that he needed this respite in order to organize his powers for final victory. Angro Mainyu, whose lack of foresight did not warn him against this error, soon perceived his mis- take. This respite Ahura Mazda employed in creation. After he had framed the spiritual world of higher intelHgences, he fashioned the material world. First he made the heavens, with their celestial bodies; secondly water, then the earth, then trees, cattle and man.* The whole material creation occupied him for one year of three hundred and sixty-five days,t as follows : The creation of heaven occupied forty-five days, that of water sixty, earth seventy-five, trees thirty, cattle eighty, and man seventy-five — in all, six acts. For three thousand years this creation remained in heaven free from every plague. Then it was let down into the space it now occu-

* Yasna, xix. i, 2, and Bundahesh, i. 28. f Bundahesh, xxv. i.

(103)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

pies, and for three thousand years more it es- caped evil. Whether the world was created out of preexisting material or e nihilo is not definitely stated. From the creations of evil, the latter seems more probable. The material out of which the earth was made is not mentioned ; the heav- ens are said to be made of steel. After the lapse of six thousand years, Angro Mainyu began to interfere with Ahura Mazda's good creation. As Ahura Mazda had made the earth fruitful, Angro Mainyu strove to make it barren. All deserts and waste places were his creation, as well as the soil which brings forth poisonous and injurious plants and weeds. As Ahura Mazda created only good and useful plants and animals, Angro Main- yu retaliated by creating noxious and evil coun- terfeits of his handiwork, the wolf for the dog, the poisonous insect for the ant, the tortoise for the hedgehog, etc. Pages might be filled with accounts of Angro Mainyu's attempts to corrupt and ruin Ahura Mazda's good creatures. Every form of physical and moral evil was thus most conveniently accounted for. Perhaps for every good species of plant and animal created by Ahura Mazda an evil species was created by Angro Mainyu.* Whether a real counterpart to man was created by him is doubtful. At all events, Angro Mainyu peopled the world with evil beings, partly human, partly superhuman. After the birth of Zoroaster this power was with- drawn, and from henceforth Angro Mainyu can only revenge himself by injuring and crippling the human form. His peculiar work, however, lies in the seduction and corruption of man,

* See Vendidad, xiii,, and Biindahesh, xix. (104)

Phcenician Cosmogony

whom Angro Mainyu ever strives to lead away from his creator. We see this most plainly in the stories of Yima the good shepherd and of Mashya and Mashyana. This is possibly be- cause man's free will makes it possible for him to choose good or evil. In yielding to evil, man comes more and more under the power of evil spirits, until at last, if he perseveres in sin, he be- comes a mere receptacle for devils.*

The Phoenician cosmogony is contained in a work on Phoenician history written by Philo Byblius, who was born, according to Suidas, in 42A.D. Philo'swork has perished, but several con- siderable fragments of it have been preserved in Eusebius' '' Preparatio Evangelica." t Philo pro- fessed to derive his knowledge of the Phoenician religion from a native Phoenician writer whom he calls Sanchuniathon, a Berytian, who is said to have written about 1221 b. c. The strife that has arisen over every one of these statements is well known. On account of the extreme meagreness of our information as to this great people, even such records as are preserved by Philo Byblius would be of the greatest value could they be proved genuine. On account of certain hellen- izing tendencies J in the so-called document of Sanchuniathon, it has been doubted whether

* Vendidad, viii, 5, 31, 32. For the foregoing, in addition to the authorities cited, see Bundahesh, and Spiegel's " Eranische Alterthumskunde," ii. 141-151.

f Cory's " Fragments," pp. 3-18.

X I. The tendency to regard the gods as deified men after the manner of Euhemerus, a contemporary of Alexander the Great. 2. Philo's so-called syncretism, i.e., an inclination to confuse or merge the beliefs of diverse peoples, which is characteristic of the later development of Greek philosophy. 3. His attempt to ex- plain the names of Phoenician deities by the Greek gods, etc.

{105)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Philo had any such Phoenician authority before him, and even whether Eusebius derived the Phoenician cosmogony from the work of Philo. Although I cannot attempt to discuss these ques- tions, I may say that since the investigations of Movers,* Ewald,t Renan,:j: Baudissin§ and oth- ers, there has been a reaction against the unrea- sonable scepticism with which Philo's work had been regarded. It may be considered as proved that Eusebius derived the accounts he has pre- served from Philo's vanished work, although it is probable that Eusebius, according to his cus- tom, distorted the views which he cited only to discredit. The name Sanchuniathon appears to be a genuine Phoenician name, and, although Philo's excerpts are strongly tinged with later ideas, it is certain that they were not his own original inventions. On the contrary, there seems no reason to doubt that Philo derived those portions of his account which are not Egyptian, Greek or Jewish from Phoenician sources, even though the work of Sanchuniathon be regarded as fabulous. With this brief notice I pass to his cosmogony.

He supposes that the beginning of all things was a dark and condensed windy air, or a breeze of thick air, and a chaos turbid and black as Erebus, and that these were unbounded and for a long series of ages destitute of form.

* "Die Phonizier," 1841, Band, ii., and article, " Phonizien," in Ersch und Gruber's Encyclopcedia.

f " Abhandlung liber die Phonik," " Ansichten von der Welt- schopfung," etc. (Abhandlungen der Konigl. Gesell. der Wissen- schaften zu Gottingen, 1853.)

^ " Memoire sur I'origine et le caractere veritable de I'histoire phenicienne," etc., in the Memoires de I'Academie deslnscrip., vol. xxiii., 1858, part ii., pp. 241-334.

§ Sanchuniathon, in his " Studien zur Semit. Religionsge- schichte," Leipzig, 1876.

(106)

Sanchuniathon's Narrative

We see here the old Semitic antithesis of Chaos and Spirit.

But when this spirit became enamoured of its own first principles (Chaos) and an intimate union took place, that connection was called Pothos (desire, the Eros of the Greek cosmogonies), and it was the beginning of the crea- tion of all things. And it (Chaos) knew not its own pro- duction, but from its embrace with the wind was generated Mot, which some call Ilus (mud), but others the putre- faction of a watery mixture. And from this sprang all the seed of the creation and the generation of the universe.

This " Mot," which seems to be connected with the Hebrew mai, water, is represented here as a cosmogonic principle like Tehom or Tauthe. Its birth from the Spirit and Chaos, and its sub- sequent fertility, remind us of the world ^%^ of so many mythologies. As Renan remarks, it seems to mark the beginning of a new creation. The watery origin of the earth is also very familiar.

And there were certain animals without sensation from which intelligent animals were produced, and these were called Zophasimin — that is, the overseers of the heavens — and they were formed in the shape of an egg, and from Mot shone forth the sun and the moon, the less and the greater stars.

As Bunsen and Renan have remarked, a dislo- cation of the text occurs here. We should doubt- less read :

And Mot was formed in the shape of an ^-g^ from which the sun and moon, the greater and lesser stars shone forth, and there were certain animals, etc.*

The expression " Zophasimin " is doubtless Phoenician and closely resembles the Hebrew Zophei Shamayim or " heaven-watchers." Here they are apparently constellations. Then fol-

* See Baudissin, op. cit. 13, note i.

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

lows a description of the formation, by natural causes, of winds, clouds, thunder and lightning. The second cosmogony, called The Generations, is as follows :

Of the wind, Colpias, and his wife, Baau, which is in- terpreted night, were begotten two mortal men. ^on and Protogonos, so-called, and ^on discovered food from trees.

The introduction of these Greek names has given rise to suspicions that do not seem to be well grounded, ^on and Protogonos appear to be Greek translations of Semitic words, Olam and Kadmon '^ — '' Eternity," and '' The Man from the East." Kolpia also is probably a Phoe- nician word corresponding to the Hebrew Kol piach,\ or '' audible breath," while Baau is tm- doubtedly the Hebrew Bohu, or chaos. It is curious to encounter this Hebrew cosmogonic principle here. If the Phoenician tradition is genuine, it reveals to us the extreme complexity of the sources of our first chapter of Genesis.

It is also interesting to observe that the first food of man is derived from the trees as in Genesis.

The immediate descendants of these were called Genus and Genea, and they dwelt in Phoenicia, and when there were great droughts they stretched forth their hands to heaven toward the sun, for him they supposed to be God, the only Lord of Heaven, calling him Beelsamin, which in the Phoenician dialect signifies Lord of Heaven, but among the Greeks is equivalent to Zeus.:|:

* In the Greek story (Odys. v. 333 ; Hesiod, Theog. 937) Kad- mos is said to be the son of the Phoenician king Agenor. He is represented as the founder of Thebes and as the introducer into Greece of the Phoenician alphabet.

f Roth, Delitzsch, Schroder, Bunsen, Baudissin.

\ The above translation, with slight modifications, is Cory's.

V

Religion of the Phoenicians

The Phoenician origin of this statement does not seem to be questionable. The central object of worship in Phoenician mythology was un- doubtedly the sun. The double triad of deities invoked by Hannibal in his great oath to PhiHp of Macedon was '' Sun, moon, earth and rivers, meadows and waters." * The expression Beel- samin is plainly the Phoenician counterpart of the Hebrew Baal Shemesh, '' Lord Sun." From the way Philo represents the worship of the sun as arising during a period of drought, it would ap- pear that he wished to represent the Phoenician worship of the celestial bodies as following the worship of terrestrial objects. On this point we do not know enough of the development of the Phoenician religion to be able to say whether he is correct or in error. The Phoenicians wor- shipped sacred trees, stones, etc., with the rest of the Semitic world, but whether this cult preceded the worship of heavenly bodies I know no way to determine. The remainder of the cosmogony is taken up with the heroes and demigods who discovered the arts of life, first of which was the art of fire. In this cosmogony we discover (i) a primordial chaos mythically conceived and named, (2) a moving spirit or breath, (3) the world egg, (4) the origin of the world from water.

We come now to Babylon. For a long time we have possessed some acquaintance with the Babylonian views of Creation through Greek writers, chiefly preserved by Eusebius, the church historian, and other late authors; but in recent years our knowledge has been greatly en-

* Polyb. vii. g, 2.

(109)

,^my__ o^

The Babylonian Conception of tlie World. (Taken from Jensen's Kosmologle der Babylonler).

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

riched by the deciphering of the cuneiform in- scriptions. Instead of getting our knowledge at second or third hand, we have it in the very words and letters in which it was originally writ- ten. It is a thousand pities that our Bible was not written on clay and preserved in this way. Singularly, up to the present time only two''' such accounts have been discovered, and they both resemble, in some respects, the two ac- counts of Genesis. Both the Babylonian inscrip- tions, unfortunately, are mutilated. The longer of the two was discovered in 1873 by George Smith, of the British Museum. Its real purpose is to relate the adventures of the god Marduk, the chief deity of Babylon. It was intended as a hymn of praise to him and a description of his victory over a great monster called Tiamat, the personification of primeval chaos. The creation story is only an episode, and yet there is much in it that reminds us of the Bible. There is the same reserve, the same disregard of details in the endeavor to produce an impressive effect, and the same care of literary style. The Babylonian account, however, is poetical, and we see in it the literary device of parallelism which reminds us of the Psalms. As far as it has been deciphered it runs like this :

There was a time when the Heaven above was not

named. [Did not exist; of. Genesis.] Below, the earth bore no name. Apsu was there from the first, the source of both. [Apsu,

the great deep.] And raging Tiamat, the mother of both. But their waters were gathered together in a mass.

* I do not include the so-called Cutha fragment, and it is right to add that we possess two versions of the great Creation Epic.

(no)

WATERS

Babylonian Creation Epic

No field was marked off, no soil was seen,

When none of the gods was as yet produced,

No name mentioned, no fate determined.

Then were created the gods in their totality,

Lakhmu and Lakhamu were created.

Days went by.

Anshar and Kishar were created.

Many days elapsed,

Ann, Bel and Ea were created,

Anshar, Ann.

Here it breaks off. A great deal of this, how- ever, is perfectly plain and very important. Here again we find the primeval, watery, uncreated chaos conceived as the origin of all things. This chaos is called by two names — Apsu and Tiamat — as the Babylonians were accustomed to de- scribe their deities in pairs. Apsu is the male. So far as I know, his name is not found in Hebrew. Tiamat is the female principle of primitive chaos, and what makes her so very interesting is that the Hebrew equivalent for her name is found in the first chapter of Genesis. When we read '* darkness was on the face of the abyss (Te- hom)," we encounter the same word and the same idea, only toned down from a person to a thing.

There are also several other conceptions that remind us of Genesis. The time when the heav- ens and the earth were not named reminds us of the God who gave names to earth and heaven. The expression '' the waters were gathered to- gether in a mass " reminds us of Genesis. The earth is described in the same way, as at first sub- merged and then as rising out of the water.

Now let us go on with the story of Tiamat. This mother of all chaos and confusion herself begins to create, but she produces only monsters

(III)

WATERS AliON L rUL F I

WINDOWS OH-HEA\ f

HOIjNTAIN6,ag UHEAtDJSEI}

l)U\\5 OF HEAVEN

" n ,,

'■" I.

'■ Jl i: ,; ,; ,. ^^.|. V-nA'-

^' I -v v II AN A >- \> t; A

\\ A i^>

\ .\.i. n i; A

Tlw Old Hebrew Conception of the .World.

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

and harmful, misshapen creatures. The inscrip- tion continues :

Ummu Khubur [another name of Tiamat, meaning, per- haps, " hollow mother "], the Creator of everything, added

Strong warriors, creating great serpents.

Sharp of tooth, merciless in attack,

With poison instead of blood she filled their bodies.

Furious vipers she clothed with terror,

Fitted them with awful splendor, made them high of stature,

That their countenance might inspire terror and arouse horror,

Their bodies inflated, their attack irresistible.

She set up basilisks, great serpents and monsters,

A great monster, a mad dog, a scorpion man.

At their head she places a being named Kingu, whom she raises to the dignity of consort, and addresses him in these words :

Through my word to thee I have made thee greatest among

the gods. The rule over all the gods I have placed in thy hand, The greatest shalt thou be, thou, my consort, my only one.

Thereupon Tiamat gives him the tablets of fate, hangs them on his breast and dismisses him.

We can easily see what Tiamat is doing. She, the mother of darkness and confusion, is plan- ning revolt against the heavenly gods, who, as we saw above, have come into being and -are about to invade her ancient domain. It is the old story of the Titans revolting against Jove. Already Tiamat has got hold of the tablets of fate that control the destiny of the universe, and here again we find the admission we meet with so often in Greek mythology, that these Httle gods are not the supreme masters of life. Behind

Marduk and Tiamat

them and above them is a greater, more power- ful will that none can escape, called Destiny. To continue this interesting Babylonian story, the gods are very much alarmed. They plainly stand in awe of raging Tiamat and her terrible confed- erates. Anshar, who in this difificult crisis as- sumes control of things, sends his son Anu with a soft message to Tiamat. " Go, step before Tiamat," he says; " may her liver be pacified, her heart be softened." Anu obeys, but at the first sight of her awful visage his heart fails and he comes flying back to his father. Then Anshar in his perplexity turns to Marduk, in whose honor the whole hymn is written, and Marduk accepts the mission without fear. The gods are delighted. They immediately assemble at a great feast.

They ate bread, they drank wine,

The sweet wine took away their senses,

They became drunk and their bodies swelled up.

Filled with the courage of wine, they begin to praise Marduk.

Thou art honored among the great gods. Thy destiny is unique, thy command is Anu. Marduk, thou art honored among the great gods, Henceforth thy order is absolute.

Some, however, doubt Marduk's ability to cope with Tiamat. They would like to see a sign. Ac- cordingly Marduk consents to work a miracle. A garment is placed in the midst of the gods. Some one says.

Command that the dress disappear, Then command that the dress return.

Marduk does both.

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

As he gave the command the dress disappeared, He spoke again and the dress was there.

Marduk then goes forth, armed not only with bow and lance and a net to catch Tiamat,but with

THE BATTLE OF TIAMAT AND MARDUK

winds and thunderbolts as well. Having arrived at Tiamat's abode, he boldly challenges her.

Stand up, I and thou. Come, let us fight.

Tiamat's wrath at this challenge is superb.

When Tiamat heard these words

She acted as one possessed, her senses left her.

Tiamat shrieked wild and loud,

Trembling and shaking down to her foundation

She pronounced an incantation, uttered her sacred spell.

In the terrible conflict that ensues Tiamat is de- feated.

The Making of Firmament

The lord spread out his net in order to enclose her, The destructive wind which was behind him he sent forth

into her face, He drove in the destructive wind so that she could not

close her lips. The strong winds inflated her,

Her heart was beset, she opened still wider her mouth. He seized the spear and plunged it into her body, He pierced her entrails, tore through her heart, He seized hold of her, put an end to her life, He threw down her carcass and trampled upon her.

[Mark of contempt.]

Then Marduk attacked her confederates, tore the tablets of fate from Kingu's breast. This is the final victory. Henceforth Destiny is on the side of the heavenly gods. Chaos is vanquished forever. What follows is very curious. Mar- duk, we are told, begins by cutting Tiamat '' as one does a flattened fish into halves." He spHts her lengthwise.

The one half he fastens as a covering to the heavens. Attaching a bolt and placing there a guardian, With orders not to permit the waters to come out.

Here again, in this strange, crude myth, we have an echo of Genesis. It is evident that the canopy of heaven is meant. Such is the enor- mous size of Tiamat that half of her flattened body is stretched across the heaven like a curtain. In short, it is the firmament that keeps the upper waters from coming down. But we have only to remember who Tiamat was, or, rather, what she personified — the chaotic condition of the earth when all was confusion and the elements were mingled together — to see in this myth one of the early acts of Creation, that first separation of the waters which permitted dry land to appear and the formation of the earth to go forward.

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Coupled with this is another idea which, as we have seen, appears also in Greek mythology and is as old as the hills — the resistance of the dark, chaotic, brute world of matter to the light and leading of the gods, the unwilHngness of Chaos to become Cosmos. Are any traces of this struggle preserved in our Bible ? That, I think, will be a fascinating study which we will reserve for another chapter. To conclude this Babylo- nian epic, the power of Tiamat is thoroughly broken and the gods are free to execute their benevolent designs.^ Marduk, who in conse- quence of his victory has become chief of the gods, promulgates fixed laws for the universe. He allots the gods their places in the heavens, and in the various planets and fixed stars called after their names, and he reserves for himself the mansion of Nibir, or Jupiter.

He established stations for the great gods,

The stars their Hkeness he set up as constellations.

He fixed the year and marked the divisions,

The twelve months he divided among these stars

From the beginning of the year till the close;

He established the station of Nibir to indicate their

boundary So that there might be no deviation nor wandering from

the course.*

Here we are reminded of the strange fact already mentioned, that the sun, moon and stars were not created until the fourth day. From the point of view of the writer, they could not be created until there was a firmament to fix them in, and before the firmament was created it was necessary that

* The above translation Is Dr. Jastrow's. The most complete treatment of this poem is Frd. Delitzsch's " Das Babylonische Weltschopfung-sepos," Leipzig, 1896.

(Tie)

Second Babylonian Creation Story

chaos should be overcome and divided. We are also reminded, as Dr. Jastrow says, of the end of the story of the Deluge, when after the period of rain and storm God reestablished the regular course of Nature and the fixed movements of the sun, saying, '' So long as the earth shall be, seed- time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not fail."

It is disappointing that the latter portion of the Creation Epic, which is very imperfect, does not mention specifically the creation of plants, animals and man. We must remember, how- ever, that this poem, in spite of the name which has been attached to it by modern scholars, was not a systematic attempt to describe creation, but a hymn composed in honor of Marduk, who seems to be conceived as the sun god engaged in his annual struggle with the storms and floods of winter. Attention, therefore, is concentrated on his combat with Tiamat rather than on his subsequent acts of creation. From the distinct- ness with which Berosus mentions the creation of animals, and from his allusion to the cutting ofT of Bel's head, it would appear either that important material has been lost from the Crea- tion Epic or that another cuneiform creation story existed which we have not recovered.

The second Babylonian account of Creation is shorter, and is quite different from the first. It was first published by Pinches in 1891, and runs as follows :

The bright house of the gods was not built on the bright

place, No reed grew and no tree was formed, No brick was laid nor any brick edifice reared,

0^7)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

No house erected, no city built,

No city reared, no conglomeration formed [of animals or men],

Nippur was not reared, E-Kur not erected [Bel's temple at Nippur],

Erech was not reared, E-Anna not erected [Ishtar's tem- ple at Erech],

The deep not formed, Eridu not reared.

The bright house of the gods not yet constructed as a dwelling.

The world was all a sea,

Marduk again appears as a creator. His first act is to provide the sea with a channel so that the waters may run off. Then the earth appears.

Marduk constructed an enclosure around the waters, He made dust and heaped it up in the enclosure.

Then comes an interesting Hne :

Mankind he created,

although in association with a goddess named Aruru, who is introduced very awkwardly. Then follows the creation of animals.

The animals of the field, the living creatures of the field

he created. The Tigris and Euphrates he formed in their places, gave

them good names, Soil [?], grass, marsh, reed, and forest he created. The verdure of the field he produced. The lands, the marsh, and thicket, The wild cow with her young, the young wild ox, The ewe with her young, the sheep of the fold, Parks and forests, The goat and wild goat he brought forth.

That is about all, except a few lines in which Marduk is described as building houses and the city of Nippur.*

* Jastrow's translation.

Resemblance to -Genesis

Now there are several things in this tablet which remind us of Genesis and which resemble the second account by the Jehovist writer more than the first account. The expression, " No reed grew, no tree was formed," is very similar to '' Not a shrub of the field was yet upon the earth, not a tree had sprouted." In the Babylonian poem and in the Jehovist's account, attention is centred upon man and the works of men. In this tablet cities are regarded as coeval with Creation, and the first act of Cain is to build a city, al- though, according to Genesis, there was no one to live in it but Cain and his wife. Again, in both accounts man is described as created long before animals, and even before plants. In Genesis the reason given for the non-existence of plant life is that '' there was not a man to till the soil." The point of view in both is that of civilization, cities and cultivated fields. In both, the rivers Tigris and Euphrates are mentioned, and in both, a park, or paradise, is prepared. If the Babylo- nian tablet were not so fragmentary, there would probably be other points of resemblance.

And yet, in both these tablets, interesting as they are, the differences between them and Gen- esis are far deeper and more striking than the re- semblances. To mention only one thing, the gods, who are many, are represented as coming forth out of chaos. Both these traditions are very ancient (the Babylonian undoubtedly the older), but they were worked out on different soils, in accordance with the spiritual life and the spiritual needs of the two peoples. There lies the difference.

Apart from the cuneiform Creation tablets, we

("9)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

have two other Babylonian accounts of Creation; a brief fragment preserved by Damascius and a longer and more interesting story in Berosus. To these I now invite your attention. Damas- cius was a Neo-Platonist of Damascus, who lived in the sixth century of our era. The work from which we derive our knowledge of Baby- lonian cosmogony is called " Difficulties and So- lutions of First Principles." * His fragment is as follows :

But the Babylonians, like the rest of the Barbarians, pass over in silence the One Principle of the universe, and they substitute two, Tauthe and Apason, making Apason the husband of Tauthe, whom they call the mother of the gods. From these proceeds an only begotten son, Moy- mis, which I consider the intelligible world proceeding from the two principles. From them also another progeny- is derived, Dache and Dachus, 'and again a third, Kissare and Assorus, from which last come Anos, Illinos and Aos. The son of Aos and Dauke is Belos, who they say is the fabricator of the world, the Demiurge.

In spite of small discrepancies, this pale and enfeebled account tallies remarkably with the statements of the Creation epic. We note again the inability of the Babylonians to conceive a true creation by the word or power of the gods. The male and female principles give birth to the gods, one of the youngest of whom, Bel, as in Berosus' account, becomes a creator. Tauthe and Apason are evidently Tiamat and Apsu, although it surprises us a little to hear that their child is called Moymis, or Mummu, which, in the cuneiform, is a name applied to Tiamat

* What remains of it has been pubhshed by J. Kopp under the title " Damascii Philos. Qusestiones de Primis Principiis." Frank- fort, 1828. See c. 125, p. 384.

(120)

Berosus' Cosmogony

herself. This is evidently another version. The identification of Moymis with the '' intelligible world " is the Neo-Platonic fancy of Damascius and quite foreign to the narrative. Dache and Dachus are evidently a copyist's error for Lache and Lachus; i. e., Lakhmu and Lakhamu. Kis- sare and Assorus are Anshar and Kishar, whose births are mentioned together in the Creation epic. Anos is certainly Anus. By Aos we na- turally understand Ea, though according to Jen- sen this is doubtful.

Berosus' account is much more interesting :

" There was a time," he says,* " when all was darkness and waters, from which wonderful beings of singular form arose. There were men with two wings, some also with four wings and two faces. They had but one body and two heads, the one of a man, the other of a woman, and likewise their several organs were male and female. f Other men had legs and horns of goats or the feet of horses. Others united the hind quarters of a horse with the body of a man — resembling hippocentaurs. There arose also bulls with men's heads, dogs with four-fold bodies terminating in fishes' tails; horses also, and men with dogs' heads, and other animals with the heads and bodies of horses and the tails of fishes; in short, creatures in which were combined the limbs of every species of animal. In addition to these were fishes, reptiles, serpents and other monstrous animals, which counterfeited one an- other. Pictures of them are preserved as votive offerings in the temple of Bel. Over them all presided a woman called Omorca, which in the Chaldean language is Thamte,t in Greek, Thalassa (of the same numerical value as Selene). § When things were in this situation Bel came and split the woman asunder. Of one half of her body h.^ made the earth, of the other half, the heavens, and he

* Quoted by Eusebius, " Chronicorum Liber Prior," ed. Schoene, 14-18.

f This reminds us of the Jewish conceptions of Adam and Eve.

X Cod. Thalatth, corrected by R. Smith, Z. A. vi. 339, quoted here frorn Gunkel, S. and C. 19, note i.

%''0u6f)Ka = 6E\r]vr] = 301.

(121)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

destroyed the animals that belonged to her. All this he (Berosus) says was intended for an allegorical descrip- tion of natural processes. The whole universe was once a fluid, in which rose the animals described above. How- ever, Bel, the Greek Zeus, divided the darkness through the middle, separated earth and heaven from each other and established thereby the order of the universe. The creatures, however, could not endure the light and per- ished.* When Bel saw the earth without inhabitants and fruit, he commanded one of the gods to cut off his (Bel's) head and to mingle the flowing blood with earth and thence to form other men and animals capable of endur- ing the air. Bel also completed the stars, sun, moon and the five planets. Such, according to Alexander Poly- histor, is the account which Berosus gives in his first book.f This god is obliged to cut of¥ his own head and the other gods must mingle the flowing blood with earth and make men out of it that they may be intelligent and partake of the divine understanding."

In spite of the roundabout way by which Be- rosus' account has come to us, its general con- sistency with the cuneiform account is very strik- ing. We find here, as in the creation epic, the primordial chaos of darkness and waters ante- rior to the gods, presided over by Mother Tia- mat, here called Thamte. The animals and strange composite beings brought forth by her, though more particularly described, are of the same order as the '' strong warriors," " great serpents," '' furious vipers," '* great monsters," and '* mad dogs," *' raging monsters," '* fish men," '' scorpion men," etc., described in the poem, and also in the Cutha creation fragment. In both instances the conception seems to be that chaos is fruitful and capable of producing

* The text of this sentence is according to Gutschmid's emen- dation.

f What follows appears to be Eusebius' contemptuous com- ment (Budde, Gunkel).

(122)

Criticism of Berosus

life ; but without the light and intelligence of the gods, it gives birth to confusion and monstrosi- ties. In Berosus' account these misshapen prod- igies are plainly animals of the water, incapable of enduring light or air. When the water is drawn off they die. The name given to the mis- tress of chaos, Omorca, which Gunkel writes 'Om 'orqa [je], I beHeve he may claim the credit of explaining. Most scholars had as- sumed it to be a Babylonian word, which is some- what surprising, as both the Babylonian and the Greek equivalents are given in the text. This being the case, Gunkel points out that Omorca must be a word of the Aramaic language which was spoken in Babylonia in Berosus' time. He considers it to mean '' mother of the deep," or " mother of the lower world," which is not unlike the epithet " hollow mother," bestowed on Tia- mat in the Creation poem. Just as in that poem, before creation can take place Marduk divides Tiamat, so here Bel splits this woman asunder; of one half of her he makes the earth, and of the other, the firmament of the sky. The meaning is obviously the same as in the Creation epic and in Genesis. In fact, the rational meaning of this strange act is plainly stated by Berosus. The splitting of the dark chaos and the establishment of the firmament admits Hght and draws off the superfluous waters. The subsequent acts of Creation are confused, owing to the evident con- densation of the narrative, and yet the creation of animals and men is plainly mentioned, and from the allusion to the unfruitfulness of the earth which reminds us of our Jehovist's account, it would appear that the creation of plant life was

(123)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

originally included. Last of all, even later than in Genesis, is an express statement of the crea- tion of the sun, moon, fixed stars and planets. There remains one very strange conception, as to which Eusebius' faith failed, and which is not alluded to in the cuneiform account — I mean Bel's sacrifice of his own head and the mingling of his blood with the clay, out of which men and animals were to be made. If this remarkable statement stood alone we might regard it as an utter misconception, a libel on the good sense of Berosus. But as we read Eusebius' scornful comment that this was done in order that men might partake of the divine nature, a suspicion begins to dawn on us. We remember that in the first account of Genesis, man is said to be formed in the image of God. We also recall the fact that to the Semite the essence of fife and the soul is blood. It is therefore possible that the author of this curious myth was endeavoring to express in his crude way his sense of our participation of the divine nature, and we also remember that in our second account Jahveh breathed into man's nostrils (literally, blew into his nose) the breath of life, and so man became a living being. These two essences of life — breath and blood — are after all but variations of the same idea.

There is one other matter that I wish to touch on — the universal opinion that before the world took on its present form and beauty, chaos reigned, and there was a very general belief in the existence of the world egg. Does any trace of that tgg lurk in Genesis? Only in the expression, " And the Spirit of God was brooding tenderly on the face of the waters." That raises the ques-

Chaos and a World Egg

tion which is supposed to embrace the whole of science, Which came first, the conscious hen or the unconscious egg? And the answer which Genesis gives to that question is the only true answer. In order to account for anything, the hen and the egg and the nest are all necessary. Let him that heareth understand.

In regard to the chaos of waters out of which the world arose, we may say two things: Some- thing within us tells us that everything finite had a beginning. Just as every\)bject the earth pro- duces had a beginning, so did the earth itself. The conception of the earth rising out of the watery chaos, which is well nigh universal, may have arisen in this way. The great peoples of an- tiquity, whose traditions spread everywhere, all lived on low, alluvial plains along the banks of great rivers that overwhelmed them almost every winter: the Egyptians, in the plain of the Nile; the forefathers of the Hebrews and Chaldeans, on the Tigris and Euphrates; the Hindus, on^ the Indus and Ganges. Now this phenom- enon of the earth rising out of the waters oc- curred before their eyes every year. In the spring, as the waters subsided, the dry and fertile land appeared, and life of every kind broke forth anew. It was, therefore, very natural for them to think of a first springtide, when life broke forth for the first time, especially as it was the warm, rich deposit of the river that made their land so fertile, and since, when the river did not rise, when the land in the spring did not come forth out of the waters, instead of life and plenty, death and famine stared them in the face. What makes this more probable is the fact that the

(1^5)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Greeks, who lived in a very different country, had no such tradition. With them the earth does not rise out of the sea. On the contrary, the sea is created by the broad-bosomed earth.*

* I have mentioned only one of the many motives which have induced almost all nations to regard water as the primordial element out of which the earth arose. For further discussion of this question, see Ueberweg's " Geschichte der Philosophie," on Thales ; Brinton's " Myths of the New World," 144, 159, 227 ff. ; and Brugsch, " Religion und Mythologie," pp. 106, 107.

(126)

Chaos the Datum of all Cosmogonies

Chapter Seven: ^be Chaos Monster in the Old 'Testament

IN the previous chapter we examined the va- rious accounts of Creation handed down by several of the great civiHzed nations of an- tiquity. Those accounts naturally differed widely from one another, but in regard to the starting point of Creation they were all in agreement. Hindus, Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians, and Phoenicians all assumed as the origin of the world an uncreated chaos of darkness, in which all the elements of the world existed in a state of utter confusion. "^ The work of Creation consisted in separating the elements of this primeval chaos and reducing them to order. In this idea they all agree in a general way with the first chapter of Genesis, which also assumes a preexistent chaos as the material out of which the world was formed. " And the earth was a waste and an empty chaos, and darkness was on the face of the abyss " (Tehom). It is not stated definitely that this chaos, the raw material of Creation, was created by God out of nothing. On the contrary,

* The Zoroastrian Creation story is an exception. It, how- ever, is hardly entitled to be called an ancient cosmogony, so thoroughly is it infused with the principles of Zoroastrian theo-

^ogy-

(127)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

its existence is tacitly assumed. It is introduced without a word of explanation. What God created is the '' heaven and earth," the Cosmos, the adorned world of light and the orderly se- quence of nature. The word '^ create " (bara) does not convey the idea of creation out of noth- ing. Its original meaning is to cut, to hew out, to dress stones. It therefore rather presupposes the existence of a material. When we reached the two Creation tablets of Babylon, however, we found their points of resemblance with Gene- sis more numerous and striking. It is certainly interesting that up to this time only two accounts of Creation have been discovered, and that both resemble, in certain respects, our two accounts. For convenience sake I will give a summary of the story, in order to bring out a very important conception, to which this chapter will be de- votee

here was a time when the Heaven above was not named. Below the earth bore no name, Apsu was there from the first, the source of both, [Apsu,

the great deep,] And raging Tiamat, the mother of both.

Apsu and Tiamat, the male and female prin- ciples, are here introduced as the personification of primeval chaos, from whose union everything, including the gods themselves, is born. Apsu, the male principle, does not figure prominently in what follows. He seems to be introduced only because the Babylonians always conceived their gods as existing in pairs. As far as is known, his name does not appear in the Bible. Tiamat, on the contrary, is a very important personage,

Tehom and Tiamat

and what makes her interesting to us is that her name occurs on the first page of Genesis. When we read " darkness was on the face of the abyss," the word used, '' Tehom," is only the Hebrew equivalent for Tiamat. Her history, therefore, is of great importance to us. The first thing Tiamat does is to plan a revolt against the heav- enly gods whom she and Apsu have brought into existence. To aid her in this attempt she creates terrible, misshapen monsters — the crab, the mad dog, the scorpion-man — and sets them in high places. These are evidently those constellations of the sky — the children of night — which were conceived as the causes of misfortune and dis- ease. She obtains possession of the tablets of fate and hangs them round Kingu's neck. The gods are very much alarmed. Anshar, their chief, sends his son Anu to her in hope of mollify- ing her, but in vain.

Then Anshar turns to Marduk, his younger son, the chief deity of Babylon, in whose honor the whole poem is written, and Marduk at once sets out to fight with her. The terrible wrath of Tiamat and the battle that follows are de- scribed in glowing language. Marduk con- quers. He kills Tiamat and tramples on her body as a mark of contempt. Then a very strange thing follows. He takes the vast body of Tiamat, flattened out, we are told, like a salted fish, and splits it lengthwise. Then come these words in the inscription :

The one half [of her body] he fastens as a covering to

the heavens, Attaching a bolt and placing there a guardian, With orders not to permit the waters to come out.

(129)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

The resemblance between this account and Genesis is unmistakable as far as it goes. We have in both the primeval chaos out of which Creation comes, called by the same name; in Gen- esis, Tehom; in Babylonian, Tiamat. The first act of Creation is the division of this ancient chaos by a firmament which separates the waters above from the waters beneath. Not until this firma- ment is fixed^ can the sun, moon and stars ap- pear, because there is nothing to fasten them to; but immediately afterward, in both the Baby- lonian and the Hebrew account, they are created and fixed in the firmament.

At the first glance, and to the casual observer, the two ideas of chaos — Tehom and Tiamat — seem to have almost nothing to do with each other. Tiamat, the Babylonian chaos, is con- ceived as a person; Tehom, the great abyss, is conceived absolutely impersonally as a purely physical phenomenon. Of the mythical side of chaos, of its stubborn resistance to the will of God, of its revolt against Heaven, of the neces- sity for a struggle in which this wild personifica- tion of darkness is killed and trodden under foot, in the first chapter of Genesis there is not a trace. It might therefore appear that the enthusiastic Assyriologists see resemblances everywhere when they wish to see them and close their eyes resolutely to all differences that are not forced upon them. One of the most brilliant and original writers on this subject * has made the suggestion that although the personal, resisting character of chaos may have disappeared entirely

* Gunkel, " Schopfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit." Gottingen, 1895.

(130)

Chaos a Mythical Monster

in the* hands of the Priestly Writer, who is a sworn foe to all mythology, yet if such a strange and withal fascinating conception of chaos ever existed in the minds of the old Israehtes, it could not well have disappeared without leaving some trace behind. The passages Gunkel brings for- ward sufficiently show that those strange texts — so different from anything else in the Bible, over which many of us have puzzled all our lives and whose meaning we have never been able to understand — have a meaning, and that they throw a new light on the part which ancient tradition plays, not only in Genesis, but in many other passages of the Old Testament.

The question is : Does the idea of chaos, conceived in the form of a mythical monster which resists the will of God, and which must be destroyed before the work of Creation can go forward, exist at all in the Old Testament? In the first chapter of Genesis we find the counter- part of old Tiamat, whom Marduk slew, in Te- hom, the dark abyss of waters, but in Genesis the myth is wholly rationalized; Tehom is a thing, not a person, and as such it is incapable of oppos- ing the will of God. Tehom is not killed and pierced with a dart, it is simply divided. The mythical aspect of chaos has wholly disappeared. It is, however, quite possible that our author in his picture of chaos was influenced by the Egyp- tian cosmogony, in which chaos was conceived impersonally. But how is it with other chapters and passages ? Are there any which preserve the original characteristics of chaos, conceived as a huge, angry sea-monster, the living genius of the abyss? That is a question well worth lingering

(131)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

over, for it will not only throw light on several passages of the Bible which we have read all our lives without understanding, but it will also show us to what an extent the most inspired writers were influenced by the ancient traditions of the Hebrew people.* Let us now look at a few pas- sages. Isaiah, li. 9 :

Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of Jahveh ;

Awake as in days of yore, the ages of far-off antiquity.

Was it not thou who didst shatter Rahab and shame the Dragon?

Was it not thou who didst dry up the sea, the waters of the great flood [Tehom] ?

Who didst make the depths of the sea a way for the re- deemed to pass over?

There is here undoubtedly an allusion to the crossing of the Red Sea, but that by no means exhausts the meaning of these verses. The pas- sage of the narrow arm of the Red Sea could hardly be called " drying up the waters of the great flood." Moreover, though Rahab and the Dragon may have been figuratively employed for Egypt and Pharaoh, assuredly that was not their original meaning. The shattering of Rahab, which means '' raging monster," and the sham- ing of the Dragon, stand parallel to " Thou didst dry up the sea, the waters of the great flood." The very expression, " as in the days of yore, the ages of far-off antiquity," points back to the most remote past. The destruction of Pharaoh's host in the Red Sea is compared to the destruc- tion of the old sea monster here called Rahab, and that monster was destroyed by the drying up

* The argument which follows, with the translation and inter- pretation of passages, is largely taken from Gunkel.

(132)

Rahab

of the depths in which she dweh; that is to say, by the destruction of Tehom, which is the word used in Genesis. The very expression '' Thou didst shame the Dragon " reminds us of Mar- duk's putting his foot on Tiamat. The force of all this will become more evident when we have looked at a few more passages. Psalm Ixxxix. 10 ff.:

Thou art Lord over the arrogant sea, When its surges roar Thou hushest them. Thou hast shamed Rahab Hke carrion, With strong arm hast Thou scattered Thy foes. The heavens are Thine, Thine is the earth, The world and what fills it Thou hast established, The North and the South Thou hast created, Tabor and Hermon praise Thy name.

In this hymn, Jahveh is praised for the conquest of Rahab, who here, too, is placed parallel to the sea. Rahab, the great monster of the deep, is represented before Creation as insolently lift- ing herself up against Jahveh, but He puts her down and kills her. In the expression " Thou has shamed Rahab hke carrion," we find some al- lusion to the terrible vengeance Jahveh wreaked on her corpse, as Marduk insulted the corpse of Tiamat. Rahab has her confederates, but these other " enemies of Jahveh " are chased away and scattered. Only after Rahab is killed and put down does the work of Creation follow. So here again we have the same conception. A sea monster, Rahab, with her confederates, lifts her- self in rage against Jahveh. He puts her down and kills her, takes revenge on her corpse, and then goes on to create the heaven and the earth.

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Very similar to this in many respects is Job, xxvi. 12, 13 :

With His might has He stilled the sea.

By His intelligence has He crushed Rahab to pieces.

The pillars of Heaven shudder before Him,

His hand shames the fleeing serpent.

Here, too, Rahab, the chaos monster, is placed parallel to the raging sea ; again we hear of sham- ing Rahab as Marduk shamed Tiamat. But what is most surprising is the allusion to the bolts or pillars of heaven. After Marduk had spHt Tia- mat in twain and out of one half had made the fir- mament, we read that he attached bolts there and set a guard so that the waters should not fall through. In this passage of Job, we find a second monster called the " fleeing serpent," just as in Isaiah we saw the Dragon beside Rahab, and in the Babylonian inscription Tiamat and Apsu. Now let us turn to Psalm Ixxiv. 12 fif. :

Thou, Jahveh, art my king from of old.

. . . Thou hast split the sea with might,

Hast crushed the heads of dragons till on the water they floated.

Thou hast shattered the heads of Leviathan,

Thou hast given him as meat to the jackals of the wilder- ness,

For spring and brook Thou hast cloven an opening,

Ancient streams hast Thou dried up.

The day is Thine, the night is Thine,

Starry light and sun hast Thou provided.

All divisions on the earth hast Thou laid down,

Thou makest summer and winter.

We see how frequently the same idea is re- peated. In every one of these passages, before Creation, before earth and sun and moon are made, there are chaotic monsters of the deep to be destroyed. Then Creation follows. In this

0^34)

Leviathan and the Dragon of the Deep

psalm the author speaks plainly of God's dividing the old, chaotic sea, and parallels it with crushing the heads of the dragons until they float on the waters. The ancient channels are dried up and new channels are made. Here again two kinds of monsters are described, the dragon of the deep and a new monster called Leviathan, who has many heads. What follows is very interest- ing. '' Thou hast smitten the heads of Leviathan in pieces and gavest him as food to the beasts of the desert." This strange passage, for the first time, perhaps, becomes inteUigible. The dry desert is conceived in opposition to water, the home of Leviathan, the sea monster.

After Jahveh has crushed the heads of the monster of the sea, he throws him on to dry land where the sands drink him up. So the old chan- nels of water are dried, and new springs break forth in the desert.

The religious meaning with which this myth was employed as an allegory by the Psalmist is perfectly plain. Just as Jahveh has overcome His enemies of old and slain the dragon and crushed the heads of insolent Leviathan, so will He do again. Therefore His people may trust in Him without fear.

Another passage of the same sort is Isaiah, xxvii. I :

In that day will Jahveh punish with His sword so hard

and great and strong, Leviathan the fleeing serpent, and Leviathan the crooked

[coiled] serpent. And will slay the Dragon in the sea.

This is in the form of a prophecy, but it goes back to the same old story. Leviathan, the flee-

"" 035)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

ing serpent, is the same conception as Tiamat fleeing from Marduk. Mr. F. Wells Williams, of New Haven, has an Assyrian cylinder, repre- senting the dragon flying from Marduk, who is pursuing her with a sword. It will be noticed in this chapter of Isaiah that Jahveh kills Leviathan with a sword, which is described in a particular way as hard and great and strong. The coiled or crooked serpent is probably the mythical ocean which the Greeks as well as the Baby- lonians beHeved to coil circlewise round the world. Three monsters are mentioned here — Leviathan, the fleeing serpent; Leviathan, the coiled serpent, and the Dragon of the sea; but they are all mythical monsters of chaos and the abyss, whom Jahveh slays with His sword.

We will mention only one other passage of this nature, draw the needful conclusions, and then return to Genesis. It is Job's celebrated account of Leviathan in the fortieth and the forty-first chapters. This wonderful description is generally supposed to apply to the crocodile of the Nile. Much of the description does apply to the croco- dile very well, but there is a good deal more that, even allowing for poetic exaggeration, does not correspond with any known animal that ever swam in the water or walked on land. The words of Job are these :

Canst thou draw out Leviathan with a fish hook?

Wilt thou hold his tongue fast In a noose?

Wilt thou lay a hook in his mouth,

And bore through his cheeks with a ring?

Will he supplicate thee for pity,

And address thee with sweet words?

Will he make a compact with thee,

And engage himself to serve thee forever?

(^36)

Leviathan in Job

Wilt thou play with him as with a sparrow,^ And tie him with a string to amuse thy children?

All this is intended to prove that man can never overcome Leviathan. Job is convinced that men will never be able to catch him. A great deal of this applies well enough to fishing, and perhaps even to fishing for crocodiles, with which, we maybe sure, silk lines and split bamboos would be of little account. But as soon as Job speaks of Leviathan's uttering prayers of suppHcation and making compacts, we can see that it is not the crocodile of which he is thinking, though the expression '' crocodile tears " has lasted from that day to this. Leviathan is plainly one of the old brood of mythical animals of the sea, the spirit of the deep who regulates the tides. This becomes plainer as we go on :

Lay thy hand on him but once,

Thou wilt not a second time think of war;

Then will all thy self-confidence be found a lie.

A god would lower his glance before him,

An angel would hesitate to awake him.

And who would venture to walk in front of him?

Who has fought with him and come out of it alive?

Under the whole Heaven, not one.

Certainly this is no crocodile.

He makes the deep to seethe like a pot.

The sea like a boiling kettle.

The bed of the rivers is his path,

You would think that the sea had white hair.

On earth there is not his like.

He is created to be lord of the lower world [Tehom].

It is he whom all the mighty fear.

It is he who is king over all the proud.

'' King of the mighty," " Lord of Tehom," the (137)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

abyss, he is the true child of chaos, whom God alone can overcome.

Under the guidance of Gunkel, we have now brought together facts enough to prove con- clusively that the idea of chaos conceived as a living monster or a number of monsters was per- fectly familiar to the writers of the Old Testa- ment, and was freely employed by them in hymns and for other religious purposes. In the Book of Genesis the word Tehom occurs, around which the whole Babylonian myth was built, but in Gen- esis every mythical trait has disappeared. Not so, however, in Isaiah, in Job, and in many Psalms. Leviathan, Behemoth, Rahab, the fleeing ser- pent, the crooked serpent, the great dragon, all the children of chaos, are conceived as living, or as once alive, and as rising in insolence against Jahveh. Jahveh is obliged to fight with them and to kill them before the work of Creation can continue. In our accounts, as in the Babylonian, the dead bodies of these monsters are not buried, but are used in making the world. Job speaks of the bars and bolts of Heaven, with which Marduk fastened the body of Tiamat ; Genesis assigns to the firmament the function of separating the waters above from the waters below. The Psalm tells how the body of the dead Leviathan nour- ishes life in the desert, i. e., supplies men and beasts and plants with water. AH this shows us how closely the old traditions of Babylon and Israel were related, and what a place these myths occupied in the background of even the most religious minds. If this study has shown us the significance of those strange figures of the Old Testament, Rahab, Leviathan, the great

(138)

Original Meaning of Tehom in Genesis

dragon, the fleeing serpent, etc., we need not begrudge the time.

There is one conclusion to be drawn from these passages that is very interesting. We have seen what an important part was played by Mother Tiamat in the Babylonian cosmogony. In our first account of Creation in Genesis, the same conception remains concealed in the old word Tehom. But in Genesis this strange per- sonality has paled into a mere thing ; not so, how- ever, in the passages I have cited from Isaiah, Job, and the Psalms. There the old chaos monster, whether it is called Rahab or Levia- than or the crooked serpent, reappears in all its native energy. Erom Isaiah's allusion to this mythical being as living '' in the days of old, in the ages of far-off antiquity," it was plainly the subject of a very ancient myth. From the casual manner in which the sacred writers introduce this strange being, without a word of explana- tion, it was apparently familiar enough to their contemporaries. It is therefore not too bold to conjecture that at one time '' the raging Tiamat," or, rather, her Hebrew counterpart, played a far more important role in the Hebrew Creation story than she does now; and that in the numerous recensions our story has undergone, her crude and revolting personality has been gradually eHminated until nothing but her name remains. From the way she is associated in Job with '' the pillars of heaven " it is plain that in the Hebrew tradition, also, her divided body formed the firmament of the sky, a fact which is still evident in the first chapter of Genesis.

As to the document of Genesis in which this

(139)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

myth was preserved, it would be rash to speak with confidence. We remember, however, that the Jehovist's account of Creation is short and evidently much mutilated, that the Jehovist lived centuries before the Priestly Writer, that he was much more lenient than the latter toward the ancient traditions of his people, and that he actually speaks in the blessing of Joseph of " the deep (Tehom) that croucheth beneath." It may well be that in his original story of Creation Tia- mat was finely represented with all her mythical characteristics, and that she occupied a promi- nent place in his narrative. Later revisers, of- fended at the crudity of the conception, felt obliged to remove a body that had become alto- gether foreign to the religion of Israel. In re- moving her they were obliged to cut deep into the Jehovist's original account. If this surmise is correct, religion probably gained, but science has suffered an irreparable loss. The idea under- lying all these strange conceptions is also inter- esting. Separated from its purely mythical setting, it is simply this: The material out of which the world is made offers a kind of resist- ance to the will of God. Chaos is old and it is stubborn. In the end it is overcome and killed, but it resists as long as possible. Now, although this may not be the correct and final solution of the problem of Creation, it is a temptingly easy solution, and we need not wonder that it has found a place in almost all religions and in a great many philosophies.* There is something

* It would hardly be an exaggeration to say that the sense of this antithesis runs through all mythologies. The names change, the opposition of intractable matter to the idea remains the

(140)

Chaos and Cosmos

essentially evil in nature. There is something essentially evil, stubborn, and resisting in our- selves, which we are very apt to associate with the flesh; that is to say, with the animal, carnal element in us that we take from Nature. Look at Creation for a moment, and think how slowly it has gone forward, how long it has taken the higher forms of life to come into existence. It is as if God had encountered immense difficul- ties in shaping a stubborn, intractable material and in compelling it at last to do His will. Think of the monsters of the old world whose huge bones enable us to reconstruct their strange, gigantic forms^ or which we occasionally find embedded in the ice intact. What rational pur- pose could they have served? Can we wonder that the Psalmist of old believed God had made them merely to amuse Himself? "There go the ships and there is that Leviathan whom Thou hast made [as a toy] to play with." Or look at the evil that is in every child of man, and seems an essential part of human nature, against which we must struggle our whole lives long, and which is ever resisting and ever com- pelling us to do what in our better nature we have no wish to do. It certainly seems to have some- thing of the old chaos and darkness about it. It is always trying to quench the light of God, the light of conscience, the light of reason in us, to destroy the plan of our life and reduce us to the condition of chaos and darkness in which law

same. We find it in the story of Jahveh and Rahab, of Marduk and Tiamat, in the battle of Phoebus with the Pythian monster, in Indra's conflict with the serpent Vritra, in Sigurd and the Dragon, in CEdipus and the Sphinx, etc.

(141)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

and order are unknown and all the elements of the soul are mingled m purposeless conflict and tumult.

And yet, strange to say, this resistance is the very condition of our moral life and progress. The light dove, winging her way across the heaven, thinks if it were not for the heavy imped- ing atmosphere she would rise higher and fly more swiftly. But it is only the resistance of the air to the stroke of her wing that enables her to rise at all. In a vacuum she would collapse into a handful of feathers. So it is only by resisting the instincts of our lower nature that we become good. If goodness were as easy and natural as breathing or as obeying the law of gravitation, there would be no merit in it. We take no credit to ourselves because our heart is always beating, or because we do not fly away to the moon. But it is just because goodness is so hard to attain, because we never do a good action without hav- ing the opportunity to do a bad one, that the world bows down to its good men. In them we feel that God has won a victory of whose fruits we all partake.

What the nature of this resisting chaos is, we do not know. Neither the Babylonian legend nor the Book of Genesis can tell us. The Baby- lonian legend simply assumes Tiamat as existing from the beginning. Out of her come the gods who eventually destroy her. The Book of Gen- esis, though more guarded in its language, does not say that God created chaos, probably for this reason. All that God made is good. Chaos is evil. Even the firmament which was made out of Tiamat, according to the Babylonian account.

The Sabbath Day

God carefully refrains from calling good. In Isaiah, Job, and the Psalms, the existence of the mythical chaos-monster is assumed, but it is nowhere said that God created him.

Finally, let us consider the idea of the Sabbath day in this chapter. It is introduced with much art. The author places the observance of the Sabbath long before Moses, at the creation of the world itself, or, rather, he gives here the reason why the Sabbath day was afterward kept. The sanction of the Sabbath day is the rest of God after Creation. To us, that is a mere rever- sal of the facts of the case. The introduction of the Sabbath is the objective point of the whole account of Creation. It was his wish to intro- duce the seventh day into his story that led our author to choose six days for the work of Crea- tion, in a manner that would be altogether meaningless and arbitrary were it not for the necessity of ending with the seventh day, the day of rest. To do this he is obliged on two occa- sions to crowd two acts of creation into one day — the separation of land and water and the crea- tion of vegetation on the third day, and the creation of land animals and of man on the sixth day.

And yet, as we shall see, our author had a reason for placing the hallowing of the Sabbath day long before Moses, and even long before the beginning of Hebrew history. What is that rea- son ? Or we might as well ask. What is the origin of the Sabbath day, one of the greatest blessings that religion has ever bestowed upon man? If Moses did not originate that observance, how old is it, and where did it originate? We do not find

(143)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

any trace of it among the Greeks or Egyplians, whose week consisted of ten days.* The Arabs undoubtedly learned to observe the Sabbath from the Jews. So only Babylonia is left, and there we find just what we are looking for. In the sacred calendar of Babylon for the inter- calated months Elul^ which was discovered by Rawlinson, and is preserved in the British Mu- seum, we read that the seventh, the fourteenth, the twenty-first, and the twenty-eighth days of the lunar month were called Udu Khulgal, an unlawful day. We read also in this calendar the directions for the observance of that day :

The seventh day is a resting day to Merodach [Mar- duk] and Zarpanit [his consort]. The Shepherd of mighty nations [this possibly takes us back to the earhest Accadian times, when kings remembered that their predecessors had

* Ferdinand Baur's assertion (" Der Hebraische Sabbat," etc., Tiibinger Zeitschrift fur Theologie, 1832, pp. 123-igi) that the Hebrew Sabbath was originally associated with the worship of Saturn, and hence with the Roman Saturnalia, is justified only to this extent. The Romans, who originally had a week of eight days, later adopted the Babylonian week of seven days. From Babylon they learned to call the days of the week after the heav- enly bodies. The order is as follows: i. Sunday = Shamash (Sun-god). 2. Monday = Sin (Moon-god). 3. Tuesday = Nergal (Mars). 4. Wednesday = Nebo (Mercury). 5. Thurs- day = Merodach (Jupiter). 6. Friday = Ishtar (Venus). 7. Sat- urday = Adar (Saturn). This order, however, is not invariable in the cuneiform lists. From the Romans the names of the days of the week passed to the whole civilized world. That the Hebrew Sabbath had any closer connection with the Roman Saturnalia, a feast which occurred only once a year, is prepos- terous. It is true, late Roman writers (e. g,, Tacitus, Hist. v. 4) associate the Saturnalia with the Jewish Sabbath, but this re- semblance as far as it existed is to be explained by their common Babylonian origin. The Italian festival is very old. The week of seven days, however, did not come to the Romans much before the Christian Era, nor did the Hebrews ever name their week days after the planets, but described them as the first, second, etc., day after the Sabbath.

(144)

Babylonian Sabbath

been only shepherd chiefs] must not eat flesh cooked at the fire or in the smoke. His clothes he changes not. A washing he must not make. He must not offer sacrifice. The king must not drive in his chariot. He must not issue royal decrees. In secret places the augur a muttering makes not. Medicine for the sickness of the body one must not apply. For making a curse it is not fit. In the night the king makes his free will offering to Merodach and Istar. Sacrifice he slays. The lifting of his hand finds favor with his god.*

This is of incomparable interest, not only be- cause it proves the existence of the Sabbath long before the age of Abraham, but also because we find here those minute prescriptions in regard to cooking food, changing one's clothes, and travel- ling on the Sabbath, for which we have been in the habit of criticizing the late Jewish doctors, but which, apparently, came down to them from the most remote antiquity. Perhaps in the his- tory of the world we could hardly find an equal example of the vitality of a religious tradition. I remember that as a child I was allowed to take walks on Sunday, but not to drive in a carriage. Little did I suspect that this was because it was engraved on the old Babylonian tablet " He shall not drive in a chariot." " Medicine for the sick- ness of the body he shall not apply." The viola- tion of this latter injunction was one of the charges brought against Jesus, and well did He say, '' Ye make the commands of God of no effect through your traditions."

Let us look a Httle more closely at the Babylo- nian conception of the Sabbath presented on this tablet. We notice that all injunctions in regard to the keeping of this day are addressed solely to

* Boscawen's translation. (145)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

the king. His acts alone are supposed to suffice to make the day auspicious. So far, at all events, the Babylonian Sabbath can hardly be called a popular institution. In the next place this tab- let, far from regarding the Sabbath as a day of religious Observance, expressly states that no sacrifice may be offered on this day before even- ing, nor are the oracles to be consulted. The conception of the Sabbath is rather that it is an evil and an inauspicious day {dies ater^ as the Romans called it). The two saHent features of the Hebrew Sabbath — its specifically religious nature as a day sacred to Jahveh, and its joyous character as a popular religious festival — are wholly absent in this description. Like the He- brews, the Babylonians seem to have reckoned their Sabbath first as a day of the month, deter- mined by the phases of the moon, later as a day of the week. Much more important is the ques- tion whether it was from Babylonia that the Hebrews derived their wise custom of resting one day in seven from every form of manual la- bor. The names which the Babylonians applied to their seventh day — Sabattuv, '' day of rest " ; Sabattuv Hm nuh libbi, '' day of rest of the heart " — renders this supposition probable. Ihering, on the strength of this name, considering also the vast number of slaves employed in Babylonia on public works, to whom a day of rest would be necessary, and remembering that the Hebrew Sabbath was originally a day of rest rather than of reHgious observance, believes that the incom- parable blessing of one day of rest in seven was gained for mankind by the needs of the laborer rather than by religion or the fancies of astrolo-

V

Hebrew Sabbath

gers.* The Hebrews evidently derived their Sab- bath as a division of time, along with the week, from Babylonia. From the same country they may have learned to regard the Sabbath as a day of rest. But the peculiar religious and social sig- nificance which this day acquired among the Hebrews, we should look for in vain among any other nation.

This tablet corroborates the general position taken throughout our discussion. The Israel- ites certainly did not borrow their Sabbath from the Babylonians at the time of the Exile, f It is part of the common heritage, one of the old family traditions they held in common. But it is due to Israel and not to Babylon that this old Sabbath, this '' Rest of the Heart," has become the '* day of rest and gladness," — a blessing to the whole world.

* Ihering's argument seems to me strengthened by the fact that no work was performed by slaves during the Roman Satur- nalia. Cf. note on page 144.

f This one fact ought to caution critics against insisting on too late a date for the introduction into Israel of other Babylonian customs and traditions.

(147)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Chapter Eight: Adam and Eve

WE pass now from the first account of Cre- ation to the second, from the Priestly Writer to the Jehovist. The Jehovist's account begins in the middle of the fourth verse of the second chapter. It describes the creation of the world, though in a brief and fragmentary way, until it reaches the creation of man. Then the narrative expands and becomes picturesque and striking. Mankind is ushered on to the stage of the world, not in a mere abstract phrase, as in the first account — '' male and female created he them " — but as a particular man and a particular woman, his wife. The characters of this man and woman are drawn, their motives and feelings are taken into account. That is the reason why Adam and Eve have been seriously accepted as our first parents by so large a part of the world. They are living beings like ourselves. Their im- pulses, their desires are human. That is why we can claim kinship with them. And all this is due to the literary art and the deep religious feeling of a very great writer whom we have already called the Jehovist. As soon as man appears his moral life begins. His physical environment also is taken into account. It is happy, delicious, pure, innocent, and altogether lovely. The

(148)

Jehovist's Story of Creation

Jehovist has evoked for us that dream of the springtide of earth to which the whole world has turned with delight, when all was fresh, new, unused, when sin did not exist, but man, a pure being, dwelt with his virgin wife in a garden of God's own planting, enjoying God's presence and favor, surrounded by peaceable and friendly animals. At last sin entered in, or at least disobedience and discontent, and man was driven out of the garden of Eden to begin his in- finite labor with the world and with himself.

It is not necessary, after what has been said, to show at length that this is indeed another author, and an entirely independent account. Everything points to this conclusion. The dry, majestic style of the first chapter, which ignores particulars, instantly becomes graphic, minute, and familiar. God fashions man and animals out of clay. He breathes into the man's nostrils His living breath, takes a rib or a side out of Adam and closes up the cavity; He brings Eve to him — all very much more naif. The name for God is changed. Instead of Elohim, in these two chapters we have Jahveh Elohim, then afterward merely Jahveh. I may say, in passing, that this expression, Jahveh Elohim, is a very unusual one, not used else- where in the Pentateuch."^ The reason for the transition appears to be this: If the Book of Genesis passed abruptly from one name of God to another without a word of explanation, it would have given rise to a good deal of scandal. People would have supposed two deities had been at work, one described in the first chapter, named Elohim, and another in the second chapter,

* Except Ex. ix. 30. (149)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

named Jahveh. These two names must be brought into some connection, otherwise every reader would stumble.* Accordingly, in these two chapters (the second and third) the two names are brought into the closest connection by being written together. Then, after it has been plainly shown that Jahveh and Elohim are the same being, the Elohist writers are allowed to go on speaking in the name of Elohim, and the Jehovist writer in the name of Jahveh. This is the work of the Redactor, or Editor, who united the different documents of the Pentateuch and gave them some semblance of unity.

Before we say anything more about this second account of Creation, let us have it as nearly as possible in the writer's words.

Chapter ii., v. 4^: On the day when Jahveh Elohim made the earth and the heavens. t

5, 6, 7. Not a shrub of the field was yet upon the earth, not a herb of the field had yet sprouted, because Jahveh Elohim had not yet caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to cultivate the ground: but a thick cloud rose up from the earth and watered all the surface of the ground. And Jahveh Elohim formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils [literally, blew into his nose] the breath of life, and so man became a living soul.^:

* Dillmann.

f An unusual order, which shows that the author's interest is centred on the earth ; in fact, he says nothing further of the heavens at all, and yet his account originally must have described the creation of heavenly bodies, which was omitted here either because it had just been said before, or because, it contradicted what was said before,

X This may have been suggested by the fact that the Hebrew word for man is Adam, and the word for ground is Adama, so man would naturally be thought of as coming from the ground, belonging to the soil, very much Hke the Latin homo, humus. Unfortunately this tempting derivation cannot be accepted

05^)

Site of the Garden of Kden

8. And Jahveh Elohim planted a garden in the East, in the land of Loveliness [or, in Eden].* And he placed there the man he had formed.

9. And Jahveh Elohim made to shoot from the ground every tree pleasant to the eye and good to eat; f and the Tree of Life in the middle of the garden and also the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil.t

10. II, 12. A river came out of Eden to water the garden, and from that point it divided to form four branches. The name of one [branch] is Pison; it is thr.t which encircles all the land of Havilah where the gold is found. And the gold of that land is good; there is found also the bedolach and the shoham stone.§

13, 14. And the name of the second river is Gihon; it is that which circles all the land of Cush. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: it is that which flows before Assh^ir. And the fourth river is the Phrath.

r shall say but a word in regard to the situation of Paradise or Eden. Men have been trying to find it for thousands of years and have looked for it everywhere, from an island in the Persian Gulf to the North Pole; || but they are not able to make it stay where they put it, since new

(Ewald, Delitzsch, Dillmann), and no satisfactory etymology for Adam has yet been found.

* The word Eden means comfort, delight, bliss. The He- brews knew several places called Eden, but there is nothing whatever to connect them with this garden. By placing Paradise in the East, the author gives a hint that the myth itself came from the East.

f Only trees are mentioned, not herbs nor vegetables. Man is conceived at this time as living on fruits and nuts. Our teeth tell the same story ; they were made for fruits and nuts, not to tear flesh.

I These are miraculous, divine trees, such as grow only on the soil of faith. They help to show that this is a supernatural garden, a wonderful garden of God.

§ Bedolach is supposed to be a gum Hke amber. The shoham stone has been identified with the beryl, the emerald, and the onyx. This verse interrupts the sense and seems to have been interpolated.

I " Paradise Found : The Cradle of the Human Race at the North Pole." William F. Warner. Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1886, 8th ed.

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

scholars are constantly contending for new lo- cations. What is the reason that Eden is so hard to locate? It seems to be described with much precision. The trouble is, it is like the country on which the end of the rainbow rests ; it recedes as we advance. It would appear either that our author wrote without the least knowledge of foreign geography or that he did not wish to identify this Garden of God with any known country; or, as seems to me most probable, that he was influenced by several con- flicting traditions. Where should we find a spot from which one vast river branches into four channels that encircle whole lands? Two of these rivers are perfectly well known. They are the Tigris and Euphrates (Hiddekel and Phrat), which rise in the mountains of Kurdistan, and now unite perhaps a hundred miles above the Persian Gulf. Between them lie the plain of Assyria to the north and Babylonia to the south. When our author speaks of the Hiddekel or Tig- ris flowing before Asshur, he is perfectly correct, only it is the old city of Asshur on the west bank of the Tigris below Nineveh that he has in mind. The Phrat, or Euphrates, he does not identify, because it was too well known to need identifica- tion. The Gihon and the Pison, which he also describes as large streams encircling whole lands, have never been absolutely identified. Nor has Havilah, through which the Pison flows; but from the way in which he speaks of Havilah as the country whence come fine gold and precious stones, one would think either of India or of Arabia. As Arabia possesses no large river, on the whole we should identify the Pison with the

The Four Rivers of Eden

Indus or the Ganges, preferably with the Indus ; and this view is somewhat strengthened by the fact that in the order named in Genesis the Pison is the easternmost river. That the old Hebrews themselves had no clear idea where Havilah was, is shown by the fact that in the same chapter of Genesis (the tenth) Havilah is called a descendant of Japhet and a descendant of Shem. Similarly, when our author speaks of the Gihon flowing around the land of Gush, we should naturally think of the African Gush, and hence the Gihon would be the Nile.

The conception of our author appears to be something like this. The garden of Eden, the first centre of life and vegetation and beauty, is the source from which all the life-giving rivers flow. To our author, the four great rivers of the world are the Tigris and Euphrates, which he knows very well, the Nile, and perhaps the Indus, of which he has heard, but of whose courses he has only the vaguest idea. So he conceives of one great stream issuing from Eden, whose waters divide and form the four chief riv- ers of the world. I do not insist on identifying the Pison with the Indus, but of the other three rivers we are practically certain.*

Now let us go on :

15, 16, 17. Jahveh Elohim took the man and placed him In the garden of Eden to cuhivate it and to keep it. And Jahveh Elohim- commanded the man, saying, " Of every tree in the garden thou mayest eat, but of the Tree of the

* I have not felt it necessary to reproduce Friedrich Delitzsch's arguments as to the site of Eden. Interesting as they are, they seem to me inconclusive. His book, however, is a very valuable one. Its well-known title is " Wo lag das Paradies?" (Leipzig, 1881).

(153)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat, for on the day that thou shalt eat of it thou shalt die of death " [liter- ally, dying, thou shalt die].

i8. And Jahveh Elohim said, " It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make him a help like himself."

19. And Jahveh Elohim formed out of the earth all the animals of the field and all the fowls of the air, and He led them to the man to see how he would name them, and according as the man named a living creature, that was to be its name.

20. And the man called by name all cattle, all fowl of the air, and all wild beasts of the field, but for man found He among them no help like to him.

21. And Jahveh Elohim made a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept. He took one of his ribs [or one of his sides], and He closed up the place with fiesh.

22. And Jahveh Elohim built up the rib [side] He had taken from the man into a woman, and He led her to the man.

23. And the man said, " This is this time [now, at last] bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. This shall be called woman [isshah], because she was taken out of man [ish]."

24. This is why the man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be only one flesh.

25. And both of them, the man and the woman, were naked and they were not ashamed.

This is the first of these two wonderful chap- ters. It is a chapter full of interest, but at the same time it abounds in difihculties, and, unfor- tunately, there is no simple thread we can seize on here to guide us through the labyrinth. The chief difficulty is this : The first chapter of Gen- esis, in spite of its sublimity and grand sense of proportion, was written by a man of great simplicity of thought and of style. He took as his sources the old traditions shared by the He- brews, Babylonians, and Egyptians, and, trans- forming them only so much as his religion re- quired, he gave them to us in a form in which we could partially unravel them. He was in all re-

054)

The Jehovist's Sources

spects an objective writer, with whom the per- sonal equation counted for little. But this splen- did Jehovist, as every verse proves, is an accom- plished artist. He has his sources, of course, and, as we shall see, he seeks them far and near; but with him the old material is so profoundly transformed to serve his ideal purposes, that its original form is obscured, and it is often hard to say where he obtained his original facts or what their first form was. It would appear, too, that he was a man of greater culture than the Priestly Writer and gathered his honey from many flow- ers. The difference between the two writers is almost as great as between Shakespeare and Bal- zac or Thackeray. The plot of one of Shake- speare's plays is almost always easy to assign to its historical source. But who, without a most minute knowledge of his life, can tell us where Thackeray got the material he put into " Vanity Fair," or what suggested Pere Goriot to Balzac? Fortunately, our task is not so difficult. In such a study there is a great temptation to see fancied resemblances where real ones are lacking. That seems to me just as grave an error as the old dogmatic method which interprets every verse of Genesis as if it fell from the skies. There is, however, no way of dissipating the cloud of difficulties that surround us, except by meeting and overcoming them one by one, or, when they are too strong for us, acknowledging ourselves beaten. Part of the comparison I am about to make will include the third chapter of Genesis, the description of the Temptation and the Fall, but we are so familiar with the story that we shall have no difficulty in following it.

(155)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

I have mentioned several times the decided dif- ferences and contradictions between these two accounts of Creation in regard to the order in which the various parts of Nature came into being. It is not necessary to go over all that again, but there is one physical contradiction which is very important, and which, if followed up, will yet throw much light on the origin of this second narrative. In the first account, as we have seen, the world is conceived as rising out of the water. In fact, at first it is covered by water, water surrounds and drowns it, and only after the waters, which are conceived as everywhere, above as well as below, are separated by the firm- ament, can the earth appear at all. Water, of which there is too much, is conceived as a hostile element ; it is personified by monsters like Tiamat and Rahab and Leviathan, which must be killed and put down before the world can be created. In short, it is the conception of a maritime peo- ple, or, more probably, of a people dwelling be- side some great river whose freshets constantly menaced their lives and property, and whose waters they must draw off into other channels, as Marduk is described as drawing off the sea.

In the second account, however, we find the very reverse of all this. Everything here speaks of the scarcity of water. Water is regarded as a friendly element. '' Not a shrub of the field was yet upon the earth, not a herb of the field had sprouted, because Jahveh Eloliim had not caused it to rain upon the earth." The phenom- enon of rain and moisture is accounted for in an entirely different way. Our author says nothing about the firmament that holds the heavenly

(156)

Water a Friendly Element

waters. He accounts for rain (at least, it is hard not to believe that he has rain in mind) in a most rational manner. '' But a thick mist rose up from the earth and " watered all the surface of the ground." That seems to describe the formation of an atmosphere quite in the spirit of modern geology. He carries his point of view so far that he does not mention*the creation of fish or water animals at all. Paradise (the Garden of Eden) is a kind of oasis in the desert, from which flow the four great rivers that give life to the chief nations of the earth. Outside of Paradise the earth produces nothing but thorns and thistles. It is hard to cultivate and difficult to wrest food from. In short, the birthplace of this tradition was not Babylonia, overflowed yearly by two great rivers, where the water was an enemy rather than a friend and the soil so fertile that one had hardly to scratch it to re- ceive a crop, where alone in the world wheat grows wild; but the birthplace of this tradition must be looked for in a very different locality, in an inland country and probably in a desert like Arabia, or in a country surrounded by deserts. I do not think scholars have weighed this fact sufficiently. All the Hght that Babylon as yet can throw on this second chapter has been eagerly welcomed, and it does explain something. But Babylonian tradition here is of far less as- sistance than in the first chapter, and there are many features of this second account which every scholar feels never originated on Jewish soil, and for which Babylonian lore fails to account. Their source must be looked for elsewhere. If we only knew where!

057)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Passing on now to the moral and spiritual dif- ferences of the two accounts, we find them nearly as striking. In the first account, the distinctions between God and Nature, between God and man, between Nature and man and between man and the animals are drawn with wonderful clearness and precision. Elohim is in heaven. He creates by His word. Not so here. Jahveh is on earth. He creates animals and men out of clay with His hands, like a maker of images. Although we are not told that Jahveh Elohim spent all His time in Paradise, yet He is evidently there a good deal. Polytheism, of which in the first account one may say there is hardly a trace, shows unmistakably here. When Jahveh says '' The man is become as one of us, knowing good and evil," it is evident that He is not alone Hke the solitary Elohim.

Then the whole conception of Nature is differ- ent. I called your attention to the fact that the world described in the first chapter of Genesis is just the plain, prosaic Nature we know to-day; not so in the second chapter. The garden of the East, in the '' land of loveliness," is a magic gar- den and sometimes, in the cool shadows of the evening, when Jahveh was heard moving among the trees, it must have been awful. Strange trees grow in it. Imagine a tree capable of bestowing knowledge, and a tree capable of bestowing eter- nal life. The last picture of vast genii or cherubs, half brute, half angel, and the flaming blade of a sword which of itself " turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life," is weird in the ex- treme.

The conception of the animals is very peculiar. Not only is the talking, tempting serpent, who

Creation of Woman

knows so much about the secrets of God and whose power of speech causes the woman no sur- prise, entirely unHke anything else in the Bible ; but the whole animal creation and man's relation to it are conceived in a half mythical manner. In the first chapter, animals are created before man, and are simply in a general way placed in sub- jection to him. In the second chapter, man is created long before the animals, and they are brought to him one by one not only to receive their names, but plainly for the purpose of ascer- taining whether among them one might not be found to serve as a companion to man. '' And Jahveh Elohim said, ' It is not good that the man be alone: I will make him a help like himself.' And Jahveh Elohim formed out of the earth all the animals of the field and He led them to the man to see how he would name them . but for man found He among them no help like to him."

Accordingly, the account passes on to the cre- ation of woman. Whereas, in the first account, man and woman, male and female, were created at the same time by God without any account being taken of their peculiar relation to each other, our author here describes in the strangest manner how woman was separated from the very substance of man, taken, in short, out of his side while he slept. That story has for time out of mind been ridiculed as grotesque, but those who ridicule it little know what they are laughing at. I remember once hearing Dr. McConnell say that at the bottom of the universe lies the distinc- tion of sex. It is this problem, the key to life, the key to man's spiritual nature and all his

(159)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

moral and immoral actions, that our author is grappling with here under the disguise of this strange myth. If only we knew certainly what he washes to imply ! Following our Authorized Version, we are in the habit of saying that Eve was made of one of Adam's ribs. But, as Le- normant says, the word qeld elsewhere usually means " side," and not rib. Jewish tradition in the Talmud, as well as among philosophers like Moses Maimonides, asserts that Adam was first created man and woman, with two faces turned in opposite directions, and that, during a stupor, the Creator separated his feminine half from him in order to make her a distinct per- son. This conception is also found in Hindu mythology. Plato introduces the same idea in the Symposium and gives a wonderful descrip- tion of the androgyn, who could walk upright when it pleased, or else spread its eight limbs and roll like a wheel. He explains the attraction of love by the desire of these two sundered halves to return to their original unity. It is certainly singular that our Saviour should have selected this passage in Genesis to prove the indissoluble nature of the marriage bond. " Wherefore they are no more twain [i. e., two beings], but one flesh."

Leaving this aside, however, it is a profound sense of woman's relation to man that led our author to describe her as taken out of his very side, and then as weaning him at once from the brute creation and satisfying him with her sole society.* In every respect the conception is pure

* Rabbi Joshua of Laknin said : " The Lord considered from what part of the man he should form woman. Not from the

(i6o)

Man and Woman

and satisfying. If we take the first view, that Adam was first both man and woman, it means that humanity is neither male nor female, but both. There is in every great man something of the womanly, that is, something of the intuitive, the mysterious, the creative, something of faith and love; and there are some manly qualities in every perfect woman. Balzac, in his most in- spired work, grapples with this mystery when he makes Seraphita both male and female ; that is, she impresses men as a woman and women as a man. Until man recognizes woman for what she is and learns from her the lesson of spirituality which she alone can teach him, he remains on the plane of the animal. This is wonderfully shown in the chapter of Genesis that we are dis- cussing. Adam's temptation came through Eve, it is true, but without her he would not have been Adam. For the rest, their union is not yet mar- riage, only pure companionship. She is not his slave, his chattel, nor one of many. She and he were made for each other exclusively. She is his only one, his fitting helpmeet.

There is only one other point of comparison I wish to draw between these two chapters. In the first chapter, after men and women were created, dominion over the entire world was given them as the free and glad gift of God. " Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it," was God's

head, lest she should be proud ; not from the eyes, lest she should wish to see everything- ; not from the mouth, lest she might be talkative ; nor from the ear, lest she should wish to hear every- thing ; nor from the heart, lest she should be jealous ; nor from the hand, lest she should wish to find out everything ; nor from the feet, in order that she might not be a wanderer. Only from the most hidden place that is always covered — namely, the rib."

(i6i)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

command to them. This impHes the multiplica- tion of the human race and man's ascendancy over Nature by knowledge and civilization. In the second chapter, however, not only is the repro- duction of the human race unthought of in Par- adise, but man's domination of Nature is pro- hibited by God's forbidding him to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. When man goes forth to his manifest destiny to wrestle with the world and to overcome it, he is not accompanied with God's blessing, but, as a result of sin, is thrust out of Paradise into a sad and accursed world, from which all he hopes is to eat bread by the sweat of his brow until he dies. The very pro- creation of children, everywhere else in the Bible regarded as the highest mark of God's favor and blessing, is here, one might almost say, part of the curse. " I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow shalt thou bear children, and thy desire shall be to thy hus- band, and he shall rule over thee." In the first chapter man is made in the very image of God. But in the second account, to *' become like God, knowing good and evil," is a sin, and, lest man should become more like God by gaining immor- tality through eating of the Tree of Life, he is driven out of the garden altogether.

All this is sad and even pessimistic, but we should remember that the purpose of these chap- ters is a sad purpose. They were written to ac- count for the origin of human sin and their won- derful power is proved by their wonderful suc- cess. If theauthor considers even the procreation of children as part of the curse, it is because he knows that those children will inherit a corrupt

Poetry, not History

nature and will lead a sad and sinful life. If we regard these chapters as Hterally historical, there is much in them that naturally revolts us, but all this disappears when we recognize their real pur- pose, and it is a proof of their incomparable vigor and their fidelity to life that they have passed as actual history for so long. That they are pure poetry, however, we may infer from the fact that they inspired '' Paradise Lost."

We have now, I hope, at least broken the ice. What remains is to translate the third chapter and explain what we can, and then to attempt to anchor these wonderful conceptions of Paradise — the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life, the speaking, tempting Serpent, the Cherubim and the revolving Sword — by assigning them their place in the great world of human tradition. Unfortunately, it will be many years before that task can be completely performed. And yet I beHeve that the key to these strange conceptions lies buried under the ruins of some old civiliza- tion, if not in Babylon or Nineveh, in Egypt or Damascus, or still farther toward the East. Im- ages and stories like these are never the result of conscious reflection. They are the product of many minds, and they belong to the period when language and religions are still in their plastic, creative condition.

(163)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Chapter Nine: The Garden and the Fall

THE second and third chapters of Genesis are so closely connected that they may be said to form one story by themselves, a story which has had more eifect on the thought of the world than any other part of the Old Testament. This fact alone justifies us in treating it with the utmost seriousness. The cause must be at least as great as its effect. You remember how the second chapter ends. Adam and Eve are placed in the Garden in the Land of Loveliness ; (where that is no one knows). There they lead a pure, idyllic life in intimate association with God. How long this life continued before the Fall we are not told. The Book of the Jubilee says, for seven years. Let us now try to put all our old preconceptions about this chapter to one side and approach it as if we had never read it before and were deeply anxious to know what it wishes to teach us.

Chap. iii. i. Now the Serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which Jahveh Elohim had made.

In attempting to account for the sources of this chapter I shall have something to say in regard to the part played by the serpent as a sym- bol of temptation and evil in the mythology of the nations. Here I will only mention the pecu-

(164)

Serpent not the Devil

liar characteristics of this particular serpent. It will be necessary for us at once to dismiss from our minds the old, familiar notion that this ser- pent is the Devil or Satan, i.e., a spiritual being consciously devoted to evil, or a fallen angel. No- where in this chapter does the suggestion of such a thing occur, and, to be quite candid, the He- brew people had no such conception of the Devil or Satan before the Exile. Every allusion to Satan in the Old Testament is later than the Ex- ile. All this we can see most plainly by merely observing what our writer says of the serpent. He is not a spirit or power of the air, but simply a beast of the field which Jahveh Elohim had made. We cannot, therefore, conceive of him as a hostile power, Hke the Persian Angro-Mainyu, independent of Jahveh and opposed to Him. He is Jahveh's creature. In regard to his form, he is simply a snake, slipping along the ground with his head often buried in the dust. There is a hint given, indeed, that this was not his original form or mode of locomotion. What his original mode of locomotion was we are not told, and un- less his physical form had undergone a decided change, it would be hard for us to imagine. I remember how Professor Konig, of Leipzig, used to draw beautiful spirals on the blackboard to show how the serpent was able to balance himself on his tail before his '' fall." As a matter of fact, the serpent is a fallen animal, as the Book of Genesis states, although I do not pretend to say that our author was aware of it. Evolu- tionists tell us that the serpent was once a shorter and thicker reptile, provided with four limbs, which have almost disappeared through dis-

(165)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

use. For reasons of his own he preferred to crawl through the dust by powerfully constricting his side muscles, so he was not allowed to keep his legs. The rudimentary legs, with all their bones, however, are still developed, and are sometimes, I believe, visible in young snakes. But all that is beside the subject. The serpent is represented here merely as a beast of the field without a single mythical trait, so far as his appearance is con- cerned, and if anything further is needed to prove this, it is found in the fifteenth verse, where the serpent is conceived as capable of reproduc- ing himself and leaving an offspring, against which man's well-known aversion to snakes wages perpetual war.

And yet I need not tell you that this serpent is no ordinary snake. He is able to speak and he is well acquainted with the secrets of God. The easy way in which the serpent is introduced as a familiar and well-known figure is very significant. It is true, our author (the Jehovist) also repre- sents Balaam's ass as speaking. But that feat is regarded as something unusual, and we may say as a miracle, which is done not so much by the ass as by God, who " by the dumb ass reproved the madness of the prophet." His speech evidently caused Balaam a good deal of surprise. Nothing of the kind, however, occurs here. The serpent speaks of his own accord and against the will of God rather than by it. And what is strangest is that the serpent's power of speech does not startle Eve in the least. She seems to accept it as something perfectly natural, and at once joins in conversation with him. Some persons have in- ferred from this that all the animals in the Garden

(i66)

A Moral Difficulty

of Eden were capable of speaking, like the ani- mals in ^sop's Fables, and we shall hereafter see that there is some ground for this supposition. The manner of introducing this speaking serpent, without explanation, implies that he was a more or less well-known mythical being.

The way in which his character is drawn is also very striking. We are accustomed to think of him as wicked, but we are only told that he was wise. Not only is he wise himself, but he admires God's wisdom. He is drawn very con- sistently as a wise being without a conscience. Obedience to God for God's sake is an idea that simply does not occur to him. He is governed by principles of enlightened selfishness. He does not tempt the woman to any deed of shame. He does not even advise her to conceal her fault. He merely recommends her to do the wisest thing in the world, to eat of the fruit of the tree that will make her like God, knowing good and evil.

Right here occurs one of the gravest diffi- culties in the whole chapter, because it is a moral difficulty. I have wrestled with it according to my strength and I must candidly admit that I cannot solve it. Almost all commentators, how- ever, solve it by ignoring it. It is this : God warns the man not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, solemnly assuring him that on the day he eats thereof he shall surely die. There is no use in attempting to soften that expression into '' become mortal," or " thou shalt begin to die," etc. The expression is as strong and as cer- tain as words can make it. " In the day that thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die of death." The ser-

(167)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

pent, however, assures the woman that she shall not die, and apparently it is he who tells the truth, for both Adam and Eve, after they have eaten of the fruit, live for many, many years. This apparent falsehood weighed heavily on the heart of the Jewish church. In the Talmud the explanation given is that with the Lord one day lasts a thousand years, and as Adam died when he was only nine hundred and thirty years old, Jahveh kept his word to him. As I said before, the motive of the author in this strange state- ment remains to me perfectly inexplicable.* Now we may go on with our translation.

1. And he said to the woman, " Did Elohim actually say, You shall not eat of any tree of the garden"?

You will observe that the serpent is not al- lowed to make use of the holy name Jahveh, which, as God's peculiar revelation to His peo- ple, would be out of place in the serpent's mouth. The half-contemptuous tone of surprise he em- ploys is intended to rouse suspicions of God's goodness in the woman's mind.

2, 3. And the woman said to the serpent, '' We do eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden Elohim has said, ' Ye shall not eat it and shall not touch it lest ye die! * "

One thought contained in this text may not oc- cur to many readers. Eve had not heard God say that. She was not yet in existence (as an indi- vidual) when God laid that command upon Adam. She had only learned of it afterward through him, and it will be observed that Adam, hke a good husband, had exaggerated the command to her

* See, however, page 251.

(168)

Tree of Knowledge a Unique Conception

and made it stricter than it really was. God had said nothing about touching the fruit. On Eve, therefore, the comrnand would not have made the same impression that it made on Adam. That may be one reason why the serpent addressed himself to her. Another reason may be that the wise serpent knew that in conquering the woman he would also conquer the man, whereas if he tempted Adam first. Eve might escape altogether. For, while it is not unusual to see women hold- ing themselves proudly aloof from the vices of their husbands, and warned rather than contami- nated by their example, rarely does one find a man better than his wife.

The way in which this tree is introduced has given rise to much comment and it certainly im- plies some confusion in the mind of the writer. It is the Tree of Life, not the Tree of Knov/ledge, that is in the middle of the garden. Many schol- ars have thought, on this account, that originally there was but one tree, the Tree of Life, and that the Tree of Knowledge was introduced clumsily as "an afterthought. But I would rather believe that the Tree of Life was a part of the original tradition, and that the Tree of Knowledge, for which no real counterpart has been discovered anywhere, and which is so essential to the nar- rative, was the personal conception of the Je- hovist, which he was not able to adjust perfectly to the old tradition.*

4, 5. And the serpent said to the woman, " You will in no wise die. For Elohim knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will open and you will be like Elohim, knowing good and evil."

* See Addis, *' Documents of the Hexateuch," p. 3, note i.

O69)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

All this is planned with the utmost cunning. Eve, it will be observed, does not know the na- ture of the Tree of Knowledge. She calls it merely *' the tree in the midst of the garden." Adam, if he was enlightened himself on this sub- ject, like many husbands and like most parents, had kept Eve entirely in the dark, and with the invariable result. She is instructed by the temp- ter. Knowledge and temptation are intertwined. From the union with knowledge temptation be- comes a thousand times more formidable. See now with what admirable skill the serpent returns to his task. Having induced the woman to con- fess the severity of God's command, he now boldly invites her to break it, first by promising her that the penalty God has affixed to the viola- tion of His commandment will not happen to her, and so removing her fear, and then by impugning God's motive, accusing Him of both falsehood and envy, and so destroying her love and trust. The yielding of the woman is drawn with a mas- ter's hand. It is the history of every lost battle of the human soul. We dally with temptation, drawing near the forbidden object, allowing it to make its deepest impression on both our senses and our mind, while we assure ourselves all the while that nothing will induce us to yield; and then, even while we are assuring ourselves, we put forth our hands and eat.

6. And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and pleasant to the eyes, and that it was a tree to be desired to make one wise, and she took of the fruit and ate of it, and she gave some to her husband beside her and he did eat.

For time out of mind this act has been cited (170)

Adam and Eve Contrasted

as a proof of woman's inferiority to man. How many books have been written on the strength of this story to prove the frailty and sinfulness of woman ! And yet in the story itself Eve plays a decidedly superior role to that of her husband. It was on her, not on him, that the serpent concen- trated all his seductive power. Eve yielded, it is true, but she yielded to an intelligence and expe- rience superior to her own. But what a part Adam plays! He leaves his wife alone to the mercies of the serpent. At all events, Adam is not subjected to his cajoling arguments. The serpent does not waste a word on him. He takes it for granted that if he can carry Eve he will have Adam also. And he is quite right, for Adam, so far as we are told, does not offer the least resistance. He does not bring forward a single argument. Apparently he does not re- member the command of God at all. Eve has only to ofifer him the forbidden fruit and he ac- cepts it with the greatest pleasure. And then, of course, he has the satisfaction of laying the blame of his sin on her, and even on God, who had given him such a wife. This picture, I believe, was drawn by a married man, and by one who knew men and women equally well.

What follows is, perhaps, the profoundest touch in the whole story.

7. Then the eyes of them both were opened and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves and made themselves girdles.

Up to this time it is evident that they had moved about with the happy unconsciousness of innocent children. The first object on which

(171)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

their enlightened eyes now fall is their own na- kedness. The first thought their newly acquired knowledge brings them is the sense of their own shame. At the same time I want you to notice how closely the idea of growing knowledge is interwoven with the sense of guilt. The man and his wife perceived that they were naked, and that brought them shame. But it is precisely this perception which separates man from the ani- mals, and in this nascent sense of modesty we see the Tree of Knowledge beginning its work. The animals are naked and know it not. One of man's most rooted instincts is to cover his naked- ness; and low indeed must one descend in the scale of humanity to discover a people without a trace of natural modesty. Men wear clothes for three reasons: to protect them from the cold, to adorn them and give them an air of distinc- tion, and from a sense of modesty, reserve and dignity, on which a large part of character de- pends and which is really the deepest motive of all. This last was the motive that led Adam and Eve to make them girdles of fig leaves and by so doing they performed an act which no ani- mal has ever attempted. So these two results fol- low from the eating of the forbidden fruit of knowledge. The first great step is taken which in time separates man absolutely from the ani- mal kingdom. The man becomes self-conscious. Suddenly he sees himself for the first time and perceives his own nakedness. That inspires him with a sense of shame, and that shame, that felt want, drives him into adapting the objects of Nature to satisfy his needs. ^' They sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons."

(172)

The Arraignment of Adam

I will merely remark here that the mention of the fig tree, whose pointed leaves are not well adapted to this purpose and which seems to be selected here only because of its commonness, substan- tiates the assertion that this narrative did not originate in Babylonia, for Herodotus tells us expressly that the plains of the Tigris and Eu- phrates are outside the zone in which the fig tree flourishes.

8. And they heard the sound of Jahveh Elohim as He walked in the garden in the evening cool [literally, " to- ward the blowing of the day"], and the man and his wife hid themselves from the face of Jahveh Elohim among the trees of the garden.

God's walking about the garden in the cool of the evening breeze is taken for granted. What is new is that man is not there to meet him. This is most naturally depicted. The first and sad- dest consequence of sin is that it makes us afraid of God. Accordingly,

9. Jahveh Elohim called to the man and said, " Where art thou?"

We need not suppose that God did not know behind what particular bush the man and his wife were hiding. He calls to the man in order that the man may come to Him, and so He calls to sinful men still, " Where art thou ? " That is a hard question for a guilty man to answer. But it is better to answer it and to come to God, even for punishment, than to hide from God like a coward and an outcast, while His eyes see through us all the time.

ID. And he said, " I heard Thy voice in the garden and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself."

(173)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

That was Adam's first lie; not because he was naked, but because he had violated the command of God did he fear and hide.

11. And He [Jahveh Elohim] said, "Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat? "

The accusation implied in that question Adam- cannot at once confess or deny. This is his first sin. He has not the defiance or hardihood of an habitual evil-doer. His one thought is to shift the blame, like a child, to some one else, so he lays the responsibility on his wife and even indi- rectly on God Himself. How many times have we heard that excuse !

12. And the man said, " The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree and I did eat."

God's patience and His all-searching justice are beautifully displayed in this interrogation. He patiently turns from one to the other until the guilt is fixed, and then the penalty is awarded to each without violence or wrath.

13. Jahveh Elohim said to the woman, " Why hast thou done this? " And the woman said, " The serpent beguiled me and I ate."

It will be observed that Jahveh asks no ques- tions of the serpent. He has no need to inquire into the serpent's motive, because, as an animal, the serpent is without moral responsibility. If a spiritual being, a devil, a fallen angel lurked in this serpent it would manifest itself here. How- ever, he is and remains nothing but a beast, hence he can be punished only as a beast, without ap- peal to a moral nature which does not exist.

(m)

Punishment of the Serpent

14. Jahveh Elohim said to the serpent, " Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou among all cattle [or, thou art separated by a curse from all cattle], and among [from] all animals of the earth; thou shalt go upon thy belly and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

15. " I will establish enmity between thee and the wom- an, and between thy seed and her seed. It shall make at thy head, and thou shalt make at its heel."

Two punishments are here affixed to the ser- pent: first a weird, sinister, degraded form and means of locomotion; and secondly, instead of friendly and intimate relationship, eternal enmity between the serpent and man. It appears from this that God looks forward to the reproduction of the human race as something normal and to be expected. In the allusion to the seed of the wom- an which shall bruise the serpent's head, theo- logians, and especially Martin Luther, have seen the first promise of the Messiah ; hence this pas- sage is called the Protevangelium. Its force, so far as the victory is concerned, is somewhat diminished by the fact that the application of the serpent's poisonous fang to man's heel is quite as deadly as the application of man's heel to the serpent's head. And yet there is a glori- ous and unmistakable promise here of man's eternal struggle with evil, and of man's ultimate victory over the power that leads him astray. A struggle ordained by God, as Dillmann well says, cannot be without prospect of success. Both the serpent and Eve are personally pun- ished because they had tempted another. Adam, who only yielded to temptation, is dealt with more mildly.

16. To the woman He said, " I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception. In sorrow shalt thou bear chil-

(175)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

dren: thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee."

Just as the serpent is punished through the woman whom he misled, so the woman is pun- ished through the man whom she led astray. These words do not so much seal the sad fate of woman as they describe her fate. In addition to the pains of childbirth, she is to experience pain through her relationship with man. She is no longer represented as the fresh, pure maiden God gave to Adam ; but she is woman as man has made her, a very different object. In some re- spects man has been woman's greatest enemy, for he has lived and thrived at her expense. On account of his superiority in physical strength, he has been able to enslave her. The sufferings of woman in savage, barbarous, and semi-civil- ized society can never be told. Women will carry the scars of that long serfdom on their hearts long after they have disappeared from their bod- ies. To all men acquainted with the history of the human race, the marvel must be that through those dark centuries of oppression and outrage in which women possessed no rights, even over their own persons and consciences, they have been able to preserve their spirituahty and a moral conscience. To me this is one of the most wonderful survivals in history. And yet, no sooner is the hand of her cruel master taken off, and the opportunities of the higher hfe opened to her, than woman shows she has preserved all her precious qualities of heart and mind for a genera- tion of men capable of appreciating them. To- day the long bondage is almost broken. Woman has again become what God in the beginning in-

(^76)

Mortal Fate of Man

tended her to be — man's helpmeet, on a perfect equality with him. She is free to develop ac- cording to the needs of her nature, and the more freely and perfectly woman develops, the better for us all. And so, please God, in this genera- tion we may see the end of the curse that began on the day when it was said, '' Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." To many persons these words will seem strange and extravagant. Anthropologists will understand them.*

17, 18, 19. And to the man He said, " Since thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee not to eat, accursed be the ground for thy sake. In sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. Thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to thee, and thou shalt eat the herb of the field. Thou shalt eat thy bread by the sweat of thy brow until thou re- turn to the ground from which thou hast been taken, for dust thou art and to the dust shalt thou return."

This is a gloomy picture of lifelong struggle with a stubborn and rebeUious soil, and yet this curse has turned out to be man's chief blessing here below. Man has become what he is solely through his work. Man's mortal fate is here spoken of for the first time. As he comes from the earth, there will be a time of return to the earth of which he is made. Man is by nature mortal and was so from the beginning. Of any hint that man was created deathless and lost his immortality through sin, there is not a trace. Immortality is represented as a possibility com- ing through something outside of man — the Tree of Life — but to that man does not attain.

* See, for example, H. Ploss, "Das Weib in der Natur-und- Volkerkunde." 2 vols., Leipzig, 1891.

(177)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

20. The man called his wife Havvah [Life], because she was the mother of all living.

Here is a slip ; one might say an anachronism. At this time not only was Eve not a mother, but neither Adam nor she knew what fatherhood or motherhood is.

21. And Jahveh Elohim made for Adam and his wife coats of skin and clothed them.

God respects this newly found modesty and protects it, or perhaps warmer garments were needed in the cold world into which they were about to be driven. We need not suppose from this, howevei, that Eden lay at the North Pole, as skins formed the dress of primitive man even in mild regions.* The first animal that was killed died for the sake of man.

22. 23, 24. And Jahveh Elohim said, " Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, but now, that he may not stretch out his hand and take of the Tree of Life and eat and live forever! " And Jahveh Elo- him drove him out of the garden of Eden that he might cultivate the ground out of which he was taken. So He put out the man, and He placed to the East of the garden of Eden Cherubim and the framing blade of the sword which turns to keep the way of the Tree of Life.

This is one of the most curious passages in the entire chapter. Jahveh is apparently much more jealous of the Tree of Life than He is of the

* Brugsch calls attention to a native tribe in the interior of Africa, the Monbutter, who still wear aprons made of palm leaves, while their near neighbors, the Niamniam, clothe them- selves in skins. No conclusion, therefore, as to the geographical site of Eden can be drawn from the mention of fig leaves and skins in Genesis. On ancient Egyptian monuments the figures of distinguished men are frequently represented as clad in skins. See " Steinschrift und Bibelwort," ch. 4.

(n8)

Jahveh Guards Tree of Life

Tree of Kowledge. Man is already like God, or, we are here justified in saying, like the gods in knowledge. If he should eat of the Tree of Life, he would become altogether like God in that he too would live forever. That is plainly what God fears, and that is the real reason why man is driven out of Paradise. But why did not man eat of that incomparable Tree before? And why did not God lay even stricter injunctions on him in regard to the Tree of Life than in regard to the Tree of Knowledge? It will be remem- bered that God never prohibited man from eat- ing of the Tree of Life. The reason seems to be this. Up to the time that man's eyes were opened he was too ignorant to know the value of the Tree of Life. He did not know life nor fear death, therefore he had no desire for immortality. So God knew that he was in no danger of eating of that tree. Or it may be that in the author's mind a profounder thought lay, that until man had tasted of the Tree of Knowledge it was impos- sible for him to taste the Tree of Life. Even that Tree of Life could not bestow immortality on man so long as he remained in his first animal condition of ignorance. One of these two mean- ings we may be sure lay at the bottom of Jahveh's sudden apprehension, which is not mentioned be- fore, and which led Jahveh not only to expel the man from the garden immediately lest he should put forth his hand and eat and live forever, but also to set round the Tree a double guard of co- lossal Cherubim and a whirHng sword of fire which turned every way to keep the way of the Tree of Life.

A few words now on the purpose of this as-

(179)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

tonishing story. The reason why it is so hard for us either to understand these two chapters or, in spite of their depth and charm, to give them our full approval, I believe is this. The purpose of these chapters is not a single purpose, as is usually assumed. On the contrary, a double motive runs through them. We see in them two conceptions, the beginning of sin and the begin- ning of knowledge, so closely interwoven that it is very difficult to disentangle them. That is why it is so hard for us to know just where our sym- pathy should be placed. The problem of knowl- edge is certainly there. The tree '' is to be de- sired to make one wise." The knowledge of good and evil that the man and his wife acquired by eating it, is not mere intuitive perception of right and wrong — that it is right to obey God and wrong to disobey Him. They had that percep- tion before they ate, else they would have had no more moral responsibility than the serpent, and without moral responsibility they would have had no sin. The first step in human knowledge is a glorious theme, but our joy is checked at once by the fact that that act was in direct violation of the command of God and that it was se- verely punished. The two conflicting motives, I repeat, are present in this story, and all those commentators and writers who ignore either the one or the other fail in their solution of the prob- lem by making it too simple. The old-fashioned commentators recognized only the problem of evil and ignored the problem of knowledge. Many of the more intelligent recent writers fix their eyes solely on the beginning of human knowledge and, fired by that thought, they deny

(i8o)

Jahveh Jealous of Man

the tragical element altogether. According to them, there is no fall. Everything in this chap- ter points to progress, to liberty, or, at most, to a " fall upward," beata culpa, etc. No doubt the story would be simpler and to many persons more satisfactory were only one of these ele- ments present, but the fact remains that they are both there, and neither can be eliminated without doing violence to the spirit and letter of the nar- rative. Why, then, does our author associate so closely the beginning of -knowledge with the be- ginning of sin? There is one thing very appar- ent. Jahveh is to a certain extent jealous oL man. It cannot be denied that Jahveh misrep- resented to the man what the effect of eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge would be. He conceals from man the fact that by eating the fruit he will become Hke God, knowing good and evil. Eve is indebted to the serpent for that information. Jahveh merely tells Adam that the result of eating will be immediate death, which is not true. This element of jealousy be- comes more apparent in Jahveh's fear lest the man should become more like Him by eating of the Tree of Life. That is undoubtedly one reason why God forbade men knowledge. He wished to reserve it for Himself. But coupled with this genuinely ancient and naive " divine jealousy " there is a deeper and a gentler thought that all the reflection in the world cannot invalidate. ''He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow." In such a world as this it is impossible to know good without knowing evil. The moment man's spiritual eyes are opened he perceives his own nakedness. An entirely new feeling takes posses-

(i8i)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

sion of him. He sees himself through other eyes than the eyes of the flesh and he feels shame for the nakedness and poverty of his animal nature. In short, with the awakening of his soul a cleft is established that runs to the very foundations of his being. The two sides of his nature are set in array against each other and the struggle be- gins that shall never end until the spiritual, hav- ing gradually set itself free from the material, ob- tains permanent ascendancy over it. But from that moment man is a fallen being. He feels what, so far as we know, the animal does not feel, remorse, shame and guilt. Once set before man an ideal to which his better instincts tell him he ought to conform his life, and he can never be anything else than a fallen being, though it is pre- cisely the perception of that ideal which is the be- ginning of man's spiritual existence.

It is our author's recognition of this truth which lies embedded in all our hearts, that has caused this story, so crude in some respects, so profound in others, to be accepted in good faith by so large a part of the world. Knowledge is the thing that man most desires. But knowledge seldom brings happiness. To obtain it it is nec- essary to sacrifice the peace and repose of a happy animal life. Knowledge also — and this is one of our author's finest thoughts — cannot be sepa- rated from life. In quality it is essentially moral. All knowledge at bottom is knowledge of good and evil, and man having once become wise, the old negative life of restful innocence is no longer possible. Suddenly he finds himself outside the old Paradise, where God did everything and man nothing. He is now face to face with the great,

Life an Endless Struggle

rude, hard world, which he must conquer and subjugate spiritually and materially by incredible labors that will never end. He must suffer and he must sin, but at the same time there is im- planted in his "breast implacable enmity for the whole brood of the serpent on whose head he will finally place his heel. He has become a man and never again can he sink himself in an animal sleep. Cherubim and a flaming sword threaten him with annihilation as often as he attempts to return to the old existence. They are set to guard the way of the Tree of Life, a significant hint that man will never find immortality or en- during rest in this world. I do not know that the conditions of our earthly struggle have ever been set forth in better terms than these.

With all this the origin of evil is not explained. According to the plain statement of the text, Jahveh Elohim made the serpent, and therefore He alone is responsible for him. It would not alter the case if we regarded the serpent as Satan. According to the Old Testament, God made Satan also. But if we assume Satan to be a hos- tile being, independent of God, then we leave the pure monotheism of the Bible for the dualism of Persia. We rescue the goodness of God, it is true, but at the expense of His almightiness and infinity.

(183)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Chapter Ten:

Eden in the Mythology of the Nations

1 SHALL now attempt to account, as well as I can, for some of the strange conceptions of the second and third chapters of Genesis. This, as I have said, is a very difficult task. No man, with the best will in the world, and possess- ing all the authentic knowledge at this moment in print, can successfully perform it. Any one who writes on this subject now has the melancholy consciousness that he is writing on the sand with a rising tide and that in a few years advancing knowledge will render what he writes almost worthless. At the same time it is something to call attention to a great problem, even if we can- not solve it.

The problem of the second and third chapters of Genesis, as I conceive it, is something like this : These two remarkable chapters, although they bear on every verse the imprint of a great, in- spired mind, contain a great deal of matter that did not originate with the man whom we regard as their author (the Jehovist). These two chap- ters contain a number of symbolic, mythical fig- ures closely interwoven with the sacred narrative, such as the garden of Eden, the serpent, the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life, the Cheru- bim and the whirling sword of fire, which are

__

Foreign Elements

freely and easily introduced without a word of explanation. Now the very peculiarity of mythical symbols of this kind is that they are not originally the result of conscious Hterary inven- tion, but belong to the unconscious, creative period of religion which antedates the art of writ- ing. Besides, several of these symbols, as we shall soon see, have unmistakable counterparts in the religious traditions of other nations. An- other fact is very significant. There is not only something strange in the sound of these chap- ters, which are unUke anything else in the Bible, but it is still more remarkable that these chap- ters, which so wonderfully portray the creation of man and try to account for the origin of human sin, are not once alluded to in the Old Testament. In many respects one would regard the third chapter of Genesis as the most important chapter of the Hebrew Scriptures. It accounts in the most striking way for the very difficulty with which all the other writers of the Old Testament are continually wrestling, and it is comparatively old. How does it happen, then, that the later prophets, to go no further, did not accept its solution of the difficulty and refer the origin of man's sinful- ness back to Adam? And yet the fact remains that outside the Book of Genesis Adam's name occurs only once or twice in the Old Testament, and that no other Old Testament writer referred the cause of man's sinfulness to him. The only reason I can suggest for this is that the prophets and other canonical writers, some of whom at least must have known this story, felt that it contained strange elements which did not grow on the soil of Israel's revealed religion, and

(185)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

so forebore to make use of its brilliant and won- derful solution of the difficulty. That other tra- ditions of Eden, however, existed among the He- brews is certain, and I remind you especially of Ezekiel's wonderful vision,* of which I shall soon speak.

I believe that there are the remains of very ancient traditions in these chapters ; but that the story itself, or even its leading motive, is merely one of the mythical traditions of the Gentiles I do not believe for a moment. On the contrary, we shall see to what a slight extent these tradi- tions help us. The motive of our two chapters, the real revelation of God and man which they contain, is the personal achievement of the di- vinely inspired man who penned those pages. That fact becomes all the more evident when we compare the story as it left his hands with the sources which, so far as we are now able to say, he may have employed.

Now let us proceed to our investigation. We shall begin by a general comparison of the con- ceptions of the primitive condition of mankind entertained by the great cultured peoples, and then discuss some more striking particulars. The belief that the first condition of mankind was one of Edenic felicity is almost universal. I shall give only a few examples. The Egyptians be- lieved that the first sons and daughters of Ra, the sun god, came into the world happy and per- fect, but that their descendants gradually sank from their native felicity to their present state. To the Egyptians, the times of Ra, the centuries immediately following creation, were the ideal

* For a further account of Ezekiel's Eden, see p. 221.

(186)

Egyptian Eden

age. Hence the expression '' No good thing has been seen on earth since the days of Ra." "^

The Egyptians also knew of a certain land of wonder which they placed in the East, and which they always called '' the land of God." Unhke the Garden of Eden, this land was still accessible to man, and from the earliest times voyages were made to it. Although this country was fre- quently visited by Egyptian mariners, their slen- der acquaintance with it was not sufficient to rob the region of its mythical glamour. As it lay to the east of Egypt it was fabled to be the home of the light god who w^th his attendants came from there to the valley of the Nile. It seems to have owed its religious character, in part at least, to the nature of its products, chief of which was a balsamic gum of agreeable perfume, highly prized in the services of the temples. Hence it was said : '' The mountain terraces of the balsam are the precious region of the land of the god." This land lay somewhere on the southern coast of the Red Sea. A papyrus of King Rameses Hl.f informs us that he sent the ships of his fleet to the lands of God on the shore of the Red Sea to col- lect specimens of all the wonderful and precious products of the country. From the enumera- tion of these products, which include, in addition to gold and incense, elephants, giraffes, ebony, etc., it would appear that this favored land was not in Arabia but on the eastern coast of Africa (Brugsch thinks between Abyssinia and the old harbor of Berenice) ; in short, in the region which

* Maspero : " Dawn of Civilization," p. 158, note 3. f Papyrus. Harris, No. i. British Museum. Quoted by Brugsch.

(187)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

the Biblical writers called Cush, not far from some of the sources of the Nile. This being the case, it is not improbable that the Hebrews were influenced by the Egyptian tradition to regard the Nile as one of the rivers of their Garden of Eden. At all events this theory offers a reason- able explanation for the association of Eden with the Nile and the land of Cush, which has had such a confusing effect on sacred geography.* The site of the Garden of Eden, in other words, may be a compromise between the Babylonian and the Egyptian traditions of paradise. These tra- ditions being geographically irreconcilable, we cannot wonder that the Garden of Eden is so hard to find. These allusions to an Egyption paradise, however, contain no allusion to a " Fall," and, in fact, the Egyptian '' Land of God " bears hardly any resemblance to the Gar- den of Eden.

Among the Aryan peoples this belief took defi- nite form in the tradition of the Four Ages of the World, and from the fact that it is found among the Hindus and Persians as well as among the Greeks and Romans, it is evident that the legend is very old — older, possibly, than the sup- posed separation of the Aryan peoples.

In the laws of Manu it is asserted that the his- tory of humanity runs through four ages, con- sisting altogether of 12,000 divine years, or 4,320,000 human years. First comes the Krita age, the age of perfection, when all religious duties were perfectly fulfilled. Then follows the Trita age, the triple sacrifice. The third is the Dvapara age, the age of growing doubt and con-

* See Brugsch, " Steinschrift und Bibelwort," ch. 3.

(188)

ZOROASTRIAN GeNESIS

fusion as to religious duties, and lastly the Kali age of general perdition in which we are now liv- ing and which will end in the destruction of the world. In the Krita, or first age, men are free from disease, accomplish all their aims, and live four hundred years, but in each succeeding age by unjust gains, theft, and deceit, their life is shortened by one quarter and their religious duties become less exalted, until, in the Kali age, in which we are living, they live but one hundred years and the only virtue they can practise is liberality.*

We pass next to the religion of Zoroaster. The plainest statement I have been able to find is contained in the first chapter of the Bundahesh or " Creation of the Beginning," which corre- sponds in a general way with our Genesis in at- tempting to give an account of Creation. It is a late book, to be sure, but there is no reason to doubt that it represents the ancient myths and legends of the religion.f It represents the whole age of the world as twelve thousand years, divided into four periods of three thousand years each. During the first period the good deity Ahuramazd reigns alone in endless light. Ahar- man at that time was in the abyss, and between them was empty space. Ahuramazd, by his om- niscience, knew of the evil one's existence, but Aharman, who was backward in knowledge, was not aware of the existence of Ahuramazd until he rose from the abyss and saw the light for the first time and all the good creatures Ahuramazd had

* Laws of Manu, i. 68-86 ; also, Lenormant, p. 68. I See " Sacred Books of the East," vol. v., p. Ixxi., for a dis- cussion of this question.

(189)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

created. Filled with fury, he rushed in and wished to destroy them all, but Ahuramazd was very gentle with him, and said, '' Evil Spirit, bring assistance to my creatures and offer praise, so that in reward for it you and your creatures may become immortal and undecaying, hunger- less and thirstless.'^ But the Evil Spirit shouted back to him, '' I will not provide assistance for thy creatures, I will not offer praise . . . and I am not of the same opinion with thee as to good things. I will destroy thy creatures forever and everlasting; moreover, I will force all thy creatures into disaffection for thee and affection for myself." So the great conflict begins that lasts through the remaining three periods of the world. During the first three thousand years Ahuramazd is successful. Then for three thou- sand years the battle wages about evenly, until finally, in the age in which we are now living, Aharman is successful all along the Hne. The Persian conception, however, does not end with the miserable thought that good is finally de- feated and evil victorious. At the end of this age comes the resurrection of the dead, and the utter defeat and destruction of Aharman and his evil creatures, who will be thrown into hell and burned up.*

Among the Greeks, Hesiod, in his " Works and Days," also divided the history of the world into four ages. The first is a state of primeval bliss, which he calls the Age of Gold. Then Kronos reigned upon the earth and men lived without care, pain or old age. Their death was

* The Bundahesh leaves the fate of Aharman unsettled ; the Zend Avesta is more decided.

(.190)

Four Ages of the World

like the coming on of sleep and the soil bore them fruits untilled. The next age was the Silver Age, for it was inferior to the first, and Zeus speedily swept it away, seeing that the men of this generation waxed insolent and paid no honor to the gods. The third is the Brazen Age. A ter- rible and mighty brood of men who delighted in nothing but violence and war possessed the land. They first ate flesh. Their houses and armor and mattocks were of brass. In strife they slew them- selves, and perished without a name. After them are interposed the good heroes who fell before Thebes and Troy. And then Hesiod cries, " Would that I had never been born in the fifth generation of men, but rather that I had died be- fore or lived afterward, for now the age is iron. On the face of the world is naught but violence and wrong ; division is set up between father and son, brother and brother, friend and friend. There is no fear of God, no sense of justice, no fidelity and truth . . . and against evil there will soon be no aid." * This is the Iron Age. The doctrine of the Four Ages of the world cor- responds with the Book of Genesis simply to this extent. The world at the beginning was created good and the first human beings, as we shall see more fully, were good and happy. But in all these Aryan myths there is a constant trend of degeneration in the very nature of things which causes the world and man to grow worse and worse, until in the end they are destroyed. Of that gloomy doctrine of fatalism in Nature there is in the Old Testament hardly a trace,t and we

* J. A. Symonds : " Greek Poets," i. 174.

f The nearest approach to the doctrine of the Four Ages

(191)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

may very well explain the resemblance I have mentioned by the natural tendency of the human mind to idealize the past at the expense of the present, without supposing that the Ayran doc- trine of the Four Ages and the Hebrew doctrine of the Fall have any direct connection.

Let us then come a little nearer. Among all the Aryan religions, as we have already seen, the one which stands nearest the religion of the Old Testament in its monotheistic and moral ideals is the religion of Zoroaster, from which in later times the Hebrews borrowed a good deal. The sacred books of Persia have a great many allu- sions to a first man, who is generally called Yima. He unites to a certain extent the characteristics of Adam and of Noah. He is represented as living at first in a kind of Eden or Paradise, but, after a long and blameless life, he begins to give way to the assaults of the Evil One. He commits sin, which descends to his posterity, and he comes under the power of the serpent, the creature of Aharman, in consequence of which he is expelled from Paradise and dies in horrible torments.

The story begins by Zoroaster's asking Ahura Mazda who was the first mortal with whom he conversed and to whom he taught the true re- ligion, and he answers, " The fair shepherd Yima." Ahura Mazda offers to make Yima the teacher of his religion to men, but Yima declines on the ground that he was not born for that pur-

whicli can fairly be discovered in the Hebrew Scriptures is the fol- lowing : I. The Golden Age of Eden's felicity. 2. A period of degeneration and shortening life ended by the Flood. 3. From the Flood to the " Day of Jahveh," i.e., the destruction of the world by fire. 4. The Millennium, in which the Golden Age re- tnrns to earth. This scheme, however, is of late origin.

(192)

The Reign of Yima

pose. Ahura Mazda then says to him, " Since thou wilt not consent to be the preacher of my rehgion, then make my world to increase and grow. Consent to nourish, rule, and watch my world.'' This he undertakes, and under the sway of Yima three hundred years pass away, and the earth becomes replenished with flocks and herds and men and dogs and birds, and with red, blaz- ing fire, until there was no more room for flocks and herds and men. Yima therefore bores a hole in the earth and with the help of the Earth Spirit makes the earth one-third larger than it was be- fore. This happens several times. Ahura Mazda then warns Yima of a series of terrible winters that are about to come to the earth, in which the tops of the highest mountains will be covered by snow. Ahura Mazda instructs Yima, therefore, to make an enclosure, a shelter about two miles square, and to bring into it the seed of all good plants, animals and men, and of fire, in order to preserve it alive. Minute instructions are given in regard to the construction of this enclosure and great care is taken in selecting the different seeds.* Further it is said that in the reign of Yima every duty was fully performed by the aid of the sacred fires.t His feHcity is described in glowing terms. He took away from the demons both riches and welfare, fatness and flocks. In his reign food and drink were never failing for living creatures. Flocks and men were undying ; waters never dried up. There was not the cold wind nor the hot wind, neither old age nor death. But at the end of a thousand years Yima began to yield to the attacks of the tempter and to learn

* Vendidad, ii. f Yast, v.

^3 (193)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

to speak a lie.* Then, in the fine language of the Zend Avesta, '' his glory was seen to fly from him in the shape of a bird." At each new sin another glory departs and, seeing them fly away, Yima, the good shepherd, trembled and was in sorrow before his foes, f He loses his immortality and meets a terrible death.

In the Bundahesh X another very curious story is told, this time of a first human pair who are called Mashya and Mashyana. They are de- scribed as growing together from the stem of one plant, at first united from the waist and then separated much as the Talmud describes the sep- aration of Adam and Eve. This change is cu- riously described. '' They both changed from the shape of a plant into the shape of a man, and breath, which is the soul, went spirituallv into them."

*' Ahura Mazda spoke to Mashya and Mash- yana, ' You are man, you are the ancestry of the world, and you are created perfect in devotion by me. Perform devotedly the duty of the law, think good thoughts, speak good words, do good deeds, and worship no demons.' Both of them at first thought this, that one of them should please the other, and the first deed done by them was this, when they went out they washed themselves thoroughly, and the first words spoken by them were these, that Ahura Mazda created the water and earth, plants and animals, the stars, moon and sun. . . . But afterward antagonism rushed into their minds and their minds were thoroughly corrupted, and they exclaimed that the Evil Spirit had created the water and earth,

* Bundahesh, xvii. 5. f Vast, xix. 31-38. X Chap. xv. (194)

Mashya and MashyanA

plants and animals . . . and through that false speech they both became wicked. . . . And they had gone thirty days without food, covered with the clothing of herbage (leaves), and they went forth into the wilderness and came to a white-haired goat and milked it." Then they became bolder, and having found a sheep, '' fat and white-jawed," they killed it and made the first fire and roasted its flesh. " And they dropped three handfuls of meat into the fire, and said, * This is the share of the fire.' One piece of the rest they tossed into the sky, and said, * This is the share of the angels.' A bird, a vul- ture, advanced and carried some of it away from them ; as a dog they ate the first meat. And first a covering of skins covered them ; afterward, it is said, woven garments were prepared from a cloth woven in the wilderness," In consequence of all this, they grew worse and worse, until finally they advanced against each other and smote and tore their hair and cheeks, and the demons be- came so bold that they shouted to them out of the darkness, " You are man ; worship the demon so that the demon of your maUce may repose."

The particular points of resemblance to Gene- sis in this later story are that man and woman are created together by a good God, who laid right- eous commands upon them, which they broke by yielding to the temptations of the devil. After their creation the breath of life is infused into them. They are represented immediately after their first sin as clothed with leaves or herbs, and later as clad in skins. In the story of Yima, man's first happy and sinless estate is lost by sin and sin brings death. What is important in both stories

(195)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

is that Yima and Mashya and Mashyana are created happy and good by a good God. Moral injunctions are laid on them which they disobey at the instigation of evil beings, and in conse- quence of this sin and death enter the world and their posterity become more and more sinful. Al- though there are no close or striking verbal co- incidences between these stories and Genesis, it is plain that they are narratives of the same order, in that they both explain the beginning of human sin in a similar way. It is also significant that the Persian creation story contains an account of a world destruction modified to suit the Persian climate.*

We pass then to Babylon, in whose literature we should expect to find more striking resem- blances to our narrative. In this expectation we shall, to a certain extent, be disappointed. We shall see some curious parallels, but anything as complete and as overwhelming as the parallel to our account of the Flood we shall not find. It does not follow, however, because no very com- plete parallel is in our hands now that one will never be discovered. Before these chapters are finished, the very thing that scholars are looking for may be found. Of the innumerable inscrip- tions buried in the cities of Babylonia and As- syria only a few thousand have been recovered, and not all of those have been deciphered. We have not even a detailed account of the Creation of man, although it is certain that such an ac- count must have existed, so we need not despair if we have not yet a satisfactory description of the

* It is not impossible that the Bundahesh was influenced by Genesis. ^^^^^

(^96) ~"

Babylonian Seal

Fall of man. Perhaps no such description ever existed, though in the face of the suggestive hints we have already in our hands it is hard to believe that. I will begin what I have to say with a few words on the two old seals, drawings of which will be found on pp. 198 and 202. The first draw- ing represents an early Babylonian seal now in the British Museum and first made public, so far as I know, by George Smith in his '' Chaldean Account of Genesis." This is probably the most famous of all the seals taken from Babylonia, and a great deal has been written about it. Although its allusion to a story of a ''Fall" is now generally doubted by Assyriologists, I cannot forbear to state the argument. When this seal was first published by Mr. Smith in 1875, he expected con- fidently that the explanatory text would soon be discovered. More than twenty-five years have elapsed and still it has not come to light, in con- sequence of which scholars are beginning to be sceptical as to whether this seal was intended to represent the Fall at all. I ought to add, how- ever, that no other satisfactory explanation of the seal has yet been given.

Let us look at it now a little more carefully. On either side of a tree — which, from the angle of its branches, the shape of the leaves, and the po- sition of the fruit under the leaves, appears to be a palm — are seated two figures. One of these seems to be a man and the other a woman. Each is stretching out one hand toward the tree as if to take the fruit. Behind the figure on the left, which is supposed to be the woman, is the undu- lating form of a serpent standing erect on its tail in an impossible attitude, with its head not

(197)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

far from the woman's ear. This is indeed strik- ingly suggestive of the story of the Fall. We have here the tree as the central object on which all attention is fixed, the man, and the woman into whose ear the serpent seems to be whisper- ing his invitation to put forth her hand and eat. From this many scholars have inferred that a story of the Fall, or at least an account of the eating of sacred fruit by a man and a woman at the suggestion of a serpent, existed in Baby-

THE SERPENT AND THE TREE

Ionian literature. Moreover, this is not the only picture of this kind whose literary coun- terpart has been discovered. We have a picture of the Babylonian Noah in his ark, and we have the history of the Flood and the construction of the ark. We have many pictures of Izdubar strangling a lion or slaying a bull, and we have an account in literature of these adventures. It therefore seemed not unreasonable to suppose that this picture of the two figures and the ser- pent beside the sacred tree had a literary equiva-

O98)

Babylonian Seal

lent in a story of temptation somewhat like our own.

Against this it is urged :

1. That no such story has as yet been found, nor have we yet found any account of the crea- tion of the first man and woman.

2. That it is not certain that these figures rep- resent a man and a woman; they may both be men.

3. That if this picture represents a story of temptation to eat a sacred fruit, in some respects it is not the same story as ours. Instead of repre- senting our first parents in a condition of prim- itive nudity, this picture seems to point to a period of considerable culture. The two figures are clothed from head to foot in rather elaborate dresses. They have hats on, or at least head or- naments. They are seated on benches.

4. In any case the story is not exactly the same, for the figure we may call Adam is stretching his hand to the tree just as Eve is doing, and is not represented as receiving the fruit from her.

5. Lastly, the undulating figure on the left can only by courtesy be called a serpent. It may be a mere line of demarcation.

Several of these objections are well taken, but in reply to others I may suggest the following :

I. Although there is nothing in the two figures that absolutely determines their sex, yet the fig- ure to the right, in the original, appears to be slightly larger than the other, and a difference of sex may be hinted at in the different head dresses. Under a strong glass the lines of the female fig- ure are quite plain. The man wears the mascu- line symbol of ox horns, such as we often see on

(199)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Gilgamesh, and the figure we suppose to be the woman wears a kind of round hat which we often find on men and also on women.*

2. It is true the figures are not nude, and the long garments, as well as the benches, imply a certain degree of culture; but at the same time I call attention to the fact that the Babylonians were in the habit of referring their civilization back to the beginning of the world. They seem to have preserved no recollection of man's pristine savagery. In Pinches' fragment, which attempts to depict the condition of things be- fore Creation, we read, '' No brick was laid nor any brick edifice reared, no house erected, no city built.'' They even went so far as to ascribe the art of writing to the very beginning of the world. In a description of chaos in the Cutha tablet it is said, " On a memorial tablet none wrote, none explained, for bodies and produce were not brought forth upon the earth." If the Babylonians ascribed the ability to write and to build brick houses to the first man, there is no reason why they should not have conceived him as wearing clothes, for they did not regard him as savage, but as civilized. I would also say in reply to Budde's criticism,t that nakedness and then clothing are introduced into Genesis with a pur- pose which no one would expect *to find in a Babylonian story.

3. The very attitude of repose represented by the seated figures indicates reflection. Neither does it seem to me that the fact that both the figures are stretching their hands toward the

* E.g-., Ishtar ; Maspero : " Dawn of Civilization." \ " Urgeschichte," p. 78.

(200)

Boscawen's Suggestion

fruit indicates necessarily that the conception was wholly unhke our own. On the contrary, the most suspicious circumstance seems to me to be that it suggests a story too similar to the story of Genesis. How else could a picture which must show all in one moment have indicated that both were attracted to the fruit and tempted? The fact remains that the serpent is behind her whom we regard as the woman. As to the serpent, the undulating line, although roughly drawn, cer- tainly suggests this animal (it is quite as much like a serpent as the tree is like a tree) ; and we may even see in the upright and impossible atti- tude a parallel to our story that before the curse the serpent stood erect and carried his head in the air.

4. Boscawen * even thinks he has discovered the literary account of the Fall in the third tablet of the Creation series, where, among the evil deeds of Tiamat, occurs the following :

The great gods, all of them determiners of fate,

They entered, and deathlike, the god Sar filled.

In sin one with the other in compact joins.

The command was established in the garden of the god,

The Asnan [fruit] they ate, they broke in two.

Its stalk they destroyed, the sweet juice which injures

the body. Great is their sin, themselves they exalted. To Merodach their redeemer he appointed their fate.

In absence of corroboration by other Assyriol- ogists, however, I am not disposed to attach much importance to this story, which seems to recount an attack on a sacred tree rather than a story of the Fall. We will therefore turn to the

* " The Bible and the Monuments," p. 89.

(201)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

other cylinder, which plainly represents a sacred tree guarded by genii. The sacred tree is one of the commonest objects of Assyrian art. Some- times it is depicted as a palm, sometimes as a cypress, and again in a purely conventional form, like an English Maypole. It is usually repre- sented as guarded by mythical figures hke the two genii of this illustration. Sometimes these figures yield to the figures of winged men, or, again, the form of the great god Asshur is dis-

GENII AND THE TREE

played above the tree. In the absence of definite proof it would be rash to associate any of these representations with the Tree of Life or the Tree of Knowledge. The Babylonians, however, as we shall see, had the conception of the Tree of Life, and a tree guarded by supernatural beings does correspond in a general way to the Tree of Life guarded by the Cherubim. Before considering the Tree of Life in Babylonian literature, I wish to call your attention to the wide diffusion of belief in such a tree in other sacred literatures.

(202)

Tree of Life among the Nations

In fact, the conception is so common and its lit- erature so immense that the great difficulty is to know what to mention and what to leave out. I shall therefore exclude altogether such trees as were only regarded as sacred and as objects of adoration, and confine myself exclusively to the tree whose fruit or whose juice was believed to be

GENII AND THE TREE

capable of bestowing immortality. The anti- quity of this belief is certainly very great. It is found not onlyamong thevarious branches of the Indo-Germanic group — among the Hindus, the Persians, Greeks, and Germans — but also among the Semitic peoples. The idea, I believe, grew up in some such way as this. Among all poly- theistic nations we find the melancholy thought of the old age and decay of the gods. Each god's

(203)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

personality is small and weak in the presence of the boundless forces of Nature, and the thought naturally arises that in the end they will overwhelm him. And that is just what hap- pens. Men look back and see that the gods worshipped in ancient times are now either wholly forgotten or have sunk to an inferior posi- tion; they are seldom worshipped and they re- ceive few gifts to keep them aUve and strong. So the conviction arises that the gods, Uke men, are in danger of dying, and that they require food and drink to sustain them in life. Closely con- nected with this conception of the gods is the fact that on earth certain trees or plants yield a fruit or a juice which has the strangest effect upon men, arousing in them in a mysterious manner ecstasy and new strength, and supplying them with new thoughts and feelings. By men totally ignorant of physiology, these mysterious pheno- mena of intoxication are believed to come from the gods, and the plant that invariably produces this condition is regarded as a divine plant. Either by partaking of the libations men offer on earth, or because they possess a heavenly plant corresponding to this earthly one, the gods are able to retain their immortality.

Among the Hindus the plant that yielded their favorite beverage was the Soma plant, therefore it was regarded as the plant of immortality. But it is easy to see in the minds of an imaginative people like the Hindus to what a variety of ob- jects this idea is capable of being applied. The earth sometimes becomes parched, the plants and flowers wither. Then the refreshing and fertiliz- ing rain falls and the earth is green and living

(204)

The Soma Plant

again. The rain is the Soma plant brewed by the cloud gods, and by it the earth retains her immortality. The moon waxes and wanes, some- times it disappears altogether. It is evidently worn out and exhausted. It requires a fresh supply of this liquor of immortality and then it will grow young again. By such a train of thought, I believe, is the Soma plant in the Rig Veda so closely connected with rain and the moon. We can see plainly that one draught of this divine juice is not enough. Its effects pass away like the effects of alcohol. The gods must constantly drink or eat to keep their eter- nal youth. In the Germanic myth, after Loki has carried away Iduna and her apples to the abode of the giants, the other gods soon become gray-headed and old and lose all their vigor.

There is no commoner idea in the Rig Veda than that of the virtue of the Soma plant, to which, as to a divine object, innumerable prayers are offered, whose fundamental thought is the desire for life and immortality.

The Soma streams, the begetter of thoughts, the begetter of heaven and earth, the begetter of Agni and the Sun.* O Soma, in thy power is it that we live and do not die. f We drank Soma, we became immortal. :j:

Among the Persians we encounter the same word and the same idea in the Haoma plant, only the idea is less expanded because Ahura Mazda has risen out of the sphere of natural deities and is self-existent and self-sustaining. Yet in the Zend Avesta the worship is centred around the

* Sama Veda, i. 614, 5. f Rig Veda, i. 91, 92. t Rig Veda, i. 8, 48.

(205)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Haoma plant. By its virtues, in Yima's reign of a thousand years, sickness and death were un- known. It destroys the demons, and at the resurrection will confer immortality on be- lievers.*

The Greeks possessed an entirely similar con- ception in their nectar and ambrosia. The am- brosia conceived as immortal food is new, and in the Iliad I believe Homer never speaks of the gods as eating ambrosia, but only as drinking nectar.f On this divine food the gods feast every day, and thereby preserve their immortal youth. By its healing power Aphrodite is re- stored after she has been wounded by Diomede ; Hector is healed at the command of Zeus ; Achil- les is secretly nourished when in sorrow he re- fuses to eat ; and by it Calypso offered to confer immortality on Odysseus. It is true that the gods of Greece do not seem so dependent on this life- giving food as the grosser Germanic deities. Per- haps one draught was able to confer immortality ; otherwise poor Prometheus, chained to the rock and tormented, would have been able to die.

In Greek mythology, alongside the nectar and ambrosia are the golden apples of the Hesperi- des. On an island of the ocean to which no ship can penetrate, where Zeus and Hera celebrated their nuptials, this fruit grows in a garden of the gods, guarded by the dragon Ladon and the Hes- perides. He who eats one of these apples attains eternal youth.

Both the Tree of Life and the serpent were

* Windischmann's " Zoroast. Studien," 170 and 244. See Yast, ix. 17.

t A., 585, 598-

(206)

Tree of Life in Egypt

familiar mythical figures in Egypt, where they were very frequently associated. Among the trees planted in the temple precincts none was more sacred than the species called by Greek writers Persea (Mimusops Schimperi). Belief in the sanctity of this tree passed from the old Egyptian religion into Christianity. It was said that during the flight into Egypt, as the holy family were seated beneath the shade of the Per- sea, this good tree bowed its branches in adora- tion of the Saviour. Allusions to this legend are still to be found in hymns ancient and modern. To vex Christian believers, Julian the Apostate is said to have ordered the destruction of this tree, in consequence of which it has wholly disap- peared from the soil of Egypt, although Brugsch asserts it is still to be met with in southern Arabia. On account of its long life the Persea was regarded as a symbol of perennial strength and immortality. The Pharaohs are frequently represented as seated beneath its shadow. The heavenly overseers of the lapse of time carry the names of the princes to the leaves of the tree, and promise the fortunate monarchs eternal endur- ance of name and memory.

The Arabian Mohammedans still preserve a tradition of the Tree of Life. They say that in the leaves of this tree Allah has recorded the fate and the length of life of every man from birth to the grave. When the leaf withers, the end of man's existence is at hand ; and when his leaf of the Tree of Life falls, he dies.*

* These two statements are made on the authority of Brugsch Bey, " Steinschrift und Bibelwort," who, as usual, gives no sources.

(207)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

To complete this study I will merely add a few words on the Germanic and Norse mythologies. As we have seen, the mortality of the gods, which is never prominent in Greek mythology, often obtrudes itself in the old Germanic myths. Bal- der is killed, Odin's downfall is described, Thor falls dead on the earth.* These gods, Hke all the others, owe what immortality they possess to their food, or rather to their drink, for we are told that Odin required no food and drank only wine (the nectar of the Greeks, the Soma of the Hindus). Beside this nectar are the golden apples of Iduna, by eating which the aging gods become young again. One day the crafty Loki lured Iduna out of Asgard into a wood, pre- tending that he had found apples far finer than hers, and advising her to bring her own along to compare them with his. Then came the giant Thiassi in the form of an eagle, who seized Iduna and her apples and flew away with her to his home in Thrymheim. The gods soon became gray-haired and old, and would have died had she not returned.

In all these myths we find a more or less perfect counterpart of the Tree of Life, that is to say, a plant or a tree whose fruit, partaken of in a purely physical way, is able to bestow immortality. The most striking difference between these mythical fruits (the Greek excepted) and the Tree of Life in Genesis is that they must be partaken of again and again, while apparently to eat but once of our tree is sufficient to Hve forever. Another even greater difference may seem to be that the Soma plant, the nectar and ambrosia, give Hfe not

* Grimm, " Deutsche MythoL," p. 265. (208)

Tree of Life not for Man.

only to men, but also to the gods. Nothing of this sort is related in Genesis, and at the time that book was written it would have been a re- pugnant thought. Jehovah, the true god, is in no danger of dying. But in the old tradition from which the Tree of Life was probably taken, the case may have been different. At all events, that tree was not made for man to eat, and unless its Hfe-giving fruits were for God, or at least for those divine spirits to which Jahveh alludes in the phrase '^ one of us," it had no purpose what- ever.

(209)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Chapter Eleven: Eden in the Mythology of the Nations — Continued

BEFORE we continue our attempt to estab- lish some points of connection between the second and third chapters of Genesis and the literature of Babylon, there are a few representa- tions in those chapters which ought to be men- tioned. We have seen that a tree or plant whose fruit or whose juice bestows immortality is found in almost every branch of the Indo-Germanic family. Among the Babylonians a sacred tree guarded by supernatural beings is a very com- mon symbol in art. The most ancient name of Babylon in the old Accadian language (Tin-tir- ki) is said to signify '' the place of the Tree of Life." We are therefore justified in believing that in the Tree of Life * we have an old and al- most universal symbol of ethnical mythology.

With the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil it is different. We have, it is true, prophetic trees, and even speaking trees, like the oaks of Dodona, enough and to spare. One of the com- monest religious beliefs of antiquity was that it was possible to learn the will of the gods and to anticipate future events by the prophetic rustling and agitation of the leaves of a tree.t Among the

* Lenormant, " Begin, of Hist.," p. 85.

f Any one who wishes to investigate this subject will find a

(210)

Sacred Trees

Hebrews of the Old Testament we find a good many examples of the same superstition. We read in Judges * of the *' Oak of Diviners " near Shechem. The angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon under the oak of Ophra. Deborah dwelt under a palm tree afterward called by her name, between Ramah and Bethel, where she was accus- tomed to deliver her judgments. Rebecca's nurse was buried under an oak at Bethel, which from that circumstance was called the oak of mourning, t Saul is repeatedly mentioned as sit- ting under a tree (probably in judgment).:}; David, on the eve of an important battle with the Philistines, consulted the mulberry trees near Geba, and when he heard '' a going in the tops," he divined that Jahveh had gone out be- fore him to battle, and accordingly joined forces.§ Somewhat of the same order of ideas is the '' burning bush," in which the Angel of Jahveh revealed himself to Moses, and we might easily multiply these examples. But in none of them should we find anything really resembling the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil. The advantage to be obtained from that tree is ob- tained by eating its fruit, not by sitting under it, nor by observing the motion of its leaves, and the knowledge it communicates is not the per- ception of the presence of the Deity, nor the yes or no of an oracle in answer to some particular

world of material in Fergusson's classical " Tree and Serpent Worship" (London, 1868), or in Gubernati's "Mythology of Plants."

* ix. 37. Wrongly translated Plain of Meonenim.

f Gen. XXXV. 8.

i I Sam. xiv. 2 and xxii. 6,

§ 2 Sam. V. 24. See Baudissin's "Studien," Heilige Baume.

(211)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

question, but the permanent illumination of the mind in regard to moral truth, a complete and radical change in the nature of the man who eats. Of that, so far as I know, there is not a trace either in any other part of the Old Testament or in pagan literature. At present, therefore, we are at liberty to regard it as the original creation of our writer.

I have already said something on the Serpent of Genesis. It remains only to add a few words by way of comparison. This is another of those figures whose counterpart exists in almost every literature. The fact that this is true of so many of the symbolic images in the early chapters of Genesis is in itself enough to convince us that we are dealing here with a literature unlike most of the Old Testament. We are confronted with ideas on which a large part of humanity has meditated, and it is always important to know what humanity has thought on any subject.

The serpent as a mythical animal, symbolical of mystery, wisdom, good and evil, exists in most of the ancient literatures of the world. The ra- pidity of his movements, the brilliancy of his sparkling eye, his vibrating, forked tongue, his power of disappearing and his fatal bite have set him apart from the rest of the animal world, and have caused him to be regarded as a satanic or as a divine animal. Even in the Old Testa- ment he is not always regarded as injurious; his venomous character is not the only one pre- sented. Thebrazen serpent erected byMoseswas considered a sacred talisman against snake bites, and to it, or to a similar representation, the people of Jerusalem continued for a long time to burn

(212)

The Serpent in Assyria

incense until it was destroyed along with other images by Hezekiah.* The first sign that Moses and Aaron showed Pharaoh was to throw down Aaron's magical rod, which instantly became a live serpent. t The Egyptian sorcerers, however, did the same thing. Also, when Jahveh com- manded Moses to throw his rod on the ground it became a serpent, and '' Moses fled from before it." But when, at Jahveh's command, Moses seized it by the tail, it immediately became a stick again.:]: Still, on the whole, the serpent is re- garded in the Old Testament as a type of a sinis- ter and injurious influence.

Among the Assyrians the serpent is repre- sented usually in the same light. One species of serpent, at least, was called '' ai-ub-ilu "§ (the foe of God), whether on account of a mythological story connected with it, or because its poison was considered dangerous even to the gods, we do not know. We have already spoken of the sea- monster, Tiamat, but there is no reason to asso- ciate her with the serpent of Genesis. She be- longs to an entirely different world of ideas. The serpent pictured on page 198 as erect behind the woman, would enlighten us more if we only knew its history. Symbols of serpents supposed to be sacred are often found carved on stones or even on cylinders.

The story of Bel and the Dragon occurs in the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. After Daniel has proved to King Cyrus that the food laid be- fore the god Bel is secretly carried away at night by the priests and their wives through a trap-

* 2 Kings, xviii. 4. f Exod. vH. 10-12. % Exod. iv. 2-4. § Frd. Delitzsch, " Assyr. Studien," i. 69 and 87.

(213)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

door, Cyrus reminds Daniel that all the gods worshipped in Babylon are not insensible beings. They have there a great dragon or snake to which divine honor is paid. " Wilt thou also say that this is brass? " Cyrus is represented as tri- umphantly asking Daniel. '' Lo, he eateth and drinketh. He is a living god, therefore worship him." This naif argument would have em- barrassed some men. Daniel, however, disposes of it by killing the serpent, which he accom- plishes by forcing a lump of pitch, fat and hair down his throat. For this deed Daniel is thrown into the lions' den, where he remains six days, until the prophet Habakkuk is carried by an angel through the air by the hair of his head,* and cries, " O Daniel, Daniel, take the dinner God has sent thee." Unfortunately, every feature of this romance is unhistorical and no safe conclusion can be drawn from it.

Among the Greeks the serpent was regarded as a sacred object, closely associated with several of the gods. In the temple of Athene in Athens, as late as the Persian wars tame serpents were kept as guardians of the temple ; they were sup- ported at the public expense and fed regularly on honey cakes. Athene is frequently repre- sented as carrying a staff round which serpents are coiled. Hermes is depicted in the same way. As a rule, the serpent was considered a good ani- mal by the Greeks, most of whose serpents were harmless. It is associated with ^sculapius in the art of healing and with Ceres as a child of the earth and protector of the soil, although some- times, as in the serpents that tried to strangle

* See Creuzer's " Symbolik," art. Schlange.

The Serpent in Phcenicia

Hercules, and the serpents sent to slay Laocoon, its dangerous character appears.

In regard to the position of the serpent among the Phoenicians, we have an extremely interest- ing account in the fragments of Sanchoniathon, preserved by Philo of Biblus : *

Taautos [probably the old Egyptian god Thoth] first re- garded the nature of the dragon and the serpent as some- what divine, in which he was followed by the Egyptians and Babylonians. He taught that this animal is the most spirited of all reptiles and that it has a fiery nature, inas- much as it displays incredible swiftness, moving by its spirit alone, without hands or feet or any of those organs b:' which other animals effect their motion. And as it goes it assumes a variety of forms, moving in spirals and darting forward as swiftly as it pleases. It is moreover long-lived, and is capable not only of laying its old age oiT and assuming a second youth, but of receiving at the same time an increase of size and strength. And when it has fulfilled the appointed time of its existence it consumes itself, as Taautos has laid down in his sacred books, on which account this animal is introduced in the sacred rites and mysteries. . . . This animal does not die a natural death except when it is struck a severe blow. The Phoenicians call it the good demon; the Egyptians, " Kneph," and represent it as having the head of a hawk as it has the strength of a hawk. In allegorical manner Epius says the following: " The first among all divine be- ings is the serpent in form of a hawk, a beautiful animal; when it looks up it fills the whole ante-mundane world with light, when it closes its eyes darkness falls."

I will not attempt to interpret all this, but it appears that the Phoenicians and the Greeks both borrowed their serpent worship from Egypt, where the cult was very old. In Egypt the ser- pent w^as especially sacred. It belonged to all the gods. Wherever a large serpent was found, people " brought it bread, cakes, and fruit, and

* See Cory's "Fragments," 17 and 18, and Baudissin, op. citat., p. 268.

(215)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

thought that they could call down the blessing of heaven upon their fields by gorging the snake with offerings." * On the east wall of the sanc- tuary of the goddess Hathor of Tentyra this in- scription still stands : " The sun which endures from the beginning, mounts Hke a falcon from out of the middle of its lotus bud. The doors of its leaves open in sapphire radiance, so it divides the night from the day. Thou risest as the holy ser- pent, creating and illuminating the ascent in thy glorious form in the bark of the rising sun." t

The serpent, though frequently regarded in Egypt as a good animal, was by no means always so regarded. On the contrary, he is constantly described in the inscriptions, and depicted on the monuments as the symbol of evil and of darkness who strives to extinguish the light of the physical and moral world. In the Book of the Dead this struggle is depicted in a vignette which repre- sents an armed cat (symbol of light) contending with a serpent (the symbol of darkness). In this connection the serpent is also constantly depicted with the Tree of Life. An old inscription says that a Persea (the sacred tree) " arose in emerald leafage in the east of the world, at the place where the sun celebrates his daily ascent, on the spot where the daily battle takes place between light and darkness, good and evil." % In general we may say that these two inseparable figures — the Tree and the Serpent — represent the eternal struggle of life and death. The Book of the

* Maspero, " Dawn of Civilization," p. 121. f Brugsch, " Religion und Mythologie der Alten Aegypter," p. 103.

X See Brugsch, " Steinschrift und Bibelwort," ch. 3.

(216)

The Serpent in Persia

Dead promises the eternal fate of the serpent '' in the night of the battle and in the destruction of evil-doers, and in the day of the annihilation of the enemies of the Almighty."

Among all these nations the serpent is re- garded as a sacred and often as a good being. Only among the Persians, in the sacred books of Zoroaster's religion, is the serpent always evil. He is there the creature of Ahriman, the de- stroyer. His sole business is to injure the good creatures of Ahura Mazda. It is as great a merit to kill a serpent as to perform the highest sacri- fice. In the Bundahesh * we read that when Ahri- man was attacking the luminaries of heaven with malicious intent, he stood upon one-third of the inside of the sky and sprang like a snake out of the sky down to the earth. He made the world dark at midday, and noxious creatures, biting and venomous, such as the snake, scorpion, frog and lizard, were diffused by him over the earth, f Every one of the faithful was provided with a " snake-killer," consisting of a stick with a leather thong at the end. Finally, at the last judgment, the serpent is thrown into hell and burned up amid masses of molten metals whose heat is so intense that all evil fumes are con- sumed, and hell, having become quite pure, forms part of the new world of the redeemed.^

Fortunately we have not now to interpret the meaning of all these myths connected with the serpent. They spring from two sources, either from the uncanny, mysterious nature of the ser- pent, as Philo Biblus tells us, or from a fanciful comparison of the serpent with the clouds and

* iii. lo and 15. f Bund, xxviii. 22. X Ibid. xxx. 31 and 32.

(217)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

other natural phenomena. As the latter concep- tion has nothing to do with Genesis, I have pur- posely omitted stories of this sort. It is true that none of these myths tallies very closely with our narrative. The nearest relative of our ser- pent is the tempting serpent of Ahriman, who overcame the fair shepherd Yima. But the short account here given is sufficient to enable us to realize how great a part the serpent played in the mythology of the nations. I turn next to the conceptions of the Cherubim and the Flaming Sword.

From the manner in which the cherubim are introduced, without a word of explanation or de- scription, it is plain that these objects, so mys- terious to us, were very familiar to the audience for whom the Jehovist wrote. We are therefore entitled to regard them as belonging to that large company of mythical beings, brute and human, of which ancient art has preserved innumerable ex- amples. Unfortunately, our rudimentary ar- chaeology can supply us with no authentic ex- ample from the soil of Palestine.* Perhaps no example exists. The Hebrews' lack of artistic skill and the Prophets' well-known aversion to representations even of animal life make it prob- able that objects of plastic art were at no time nu- merous in Israel. Even the cherubim of Solo- mon's temple, we are expressly informed, were executed in wood. It is true that among the metal castings made by Hiram of Tyre for Solomon,

* A sculptured animal form surmounted by a human head of Assyrian type was discovered by M. Clermont-Ganneau in a stone quarry near Jerusalem (see "Rev. Grit.," Mai i6, 1892). Whether this composite figure was intended for a cherub is very

doubtful.

(218)

The Cherub in the Psalms

we read of cherubim on the base of the molten sea. From their association in this piece of orna- mentation with Hons and oxen,* it would appear that the cherubim possessed animal form dis- tinguishable from these familiar figures. We have a general description of the cherubim that guarded the Holy of Holies, which informs us that they possessed wings, but which is not sufficiently exact to enable us to form a mental picture of their appearance.

Lacking any representation in art, we can only turn to the mythical interpretations of literature. A fine and vivid description of a cherub is given in the eighteenth Psalm :

He bowed the heavens and came down,

Clouds of darkness beneath His feet.

He rode on the cherub and flew,

On the wings of the wind He swooped down,

In darkness He wrapt Himself,

About Him as His covert.

At the brightness before Him clouds vanished,

Lo! hailstones and coals of fire.f

In this wonderful description the cherub on which Jahveh flies is plainly a thunder cloud con- ceived as a chariot. The allusion is scarcely veiled. The one hundred and fourth Psalm says even less ambiguously :

Thou makest clouds Thy chariot, Thou ridest on the wings of the wind. Thou makest winds Thy messengers, And flames of fire Thy servants. X

In Ezekiel's vision § of the cherubim and the wheels the function of the cherubim as the

* I Kings, vii. 29. X Ps. civ. 3, 4.

f Ps. xviii. 9-12. § Ezek. i.

(219)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

winged bearers of God is even more apparent. This, then, is one of the duties the cherubim were supposed to perform. They are winged beings who carry Jahveh in rapid flight through the air, and in this capacity they are intimately associated with storm clouds and with the phenomena of thunder and lightning.

The second function of the cherubim is to watch and protect sacred places. This phase of their being is plainly brought out in our story of Genesis and by the presence of the cherubim in the Holy of Holies, where they guarded Jeho- vah's ark. Perhaps the most striking descrip- tion of the cherubim in this capacity is that of the Prophet Ezekiel. Some of Ezekiel's earlier visions of the cherubim are exceedingly compli- cated and technical and appear to have been sug- gested to him by the architecture of Babylon, where he lived for many years. He gives us a hint that his many-headed, composite beings are not the old Israelitish cherubim when he ad- mits * that he did not know they were cherubim until he heard them called so by God. Those mechanically constructed figures never arose from the spontaneous imagination of the people and do not represent the old traditional views. In his twenty-eighth chapter, however, Ezekiel presents to us another far more living form. It is the old Hebrew cherub in his original habitat. The passage is also interesting as containing another genuine Hebrew tradition of Paradise which differs in many respects from the Eden of Genesis. Ezekiel is addressing the King of Tyre. He describes him as another Adam in

* Chap. X ; 2, 20. (220)

The Paradise of Ezekiel

an even more mythical terrestrial Paradise, until, in consequence of his pride, he is driven out by the cherub. Unfortunately the Hebrew text is quite corrupt.

In Eden, the garden of God, thou wast; of every precious stone was thine adornment — ruby, topaz and jasper, tar- shish stone, onyx and beryl, sapphire, carbuncle and emer- ald; of gold was the work of thy [some ornament]. On the day when thou wast created, I placed thee with the cherub ... on the sacred mountain of God, and thou didst walk amid the fiery stones. Perfect thou wast in thy ways from the day when thou wert created till iniquity was found in thee. Through the greatness of thy traffic thou wert filled with violence and didst sin; so I cast thee out as profane from the mountain of God, and the cherub . , . expelled thee from amid the fiery stones.*

We have here evidently an independent He- brew translation of the Creation and the Fall of man. In this narrative, as in Genesis, a favored man is placed at his creation in the garden of God, but when in pride and disobedience he revolts against God, he is cast out with the cooperation of the cherub, who is represented as the guardian of the place. In several of its features, e. g., the description of Paradise as on the sacred mountain of God, the wonderful account of the precious stones and the fiery stones, and the more active part taken by the cherub in the e:j^pulsion of man, Ezekiel's narrative seems to represent a more primitive tradition than our own.

For our purpose it is not necessary to carry this study of the cherubim much further. We have already established the two salient aspects of his being, i. He is regarded as the winged bearer of God, he is the cloudy chariot on which Jahveh

* Ezek. xxviii. 13-16 ; Toy's translation. (221)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

rides through the sky. 2. He is the guardian of divine places, of Paradise according to Genesis and Ezekiel, and of the Holy of Holies in Solo- mon's temple. It is not certain which of these conceptions came first. The majority of scholars seem to believe that the former is the older, and it is quite true that birds or other winged creatures regarded as the personification of storm clouds are an old and even a primitive belief. But, on the other hand, the belief that Jahveh dwelt on the earth — on some lofty mountain from which he occasionally descended to view the works of men — ^^seems to have come first, and only at a later time was Jahveh regarded as dwelling above in the ethereal regions. I therefore believe that the conception of the cherub as the guardian of di- vine places came first and that his transference to the sky was a later development. This belief is somewhat strengthened by the meaning of the word itself, to which I now turn.

If we could definitely determine the origin of the word cherub, we should have an impor- tant hint as to the people among whom it arose. Lenormant * thought he had settled this point when he found on an Assyrian talisman belong- ing to M. Louis de Clercq the word kirubu, or cherub, accompanied by the ideographic sign shed or sidu, meaning sacred bull. Lenormant therefore regarded the cherubim as the winged bulls of Babylonian and Assyrian art which we see so often depicted as the guardians of sacred places. Although this identification has proved false, yet Lenormant's idea that the cheru- bim closely resembled the mythical animals of

* "Begin, of Hist,," p. 126. (222)

The Griffin

Babylonia, as we have seen, is not altogether wrong.

A more probable etymology, defended by Dill- mann and by many other scholars, associates the word cherub with the Greek word ypvtp (griffin), which is assigned to an Indo-Germanic root, grabh (grasp). Of all the fabulous animals of antiquity, the griffin attained the widest geo- graphical distribution. In Greece it was a well- known figure from early times. Numerous specimens of it have been found in Egypt, Chal- dea, Assyria, Persia, Cyprus, Syria and Phoeni- cia. Where the plastic representations of art fail, tradition takes it up and tells us that the griffin with flaming eyes watches vast treas- ures of gold in the mountains north of India,* and in Hindu mythology a somewhat similar animal is the guardian of the sacred Soma.f In form the griffin was represented as a combination of the two most powerful denizens of the earth and sky — the lion and the eagle. Its body is that of a winged lion and its head is the head of an eagle. It is interesting in this connection to remember that of the four faces of Ezekiel's composite cherubim, one was '' the face of an eagle.'* X This strange being is believed to have originated in Syria, among the Hittites, whose vigor and originality in depicting animals is well known. From them it passed over the old world. Among the Hittites the griffin was not repre- sented as a ferocious animal of prey, like the re-

* See Ctesias' " Indica," 12, ed. Lyon. ; ^lian, " Hist. Anim." iv. 27 ; Herodotus, iii. 116 ; ^schylus, " Prometheus," 804 f., etc., quoted by Dillmann.

•f Kuhn, " Herabkunft des Feuers," 146 ff.

X Ezek. i. ID.

(223)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

liefs of Tiamat, but rather like the Sphinx, as a being of calm dignity and strength, the super- natural guardian of divine things.*

It remains to add a word on the sword that aided the cherubim in keeping the way of the Tree of Life. By this we ought by no means to understand an ordinary weapon in the hands of these watchers. The cherubim are at least two in number, while there is only one sword. More- over, these mythical beings are seldom if ever depicted as bearing arms. They are self-suffi- cient. The sword also is self-sufficient and does not need the hand of the creature, for, to tell the truth, it is Jahveh's own sword and possesses in- herent energy. " And he placed to the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim and the flam- ing blade of the sword, which turns every way to keep the way of the Tree of Life."

The sword, then, possesses these two charac- teristics: it moves of its own energy and it is a sword of fire, a flaming blade. It is evidently akin to '' the sword of Jahveh, so hard and great and strong," t or like " the sword bathed in heav- en." We have seen in the eighteenth Psalm that the cherubim were intimately connected with the phenomena of thunder and Hghtning. Ezekiel also constantly associated them with fire. In short, the two inherent characteristics of the Hebrew cherubim are united in this picture. The element of reposeful vigilance is contained in the immovable watchers, and the element of restless action is supplied by the glittering blade

* See Furtwangler's interesting article, " Gryps," in Roscher's Lexicon.

f Isaiah, xxvii. i and xxxiv. 5.

(224)

Babylonian Epic of Izdubar

of Jahveh's sword (the lightning), which cease- lessly plays around the sacred tree ready to strike the profane intruder dead.

Now I believe we have touched on all the char- acteristic conceptions of these two chapters and we may congratulate ourselves that there is noth- ing more difficult in store for us. I wish next to turn to the literature of Babylon to see if there is any narrative at present in our possession corre- sponding to our story of Eden, Adam and Eve and the Tree of Life. I have already called attention to many minor points of resemblance, but there remains a large and splendid piece of literature for us to look at. I mean the great epic poem which describes the adven- tures of Izdubar or Gilgamesh. I have several reasons for discussing this poem at some length. In the first place, it is one of the most con- siderable pieces of Babylonian literature and is of value for its own sake. Secondly, the later tablets of this epic contain the Babylonian ac- count of the Flood, which is so strikingly hke ours that even those persons who close their eyes to all other points of resemblance between Baby- lonian and Hebrew literature open them here. And thirdly, it throws some light on the second and third chapters of Genesis. Our first knowl- edge of this poem we owe, as usual, to George Smith, who discovered the larger portion of the tablets we now possess in the great library of Assurbanipal (668-626 b. c), at Nineveh, in 1872. Since then other copies have been recovered from the same city, but no complete copy has been found. The poem in its original form con- sisted of twelve tablets and may have contained

(225)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

three thousand Hues, of which only about one- half have been recovered.* The work of collect- ing and arranging these fragments has been per- formed by Professor Paul Haupt, of the Johns Hopkins University, f Several excellent trans- lations have been made. I shall depend largely on that of Alfred Jeremias.ij: As the poem stands, it consists of fragments of twelve tablets, of which the last two are devoted largely to the Flood. Although, so far as I know, our tablets go back only to the copies presented by Assurbani- pal (seventh century b. c), yet there is no doubt that the story, and perhaps the poem, is im- mensely older. Berosus tells us that the Baby- lonian Noah before the flood was commanded by his deity to deposit all writings in his possession in the city of the sun at Sippara. § The city of Uruk (Erech), where a great part of the scene is laid, is one of the most ancient cities of Baby- lonia, and representations of Gilgamesh or Izdu- bar are found on some very old cylinders, prob- ably dating from before 2,000 b. c. These por- traits are all much alike, and they seem to repre- sent a very unusual type of humanity — one would almost say, a member of an earlier race than the Babylonian. The best proof of the enor- mous age of the epic is the way its stories have infiltrated into the mythologies of many nations. The poem, as we have said, is divided into twelve tablets or books, and as Izdubar is plainly con- ceived as a solar deity, these may very well stand for the twelve signs of the Zodiac through which

* Jastrow, " Relig. of Bab.," p. 471.

f "Das Bab. Nimrod-Epos," Leipzig, 1884-1891.

X " Izdubar-Nimrod," Leipzig, 1891.

§ Cory's " Fragments," p. 33.

(226)

Name of Izdubar

the sun passes on his yearly path. It has been pointed out that several of the adventures of Iz- dubar correspond with the signs of the Zodiac. He kills the lion in the month of Leo. His court- ship of Ishtar (goddess of love) occurs on the sixth tablet, which corresponds to the sixth sign, Virgo. The flood is described in the eleventh tablet, and the eleventh sign is Aquarius, etc.*

The hero of the poem is known by the double name of Izdubar and Gilgamesh. The former is the English equivalent commonly assigned to his name in the inscriptions since George Smith ; its meaning is still doubtful. f The alternative, Gilgamesh, is, I believe, due to Pinches, who dis- covered on a lexicographical tablet the equation Izdubar-Gilgamesh. This would identify him with an old king, Gilgamos.^ His name is al- ways preceded by the sign of divinity. It is dif- ficult to say exactly how we should regard him, whether as a man or as a god. It is true, prayer is addressed to him as a mighty king and judge, but in the body of the poem he is scarcely more a mythical being than are some of the heroes of Homer, and there is no good reason to doubt that, as in all compositions of this sort, an ancient setting of fact is preserved under a great deal of fiction. The spiritual facts, however, alone are important in all these ancient sagas, and the spir- itual facts by their very nature can never be con- cealed.

I need only add that this epic, Hke all ancient epics, is not the work of one mind. Probably

* A. H. Sayce in Smith's " Chaldean Genesis," p. 176. f Jeremias, " Izd.-Nimrod," p. i. X Jastrow, " Relig-. of Bab.," p. 468.

(227)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

more than one people has worked over it, and the traces of their handiwork are very appa- rent. The poem is one only in name. It con- sists of a number of independent narratives, often very loosely connected, and it would be an easy task to separate them. As there is reason to be- lieve that the poem was translated into Baby- lonian from the Accadian language, it must be at least as old as 2000 b. c, and possibly older. Its stories are of such a popular character that they may very well have been handed down by word of mouth for a long time before they were re- duced to writing.

The poem opens, according to Haupt, with these interesting words:

He who has beheld the history of Izdubar . . . knows all. He who sees the secret and hidden ... he brings knowledge which goes back before the Flood. He wanders weary on a distant path.

The first tablet, of which only a few fragments remain, evidently describes a siege of the walled city, Uruk, and times of great distress.

The she asses tread their foals under foot. The cows turn against their calves. The people lament like the cattle. The maidens mourn like doves. The gods of Uruk, the well protected, turn into flies and swarm around the streets. The demons of well-protected Uruk turn into snakes, and glide into holes (?). Three years did the en- emy besiege Uruk. The gates were bolted. The earth works were thrown up. Ishtar did not raise her head be- fore the enemy. . . . Then Bel opened his mouth, and spoke to Ishtar, the queen, to make known the word. (Tab- let breaks off.)

The next is fuller. There is great commotion in Uruk on account of Izdubar, who is turning things upside down. At first it seems doubtful

(228)

Creation of Eabani

whether Izdubar has captured Uruk and is abus- ing the people, or whether the people are carried away with enthusiasm and are running after him.

On the whole, the former is more probable.

" Izdubar," the second tablet begins, " did not leave a son to his father, his daughter to a hero, his wife to a husband." Parents, therefore, com- plain to the goddess of the city.

He has no rival, . . . Your inhabitants are led [to battle]. Izdubar leaves not a maiden [to her mother], his daughter to a hero, his wife to a husband. . . . heard their cry. ... To the goddess they called with loud voice, "Thou, Aruru,* hast created him; create now his equal. On the day of his heart may he . . . Let them fight with each other. Uruk [may witness it?] "

The only way they see of getting rid of Izdu- bar is through some mightier hero who by the aid of the goddess may conquer him. Aruru's answer to this prayer is interesting.

When the goddess Aruru heard that, she made a man In her heart, a man of Anu [i. e., by the help of Anu]. Aruru washed her hands, picked up clay, and threw it on the ground.

This reminds us somewhat of Adam's creation out of dust, although the solemnity and the ten- derness of Genesis are altogether lacking. In the expression, ^' threw it on the ground," we see the cold indifference to man so common in paganism. The man so created, however, is a very interesting person. He becomes the de- voted friend of Izdubar and shares that hero's adventures. The story of Eabani's life does not

* It will be remembered that in Pinches' "Creation" tablet Aruru assisted Marduk in creating man.

(229)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

seem to belong to the original poem at all. Everything pertaining to him is strongly de- picted. He is represented as man in his first savage condition. He is, in fact, the first man, made directly by a god out of dust and not be- gotten, and it is hard not to imagine that at first he was conceived as a kind of Babylonian Adam and that his association with Izdubar was added later. On the cylinders he is represented as half brute, half human.

She made Eabani, a hero, a noble offspring, a man of the fields; covered with hair was his body, with long tresses like a woman. The [waving?] hair of his head stood up like that of the wheat [god?]. He was clothed in a garment like the field. He ate grass with the gazelles, he drank water with the cattle of the field, he amused himself with the animals of the water.

In this lonely life among the animals, with whom he is on very intimate terms, Eabani again reminds us of Adam. The resemblance between them becomes more striking as we go on. What follows is introduced so abruptly that there seems to be a break. The meaning, however, is plain. Eabani was created to overcome Izdubar, who is destroying Uruk. But of this Eabani knows nothing. He is leading a happy life, far away in the wilderness. It is therefore necessary that some means be discovered to bring Eabani to Uruk. Accordingly, Sadu, the hunter, is de- spatched to capture him. Eabani's surprise and animal wrath in the presence of the first man he has ever seen are wonderfully described.

Sadu, a hunter, the man-catcher, met him at the entrance to the watering place. He, Eabani, saw him, the hunter. His countenance grew dark, he went with his cattle back

(230)

Sadu, the Hunter

into the shelter, he was troubled, lamented, cried aloud, [sad?] was his heart, his face was disturbed . . . sor- row [stole into?] his heart. ... In the distance his face was burning with anger.

Here something is lost. Sadu, the hunter, becomes afraid. He does not dare attempt Eabani's capture, and goes back to tell of his failure to the god who had sent him.

The hunter opened his mouth and said [to Ea? or Shamash? his father]: "My father [?], one hero going is not enough. In heaven is . . . his strength is like a man of Anu. . . . He strides along over the mountain. . . . With the cattle of the field he continually eats grass. His feet are always at the entrance of the watering places. ... I fear him, I will not go near him. He has filled up the hole I dug [to entrap him], torn away the cords [I laid out] ; he let the cattle and beasts of the field escape out of my hands, and would not allow me to hunt." [The god] said to the hunter, [set out and go] to Uruk, the city of Izdubar.

Fragments here indicate that in Uruk Sadu is to find a priestess of Ishtar who will aid him in capturing Eabani. The narrative goes on :

According to the advice of his father, the hunter sets out and goes to Uruk. Before the face of Izdubar [the hunter appears and speaks].

In the same language Sadu tells Izdubar of ais unsuccessful attempt. There is evidently some confusion here, for Izdubar is represented as ad- vising Sadu how to capture Eabani, who was made to destroy him.

Izdubar spoke to him, " Go, my hunter, take the priest- ess Uhat. When the cattle come to drink she shall show herself to him. He shall see her and will approach. His cattle that have flocked round him will run away." The hunter went, he took with him the priestess Uhat, he took

(231)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

the straight road. On the third day they reached the ap- pointed field. The hunter and the priestess sat down as it pleased them. One day, two days, they sat at the en- trance to the watering place. With the cattle he took his drink, he played with the animals of the water. Eabani came, he whose house was in the mountains. He ate grass with the gazelles, he drank water with the cattle, he amused himself with the creatures of the water. Uhat saw the animal-man. ..." That is he, Uhat " [said the hunter].

Uhat charms Eabani and draws him away from his beloved animals. It is hard again not to see in this a profound reminiscence of Genesis. As I said before, the story of Eabani probably has been tampered with to make it fit into the action of the poem. The motives that led to this first meeting of Eabani and Uhat may have been en- tirely altered. In its present form the Babylo- nian epic contains much that is to us gross and revolting, and of the chaste reticence and purity of our Paradise narrative there is hardly a trace. We must remember, however, that Izdubar is one of the oldest pieces of human literature — at least a thousand years older than the poems of Homer, and we must regard its genuinely ancient na'iveti with some indulgence. And yet, I repeat, cer- tain motives of this story forcibly remind us of our book. It was in this way that Eve found Adam, living contentedly among his cattle, among which Jahveh had looked for a help- meet for him, and by her influence Adam was brought to the sense of the dignity of manhood and was withdrawn from the society of animals.*

* I am indebted for this suggestion to Dr. Jastrow, " Re- ligions of Babylonia," p. 476. Since these lectures were de- livered I have seen Dr. Jastrow's interesting brochure entitled "Adam and Eve in Babylonian Literature," and have been

(232)

Eabani and the Priestess

This touch, so profound and so suggestive, also follows in the Babylonian story.

For six days Eabani remained [near]. Afterward he turned his face toward his cattle. They saw him, Eabani; the gazelles hid, the beasts of the field turned away from him.

The meaning is plain. Eabani has become a man by his association with woman; he is sep- arated forever from the animal kingdom. The beasts recognize this and are afraid of him.

Then Eabani was frightened and fell in a swoon. His knees trembled, as his cattle ran away from him. , . . Then he heard . . . his senses came back. He re- turned and sat down at the feet of the priestess and looked up into her face, and while the priestess speaks his ears hear. . , . She speaks to him, " Eabani, you are noble, you are like a god. Why do you stay with the beasts of the field? Come, I will bring you to walled Uruk, to the bright house, the dwelling of Anu and Ishtar, to the place of Izdubar who is perfect in strength, who like a mountain bull excels the heroes in valor." While she speaks to him he listens to her words. He who is wise in heart seeks a friend. " Come^ Uhat, take me to the bright and sacred dwelling of Anu and Ishtar, to the place of Izdubar, who is perfect in strength, and who like a mountain bull rules over the heroes. I will fight with him, mightily will I [win his friendship]. I will send to Uruk a lion [a wild- cat] to prove Izdubar's strength."

It will be noticed here, as in Genesis, that after the womafi has obtained her supremacy over the man, her first act is to take him out of his happy garden and plunge him into toil and struggle.

gratified to find myself so much in accordance with the views there expressed. My debt to this distinguished scholar is already so great that I prefer not to increase it by recasting what I have written on the subject of Eabani and Adapa in the light of his more recent work.

(233)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Chapter Twelve: The Epic of Izdubar and the Legend of A dap a

IN giving an account of the Babylonian epic which narrated the adventures of Izdubar, or Gilgamesh, I have called attention to the reasons for studying this poem with some care. First, because it is one of the oldest and most remark- able compositions in existence, full of interest and worth studying for its own sake; secondly, because the latter part of the poem contains the Babylonian story of the Flood, and thirdly, be- cause scattered through the whole poem we find suggestions of the early chapters of Genesis.

We have seen how Eabani, whom we may al- most call the Babylonian Adam, was created by the goddess Aruru out of clay, and how he lived a happy life among the animals, '' eating grass with the gazelles," until he came to the realiza- tion of the dignity of manhood through his friendship with a woman, the priestess Uhat. The first thing Uhat does is to carry Eabani away from his animal Paradise to the walled city of Uruk, where lives the great hero Izdubar, whom Eabani was created to fight with. However, they do not fight. Eabani is warned in a dream by his mother, Aruru, that Izdubar's powers are greater than his own, and instead of fight- ing, the two heroes form a life-long friendship

(234)

The Sacred Grove

and support each other in the series of adventures which follow. Their first adventure is with the giant Humbaba, who appears to have been an ancient king of Elam.* Humbaba is the pos- sessor of a wonderful sacred grove, from which a pestilence goes out to strike every profane in- truder dead. Here Izdubar has a dream, which

IZDUBAR AND EABANI

I will give as a specimen of the dreams that are so common in this poem.

The dream that I dreamed was quite . . . The heaven resounded, the earth roared and darkness came down, the Hghtning shone, fire came forth sated [with de- struction], full of death. The brightness was extinguished, it was out of the fire . , . fell down, became smoke.

They enter the sacred grove where Humbaba was accustomed to walk with lofty strides, and evidently slay him. The episode which follows is so peculiar and such wonderfully good epic poetry that I give it entire. After the battle,

* Jeremias, " Izdubar-Nimrod," p. 21.

■-,L..-. k,J

(235)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Izdubar washed himself, removed all traces of the combat, dressed himself in a shining white gar- ment and put on his diadem. So noble was the form and appearance of the hero that it excited the admiration of the great goddess Ishtar, the Babylonian Venus.

" Come, Izdubar," she says to him, " be my spouse. Give me your love for a gift. You shall be my husband, I will be your wife. I will place you on a chariot of precious stones and gold, whose wheels are of gold, its horns are of sapphire. You shall drive great kudanu [lions]. Under the fragrance of cedars you shall come into our house. When you enter our house, then shall . . . kiss your feet. Kings, lords, and princes shall bow [?] before you, [All the produce of] mountain and land they shall bring you as a tribute."

But this invitation, which Heine unconsciously so perfectly reproduced in his Princess Use, Izdu- bar declines. He recalls the fate of the former aspirants to Ishtar's favor, and lays aside the dangerous distinction.

" Very well," he says, " I will openly relate your incon- stancies. Tammuz [Adonis], the husband of your youth, you compelled to weep year after year. You loved the beautiful Allulu bird, you crushed him, you broke his wings. Now he stands in the wood and cries, ' Oh! my wings.' You also loved a lion of wonderful strength, seven and seven times [again and again] you outwitted him. You also loved a horse mighty in battle, with whip and spur did you afiflict him; although he had galloped seven leagues, when he was tired and wanted to drink you urged him on, and compelled his mother, the goddess Sibili, to weep. You loved a chief shepherd, who constantly burned incense to you and daily slaughtered kids. You beat him and turned him into a tiger, so that his own shepherds would hunt him and his dogs bite him fiercely. You loved a giant [?] your father's gardener, who continually brought you presents, and every day prettily adorned your table [made bright your dishes]. You cast your eye on him and made him mad. * O, my Giant,' you said, * come now,

(236)

IZDUBAR AND IsHTAR

you will enjoy your fruit. You shall stretch out your hand and dispel our hesitation.' The giant said to you, ' What scheme are you plotting against me, my little mother? Prepare no meal, for I will not partake of it. What I should partake of is bad and accursed food, covered with dangerous fire. . . .' As soon as you heard that, you attacked him and turned him into a dwarf, and laid kim down on a couch, so that he could not stand up. Now you love me also, but like those [you will destroy me]."

All these allusions were popular stones, several of which passed into Greek and Roman mythol- ogy. The shepherd turned into a tiger reminds us of Actseon, changed to a stag by Diana and torn by his dogs. Tammuz was Adonis. The charge that Ishtar caused him to weep, however, does not seem well founded, as Tammuz, the young summer god, was killed by the sharp tooth of approaching winter. It was Ishtar who wept for him, and who to free the souls of the departed descended into hell. The ironical and bantering language that Izdubar addresses to one of the chief deities of his people surprises us in so an- cient a poem. It reminds us of the religious attitude of the Romans in late and sceptical ages. When people address their gods in this manner it can hardly be said that they believe in them, but it is not a little singular to see paganism dis- integrating and faith passing into ridicule at so early a period.

The wrath of Ishtar is most naively related, and the embarrassment of her father, who was unable to resist her tears, reminds us of similar predica- ments of Zeus. She flew at once to Anu and said to him, " My father, Izdubar has insulted me. Izdubar has related my faults, my faults and evil deeds." Anu, however, who takes for granted

(237)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

that Izdubar's criticisms are merited, tries to pacify her. '' Do not be disturbed," he says, " even though Izdubar has related your faults and evil deeds." Ishtar refuses to be mollified. *' My father," she prays, " make me a heavenly bull." Anu hesitates. '' What is this you ask ? " Ishtar prevails, and the heavenly bull is made and is sent down to destroy the insolent hero. Izdu- bar and Eabani, undaunted, attack it together and kill it. Ishtar's wrath now knows no bounds. She mounts the wall of Uruk and utters a loud cry.

" Curse on Izdubar, who injured me and who slew the heavenly bull! " Eabani heard those words of Ishtar's, tore off the ibbatu [shoulder?] of the heavenly bull, and threw it in her face. " Oh! you, I will conquer you as you did [think to do] him."

Their triumph was short-lived. Eabani was soon made to pay the penalty of his impiety. Everything points to the fact that he did not die a natural death. In the twelfth tablet we are told that the earth swallowed him up, and Izdu- bar himself was soon smitten with a deadly lep- rosy. From this point the character of the poem changes. Its tone becomes more tragical and the superhuman element begins to reveal itself more plainly. The whole setting becomes more sombre and weird. Izdubar has lost his friend Eabani, and he is plagued by a sore disease. He begins to turn his face toward a certain magical country, the Island of the Blessed, which lies far out to sea beyond the waters of Death. On this island grows the Tree of Life, or as it is called in the poem, '' the plant that makes the old man young again." Only two mortals have

(^38)

SlT-

NAPISTIM

ever reached those blessed shores, the way to which is beset with terrible dangers. They are Sit-napistim and his wife. Sit-napistim is one of the most curious figures in the whole narra- tive. He is the Babylonian Noah, who, with his family alone, escaped from the deluge that destroyed the world.

In one respect, however, Sit-napistim is supe- rior to Noah. After the flood had subsided, he did not share the fate of mortal men. He was translated to the Island of the Blessed and be- came its guardian. On account of his escape from death, he has also been compared with Enoch, '' who was not, for God took him." * But the fact that Sit-napistim's wife also escaped death and continued to live with him in the Island of the Blessed somewhat weakens the compari- son.

Now let us return to our story.

Izdubar wept bitterly over his friend Eabani, lying on the ground. " I will not die like Eabani. Sorrow has entered my soul. I have learned the fear of death. ... I will go with rapid step to the powerful Sit-napistim, son of Kidin-Marduk."

Sit-napistim's dwelling place is vaguely de- scribed as " in the distance, at the confluence of the streams." So Izdubar sets out. His first serious adventure is with the Scorpion-Men, who guard the pass of Mount Masu. The de- scription of these men is very curious.

Then he came to the mountain pass, Masu, whose en- trance was continually watched by beings whose backs reached to the confines of heaven, and their breasts below Arallu [the lower world]. The Scorpion-Men guard the * Budde, " Urgeschichte," p. i8i.

(239)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

gate. They strike terrible alarm, their look is death. Awful is their brightness, dashing down mountains. They guard the sun when he rises and when he sets.

This is all interesting as throwing light on the Babylonian cosmology. The Babylonians represented the confines of the world as a great dam which supported the firmament of heaven. At each end of the world stands a great moun-

SCORPION-MEN

tain — on one side the bright sunrise mountain, on the other the dark sunset mountain. As to the position of these two mythical mountains, naturally nothing definite can be said. They stand, however, on the verge between cosmos and chaos. This is well brought out by the Scorpion-Men who guard the rising and the set- ting of the sun. They stand on the mountain

(240)

Island of the Blessed

pass, the boundary line that separates the world from chaos. The upper portion of their bodies, which is human, reaches to heaven; the lower, serpentine part belongs to the nether world.* These Scorpion-Men, of course, are the constel- lation Scorpio, through which the sun passes in the autumnal equinox. In the Creation tablet they were described as among the monsters of Tiamat, but, after her downall, they apparently became guardians of the sun. In regard to the general geography of this portion of the poem, the Island of the Blessed — to which Izdubar is making his way — lies far from land, beyond the waters of bitterness and the waters of Death, at the confluence of the streams. Two of these streams, in any event, are the Tigris and the Euphrates. We should, therefore, regard the Island of the Blessed as a mythical island far out in the Persian Gulf. There seems to be no reason to regard it as in the domain of the lower world, for the very thing that distin- guished Sit-napistim is that he did not die at all, and he and his wife are the sole occupants of this island. The path taken by Izdubar is, of course, very obscure, for he was going by a mythical way to an island that never existed. Jeremias informs us,t however, that the table- land Masu was identified in the annals of Assur- banipal and Sargon with the Syro-Arabian des- ert, south and southeast of the Tigris and Eu- phrates, and was described as " the place of thirst and desolation, to which no bird of heaven comes, where no wild asses, no gazelles graze."

* Jensen, " Kosmologie der Babylonier," p. 316. f " Izdubar-Nimrod," p. 29.

(241)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

This terrible land, so little known, was very natu- rally selected as on the way leading to the waters of Death.

When Izdubar saw them [the Scorpion-Men], his coun- tenance was full of terror and alarm. Their frightful ap- pearance robbed him of his senses. The Scorpion-Man spoke to his wife, '* He who comes tq us is of the bodily likeness of a god."

Izdubar tells him of his purpose, and the Scor- pion-Man describes the fearful dangers of the march through Mount Masu. Miles of thick darkness extend in every direction. At Izdu- bar's entreaty he opens the gate, and the myste- rious journey now begins.

'' He wanders one mile, thick is the darkness ; it does not grow light. He wanders two miles, thick is the darkness," and so on through the twelve miles in the heart of the mountain. At last he emerges on the shore of the sea, and sees a magnificent tree loaded with jewels and pre- cious stones, which reminds us of Ezekiel's strange account of the precious stones in the gar- den of Eden. Here sits a divine maiden, Sabitu (a very obscure personage), " on the throne of the sea." Seeing Izdubar approach, Sabitu withdraws to her palace and bolts the door. Iz- dubar says to her, ''Sabitu, what do you see? . . . Why do you bolt the door? [if you do not open] I will shatter the door." She yields, and Izdubar tells her of the journey he has under- taken and of his beloved friend " resolved to dust." " If it is possible I will cross the sea; if it is not possible I will lay myself down on the earth, mourning." Sabitu tells him : '' Izdubar, there has never been a ferry-boat, and no one

(242)

IzDUBAR Seeks Immortality

from time immemorial has crossed that sea. . . . Shamash [sun], the hero, alone has crossed the sea. Besides [ ?] Shamash, who can cross it ? Hard is the crossing, difficult its path, locked are the waters of Death, the bolts are drawn."

She tells him, however, of Arad-Ea, the boat- man, who carried Sit-napistim over. Arad-Ea consents to transport him, but tells Izdubar first to go to the woods and to cut a rudder sixty ells long. After forty-five days of danger, during which " the ship staggers and tosses," Arad-Ea comes to the waters of Death. Through these waters they pass with only twelve strokes. At last the danger is over. '' Izdubar loosens his belt as they approach the shores of the Blessed Island." Sit-napistim, who seems to be rather weary of this solitary immortality, is glad to see Izdubar, but will not permit him to land. So they converse from the boat and the shore. The narrative is here very fragmentary, but we can discern that Izdubar tells his ancestor the story of his life, his many adventures, the death of Eabani, and the terrible sacrifices he has made to reach the Tree of Life. Sit-napistim, however, does not encourage him in his hope of immortality. " So long," he says, " as we build houses, so long as we set seals to contracts, so long as brothers quarrel, so long as there is enmity ... so long as the rivers' waves flow to [the sea], no image will be made of Death. . . . The days of Death are unknown to [man]."

To this Izdubar naturally offers the objection that Sit-napistim himself has escaped death. '' I see you, Sit-napistim," he says, '' your appear-

(243)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

ance is not changed, you are like me . . . tell me how it is that you have attained the life among the gods which you desired? "

Sit-napistim then relates to Izdubar a long and remarkable narrative of the Deluge, which occu- pies the greater part of the eleventh tablet. As we are not yet ready for this story, I pass it over for the present to finish the history of Izdubar. At the end of his long recital, Sit-napistim, who has become very well disposed to Izdubar, says to him:

" Now your concern is, whicli one of the gods will lend you strength. The life that you desire you shall obtain. Very well, go to sleep." Six days he was like one who sits lame. Sleep came upon him like a storm wind.

In the meantime, Sit-napistim's wife, who pities Izdubar, proposes to her husband that they prepare a magic food which will relieve him tem- porarily, and that they send him back again. The preparation of this food is singularly described. '' First it was [prepared] ; secondly, it was peeled ; thirdly, it was moistened; fourthly, he cleansed the bowl ; fifthly, old age was added ; sixthly, he suddenly transformed him. Then the man ate the magic food."

Izdubar feels the effect of the magic food, but knows that it cannot permanently avert death. Nothing but the Tree of Life can do that. '' Where shall I go? Death lies upon my bed." Then Sit-napistim grants his wish to land on the Island and tells the boatman of a healing, cleans- ing spring in which Izdubar may bathe and wash his leprosy away. Izdubar washes and is com- pletely healed.

(244)

The Loss of the Magical Plant

'' He washed his sores as white as snow in the water, he washed off the leprous skin; his body appeared whole." He returns to Sit-napistim, who now reveals to him the last and greatest se- cret of the Island. Sit-napistim says : '' You are returning satisfied and healed. What shall I give you that you may return to your own land? I will tell you a secret " (unfortunately this is much broken), " I will reveal to you the . . . There is a plant Hke a thistle . . . pricks hke a piece of thorn. If your hands can gather it . . r

Izdubar leaves his ship, piles up stones to en- able him to reach the desired object, and at last succeeds in plucking the miraculous plant, which he brings to the ship.

Izdubar said to Arad-Ea, the boatman, "This plant Is a plant of promise, by which a man obtains life. I will take the plant with me to walled Uruk; I will raise a wood of it, and will then cut it off. Its name shall be An Old Man Grows Young. I will eat of it and return to the vigor of my youth."

Then they went on their way.

They left ten miles of the way behind them; after twenty miles they stopped. Izdubar saw a spring of cool water. He descended and while he was pouring out water within, a snake [?] came out. The plant slipped from him, a . . . demon came out and took the plant away. In his fright he uttered a curse. It . . . Izdubar sat down and wept. Tears flowed over his cheeks. [He said] to Arad-Ea, the boatman, " Wherefore is my strength re- newed? Why does my soul rejoice in its life? I have received no benefit. The benefit is gone to the earth-lion [earth spirit]. Now, after only twenty miles, another has got possession of the plant. As I opened the well the plant slipped from me. . . . Who am I that I should possess it? "

(245)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

After all his labors and sufferings, Izdubar has failed to achieve the purpose of his journey. It is true he has washed away his leprosy in the spring of Hfe, and his powers are renewed by the magic food which Sit-napistim and his wife have prepared for him, but he has failed to retain pos- session of the plant that " makes the old man young again," and he must yet taste of death. Accordingly, he returns in despair to Uruk, where he celebrates the funeral of Eabani and makes lamentation for him. The remainder of the poem is very interesting, as it reveals the old Babylonian conception of the condition of the dead.

[You go no more] to a temple. [You no more put on] white garments. No more do you anoint yourself with the sweet smelling fat of bulls, so that [the people] crowd around you for the sake of the perfume. You no longer draw your bow on the earth, those whom you have wounded shut you in. You no longer carry the sceptre in your hand . . . the death spirits banish you. You no longer put rings on your feet. No longer do you raise the war cry. The wife that you loved, you kiss no more. The wife that you hate, you beat no more [an equally painful thought]. Your daughter that you loved, you kiss no more. The daughter that you hated, you beat no more. The misery of the nether world takes hold of you. She who is dark there, she who is dark there. Mother Ninasu,* she who is dark there, whose form is covered by no bright robe, whose breast is like a young sappati animal . . .

It is remarkable that all the great epics of an- tiquity end in the attempt to solve the mystery of death. Every great pagan poem is haunted by the sadness and misery of the next life. The cause of this sadness is most plainly revealed in the poem. The next Hfe is purely negative; it

* Wife of Nirgal, goddess of the lower world. (246)

Ancient Idea of Future Life

consists in the lack of all we have loved here. This must always be the way in which a spiritual life presents itself to men who do not hve in the spirit. To them, the extinction of sense with its pleasures is the end of all they hold dear. And yet, miserable as men believe death to be, they feel a natural curiosity in regard to it. This curi- osity is usually gratified in the old poems by evoking the shades and making them repeat the popular opinions in regard to the land of the dead, or by the descent of some hero or heroine to the nether world. In Izdubar, the former ex- pedient is adopted, the latter in Ishtar's descent into hell. Eabani is called back to earth for a short colloquy, and I cannot help thinking that the heavy and sombre misery in which the poem ends is more impressive than the more minute and graphic descriptions of Homer and Virgil. Izdubar goes from one temple to another, until, at last, he encounters Nirgal, god of the lower world.

" Rattle at the door of the grave [Izdubar says to him]. Open the earth, that the spirit of Eabani may come out of the earth Hke a breath of wind." [When the hero Nirgal] heard this, he rattled on the grave-chamber, opened the earth, let the spirit of Eabani pass out like a breath of wind, ...

" Speak, my friend, speak, my friend [Izdubar cries to him], tell me the nature of that land which you have seen. Speak to me." " I cannot tell you, my friend; I cannot tell you if I wished to tell you the nature of that land. . . . Sit down and weep. ... I will sit and weep. . . . What you have done [?] Why your heart has rejoiced. . . . The worms eat it like an old garment. What you have done, why your heart is rejoiced ... is filled with dust . . . crouches down."

It is a great pity that these lines are so frag-

(247)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

mentary. The poem closes, as Jeremias says, in a kind of rhythmic antiphon between Izdubar and Eabani, which describes the joys of Walhalla awaiting heroes fallen in battle, and the unhappy fate of the man whose corpse remains unburied, one of the commonest beliefs of antiquity.

On a pillow lying.

Drinking cool water,

He who was wounded in battle.

(You saw it? Yes, I saw it.)

His father and his mother [hold?] his head,

And his wife [kneels?] at his side.

Whose corpse lies on the field,

(You saw it? Yes, I saw it.)

His soul has no rest on the earth.

Whosoever has no one who cares for his soul,

(You saw it? Yes, I saw it.)

The dregs of the cup, the remains of the food, what

is thrown into the street. That he must eat.

Eabani is represented as regretting the step he took in coming to Uruk. He curses Sadu, the hunter, and the priestess Uhat, who took him away from his happy life with the animals. He wishes that " they may be shut up in the great prison." The poem ends with this sad descrip- tion of the lower world :

To the house of darkness, the dwelling of Irkalla,* to the house whose inhabitant does not come out, to the path which never returns, to the house whose inhabitants are deprived of light, to the place where dust is their food, mire. There are they clothed like birds in garments of wings and do not see the light, but dwell in darkness. [In the house] my friend, which I inhabit dwell the wearers of heavy crowns, [there live] the wearers of crowns, who from the most ancient times ruled the land, whose names

* Irkalla, a god of the lower world. See Jastrow, p. 592. (248)

Reminders of Genesis

and memories Anu and Bel have preserved. There they prepare cold [?] distasteful [?] food, . . . They pour out water. [In the house] my friend, that I inhabit live chief priests and honorable men, live conjurers and magicians. [There dwell] the temple-servants of the great gods, there dwells Etana,* there dwells Ner,f there dwells the queen of the lower world, the goddess Ninkigal.^ [There lives] . . . the Writer of the lower world, bowed before her. [The goddess Ninkigal raised] her head, was aware of me. . , .

Apart from the Flood legend, there are only two episodes in the epic of Izdubar that remind us of our Book, and they are widely separated from each other — one is the Island of the Blessed, and the other is the story of Eabani, the wild man made by Aruru. Little as the Island of the Blessed reminds us of the Garden of Eden when viewed with a superficial glance, there is no doubt that it contains many points of similarity with our Paradise. The Island of the Blessed, it is true, lies in the sea, or, more particularly, in the Persian Gulf. The Garden of Eden, on the contrary, seems to He in the desert. That is a great difference, but, as I have said, the general geographical setting of our story is not Baby- lonian. In spite of this fact, we discern many minor resemblances between our narrative and the Babylonian epic. The Garden of Eden lies at the parting of four great streams, two of which are the Tigris and the Euphrates. The Island of the Blessed lies at " the confluence of the riv- ers," two of which certainly are the Tigris and the Euphrates. In ancient times, in addition to these rivers, two others — the Kercha and the

* A mythical hero. Jastrow, p. 519, + i.e., Nergal. i Allata.

(249)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Karun * — discharged into the Persian Gulf. The confluence of these four rivers is just as mythical as the separation in Genesis of one main river into four great streams. In the Garden of Eden, two persons — a man and his wife — live a kind of supernatural life, in daily intercourse with God. In the Island of the Blessed, also, two persons — a man and his wife — live a su- pernatural life beyond the power of death. In both Eden and the Island of the Blessed, alone in all the earth, grows the Plant or the Tree of Life, by eating which one may escape the power of death. In both stories man is prevented from eating of that tree. Lastly, both Eden and the Island are supernatural places, unlike the rest of the world, and so guarded by supernatural beings as to make approach to them almost, if not quite, impossible.

Let us turn next to Eabani, whom we may re- gard as a Babylonian counterpart of Adam. Each is represented as a " first man," not born, but created by Deity. Eabani's creation out of clay reminds us of Adam's creation out of dust. Like Adam, he lived for a long time in a state of nature among the animals, with whom he was on terms of great intimacy. To Adam and to Eabani comes a woman — to Adam, Eve ; to Ea- bani, Uhat. The effect of these two women on the two men is a double one. At first, Eve draws away Adam — as Uhat, Eabani — from the society of the animals ; and each woman brings her hus- band to the sense of his dignity as a human being. By the influence of Eve, however, Adam loses Paradise and is driven out into the world, where

* Jensen, " Kosmol. der Bab.," p. 597. (250)

Adam and Eabani

his children begin the task of building cities and of laying the foundation of civilization. Uhat also at once takes Eabani away from his happy garden, and plunges him into the troubles of civ- ilized life. In each instance death indirectly fol- lows. The sentence passed upon Adam is " Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Eabani also was made of clay, and when he dies he is '' resolved to dust." It is true, the motives of these two stories are absolutely unlike, but we should remember that the repulsive motive run- ning through the story of Eabani in the epic of Izdubar, in all probability was not the original motive of a character that is drawn with spirit and grace, and with a touch always strong and sometimes very delicate. At the present time I do not hesitate to say that if there is any counterpart in Babylonian literature to the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, we find that counterpart in the ancient epic of Izdubar.

There is one other Babylonian legend which, as many scholars have suggested,* may have contributed to form a portion of the history of Adam. Among the tablets discovered at El Amarna in Egypt is one legendary text which relates the adventures of a certain hero, Adapa. The narrative is briefly as follows: Adapa, a fisherman, is plying his calling under the pro- tection of his patron, Ea, in the waters of the Per- sian Gulf. Suddenly a storm arises, coming up from the south in the form of a bird. Adapa

* Proposed by Sayce, "Academy," 1893, No. 1055. See, also, Zimmern, " Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft," 88, p. 169 ; and especially Jastrow in " Relig. of Bab.," p. 544 ff., and in " Adam and Eve," Chicago, 1899.

(251)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

is blown into the water, and subdues this storm by breaking the bird's wings, in consequence of which " for seven days the south wind did not blow across the land." Anu, whose dominion Adapa has invaded, is enraged, and demands from Ea the surrender of the sinning fisherman. Ea consents to give up Adapa, but warns him how to conduct himself before the gods.

When thou comest before Anu they will offer thee the food of death. Do not eat. They will offer thee the waters of death. Do not drink. They will offer thee a garment. P t it on. They will offer thee oil. Anoint thyself. The order I give thee do not neglect. The word that I speak to thee take to heart. *

This advice turns out to be not wholly disin- terested. Adapa is now arraigned before the gods. In answer to Ann's question as 'to why he has broken the wings of the south wind, Adapa replies :

My lord, for the house of my lord [i. e., Ea] I was fish- ing in the midst of the sea. The waters lay still around me when the south wind began to blow and forced me under- neath. Into the dwelling of the fish it drove me. In the anger of my heart [I broke the wings of the south wind].

Anu is mollified, but objects to the presence of Adapa in the abode of the gods. Since, how- ever, Adapa has intruded into heaven and has seen what is not permitted mortals to behold, the gods agree to confer immortality on him by permitting him to partake of their heavenly food and drink.

What shall we grant him? Offer hirn food of life that he may eat of it. They brought it to him, but he did not

* Jastrow's translation. (252)

Legend of Adapa

eat. Waters of life they brought him, but he did not drink. A garment they brought him. He put it on. Oil they brought him. He anointed himself.

Adapa, it will be observed, is obeying literally the commands of Ea, all unconscious of the de- ception that has been practised on him. It is Ea, god of humanity, who begrudges his creature immortality. The other gods are astonished at Adapa's refusal.

Anu looked at him and lamented over him. " Come, Adapa, why didst thou not eat and drink? Now thou canst not live."

Adapa replies simply: " Ea, my lord, commanded me not to eat and drink."

What Adapa's subsequent fate was we do not as yet know, for here the tablet breaks off.

It is very plain that this legend is concerned with the old familiar problem, the possibility of man's attaining everlasting life by partaking of the food of the gods. Onthis point it corresponds well enough with the stories of Adam and Izdubar. In some respects the legend of Adapa reminds us more of Genesis than it does of the epic poem. Izdubar was deprived at last of the magic food by an accident or by the greed of the earth spirit, while Adam was prevented from eating of the Tree of Life by Jahveh, and Adapa was pre- vented from eating the food of immortality by his lord, Ea. There is another very striking re- semblance between the Genesis story and that of Adapa which I should hesitate to point out were it not that it may throw light on one of the dark-

(253)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

est verses of Genesis. I only wonder that it has escaped the keen-sighted Jastrow. Adapa was prevented from eating the magic food by the de- ception of Ea. Ea informed him that the food of Hfe was food of death and that by partaking of it he would die. In the story of Eden, Jahveh, hoping to deter Adam from eating the forbidden fruit, also misrepresents the effect of eating it. *' In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." Have we here the explanation of this strange misstatement? It is true, the cases are not completel}^ parallel. Adam, in spite of the warning, eats, and proves the threat un- founded by continuing to live. Moreover, the tree concerning which the warning was given was not the Tree of Life, but the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil. This last point, however, counts for little. The Tree of Knowl- edge is the creation of the Jehovist, for which no counterpart has been found, and a marked confusion has been noticed in his attempt to combine his story of the Tree of Knowledge with the old myth of the Tree of Life. We may admit, then, that the problem in general is much the same, and the solution is the same. Even in the development of the action of the two narra- tives we notice a certain similarity. Adapa has gained some knowledge of the secrets of the gods; consequently it is deemed best to admit him altogether to their charmed circle by be- stowing on him the food of immortality. That purpose, however, Ea, his lord, thwarts, and sends Adapa back to earth. Adam, too, has be- come '' like one of us," knowing good and evil, and lest he should attain more perfect equality

(254)

Superiority of Genesis

with divine beings, he is thrust out into the world without eating of the Tree of Life.

This is about as far as the similarity extends. Adapa is not Adama, as Sayce imagined. He is not the first man. He dwells in no magic gar- den. And of Eve in this legend we find no trace. In the dress which the gods gave Adapa, and which, by the advice of Ea, he accepted, we may have, as Jastrow suggests, a faint reminder of the • coats of skins that Jahveh made for Adam and Eve. -

One word more must be added at the end of^ this long examination of the story of the Crea- tion and Fall of man. The material setting of our story, as we have seen, is largely mythical. Those wonderful symbols of Genesis, the Garden of Eden, the Serpent, and the Tree of Life, the first man and the first woman, the cherubim and the flaming sword, are all figures more or less^^ familiar to the mythologies of the nations. The Tree of Knowledge alone appears to be original. But the religious motive of our story, its purity, its delicate reserve, its acknowledgment of one good God and its sense of man's moral relation to God, we do not find in any mythology. The nearest approach to the spirit of our narrative is found in the religion of Zoroaster, which also is a monotheistic and a moral religion. Among the Babylonians we find resemblances in the letter but not in the spirit. After all is said, the re- semblances are slight to the vanishing point in comparison with the differences. Far from valuing these two chapters of the Bible less, we should value them more after having com- pared them impartially with the best thoughts

(^55)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

of the greatest nations on the subject of the creation of the world and of man. Our au- thor used material more or less common to the rest of the worlds but the house he reared is all his own, and it is built after a plan the Gen- tiles did not know. We do not think less of Michael Angelo's angel because it is said to be hewn out of a piece of marble on which other artists had tried their skill and failed ; and when we see what a form these old myths take in the mind of our writer, how all their impurity, their folly, their polytheism disappear when they come before us as living symbols of deep, spiritual truths, we feel more than ever that the sacred authors were well and truly guided, and we mar- vel that they were able to make so much out of so little.

(256)

Difficulties of Genesis

Chapter Thirteen:

Cain and Abel

I REMEMBER once hearing Professor Frank Delitzsch say that, easy as the Book of Genesis appears to be, in reahty it is the most difficuh book in the Bible. The reason which the venerable scholar gave for this opinion was that under the garb of the simplest narrative, this book deals in a masterly way with the deep- est problems. It may be compared to a crystal lake whose waters are so pure that the lake seems shallow until we attempt to fathom it; then the bottom recedes, until we begin to suspect that there is no bottom. So the Book of Genesis de- ceives us by the peculiar lucidity of its style, but that it is not an easy book to fathom I think we have already proved. We have now merely cast a rapid glance over the general structure of the work and have touched the most important points of three chapters. We might go on in- definitely studying those wonderful chapters, and yet we could not exhaust their meaning. As the Christian Hfe is said to go from glory to glory, so he who attempts to explain Genesis goes from difficulty to difficulty. I do not feel at liberty, however, to dwell longer on the second and third chapters, of which we have been speaking, and I pass to the fourth and fifth chapters, which con-

^7 (257)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

tain the account of Cain and Abel and the names of the antediluvian patriarchs. Before we begin the study of these chapters, it will help us very much to make a brief review of the character of their contents.

There is no doubt that a large part of chapter four was written by the same master who drew for us the picture of the Garden of Eden and the Fall. It deals with the same characters and is written in the same style. At the first glance it would seem to be a direct continuation of the third chapter. Eve brings into the world her first children — Cain and Abel — and the begin- nings of family life and of human progress are naturally described. And yet there are a few things which are not altogether consistent with the supposition that the story of Cain and Abel follows immediately on the story of the Fall. It startles us a little to see the custom of sacrifice quietly introduced without a word of explanation and resting on no command of God. Cain's wife also is a rather disconcerting figure. In the nature of the case, she must have been his sister, and with that no one who understands the char- acter of the narrative would dream of taking of- fence. But no sister of Cain is as much as men- tioned. Further, Cain's fear that every one who meets him will try to kill him surprises us, as no one is supposed to be alive at that time except his parents and his wife. His act in building a city also produces the impression that other per- sons are living on the earth whose existence is as- sumed, but of whom our Book makes no mention. Many persons have inferred from these incon- sistencies that the Book of Genesis did not pre-

(258)

Origin of Story of Cain

tend that the whole human race was descended from Adam and Eve; the very fact that several genealogies of the first human beings are given seems to prove the contrary. Accordingly, the myth of the Preadamites has arisen and has re- ceived serious attention."^ I must say, however, that all such ideas rest on a misconception. It is perfect!}^ true that all human races past and present cannot be accounted for by the ethno- logical notices of Genesis, but whether the writers of Genesis were ethnologists in the mod- ern sense is a different question. As to that, there is nothing to show that in their opinion human life originated in more than one centre. All their genealogies unquestionably start from Adam and Eve as the first man and first woman. The slight inconsistencies we have pointed out, therefore, must be explained in another way; either they are due to small slips of memory on the part of the author, or else we have here the remains of several conflicting narratives. As these chap- ters are in a rather fragmentar}^ condition, and bear traces of having been pieced together and worked over more than once, I should prefer the second alternative.

That, however, is the least of our troubles. How came the story of Cain and Abel to arise at all? Now this may seem a strange question to ask, and it would be strange if we were standing on firm, historical ground, where things happen by necessity, or if we were deal- ing with distinct traditions of ancient histori- cal events. It seems to me hardly necessary to

*" Preadamites, or a Demonstration of Men before Adam." Alex. Winchell. 2d ed. Chicago, 1880.

(259)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

prove again that this is not the case. No human history, no human tradition goes back to the beginning of human Hfe on this earth. In these chapters, which deal with antedilu- vians living eight or nine hundred years apiece, with the marriages of angels and men, and with giants and heroes, we are still in the domain of myth, not of history. But the pecuHarity of myth is that it is composed with a purpose, and does not arise from the necessity of nature; there- fore we have always a right to inquire what its purpose may be.

The conception which lies behind the story of the fratricide of Cain is very obscure. It is true, it shows the development of sin in man. The disobedience of Adam becomes murder in Adam's son, but that will hardly account for the murder of Abel. This wonderfully living and delicate picture did not arise from the mere ab- stract thought that sin grows, and that the sins of fathers are visited on children. It had its origin in something more like itself.

For the same reason I cannot accept uncon- ditionally another explanation that is finding much favor among scholars at the present time. It is suggested that many of the personages who are introduced into the early chapters of Genesis, like Judah, Moab, Edom, etc., were created to account for the origin of peoples and places bear- ing the same names. Every nation was supposed to spring from some man, and hence where no well-known character was at hand, it was neces- sary to invent one. That is undoubtedly true. It was in this way, they say, that the story of Cain arose. The nucleus out of which the story

(260)

The Kenites

grew was '' the mark of Cain," and the curse of

God which condemned him to a Hfe of wandering and vagabondage. Long after, when the Book of Genesis came to be written, the Hebrews were well acquainted with a people whose strange, nomadic habits filled them with wonder. These were the Kenites, or, as we might pro- nounce their name, the Cainites. Of course they must be descended from a common ances- tor whose name was Cain. The mark (skart) affixed to the person of Cain was probably one of those marks of blood relationship known and respected by members of the tribe. You will remember that the relations of the Israelites with the Kenites lasted for a long time. They are described as one of the ten tribes of Palestine in the time of Abraham.* Moses's father-in-law, Jethro, was supposed to belong to the tribe of the Kenites, as was also Heber, the husband of Jael. At all times they were a wandering peo- ple— even as early as when Moses led the flock of Jethro to the back side of the wilderness, f It would also seem that they were a weak, parasiti- cal tribe, now attached to one stronger people, now to another. Later on, when most of the other tribes had acquired fixed abodes, they alone could not lay aside their nomadic habit, but continued to wander from place to place without possessions. A very singular account of the Kenites is preserved in the thirty-fifth chapter of Jeremiah, where Jaazaniah and his brothers refused to drink wine at the invitation of the prophet. Most persons mistake the mean- ing of this. The Kenites' unwilHngness to drink

*Gen. XV. ig. f Exod. iii. i.

(261)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

wine did not spring from their dread of intem- perance, but from their aversion to the vine as the symbol of agriculture and a settled life. The pro- hibition of Jonadab, the son of Rechab, extended not only to drinking wine, but to the cultivation of the soil and to Hving in houses. They take great pains to explain to Jeremiah that it was only the fear of the Assyrian invasion which had induced them for a time to forsake their noma- dic life and to take up their abode in Jerusalem.

These things must have struck the Hebrews as very strange, especially since the Kenites likewise adored Jahveh.* Accordingly it is said that to account for the origin of this strange people, so like themselves in some respects, so unlike in others, the Hebrew writers invented the story of Cain. They asserted that the pro- genitor of the Kenite tribe had committed a ter- rible crime, in consequence of which his pos- terity was doomed to wander forever without an abiding resting place.

As the Kenites made this wandering part of their religion, it was natural to suppose that it had been imposed on them by Jahveh. In re- gard to the particular crime committed by Cain, it is well known that the nomads often lived by violence and plunder, and that they sometimes entered into brotherhood with stable communi- ties. Hence Cain is described as the brother of the shepherd Abel, whom he afterwards slew. This is certainly a most ingenious explanation. I mention it with respect, because it was proposed by a great scholar,t and because it has been de-

*II Kings, xi. 15, and Jerem. xxxv.

f J. Wellhansen, "Composition des Hex.," 10 ff.

(262)

Wellhausen's Theory

fended by other great scholars.* At the same time, I see grave difficulties in the way of ac- cepting it. Leaving out of sight the fact that in this case the story of Abel's murder arose as a mere result of inductive reasoning, and was manufactured, so to say, out of whole cloth, f we may very well wonder if the Jehovist would have considered a mean people like the Kenites of sufficient importance, however peculiar their habits, to place them at the very beginning of humanity. There are other grave objections to this theory as a sufficient explanation of Cain. In the first place, Cain is represented in Genesis as the farmer, :t and Abel as the wandering shepherd. Secondly, on this hypothesis, Cain's building the city would be altogether incomprehensible. It is veryfplain that this contradictory act must have some explanation which the wandering life of the Kenites cannot give it. Lastly, it would be strange, to say the least, for our Jehovist to attempt to derive the Kenites from Cain, since on his own showing all Cain's posterity perished in the Flood. A writer must be strangely for- getful to contradict himself to that extent. It is true, the Jehovist does speak of the descendants of Cain — Jabal, Jubal and Tubal — as the ances- tors of various classes of men alive in his day, but it is to be remembered that these heroes are de- scribed as inventors of arts, not as heads of tribes. The arts may have survived the deluge, though the inventors perished. Perhaps we

*Stade, Z. A. T. W. Kainzeichen, pp. 250-8, 1894.

f Holzinger's " Genesis," pp. 50 and 51.

i I ought to say, however, that the advocates of this theory re- gard Cain the farmer as a totally distinct person, the subject of a different tradition.

(263)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

ought not to lay too much stress on an argument of this nature, as it would tax the memory of any historian to bear in mind all the conse- quences of a deluge which was supposed to have cut the history of humanity in two. So, with- out entirely withdrawing this argument, I will add another of great weight. As we read to the end of the fourth chapter, we come to the curious little song of Lamech, which unques- tionably is one of the oldest fragments in the whole Bible. But in that ancient chant Cain is already known as a notorious murderer. La- mech compares his murders with Cain's murder. He considers himself superior to Cain because he has killed more men. That in itself is con- clusive proof that the story of Cain and Abel is of immense antiquity, and that it is not a manu- factured tale put together at a late date to ac- count for the origin of the Kenites.* I find myself, therefore, unable to accept this ex- tremely ingenious explanation as sufficient in itself to account for the history of Cain and Abel, and I will mention one or two other attempts to solve this problem which do not fall much behind the first in keenness of constructive imagination. Lenormant t calls attention to the fact that the Babylonians, like ourselves, divided the year into twelve months, and that for each month there was a corresponding sign of the zodiac, about which many traditions clustered. You will remember, the twelve tablets of Izdubar are supposed to be arranged with reference to the

* The " Mark of Cain," on which Stade and Cheyne lay so much stress, they do not succeed in finding among the Kenites. f " Beginnings of History," chapter iv.

(264)

Lenormant's Theory

signs of the zodiac. Now the name of the third month in the Babylonian calendar was " the month of brick-making," and a religious cere- mony accompanied the manufacture of bricks during this month. The origin of the custom is perfectly plain. During the third month, Sivan (corresponding to parts of May and June), the water of the Tigris and the Euphrates, which had been rising all through March and April, began to fall, and the soft and moist condition of the soil made it suitable to be moulded into bricks; whereas, after the sun had baked the clay, it would be too hard. From this fact and from the circumstance that religious ceremonies accom- panied the work of brick-making, it would be very natural that some myth should have arisen in regard to brick-making, connected especially with the building of a city. That is the first step. The second is this: The sign of the zodiac for the third month among the Babylonians, as it still is among us, was the constellation Gemini, the sign of the twins. So we see in Babylon, two brothers were associated with the making of brick, and perhaps with the building of a city. Lenormant, therefore, goes on to collect all the stories he can find of two brothers who united in building a city, one of whom was afterward killed by the other. The most striking example, in fact the only satisfactory instance, is that of Romulus and Remus. You remember when these brothers were about to build Rome, Rom- ulus wished to build it on one hill, Remus on another. Naturally each wished to call the city after his own name. When the augurs de- cided in favor of Romulus, and he had already

(265)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

raised a wall, Remus derisively leaped over it, which so incensed his brother that he killed Remus on the spot. To this example Lenor- mant adds several other stories from obscure portions of Greek mythology — for example, the tale of the Cabiri and of the Corybantes, of whom, however, there were three brothers, not two. He also cites the old custom of immuring a human being in the wall of a city, preferably a virgin. Lenormant is not able, however, to point to a story at all like that of Cain and Abel, in Babylonian literature, nor indeed to such a story in Semitic literature in general.* I am, therefore, obliged to say that his suggestion of a widespread myth in which one brother kills an- other in building a city, fails altogether to supply the material of the story of Cain and Abel. Such a myth may or may not have something to do with our narrative; in the present condition of our knowledge it is impossible to say. There is one circumstance in the history of Cain which seems to strengthen Lenormant's hypothesis. After Cain went out from the presence of Jahveh, one of his first acts was to build a city, which he called after the name of his son Enoch. The building of this city all commentators have felt to be a strange contradiction, as it appears to be in direct violation of the curse that Jahveh had just laid on Cain, which compelled him to lead a wandering life. It would seem from this that one old tradition associated Cain with the build-

* The best example I can recall is the Phoenician legend ascribed by Philo Byblius to Sanchuniathon. There it is stated that Hypsuranios, founder of Tyre, quarrelled with his brother Usous, though he did not kill Usous. See Cory's " Fragments," 6 and 7.

(266)

Budde's Theory

ing of the first city; but with the building of this city Abel has nothing to do, as he was already dead, and the city was built in another country. I will mention only one other attempt to solve this problem. It is that of Professor Budde in his searching — if rather obscure — '' Urgeschich- te." * It has at least the merit of being drawn directly from the Scripture. If you look at the fourth and fifth chapters of Genesis, you will see that they contain two genealogical tables of the men who lived before the Flood. The first traces the posterity of Cain; the second, the posterity of his younger brother Seth. Of these persons only some of the descendants of Seth are saved from the Flood, while all Cain's posterity perished at that time. Now, it would be very natural for people to ask why this happened, and the only reason they could very well give for the fact that all the descendants of Cain perished is that Cain himself, the progenitor of the whole family, must have been a very wicked person. Evidently it was on account of some terrible crime of his that all his descendants died a violent death. But in Lamech's ancient song we have at least a sugges- tion of what Cain's crime must have been. La- mech compares Cain with himself; but Lamech, by his own confession, was a murderer who had slain at least two men. Plainly, then, Cain must have been a murderer also. But as Cain is uni- formly represented as the oldest son of Adam, whom could he have murdered ? Not his father or his mother, else what would have become of the human race? It is true he might have mur- dered his sister, but as that would not have been

* Chapter vi., " Kain's Brudermord."

(267)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

regarded as so great a crime, it is more natural to suppose that he murdered a brother. The very name of Cain's living brother, Seth (set in place of, compensation), seems to imply a third brother who died young and left no children. Evidently it is he whom Cain murdered. What could that brother's name have been? Since Cain, the first born, had followed his father's call- ing and was a farmer, only one other occupa- tion was left for his younger brother. He must have been a shepherd. But the Hebrew name for shepherd is Jabal (pronounced Yabal), as Lamech's son, the father of all who have cattle, was actually called. So Cain's brother, by a slight change of sounds, was called Abel, and that name, which means a breath — evanescence — was prophetical of his sad and early demise. But why did Cain kill him? Lamech tells us, out of revenge. The fault therefore lay alto- gether with Cain. The murder sprang from a wicked heart. But an evil heart is not pleasing to God. What could have driven Cain, then, to this act, except the fact that his brother Abel enjoyed the favor of God, which, on account of his wicked heart, he did not enjoy? And the favor of God might be discovered most naturally from the way God received the two brothers when they appeared before Him. So Budde discovers the whole story in the two genealogical tables and the hints contained in the song of Lamech. It would be hard to point to a more ingenious piece of constructive criticism, but it is safe to say if the story were not before us, no one of us would be sharp enough to evoke it out of these small hints.

(268)

Origin of Story

I will not carry the discussion further, because the problem as it Hes before us cannot be con- clusively solved. Each one of these three in- genious efforts has something to recommend it, and one of the solutions by no means excludes others. There seems to have been a very an- cient myth at the bottom of the narrative, as Lenormant suggests. The name of Cain may have been suggested by the Kenites, and their tribal marks and peculiar habits may very well have contributed to the formation of the story, as Wellhausen asserts; and the murder of Abel accords perfectly with other parts of the fourth and fifth chapters, as Budde so cleverly shows.

About all that can be asserted with confidence of the origin of the story of Cain and Abel, I think, is the following:

1. That wonderfully graphic and living pic- ture did not originate as the result of abstract speculation to account for the Kenites or the two genealogies of Cain and Seth, or to prove that sin increases.

2. On the contrary, it already existed as a popular story among the Hebrews, and possibly among other peoples of Canaan, long before ab- stract speculation of any sort arose. This is shown conclusively by the allusion to a murder committed by Cain in the ancient song of La- mech.

3. The touching and beautiful narrative which stands in our Bible is certainly the work of the Jehovist who wrote the third chapter of Genesis, as is apparent from several verbal coincidences.*

* Gen. ill. 16 : Thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee. Cf. iv. 7 : Unto thee is his desire but thou

(269)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

This writer probably found an old popular myth, which he completely transformed.

4. As to the origin of this myth, it would be no more than conjecture to assign it either to Babylonia or to Canaan. It would appear, how- ever, from the fact that the nomadic life was re- garded as a curse, that the myth was hardly of Hebrew origin. The Hebrews, with their splen- did traditions of the patriarchs, were disposed to regard the nomadic life as the life most worthy of man.

5. The names of Cain and Abel appear to have been formed originally with reference to the parts they play. Cain, which is interpreted as ** creature," or '' possession," means also '' a spear," ^ while the name of Abel, " breath," " nothing," " perishableness," was undoubtedly given to him in allusion to the fact that he was slain by Cain and had but a fleeting existence.f

Let us now go on to the interpretation of the chapter :

Chapter iv. i. And the man knew Havvah, his wife, and she conceived and gave birth ta Cain, and she said, " I have gotten a man with Jahveh."

By this play on words (quanah, to acquire, and quain, the acquisition), the author assumes that Eve spoke Hebrew, just as Adam spoke

shouldst rule over him. Gen. iii. 17 : Cursed is the ground for thy sake. Cf. iv. II : Cursed art thou from the ground. Gen. iii. 9 : (After Adam's sin), where art thou ? Cf. iv. 9 : Where is Abel, thy brother ?

*Dillmann, "Gen.,"i. 183.

f Dillmann, " Gen.," i. 184. Schrader derives Abel from the Babylonian Habal, which means son, a not uncommon proper name. Cheyne regards the first meaning of Cain as "artificer." Encycl. Biblica, art. "Cain."

(270)

Cain's Offering

Hebrew when he called his wife's name Hav- vah.* The expression "I have gotten a man with Jahveh " is a curious one. The natural translation would be, '' I have obtained Jahveh as a husband," which would be meaningless, so we must rather understand it, " I have gotten a man-child with the help and blessing of Jah- veh."

2. And again she gave birth to his brother, Abel; and Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain was a farmer.

It is not definitely stated that Cain and Abel were twins. The childhood of Cain and Abel is not mentioned. When they come before us again they are both men — how old we are not told; but from Abel's name, and from the fact that he had no wife nor children, it would appear that he died very young. Only the two oldest occupations known to civiHzed man could well be spoken of here. Cain, the elder, naturally fol- lows his father's calling, so nothing is left for Abel but the care of the flocks.

3. It happened after a number of days that Cain presented to Jahveh an offering of the fruits of the ground. And Abel also presented to Him an offering of the first born of his flock and especially their fat pieces.

Strange to say, the idea of making an ofYering to Jahveh seems to have originated with Cain. It is not said that God demanded this gift, which appears to have been entirely voluntary on Cain's part. It therefore seems a little hard that Cain's present should have been rejected altogether.!

* Addis, " Documents of the Hexateuch," p. 7, note 2.

f The offering of sacrifice to Jahveh, so naturally introduced, indicates a much more advanced condition of human development than the stage we have reached.

(271)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

In connection with Abers offering we might ex- pect some allusion to the discovery of fire; and the absolute silence of Genesis as to this first and most important of human discoveries indicates that we are not dealing here with genuinely primitive myths. The offering of man's first gift to God, freely and willingly rendered, to satisfy the need of man's heart, is beautifully in- troduced.

4, 5. And Jahveh looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor.

Why was this? It surely did not He in the nature of the gifts themselves, as Lenormant thinks,* as if the bloody sacrifice of an animal were more pleasing to Jahveh than the fruit of the field. In that case, even if Jahveh preferred Abel's gift, he need not have rejected Cain's altogether. Each brought what he had — Cain his fruits, Abel his lambs. The reason why Jah- veh accepted the one and rejected the other was not on account of the gift itself, nor because Cain was ignorant of the correct order of ritual, but because Jahveh discovered sin lurking in the heart of Cain. Therefore He would not accept his offering. Exactly how Jahveh exhibited His acceptance of Abel's gift and His rejection of Cain's we are not told. Probably by one of those signs by which sacrifices were considered of good or evil omen.

5. And Cain became burning hot, and his countenance fell [i.e., it drooped with the air of one who is vexed and dejected], f

* " Beginnings of History," p. 174. f Dillmann.

(272)

God's Compassion for Cain

But though Jahveh has rejected Cain's offer- ing, He has by no means rejected Cain. He makes at once an earnest effort to recall Cain to Himself and to induce him to resist sin. This is one of the most beautiful touches in the story. God does not leave Cain to himself until his mur- derous purpose ripens. He pleads with him as He pleads with all tempted men. It is a fine touch and worthy of our author that he enter- tains no fatalistic notion that Adam's sin has de- scended on Cain. On the contrary, Cain is free to do right. The only argument God uses with Cain is the solemn " you ought," and if he ought, then he can. God's language to Cain is kind and affectionate.

6, 7. And Jahveh said to Cain, " Why art thou angry? and why has thy countenance fallen?. If thou doest well, shall it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin crouches before the door, and its appetite is turned on thee, but thou shouldst rule over it."

Sin is here described as a wild beast ready to spring on Cain and devour him — a figure that well describes the fierce outburst of his wrath. It somewhat surprises us to hear a house-door mentioned; evidently this is a little slip. It is amazing in this early work to see the pity of God altogether turned toward Cain, not toward Abel. God knows that the murderer, even more than the victim, needs His compassion. Cain, in the meantime, answers nothing. He is moved neither by pleading nor by warning. He is nursing his black wrath against his brother until he shall have the opportunity to strike.

8. And Cain said unto Abel, his brother. . , . 18 (273)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

What he said is not given. Several ancient versions add :

Let us go into the fields.

The unsuspecting Abel accepts the invitation, fearing no evil.

And it came to pass when they were in the field that Cain arose against Abel his brother and killed him.

Instantly the voice of Jahveh is heard again, not now pleading, but asking Cain an awful ques- tion.

9. And Jahveh said to Cain, " Where is Abel, thy brother? "

Cain, however, is still obdurate. He thinks, perhaps, that Jahveh does not know. If so, he will not confess. So he replies with a lie, and adds to it an insolent sneer. How much more hardened and wicked Cain has become than Adam was !

And he said, " I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper? "

Am I my brother's keeper? There are few verses in the Bible that cut deeper intc the con- science than this. What of those with whom we have sinned, whom we have tempted, whose happiness we have stolen? Do we imagine we shall never hear God calling us to a sharp and terrible account for them? Why should we care? They were responsible for themselves. That is precisely what Cain said. He denied all responsibility for Abel, but at that moment he

(274)

Cain's Punishment

was responsible for Abel's death. This time, however, the terrible voice will not be silenced. It says to him :

10, II. "What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. And now thou art driven by a curse from the ground which has opened its mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand."

This is not intended figuratively, but literally. The earth, like a living being, is described as opening her lips to drink Abel's spilt blood, which informs Jahveh of the murder by crying aloud to Him in pain. No more will the earth yield her genial fruits to the murderer. For him henceforth she is barren — a terrible descrip- tion of the iron world in which the criminal lives, and of the way existence itself casts him off.

12, 13. " When thou tillest the ground it shall no more yield to thee its strength. A wanderer and a fugitive shalt thou be on the earth." And Cain said to Jahveh, " The punishment of my iniquity is too great for me to bear."

The Fathers translated this, " My sin is too great to be forgiven." That would be a finer and a holier thought, but it is not Cain's thought. He is broken by fear, not by sorrow. He still thinks only of himself, not of Abel nor of God's forgiveness.

14. " Behold thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the ground, and from thy face I shall be hid, and I shall be a wanderer and a fugitive on the earth, and it will happen that whoever finds me will slay me."

By reason of the curse Jahveh has laid on the cultivated ground it will no longer yield Cain a living. He is, therefore, obliged to relinquish

(275)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

his home and his agriculture and must become a wanderer. The expression " from thy face I shall be hidden " is a curious one. It implies that Jahveh dwells in only one land, and that as soon as Cain leaves this country Jahveh will see him and protect him no more. The author seems insensibly to regard the land where these events took place as Palestine, the country of Jahveh. There some respect for human life ex- ists, but outside of Palestine manners are wild and rough, and the law of the desert is revenge for blood. That the author has before his mind a more advanced state of society than the story admits is further proved by Cain's dread of being slain.

15. And Jahveh said to Cain, " Therefore whoever mur- ders Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold."

Jahveh admits the reasonableness of Cain's fear and takes precautions against the danger.

And Jahveh set a mark on Cain, lest any one finding him should smite him.

This mark is not a mere sign or pledge of Jah- veh's promise, like the sudden breaking out of the sun (Rabbi Jehuda), or a warning placard which Jahveh wrote and set up somewhere, but a mark affixed to Cain's person. What the na- ture of that sign was we are not told. Some have thought of a horn fastened to Cain's fore- head, others, of leprosy on his face, or of some other horrifying and repulsive physical stigma. The sign, however, was not intended to brand Cain as a murderer, but to warn those who saw him not to hurt him.*

* Dillmann.

(276)

Land of Nod

i6. And Cain went out from the face of Jahveh, and dwelt in the land of Nod, in front of Eden.

Nod was not any particular country, any more than the Garden of Eden is. It means '' land of wandering," and merely describes further Cain's fugitive and miserable life.

(277)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Chapter Fourteen: "T^he Antediluvian Patriarchs,

WE come now to one of those passages which prove conclusively that the Book of Genesis is a composite work, a Mosaic, in this sense at least, that it was formed at different times by different hands, not following alto- gether the same plan.

Immediately following the story of Cain and Abel are three genealogical tables, whose pur- pose is to trace the descent of mankind from Adam and Eve, and to give us the names of the patriarchs who lived before the Flood. The first of these tables also describes the beginnings of human culture and the discovery of the arts. Now, of all things in the world, genealogies are to most persons the least interesting. St. Paul, among others, felt a great repugnance to this kind of literature, and particularly warned Tim- othy to pay no attention to " fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions rather than godly edifying." * In saying this St. Paul well knew what he was talking about. All an- cient genealogies are crammed full of fables, and there is scarcely anything that gives rise to so many " questions." The provoking thing about these questions is that they can hardly ever be *i Tim. i. 4.

(278)

Three Genealogical Tables

answered satisfactorily. These three genealo- gies, in particular, open the door to a world of inquiry, to do justice to which would require a large work. I shall therefore deal with this sub- ject more superficially than I have dealt as yet with any part of our task, and content myself with attempting to solve the main problems, merely indicating some of the innumerable sec- ondary questions which arise on every side. The passages involved consist of the remainder of the fourth chapter following the story of Cain, and the whole of the fifth chapter. The first table * traces the descent of Cain; the second,t which is much mutilated and very brief, origi- nally traced the descent of mankind from Seth ; while the third table,:]: which is the fullest, also traces the descent through Seth.

Looking for a moment at the three tables, we see that the first table traces the posterity of Cain through seven generations, where it suddenly breaks ofT. The names of the patriarchs — in- cluding their progenitor Adam — are written in our English Bible thus : Adam, Cain, Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methusael and Lamech. From Lamech the line of descent, which has been single, divides into three branches in his three sons, Jabal, Jubal and Tubal, and there is also a daughter, Naamah.

The second tree is a very short one because almost all its branches have been lopped off. It begins again with Adam.

Chapter iv. 25. And Adam knew his wife again, and she bare a son and called his name Seth.

*Gen. ivo 17-22. f Gen. iv. 25, 26. | Gen. v.

(279)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Seth's posterity, as I have said, is very briefly noticed in this^ account. We are only told that a son was born to him named Enos; then this genealogy is cut short to make room for the third table, which is by a different hand. It is the work of the Priestly Writer, the author of the first chapter of Genesis, who reappears here (chapter v.) with his usual introduction, " This is the book of the generations," with his mo- notonous style and his oft-repeated formulae, all which are impossible to mistake.

Chapter v. i, 2, 3. This is the book of the genealogy of Adam: in the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him; male and female created He them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam [i.e., man], in the day when they were created. And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years and begot a son in his own like- ness, after his image, and called his name Seth.

4. And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters.

5. And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

So, without a particle of change of style, and without comment on the lives and deeds of these antediluvians who, with the sole exception of Enoch, seem expressly created to beget children, to live an enormous period, and to die, the narra- tive goes on to Noah. Then, one verse occurs which does not seem to belong in the place where it stands, but which appears once to have formed the end of the mutilated second table of the Jeho- vist document, both from the fact that it contains the name Jahveh, and for other reasons that I will not now state.

Chapter v. 29. And he (Lamech) called his name Noah, saying, " The same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which Jahveh has cursed."

(280)

Ancient Genealogies

Going back to our third genealogy of the Priestly Writer, we find his tree to be as follows : Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, and Shem, Ham and Japheth, the sons of Noah. Now there are several things to which I must call your attention at once. From Adam to the Flood, according to the first genealogy, there are seven generations; and from Adam to the Flood, ac- cording to the third table, there are ten genera- tions. The first line divides with Lamech into three branches — Jabal, Jubal and Tubal — and the line of the third table divides with Noah into three branches — Shem, Ham and Japheth.

I ought to say at the outset that such attempts to trace the descent of the men who were sup- posed to live before the Flood are very numer- ous in ancient literature. Almost all such gene- alogies are constructed on the same principle, and consist of either seven or ten generations — seven and ten being sacred and favorite num- bers. In Chaldea we have the genealogy of Be- rosus, beginning with Alorus, and tracing his descent through nine other mythical kings to Xisuthros,* the Babylonian Noah.* This tradi- tion has been preserved in three forms, through Alexander Polyhistor, Apollodorus and Aby- denus,t but they all agree in making the kings before the Deluge ten in number, and the total length of their reigns, which are separately cal- culated, covers the enormous period of 120 Sari, or 432,000 years. This, on an average, would give the antediluvians a reign of 43,200 years

* Cory's " Fragments," pp. 30 and 31, f Ibid., pp. 26 to 33.

(281)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

apiece, in comparison with which the figures of Genesis are exceedingly modest. These kings are probably all mythical personages.

Among the Hindus the Mahabharata speaks of seven Maharshis, or great saints of antiquity.* We hear also of seven Pragapati, or patriarchs. The Laws of Manu, f in describing the Creation, first mention by name ten great sages and then seven other Manus of measureless power. The same system of dividing the first age of the world among ten mythical kings is found among the Persians, and also, I believe, among the Chinese and the Egyptians. if It would not repay us to plunge into the obscure mythologies of these nations, but the mere fact that a mythical tra- dition of seven or ten patriarchs exists every- where, proves that our two lists do not rest on history, but on an almost universal tradi- tion. Among the Gentiles these seven or ten patriarchs are of divne origin or charac- ter. So they may once nave been among the Hebrews. At present, however, almost all their mythical qualities have disappeared, and they come before us as men. Several rather crude attempts have been made to give these patriarchs a place in the Pantheon of the nations [Enoch is the sun god; Tubal Cain, Vulcan; Jubal, Apollo; Noa(c)h, lacchos, etc.],§ but these suggestions have borne no fruits; the Priestly Writer has done his work too well.

Practically the only thing that separates the

* Wilson's "Vishnu Parana," pp. 23, 49, note, fi- 34-36.

:J: Not, however, in Manetho. See Lenormant, 230, 231. § Bochart, Buttmann, and others. See especially Buttmann's *' Mytholoo^ie," i. eh. 7.

(282)

Longevity Explained

antediluvians in Genesis from the rest of human- ity is their great age. The most Hberal physi- ologists estimate the extreme longevity of man at about two hundred years ; probably no human being has ever attained that age. But to the fable that human life may endure nine hundred or nine hundred and fifty years, physiology will not listen. A very old psalm * ascribed to Moses estimates the duration of human life as seventy or eighty years : '' the days of our age are three- score years and ten," etc. It is useless to think of " simpler and better food," or that the word used for year does not mean a year in our sense. No food, however simple, will sustain human life for nine hundred years, and the word used for year means twelve months and nothing else. This difficulty, which exists only in the Priestly Writer's document, not in that of the Jehovist, who says nothing about ages, arose in a very sim- ple manner. The Priestly Writer had before him A to begin with, exaggerated traditions, which the ' Hebrews shared with other nations, beside which his own statements are modest enough. Apart \ from this, he was obliged by custom and tradi- ' tion to divide the first age of the world, from the Creation to the Flood, among not more than ten men. Unless he had made their ages very long, the age of the world would have been absurdly short, lasting but a few hundred years. These considerations and the universal belief, not ap- parently founded on fact, that the earlier genera- tions of men lived much longer than we, sufficiently explain the longevity of the patri- archs. But these facts, and also the manner in

* Psalm xc.

(283)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

which both our genealogies at the end divide into three branches, prove conclusively that they are artificial productions, not history. This im- pression will be strengthened by a study of the genealogies themselves.

When we compare the two longer genealo- gies (the first and the third), what surprises us most is their great similarity. Two of the names are inverted in order. Several names are spelled somewhat differently in the two lists, but on the whole they are very much alike. If before the first genealogy of Cain we place the second, or short, genealogy of Seth with Noah at the end, we should have almost a dupHcate of the third genealogy.

(2) Adam (3) Adam

Seth	Seth
Enos	Enos
(i) Cain	Cainan
Enoch	Mahalaleel
Irad	Jared
Mehujael	Enoch
Methusael	Methuselah
Lemech	Lamech
.Noah	Noah

It seems to me that any one comparing these two lists would suppose that they represent only two genealogies of the same family, in which, as often happens, a few names have become dis- arranged and a few are misspelled. And yet, according to the statements of Genesis, they re- present for the most part two entirely different families. One is the family of the murderer

(284)

Cain and Seth

Cain, and the other is the family of the pious Seth. Further than that we have to remember that these two genealogies belong to two en- tirely separate documents. Whoever originally composed them, one is part of the work of the Jehovist or the Elohist, and the other belongs to the Priestly Writer. I shall not stop now to examine the names themselves, or to inquire which is the more original form, or what the names signify. Unfortunately, our knowledge is still too imperfect to enable us to perform this task satisfactorily. Scholars are not agreed as to whether several of these names are Hebrew words at all, and as to their meanings there is much difference of opinion. Leaving, then, these questions, and merely continuing our com- parison, the only conclusion we can come to is that these two lists of antediluvian patriarchs (the first and the third), so astonishingly ahke, represent two distinct Hebrew traditions — one deriving the race, in part, at least, through Cain, and the other through Seth. It will be noticed that Cain appears in the third list also under the name of Cainan as the great-grandson of Adam, and that the Jehovist also mentions Seth as Adam's son, although a later son. These two tables, therefore, must have been originally pre- pared without reference to each other, in ac- cordance with the two ancient traditions. Each attempted to preserve a list of the patriarchs who lived before the Flood, and those lists, as we have seen, are very similar.* The editor, or Redactor,

* The reason why this similarity surprises ns is because we er- roneously regard these genealogies as historical, which they are not. Did they really exhibit the descent of two different men (Seth and

(285)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

of Genesis simply found them in two different documents and placed them side by side without any attempt to reconcile them, which it would have been impossible for him to do without re- writing them and taking great liberties with ven- erable names too well known to be altered. With these words of explanation, let us pass on to the genealogies themselves, and I think it will be best to speak of the third table first. That, you re- member, is the work of the Priestly Writer; it begins with the fifth chapter, '' This is the book of the genealogy of Adam."

In order to understand the general purpose of this genealogy, and the point of view of the writer, I must remind you of several curious facts. The fifth chapter, with the exception of one verse, is the work of the great author of the first chapter of Genesis. There is no reason to suppose that anything has been lost out of this part of his composition. His two chapters have been cut in two by the introduction of the Jeho- vist's story of Adam and Eve, Eden, the Fall, the story of Cain and Abel, and Cain's genealogy. If the work of the Priestly Writer stood as he wrote it, then directly after the account of the creation of man and the consecration of the sev- enth day this genealogy would follow. His first chapter ends, '' This is the genealogy of the heaven and of the earth when they are created," and his second chapter (Chapter v.) begins, '' This is the book of the genealogy of Adam." The consequences of all this it is very important

Cain), the recurrence of the same names would be unaccountable. As it is we must sincerely regard these two genealogies as slightly diverging traditions of the antediluvian world.

(286)

Degeneration of Patriarchs

to bear in mind. The Priestly Writer has not said a word about the Garden of Eden, about Eve or the serpent or the first sin. He knows nothing of Cain and Abel or of Cain's murder. He does not regard Cain as Adam's son at all, but as his great-grandchild. Therefore, in reading his second chapter, we must remember that he does not take all these things into ac- count. He wishes merely to continue his nar- rative, which he has carried only as far as the creation of man and woman, and he now goes on to describe that man's descendants. Bearing these facts in mind, we get quite a new impres- sion of this chapter. These genealogies with the Priestly Writer lead directly to his story of the great Flood. They are his bridge, and his only bridge, between his account of man's crea- tion in the image of God and man's destruction in the Flood, in consequence of his sin. It would therefore be very natural if we should receive in the genealogy itself some hint of the growing wickedness of men which provoked God at last to destroy almost the whole human race. The ostensible purpose of his table, of course, is to show what men lived before the Flood and how long the world itself existed. He accomplishes the latter by carefully noting how old each patri- arch was at the birth of his first son, and how long each lived afterward; and from these data we can not only compute which of the patriarchs were alive at a particular time, but in what year of the world each was born and died, and in what year the Flood came. Unfortunately, this al- ready complicated question is further compli- cated. We possess no fewer than three different

(387)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

versions of this chapter; namely, the Hebrew text, the Septuagint, and the Samaritan Penta- teuch,* each of which computes the hves of the patriarchs differently, and so each comes to a different result in regard to the date of the Flood. This difference, moreover, is quite serious, for while the Samaritan Pentateuch places the date of the Flood in the year of the world 1307, the Hebrew text sets it in the year 1656, and the Septuagint as late as 2242. I will simply say that the Septuagint text is most evidently cor- rupt, and that between the Hebrew text and the Samaritan probably the majority of recent schol- ars decide in favor of the Samaritan, f

Accepting the statement of the Samaritan Pentateuch that the Flood took place in the year 1307, which is derived from its calculation of the ages of the patriarchs, Budde makes a very inte- resting discovery. Jared, Methuselah and La- mech all died in the Flood year, in the year 1307, as may be seen by glancing at the table. This is certainly significant. As Budde says (whom I follow here), if in tracing the history of any old German family we learned that all branches save one disappeared in the year 1349 a. d., we should not hesitate to infer that the whole family except one branch had been swept away by the Black Death, which ravaged Europe in that year.

* After Ezra, 444 B.C.

f E.g., Berthau, Dillmann, Budde, and Addis. The chief reasons adduced are as follows : r. Greater regularity in Samaritan Pentateuch in ages at birth of first son and of entire life. 2. A gradual diminution of age, except in cases of Noah and Enoch. 3. The Samr.ritan Pentateuch, which was translated from the Hebrew, would have been more apt to add to the years, after the manner of the Septuagint, than to diminish them. See Budde, " Urgeschichte," p. 91. Addis, ii. 199.

(288)

Table of Patriarchs

Q

^ is s i §•

li, <: u c o

O M O "^ O M l^vO w vo vO O O M N c^ Tf Ovo O O vo

a^ o w csi N f<^oo fTi co^ <o

Q

CO H o M Ovo o o r^ lo o^ cj^ a^ oco o^ CO o t^ o^

<U <l>

S o

Ot^vnOOOOMxnO • OOMTtcnOOcoOiri • oooooooocococor^iT)'^ •

0"^00u-)(Nmt^(N00

c<-) O O r~^0 vO o CO oo o O

MM M M M ID M

Q

ri 1/3

< .i: ^ 2 o

O M vnO u^r^voO coO

CO M O l-l O^ '^O M IT) in

O^ O^ O^ c>oo CO CO r^O O

Oi^iJ^OO>J^OcooO

OOMr^COCOOu^O"^

CO CO 00 CO CO r^ coo O ■^

J3 3

w c4 coTj-iovd r^od c>6

o

&

1^ S.S S-df^ti •a -^ c rt c ^S^

(289)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

So, when we discover in the genealogy that Jared, Methuselah and Lamech all disappeared in the Flood year, and further, as the Flood oc- curred on the seventeenth day of the second month, that they all must have died within the first three months of that year, the conclusion is almost forced upon us that they did not die a natural death, but were swept away in the Flood. But if that were the case, it was undoubtedly be-, cause they were sinners. So, a new and most interesting purpose of this dry chapter begins to be revealed. The author, as I have said, knew nothing of the Garden of Eden and of the sin of Adam and Cain. He does not regard Cain as Adam's son, but he must still give some hint of the cause of the Flood, and the hint this genealogy contains is that men were first good, but began to degenerate until the Flood swept them away. This impression is strengthened when we look at his table a little more carefully. Jared, Me- thuselah and Lamech — the sixth, eighth and ninth patriarchs — apparently were destroyed in the Flood. Why was not Enoch also destroyed ? He came between Jared and Methuselah, and was born in the year of the world 522. If he had attained the span of life allotted to his contem- poraries, or if he had even lived eight hundred years, he would have been overtaken by the same fate. Even an early death would not have saved him from the imputation of unrighteous- ness, for an early death was regarded as a sign of God's displeasure. Accordingly, Enoch did not die at all. In the author's beautiful expres- sion, " He was not, for God took him." And why did God take him away from the coming

(290)

Enoch's Translation

evil? Because he walked with God, he was a righteous man. But his father, son, and grand- son God did not take. He let them drown, and the suspicion certainly attaches itself that God let them drown because they were wicked. There is no doubt that Enoch occupied a distinguished place among the patriarchs. He was the Sev- enth— always an honorable number. The Apos- tle Jude calls especial attention to this fact when he says, " And Enoch, also, the Seventh from Adam, prophesied." Delitzsch has observed that at the time of Enoch's translation most of the patriarchs were living, but if we follow the computation of the Samaritan Pentateuch, the argument becomes much stronger, for they were all alive. According to the Samaritan, Enoch was translated in the year 887. Even Adam survived him by forty-three years, and at the time of Enoch's translation Noah was one hundred and eighty years old. Enoch's mar- vellous translation occurred before the eyes of all, as a consolation to the good and as a warning and threat to the evil. All this points to the fact that the earher patriarchs, who lived a long Hfe and departed in peace, were good, but that the later patriarchs who, with the exceptions of Enoch and Noah, were drowned in the Flood, were evil. This impression is strengthened by the names of the later patriarchs as they are usu- ally interpreted. Jared, the father of Enoch, means '' descent," here, '' falling off," '' deterio- ration." Methuselah is interpreted '' man of a dart," i. e., of violence. Lamech, whose name is variously explained, according to the oldest traditions was a man of bloodshed and murder.

(291)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

All this throws a brilliant light on the genealogy of the Priestly Writer. I repeat, this writer had nothing to say of the original fall of man, or of the murder of Abel. He was therefore obHged to account for the coming of the Flood in a dif- ferent way, and he does account for it differently. By the very arrangement of his genealogical table he indicates the growing wickedness of the antediluvians with the exception of Enoch and Noah, of whom Enoch was taken away from the coming evil, and Noah was preserved alive in it. It is also plain that this author was ignorant of or rejected the genealogy of Cain related by the Jehovist, or he would not have ascribed almost the same posterity to Seth. There is, therefore, no contrast between the wicked Cainites and the pious Sethites, as so many writers have imagined. All this is interesting and important as far as it goes, and yet the veil of mystery that hangs over those ancient names — Enoch, Mahalaleel, Jared and Methuselah — is not lifted. Whether they were men at all, and, if so, who they were and what they did, probably we shall never know. As I said, all comparisons with the heroes and demigods of other nations, thus far, have failed to establish any certain connections. Enoch, from the strange manner of his transla- tion, and from his 365 years, has been supposed to be a solar deity ; but what weakens this com- parison is the fact that the Hebrew year, which was reckoned by the moon, contained only 354 days, while the Babylonian year consisted of 360 days. These matters are discussed with a wealth of example by Lenormant.*

*'* Beginnings of History," chapters v. and vi. (292)

The First Genealogy

I turn now to the genealogy of Cain, which I have called the first table. It occurs in the document of the Jehovist (Gen. iv. 17-24), though whether it comes from his pen or is the work of the Elohist I leave undetermined. We shall see immediately that this is a very different composition from the dry list of the Priestly Writer, from which everything has been care- fully expurgated but the names and ages of the patriarchs. Properly speaking, these verses are not so much a genealogy as a little family history of the descendants of Cain, containing interest- ing notices of their progress in civilization and in the invention of the arts. There is no reason to suppose that this curious piece of literature, which is very ancient, was composed outright by the Jehovist or the Elohist. To assume this would be to deny its value as a very early tradi- tion. On the contrary, the Jehovist, or the Elohist, found this old document, which had been in existence for a long time, and incor- porated it into his work, probably altering it a good deal, and omitting those crudely mytho- logical allusions which offended his religious sense. The most important question is, with what intention was this genealogy of Cain orig- inally composed? Did the author regard Cain as a bad man and a murderer? And was it originally written with reference to the Flood ? I am inclined to answer both these questions in the negative. If, as we believe, this Httle document is very old, Cain's murder would not be regarded in the light in which we regard it. We see in the document itself how such acts of violence are treated in Lamech's song. Lamech boasts of

(293)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

having killed two men, and he praises rather than blames Cain for having avenged himself in the same manner. Moreover, there is a marked contradiction between the Cain of this genealogy and the Cain who just before slew Abel. So marked, in fact, that we are entitled to regard them as two different men.* For that act Cain was condemned by God to a miserable life of wandering. Here, on the contrary, the first thing Cain does is to build a city, and the noma- dic life is regarded as far from miserable. There is no attempt in the genealogy to show a develop- ment of sin among men in a way that would account for the Flood. It would be very natural, in case this genealogy were merely the continu- ation of the story of the Fall and the murder of Abel, for the author to show a growth of sin in Cain's children. On the contrary, Cain's son is the pious Enoch, whose piety, it is true, is not mentioned. Lamech is certainly a wild and ter- rible figure, but the peculiar thing is that his wickedness is not censured. His crime is due to his savage and ferocious nature, which is ac- cepted as a matter of course. He is not repre- sented as a man with a conscience like the Cain with whom God pleads, but as a man who does wrong with a light heart, and who boasts of his crimes. In short, he is faithfully depicted as the representative of an earlier age of humanity to whom moral standards do not apply. Everything about him is genuinely antique. He is one of the oldest figures in the world. One other thing which plainly proves that this genealogy was not

* The fact that the Priestly Writer regards Cain as the great- grandson of Adam shows how tradition wavered in regard to him.

(294)

Cain the City Builder

originally composed with reference to the Flood, is the fact that Noah is not mentioned in it. La- mech has three sons, which rounds out the scheme of the table, but Noah is not one of them. My opinion, therefore, is that this old genealogy of Cain was not originally connected with our story of Cain and Abel, and that it does not look forward to the Flood. The descendants of Jabal, Jubal and Tubal are spoken of as alive at the time when the genealogy was composed. Dill- mann is disposed to regard this document as the first appearance of the third writer of Genesis, whom we call the Elohist, and he may very well be right.*

Chapter iv., 17. Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch: and he was a city builder, and he named the city after the name of his son Enoch.

There are several things in this verse that surprise us. For example, when it says, '' she gave birth to Enoch and he was a city builder," we should naturally suppose that it was Enoch who built the city. Not until the end of the verse do we find that the city builder was Cain himself. Leaving out of sight, as we ought to do, the contradiction between the wandering Cain cursed by God and Cain the city builder, since they are two distinct narratives, is it a con- tradiction that Cain, who is always represented as a farmer, should have built the first city ? This very ancient tradition represents the first city as

* The second table seems to me to have better claims to be re- garded as the Jehovist's work. If so the same document would hardly contain two genealogies. The numerous inconsistencies between the first table and the Jehovist's narrative also point to another authorship.

(295)"

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

the work of the farmer. Is that erroneous or is it founded on a recollection of fact? Ihering discusses this problem with his usual talent.* He calls attention to the fact that the simplest way of accounting for town life would have been to raise up a third figure — say Seth — beside Cain the farmer and Abel the shepherd, who should represent town life. But, on the contrary, the old tradition assigns the building of the first city to the farmer. This is certainly curious. The farmer, by his very occupation, is compelled to live in the country, not in town. The town is the place for the merchant and the tradesman, to which the farmer, only occasionally resorts to dispose of his produce and to buy goods. That is perfectly true of towns to-day, but it was not the original purpose of the town. " The first towns everywhere were fortresses, not market places." All the old towns were fortified and the essential parts were the walls, not the houses. The first towns were not so much dwelling places as places of refuge to which the people might re- tire when beset by their enemies. What makes this interesting to us is the fact that in this way many of our older American cities arose. Origi- nally they were forts, or block houses, built largely for the purpose of safety, to which the farmer, the trader, and the backwoodsman might fly when menaced by savages. That this is gen- erally true all over the world is shown by the name given the city by the different nations. With the Greeks, the Acropolis, the sharp- pointed, fortified place, came before the polis.

* ** Evolution of the Aryan," chapter ii. Swan, Sonnenschein, 1897.

(296)

The Farmer and the City

The Latin urbs, a walled town, is from orbis, a circle; i.e., the fortification. The German burg means the surrounded, fortified place; stadt, the comfortable place, help.* The original meaning of town is fence or enclosure; city is a resting place.f A very interesting rite, which preserved the connection between the farmer and the city, and also the original purpose of the city, is found among the Romans.if In tracing the outHne of a new city, a bull and a cow were harnessed to a plough, the bull on the outside toward the enemy, the peaceable cow on the inside toward the walls. The old tradition, then, which makes Cain the farmer the first city builder, seems founded on fact, and if we remember that the original pur- pose of the city was a place of refuge, not a per- manent dwelling place, even the contradiction that the wandering Cain, who feared so much to be killed, should have provided himself with such an asylum, is weakened. As to what cities have done for man, I will only remind you that the glorious word " civilization " means the condi- tion of life in cities.

i8. And to Enoch, Irad was born: and Irad begat Mehu- jael, and Mehujael begat Methusael, and Methusael begat Lamech.

Enoch was supposed to mean " dedication " or ^' consecration." Its application here is not apparent. It might be conjectured that he was named at the consecration of the city, or Enoch may not be a Hebrew word at all. Mehujael may

* Kluge, " Etymol. Worterbuch."

f Skeat's *' Etymol. Diet."

X Borrowed from Etruscans : Ihering.

(297)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

be interpreted " the smitten of God," or '' God gives me life." * Methusael is " suppliant," or " man of God," but hardly '' man of hell," as Redslob thinks, which is too ill-omened.

19. And Lamech took to himself two wives, the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other was Zillah.

20. And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents and have cattle.

This is another proof that this genealogy knew nothing of Abel the herdsman.

21. And the name of his brother was Jubal: he was the father of all that handle the harp and the pipe.

22. And Zillah also bare Tubal-Cain, the father of all who work in copper and iron; and the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah.

23. And Lamech said to his wives:

"Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech, For I have killed a man for wounding me And a child for bruising me. If Cain be avenged sevenfold, Lamech, seventy-seven fold."

I have already said so much about Lamech that it is necessary to add but little more. It is hard not to imagine that this strange figure, with his two wives Adah and Zillah, " beauty and shadow," was originally an elemental myth, con- nected with day and night. If he were, that myth can no longer be identified with certainty. In our Book, he is represented merely as a man. It is customary to regard Lamech's wild song as an outburst of triumph over his discovery of the art of forging metals into weapons. This is not stated in the song itself; his son Tubal-Cain

* Dillmann.

(298)

Metal Working

was the first smith. And yet it is very natural to ascribe the bold confidence of Lamech to the superiority of his weapon, which enables him to look his enemies in the eye without fear. The picture is very complete. In Lamech's family we see the ideal of a pastoral life realized. Jabal is the father of all wandering shepherds, while Jubal and Tubal satisfied the simple needs of the shepherd's life by inventing music and metal working.

In regard to the discovery of metal working, Ihering believes that both the Aryans and the Babylonians were ignorant of the use of metals in primitive times. As late as the building of Solomon's temple, the Jews were so unskilful in these arts that Solomon was obliged to entrust the execution of the bronze temple vessels and ornaments to Tyrian artists. At the time of Samuel, iron was so little used by the Hebrews that there was no smith in the land of Israel who could so much as sharpen an axe or a plough- share, and the Hebrews depended on the Philis- tines for weapons and implements.* On the other hand, iron chariots were in use among the Canaanites as early as 1250 b. c. t

Among all the genealogies of the nations, the one which most resembles ours is the Phoenician, recorded by Sanchuniathon. Sanchuniathon gives an elaborate description of the descent of the first human beings, the discovery of fire by the rubbing of two sticks together and also by the friction of branches of trees lashed by the storm. The first human beings, whose names indicate abstract qualities, were of vast size.

*i Sam. xiii. ig. f Judg-. i. 19; iv. 13.

(299)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Later Hypsuranius invents houses and discovers papyrus. Usous, his brother, with whom he quarrels, makes a raft out of a tree and ventures on the sea; Agreus and Halicus invent hunting and fishing; the Technites, or craftsmen, discover the art of brickmaking. Others find sah and medicinal herbs. This list, however, which ap- pears to be wholly mythical and capricious, passes from gods to men and from men back to gods without any definite plan or purpose.* Yet its ascription of the first human inventions to divine or semi-divine beings is very interesting, and it is probable that the heroes of this portion of Genesis were originally beings of the same order.

It remains to add a few words on the second genealogy, which consists now of only three verses, the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth of chap- ter four, and the twenty-ninth verse of chapter five. It is a great pity that so much of this genealogy has been omitted, as it would be of great interest to us to see if it also contained the same names. From the fact that it begins with Adam and Seth and ends with Noah, one would imagine that it was originally identical with the table of the Priestly Writer, and con- sisted of ten members. As this genealogy plainly alludes to Abel's murder and to the cursing of the ground, it seems to me simplest, in spite of small difificulties, to regard it as the work of the Jehov- ist. The Jehovist must have had some gene- alogy containing the name of Noah and leading up to his own account of the Flood; this is the remains of that genealogy. It is plain the editor

* Cory's " Fragments " : Sanchuniathon. (300)

The Second Genealogy

of Genesis eliminated the whole body of this table, leaving only the beginning and the end, because the table of the Priestly Writer, with his careful computations of time, immediately fol- lows; and it is also plain why the editor left as much as he did. The Priestly Writer of the fifth chapter mentions Seth as the first son of Adam, but in the genealogy of Cain Seth's name is not mentioned. Cain is always assumed to be Adam's first child. At this gross contradiction every one would stumble. It was therefore necessary to show that the Jehovist admitted that Adam had a son Seth, though he was not his first son. The genealogy of Cain, moreover, does not as much as mention Noah. It was therefore important that the Jehovist's statement in regard to Noah should be preserved in order to lead to his ac- count of the Flood. As to the relation of this second genealogy to the first (the genealogy of Cain), the data are too slight to enable us to form an opinion. The words -of the second genealogy are as follows :

Chapter iv. 25. And Adam knew his wife again, and she bare a son, and called his name Seth [substitution] ; for [said she] " Elohim has given me other seed, instead of Abel, since Cain has slain him."

It surprises us that the woman, who elsewhere speaks only of Jahveh, here calls God Elohim. This may have been substituted by the editor to avoid a contradiction with the next verse, where It is said that not until Enos did men call on the name of Jahveh."*"

* Dillmann.

(301)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

26. And to Seth in turn a son was born, and he called his name Enos; then they began to call upon [God by] the name of Jahveh.

The authorship and the purpose of this verse, which contradicts the statement that Cain and Abel worshipped Jahveh, are very obscure ; it was probably added by a later hand. Here the table is interrupted and concludes with these words:

Chap. V, 29. And he called his name Noah [comfort], saying, " The same shall comfort us for our work, and the sore labor of our hands which comes from the ground which Jahveh has cursed."

In all probability these are the words of La- mech, who, in the Priestly Writer's genealogy, is represented as the father of Noah. We may be sure, however, that Lamech here is not the bloodstained man the Cainite table describes. He is evidently an agriculturist, fulfilling his des- tiny by hard toil. The perfect consistency of this verse, fragmentary as it is, with the condi- tions imposed by God after Adam's sin, seems to me a strong argument for believing this gene- alogy to be the work of the Jehovist who drew the picture of the Fall. The possibility of its having contained other of his characteristic views makes us regret the more that so little of it has been preserved.*

* Dillmann, I think less correctly, regards this verse as the in- terpolation of the Redactor. But why should the Redactor intro- duce Jahveh in the middle of a document of the Priestly Writer and connect the verse so closely with the story of the Jehovist ?

(302)

Crux Interpretum of Genesis

Chapter Fifteen:

The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men and the End of the Old World

After the dry genealogies of the fourth and jLjL fifth chapters, the brilHant little narrative with which the sixth chapter begins is very wel- come. The story of the marriages of the sons of God with the daughters of men is unlike any- thing else in the Old Testament. It seems to belong to some old cycle of folk-lore outside the revealed religion of Israel. Probably there is no passage in the Bible that has provoked more discussion, as, apart from the strangeness of the ideas it suggests, it is full of Hnguistic difificulties, one or two of which at the present time are simply insoluble. Not without reason is it called the crux interpretum of the first part of Genesis. I think the best way to bring this passage before you will be to translate it, as far as it can be trans- lated, and then to call your attention to the prob- lems it contains.

Chapter vi. i, 2. It came to pass as men began to multi- ply on the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of Elohim saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they took of them to wife all who pleased them.

3. And Jahveh said: "My spirit shall not always [i.e.,

(303)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

forever] prevail * in man because he also is flesh [or, by reason of their error, he is flesh]. f So then let his days be one hundred and twenty years."

4. The [well known] giants [Nephilim] were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, for the sons of Elohim went in to the daughters of men and these bore children to them; they are the heroes who were celebrated in gray antiquity.

Before we attempt to give any account of the origin of this wond'erful story it will be necessary to come to an miderstanding as to what it means. Who are these '' sons of God " so strangely de- scribed as mingling with humanity? Are they spiritual beings of the order of angels, or are they men ? As early as the Targumim of Unka- los, and Simeon, son of Jochai, or as the Greek version of Symmachus, the sons of God were re- garded as princes or nobles, " iilii potentium," who made mesalliances with the daughters of the common people. Others pretended that the " sons of God " were merely just men who lived

* Yadhon. This is one of the words that cannot be satis- factorily rendered. The A. V. translates " strive," but the verb appears to be intransitive (Dillmann). Opinion fluctuates be- tween " be humbled," after the Arabic " dana," and "rule," "govern." Neither can be proved. Addis gives "rule," Dillmann is reserved, Kautzsch refuses to translate, Holzinger, "rule," "prevail," Delitzsch, "rule" {walten), Siegfried and Stade, "humble itself," Gesenius, in Thesaurus, " non humilia- bitur spiritus mens," in Worterbuch, loth ed., "rule," "pre- vail." Yadhon is derived from the intransitive verb dun, or don, which does not occur elsewhere.

f This word {b' shaggaiii) is also hopeless ; " because," or " be- cause also " involves a late Hebraism which does not occur else- where in the Hexateuch (Budde, " Urgeschichte," p. 14). " By their transgression," or " by their error," makes no sense. Not only is the change of number {enallage numeri) " intoler- able," but what sense would there be in saying that man, who is already flesh, by his union with spiritual beings has become flesh ? With more propriety this remark might be addressed to the sons of God, but it does not appear to be addressed to them, it is addressed to man.

(304)

The Sons of God

angelic lives. Probably the most common opinion since the fourth century of our era has been that the '' sons of God " were the de- scendants of the pious Seth, while by the '' daughters of men " we must understand '' the worldly women " of the Hne of Cain. This, how- ever, is very improbable. There is no reason to suppose that the writers of Genesis regarded the descendants of Seth as peculiarly pious. On the contrary, in the genealogies we saw that the later members of that family, except Noah, were de- stroyed in the Flood. Neither is any hint given that marriages between these two families were forbidden. It is very plain that in the expres- sion " sons of God " and " daughters of men " the contrast is not between men of one family and women of another, but between women described in the broadest sense as the feminine portion of the human family and males who are not of the human family, but are an entirely dif- ferent order of being, here simply called the '' sons of Elohim." This is further shown by the fact that the offspring of these unions were giants, which in itself cuts the ground from under all these explanations. It is also the sense in which the story was first understood in the Jew- ish Church. The first definite attempt to inter- pret our narrative, so far as I am aware, is in the apocryphal book of Enoch,''' and the passage is so important, both as showing how this chapter was understood at the time, and as exhibiting the fruits it has borne, that I shall give a few verses of it. The passage begins, like our chapter, with the discovery on the part of the angels of the

(305)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

beauty of the daughters of men. The angels, filled with admiration for mortal maidens, re- solve to marry them. Sernjuza, their chief, hesi- tates. He says: " I am afraid that you do not intend to carry out this act, and that I alone will have to pay the penalty of this great sin." Two hundred others, however, bind themselves with an oath to do it. Accordingly, the whole brood sweeps down to the peak of Mount Her- mon. They go up and down on the earth and make choice of those young women who please them best. The angels teach them all kinds of magic arts and incantations. Their children are described as giants three thousand ells high, and these giants eat up all man's provisions so that there is nothing left for men, and after they have eaten all man's food, they begin to devour men and animals and fish, and to drink their blood, until the whole earth groans over the injustice.

This attracts the attention of the good angels. " Michael, Gabriel, Surjan and Urjan looked down from heaven and saw all the blood that was shed on the earth, and all the injustice that was perpetrated there. And they said one to an- other, ' The earth lets the voice of its cry echo to the gate of heaven; and to you, ye holy ones of heaven, do the souls of men cry, saying, *' Do us justice before the Most High." ' " Accord- ingly they inform God of all that is going on upon the earth, and the Lord sends the archangel Uriel * to warn Noah that He is about to destroy the whole earth with a deluge. Next the Lord commands Raphael to bind Azazel, t one of the

* Here called Arsjalaljur.

f Azazel figures in the ceremony of the scape-goat ; where the

(306)

The Fall of the Angels

chiefs of the sinning angels, hand and foot. ''Lay him in darkness. Make a hole in the wilderness of Dudael and lay him in it. Put rough and sharp stones on him, and cover him with darkness, that he may remain there forever, and cover his face that he may not see the light, and in the great day of judgment he shall be thrown into the lake of fire." *

It is very plain that St. Jude had this story be- fore him and followed it almost word for word when he wrote, '' And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under dark- ness, until the judgment of the last day." f It is also interesting to observe that St. Jude refers in the very next verse to the only other allusion in the Bible to an unnatural union between angels and men. When he speaks of Sodom and Go- morrah " going after strange flesh " he evidently has in mind the terrible story of Genesis xix.

In the second epistle ascribed to St. Peter, it is also evident that the author has the same event in mind when he says, " If God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgment." % The doctrine of the Fall of the Angels, therefore, appears to rest on the strange story of Genesis.

Without going any further we can see that this story of the union of the " sons of God " and

Authorized Version reads ' ' Let him go for a scape-goat into the wilderness" (Lev. xvi. lo) the Hebrew has "Let him go for a scape-goat to Azazel."

* Book of Enoch, pp. 6-il,

f Epistle of St. Jude, 6.

X 2 Peter, ii. 4.

(307)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

the " daughters of men " was a popular tale in the century before Christ and in the century after Christ. It is found in the Book of Jubilees,* in Philo JudaeuSjt and in Josephus^ AH these authors, as well as many of the church Fathers of the first three centuries, understood by the ''sons of God" angels, and nothing else. It is even possible that the Book of Enoch may con- tain some old Hebrew traditions which were al- lowed to fall from Genesis. " Sons of God " is a name often applied to angels in the Old Testa- ment, especially in Job and the Psalms. §

I therefore regard this point as proved. Al- though the author of this curious Httle passage, which in its main features is very ancient, may not have been familiar with the developed doc- trine of angels as we find it in the later portions of the Old Testament, yet by the " sons of God " he did not mean mortal men of any family, race or condition, but an order of spiritual beings like those to whom God alluded when He said " Let us make man in our image," or " The man has become hke one of us," or " Let us go down." So it was understood by the earliest Jewish ex- positors, and by the Christian Fathers before they decided, from reasons which have nothing to do with exegesis, to change their opinion.

Granting that the sons of God are angelic beings, or still better, spiritual beings, superior to man, we see at once that we are dealing with a very peculiar story, which resembles the myths

* Dillmann, in Ewald's '* Jahrbiicher," ii. 248. I" De Gigantibus," ii. 358, ed. Mangey. i Antiq. i. 3, I.

§ Job, i. 6 ; ii. I ; xxxviii. 7. Psalm xxix. i ; Ixxxix. 6 : Sons of mighty, Elim.

(308)

Supernatural Origin of Heroes

of the Gentiles much more than the reHgion of the Old Testament, with its clean-cut distinc- tion between God and man. In short, the giants are conceived as a sort of intermediate race be- tween gods and men, and it was for the sake of destroying this proud and unnatural brood that the Flood was sent. Among the Greeks and Romans the habit of tracing the descent of noble families from gods and goddesses was very com- mon. Plato goes so far as to say that all heroes are demigods, born of the love of a god for a mortal woman or of a goddess for a mortal man. Such an idea could have arisen among the He- brews only at an early age, and we may be sure that this story is very old. It appears in the document of the Jehovist, but he certainly did not originate it. On the contrary, it is a tale opposed to his whole mode of thought, as we can infer from the way he hurries over it, strip- ping it doubtless of many of its mythological features. From the description of the giants and heroes of old as celebrated men — men of re- nown— it is plain that they were popular charac- ters, of whom the people had many stories to tell. We may compare them with the heroes of Homer or with the Titans, who also had a super- natural origin. At the beginning of the Phoeni- cian genealogies, mention is made of " giants of vast bulk and height, whose names were con- ferred on the mountains on which they dwelt." * It was in some such way that this story arose — either from the habit of tracing the descent of heroes from the gods, or to account for the origin of an old and vanished race of giants. The

* Sanchuniathon, in Cory's ••Fragments," p. 6. (309)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Jehovist found this ancient tale and made use of it to prepare the way for his story of the Flood. He evidently regards these unnatural unions be- tween angels and men, and the proud and mighty race of giants resulting from them, as one of the provocations which induced Jahveh to destroy the earth. That this story is very loosely con- nected with the Book of Genesis is shown by the introduction, and also by the fact that the deeds described are not associated with any of the per- sons whom we already know. '' It came to pass when men began to multiply on the earth." When was that? We can only say, apparently some time before the Flood. But both the Jeho- vist and the Priestly Writer have already carried their genealogies down to the Flood. It would also appear that the story originally did not men- tion Jahveh, and was not composed with refer- ence to Him; as, indeed, how could it be? All the rest of the narrative runs smoothly and hangs well together, but the verse in which Jahveh speaks is full of all kinds of difficulties. Another thing is evident. A large part of our belief in the Fall of the angels rests on this narrative. We saw how the idea was seized on by Enoch, from whom it passed to St. Jude; but the story origin- ally did not contain this thought. Such myth- ical marriages were considered quite natural at the time this myth was composed. Even as the narrative stands in the document of the Jehovist in Genesis, no blame is attached to the angels. Not a word of censure is addressed to them. Jah- veh addresses His warning solely to man. The purpose of the limitation Jahveh imposes on human life, fixing its duration at one hundred

(310)

Limitation of Human Life

and twenty years, also seems plain. Man is al- ready sinful and corrupt, but if in addition to his sinfulness he gains an enormous accession of strength and power from the angels, it is plain that he will become too insolent to be endured. Accordingly, with profound insight, the years of his life are cut short. It does not yet appear that God has determined upon the destruction of the race in the Flood. The one hundred and twenty years spoken of are not one hundred and twenty years that the earth shall still endure before the Flood; the meaning is that human life in general is to be shortened to this term. This does not agree very well with the fact that Jared and Me- thuselah, who lived to the Flood, according to the Samaritan Pentateuch, were more than seven hundred years old at their deaths, and that even Lamech attained more than six hundred and fifty years. But we must remember that these are the figures of the Priestly Writer, not of the Jehovist, who has not yet expressed himself as to the age of the patriarchs.

I wish now to glance at this narrative a little more sharply before taking leave of it. The first two verses are perfectly simple. Strange as such marriages seem to us, and opposed as they are to New Testament ideas, they seemed natural to those who first recounted them. We must remember, though we call these " sons of Elohim " angels, because we have no other name for them, that they are very different from those holy beings who, Jesus afifirmed, " neither marry nor are given in marriage." These were doubt- less mere nature-deities whose marriages were recounted in good faith. The real difificulty of

(311)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

the passage begins with the speech of Jahveh in the third verse, and it is aggravated, as we have seen, by two untranslatable words.

'' And Jahveh said, ' My spirit shall not always [forever] prevail [or be humbled] in man/ " This much, in spite of the uncertainty of the word, is intelligible, but how shall we explain what fol- lows? Let' us try both alternatives. ''Because he also," or " he too on his part is flesh, so then let his days be one hundred and twenty years." The spirit spoken of here is not the Holy Spirit, but the vital spirit or breath God breathed into man when He created him. This is a very com- mon idea in the Old Testament. The breath of life belongs to God, it is not a product of the physical organism. When God breathes His breath into an animal or a man, that being which before was mere inert flesh becomes living. When God draws His breath back again it dies. So Job says, *' The breath of the Almighty hath given me life," * and in the One Hundred and Fourth Psalm we read, '' Thou takest away their breath, they die." t This expression, therefore, would simply mean ^' My breath will not sustain man forever, because he also is flesh ; so let him live one hundred and twenty years." This, on the whole, is very weakly and obscurely expressed. The " because he also " robs it of any real signifi- cance. Delitzsch's " because he too on his part," with its fanciful explanation, is not any better.

The other alternative, '' in consequence of their error [i.e., the angels'] he is flesh," be- sides containing a grammatical enormity, means

* Job, xxxiii. 4. f Psalm civ. 29.

(312)

Linguistic Difficulties

nothing at all, as man always was flesh, and it is hard to see how he becomes more fleshly by union with spiritual beings.

If we could translate '' in spite of their error " — i.e., in spite of the infusion of angelic substance and strength, man is and remains flesh — it would at least convey a meaning, tut it would be very forced. The expression " My spirit shall not prevail forever in man " also strikes us as curious, and makes us* suspect that in the writer's opinion some change has taken place in man's constitu- tion. A life of even nine hundred years is a very different thing from living forever. The same word is employed as when Jahveh says, " The man has become as one of us, knowing good and evil, and now lest he put forth his hand and take also of the Tree of Life and eat and live forever." Wellhausen,* as usual^ has a bright, original in- terpretation, which, if I understand him rightly, would be, " My spirit [i.e., the spiritual substance of which angels consist as well as God] shall not always prevail in man, because he also is flesh." In that case, however, the infusion of divine sub- stance ought to lengthen man's days, not to shorten them. Budde solves the problem by omitting this vexatious verse here and inserting it at the end of the third chapter of Genesis, where he discards the words pertaining to the Tree of Life — " the man has become like one of us, etc." — and substitutes '' My breath shall not always prevail in man, through their error [i.e., Adam and Eve's sin] he is flesh, so let his Hfe be one hundred and twenty years." This, however, is to rewrite the Scripture, not to explain it.

* Wellhausen, ** Composition des Hexateuch," p. 306.

(313)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

It seems to me much more natural to suppose that this speech of Jahveh, which certainly breaks the connection between the second and the fourth verses, and with which the fourth verse has nothing to do, was introduced by the Jeho- vist as his comment on the whole story. With- out this speech of Jahveh's, the story would have no moral or religious meaning whatever. It would be a mere piece of natural history, or, as we should say, of folk lore, and as such it would not deserve a place in our Book. With the third verse, however, it has a meaning. Difficult as the exact significance is to extract, the sense of the passage undoubtedly is that this mingling of heavenly and earthly beings is displeasing to God, and, with other causes, provokes Him to de- stroy the earth in the Flood. But for the present He prevents the pride and power of the Titanic race from rising too high by denying its mem- bers the immortality of their angelic sires, and even by shortening the previous term of human life.

The fourth verse also is not altogether free from difficulty, but here the difficulty seems to arise from the fact that the verse is very loosely constructed. " The giants were on the earth in those days, and also afterwards; for the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and these bare children to them. They are the heroes who were celebrated in gray antiquity." Two classes of beings are mentioned in this verse, both evi- dently the fruit of the union of heavenly with earthly beings — the giants, or Nephilim, and the heroes of the olden time. The Hebrews, Hke all other nations, believed in giants. You remem-

(3^4)

Giants

ber when Moses sent the IsraeHtish spies to search the land of Canaan, they came back and reported, " And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, the giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." * In Deuteronomy we read : '' The peo- ple is greater and taller than we, the cities are great and walled up to heaven. Moreover, we saw the sons of Anakim there." f Sometimes these giants were called Nephilim and sometimes Anakim. Since the narrative speaks of them as living afterwards, it is very likely that these giants were associated with those which the Hebrew spies saw in Canaan. No doubt this strange story of ours was composed in part to account for the origin of such giants, who did not seem to belong to the human race. It need not surprise us that this race of giants survived the Flood, as this little tale was not composed originally with reference to the Flood. The Mo- hammedans get around this difificulty ingeniously in a giant story which occurs in a commentary on the Koran.:): There it is related that the giant Uj was born in the days of Adam and lived thirty-five hundred years. He was so tall that Noah's Flood did not trouble him at all, as it barely reached to his middle. I may say that beHef in giants exists throughout Asia, and that many relics of them are preserved — e.g., a grave twenty-seven feet long, opposite the Church Mission at Peshawur, which is held in great honor by both Moham-

* Numbers, xiii. 33. The only other place in the Bible where the word Nephilim occurs. t Deut. i. 28. X Hughes's " Diet, of Islam," art. Giants.

{315)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

medans and Hindus.* Traditions in regard to giants all arise in the same way. Some human beings are much larger than others, and they are supposed to be descended from a larger race. Certain works are discovered built on a grander scale than men now build, or bones of unknown animals are found which are falsely supposed to be human bones_, etc., etc. In regard to the Hebrews, it is plain that, apart from shadowy traditions, they knew next to nothing of the pre- historical races of Canaan. One of the tribes they mention there — the Rephaim — seems to be connected with the spirits of the dead.f But they found in Canaan the remains of some of those megalithic structures, dolmen, menhir, cromlechs, consisting of vast, unhewn stones arranged in circles or piled one on top of another in a way that seemed unaccountable except on the supposition that a larger and stronger humanity had lived and worked there. $ As for the renowned heroes of antiquity, every talented nation has preserved recollections of such men, and we can only be sorry that the Hebrews allowed so many of their oldest tradi- tions to perish. Those who wish to see every ramification of this narrative illustrated from far and near would be interested in Lenormant's brilliant chapter on the Children of God and the Daughters of Men. §

We have now reached the grand catastrophe which made an end of the old world. The result

* Hughes's "Diet, of Islam," art. Giants. f Stade, " Geschichte Israels," vol. i. p. 420, anm. 2. ISee Nowack's " Hebr. Archaologie," Kap. ii. § " Beginnings of History," chap. vii.

(3^6)

End of the Old World

of the first chapter of human history is summed up in the sad words :

Chapter vi. 5. And Jahveh beheld that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and the formation of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6. And Jahveh repented that He had made man on the earth and it grieved Him at His heart.

This leads directly to the story of the Flood, one of the greatest narratives in human litera- ture. It is naturally my wish to study these important chapters with care, and to leave out nothing that ought to be put in. I shall begin by taking account of our materials.

We have already seen a good many times that in this portion of Genesis we have two separate and distinct sources of knowledge — the docu- ment of the Jehovist and the document of the Priestly Writer — which, as a rule, are easily dis- tinguished. These two documents continue to be our only guides through the intricacies of the great Flood narrative, but not in exactly the same manner as heretofore. In the earlier chapters of Genesis, as a rule, they have interpreted each other very little. First one author has told a complete story, then the other has followed with another complete story. The Priestly Writer, for example, gave the first account of Creation, the Jehovist gave the second, and followed it with a long and beautiful narrative of Eden, the Fall, Cain and Abel^ and the genealogy of Cain, in which the Priestly Writer did not once interrupt him. Then the Priestly Writer appeared again with the genealogy of Seth. In the story of the Flood, however, it is different. Both our writers have preserved very complete accounts of that

(317)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

wonderful event, neither of which the editor of Genesis wished to sacrifice. Two courses, there- fore, were open to him. Either he could let these two accounts follow each other, as he did in the case of the two accounts of Creation, which would be rather mechanical; or else he could work both narratives together into one continu- ous story by breaking up each account and fitting the various fragments together as best he could. It is a proof of the care with which the Redactor did his work, that when these two dislocated documents are detached from each other arid are put together again in their original order, we have two independent and nearly complete stor- ies of the Flood — one from the Priestly Writer and the other from the Jehovist.

There is one thing, however, which no editor, however conscientious, could avoid in piecing two narratives together in this way — that is, re- peating himself. This accounts satisfactorily and perfectly for those strange repetitions and discrepancies which run all through the Flood story, and w^hich so many persons have criticised or ridiculed. Those who are ignorant of the manner in which the Book of Genesis was com- posed have some excuse for their surprise or merriment, but for our part we do not criticise our Book on these grounds. On the contrary, we are thankful to our editor for not sacrificing either of his sources to the other. He might easily have done so and have produced one simple, straightforw^ard story without a single contradiction, thereby escaping the ridicule of many fools; but it w^ould have been a much poorer story than the rich and glorious narrative

(3^8)

Structure of Flood Story

we possess. This is one of the occasions on which criticism closes the mouth of infideUty by show- ing the latter that it does not know what it is laughing or railing at. I shall point out some of these repetitions and discrepancies when it is necessary, but I do so with no intention of weakening the veracity of our Book. I only wish that you may see clearly how the Book is constructed and how our two narratives are com- bined. In regard to the trustworthiness of the re- sult, I will merely say that no portion of the Old Testament has been studied with more pains and with more conspicuous success than the story of the Flood. As to the relative proportions of the two documents in the Flood narrative, the larger part belongs to the Priestly Writer; very little seems to have been left out of his original ver- sion. All the computations of the years, the measurements of the ark, etc., are from his pen, and they are made in his characteristic style.

Now let me make good my assertion in regard to repetitions and inconsistencies. There are two introductions to the Flood. The first, which I have just presented, is by the Jehovist. Jahveh repents of making man, and resolves to destroy man and beast and creeping thing. This passage ends with the words, *' But Noah found grace in the eyes of Jahveh." ^ Then the very next verse begins anew with Noah and repeats in different language what was said about the corruption of the earth. The first passage calls God Jahveh, the second calls Him Elohim. So Noah enters the ark twice. In the seventh verse of the seventh chapter we read " Noah went in and his

* Gen. vi. 8.

(319)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him, into the ark because of the waters of the flood." Forty days of continuous rain are supposed to pass, at the end of which time we are told again, '' In the selfsame day entered Noah and Shem and Ham and Japheth . . . into the ark." * The floating of the ark is twice described, " And the flood was forty days on the earth, and the waters increased and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth." f And in the very next verse we read almost in the same words, " And the waters prevailed and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters." Twice all flesh dies. " And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl and of cattle and of beast . . . and every man." % And in the next verse, " All in whose nostrils was the breath of life . . . died. And every living creature was destroyed . . . both man and cattle and creeping things." § Twice the subsiding of the waters is described.! The promise that the flood shall not be repeated is twice given. " And Jahveh smelled a sweet savor, and Jahveh said in his heart, * I will not again curse the ground any more. . . . Neither will I smite any more every thing living, as I have done.' " ^ In the next chapter Elohim makes a promise to Noah on the sign of the rainbow, " I will remember the covenant which is between me and you . . . and nevermore shall the waters rise to a flood to destroy all flesh." **

*	vii.	13.		+	vii.	17.				X	vii.	21.
^	Vll.	22,	23.	1	Vlll.	2, ■ ix,	3, , I	13, 5-	14.	^\	Vlll	. 21.

(320)

Repetitions and Contradictions

Besides these repetitions there are a good many contradictions. In the nineteenth verse of the sixth chapter we read, '' And of every living thing of all flesh two of each sort shalt thou bring into the ark." But in the second verse of the seventh chapter it says, '' Of every beast that is clean thou shalt take seven pairs, the male with his mate, and of beasts that are not clean one pair." According to the eleventh verse of the same chapter the flood arose from two causes — the fountains of the deep were broken up and the windows of heaven were opened. According to the twelfth verse it was caused merely by heavy rains. The length of the rise and fall of the waters is differently estimated. According to the Je- hovist,* the rain fell for forty days and Noah floated on the water in his ark. Then he sent out a raven ; seven days later a dove ; after seven days more he sent the dove a second time, when it brought back an olive leaf. After other seven days he sent the dove a third time. Then he opened the door and went out himself. The whole duration of the Flood, therefore, was forty plus twenty-one days, or sixty-one days. But according to the Priestly Writer, the waters pre- vailed on the earth for one hundred and fifty days,t and it was more than a year before the earth was dry. if

I pass over other repetitions and contradic- tions, but I think those mentioned are sufficient to prove that two separate accounts are closely

*vii. 12. f vii. 24,

X For most of these repetitions and contradictions, see Hol- zinger and Dillmann, who also give other examples.

(321)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

interwoven in these chapters. No sane writer repeats and contradicts himself in this rpanner. In our study of the Flood I think it will be best to treat each account separately. There are, of course, differences of opinion as to the author- ship of some verses, but on the whole the Hne of cleavage is wonderfully distinct.

(322)

Two Accounts of the Flood

Chapter Sixteen: The Two Stories of the Deluge

WE come now to the great story of the Deluge, which, after the narrative of the Creation and Fall of man, is the portion of \ Genesis that "* has had the greatest effect in ^ shaping the thought of the world. The Flood narrative is the composite work of two writers whom we have already learned to know as the Priestly Writer and the Jehovist. Only here, instead of allowing their narratives to follow each other, the editor of Genesis has broken them up and has fitted the fragments together so as to form one rich and varied picture. In this mosaic some parts overlap, i.e., repetitions and discrepan- cies occur which could not well be avoided. The two documents are so dissimilar in style and ex- pression that it is possible, for the most part, to separate them, and in this way to discover the two original accounts, or all that is left of them. That is what I now propose to do. I am sure that we shall obtain a better insight into the nar- rative by studying the two accounts separately, and as nearly as possible as they came from the hands of their authors. The separation of these two documents is the result of a long critical proc- ess which has been going on for many years. I shall not attempt to describe the process now,

(323)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

but shall give you its results. As to the trust- worthiness of these results I will only say that the most gratifying unanimity prevails among the great scholars. As a rule the line of cleavage is clear and distinct. The work of the Jehovist and the work of the Priestly Writer are easily dis- tinguished. It is true, the additions made by the Redactor in giving the work its present form are not always so plain, but where this uncertainty affects an important verse I shall call your at- tention to it. Let us begin with the account of the Jehovist.

Jehovist's Story of the Flood :

Chapter vi. 7. Then said Jahveh, " I will blot out men whom I have created from the earth, man as well as beast, worm and bird of the sky, since I repent that I made them." *

/ No mention has as yet been made of any cor- *^fuption among the beasts, although the Priestly Writer speaks of the corruption of all flesh upon the earth, in which the beasts may be included. That need not surprise us, however, as the pur- pose of this verse is to lead to the Flood, which in the nature of things would drown beasts as well as men. Only the fishes were safe in that judgment.

Jahveh repents that He made man and de- termines to destroy him. There is much that is curious in this conception. Such language ap- plied to the Diety is what theologians call an- thropopathic, i.e., it imputes human passion to

* From the use of the Priestly Writer's word, ^ara = create, which is not an expression of the Jehovist, as well as from the enumeration, in the Priestly Writer's style, of beast, worm, and bird, this verse is usually ascribed to the Redactor.

(324)

Anthropomorphic Conceptions

God. The expression is bold, but very naif. Jahveh, it is plain, is not omniscient. He was not able to foresee the result of creating such a being as man. Had He foreseen the consequences. He would not have created him. So Jahveh is sorry for what He has done, ''-it grieved Him at His heart." Jahveh naturally expected man to be good, and man is evil. Instead of attempting to make him better, Jahveh determines to destroy him. That is not the usual thought or language of the Old Testament, and we may be sure such an idea did not grow up on the soil of Israel's re- ligious faith. It is not a religious idea, but a sad admission of failure on the part of God, and, moreover, the purpose is not carried out. In the deliverance of Noah and his family, the seed is preserved out of which a second humanity will >^ grow, in most respects as bad as the first.

Chapter vii. i. And Jahveh said to Noah, " Come thou and all thy house into the ark."

The Priestly Writer is careful to enumerate the persons who are to be admitted. Nothing is said here about the building of the ark, which the Jehovist must have described. His description, however, was allowed to fall because the Priestly Writer described the ark more specifically, giv- ing dimensions according to his custom. The word for ark {tebah) occurs only in this narrative and in Exodus,* where the mother of Moses made an ark of bulrushes to serve as a watertight cradle for her babe. It has been regarded as an Egyptian word,t although we should rather ex- pect a Babylonian word here.t It does not ap-

*Exod. ii. 3. f Gesenius, '* Thesaurus." :{: Halevy, Jensen. (325)'

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

pear to mean a ship or vessel, but a box or chest, incapable of propulsion.

" For thee have I seen righteous before me in this gen- eration.*

2, 3. " Of all clean animals thou shalt take seven pairs, f the male and his mate; and of animals which are not clean, one pair, the male and his mate. Also of the birds of the sky seven pairs [of each kind] in order to keep their seed alive on the face of all the earth."

The distinction between clean and unclean ani- mals, in a liturgical sense, at least, is an antici- pation here. Noah is commanded to preserve a larger number of clean and useful animals to guard against possible accidents, to provide him with the means of sacrificing after the Flood, and in order that the clean animals may reproduce themselves more rapidly than the unclean.^ No such distinction is drawn in the Hebrew text be- tween the birds, and yet the raven's presence in the ark proves that other than clean birds were admitted, the raven being accounted unclean. ** Every raven after his kind shall be an abomina- tion." §

4. " For after seven days I will cause rain to fall for forty days and forty nights on the earth, and every existing thing which I have made I will blot out from the earth."

7. Then Noah and all his house || went into the ark [for safety] from the waters of the flood.

8, 9. Of clean beasts and of unclean, and of birds and of all that creep on the ground, they went in, in each case two

* One name for the Babylonian Noah, Hasis Hadra, means pious and wise. (Addis.)

f Literally, " seven seven." Here seven and seven, i.e., seven pairs.

X Dillmann.

^ Lev. xi. 15 ; see also Deut. xiv. 14.

II The Priestly Writer's formula, sons, wife, and sons' wives, was inserted here by the Redactor.

(326)

Jehovist's Narrative

[in pairs] to Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as Elohim commanded Noah.*

i6. And Jahveh shut [the door] after him.f

10. And after seven days the waters of the flood were on the earth.

12. And a torrent of rain fell on the earth for forty days and forty nights.

17. And the flood was on the earth forty days, t And the waters increased and carried the ark, and it floated high above the earth.

22. Everything that had in its nostrils the breath of life, everything that lived on dry land died.

Our narrative does not contemplate tlie de- struction of vegetattion, which must surely have taken place, since no pains were taken to avert this misfortune, as in the Persian story. When the waters recede the plants and trees are found living in their old places.

23. And he [Jahveh] blotted out every existing thing on the surface of the ground, and Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the ark.

Chapter viii. 2^. And the torrent of rain from heaven ceased.

3^ And the waters subsided from the earth more and more.

6. And it came to pass at the end of forty days that Noah opened the window [hatch] of the ark which he had made.

7. And he sent forth a raven, and it went back and forth until the waters were dried up upon the earth. §

The raven here, as everywhere, is mentioned as a bird of ill omen. Because of its well-known habit of preying" on the dead it would not search

* The Redactor has substituted Elohim in this verse. The Sam. Pent., onkelos ; Vulg., etc., read Jahveh. (Addis.)

f This last anthropomorphism has evidently been forced from its place. (Dillmann and Addis.)

t Holzinger ascribes this verse to the Priestly Writer.

§ The Septuagint has "and departing did not return," which is evidently a mistake, else what was the purpose of sending out the dove ?

(327)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

for land as Noah wished it to do. Sated with carrion, it fluttered back to the ark and perched there until hunger drove it forth again, so it was useless for Noah's purpose. This bold and intel- ligent fowl is one of the most ancient and famous of birds. Almost alone among birds, it refuses to doff its glossy, black livery on the ice fields of the polar regions. Members of this family are found all over the world, from Asia to America. On account of its strange appearance and un- canny habits, the raven has been regarded with superstitious reverence by almost all nations as the bird of the dead. By the Greeks it was con- sidered as prophetic and was sacred to Apollo. In Northern mythology* two ravens (Hugin and Munin) sit on Odin's shoulders and fly forth every day to investigate Time; they* are a symbol of the omniscience of the god. The Roman augurs regarded the raven as the bird of m.ost evil import. As the symbol of the shades of the dead the Hindus gave him the food intended for the dead. Much more important for our pur- pose is the fact that the vikings on their voyages were in the habit of carrying many ravens with I them, which they let fly free from time to time \ to discover the direction of the land. Greenland is said to have been discovered in this way. Alex- ander the Great also is reported to have em- ployed ravens to guide him.f

8. And he sent out a dove to see if the waters had abated from off the face of the ground.

From verse ten, which speaks of Noah's wait-

^thologi s Lexik

"(3^

* Grimm, " Deutsche Mythologie," i. 122.

f Meyer's " Conversations Lexikon," 5te Auf., art. Rabe.

The Sending Forth of the Birds

ing yet seven other days before sending out the dove a second time, it would appear that seven days, the mention of which is omitted in the text, elapsed between the sending of the raven and the sending of the dove the first time. This is important in calculating the duration of the Flood.

9. But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned to him in the ark, for waters were on the face of the whole earth.

It is unnecessary for me to say much of the dove, one of the best known of birds, which, on account of its gentleness, its fertility, and its mysterious cooing, Christianity has associated with the Holy Spirit. Among the ancients, the Chinese and Egyptians used doves as we do still, to transmit messages. By their assistance the Greeks sent to Athens the news of their victories over the Persians. The Romans also employed carrier pigeons, at the latest date, under the em- perors. Diocletian is said to have established a regular pigeon post."*" Ihering confidently as- serts that the dove was the marine compass of the Babylonians, and that every ship going to sea had doves on board, which were let loose if it was de- sired to ascertain the direction of the neighbor- ing coast or islands. f Although Ihering gives no authority for this statement, it is extremely probable, and this circumstance in itself indi- cates that our account of the sending out of the birds originated among a sea-faring people, not among the Hebrews, who never were navigators.

* Meyer's " Con. Lex.," art. Tauben. f " Evolution of the Aryan," 170, 171.

(329)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

And he put forth his hand and took her and brought her into the ark.

10. And he waited yet seven days more, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark.

11. And the dove came to him at eventide, and behold, */ in her beak a fresh oHve leaf. So Noah knew that the

■^ ^ J waters were abated from ofif the face of the earth.

>^

The fresh olive leaf was a sign to Noah that the waters had fallen considerably, as the olive does not grow on high mountains.*

12. And he waited seven days longer and sent out the dove, but this time she did not return to him again.

13 '^. And Noah removed the roof of the ship (ark) and looked out, and lo ! the face of the ground was dry.

This verse throws light on the sending out of the birds. The *' window " mentioned above was apparently a little hatch in the cover of the great chest, so high above Noah's head that looking through it he could see nothing but a small patch of sky. Hence he was obHged to depend on birds to take observations for him. We must re- member, however, that this episode of the birds is taken directly from the Babylonian Flood story, or, rather, it is a part of it. The Baby-, Ionian Noah, however, has a rigged ship, not a chest, and the birds were originally introduced with reference to navigation.

20. And Noah built an altar to Jahveh, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings upon the altar.

Noah's exit from the ark was omitted here be- cause it was related more circumstantially by the Priestly Writer. His first act most naturally is a

* Dillmann. (330)

Origin of Altar

solemn sacrifice of thanksgiving to Jahveh for his own preservation and for the preservation of those he loved, an example to many persons who ask for the prayers of the Church on going to sea, but who forget to give thanks when they safely reach land. This is the first mention of an altar in the Bible. Such an act as the erection of an altar and the offering of sacrifice in Armenia we may be very sure would not be tolerated by the Priestly Writer, since he held to the unhistorical idea that an altar might be reared only in Jerusa- lem, and that acceptable sacrifice could be of- fered only by the sons of Aaron. This view, how- ever, is not shared by the Jehovist, and it is con- tradicted on every page of Israel's early history. The motive underlying the development of the altar seems to have been something like this: The early Semites, including the Hebrews, be- lieved that every object of Nature which re- minded them of the greatness or the goodness of God, such as a refreshing fountain, a fine tree, a rock, or a mountain, was the abiding place of deity. They were therefore in the habit of bring- ing gifts and offerings to such a place, exposing them on the rock, hanging them on the tree, or pouring oil over a stone, as Jacob did in Bethel when he said, '' Jahveh is indeed in this place, although I did not know it." Charming as this belief was, it was a great advance when men learned that the Deity not only lived among the objects He had created, but that He would also take up His abode among men, and that where an artificial heap of stones was raised and sacrifice was offered the god was present and the sacrifice was accepted. The tendency in Israel, however,

(331)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

which finally resulted in the one central sanctuary at Jerusalem, gained ground slowly. For a long time it was believed that Jahveh was to be found only on certain ancient mountains, or that He preferred to dwell in the neighborhood of some old sanctuary, where He had been worshipped time out of mind. This is why places like Bethel and Shechem, Hebron and Mount Carmel, were regarded as so sacred that people would travel a long distance to worship there. Even after these old places of worship were discredited and the altar of Jerusalem alone was recognized, the presence of God was still a very local thing, and from the time the Jews were expelled from Jeru- salem, to this day, no sacrifice has been offered by them.*

21. And Jahveh smelled the sweet fragrance, and Jahveh said in His heart, " I will not again curse the ground any more on account of man, for the thought of man's heart is evil from its youth up, and I will not again smite every living thing as I have done."

The religious significance of this verse is very peculiar. The conception of Jahveh pacified by the sweet smell of burning fat and flesh is cer- tainly crude, though the expression may be only an echo of the Babylonian story, which is cruder still. The motive of Jahveh's determination not to destroy human life again is left uncertain. Is it because the extinction of so bad a creature as man is not worth the sacrifice of earth's crea- tures, or is it that Jahveh sorrowfully takes for granted that the wickedness of man is innate and permanent, and despairs of making him better?

*See W. R. Smith, " Religion of the Semites," pp. 184, 189, 358, ff. Also Hastings' '* Diet, of the Bible," 1898, art. Altar.

(332)

The Priestly Writer's Story

Either thought is depressing, but of man's im- provement by God's help and of his final victory over evil there is not a word. So even the Flood has failed to accomplish its drastic purpose, and the Jehovist's story ends merely with the promise that henceforth the regular processes of Nature shall not be interrupted on man's account.

22. " While the earth remains, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."

I refrain from calling your attention to the great salient characteristics of this story, as I can bring them out better in connection with the nar- rative of the Priestly Writer. I therefore merely remind you that in the document of the Jehovist, supplemented by a few verses of the Redactor, we still have a perfectly intelligible and tolerably complete account of the Flood. The two prin- cipal episodes lacking in the Jehovist's narratives are the building of the ark and the departure from the ark; and they are lacking because they are related more acceptably by the Priestly Writer, to whose account I now turn. I think all will perceive the difference in the style and in the order of ideas.

Priestly Writer's Story of the Flood :

Chapter vi. 9, 10, 11. This is the history of Noah: Noah was a righteous man, a perfect man among his contem- poraries. Noah walked with Elohim. And Noah begot three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.* But the earth was corrupted before Elohim, and the earth was full of violence.

* We learn the number and the names of Noah's sons first from the Priestly Writer.

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

The Priestly Writer says nothing about the cause of this corruption. In the first chapter of Genesis he described how God made all things good; in his genealogy of the patriarchs he let signs appear of man's increasing deterioration. Now the fall from God is complete, and the cor- ruption of life calls for judgment. According to him this corruption extends to all flesh, including even the animals. Rapine and violence have be- come the rule.

12. Then Elohim saw that the earth was profoundly cor- rupt, for all flesh had corrupted its way on the earth.

13. And Elohim said to Noah, " The end of all flesh is determined before me, for the earth is filled with wanton violence through them. So I am about to destroy them from ofif the earth.

14. " Make for thyself an ark [a chest] of pine wood, with cells [nests] thou shalt make the ark, and thou shalt smear it with pitch [bitumen] inside and outside."

The cells or compartments are for the differ- ent animals and birds. It is very plain that these words were written for a people who knew noth- ing of ship building. The ark is merely a great box, not a keeled vessel. It can only float, and is incapable of propulsion either by sails or by oars. , The direction to caulk it would be superfluous to anyone acquainted with the building of ships.

15. " And according to these measurements shalt thoti make it: the length of the ark, three hundred cubits; its breadth, fifty cubits; and its height, thirty cubits."

It is extraordinary that the precise length of a linear standard so frequently mentioned in the Bible as the Hebrew cubit should be unknown to us ; yet such is the case. The natural cubit, as its

(334)

The Hebrew Cubit

name implies, is the distance from the elbow {kvI^itov, Latin, ulna, ell) to the end of the mid- dle finger. As this varies in different persons, it helps us to no exact conclusion. The matter is further complicated by the fact that the Hebrews at different times employed two different linear standards both called cubits {ammah). Ezekiel,* in calculating his imaginary temple, tells us that he makes use of a cubit (evidently an older cubit) which is one hand breadth longer than the cubit in common use. The common cubit, according to all accounts, was divided into six hand breadths. Ezekiel's cubit, therefore, must have contained seven hand breadths. Unfortunately, the breadth of the human hand varies as much as the length of the forearm, and no material object measured in terms of the Hebrew cubit has come down to us. The length of the old Egyp- tian cubit we know from measuring sticks pre- served in Egyptian tombs. It equalled 527 mm., or about 20.74 English inches, and was divided into seven hand breadths. It may, therefore, very well have corresponded with the older Hebrew standard mentioned by Ezekiel. The Egyptians also possessed a smaller cubit of six hand breadths, containing 450 mm., or 17.71 inches. That the Egyptian cubit was the standard em- ployed in Israel in the earliest times is by no means certain. In the light of the Tel-el-amarna tablets it would seem probable that the early He- brew standards of measurement were borrowed from Babylon. The Babylonian linear standard was slightly greater than the Egyptian. The Babylonians likewise possessed two cubits, one

*Ezek. xl. 5, xliii. 13.

(335)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

estimated from the scale on the drawing board of the statue of Gudea, found in Telloh, in South Babylonia, of ^ mm., or about 19.58 English inches; and another larger royal cubit of 550 mm., or 21.55 EngHsh inches. It will be seen that the Babylonian cubit stands to the Egyptian as II :io, or more nearly as 22:21. In any case, the Hebrew cubit corresponds with the smaller cubit of six hand breadths, and opinion still leans to the cubit of Egypt rather than to that of Baby- lon. All the old rabbinical calculations based on eggs, barleycorns, etc., lead to nothing. Neither do the dimensions of Solomon's temple, the con- tents of the brazen sea, etc., any longer lead to certain conclusions.* I know of only one object measured by Hebrew standards to which I can point. In the celebrated Siloam inscription dis- covered in Jerusalem in 1880 we read, '' The water flowed from the spring [i.e., the Virgin's spring] to the pool for a distance of 1200 cubits." Captain Conders, who measured the tunnel, found it to be 537.6 m., or about 1763.77 English feet in length. From this measurement, which it must be confessed is rough, the length of the Hebrew cubit would be about 448 mm., or 17.9 inches. This is surprisingly near the lesser Egyp- tian cubit of 17.71 inches, considering the clumsy method by which the Hebrew cubit was cal- culated.!

Estimating the Hebrew cubit roughly at 18 inches, the length of the ark would be 450 feet,

* See F. Hultsch, " Griechische und Romische Metrologie." Berlin, 1882, p. 437, etc.

f See Nowack's " Hebr. Alterthumer," i. 199 ff., and Ben- zinger, 178 ff.

(336)

The Ark

its breadth 75 feet, and its height 45 feet. Its di- mensions, therefore, are not very different from those of a large steamship of the present time. We must remember, however, that the ark was simply an oblong chest, not a moulded vessel. Its floor space would be about 33,750 square feet. Multiplying this by three for the three stories, we should have a total floor space of 101,250 square feet. Allowing each animal a standing room of 5 feet square, or 25 square feet, the ark would have accommodated four thousand and fifty ani- mals, without allowing any space for their prov- ender. Whether a chest of these proportions would maintain its equilibrium has been ques- tioned, and answered by the Mennonite Peter Jensen and by other Dutchmen, who, in the sev- enteenth century, built several arks of these pro- portions on a reduced scale, which proved able to float and to carry a cargo.* Such vessels, of course, could not withstand a heavy sea, and Noah's ark did not go to sea. It merely floated on the flood as houses float in a freshet. The next features of the ark are very obscure.

16. " A window thou shalt make to the ark above, a cubit wide shalt thou make it."

To this it may be objected that so small a win- dow would give neither light nor air to so large a vessel. Others translate this word " roof," as a roof is not otherwise mentioned, and the ark would certainly require a roof to prevent it from filling with rain. Dillmann ingeniously thinks of an air space a cubit high under the roof of the ark, and running all the way around it, which

* Dillmann.

(337)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

would have contributed greatly to the comfort of the passengers, could those in the lower stories have partaken of its benefits.

" And the door of the ark shalt thou place in its side."

Whether in the long side or in the end we are not told.

" And with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it."

St. Augustine was perfectly right in thinking that it would have taken Noah a hundred years to make such a vessel, even if he had had good tools.

17, 18. " For behold, I am bringing the flood waters on the earth, to destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life from under the heavens. All that is on the earth will die. But I will est?blish my covenant with thee, and thou shalt enter the ark, thou and thy sons, and thy wife and thy sons' wives with thee."

This is the first mention in the Bible of the great word covenant which played so important a part in the religion of the Hebrews. It means here what it means always, a solemn engagement into which God deigns to enter with man, a promise that if man will do his part God will not fail him. The nature of all God's covenants is finely brought out in this passage. God prom- ises to save Noah from destruction on the condi- tion that Noah will do what he can to save him- self. Noah, on his side, has faith in God. He be- lieves that the calamity of which God warned him is coming, and he prepares to meet it. God,

(338)

Collecting the Animals

however, does not build the ark for him. Noah has to do that himself. God tells him that he will need an ark, gives him the plan, and lets him ex- ecute it, — an admirable picture of the way God saves men by teaching them to save themselves.

19. " And of every living thing of all flesh, two of each sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee, male and female shall they be.

20. " Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after its kind, of every thing which creeps on the ground after its kind, two of each shall go with thee into the ark to be kept alive."

It is not said that God imposed on Noah the duty of capturing all these birds and beasts, which would have been a most tiresome task, and would have caused him to wander far and wide. They are rather represented as coming to Noah of their own accord in an orderly procession, two and two, male and female.

21. "And thou shalt take to thyself all food which is eaten, and gather it beside thee, and it shall be for nourishment for thee and for them."

22. Thus did Noah: according to all that Elohim com- manded him, so did he.

Chapter vii. 6. Now Noah was six hundred years old when the deluge of waters was on the earth.

II. In the six hundredth year of the life of Noah, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month,* all the springs of the great abyss gushed out and the windows of heaven were opened.

So the Priestly Writer explains the coming of the Flood strictly in accordance with his cos- mical views laid down in the first chapter of Gen- esis. The flood waters came from two sources : first, from the great abyss (Tehom) beneath the earth, whose depths, confined by God at creation,

* The existence of the calendar is here tacitly assumed.

(339)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

suddenly burst their bonds. These fountains, ris- ing through subterranean channels, over- whelm the earth, as they did before Elohim sep- arated them from the dry land. Secondly, the heavenly reservoirs contribute their quota. Elo- him opens the windows of the firmament which holds the upper waters in check, and lets them pour down in rain upon the earth. In short, the world returns to chaos, and the coming of the flood is far more powerfully depicted than by the Jehovist's forty days of rain. Is this sudden erup- tion of waters from beneath merely a part of the Priestly Writer's cosmical machinery? Or is it based on an ancient tradition of some seismic dis- turbance which launched a tidal wave of gigantic height ? That is a question we shall have to dis- cuss later.

13. In that same day went Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth into the ark, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them into the ark.

Noah's wife, it will be noticed, is always men- tioned after his sons.

14. They and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the ground after its kind, and every winged thing, every bird of every sort.

15. And they went in to Noah, into the ark, two and two, of all flesh in which is the breath of life.

16. And they that went in were a male and a female of all flesh, as Elohim had commanded him.

18. And the waters increased more and more upon the earth, and all the high mountains which were under the waters.

19. And the waters prevailed to the utmost upon the earth, and all the high mountains which were under the whole heaven were covered.

20. Fifteen cubits did the waters prevail, so that the mountains were covered.

(340)

Height of the Waters

The object of the writer is to prove conclu- sively that all humanity and all animals, except those in the ark, perished. Hence it was neces- sary that all mountains should be covered. This, of course, is a physical impossibility through any causes known to us, such as tidal waves, rains, hurricanes, etc. Exactly how many times all the water now on the earth would have to be multi- plied to produce such an effect I am not prepared to say. But it is not necessary to call in the tes- timony of geologists like Lyell to prove that no such universal deluge has taken place during the present geologic era. Even if such masses of water had been heaped up on the earth, what would have become of them? How would it be possible for them to disappear in six months, as our writer says, and to leave the earth in its former condition, even with its vegetation unin- jured? According to the statement of the Priestly Writer, the waters stood nearly twenty- three feet high above the tops of the highest mountains, but soon after the flood began to abate the ark grounded on Mount Ararat. Mount Ararat, then, in the opinion of our writer, was the highest mountain in the world, as not until two and a half months after the ark had grounded did the peaks of other mountains be- come visible. But, on the contrary, there are other mountains more than ten thousand feet higher than the mountains of Ararat. Again we read, after two months and a half had elapsed, that the waters were entirely drained from off the earth. According to this calculation, supposing the waters to have subsided at a uniform rate. Mount Ararat must have been nearly twice as

(341)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

high as any other mountain in the world, which is a great mistake. Some peaks of Mount Ararat, however, are about seventeen thousand feet high, and if these were submerged the whole inhabited world would have been covered. But at the time at which the Hebrew tradition places the Flood, Egypt, in the valley of the Nile, had attained a high degree of civilization, and not only did it escape destruction, but it has not even a tradi- tion that any flood took place.

21. Then all flesh which moves on earth died, birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing which swarms on the earth, and mankind.

24. And the waters increased on the earth for one hun- dred and fifty days.

Chapter viii. i, 2. Then E^ohim remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the cattle that were with him in the ark. And Elohim caused a wind to pass over the earth so that the waters fell, and the springs of the abyss and the windows of heaven were closed.

3*^. And after one hundred and fifty days the waters were decreasing.

4. So the ark stood still on the mountains of Ararat, in the seventh month on the seventeenth day of the month.

(342)

Mountains of Ararat

(

Chapter Seventeen:

The End of the Deluge. The Flood Tradition in Antiquity

WE left the ark resting on one of the peaks of Ararat, which, in the estimation of our writer, was the highest mountain in the world. By the '' mountains of Ararat " we natur- ally understand the two peaks of Great and Little Ararat in Armenia, between Russia, Turkey, and Persia. That, however, is not precisely what the Hebrew writer meant to convey. Ararat is men- tioned in two other places in the Old Testament, each time as a country. Once, after the sons of Sennacherib had murdered their father, we read that they fled to Ararat,* and once Jeremiah called on the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Aschenaz to rise against Babylon. f There is therefore no definite reason to associate the '' mountains of Ararat " with any particular peak. From the description of Noah's landing place as the highest mountain in the world, we should infer that the writer did not possess any definite geographical knowledge. There is also no good reason for associating the mountains called Ara- rat on our modern maps with the landing place of Noah. The Armenians simply called them Masis. Several other mountains have also been

*2 Kings, xix. 37. f Jeremiah, li. 27.

(343)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

identified with Noah's landing place. St. Je- rome * speaks definitely of the plain of the mid- dle Araxes, at the foot of the great mountain (Taurus), relying on an older tradition. The Jews from the first century invariably identified the country Ararat with Kardu (in Targums, also Peshitta). Kardu is the land of the Kurds, its mountains lie between the Tigris, the Upper Zab, and Lake Van, where A. H. Sayce seems to lo- cate Noah's landing.f With this tradition Berosus seems to agree, if we read Cordyean in- stead of Corcyraean.$ Against this Noldeke rightly objects that the Kurds could not have composed the kingdom in the time of Jeremiah, hence Kurdistan is improbable. Neither can Ararat by any means be identified with Mount Nisir, the landing place of Sit-napistim, which lies east of Assyria. It is therefore impossible to de- fine Noah's landing place more exactly than by saying that it took place on one of the mountains of the ancient country of Ararat, in southeastern Armenia, between the Araxes and Lake Van. The mountain we call Ararat lies almost in the Icentre of Armenia, nearly equally distant from the Black Sea and the Caspian, the Mediter- ranean and the Persian Gulf, on a plateau about three thousand feet above the level of the sea. It rises in the form of a graceful, isolated cone to the height of 17,112 feet above the sea. An ex- plorer who ascended Ararat in 1868 declared that no mountain he had ever seen made on him the impression of the " Armenian Giant," whose

* Jerome on Isaiah, xxxvii. 38, quoted by Bochart. I Hastings' "Bible Diet.," art. Ararat.

:f Syncellus' Chron, in Cory's " Fragments," 19. Also in Josephus, " Antiq." i. 3, 6.

(344)

Landing Place of Ark

steep sides for nine thousand feet were covered with snow.*

Professor Tiele and Dr. Kosters, in the new " Encyclopaedia Biblica," attempt to make the landing place of Noah coincide with the moun- tains in the land of Nisir, placing the latter further to the northeast, just south of the Caspian Sea. There lies the celebrated mythical sky-mountain, Elburz, called by the northern Iranians Hara- berezaiti, or Hara haraiti bares. The latter name Tiele and Kosters think may have been con- founded by the Hebrew writer with the land of Urarti, or Ararat. In this conjecture I see they have not been followed by the map-maker of the Encyclopaedia.! (Every critic should be his own map-maker.) Welcome as would be an agree- ment between the cuneiform and the Biblical accounts of the landing place of the ark, this con- jecture can hardly be accepted, i. The moun- tains of Nisir would have to be moved from the country southeast of the lower Zab mentioned in Asurnasirbal's inscription % to the land directly south of the Caspian Sea. 2. There is nothing to show that the Biblical writers knew of the dis- tant mountains of Elburz by either of their names, and the corruption of Hara haraiti bares to Ararat is a mere conjecture. 3. Tiele and Kosters observe a discreet silence in regard to the tradition of the landing place of the ark preserved by Berosus. It is a fact of great importance, however, that Berosus, both in the Flood story preserved by Alexander Polyhistor

* *' Encyclo. Britannica," art. Ararat.

jSchrader, K. A. T. 53.

\ See map of Syria, Assyria, etc.

■^4 V

(345)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

and in that of Abydenus, specifically mentions Armenia as the landing place of the ark. Alex- ander Polyhistor, it is true, first merely says that the ark stranded on some mountain, but Xisu- thros, in taking leave of his friends, informs them that the land in which they are is Armenia. Abydenus, however, informs us that after Sisu- thros had embarked in his ship, he " sailed im- mediately to Armenia." We have here, there- fore, a corrobation of the Biblical account, which is all the stronger because it is indirect. Genesis merely says that the ark grounded on a mountain of the land of Ararat (eastern Armenia), while Berosus, using the name in vogue in his day, calls the landing place Armenia. Of late years the singular confirmation of Berosus' history through the cuneiform sources have led scholars to place a high estimate on the accuracy of the traditions recorded by him. Neither does this narrative appear to have been tampered with by the writers through whose hands it passed, as we can show in at least one instance. Alexander Polyhistor and Abydenus relate that in after ages the people collected fragments of the ark which they used for charms and amulets, and this tale Josephus, who also drew his information from Berosus, records in almost the exact language of Alexander.* Since Scheil's fragment of the Flood story of Sippara was discovered, it is rec- ognized that more than one Babylonian Flood story existed in ancient times, and Berosus, who speaks constantly of Sippara, may very well have followed that tradition rather than the tradi-

* Compare Josephus, " Ant. Jud." i. 3, 6, with Alex. Polyh. in Cory's " Fracrments," 29.

(346)

Armenia the Landing Place.

tion contained in Izdubar, from which he fre- quently departs so widely. I abide by the opin- ion, therefore, that Ararat and Armenia repre- sent one ancient tradition of the landing place of the ark which is not identical with the landing in Nisir, and that this old tradition is not to be shifted to the land south of the Caspian Sea on the strength of a doubtful etymology.

In regard to the reason why the mountains of Ararat or Armenia were chosen as the landing place of the ark, I may venture the following ob- servations :

1. It appears to be certain that the Priestly Writer in mentioning Ararat followed an ancient tradition preserved by Berosus. Scheil's '' copy" of the Flood tablet of Sippara, which dates from the twenty-second century before Christ, gives us a hint as to how old this tradition may be, while the fact that even at Berosus' time people continued to look for pieces of the ark in Ar- menia indicates that the legend which fixed the landing place of the ark in the mountains of Ar- menia had sunk deep into the popular mind.

2. Although it is plain from the allusions of Isaiah and Jeremiah to Ararat that the Hebrews possessed some geographical knowledge of Ar- menia, it does not follow that such was the case at the time the Flood legend was formed in Bab- ylonia. On the contrary, there is nothing more mythical in Berosus' account than his allusions to this mountain. After being warned by Kro- nos,* Xisuthros asks the deity whither he is to sail. The directness of the reply startles us, " To the gods !" and Abydenus adds, "he sailed imme-

* In Alex. Polyh.

(347)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

diately to Armenia." The lofty peaks of Ar- menia, therefore, appear to have been regarded by the Babylonians as a mythical mountain of the gods. Another mythical touch in Berosus is the translation of Xisuthros' pilot, which oc- curs in no other version. This circumstance shows us that Xisuthros' voyage was not yet over, and that he needed a pilot to guide him to the abode of the gods. When Xisuthros dis- embarked he was immediately translated ; he was taken up to live with the gods, and was seen no more on earth. That the Babylonians enter- tained belief in such a mythical mountain is well known. Indeed, it is probably from them that the idea passed to so many other peoples. Like other nations, they placed this mountain to the north,* and the great northern mountains of Ar- arat, so long as they were little known, would have served well for this purpose. Even the Hebrews were by no means strangers to this be- lief. I remind you of the striking description of the mountain of God in Ezekiel, and of the equally striking words of Isaiah :

" Thou didst say in thy heart: the heavens will I scale, I will sit on the Mount of Assembly in the recesses of

the North, I will mount above even the hills of the clouds, I will match the Most High." f

In the Book of Genesis the mythical features of this mountain have almost wholly disap- peared. Otherwise the writer would hardly have ventured to assert that the waters of the Flood rose over the mountain of God. The only

* Jensen, "Cosmol." 23.

f Is. xiv. 13, 14. Cheyne's translation.

(348)

Duration of Flood

mythical feature of Ararat is its vast height. It is not only the highest mountain of the world, but it is more than twice as high as any other moun- tain. In the account of Manu's flood in the Sata- patha Brahmana, Manu was directed to sail to '' yonder Northern Mountain," which was after- ward called '' Manu's Descent."

5. And the waters went on decreasing until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the summits of the mountains appeared.

13^ And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year [of Noah's life], in the first month, on the first day of the month, that the waters were drained off from the earth.

14. And in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry.

This is the place to ascertain the length of the Flood in the estimation of the Priestly Writer. The Flood, it will be remembered, according to his computation, began on the seventeenth day of the second month. The waters increased for one hundred and fifty days, after which time the ark grounded on the mountain on the seven- teenth day of the seventh month. On the first day of the tenth month, as we have just seen, the tops of the mountains became visible. On the first day of the first month of the next year the earth was drained of the waters, and on the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was entirely dry. The flood, therefore, lasted from the seventeenth day of the second month of one year to the twenty-seventh day of the second month of the next year, or one year and eleven days. This calculation seems to be very simple. The early Hebrews employed the lunar month of twenty-nine days, twelve hours

(349)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

and forty-four minutes.* Twelve such months contained three hundred and fifty-four days; adding eleven days, we obtain three hundred and sixty-five days. The author therefore evidently wishes to show that the Flood lasted a full solar year. But with this supposition his other calcu- lations of time do not agree. Between the sev,- enteenth day of the second month, when Noah entered the ark, and the seventeenth day of the seventh month, when the ark rested on Ararat, exactly five months elapsed. If, as we suppose, these are lunar months, they would consist of one hundred and forty-seven or one hundred and forty-eight days. On the contrary, the author says distinctly that they were one hundred and fifty daySjt or even more than one hundred and fifty days, if we allow a little time for the settUng of the waters before the ark grounded. In this case, after all, the author had in mind a month of thirty days, not the old lunar month. This is an inconsistency, or perhaps we had better say a difficulty. The 354 + 11 = 365 days is very at- tractive as assigning a full solar year to the Flood; while on the other hand 360+ 11 = 371, or 365 + 11 = 376, has no significance. Budde J

* This, however, was in early, probably in nomadic days. I think the lunar month is proved, among other things, by a week of seven days, by the fact that the Hebrew day began in the even- ing, by the name for month, chodesh = new moon, by the im- portance of the new moon as a festival. This clumsy method of dividing the year could hardly have continued long after the oc- cupation of Canaan, and a month of thirty days seems to have been in vogue before the Exile, probably borrowed from the Canaanites. See Nowack, " Hebr. Archaol." 215-217. Ben- zinger, 199-200. The old lunar month is introduced here as a piece of archaeology.

f Gen. viii. 3.

X " Urgeschichte," 273.

(350)

Time of Year

therefore conjectures that the one hundred and f^fty days estimated as five months are merely round numbers, which is improbable, as the Priestly Writer is very careful in calculations of this sort. Dillmann, on the contrary, rightly ad- mits that we have here two inconsistent calcula- tions, probably from two different hands. One represents the Flood as lasting for a full solar year (354 +11 days). The other calculation represents the Flood as one hundred and fifty days in coming and doubtless as one hundred and fifty days in going ; or, as lasting three hun- dred days, i. e., ten months of thirty days. Per- haps this writer originally added two months for the drying of the earth, which v/ould round out a year of three hundred and sixty days. It will be noticed that the introduction of the one hundred and fifty days, which caused so much disturbance, is not necessary for the calculation of the Flood, which rests on months and days of months. If the one hundred and fifty days were added by the editor, it is strange that he did not harmonize them better with the forty days of the Jehovist.

As for the time of year when the Flood began, we are told that it came in the second month on the seventeenth day of the month. The old He- brew calendar dated the beginning of the year from the autuqjn.* It is true, in the later parts of the Pentateuch, the Priestly Writer states that the year began in the spring with the month Nisan (April), but he represents that change as introduced by Moses, f so that we may be sure he would not commit the mistake of regarding this

*Nowack, 220 ; Benzinger, igg. Cf. Exod. xxiii. i6, xxxiv. 22. f Exod. xii. 2.

(35>)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

system as in vogue at the time of the Flood. With him, therefore, the year began with Tishri (roughly, October), and the second month would be Marcheschvan, or November, when the heavy rains of Palestine began to fall. Why the seven- teenth day of the month was selected and not the fifteenth, on which the full moon falls, has not been discovered.*

15. Then Elohim spoke to Noah and said,

16. " Go out of the ark, thou, and thy wife and thy sons and thy sons' wives with thee.

17. " Bring out with thee all the beasts that are with thee, of all flesh, birds and cattle, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, that they may swarm on the earth and be fruitful and multiply on the earth."

18. So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him.

19. All animals, all creeping things, everything that moves on the earth, according to their species went out with him from the ark.

The Priestly Writer's interest in creeping, crawling, and swarming creatures is truly aston- ishing. His too frequent allusions to these disa- greeable animals rather chill our interest in his story. One would suppose him to have been an entomologist in love with his darling science, and more concerned in the fate of bugs than of men. Immediately on the exit from the ark follows God's covenant with Noah.

Chapter ix. i. Then Elohim blessed Noah and his sons, ard said unto them, " Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth."

* Bacon (" Hebraica," viii. 85) conjectures that, according to the Jehovist, Noah had forty-seven days for building the ark and seven days for collecting the animals. Supposing the warning to have been given him on the first day of the new year, the flood would have begun on the seventeenth day of the second month. ^ Both the forty and the seven days, however, are mere conjectures. ~

(352)

Man's Relation to the Animals

The first blessing and promise of fertility is here repeated. If there is anything which natu- ral reason and observation lead us to regard as the will of God, it is the eternal increase of life at any price.

2. " And the fear and dread of you shall be on all wild animals, and all birds of heaven, and on all that with which the ground is animated, and on all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands."

That was not the case at first in the charming Paradise story of the Jehovist. There the ani- mals lived with man on terms of friendly intimacy, but they did not dread him; and the time may come, if man grows good enough, when their confidence in him may be restored. It is a sad fact that the most harmless animals fear man as their worst foe. According to the Jehovist's con- ception, that was not God's intention. The atti- tude of our Book toward the animal kingdom is humane and very beautiful. It presents a true picture of the Golden Age, which, according to the belief of Isaiah,* will return to earth.

3. " All that moves and lives shall serve you for food, just like the green herb, I give it all to you."

This is an entirely new permission. Up to this time, only herb and fruit had been permitted man as food, perhaps in recollection of the fact that man has not always been a carnivorous ani- mal. Although the use of animal flesh is now al- lowed, certain restrictions are imposed as to the manner in which flesh is to be prepared and con- sumed.

* Is. xi. 6-8.

*3 (353)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

4. " Only thou shalt not eat flesh with its soul, with its blood."

That ancient proscription has been religiously observed by devout Jews to this day, hence they still refuse to eat meat that is not prepared by a Jew. The meaning of the injunction seems to be something like this: All nations have asked the question, In what does animal life consist ? The Hebrew had a very simple and practical answer. Life consists in blood; as soon as the blood is drained, Hfe disappears. But, as we have already seen, life was regarded as emanating directly from God. Therefore to drink blood is a kind of sacrilege. This feeling was strengthened by be- lief in blood as a means of atonement, the giving back to God of the Hfe He had given. If the blood of animals is sacred, far more sacred is the blood of man.

5. " And surely your own blood will I avenge, on every beast will I avenge it, and on every man; on every man's brother will I avenge a man's life.

6. " He who sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, since in His own image Elohim made man.

7. " But do you be fruitful and multiply, swarm in the earth and replenish it."

This is by no means the mere law of blood re- venge; it is also a noble assertion of the sanctity of human life, founded solely on the fact of man's creation in the likeness of God. The command to take the life of the murderer is not based on the duty of revenge and it is not laid upon the relatives of the murdered man. Neither can one say that it is founded exactly on morality and jus- tice, since the punishment is extended to animals also. The command rests rather on the religious

(3M)

Sacredness of Human Life

motive of punishing sin against God, whose im- age the murderer destroys. Whatever our sen- timents may be on the subject of capital punish- ment, which is here plainly sanctioned, it is im- possible not to be impressed by our author's deep sense of the sanctity of human life as com- ing from God. This noble verse has borne great moral fruit, and Luther is quite right in saying that with this verse the foundation of all human society is laid. He who touches man touches God — a thought we can never afford to forget.

8, 9, 10. Then Elohim said to Noah, and to his sons with him, " I, lo! I, establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you, and with every living thing that is with you, birds and cattle and wild beasts that are with you, with all animals on earth that come forth from the ark.

II. " And I will establish My covenant with you, so that no flesh shall be destroyed again by the waters of a flood; nor shall there be a flood again to destroy the earth."

This covenant can scarcely be called a religious compact between God and man, since it includes the animals also. It is a mere promise on the part of God that such a universal deluge shall never return. As a rule, God's covenants are at- tended by some confirming sign; here it is the rainbow, the pledge of hope after distress, the most beautiful of all signs except the starry heavens which God showed Abraham. Many writers assume that this was the first time the rainbow had made its appearance, and some even suppose a change in the constitution of the at- mosphere; but our story does not say that the rainbow had never been seen before.

(355)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge,

12. And God said, " This is the sign of the covenant be- tween Me and you and every living creature which is with you for perpetual generations.

13. " I have placed My bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and the earth."

The rainbow, which Ezekiel * calls '' the ap- pearance of the likeness of the glory of God," is here described as God's bow. Jesus, the son of Sirach, gives a fine description of the rainbow, t " Look upon the rainbow, and praise Him who made it. Very beautiful is it in its brightness; it encompasses the heaven with its glorious circle and the hands of the Highest have bended it."

14. 15. " And when I bring the clouds over the earth, and the bow appears in the clouds, then will I remember the covenant that is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh, and never again shall the waters of a flood destroy all flesh.

16. " And the bow shall be in the clouds, and I will look upon it to remind Myself of the perpetual covenant that is between Elohim and every living creature of all flesh which is on the earth."

The meaning of the rainbow has never been so beautifully interpreted. It is born of the storm ; but when God sees it, it reminds Him of His promise never again to let the storm rise to a destroying Flood. Hence it is a sign and prom- ise that the storm is nearly at its end. Other na- tions have interpreted the rainbow otherwise. To the Hindus it was the many-colored war-bow of Indra.t In Greek mythology, personified as

* Ezek. i. 28.

I Sirach, xliii. Ii, 12; 1. 7.

I It would appear that the Hebrews also regarded the rainbow as a war-bow by which God shot his arrows, the lightning, as in

(356)

The Rainbow

Iris, it is the messenger of the gods, and also a heaven-sent sign of war and other events.* The Romans beHeved that the rainbow drinks up water from the earth, hence the saying '' bibit arcus, pluet hodie." t In the Edda, the rainbow is the heavenly bridge on which the gods walk and drive.J Besides these traditions many pop- ular superstitions cluster around the rainbow, such as the danger of pointing the finger at the rainbow, or that at the end of a rainbow hangs a golden key which opens a chest of treasure, or that gold pieces or pennies drop from the rain- bow to the ground.!

17. So Elohim said to Noah, " This is the sign of the covenant which I have estabhshed between Me and all flesh which is upon the earth."

28. And Noah Hved after the flood three hundred and fifty years,

29. So all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; then he died.

This is the end of the Priestly Writer's story of the Flood. We see then that we actually possess independent and almost complete Flood narra- tives, carefully combined in Genesis, which can be separated without difficulty. The Jehovist's account lacked the building of the ark, the en- trance into and the exit from the ark. The Priestly Writer's account lacks scarcely any- thing. It is probably almost in the form in which

Psalm vii. 12, "He hath bent His bow"; Hab. iii. 9, "Thy bow was made quite naked" ; Lam. ii. 4, "He hath bent His bow, etc." The rainbow, therefore, here acquires a new meaning. It is a sign of peace and reconcihation, not of war.

* Iliad, xi. II, 27, 47.

t Plautus, Curcul. i. 2.

iSaem. 44.

§ Grimm, "Deutsche Mythol." ii. 610, 611.

(357)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

it left its author's hand. When we compare the Priestly Writer's document with the Jehovist's, we see that in spirit and conception, as well as in execution, they are very different. Notwith- standing the Priestly Writer's pecuHar dry style and his wearisome repetition of certain choice expressions, his ideas are lofty, though they are very cold. He tells us that Noah was a righteous man ; further than that, Noah remains a perfectly colorless character. God also is conceived in much the same manner. The Priestly Writer care- fully avoids all such anthropomorphical expres- sions as that God " repented," " was grieved at His heart," that He " shut the door after Noah," or was pleased with the smell of the burning sacri- fice. His Elohim is far removed from such hu- man conduct and feeling. He is above the world and acts more from an abstract sense of justice than from passion or emotion of any sort. The Priestly Writer is entirely consistent with his account of creation in deriving the Flood from two sources, the breaking up of the abyss and the opening of the windows of the firmament where the heavenly waters are stored. His Flood story is the second long narrative from his pen in Genesis. It is distinctly inferior in style and elevation to his first chapter, but it possesses many of the peculiarities of that chapter. It is written in the same dry, technical style, and ex- hibits the same poverty of expression shown by the frequent repetition of words and phrases. On the other hand, the Priestly Writer's style is very workmanlike. He makes a telHng use of mathematics, which gives quite a substantial air to his story. In regard to the conflicting esti-

' (358) '

Comparison of Two Accounts

mates of the duration of the Flood, as we have seen, the Priestly Writer asserts that the Flood lasted from the seventeenth day of the second month of one year to the twenty-seventh day of the second month of the following year, in any case a full solar year of three hundred and sixty- five days, and possibly a few days longer. The Jehovist, however, calculates very differently. He allows seven days to elapse after the warning to collect the animals, and then forty days of con- tinuous rain. At the end of the forty days Noah sent out the raven; after seven days more, the dove the first time. After seven days more he sent out the dove the second time, which re- turned with the olive leaf. After seven days more he sent the dove the third time. Accord- ing to the Jehovist's computation, therefore, the Flood actually lasted for 40 + 21 =61 days, or, with the addition of the seven days before the rain began, 68 days in all* In this computation, as well as in many other particulars, the Jehovist follows the Babylonian cuneiform account much more closely than does the Priestly Writer. His story is more deeply penetrated with moral feel- ing than the Priestly Writer's. His whole nar- rative moves less in the plane of the supernatural and he gives us, in a fresh and genuine form, the old traditions into which the Priestly Writer reads many of the reflections of a later age. I remind you merely of the episode of the birds, the build- ing of the altar, the sweet-smelling sacrifice, the

* From the brief period of time allowed to elapse in the Je- hovist's narrative between God's warning and the beginning of the P'lood, the structure of the ark must have been much more simple.

(359)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

more human conception of Jahveh, etc. We must also remember that the Redactor has dealt more freely with the Jehovist's narrative, from which he has eliminated several important fea- tures. Scholars, with scarcely an exception, re- gard the Jehovist's account as much the older of the two. Whether the Priestly Writer had any other independent Hebrew history before him, or whether he depended solely on the Jehovist's narrative for his knowledge of the Flood is a critical question I do not feel called upon to dis- cuss here. It is certain that the Priestly Writer's description of the ark contains several elements not to be found at present elsewhere, but we must remember that the greater portion of the Jehovist's description of the ark has perished.

We come now to the important question of the origin and the diffusion of the Flood Tradition. As you are aware, this is one of the most widely disseminated of human beliefs, and yet it is by no means universal, as many persons pretend. It would be impossible and undesirable for me to trace exhaustively the history of the Flood tradi- tion among all the peoples which possess it.* Many of their tales and legends have no ascer- tainable connection with our story. The plan I shall pursue is to examine with care the ancient flood narratives of the great cultured nations of antiquity, with the hope of discovering their origin, and to treat more superficially the legends or reminiscences of floods among primitive races in modern times. The literature to be examined is considerable, but not overwhelmingly great.

* I refer the reader to the table on the Flood tradition at the end of this volume.

(36^)

Flood Traditions

Among the great literary nations of the old world, only the Hebrews, the Hindus, the Baby- lonians and the Greeks have preserved unmistak- able traditions of a deluge. The Persians have a similar story which is worth noticing. The Phoenicians may very well have possessed an ancient native deluge story, but their literature has almost altogether perished, and what re- mains of it has come down to us through so many hands that its authenticity is dubious. Represen- tations of the ark found in Vetulonia (Italy) and in Sardinia, supposed to be the work of

LITTLE NOAh'S ARK FOUND IN VETULONIA

Phoenician artists, one of which dates from the seventh century B.C., make it easy to believe that the Phoenicians were acquainted with the traditions of a deluge.* There are also a few old Germanic and Slavonic flood legends of some an- tiquity; but of all the traditions we possess, by far the most important and original is the double tra- dition of Babylonia and Israel. Let us begin with the Greeks.

The Greek flood stories are interesting, but they have not the importance that many writers

* Usener, " Sintflutsagen," 248-251.

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

have assigned them; first, because they are not related by any very ancient Greek writer, and secondly because they never expanded into a true epic. Homer * and Hesiod make no men- tion of them, and from this circumstance we may infer that flood legends were not current in their day, as Hesiod in particular would have been glad to tell such a story if he had known it.f Even Herodotus (b.c. 484) makes no mention of a flood. Moreover, we do not find among the Greeks any one authoritative, stereotyped form of flood narrative, such as we should find if the legend rested on an old national tradition. Different writers treat the subject differently, shifting the scene of the Flood and adding fea- tures taken from here or there as they please. The earliest Greek author, so far as I know, to allude to the Flood, is the famous Theban poet Pindar (born about 522 B.C.), who. in his Ninth Olympian Ode describes Deucalion and Pyrrha descending from Mount Parnassus and creating a new race of men out of stones. He mentions this as a well-known story, and merely adds, *' Truly men say that once a mighty water swept over the dark earth, but by the craft of Zeus an ebb suddenly drew off the flood." X The first Greek writer who related the whole story of the Flood at length is ApoUodorus, the Attic gram-

* Homer, "Iliad," 11. 384, mentions destructive rains sent by- Zeus, but describes no flood.

f The story of the Flood would have fitted so perfectly with Hesiod's scheme of the Four Ages of the world that in this case the argumentuin e silentio may be safely applied. In Hesiod's lost " Catalogue of Women " the line of Greek heroes seems to have been derived from Deucalion and Pyrrha. This document, however, is hardly older than 600 B.C.

\ E, Myers* translation.

(362)

Greek Traditions

marian (flor. circa 140 B.C.), in his Bibliotheca or mythology of Greece. Earlier writers, how- ever, allude to it.

Among the Greeks the Flood legend took two distinct forms. The first and perhaps the older was connected with Ogyges,* the most ancient king of Boeotia, though some say of Attica. In his reign the waters of Lake Copais rose above their banks and inundated the whole valley of Boeotia. Late writers, like Pausanias (who wrote his " Itinerary of Greece " under Marcus Aurelius), assert that the waters rose up to heav- en, and Dionysius Nonus (a.d. 300) adds that Ogyges escaped in a vessel.f Little, however, is told of this flood; apparently it was eclipsed by the more popular story of Deucalion. As it is related only by late writers, and as no worship was accorded Ogyges in Greece, we may pre- sume that it came to Greece from abroad, per- haps from Asia Minor through Phoenician set- tlers.

By far the more popular Greek Flood story was that of Deucalion and Pyrrha, to which we find several allusions in Plato. In '' The Laws " X Plato makes the Athenian stranger ask Cleinias, *' Do you believe that there is any truth

*The Scholiast on Plato's "Timaeus," 22a, states expressly that Ogyges' flood occurred first and Deucalion's afterward. Although Ogyges is an ancient figure in Greek mythology, descriptions of this flood, which are very meagre, are preserved only in late writers like Julius Africanus, Dionysius Nonus, Varro, and Eusebius. Movers derived his name from the Phoenicians ; Preller, Buttmann, and others regard it as a reduplication of the root 0/ceavos, and regard Ogyges as the personification of the ocean.

f Pausanias, ix. 5, i.

X Laws, iii. 677.

(363)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

in the ancient traditions ? " '' What traditions ? " says Cleinias. " The traditions about the many- destructions of mankind which have been oc- casioned by deluges and disease, and in many other ways, and of the preservation of a rem- nant? " From the way Plato speaks of " many destructions " and of '' deluges," it would not seem that any one universal deluge was known to him.

In the ''Timaeus " * there is a very interesting passage. Solon is telling an Egyptian priest about the deluge of Deucalion and Pyrrha, but the Egyptian ridicules him and tells Solon that the Greeks are but children, and know nothing of the old traditions. Then he goes on to speak in a most rational way about the Flood and other catastrophes, and assures Solon that no such deluge has visited Egypt for the reason that rain does not fall there, though he admits that many floods have occurred in other parts of the world. He ends by telling the famous story of the Island of Atlantis in the Atlantic Ocean, which by rea- son of an earthquake and flood disappeared in one day. This story is doubly interesting ; first, as affording additional proof that no Flood legend existed in Egypt; and secondly, on account of the story of the destruction of Atlantis. There will always be persons who pin their faith to this ancient myth. It is very tempting to imagine that the terrible seismic disturbance that de- troyed this island launched a frightful tidal wave, which, sweeping over the old world, actually caused the deluge. Unfortunately, low-lying Egypt would have been the first to suffer, but

* " Timaeus," 22.

(364)

Flexibility of Greek Flood Legend

according to the very story on which the Atlantis myth rests, Egypt did not suffer at all.

The expanded form of the Deucalion Flood legend is given by Apollodorus as follows :

Zeus wished to destroy the men of the bronze age. Deucalion, by the advice of his father, Prometheus, built a chest, placed provisions in it, and entered it with his wife, Pyrrha. Zeus then let great floods of rain stream down from heaven, which overwhelmed the greater part of Greece, to such an extent, indeed, that all men were de- stroyed except a few who had taken refuge on the nearest high mountains. At that time it also happened that the mountains in eastern Thessaly split, and the whole land as far as the Isthmus became a sea. But Deucalion was driven in his chest through the sea for nine days and nights, until he landed on Parnassus; and there, when the rain ceased, he disembarked and offered sacrifice to Zeus, who had guided his voyage. Then Zeus sent Hermes to him and incited him to express a wish. He supplicated off- spring. According to the command of Zeus, he took up stones and threw them over his head. And the stones thrown by Deucalion became men, and those (thrown) by Pyrrha became women. From this came the expression laoi, for people or nations, because they sprang from stones (laoi)^

. Ovid's t elaborate description of the great del- uge, which impHes an eadier poetic model, and Horace's i sarcastic allusion to it, are too famiHar to be recounted.

What astonishes us most in the Greek Flood legend is its flexibility. Not only are three dis- tinct deluges mentioned, § but even in the most popular story of Deucalion many different causes of the flood are given. According to Apollodorus and others, the flood was sent to punish the impiety of the men of the bronze age.

* Apollodorus i. 7, 2.

t Ovid's "Metam." i. 288, fif.

t Horace's Odes, 8, 2-5.

§1. The flood of Ogyges. 2. Of Deucalion. 3. OfDardanos.

.1 «

(365)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

According to Ovid and others, men sprung from giants' blood, or the impiety of Lycaon, or the Titans' attack on Dionysos, had awakened the wrath of Zeus. The scene of the catastrophe and the landing place of Deucalion and Pyrrha are also constantly shifted. Locris, Argos, Sicily, Megara, Thessaly, Dodona, Cos, Rhodes, and Crete,* all claim the honor of providing asy- lum for the survivors and of being the birthplace of the new humanity. In one respect this is very natural. Deucalion was regarded as the ancestor of the Greek people, and in a country containing so many sharp political divisions, we are not sur- prised that each locaHty tried to prove the legit- imacy of its birthright by tracing its descent from Deucalion. This in itself indicates that the Flood story was not without influence in Greece, but the very fluidity of the tradition proves that it possessed no early or authoritative poetic form. The fact that the Flood story was unknown to Homer and Hesiod makes us almost certain that it was not a primitive Greek tradition. We must therefore assume that it was elaborated on Greek soil between the period of the Hesiodic poems and 600 B.C., or else we must believe that in the course of these centuries the Flood tradition came to Greece from some people that pos- sessed it. Usener,t whose recent investigation of the problem is by far the best we possess, ar- gues for the native origin of both the Greek and the Hindu Flood legend, but his arguments do not seem to me conclusive. In the earliest detailed Greek Flood story, that of Apollodorus, the men-

* See Flood table, Appendix II. f " Die Sintflutsagen," Bonn, 1899.

(366)

Origin of Greek Legend

tion of a '' chest " seems to point directly to Genesis. Several other features of our Flood, however, such as the collection of the animals, the sending of the birds, etc., are entirely absent, and it is right to add that the later Greek Flood legends, such as Ovid's and the '' De Dea Syra " ascribed to Lucian, are much more Semitic than the descriptions of earlier writers. Lucian intro- duces new embellishments, plainly of Eastern ori- gin, such as the breaking up of the great deep and the preservation of certain animals. Plu- tarch, I believe, first mentions the episode of the birds. He informs us that " a dove released by Deucalion from his chest was a sign to him of the duration of the storm when she returned to him for protection, and of the appearance of fair weather when she flew away." * We happen to know through Charon of Lampsacus that the dove which played so great a part in Greek myth- ology as the sacred bird of Aphrodite, was intro- duced into Greece as late as 492 B.C. , This cir- cumstance shows us how quickly foreign myths were naturalized on Greek soil, but it is not a lit- tle curious that the dove, the bird of Astarte,j should come to Greece again from the East, this time in Noah's ark.f I shall have something further to say of the origin of the Greek Flood myth in connection with the origin of the Flood tradition in general. Here I will simply state that after examining Usener's skilful argument I am still of the opinion that the Greek Flood legend is part of the great cycle of the Babylonian tradition.

* Plutarch, ' ' De Soil. Anim. " xiii. , p. 968 f . Quoted by Usener. f See Usener, op. cit. p. 254.

(367)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

We pass now to India. Here we find one short, isolated tradition of the Flood, preserved in three forms which agree with one another in essential features. The oldest and simplest form of this tradition is found in the Satapatha Brah- mana; * another more elaborate version is found in the long epic poem, Mahabharata,t and in a still later and a more fantastic form in the poem called Bhagavata Purana.J The story in the Satapatha Brahmana runs as follows :

In the morning they brought to Manu water, just as now also they [are wont to] bring [water] for washing the hands. When he was washing himself, a fish came into his hands.

It spake to him the word, " Rear me, I will save thee." " Wherefrom wilt thou save me?" "A flood will carry away all these creatures. From that I will save thee." "How am I to rear thee?"

It said, " As long as we are small there is great destruc- tion for us: fish devours fish. Thou wilt first keep me in a jar. When I outgrow that, thou wilt dig a pit, and keep me in it. When I outgrow that, thou wilt take me down to the sea, for then I shall be beyond destruction."

It soon became a ghasha [large fish]. Thereupon it said, " In such and such a year the flood will come. Thou shalt then attend to me [i.e., to my advice] by preparing a ship, and when the flood has risen thou shalt enter into the ship and I will save thee from it."

After he had reared it in this way, he took it down to the sea. And in the same year which the fish had indicated to him he attended [to the advice of the fish] by preparing a ship, and when the flood had risen he entered into the ship. The fish then swam up to him, and to its horn he tied the rope of the ship, and by that means he passed swiftly up to yonder northern mountain.

It then said, " I have saved thee. Fasten the ship to a tree, but let not the waters cut thee off whilst thou art on the mountain. As the water subsides thou mayest gradu-

* Not later than 500 B.C., and probably much older, fi. 12746-12804 ; date of poem from 500 B.C. to 500 A.D., Hopkins. ifBurnouf's ed., ii. 177,191. Dateof poem from 500-1500 A.D.

(368)

Hindu Flood Legend

ally descend." Accordingly he gradually descended, and hence that slope of the northern mountain is called Manu's Descent. The flood then swept away all these creatures and Manu alone remained here.*

After the flood was ended, Manu offered sac- rifice. Out of the sacrifice came a young woman, from whom the present race issued.

In this earHest version, which is marked by so- briety, the name of the fish god is not mentioned. The Mahabharata calls him Brahma, and in the Purana the fish becomes one of the ten incarna- tions of Vishnu. In the Mahabharata, Brahma tells Manu to take all kinds of seed with him, and in the Purana, Vishnu says to Satyvsata,t '' In seven days the three worlds will be submerged by an ocean of destruction." These touches appear to be taken directly from the Babylonian tradi- tion.

As long ago as the keen-sighted Eugene Bur- nouf $ it was suspected that this Hindu story was of Semitic origin. Burnouf showed, first, that this legend does not occur in the Vedas; secondly, that it is opposed to the periodic destructions of the world, which is a fundamental dogma of Hindu beHef ; and thirdly, that there is no other mention in Hindu mythology of the worship of a fish. On the other hand, in the Babylonian pan- theon the fish god is a very familiar figure. In particular we remember that in Berosus, Oannes, who gave warning of the coming flood, is de- scribed as combining the forms of fish and man.§

* "Satapatha Brahmana," i. 8, i, i-6.

f King of the Daras, or fishermen, substituted in this version for Manu.

if Pref. of third vol. of his ed., "Vishnu Purana." Murray, 1840. Trubner, 1864.

§Syncenus' "Chron." in Euseb., Cory's "Fragm.," 30-31.

24

(369)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

In the epic poem of Izdubar it is Ea, god of the deep, who warns Sit-napistim that the flood is coming, and advises him to make a ship to save himself and the seed of life.

It may therefore be regarded as probable that the Hindu Flood story was borrowed directly or indirectly from Babylonia. In spite of the objec- tions of Weber,^ Roth,t and Max Muller,^ this view has steadily gained ground, § and, as Ihering justly remarks, "All the evidence that I have pro- duced respecting the influence of the Babylo- nians upon the Indians may perhaps contribute to secure a more favorable reception of his (Burnouf's) views." ||

Dr. Hopkins, in his learned and cautious " Re- ligions of India," T[ alludes to the supposition that the Hindu story of the Flood was derived from Babylonia as an '' unnecessary though ad- missible hypothesis, as the tale is old enough to warrant the belief in its indigenous origin." In saying this Dr. Hopkins assumes that a passage in the Atharva Veda ** refers to the story of Manu's Flood, which would make the Hindu tra- dition somewhat older than we have supposed. This passage, however, does not mention either Manu or the Flood. It speaks of '' a golden ship with golden tackle, which glided down on the peak of the Himavant," and Bloomfield, the

* " Indische Studien," i. 161-232.

•f Milnchner " Gelehrte Anz.," 1849, Pt- 26 f,, 1850, pt. 72. X " Essays," i. 141.

§ " With most investigators I regard this narrative as a Semitic loan." Oldenburg, " Relig. des Vedas," 276, An. 3. II " Evol. of Aryan," 184. •|[ Ginn, 1895, p. 160. ** xix. 39, 7, 8.

(370)

Persian Flood Legend

translator,* admits that the passage may have nothing to do with the Flood, although he finds the suggestion attractive. More to the point is the passage from the Kathaka cited by A. Weber, t which reads, "The waters wiped out this [existing world], Manu alone remained." Here the Flood seems to be alluded to in unmis- takable terms.

It only remains for us to cast a glance at the literature of Persia. There are, to my knowl- edge, but two passages in the sacred writings of the Zoroastrians which can be construed into al- lusions to a flood, and neither of them is conclu- sive. You may remember the passage in the Zend Avesta in which Ahura Mazda warns Yima, the good shepherd, of a series of frightful winters which are about to devastate the earth. He therefore commands Yima to make a " Vara," an underground abode, and to collect there the seed of all good animals and birds for safe keeping.

" O fair Yima, . . . upon the material world the evil winters are about to fall that shall bring the fierce deadly frost; upon the material world the evil winters are about to fall that shall make snow flakes even an ardvi [comment, fourteen fingers] deep on the highest tops of the moun- tains."

Then follows a description of the enclosure, which I omit.

" Thither shalt thou bring the seeds of every kind of tree . . . thither shalt thou bring the seeds of every kind of fruit. All these seeds shalt thou bring, two of every kind to be kept inexhaustible there." t

* " Sacred Books of the East," xlii. pp. 6, 679. f Weber in Kuhn's und Schleicher's " Beitragen," 4, 288, and' in " Streifen," i. 11, Anm. 3. X Vendidad, Fargard ii.

(371:

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

The curious feature of this narrative, which few writers have noticed, is that it does not de- scribe a catastrophe which has taken place, but contains a warning of a visitation yet to come. At most we have here a general destruction, but no flood. The command to preserve seed re- minds us a little of the Babylonian story, the men- tion of two of each species is in the style of the Priestly Writer ; but for the rest, the narrative is very different from either Genesis or the Baby- lonian Flood legend. Yima's underground house preserves not only Yima and his family and the animals, but the plants as well, and the specimens of all the human race. The utmost that can be said is that this may be a far-off echo of the Babylonian or the BibHcal Flood story adapted to the severe climate of Persia; or, if not this, then it is nothing but a reminiscence of ex- ceptionally cold winters during which human be- ings kept themselves alive by burrowing in the earth.

The second passage, found in the late book called the '' Bundahesh," * does indeed describe a flood in which rain fell for ten days, every drop " as big as a bowl," until the waters stood the height of a man over the whole earth. The ob- ject of this flood, however, is to destroy the de- mons and malevolent spirits created by Angro Mainyu. There is no mention of men in this story, and neither of these judgments seems to have been provoked by human sin. We there- fore fail to find a true Flood tradition in Persia. We may sum up the result of our investigation thus far as follows : The most genuinely ancient

*Chap. vii. (372)

Original Flood Tradition

and original tradition of a universal deluge known to the old world appears to be the tradi- tion of which our story in Genesis forms part, and which finds its earliest and most original ex- pression in Babylonia. The Egyptians and Arabs have no Flood legends. The Hindus have one tradition which probably was borrowed from Babylonia. The Persian story of the terrible winters can hardly be regarded as a Flood legend, and in Greece the late date and the comparative unimportance of the Flood tradition indicate that it was not of native origin, but that it came to Greece through some Semitic source.

(373)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Chapter Eighteen: The Flood Traditions of Babylon

IN our last chapter we discussed the traditions of the Flood preserved by several great civi- hzed nations of antiquity. We found that the Egyptians had no native Flood legend. The Per- sian legend at most preserved an echo of a gen- eral destruction which was to be a series of severe winters, not a flood of waters. The Greeks pos- sessed two principal Flood stories, neither of which is related by any Greek writer before Pin- dar. They do not appear, therefore, to have formed part of a primitive Greek tradition. The Hindus possessed one peculiar isolated Flood tradition in three forms, the oldest and simplest version of which is contained in the Satapatha Brahmana, which may date from 900 B.C. The majority of scholars believe that this tradition had a Babylonian origin. The result of our investigation seemed to lead to the conclusion that the Semitic tradition represented by the Babylonian and the Hebrew Flood narratives is not only the oldest tradition, but the most original, and it is possible that all the Flood tradi- tions of the ancient world arose from this source, mingled with native myths and recollections of local deluges occurring in different places at dif- ferent times. This is a point, however, on which

(374)

Discovery of Cuneiform Accounts

I do not insist. I turn now to the Flood tradition of Babylonia. For a long time we have possessed some knowledge of the Babylonian Flood legend, through Berosus, a Babylonian priest, who wrote in Greek. But of late years our knowledge has been materially increased by the cuneiform tab- lets of the poem of Izdubar. This work was dis- covered by George Smith in Nineveh, and was translated by Mr. Smith and given to the world in 1872.* Mr. Smith's copies were defective and his translation was far from perfect, and yet his discovery marks an epoch in the study of the Bible. Since then other copies of the Izdubar epic have been found, unfortunately also imper- fect and mutilated. Professor Paul Haupt, of Johns Hopkins University, has carefully col- lected all, or almost all,t the known fragments of this ancient poem, which he has pubhshed in two volumes. J Dr. Haupt's text is accepted by all scholars as authoritative, and on it all recent translations are based. Among the best trans- lations are Jeremias',§ Jensen's,! and Zimmern's in Gunkel's fascinating work.l^ Dr. Jastrow has also made an original translation of parts of this poem for his '' Religions of Babylonia." In what follows I shall refer to these four translations.

Let us first consider the tradition preserved by Berosus. Berosus was a priest of the god Bel in Babylon during and after the lifetime of Alex-

* At a meeting of the Society for Biblical Archaeol., Dec. 3, 1872.

f See Vorrede, Jeremias' " Izdubar-Nimrod."

i "Das Babylonische Nimrodepos," 2 vols., Leipzig, 1884,1891.

§ "Izdubar-Nimrod," Teubner, Leipz,, 1891.

I " Kosmol. der Babylonier," Strasburg, i8go, pp. 367-446.

^" Schopfung und Chaos," pp. 423-428, Gottingen, 1895.

(375)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

ander the Great. He translated a sketch of the history of Babylonia and Chaldea, in three vol- umes, which he dedicated to Antiochus Sotor (280-270 B.C.). The materials of this history he professed to derive from the ancient cuneiform chronicles preserved in the temple of Bel in which he ministered,* and there is no good rea- son to doubt the truth of his assertion and the authenticity of his history.f Most unfortunately by far the greater part of this priceless work has perished. What has come down to us is in the form of fragments preserved principally by late Greek writers, Alexander Polyhistor, Abydenus and Apollodorus, whose writings reach us through Josephus, Eusebius and Syncellus. So it is apparent that the views put forth by Berosus come to us in a very roundabout manner. In places his statements have been so garbled as to seem absurd, and yet, fragmentary as his work is, it is of great importance. Besides the frag- ments we have mentioned, another short narra- tive bearing on the Flood has been preserved by Josephus and Eusebius, from the pen of Nicolaus of Damascus, who hved during the reign of Augustus.^

Now let us turn to Berosus' account of the del- uge as it is preserved in the various works I have

*See statement of Alex. Polyh. in Cory, p. 21.

f See Budde's " Urgeschichte," p. 474 flf.

if The fragments of Berosus have been frequently collected by W. Richter, Leipzig, 1825 ; by Miiller, in his " Fragment. Hist. Grsec," 2 vols., Paris, 1848 ; by Cory, in his well-known "An- cient Fragments," London, 1832. Among the many attempts to establish the dates of Berosus, perhaps the most exhaustive is that of F. Lenormant, in his " Essai de Commentaire de Fragments Cosmogoniques de Berose," Paris, 1871. The best text of Be- rosus is found in Schoene's ed. of Eusebius, with Gutschmid's comments, " Eusebi Chron.," libri duo, ed. Schoene.

■ {^)

The Account of Berosus

mentioned. In the second book of his history Berosus gave the names of the ten mythical kings who reigned from the beginning, the last of whom is Xisuthros, the Babylonian Noah, who was saved from the deluge. Xisuthros, there- fore, may be assumed to be identical with Sit- napistim, of whom the poem of Izdubar speaks. His name is believed to be a corruption of Khasis-adra, an inversion of the epithet bestowed upon Sit-napistim; it means ''very pious," or '' very clever." *

The deity Kronos [i.e., Ea] appeared to him [Xisuthros] in a vision,f and warned him that upon the fifteenth day of the month Daesius there would be a flood, by which mankind would be destroyed.

Daesius is the eighth month of the Grseco- Syrian year. As that year began in the autumn, Daesius would correspond roughly with June, and the fifteenth of Daesius would fall not far from the first of July, thus causing the Flood to occur at the very time when rivers are the lowest. Lenormant, therefore, conjectures that Berosus merely wrote " the fifteenth day of the eighth month," rendering into Greek the name of the Assyrian month Arahshamna, and Alexander, forgetting that the Babylonian year began in the spring, substituted the name of the eighth month with which he was acquainted, thus changing the beginning of the Flood from November to the latter part of June.$ I shall show, later, however,

* Jastrow, " Religion of Baby.," p. 505, note 3. Doubted by some.

f We find here the oft-recurring intercourse between gods and men by dreams, of which the poem of Izdubar gives us so many examples.

X " Beginnings of Hist.," 413.

(377)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

that Berosus may have had a reason for stating that the Flood occurred at a time of year when it could not have been caused by the overflow of the rivers. We are not told how long before the Flood the warning was given.

He [Kronos, or Ea] therefore enjoined him [Xisuthros] to write a history of the beginning, middle, and end of all things, and to bury it in the city of the sun at Sippara.*

We see from this that the Babylonians thought of the Flood as occurring comparatively late, at least after the discovery of writing and history, and after the founding of cities. I have called attention before to the inability of the Babylo- nians to go behind their own civilization, which is one proof of its great antiquity.

And to build a vessel, to take into it his friends and relatives, and to convey on board everything necessary to sustain life, together with all the different animals, both birds and quadrupeds, and to trust himself fearlessly to the deep.

Although sin is not specifically mentioned as the cause of the deluge, yet, from the allusion at the end of the poem to the voice of the departed Xisuthros exhorting his friends to show respect to the gods, it would appear that the Flood was sent to punish men for their impiety. In the cuneiform account, this is brought out more plainly. The moral and religious motive of the Flood, therefore, is by no means lacking.f Xisu-

* A little above Babylon, on the left bank of the Euphrates, a very old city. The cuneiform account speaks of Surippak, whose site is unknown.

f See Lenormant, " Essai de Comment.," 259, and Maspero, *' Dawn of Civilization," 566, note 2.

(378)

XisuTHROs Sends Out Birds

thros' vessel is conceived in the form of a ship with sails, as we should expect among a sea-far- ing people, not, as in our account, in the form of a chest.

Having asked the deity whither he was to sail, he was answered, " To the gods ": upon which he offered a prayer for the good of mankind.

A surprisingly beautiful touch. This Noah forgot to do.

He then obeyed the divine command, and built a vessel five stadia in length and two in breadth.* Into this he put everything which he had prepared; and last of all conveyed into it his wife, his children, and his friends.

Apparently a serious break occurs here, as the coming on of the Flood is lost. The narrative continues :

After the flood had been upon the earth, and was in time abated, Xisuthros sent out birds from the vessel, which, not finding any food, nor any place whereupon they might rest their feet, returned to him again. After an interval of some days, he sent them forth a second time, and they now re- turned with their feet tinged with mud. He made trial a third time with these birds, but they returned to him no more; from which he judged that the surface of the earth had appeared above the waters. He therefore made an opening in the vessel, and upon looking out saw that it was stranded upon the top of some mountain, upon which he immediately quitted it with his wife, his daughter, and the pilot.

The daughter and the pilot are entirely new

* The Armenian version of Eusebius says fifteen stadia in length. If Lenormant is right in asserting that the Babylonian stadion, amtnat gagar^ contains 360 cubits, the vessel would have been 1,800 cubits long. Estimating the smaller Babylonian cubit roughly at 20 inches, we should have a vessel 3,000 feet long and 1,200 feet broad.

(379)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

figures. The pilot shows conclusively that Xisu- thros' vessel did not merely float upon the waters, but was navigated.

Xisuthros then paid his adoration to the earth, and having constructed an altar, offered sacrifices to the gods, and with those who had come out of the vessel with him, disappeared.

They who remained within, finding that their companions did not return, quitted the vessel, with many lamentations, and called continually on the name of Xisuthros. Him they saw no more, but they could distinguish his voice in the air, and hear him admonish them to pay due regard to religion; and likewise he informed them that it was on account of his piety that he was translated to live with the gods, and that his wife and daughter and the pilot had obtained the same honor. To this it was added that they should return to Babylonia, and as it was ordained, search for the writings at Sippara, which they were to make known to all mankind; moreover, that the place where they then were was the land of Armenia. The rest, having heard these words, offered sacrifices to the gods, and tak- ing a circuit, journeyed toward Babylonia.

There is much in this story which reminds us of our narrative, along with much that is for- eign. The dry, colorless style bears some resem- blance to that of the Priestly Writer, and with reason, for Berosus also was a priest, and had the style which distinguishes priestly annalists in all ages and countries. His narrative is almost mon- otheistic, in striking contrast to the crude poly- theism of Izdubar, but we must remember that it reaches us through the hands of Church historians, who doubtless omitted its more ob- jectionable features. The piety of Xisuthros, his warning by Ea, the building of the ark with its exact dimensions, are all familiar enough. The sending out of the birds is even more conclusive. That is one of those little touches which prove

(380)

Points of Difference

that we are dealing with a different form of the same tradition. The tingeing of the birds' feet with mud is an original feature preserved in no other tradition. The landing on a mountain in Armenia, the erection of an altar, and the offer- ing of sacrifice, also perfectly agree with our account.

The chief points of difference are the omis- sion of three sons, who were not needed by Berosus, as Xisuthros was accompanied by friends, and the introduction of a daughter and the pilot, with all that the latter implies. The most striking contrast with Genesis is the final fate of Xisuthros, which is preserved in both forms of the Babylonian tradition. The Baby- lonian hero does not die at all. In company with his wife and his pilot * he escapes death by trans- lation. In Berosus his final fate is left uncertain. He simply disappears. The other occupants of the ark see him no more, and only hear his voice for a short time in the air. In Izdubar, however, Sit-napistim is translated to the Island of the Blessed; this forms an important episode of the poem, but the circumstance that Berosus repre- sents the pilot as translated with him is an indica- tion that Berosus' narrative originally ended in the same way. This bold incident seems to be lacking in the Bible. Noah lives for three hun- dred and fifty years after the Flood, and yields to death at last. But a similar story is told of an earlier patriarch. Enoch did not die, he was translated, Hke Xisuthros, without tasting death, and for the same reason — he was a righteous man. ** And Enoch walked with God, and he was not,

* In Berosus, also his daughter.

(381)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

for God took him." * In one Greek version of the Flood DeucaHon is said to have been trans- lated to heaven, where he became the sign of Aquarius. t It is not impossible that the same fate was at one time ascribed to Noah. The name of Berosus' hero, Xisuthros, as Jastrow points out, is believed to be a corruption of Khasis-adra, which means '' exceedingly pious." Now Noah is described in almost precisely the same terms. In the ninth verse of the sixth chapter of Genesis we read, " Noah was a man sadditt-tamtn [i. e., " perfectly just," or '* very pious "] among his contemporaries." Even more significant are the following words, '' Noah walked with God." We turn back to the story of Enoch, who was trans- lated like Xisuthros, and we read, '' Enoch walked with God, and he disappeared, for God had taken him away " (Gen. v. 24). To " walk with God " in olden times meant something more than a pious, blameless life. It implied such per- sonal association with the Deity as Adam en- joyed in Paradise. Hence it is by no means im- possible that in the older forms of the Hebrew tradition Noah was translated like Xisuthros and Enoch. Why this distinction was afterward transferred from Noah to Enoch, of whom we know so little, may yet be discovered. The story concludes thus :

The vessel, being thus stranded in Armenia, some part of it yet remains in theCorcyrsean| mountains of Armenia; and the people scrape ofif the bitumen with which it was outwardly coated, and make use of it by way of an alexi-

■* Gen. V. 24. f Ampel. lib. Memor. 2.

f The Armenian version has Corduarum montibus ; i.e., Kurdish mountains.

(382)

Ark in Armenia

pharmic and an amulet. And when they returned to Baby- lon, and had found the writings at Sippara, they built cities and erected temples, and Babylon was thus inhabited again.

Berosus, if this passage comes directly from his pen, also regarded Armenia as the landing place after the Flood. He alludes to an old pop- ular belief of his time when he says that parts of the ark were visible in the Kurdish mountains. This statement is important, as it supports the statement of Genesis that the ark grounded on a mountain of Ararat. It also indicates that, ac- cording to the tradition used by Berosus, the Flood arose in the south and passed to the north and west against the current of the rivers Tigris and Euphrates. On the other hand, no argu- ment can be based on this passage for Armenia as the original home of the Babylonian and He- brew peoples. The legend does not place the Flood in the period of migrations, but much later, in an age of cities, arts and literature. Al- though the occupants of the ship are driven to Armenia they do not remain there, but return at once to Babylonia. Berosus tells us that the Flood was sent expressly for the destruction of mankind, and though in the fragments we pos- sess we are not told that it was a universal deluge, yet from the fact that the high mountains of Kurdistan are represented as covered, the Flood was evidently conceived much as in Genesis. Abydenus, in Syncellus,* relates the story in about the same language, though more briefly.

There is one other point to which I want to call attention. Shortly before the Flood narra- tive, Berosus tells a singular story of seven fish-

* Cory's " Fragments," 32, 33.

(383)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

men, or fish-gods, who arose from the Sea of Babylon, i. e., the Persian Gulf, and who taught the people language and writing, agriculture and the building of towns and temples. And what the first of these deities laid down the rest explained in detail* This tradition, as Dunckerf conjectures, can hardly have any other meaning than that culture, civilization and the art of writ- ing came to the Chaldeans from the south, from the region of the Persian Gulf. The sevenfold revelation may mean seven sacred books, of which the later explain the first. We have no- ticed that Berosus, in his Flood story, attaches great importance to certain sacred writings which existed before the Flood, and which Xisu- thros was commanded to conceal in Sippara, and which those who were saved from the Flood were commanded to recover. Pliny J also tells us that the sacred writings of the Chaldeans were kept at Sippara.

I turn now from the account of Berosus to the cuneiform account contained in the poem of Iz- dubar. Every one sensitive to the power of words will feel the difference at once. Berosus' narrative is what it purports to be, a prosaic chronicle preserved by priests. It is a dry story from which all picturesque and emotional ele- ments have been eliminated. In this respect it reminds us of our Priestly Writer's docu-

* This is not unlike the ancient Chinese legend of the origin of the Yi-King, in which it is said that a dragon-horse rose from the Yellow River bearing on his back the signs of the most ancient Chinese script. See, Chantepie de la Saussaye, " Religions-Ge- schichte," I. 51,

f " GeschichtedesAlterthums,"Duncker, 5te Aufl., i. 236, 237.

i Pliny, " Nat. Hist.," 6, 30.

(384) ' ~

The Two Babylonian Traditions

ment, just as the cuneiform poem reminds us strikingly of the Jehovist's narrative. It is tempting to suppose that our two writers had these two forms of the Babylonian tradition before them, and that while the Priestly Writer preferred the sober history afterward trans- lated by the priest Berosus, the Jehovist at- tached himself to the more congenial, poetic narrative of Izdubar. The attempt to es- tablish this point has been made by the Dutch- man Kosters,* and according to Dillmann f it has utterly failed. I therefore resign that idea, calling attention to the fact that our inability to attach either of our narratives directly to either of the Babylonian narratives is another argu- ment against supposing that our tradition was borrowed directly from Babylon at a late period. It is, however, interesting to note that the Baby- lonians had two distinct Flood traditions, and that the Jehovist at all events followed the cuneiform account much more closely than did the Priestly Writer, although both writers must have been acquainted with the tradition embodied in Izdu- bar. It is difficult to say which of the two Baby- lonian accounts represents the older form of the tradition, except that on general principles poetry is older than prose. But on the other hand, no one would hesitate to affirm that in its present form the Flood story of Izdubar is de- cidedly the older, as it is genuine epic poetry and occurs in a poem which is believed to date from at least 2000 B.c.-t It is true, the episode

*" Theologisch Tijdeschrift," Leyden, xix. 335 ff.

f " Gen.," i. 263.

iBoscawen, " The Bible and the Monuments," p. 73.

25 (385)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

of the deluge is plainly interpolated into the poem of Izdubar, but there is no reason to sup- pose it to be later than other portions of that ancient patchwork of verse. On the contrary, the epic wealth of diction and fantasy which dis- tinguishes the Flood narrative may well point to an earlier date of composition.* The Flood story forms nearly three-quarters of the eleventh tablet of the epic. You will recaU the situation. Izdu- bar, in search of the Tree of Life, has reached at last the Island of the Blessed. He is conversing with Sit-napistim,t who holds out to him no hope of attaining the eternal youth he desires. Then Izdubar asks Sit-napistim how he managed to escape the mortal fate which is common to all men, and in reply Sit-napistim tells Izdubar the story of his marvellous deliverance and transla- tion.

"Izdubar, I will tell you the secret, and will confide to you the decision of the gods. The city Surippak X which you know, on the banks of the Euphrates, the same city was [already] old§ when the gods were minded to send a flood upon it — the great gods."

Primarily, then, the Flood was intended to ac- count for the destruction of this one city, a fact carefully to be borne in mind.

" [They took counsel?] their father, Anu: their judge, the hero, Bel; their guide (?), Ninib; | their chief, En-nugi.

* See Jeremias' " Izdubar-Nimrod," p. 13.

f Sit-napistim is interpreted " the escaped, the rescued." Jen- sen, "Cosmol.," 384, 385.

J " Unknown," Jastrow, 496. Jensen tries to identify it with Berosus' Larancha, " Kos der Bab.," 387; Frd. Delitzsch, with Larak, " Paradies," 224.

^ Jastrow, " corrupt ; " Zimmern's conjecture.

II Or Nin-girsu, warrior of Bel, a solar deity.

(386)

Ea's Warning

The lord of wisdom, Ea, spoke with them.* He told their resolution to the fields,— Fields! fields! hut! hut!t Fields, give heed! Hut, take warning!"

It is plain that Ea, the god of humanity, does not share the desire of the other gods to destroy the human race. He therefore takes this round- about way of warning the people of what is com- ing by informing the houses and fields, so that in the end he may be able to tell the gods that he has not betrayed their counsel. He also sends the following vision to Sit-napistim :

" ' Man of Surippak, son of Kidini-Marduk, t make a house, build a ship, save all that you can find of the seed of life. Let your possessions go, save life, bring seed of life of all kinds into the ship. The dimensions of the ship you build shall be measured. Its breadth shall correspond with its height. § Then let it go down from its moorings into the deep.' ||

" I paid attention, and said to Ea, my lord: . . . 'My lord, what you have commanded I will hold in honor and carry out [but what] shall I answer to the town, the people, and the elders? ' "

Sit-napistim behaves with great discretion ; the people will certainly inquire the cause of his build- ing this strange vessel and collecting the seeds of living beings. It will be observed that Ea has not yet told him the nature of the coming calam- ity. Ea, however, now bids him announce to the people in veiled and guarded terms that a flood is coming.

* Jensen, " sat among them," which makes better sense.

f Jensen, "reed hedge;" Jastrow, "reed hut;" Zimmern, " reed house."

X " Client of Marduk," Jastrow.

§ The beginning of this line is broken. Zimmern understands that breadth and length are equal, which would make the ship square. Jensen's translation is incomprehensible.

II Zimmern, " the ocean."

(387)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

" Ea opened his mouth and said to me, his servant, * [For answer] thus shall you speak to them: [because] Bel hates me, I will not remain in your city, will no longer lay down my head in Bel's place. I will descend to the sea, will take refuge with the god Ea, who is my lord.' "

Bel's dominion is only on land, while Ea is the god of the deep. Hence by descending to the sea, Sit-napistim escapes from the power of Bel and takes refuge with Ea. Here another motive of the poem is apparent ; namely, to glorify Ea at the expense of Bel.* The next few lines are im- perfect and of doubtful meaning :

" He [Bel] showers great abundance upon you . . . birds . . . swarm of fishes [two lines gone]."

The meaning seems to be, Bel is deceiving you. While he appears to be sending you rich bless- ings, he is preparing to destroy you in a flood. The different translators, however, are not in agreement as to this.

" He who sends the whirling storm [in the night, he will let fall on you] terrible rains. f

"When the dawn broke [eleven lines gone], I gathered what was required. On the fifth day I planned its form. In its middle part the walls were ten Gar [120 ells (?)] t high, ten Gar the deck stretched out."

The next nineteen lines, unfortunately, are very much mutilated :

" I built it in six stories, divided it sevenfold [perhaps so that with the vessel's deck or interior it consisted of seven stories]. The interior I divided into nine [compartments], the water that was in it I poured out. I provided myself

* Jastrow.

f Or " Yet Samas has fixed the time when the lords of darkness and the evening will shower on you a destroying rain," Zimmern. X Jensen, 140 ells.

(388)

The Babylonian Ark

with an oar [pole], put what was necessary into it. Six sar * of bitumen I poured over the outside, three sar of pitch on the inside. I kept back a sar of oil needful for the sacrifices. Two sar of oil the navigator secured. For [the temple of the gods] I slaughtered oxen, killed sheep every day. Vessels of sesame wine ... oil and wine of grapes, bowls with . . . like water I made a festival as on New Year's day. Salve ... I dipped my hand. On the seventh day was the ship ready . . . was heavy. . . . One brought in above and below . . . two- thirds of it."

The above paragraph is Zimmern's. Jeremias does not attempt to translate it, on account of the

SIT-NAPISTIM IN HIS ARK

fragmentary condition of the text. Haupt in- geniously conjectures that the " two-thirds " al- luded to means that two-thirds of the vessel's depth is submerged. The description of the vessel is very interesting, and we can only hope that more of the text will be recovered. The Babylonian ark seems to be conceived as a great house boat, six stories high, resting on a flat ves- sel with upturned edges, like the craft still seen on the Euphrates.! Within, as in Noah's ark,

* A large measure. f Jastrow, 498, 499.

■ - ~ - — ^^^=^

(389)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

compartments or cells are made for the passen- gers and goods. The caulking with bitumen and pitch is strikingly like Genesis; in fact, the same word is used.* All this reminds us of the Priestly Writer's account. The seven days that elapsed between the warning of Ea and the be- ginning of the Flood are the seven days' prepara- tion of our Jehovist. So we see how closely the threads of our traditions are intertwined.

" I filled it with everything I had. I filled it with all the silver I had, I filled it with all the gold I had."

According to Ihering this is the earliest al- lusion in literature to silver and gold as treasures, or, one may say, as money. '' Babylon is the spot where, as may be historically proved, metal was first employed as money." f

" I put into it whatever! had of the seed of life."

The Babylonian writer, who probably had a wider knowledge of the number of animal spe- cies, thinks of saving the seed of all living animals rather than the animals themselves. He speaks of saving animals, it is true, but not with anything like the fulness of our Biblical account. In his allusion to the seed of living things he has been followed by both the Persian legend and the latest Hindu account. Berosus speaks simply of saving specimens of all animals. Our narrative contains an echo of both traditions. The Priestly Writer repeatedly enumerates the birds, beasts, and creeping things, the Jehovist mentions the preservation of animals, but speaks also of the

* " Kopher" and " Kupri."

f " Evol. of the Aryan," 202, 203.

{390)

Command to Shut the Door

necessity of " keeping seed alive on the face of the earth." The flood which was originally in- tended to destroy Surippak is already taking on the dimensions of a universal deluge, an evident sign that more than one tradition is embodied in the poem.

" I took into the ship my whole family and my servants, cattle of the field, animals of the field, hand-workmen, I brought them all together. Samas * gave an appointed sign: ' When he who sends the whirlwind sends in the evening a terrible rainstorm, then go into the ship and shut the door.' "

■/:, SIT-NAPISTIM IN HIS ARK

It is very curious to encounter in this place the incident of the closing of the door. In Izdu- bar the command to close the door is given by the god. We are not told, as in Genesis, that the god shut Sit-napistim in, and yet there must have been a tradition to this effect, for in the cylinder

* The sun-god, judge of heaven and earth. He seems to favor Sit-napistim, and gives the sign by which he should know it was time to embark.

(391)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

we see two deities shutting him into the ark, while a superior god, apparently Ea, looks ap- provingly on.

"This sign was fulfilled. He who sends the whirlwind sent at night a fearful storm. Before day dawned I trembled, I was afraid to see the day."

The season of the year is not stated, as it is in Genesis and Berosus. Even in Berosus the length of the Flood is not calculated, and in Iz- dubar its duration is very brief. The long con- tinuance of the Flood and the exact calculations of our Priestly Writer, therefore, are original, or else they rest on some tradition not yet discov- ered.

" I entered the ship and shut the door. I gave the care of the ship to Pusur-Bel,* the pilot. The great ark f I entrusted to him."

The mention of the pilot is a further indication that Sit-napistim's bark did not merely drift on the water, but sailed. A pilot is necessary for purposes of navigation. Once out of sight of land, as Ihering remarks, the landsman does not know how to steer his course to reach the desired port, hence Sit-napistim at once resigned the control of the ship to more experienced hands. To the Hebrews, who knew next to nothing of navigation, this thought would not occur, hence no mention of a pilot is made in Genesis.^ Pusur-Bel does not seem to be the same person as Arad-Ea, the pilot of the waters of death,

* Or Pusur-Shadurabu, '* hidden or protected in the great re- treat."— Jastrow. f Jensen, " house." I " Evol. of Aryan," 169.

(392)

The Beginning of the Flood

another proof that the Flood story is an interpo- lation and not originally part of the poem.

" When the dawn broke, black clouds arose on the horizon of heaven. Ramman,* Nabu,f and Marduk came out as leaders, marched over hill and valley. The god UrugalJ tore the ship loose."

The ship is conceived as already launched, and lying moored in the Euphrates, not resting on dry ground until the waters floated it, as in Genesis. Several of the deities mentioned in these verses are gods of the deep and of the lower world, a hint that the flood comes from beneath as well as from above.

" Ninib§ stepped forth, swam over the banks. Ramman's swelling waves rose to heaven. All the light was turned to darkness . . . like a destroying storm the elements bore down on men. Brother could not see brother, men were not regarded in heaven. || The gods themselves were terrified at the flood, they fled, mounting up to the heaven of Anu. The gods were like dogs . . . crouched on the mound 1[ [of heaven]. Ishtar shrieked with anger,** she, the kindly speaking, exalted one, cried: 'This peo- ple (?) is turned again to clay. The evil that I predicted before the gods, the evil ... I predicted the storm that brings destruction to my men.f f What I have brought forth, where is it? They fill the sea like a school of fishes (?).' The gods wept with her over the Annunaki.^:}:"

* A storm god, associated with Samas.

f Nabu, god of wisdom, probably of aqueous origin.

X God of the lower world.

§ A solar deity, also god of war. Jensen translates storm-sun.

II " Men care not for one another. In the heavens," etc.

^ The dam or mountain which supports the firmament.

** " Groaned like a woman in throes."

ff Jensen, Zimmern and Jastrow believe that she is reproach- ing herself. "That I should have assented to this evil among the gods, that when I assented to this evil, I was for the destruc- tion of my own creatures." — Jastrow.

Xt The bad spirits who had let loose the elements. It may be " the gods who were over the Annunaki wept with her." — Jensen.

(393)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

This fine and spirited description must have been inspired, one would suppose, by the recol- lection of some frightful upheaval of nature, at- tended with great loss of life. Making allowance for poetical and mythological expression, it would apply very well to the late destructive storm in Galveston. Evidently, as Jastrow says, the Flood is going further than the gods antici- pated or desired. Their first intention was but to destroy Surippak, but they have destroyed the world, and the rising waves threaten even their own abodes; hence their fear. Ishtar now de- clares that she had foretold it. Plainly, two dis- tinct traditions are interwoven in this portion of the poem; one of the destruction of Surippak, the other of the general destruction of the world.

" The gods sat bent over with weeping, their Hps were pressed together. . , . Six days and six (?) nights * the storm wind raged on, the flood, the violent rain. When the seventh day came, the flood and the rain ceased. The storm that had fought the fight Hke a war chief, rested. The sea became narrower, the hurricane, the flood storm came to an end. Then I looked across the sea, let my voice go forth, but all men had returned to earth. Like the uru was the tcsalhi.\ I opened the hatchway: light fell on my face. I sank back, sat down and wept. Tears flowed over my face. I looked around: the world was a broad sea. Land rose [above the surface] 12 ells high.:}: Toward the mountain land Nisir the ship took its course. The mountain of the land Nisir held the ship fast and

* Ihering, who assumes six days and seven nights for the Fl,ood, finds an allusion here to the Sabbath. The Flood lasted no longer because on the Sabbath the gods must rest. "It is the idea of the labor week of the Babylonians referred to the gods." — " Evol. of Aryan," 153.

f Jensen, "like bare ground was the forest field ;" Jastrow, " in place of dams everything had become a marsh."

\ Jastrow, " After twelve double hours," i. e., after twenty-four hours. Jensen hesitates between twelve days and twelve double hours.

(394)

The Mountain of Nisir

would not let it move from the place. One day, a second day the mountain Nisir he'ld the ship fast and would not let it move from its place. A third and a fourth day [repe- tition of the same phrase]. A fifth and a sixth day, etc. As the seventh day approached, I let a dove fly out."

The situation of the mountain in the land of Nisir seems to be settled by Schrader's * dis- covery of an inscription of Assurbanipal, which places it beyond the Tigris, east or southeast of the lower Zab. Holzinger f thinks that this loca- tion corresponds with Berosus' Kurdish moun- tains. Berosus, however, asserts that Xisuthros' landing place was in Armenia, which is consider- ably north of the lower Zab. Haupt and De- litzsch, on the contrary, remark that Nisir means nothing but '' rescue," hence the " mountain of rescue " has no geographical situation. In view of the fact that the land of Nisir is clearly defined in Assurbanipal's inscription, it can scarcely be regarded as a mythical mountain. The poem of Izdubar, it will be observed, carefully mentions a mountain in the land Nisir. We shall revert to this subject later. The episode of the birds is perhaps the most striking parallel to Genesis in the whole narrative. The author is careful to in- form us that the first bird was released seven days after the stranding of the vessel. Three birds are mentioned in Izdubar and only two in Genesis, but for the rest the resemblance is convincing.

" The dove flew here and there, but because there was no resting place she came back. X Then I let a swallow fly out.

*K. A. T.,p. 53-

f"Gen.," p. 87, note 2. See also Budde, " Urgeschichte," 436 ff.

X " But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot and she returned." — Gen. viii. g.

(395)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

The swallow flew here and there; because there was no resting place she came back. I let out a raven. The raven flew, saw the abatement of the waters, ate, let itself down . . . it did not come back. Then I let everything out [opened everything] to the four winds * and placed a sacrificial gift on the top of the mountain. Seven and seven vessels I set out. I spread out calmus, cedar wood and Sim-Gir."f

This reminds us curiously of the sweet per- fume which Jahveh smelled, and which led Him to promise not to curse the earth again with a fiood.J

" The gods smelled the perfume. The gods inhaled the good perfume. The gods swarmed like flies around the sacrificers. When the sublime one [Ishtar] came, she raised up the great lightning § that Anu had made for her pleasure. 'These gods! [she cried]. By my necklace, I will not forget it. i I will think upon these days, I will not forget them. The gods may come to the sacrifice; Bel shall not come to the sacrifice because he rashly caused the flood to arise and gave my men over to judgment.' "

" When Bel came, he saw the ship.^ Then Bel was en- raged. He was filled with anger with the gods of the Igigi.** ' Who has escaped alive? No man was to escape alive in this judgment.' Ninib opened his mouth and spoke to the hero Bel. ' Who except Ea has done this thing? But Ea knows all oaths.'ff

" Ea opened his mouth and spoke to the hero Bel: ' You judge of the gods, how rashly have you raised this flood. Punish the sinner for his sin, punish the wicked man for his

* Jensen, " I went out, offered a sacrifice to the four winds."

f Zimmern, "incense."

X Gen. viii. 21,

^Jensen, " great intaglios ; " Zimmern, " precious jewel."

I Ishtar throughout the poem is a very vigorous and living figure, and thoroughly feminine. She has quite as much vitality as Homer's and Virgil's favorite heroines, but she is a little too violent.

^ Until then he did not know that any had escaped.

** Inferior deities, "on the whole severe and cruel," used by the great gods to execute their decrees. — Jastrow.

ff " He was aware of your conspiracy."

(396)

Kesemblances to Genesis

wickedness. Be merciful, let him not be destroyed. Cherish affection for him, let him not be exterminated.' " *

So the story ends like ours with the promise that the Flood shall not come again, or, at all events, with a plea that it may not come again.

" ' Instead of raising a flood, let lions come and diminish men. Instead of a flood, let leopards (?) come and dimin- ish men. Instead of a flood, let famine come and [dimin- ish] men. Instead of a flood, let a plague come and diminish men. I did not reveal the counsel of the great gods. I sent Andrahasis f a dream, and so he heard the decision of the great gods.'

" Then Bel made his decision. The god Bel went up on the ship, seized my hand, led me up, led my wife up and caused her to kneel at my side. He embraced us, stepping between us and blessing us. ' Before this Sit- napistim was a man. Now, Sit-napistim and his wife shall be exalted like gods. Sit-napistim shall dwell in the dis- tant regions, at the confluence of streams shall he dwell.'

" [Then they carried us away and caused us to dwell at the confluence of streams." — ^Jensen.]

This, then, is the celebrated Babylonian narra- tive of the Flood, according to the best interpre- tations it has yet received. In spite of minor dif- ferences, it is encouraging to see how closely the best and latest translators are in agreement as to its meaning. It only remains for us to trace the points of resemblance and of difference be- tween this story and the Flood story of Genesis, and then to try to determine the relation which the two accounts bear to each other.

The resemblances are very numerous, and I shall mention only the more important. As we learn at the end of the story, the determining

* Zimmern conjectures with reason, " But be merciful, let not (all) be destroyed ; be patient, that (all) may not be wiped out." f Ea well preserves his reputation for truth and uprightness.

(397)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

cause which moved the Babylonian deities to de- stroy Surippak, was the sinfuhiess of its inhabi- tants. Among these sinners was one righteous man, Sit-napistim, who was warned by the great god Ea of the coming disaster, and instructed to make a great vessel to save himself and his fam- ily, some animals and the seeds of all forms of life. The ark is circumstantially described. Its dimensions and proportions originally were care- fully traced, as in the account of our Priestly Writer, although they were differently estimated. Even such details as the description of the stories of the ark, the compartments or cells, the opening and closing of the door, and the caulking of the ark with bitumen, are strikingly similar to the statements of Genesis. The Flood comes seven days after the warning is given, as in the account of the Jehovist. Of all the coincidences of the two traditions the episode of the birds is perhaps the most indisputable. If this coincidence alone appeared in the two stories, it would prove a common origin or borrowing on one side or the other. In the Babylonian poem the deluge was preceded by a heavy rain, which, however, only served as a sign to Sit-napistim that the Flood had begun. Then followed a tornado, storm winds and more rain. It is true, the breaking up of the great deep is not specifically mentioned, which rather surprises us, as such a conception would be in entire accord with Babylonian cosmology. The immediate cause of the Flood is left undeter- mined, and the duration of the Flood is much less than in either of our accounts.* The points of

* Sit-napistim's vessel grounds after only seven days. Seven days after the stranding of the ship Sit-napistim sends out his

(39^

Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions

resemblance thicken toward the end of the story. The grounding of the Babylonian ark on a moun- tain, the opening of the door, the exit from the ark, and the sacrifice of animals, of which the gods joyfully partake — all find direct counter- parts in our narrative. The pleasure of the gods in smelling the sweet perfume strangely reminds us of one of the most anthropomorphic verses of our Jehovist, and the assurance that a flood shall not come again completes a long series of paral- lels. I venture to afhrm that no person accus- tomed to judge of such matters can read these two narratives without the conviction that they are closely related. The question is, What is the relation of these two narratives ? Do they rep- resent two differentiated forms of the same primi- tive tradition, or was the Hebrew narrative bor- rowed directly from Babylonia, and if so, at what time?

This, I need hardly say, is an exceedingly dif- ficult question, so difficult that it cannot be defi- nitely settled at the present time. One general statement can safely be made. Closely as our narrative agrees in many respects with the Flood episode of Izdubar, no one can pretend that the whole story of Genesis was derived from that poem. There are certain features, such as the dimensions of the ark, the reckoning of the time in days and months, the landing in Armenia, etc., in which Genesis agrees more closely with the tradition handed down by Berosus. There are other features, such as the longer duration of the

birds, apparently one after the other. Then he goes out himself. The Flood therefore seems to have lasted scarcely more than four- teen days.

(399)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Flood, the slow rise and subsidence of the waters, the breaking up of the great deep, etc., in which our story agrees with neither of the Babylonian traditions that we now possess. Moreover, there are several features in Izdubar, such as Sit- napistim's prayer for those about to perish, and his tears for those who had perished, which might very well have been taken over, but which have been entirely omitted. The beautiful rainbow story, in spite of Sayce's * attempt to associate it with the necklace of Ishtar, is not found in any Babylonian Flood traditions with which we are acquainted. We know, however, that other tra- ditions of the Flood existed in Babylon. f Mak- ing these allowances and feeling the necessity of observing the utmost caution in dealing with this deHcate problem, I may venture the following tentative observations :

Between the two narratives recorded in Gen- esis and Izdubar there can be little question as to which is the older and the more original. It is only necessary to say that the poem of Izdubar dates from about 2000 B.C., while the older of our two writers, the Jehovist, lived not earlier than 900 B.C. It is therefore impossible on his- torical, to say nothing of linguistic grounds, that the Babylonian story could have been taken from the Book of Genesis. There are, however, two other hypotheses permissible, (i) Our narrative may have been borrowed directly from the Baby-

* " Fresh Light from the Monuments," p. 311.

f In the eleventh International Congress of Orientalists (Sep- tember, 1897), Scheil presented a tablet dating from the days of Hammurabi, in which the story of the Deluge is narrated in a manner quite different from that of the Gilgamesh episode. Jas- trow, 507, note i.

(400)

Origin of Flood Tradition

Ionian at a comparatively late date, shortly be- fore the Jehovist wrote; or, (2) Both narratives may represent genuinely ancient national tradi- tions, the Babylonian tradition the older, and the Hebrew ultimately depending on it. Let us con- sider the forrrier alternative first. If our nar- rative was borrowed directly from the Babylo- nian, in historical times, what date would be most suitable for such a wholesale loan to have taken place ? It has been frequently asserted "^ that the Hebrews did not receive nor write their story of the Flood until the captivity in Babylon, or even later. As to the Babylonian captivity proper (605-536 B.C.), this can hardly be maintained, for the Jehovist, whose narrative most resembles the Babylonian, lived at least a hundred years earlier. Dillmann f also is quite right in saying, '' It is inconceivable that the Hebrews should have ap- propriated from their enemies, the Babylonians, a local legend originally quite foreign to them and steeped in the silliest polytheism." We know, however, that for several centuries before the " Seventy Years," Assyrian armies were con- stantly in Palestine, and that as early as 740 B.C. Tiglath-pileser carried portions of the tribes of Reuben, Gad and Manasseh away to Assyria. It is therefore not impossible that during the eighth century, or somewhat earlier, the tradition first came to the Hebrews from Babylon or Nineveh. With this view Budde t seems to agree, speaking of the " transmission of spiritual sparks " and an

*E.g., by Goldziher, " Der Mythos bei den Hebraern," p. 382 ff., 1876. Delitzsch, "Wo lag das Paradies?" pp. 94, 157, P. Haupt, " Der Keilinschriftliche Sintfluthbericht," p. 20, 1881.

f " Gen.," i. 262

i " Urgeschichte," 515 ff.

86 (401)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

" eruption of sagas " from Mesopotamia in the ninth and eighth centuries, and especiaUy of Ahaz's friendship for Tiglath-pileser and the ahar Ahaz bought in Damascus,* etc., etc.

I do not consider this impossible, but, in view of the hostihty of the Prophets to every form of polytheism, the abhorrence in which Ahaz's memory was held, and the attitude of the He- brews toward Assyria, it seems improbable, if the Hebrews had not known it before, that such a legend as the Babylonian Flood story should have found a place in their Sacred Books at this time. Since the discovery of the Tel-el- Amarna tablets, all our ideas in regard to the influence of Babylonia in Canaan have been pro- foundly modified. These letters, written in the fifteenth century B.C., in the Babylonian cunei- form characters, prove conclusively that the lan- guage of Babylon was used as a means of com- munication at that early date in Canaan. But if people could write the Babylonian dialect, they could also read it. Without imagining that the ancient Hebrews were in the habit of reading Babylonian literature, there is still much reason to believe that Canaan, from very early times, was penetrated by Babylonian mythology and tradition.! There is therefore no reason why we

*II. Kings, 7-16.

f So, about the year 1400 B.C., the Semitic dialect of Babylon was a kind of diplomatic language of commerce, which was learned by educated persons in Syria along with the cuneiform characters. That numerous other loans followed this, especially the trans- mission of a great mass of Babylonian ideas, is apparent. — Ben- zinger's " Archaol.," p. 67, 1894.

That means simply that at this time (1400 B.C.) people had knowledge of Babylonian literature, at least to a certain degree. For, to write such Babylonian letters as were then frequently

(402)

Early Transmission of Legend

^^*'^^"'^"^^'^^^— — — ^— — ^— ^^^^^^^^^^^™^^^^^^^— — — ^^"^i^^^^-^

should not ascend considerably above the ninth century in endeavoring to fix the time at which the Hebrews became acquainted with the Baby- lonian story of the Flood. Of course, so far as historical fact is concerned in such an inquiry as this, we are at present simply walking on air ; but in default of definite historical proof in either di- rection, there are other considerations on which we may legitimately fall back.

It is very improbable that a writer of the moral and religious elevation of our Jehovist should have appropriated a story full of the crudest and most revolting polytheism, and should have in- corporated it into the Hebrews' sacred Hterature. It is at least more probable that the Babylonian tradition had been transmitted orally to the He- brews in early times; and having undergone many modifications, had become one of their own national traditions. This is the impression which the story of Genesis leaves with us. Although the Biblical writers make no effort to conceal its Bab- ylonian origin, there is an unspoken assumption running all through the earlier chapters of Gen- written in Palestine, the Palestinian writer must have occupied him- self not a little with the Babylonian characters and language. The learning of several hundred cuneiform symbols, with their phonetic values and meanings, could not have been avoided by a Palestinian wishing to employ them, any more than by a student of Assyriology at the present time. How foreigners set to work to learn Assyrian at that time we can see from the Tel-el-Amarna discovery. For alongside of Babylonian vocabularies, collections of signs and other similar aids, which were employed in learning Babylonian, two rather large Babylonian mythical texts were found, in which Egyptian scribes had indicated the separation of words by red and black points, and which therefore plainly served as an Assyrian chrestomathy. Through the discovery of these two mythological texts it was first established that at this time mythical traditions from Babylonia wandered into the west. — Zimmern in Gunkel's " Schopfung und Chaos."

(403)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

esis that the two peoples were originally one, and that the ancestors of the Hebrews came from the land of the two rivers. These traditions, which are certainly ancient, can hardly have arisen in the ninth or eighth century, through the fact that the Hebrews had borrowed the Babylonian leg- ends of Creation and of the Flood.*

Moreover, a close comparison of the two nar- ratives does not favor the supposition that our Flood story was borrowed directly from any written Babylonian account that has come down to us. In spite of the curious resemblance of details, the impression of the traditions in their entirety is very different. The Flood episode in Izdubar is pure epic poetry, while both our stories are prose. The polytheism with which the Babylonian story teems has vanished. No part of the Old Testament is more strictly mono- theistic than the story of the Flood. There is not a hint in Genesis that our authors are dealing with foreign ideas; but, on the other hand, the earlier chapters of Genesis, e. g., those containing the marriage of the sons of God and the daugh- ters of men,t the genealogy of Seth, etc., were plainly inserted with reference to the Flood, and the later chapters about Noah's descendants spring immediately from the Flood story. All these traditions, therefore, must have been fabri- cated at a late date if the Flood tradition was bor- rowed about the time of the Exile.

* Still more conclusive is the ethnographical table of Gen. x., which traces the descent of the nations from the three sons of Noah.

f I do not mean to imply that these traditions were originally composed with reference to the Flood, but it is plain that the writers of Genesis employed them to lead up to that subject.

(404)

Details of Hebrew Story

Further, many of the details of the narrative do not give the impression of having been bor- rowed at a late date from the text of the Babylo- nian story. In some respects our account follows Berosus more closely than it follows Izdubar. We should therefore have to assume that our writers had several forms of the Babylonian tradition be- fore them. The manner in which Noah's ark is described seems to imply a gradual transforma- tion of the tradition to suit the ideas of a non- maritime people. Even the episode of the birds, on which so much stress is rightly laid, has been altered considerably in our story, and it is just one of those beautiful, picturesque touches which would be remembered forever. Much more im- portant than this is the fact that several incidents of the Babylonian story, profoundly transformed, reappear in other Hebrew traditions which have little to do with the Flood. In particular there is the striking episode of the translation of Sit- napistim or Xisuthros, not a trace of which now appears in the story of Noah. In Genesis, how- ever, Enoch is translated. So writers have seen in the destruction of Sodom a parallel to the de- struction of Surippak with which the Babylonian Flood story began. From the expression at the lend of the Sodom story, '' There is not a man in the earth," * it would appear that the burning of 1 Sodom was once part of a story of universal de- ■ struction.f I might also point to Tiamat as an example of a mythical Babylonian conception which, slightly transformed, has worked its way through almost every stratum of the Old Testa- ment.

*Gen. xix. 31. f Noticed by Ewald.

(405)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

All these indications point, I think, to a grad- ual infiltration of Babylonian myths and tradi- tions into Israelitish soil in very early times, and to their adoption first by the people, rather than to a direct and conscious borrowing by the sacred writers in comparatively late times. In almost every case these stories are such as would appeal to the popular imagination, and once learned they would never be forgotten. 1 will only add that several of the most able Assyriologists and Hebraists, in the main, are in agreement with this view. Jastrow * says, '' The slight variations between the Biblical and the Babylonian narra- tives . . . justify the conclusion that the Hebrew story is not borrowed directly from the Babylonian." Gunkel f remarks, '' Here, too, as well as in the first chapter of Genesis, the thought of direct assumption [of the Babylonian narra- tive by the writers of Genesis] is wholly remote." Jeremias t observes, " Certainly the contents of the narrative in the Bible and in the inscriptions, represent an old and common possession of the Semitic tribes of the Euphrates and Tigris land." Duncker,§ whose words Jeremias quotes with ap- proval, expresses himself in the same manner, and adds that in the Hebrew writings the old tra- dition lies before us " in a purified and deeper form." Jensen, so far as I am aware, does not express himself on this point. Ihering || thinks that '' the Jews on their separation from the mother nation took this idea [of a flood], like so many others, away with them." Dillmann,Tf

* " Relig-. of Bab.," 506. f " Schopf. und Chaos," 143 flf. ± " Izdubar-Nimrod," 37. § " Gesch. des Alt.," i. 236. I " Evol. of Aryan," 150. ^ "Gen.," i. 262, 263.

(406)

Peiser and Scheil

while willing to admit that specific knowledge of the Babylonian compositions probably came to Israel under the kings, still believes that " Some vague knowledge of a flood which destroyed mankind was already current among them." On the other hand, Stade * combats the position of Gunkel, and insists that the Babylonian saga came late .to Israel, while Kuenen thinks '' the later we place such a borrowing the more com- prehensible it is," which seems to me the reverse of the truth. The earHest allusions to Noah in the Old Testament are in the Deutero-Isaiah.f and in Ezekiel,$ the Prophet of the Exile, from which, however, as Dillmann § afhrms, it cannot be concluded that he was not known before.

In this connection I must not forget to men- tion two other Babylonian Flood traditions which have been recovered in recent years, both un- fortunately much mutilated. In 1889 Peiser published a mythological text with a map which purported to give a picture of Babylonia during the Deluge. 1 1 The text is very fragmentary, but the map is of great interest, as I shall show in a later chapter. It represents the Persian Gulf as encroaching on the territory of Babylonia.

The third cuneiform Deluge fragment was dis- covered by Father V. Scheil among the tablets of the museum of Constantinople, and was pre- sented by him before the International Congress of Orientalists, which met in Paris in 1897. In January, 1898, Scheil communicated the results of his discovery to Americans in the columns of

*"Z. A. T. W.," 1895, p. 160. f Isa. Hv. 9.

ifEzek. xiv. 14, 20. § " Gen.," i. 262.

II " Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie," iv. 369 ff., 1889.

(407)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

the " Independent." His article was followed by two very interesting elucidative and critical papers by Dr. Jastrow.* The importance of Scheil's document, which is a mere fragment, lies An its great age and in the fact that it represents a Babylonian Flood tradition apparently indepen- dent of the epic of Izdubar. It is also exceedingly interesting to note that the tablet was found in Sippara, the seat of Berosus' Flood legend, and that it was written by a scribe of that city. In point of age this Flood tablet is the oldest we pos- sess. It purports to have been inscribed in the reign of King Ammizaduga (about 2140 B.C.), and as it is a copy, no one can say how old the original Flood story may be.

The situation described is this: Ramman, or, as Jastrow thinks, Bel, has determined to destroy mankind, and utters a malediction against men. A deity whom Scheil recognizes as Ea, takes the part of humanity and pleads its cause, as in the Izdubar epic.

Col. vii. Ea spake the word And said to me:

" Why wilt thou make men to die . . . I will reach out my hand to men . . . The deluge of which thou speakest . . , Whatever it may be, I ... I shall have produced (in vain ?) He shall be informed of it ... To the end that he build . . . And he shall beget . . . That they may enter (into the ship) . . . That Pir (napistim take) the oar . . . That he may come," etc.f

* New York " Independent," Jan. 20, Feb. 10 and 17, 1898.

f I have unfortunately Scheil's first translation only, which ap-< peared in the "Independent," and I believe has since been emended.

(408)

Scheil's Fragment

Finally there are two lines of a speech by Sit- napistim, part of whose name has been identified and who is called here Adram-hasis.

Adram-hasis utters his word And speaks to his lord.

It is quite possible that this version of the Flood, which was written in Sippara, may have been one of the sources from which Berosus drew his account. Berosus, though a priest of Bel in Babylon, constantly speaks of Sippara in his story of the Deluge. There the sacred writ- ings are to be concealed. Thither the survivors of the Flood are to return. Fragmentary as this text is, one might even imagine that it told a story which resembled Berosus' account more than the account of Izdubar. The deluge de- scribed seems to be universal, not confined to a single city, and Sit-napistim, only a portion of whose name appears, if it is there at all, is called by the famiHar name Adram-hasis, which in Be- rosus has been corrupted to Xisuthros. Jastrow even goes so far as to conjecture that there were originally two independent Flood stories in Bab- ylonia, the hero of one being Sit-napistim, or, as he prefers, Par-napistim, and the hero of the other, Adra-hasis, in Scheil's fragment written Adram-hasis. Although this tradition is re- garded as independent of the Izdubar epic, the attitude of the gods, the intercession of Fa, his warning to Sit-napistim, etc., seem to be much the same as in that poem.

The second column, which is also very much iniured, Scheil translates as follows:

(409)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Col. ii. That , . .

That he has . . .

That he should kill, that he should destroy,

In the morning that he should rain down the

extermination . . . That during the night he should prolong . . . That he should rain down the inundation . . . The plain, he will make its ruin great; the

city . . . That which Ramman shall have accomplished, He says he will overturn (?) the land , . . He raises a cry . . . (The gods) will not fear.

Unfortunately, this is hardly intelligible.

I may sum up the result of this investigation as follows : It is not impossible that the Flood story, as several excellent writers have believed, is part of a primitive tradition which the Hebrews shared with the Babylonians. Leaving that hy- pothesis on one side, we know^ that at a very early period, before the Hebrews entered Canaan, many Babylonian myths were almost certainly known to the Canaanites, who wrote the Baby- lonian language. It is therefore permissible to suppose that the more striking of these myths were handed down in Canaan, where the He- brews learned them from the Canaanites, who taught them so many other things. Such myths would be the more congenial to them as they were probably very similar to the Hebrews' own earliest traditions. I would, however, by no means exclude the idea that at a later time, shortly before our earliest Genesis was com- posed, the Hebrews came in contact with the lit- erary versions of the Babylonian stories which we possess, and very likely with other additional versions that may yet be discovered. Indeed,

(410)

Literary Versions

this supposition seems to me necessary in order to account for those minute points of resem- blance between the narratives, which surely would have been obscured if the Hebrew tradi- tion had been handed down orally for hundreds of years before it was reduced to writing.

(411)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Chapter Nineteen:

The Flood Traditions of Primitive Peoples

I LJEFORE we pass to the consideration of the ' U traditions of the Deluge preserved by primitive peoples in different parts of the world, I should like to express an opinion as to the nature of the occurrence itself. I have said more than once that no universal Deluge, cover- ing the tops of high mountains, has taken place on this earth in historical times. Certainly no such universal destruction of life occurred at the time when the Hebrew Scriptures placed our Flood, which is represented as occurring only about 2500 years before Christ. At that time, Egypt, in the valley of the Nile, had reached a high state of civilization, yet Egypt was not de- stroyed. On what, then, was our Flood story based? In a subsequent chapter I shall attempt to give a specific answer to this legitimate ques- tion. Here I will content myself with noticing some erroneous views. What compHcates this question is the fact that the Hebrews and Baby- lonians are by no means the only peoples that have preserved a tradition of the destruction of the world by water. Traditions of a flood are to be found in almost every quarter of the world. This strange fact has for centuries obscured the discussion of this question. It is easy to see what

(412)

Universality of Flood

support the wide diffusion of a Flood legend has given to the dogma of literalists, that a uni- versal Deluge actually occurred, of which these numerous traditions are the echoes. This his- torical fact, the diffusion of a Flood tradition, in its turn receives powerful support from a physical fact, namely, that the remains of sea animals, whales, turtles, petrified fishes and marine shells are to be found in many parts of the world, on mountains or other elevated places, far inland or lifted high above the present level of the sea. These two apparently independent facts, both which appear to furnish powerful support to the literal acceptance of the statements of Genesis, sufficiently explain why the old belief in a univer- sal Deluge has been maintained with the utmost obstinacy. As to the scientific aspect of this ques- tion, I have nothing to say. Long as the con- troversy between theology and geology was "^ waged, it is waged no longer. In this unequal ^ conffict, geology has remained absolutely in pos- session of the field. In fact, the whole dispute has for us now only an historical interest. It would be a difficult task to discover any first- class theological or Biblical text-book written within the past ten years, which maintains the universality of Noah's Flood. Even so conserva- tive a work as Smith's " Dictionary of the Bible " asserts the contrary. If you will look at the English edition of that well-known work, you will observe that under the word " Deluge " you are referred to the word " Flood." Turning to " Flood," you are again referred to the word " Noah," where you will find a fairly good article by the Very Rev. Dr. Perowne. The reason of

(413)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

this game of hide-and-seek in the Dictionary is said to be as follows : The purpose of the editor was to avoid another controversy with geology, but to maintain the strict universality of the Flood. He committed this difficult task to a man of abihty. But when this gentleman's arti- cle on '' The Deluge " was submitted, it was found to bristle with heresies, in consequence of which it had to be rejected. A second and more conservative scholar was chosen to write on ''The Flood," but his article proved worse than the first. Only one other reference could decently be made. Accordingly, Dr. Perowne was commis- sioned to write on " Noah," and though, as Bishop Colenso remarked, " he practically con- cedes the whole thing," the editors, despairing of doing better, were obliged to publish his article. A similar surrender is found in Home's celebrated " Introduction to the Scriptures," from which the old argument from fossils was quietly dropped in the seventh edition (about 1856).* Those who are interested in the history of the scientific controversy will find it fully treated in Andrew D. White's " History of the Warfare of Science with Theology " (chapter v.), and more formally in Zockler's " Geschichte der Bezie- hungen zwischen Theologie und Naturwissen- schaft." t Here I will merely say that the nu- merous remains of shells, fossil fishes, etc., de- posited in places which the sea does not now reach, could by no means be accounted for by a

* The statement in regard to Smith's "Diet, of the Bible" rests on the word of Dr. W. D. Carpenter, the physiologist. Both statements are here taken from Andrew D. White's "Warfare of Science with Theol.," i. 234, 235.

f 2 vols., Glitersloh, 1877, pp. 122, 470, 784 fif.

(414)

Diffusion of Flood Tradition

flood which, at longest, lasted but one year. They were the work of ages. When we discover unmistakable signs of the sea's presence and ac- tion on high mountains, it is natural to suppose that the sea once covered those mountains; but it is also possible that those mountains were once part of the bed of the sea and were afterward elevated. It is this supposition which finds favor with geologists.

The second great fact, however, the wide dif- fusion of the Flood tradition, is not so easily dis- missed. If no universal Deluge has occurred, how does it happen that races so remote as the Babylonians, the Australians, the Mexicans, the Eskimos and the Peruvians, have preserved un- mistakable traditions of such a flood? Before we attempt to answer this question, I should like to make two preliminary observations, (i) If any such universal catastrophe had occurred in his- torical times, not merely some nations, but all ancient nations, must have suffered from it. But, as we have seen, no tradition of the Flood has been preserved in Egypt, and no true Flood le- gend exists in China, although the Chinese and the Egyptians were the two nations of antiquity that were most careful to preserve their history. This one fact is fatal to the supposition that all these traditions arose from the recollection of a com- mon physical catastrophe. (2) It is well known that savage nations like the native Australian tribes, the Eskimos and the American Indians, do not remember anything very long. At all events, they have no ancient history. Von Hahn re- marks that at a low grade of culture, the mem- ory of the most striking events is preserved for

l4n)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

only a few generations. Sir John Lubbock cites several examples of this fact; e.g., the speedy obliteration of Tasman's visit * from the minds of the New Zealanders, and the American Indians' forgetfulness of so important an event as the visit of De Soto.f Tyler asserts that '' the lower races — loose in preserving tradition, and ever ready to clothe myth in its shape, — can seldom be trusted in their stories of long past ages." J

Now, however we may regard the Flood story, if the flood described in the Babylonian and the Hebrew Scriptures occurred at all, it occurred before 2000 B.C., since one of the Babylonian ac- counts possesses this great age. Accordingly, it would be necessary to suppose that such races as the Eskimos, which possess no knowledge of the events of a hundred years ago, have preserved the recollection of this event for more than 3500 years. This is too improbable.

We pass now to a brief study of the diffusion of the Flood tradition among the lower races of mankind. In our former study of this tradition among the great civilized nations of the old world, we did not find independent traditions of a universal Deluge to be at all numerous; in fact, it may well be supposed that the Hebrew, Hindu, Persian and Greek stories all rest ultimately on the old Babylonian tradition. In studying the Flood myth among savage and barbarous peoples of modern times, we are dealing with very dif- ferent material. Here we have not carefully written native documents, but for the most part,

*Tylor, however, calls attention to the fact that Tasman did not land in New Zealand. " Early Hist, of Mankind," i6i. f " Prehistoric Times," 426 f. I " Primitive Culture," i. 39.

(416)

Geographical Distribution

mere oral traditions, collected by travellers and missionaries among peoples possessing some knowledge of the Bible and of Noah's Flood. iC^< We are therefore obliged to be constantly on our ,-^--s^*-"* ' guard. Many of the most striking resemblances ' . '^.it.-^ that have been pointed out between these stories ^ and our own can be explained by the fact that the native myths have been profoundly influ- enced by Genesis. In fact, almost every modern Flood story recorded by Christian missionaries! and travellers is open to this suspicion, and! therefore each must be judged on its own merits.- Among all the Flood stories of ancient and mod- ern times that Andree has been able to collect, he recognizes only fort}'" as original and independ- ent, and some of these ought to be eliminated.*

In regard to its geographical distribution, we may say that the Flood story is found in western Asia, Thibet, India, in the peninsula of Kam- chatka, on the continent of Australia, in New Guinea, Polynesia and Melanesia, and in Micro- nesia as far as the Sandwich Islands. The conti- nent of North America is rich in Flood stories from the Arctic Circle to Mexico. So are also Central and South America and Greenland. On the other hand, the Flood story does not appear at all in Arabia, in central and northern Asia, in China or Japan. On the whole continent of Africa, it occurs scarcely at all except under Christian influences. The only Flood traditions

/^ * "Die Flutsagen, ethnographisch betrachtet," Richard Andree, '^Braunschweig, 1891. In the following discussion, in addition to this excellent though incomplete work, I have consulted Schwarz's " Sintfluth und Volkerwanderungen ; " Ratzel's " Volkerkunde ; " Waltz's "Anthropologic;" Brinton's "Myths of the New World ;" Bancroft's " Native Races of the Pacific States."

(417)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

of Europe not directly influenced by the Bible are those of the Greeks, which probably have a Semitic origin, and perhaps the Lithuanian tra- ditions. In the East Indies, the Flood story occurs so seldom that in this general survey it can be disregarded. I may add that the Bud- dhist religion in general knows nothing of a Flood, and that the only knowledge Islam pos- sesses of it came directly or indirectly from the Bible.

We see, therefore, that the Flood tradition is by no means so general as many writers as- sume. And yet its wide diffusion astonishes us. I doubt if any similar myth or tradition has found such general acceptance among peoples so diverse. Out of this vast mass of mythical tra- dition, a large part of which has not yet been collected and sifted, I can present to you only a few specimens ; but I shall choose these from va- rious parts of the globe, so that from a few you may form a conception of all.

In Europe the Lithuanians have a curious le- gend. The chief of their gods, Pramzimas, one day looked out over the world from the window of his heavenly house and beheld nothing but war and wickedness among men. Accordingly he sent two giants, Wandu and Wejas, to the sinful earth, who wasted and destroyed it for twenty days and nights. Pramzimas looked down again while he was eating heavenly nuts, and threw down a shell which rested on the top of one of the highest mountains. On this moun- tain the animals and several men and women had taken refuge. They all got into the nutshell, which floated on the flood that now covered

(418)

Australia and Hawaii

everything. The god turned his face a third time to the earth, and caused the storm to abate and the water to run off. The rescued men and women separated, and only one couple remained in the quarter of the world from which the Lithu- anians come. They, however, were old, and they were concerned about offspring. Pram- zimas then sent a rainbow to comfort them, which advised them to jump over the bones of the earth. Nine times they jumped, and nine pairs of human beings appeared, who became the parents of the nine Lithuanian tribes.* Un- questionably this story was influenced by the Bible, though it is strongly tinctured with heathen mythology. The reappearance of the Greek episode of the stones from which the new race is made, is very curious.

In Australia, as I have said, the Flood legend is very common. The natives of Victoria tell this short story among others : " Long, long ago, when our fathers were living, there was a great' flood. All the land round about stood under water, and all the black fellows drowned except one man and two or three women, who took refuge in a little island near Port Albert. Then the pelican came in a canoe, saw the poor people and rescued them." f This seems to be a genu- ine native story, though the part played by the bird is curious.

Another characteristic native Flood story comes from Hawaii. Hawaii, like so many of the islands of the Pacific, contains volcanoes. Ac-

* Grimm, " Deutsche Mythologie," 3d ed., 545. f Broug-h Smith, " The Aborigines of Victoria," i. 477, Mel- bourne, 1878. Quoted by Andree.

(419)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

cordingly, one of the chief deities of the Ha- waiians is a terrible, subterranean fire-goddess, Pele, who goes from one island to another, bor- ing out mountains and filling them with fire. Once, long ago, when Pele lived in Samoa or New Zealand, her husband left her and fled with another goddess to the Island of Hawaii. The in- furiated Pele started in pursuit, taking with her her frightful brothers and sisters, the Cloud-king, the Lightning, the Thunder-man, the Fire- thrower, the Boat-breaker with fiery eyes, the Heaven-splitter. To aid Pele on her voyage, her parents gave her the sea, which bore the boat along. Hawaii was at that time a horrible desert without water, but Pele caused such a flood to arise that only the peaks of the highest moun- tains were visible. Then the sea sank again to its present level.*

This story seems like a reminiscence of an earthquake accompanied by a volcanic outbreak.

Many of these islands have their own local Flood stories. The following is from Pelew, one of the Caroline group. Old Dame Milath, who had brought forth four countries, lived at a very advanced age in Eirrai. The people of that place had killed Atndokt, one of the seven Kalit (heroes, protecting deities) ; and as his friends went everywhere in search of him, they came at last to the door of Milath's house. In the most friendly manner she bade them enter, and asked them for whom they were looking. They told her the sad news and resolved in their anger to destroy all the inhabitants with the exception of Milath. They instructed her therefore to

*Frd. Ratzel, " Volkerkunde," ii. 315, 316. (420)

Pelew and Leeward Islands

make a raft of bamboo, securing it with a long rope in front of her house, and shortly before the full moon, to store it with provisions, and to sleep on it. The woman did as they com- manded, and soon the water covered all the dry land, and only the raft of Milath lived on the flood. Soon, however, the cable became too short, and Milath was washed off the raft and drowned. Her body was carried ashore, where the friends who had warned her turned her body into stone ; or, according to another version, the goddess (Kalit) entered into it and became the mother of the present inhabitants of Pelew.*

Another celebrated story, from the Leeward Islands (western group of Society Islands), runs as follows : A certain god Ruahatu, the Neptune of the South Sea, used to repose between coral clififs, at the bottom of the sea, in consequence of which that spot was considered sacred. But a fisherman, who either was not aware of this tahu, or who disregarded it, sailed his boat into the forbidden waters and threw out his hook be- tween the corals. The hook became entangled in the hair of the god, who was sleeping below. When the fisherman attempted to pull up his line, he found it was fast, and after tugging long and hard, he managed to draw up to the surface of the water the rudely-awakened and angry god. After Ruahatu had reproached the fish- erman for his fault, he declared that the land had become sinful and must be destroyed. The ter- rified fisherman threw himself on his knees and implored the god either not to carry out his pur- pose or to allow him to escape. Ruahatu was

* Frd. Ratzel, " Volkerkunde," ii. 320. (421)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

mollified, and commanded the fisherman to hasten home to his wife and child, and to take them to a little island, Toa-marama, where they would be safe, while all the other islands would be destroyed. This the fisherman did, taking with him not only his wife and child and a friend, but also his dogs, pigs and chickens. Before night they reached the island, and as the sun rose the next morning, the waters of the ocean began to rise. ■ The inhabitants left their homes and fled to the mountains, but the waters continued to rise until the very peaks of the mountains were covered and all the people were drowned. When the flood began to subside, the fisherman re- turned to his home and became the father of the present inhabitants. The island Tao-marama, to which he retired, is a little round, coral island, barely two feet above the level of the sea, and when the present inhabitants are asked why it was not submerged they do not know what to say. They point, however, to the remains of corals and mussels which are found on the moun- tains, as a proof of the height to which the waters rose."^ / I will not multiply these Polynesian traditions,

though I have collected many others. f Although Christian influence is apparent in some of them, others appear to be of purely native origin. It would seem that most of these stories arose very simply from the observation of natural phenom- ena, which afterward were given a mythical inter-

* W. Ellis, " Polynesian Researches," ii. 58.

f See Andree, 55 f.; Ratzel, ii. 317, 310 f.; Lenormant, ''Be- gin, of Hist.," chap, viii.; Tylor, " Early History of Mankind," 325-332-

(422)

Geographical Conditions

pretation. These islands are generally either of volcanic or of coral formation. Many of them are elevated but a few feet above the sea. They lie in a zone of earthquakes and hurricanes, from either of which causes low-lying islands are sub- merged. In consequence of submarine disturb- ances, islands have been known to sink and dis- appear. Traditions of these recurring events would naturally be preserved, and in time would be invested with mythical characteristics. Even such points of resemblance with Genesis as a warning or the escape of a certain person in a boat or on a raft, would arise so naturally among people who spend their lives on the water and who are accustomed to read the signs of regu- larly recurring storms, that they need cause us little surprise. It does not seem to me, there- fore, that these myths present any particular problem which renders it necessary to coordi- nate them with similar tales in other parts of the world. They are sufficiently accounted for by climatic and geographical conditions, embel- lished by the myth-making faculty of primitive peoples. Where similarity to Genesis becomes apparent, it is due to the direct influence of the Bible.

I shall not linger over the Flood stories of Asia. They are to be found in many parts of the conti- nent, in Cashmir, Thibet, Kamchatka and in different parts of India, but they are not par- ticularly interesting or original. In northern and central Asia, Andree has been able to find no Flood traditions, and also in China * and Japan

* The so-called Flood story of China, frequently quoted , is merely a record of a local freshet caused by the overflow of the IIoang--Ho.

(423)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

they are wholly absent. In Europe, besides the two traditions of the Greeks and the Lithuanian story which we have already related, there is a tale in the younger Edda which informs us how the sons of the god Boer killed the giant Ymir, from whom flowed such a deluge of blood that all the giants except one were drowned. This, however, can hardly be called a Flood tradition, as it occurred before the creation of man. The Welsh also have an old legend to the effect that all Britain was once overwhelmed with water, in which all the inhabitants perished except Dwy- van and Dwyvach, who founded a new race.* From the way the preservation of animals is de- scribed in this story, it appears to be adapted from the Bible.

In Africa the Flood story almost, if not alto- gether, disappears. Livingstone, in the course of his long journeys, found one insignificant Flood tradition, which, however, only described the formation of a lake. Other African Flood stories may usually be ascribed to Christian in- fluences.!

We come then to America, a country rich in Flood myths, and possessing many stories of a very interesting character. We shall begin with the North and mention one or two Eskimo tales.

The water had poured itself over the earth, so that every- thing was convulsed with terror. The habitations of men were swept away, the wind tore them. They tied many boats together, side by side. The waves overflowed the mountains, a great wind drove them over the earth. The

* For this and for the foregoing incident from the Edda, see Grimm, " Deutsche Mythol.," 546.

f Livingstone, " Missionary Travels and Researches in South Africa," p. 353. Harper & Bro., 1858.

(424)

Eskimo and Indian Tales

men dried themselves in the sun. The world and the earth vanished, men died by reason of a frightful heat, also the waves killed them. Men trembled, they shuddered, the uprooted trees were driven here and there at the pleasure of the waves. The men who trembled from the cold bound their barks together. Ah! Under a tent which they erected they cowered together. Then one man, called the " son of the owl," threw his bow into the flood. " Wind, stop blowing," he called; "it is enough." Then this man threw his earrings into the water. Then came the end.*

Another Eskimo tale is interesting as showing how such myths may arise :

A long time ago the sea suddenly began to rise until it covered the whole land. The water rose till it covered the tops of the mountains, and the ice floated over them. When the water receded, the ice remained stranded and formed the peaks of the mountains. Many mussels, fish, seals, and whales remained on dry land, where their skeletons can still be seen. A great many Eskimos died in this flood, but many others, who at the beginning of the flood took refuge in their kajaks, were rescued. f

As we have seen in Europe in our century, the presence of fossils, bones, etc., at a great height above the water, is one of the motives of many Flood stories.

The Flood stories of the American Indians in all parts of the continent, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, are so numerous that I shall be able to mention only a tiny fraction of them. The dif- ficulty with most Indian traditions is that they were collected at a late date, long after the greater number of Indian tribes had felt the con- tact of Christianity. We are therefore not sur- prised to find in many of these stories echoes of

* Petitot, " Vocabulaire frangaise-esquimau," Paris, 1876, xxxiv., quoted by Andree.

f Franz Boas, " The Central Eskimo," Sixth Annual Report of the " Journal of Ethnology," 637, quoted by Andree.

(425)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Genesis. It does not follow by any means, how- ever, because we find evident traces of Noah's Flood in these recitals, that the whole Indian story is borrowed. As a rule, we are justified in deducting only those elements that were un- mistakably taken from the Bible. The remainder in most cases will be found to be original and genuine.

The Algonquins possessed traditions of the Creation and the Flood, written in their peculiar picture-writing, and this echo of Genesis from the forests and prairies of America is very interest- ing.

In the beginning were great waters over all land. And over the waters were thick clouds, and there was God, the Creator, the First Being, eternal, almighty, invisible, God the Creator. He created great waters, great lands, and much air and heaven. He created the sun, moon and stars, etc.*

This account of Creation is certainly taken from the Bible ; the story of the Flood, however, seems quite original.

A long time ago came the mighty serpent (Maskanako), when men had become bad. The strong serpent was the enemy of the creatures, and they became confused and hated one another. Then they fought and destroyed one another and had no peace. And the little men (Mattapewi) fought with the keeper of the dead (Nihanlowit). Then the strong serpent resolved to destroy all men and creat- ures together. It brought the black snake and monsters, and raging waters. The raging waters spread over the mountains everywhere, destroying everything. On the

* This picture-writing was published by E. G. Squier, who got it from G. S. Rafinesque, Rafinesque obtained the original bark copy from the remnant of the Delaware tribe on the White River in 1822, and there is no reason to doubt its genuineness. See " Historical and Mythological Traditions of the Algonquins, etc.," read before the New York Historical Society, quoted by Andree.

(426)

OjiBWAY Legend

Turtle Island was Manabozho.. the grandfather of men and creatures. Born a creeper, he can move and live on Turtle Island. The men and creatures float about on the waters, and look everywhere for the back of the turtle (Tulapin). Of sea monsters were there many, and they destroyed many of (the men). Then the daughter of a spirit helped them into a boat, and all together cried out, " Come, help, Mana- bozho, the grandfather of all creatures, men, and turtles." All together on the turtle there, the men there, all were together. Greatly terrified, Manabozho commanded the turtle to restore all things. Then the waters ran back, mountain and plain were dried, and the great Evil One went somewhere else on the hollow path.

In this curious myth there seems to be nothing taken from the Bible unless it be the serpent, " the enemy of the creatures." The combination of the snake and the tortoise reminds us much more of the mythology of India, in which the world itself is often conceived as a great tortoise swimming on the water, or else the tortoise car- ries the world on his back, aided by the serpent Sesha.*

Among the Ojibways on Lake Superior the following story is related. It is perhaps the most elaborate of all the modern Flood traditions :

Menaboshu, a demigod, was a great friend of the wolves, and a little wolf with whom he used to go hunting, was his special pet. Him he warned not to walk on the ice of the lake in which lived the great serpent king, Menaboshu's bitterest foe. But the little wolf, having his curiosity aroused by this warning, with some trepidation set out to walk on the ice of this lake. He came to the middle. There he broke through and drowned. In vain Mena- boshu waited for his little friend, wolf; he did not come. Then he mourned and lamented aloud and spent the rest of the winter sorrowing. But he knew well who had killed his little brother — the Serpent-King, to whom, in winter he could do nothing. When the spring came, Menaboshu went to the lake, where he discovered the tracks

* See Tylor's " Early Hist, of Mankind," 340, 341. (427)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

of his little brother, and again he lamented loud. The Serpent- King heard it and lifted his horned head out of the water. " Now shall you atone for your misdeeds," thought Menaboshu, and turned himself into the stump of a tree which lay beside the lake. The Serpent-King and all the serpents were puzzled over this stump which they had never seen before on the shore, and stormed angrily about it. A serpent twenty ells long wrapped his body round the trunk and pressed it and squeezed it in order to see whether anything living was inside it. But though Mena- boshu felt all his limbs cracking, he held out and gave no sign. That satisfied the serpents, and they all lay down on the beach to sleep. Then Menaboshu crept out of his stump and shot the Serpent-King and three of his sons. The other snakes, however, slipped away into the lake, lamenting. They made a bitter lamentation, and scattered the contents of their medicine sacks on the shore, and around the wood. Then the water began to turn in troubled circles and to swell. The heaven was clothed with black clouds, and mighty streams of rain shot down from above. The whole country, half the earth, was over- whelmed, at last the whole wide world. Poor Menaboshu flew away, terrified to death. He hopped from one moun- tain to another like a scared squirrel, and knew not where to lay himself, for the swelling waves followed him every- where. At last he discovered a very high mountain, on which he found refuge. But even this mountain was soon submerged. At its extreme apex stood a pine tree, a hun- dred ells high, and up this tree Menaboshu climbed. He climbed to the very top, the water close behind him. It reached him, it rose to his belt, to his shoulders, to his lips. Then suddenly it stood still, either because the ser- pents had exhausted their magic, or because they thought it was enough, and that Menaboshu never could have es- caped. But Menaboshu, uncomfortable as his situation was, held out and stood for five days and nights on his pine tree, tormenting himself in vain as to how he could help himself.

At last, on the sixth day, he saw a solitary bird. It was a loon swimming on the water. He called it to him and said to it, " Brother Loon, do me a favor, and dive down deep, and see if you can find the earth, without which I cannot live, or if it is altogether drunk up." The loon did it; he dove many times, but he could not go deep enough, and he came back without attaining his object, bringing the sad tidings that the earth was not to be found. Mena- boshu was nearly in despair.

On the next day he saw the stiffened body of a muskrat,

(428)

Mexican Culture

knocked around by the waves. He fished it out, and by his warm breath he brought it back to Hfe. Then he said to it: " Little brother rat, neither of us can live without the earth. Dive into the water, and if you can find it, bring me some earth. If it is only three grains of sand, I shall be able to make something out of them." The obliging animal dived immediately, and after a long time reap- peared. But it was dead and floated on the water. Mena- boshu took it up and discovered in one of its little paws a couple of grains of sand. He took them, dried them in his hand in the sun, and then blew them away on the water, and where they fell they floated and grew, in con- sequence of the hidden strength of the earth, or through Menaboshu's magic breath. First little islands arose, which quickly united and grew great. At last Menaboshu was able to spring from his uncomfortable seat in the tree to one of the islands. He sailed around on it as if on a raft. Half the other islands grew together, and at last be- came great lands. Menaboshu then became creator and ruler of the new earth.*

This fine and spirited story does not appear to contain any Biblical element, unless it be, as Andree points out, the sending of the animals to find land. In another version of the narrative which I have seen, the episode of the animals does not occur. It will be noticed that Menaboshu does not build a ship.

I pass over many other interesting Indian legends in order to notice the traditions of the semi-civilized American peoples. It is well known that the Mexicans at an early date at- tained a degree of culture unknown to the other aborigines of North America. While the In- dian tribes, ignorant of almost all the arts, roamed over the prairie or through the forest, with the loosest social organization, the Mexi- cans built cities, temples and palaces, held courts

*J. G. Kohl, " Kitschi-Gami," i. 321 ff. Also Schoolcraft, *' The Indian and His Wigwam," New York, 1848, p. 204, quoted by Andree.

(429)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

of law, drilled armies and practised many of the arts of civilization. They improved the rude picture-writing of the Indian tribes so much as to be able to use it for the preservation of their history, setting down at least names, dates and places accompanied by pictures that would en- able the historian to recall the events which they portrayed. From these picture-writings, which Lord Kingsborough ''' spent a fortune in engrav- ing and pubHshing under the belief that the Mex- icans represented the Ten Tribes of Israel, we derive for the most part our knowledge of their traditions of the Flood. I will give some of the more important of these traditions first, and will then discuss their genuineness. First it should be said that the Mexicans, like the Hindus and the Aryan nations generally, divide the history of the world into four epochs, each ending in a world-catastrophe. The first age is the Age of Giants, who were destroyed by hunger or by earthquakes. At the end of the second age the world was destroyed by a fire. At the end of the third age the world was destroyed by a hurricane. The fourth age, which was the Age of Water, ended with the great Flood. In all the Flood stories current among the different nations of Mexico, there is some hero like Noah who was saved with his wife in a vessel, and who after- ward continued the propagation of the race. One of the commonest of these Flood legends is that associated with the hero Coxcox, which attracted the attention of Alexander von Hum- boldt.f

*" Antiquities of Mexico," London, 1831-1848.

f " Sites des Cordilleras," etc., Paris, 1869, pp. 338-419.

(430)

Genuineness op Mexican Traditions

At the time of the Age of Water (Atonaitiuh) a great flood covered the whole earth, and men were turned into fishes. Only one man and one woman escaped by conceal- ing themselves in the hollow stem of a cypress. The man was Coxcox, his wife was called Xochequetzal. When the waters had somewhat abated, they landed their ship on the peak of Mount Colhuacan. There they multiplied and gathered their children around them, but they were all born dumb. Then a dove came, gave them tongues and innumerable languages.* Only fifteen of the descendants of Coxcox, who later became heads of families, spoke the same language, or could understand each other. From these fifteen descended the Toltecs, the Aztecs, and the Acolhaus.

-In Michoucan a tradition is preserved in which the name of the rescued man is Tizpi. He not only saved his wife, but, having a large vessel, he also placed in it his children, different animals and provisions. As the waters receded he sent out a vulture to look for earth and to bring him word of the dry land. But the vulture sated itself on the corpses and did not return. Tizpi then sent out other birds, among them the humming bird. When the sun began to shine and the earth grew green again, Tizpi saw that his ship lay on the mount of Colhuacan, and disembarked, f

If these two narratives could be proved to be of genuinely native origin, as Lenormant sup- posed,J if they were correct translations of Mex- ican picture-writing, made before the advent of the Spanish, they would profoundly change our present ideas of the Flood, of Mexican civiliza- tion and of the history of the human race gen-

* Evidently a confusion of Noah's dove with the story of the Tower of Babel.

f Both these traditions related by Alexander von Humboldt, " Vues des Cordilleres," vol. ii., p. 177 ff., Eng. trans., 1814. Also Clavigero, " Storia Antica del Messico," vol. iii., p. 151.

X " Essai de Berose," p. 283.

(43^)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

erally. For if these writings were genuine we should have to suppose that the main features of the Bibhcal Flood story were known to the most diverse nations of the earth. That would be a good deal for a humming bird to accomplish. But, I repeat, the series of coincidences between the Mexican Flood myths (of which I have given only two versions) and our story, could not have arisen except from a common tradition or from direct borrowing. Lord Kingsborough had more reason than most enthusiasts for thinking he had discovered at last the long-lost Ten Tribes. As long as the authenticity and correctness of the Mexican narratives were entertained, the Mexi- can Flood myths, of which there are other equally striking versions, proved a stumbling stone to a rational comprehension of the Flood. That po- sition, however, is no longer maintained by those who have most carefully examined the subject.* It has been pointed out by Bancroft f that none of the earliest Spanish writers who concern themselves with Mexican mythology at the time of the conquest describe Flood legends, which is a suspicious circumstance. Bancroft also as- serts, on the word of Don Jose Fernando Rami- rez, that the interpretations of the picture-writ- ings collected by von Humboldt, Clavigero and Kingsborough are incorrect, and that they have been falsely translated. There is one docu- mentary account of the Mexican Flood myth whose interpretation does not appear to be ques- tioned, that is the celebrated Codex Chimalpo- poca. Unfortunately, it is not old enough to be

*Girard de Rialle, " I.a Mythologie comparee," i. 352 ff. f " Native Races of the Pacific States," iii. p. 68.

(432)

Codex Chimalpopoca

free from Christian influence, for though com- posed in the Aztec language, it is written in Spanish characters. It is supposed to have been reduced to writing by an anonymous native author and was copied by IxtUlxochitl and pub- Hshed in part by Abbe Brasseur de Bourbourg.* This is de Bourbourg's translation :

When the age Nahui-atl (the Fourth Age of Water) came, four hundred years elapsed: then came two hundred years more, then seventy-six years. Then human beings were destroyed, they were drowned and turned into fish. The sky approached the water. On a single day everything was destroyed, and the day, Mahui Xochitl, or Four Flowers, devoured all there was of our flesh. And this year was that of Ce-Calli, or One House. And on the first day, Nahui-Atl, everything was lost. The mountains themselves were destroyed in the water, and the waters re- mained calm for fifty-two springtides. Yet, toward the end of the year (the god) Titlacahuan warned a certain Nata, and his wife Nena, saying, " Make no wine (i.e., agave, pulque), but hollow out a great cypress and get into it, and when in the month Tocoztli the water begins to ap- proach the sky "... They got in, and as Titlacahuan shut the door after them, he said to them, " Thou shalt eat but a single ear of corn, and thy wife one also." But as soon as they were ready they wished to get out, for the waters were quiet and their tree trunk no longer moved. And as they opened it they saw the fishes. Then they made a fire by rubbing pieces of wood together. The gods Citlalliuicue and Citlallatonac, who looked down, said: " O, divine lord, what is this fire down there? Why do they thus smoke the sky? " Then Titlacahuan de- scended and began to scold, saying: ''Who has made this fire here? " And he seized the fishes and moulded their tails, and shaped their heads and they were made into dogs (Chichime, a satire aimed at the Chichimecs or barbarians of the north).-!*

This story, also, which Lenormant regarded as

* J. C. Brasseur de Bourbourg, " Histoire des nations civili- se'es du Mexique," Paris, 1857. Episode of flood in Appendix, p. 425.

f Lenormant, *' Begin, of Hist.," 462, 463 ; Andree, 107, 108.

28 (433)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

of '' purely aboriginal character," in the parts that remind us of Genesis, namely, the warning of the god, the command to build a ship, etc., bears unmistakably a Biblical imprint. The single statement that Titlacahuan " shut the door after them " is enough to prove the Bibhcal origin of the story. For not only are those words the di- rect echo of Genesis, but they are wholly out of place in this narrative. What sort of door would a canoe made out of a hollow cypress be likely to have? We are therefore led to the conclusion that all those features in the Mexican Flood myths which strikingly remind us of Genesis are the result of Christian influence after the Spanish invasion. What makes this probable is the fact that none of these traditions, in their present form, is older than the conquest. I by no means wish to imply, however, that the Mexicans had no native Flood myths ; on the contrary, all their Flood traditions which I have seen bear distinct marks of originaHty. I ascribe to Christian in- fluence only those features which are obviously taken from Genesis, and which, if admitted to be of native origin, would cause us to modify our whole conception of human history. Making these deductions, the Mexican Flood stories are really no more remarkable than those we have discovered in many other parts of the world, and they cannot fairly be urged as a proof of the Asiatic origin of Mexican culture, whatever sup- port may be found for that view on other grounds. There are now only two other groups of tradition which I wish to mention, and then we shall have touched at least on the most im- portant of the Flood legends of the earth. They

(434)

POPOL VUH

are the traditions of Guatemala in Central Amer- ica and those of Peru.

The Flood legends of Guatemala are impor- tant, not only on account of the comparatively high civilization and intelligence of its people, but because they are recorded in native writing of some antiquity. The document to which I allude is called Popol Vuh (Book of the People). It was written in the Quiche language, by an unknown writer, shortly after the introduction of Chris- tianity into Guatemala, and was translated into Spanish by the Dominican Ximenes, at the be- ginning of the eighteenth century.* According to Popol Vuh, after the gods had created animals they became discontented, because they could neither speak nor honor their makers. Accord- ingly the gods next created men out of clay. These men also were imperfect, because they could neither turn their heads, speak, nor under- stand anything. So the gods destroyed their im- perfect work in a flood. Then followed a second creation of human beings, in which a man was made of wood and a woman of gum or rosin. The second race was better than the first, but in its nature very animal. Men spoke, but in an ut- terly incomprehensible manner, and they showed no gratitude to the gods. Then Hurricane, the heart of Heaven, let burning pitch fall on the earth, and an earthquake came, through which all living men, with few exceptions, were de- stroyed. The few who were spared were turned

* First publication of the Spanish text, by Karl Scherzer, Wien, 1857. The original text with French translation by Brasseur de Bourbourg, "Popol Vuh, Le livre sacre et les mythes . . . des Quiches," Paris, 1861. See also Stoll, " Zur Ethnographic der Republik Guatemala," Zurich, 1884, quoted by Andree.

(435)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

into apes. At last the gods formed a third race of men out of white and yellow maize, who were so perfect that the gods themselves were afraid of them. The gods therefore took away some of their good qualities, and so they became normal men, from whom the Quiches descended.*

This story, so far as one can see, is absolutely original. There is nothing in it suggestive of Genesis.

The Peruvians, as is well known, were among the most cultured of American aborigines. What is strange is that their civihzation appears to have nothing in common with the civilization of Mex- ico.f In spite of Lenormant's assertion to the contrary,$ Peru possesses several genuine Flood stories, one of which is as follows: It is stated that the whole surface of the earth was altered by a great overflow of water, while the sun for five days was concealed. All living beings were annihilated, except one shepherd, his wife and flock. For several days before the flood began the shepherd noticed that his llamas were sad, and that all night long they kept their eyes fixed on the course of the stars. Very much surprised, he asked the gentle animals what the meaning of it was, and why they fixed their glance on a group of six stars which seemed to be a sign to them. The llamas informed him that the earth was about to be destroyed by a flood, and that if

* Quoted from Scherzer and de Bourbourg-.

f " The culture of Peru is so independent (of Mexico) that no traces of mutual influence have been discovered." — Dr. Edmund Buckley, in his provokingly brief sketch of American religions in Chantepie de la Saussaye's "Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte," Leipzig, 1897, i. 32.

1(. " Beginning's of History," 434.

(436)

Peruvian Flood Tradition

he wished to save himself he must fly with his family and flock to the top of the highest moun- tain of the neighborhood. He did so, and climbed to the summit of Mount Ancasmarca, where a multitude of other animals were already assembled. Scarcely had he attained the moun- tain when the sea left its banks and with a fright- ful roar broke over the land. As now the waters rose higher and higher, flooding plains and val- leys, the mountain rose with them and swam like a ship on the waves. This lasted five days, while the sun remained hidden and the earth veiled in darkness. On the fifth day, however, the waters began to diminish, and the earth was peopled anew by the descendants of the shep- herd.*

This story appears to be quite original. With the exception of two mythical incidents, the float- ing of the mountain and the renewal of the earth by the descendants of the shepherd, it is quite an accurate account of an inundation caused by earthquake. The brief duration of the flood, the warning of the llamas, the obscuration of the sun, and even the floating of the mountain, all point to a serious seismic disturbance. Twice in little more than a century the coast of Peru has been visited by fearful earthquakes (1746 and 1868). Gigantic waves were raised, by which the coast was inundated, harbors destroyed and cities com- pletely overwhelmed. This story is plainly based on the recollection of a catastrophe in ancient times similar to the earthquake of 1746, when Lima was destroyed.

* Bancroft, " Native Races of the Pacific States," v. 15. Also Brasseur de Bourbourg', in Landa, " Relacion," xxx.

(437)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Chapter Twenty :

Origin of Flood Myths of Mankind

IN our last chapter we discussed the diffusion of the Flood myth. We saw that, although it is one of the most widely disseminated beliefs of mankind, it is not a universal tradition, as many persons have supposed. Whole countries and even continents have either no Flood stories or else few and adopted legends. Now that we have definitely renounced belief in a universal destruc- tion of the world by water, and with it the be- lief that all these traditions rest on the recollec- tion of a common catastrophe, it becomes more than ever incumbent on us to explain them. I approach this task, however, with a heavy heart. (Dne need only glance at the various hypotheses advanced to account for the legends of the Flood to be assured that here is a labyrinth of myth, history and speculation, through which as yet the guiding thread fails. If we think that this labyrinth can be taken by storm we fail com- pletely to comprehend its intricacy. To build up a glittering theory based on a few catch- words to which all human belief is made to bend, is not much better. You may remember Balzac's definition of German scholarship. '' A German scholar," says Balzac, " is a man who finds a lit- tle hole in the ground which he proceeds to con-

(438)

D

ATA

vert into an abyss, at the bottom of which is to be found not truth, but one German." At the outset of my task a solemn warning rises before me in the monumental work of Franz von Schwarz,* upon which he cogitated twelve years before reducing it to writing. In this vast piece of labor Schwarz attempts to account for the migra- tions of the whole human family in ancient and modern times by their Flood traditions. What- ever ethnological importance this work may pos- sess, it is of no value as a treatise on the' Flood tradition, because it rests on a false hypothesis, namely, that all Flood traditions come from the common recollection of a catastrophe which oc- curred in Turkestan f in pre-historic times. Such attempts will continue to be made as long as geol- ogists and ethnologists confine themselves ex- clusively to the physical aspect of the Flood tradition; but those who have grasped the real conditions of the problem may disregard works of this order.

The data on which we have to reason are as follows :

1. The existence of the Flood story among the most diverse races in ancient and modern times.

2. The fact that no universal deluge has oc- curred.

3. The fact that if a wide-spread destruction of the earth by water had occurred in primitive times, before the so-called dispersion of the na- tions, such an event would not now be remem- bered by lower races whose history goes back only a few generations.

* " Sintfluth und Volkerwanderungen," Stuttgart, 1894. fOp. cit., 5, 6, 7.

(439)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

4. The fact that the Egyptians and Chinese, the nations which have most carefully preserved their ancient history, have no true Flood story.

5. Certain curious resemblances in the Flood legends of remote peoples between which no his- torical connection can be established.

From this last point, which is the most impor- tant for our purpose, I will set out. Modern science, whose business it is to trace separate events to a general law, will suspect that where so many traditions have arisen independently they are to be referred to one cause. Since no one prevailing, external cause is to be looked for among people so widely separated in time and space as the Babylonians, Australians, Eskimos and Peruvians, we must look for an internal cause, the minds of men at a certain stage of their devel- opment being apt to reason on the phenomena of nature in much the same way. In short, I sup- pose that the explanation of the innumerable Flood legends most popular among students of human tradition is that they are all myths arising from the attempts of man to explain regularly re- curring phenomena of nature. Even so conserva- tive a scholar as Max Miiller seems to adopt this view when he says : '' There are certain mytho- logical ideas, such as the deluge, for instance, which by their recurrence among many and widely separated nations, show that they did not arise from some isolated historical fact, as even Huxley seemed to imagine, but that they ex- pressed physical phenomena which occur and recur every year and all over the globe." *

* " Contributions to the Science of Mythology," 2 vols., Long- mans, Green & Co., 1897, vol. i., p. 220.

(440)

Ether-Myth Theory

This theory has certainly found able advo- cates, although as yet no adequate statement. One of the first writers on anthropology to re- solve the Flood story into a mere nature-myth was Schirren in his '' Wanderungen der Neusee- lander." * Schirren regards the Flood stories, especially those of New Zealand and other isl- ands of the Pacific, as an example of the all- revealing sun-myth. The flood of waters which overwhelms the earth, is the darkness that fills the sky, especially on cloudy days and nights, from which the sun escapes in his boat and in due time reappears. Since many of Schirren's views are now antiquated, I shall not take the time to discuss them, especially as a more acceptable form of his myth theory has been presented by Gerland in Waitz's great anthropology.f Ger- land transforms the sun-myth into what he calls an " ether-myth." The construction of this myth is as follows: The blue vault of heaven is conceived as a great sea in which the constella- tions appear to rise as mountains, islands and mythical monsters. The sun, moon and stars are conceived as canoes swimming in the flood, or as a man and his wife and children escaping from the thick clouds, darkness, etc., that blot out the sky. It is supposed that from this familiar picture in the heavens the idea of a flood on earth was sug- gested, and that, just as the heavens are covered with clouds, so the earth was covered with water ; and as sun, moon and stars escape and reappear, so some chosen man with his wife and children made his escape from the waters of a flood. It is

*Riga, 1856.

f " Anthropologie der Naturvolker," 6 vols., Leipzig-, 1872.

(441)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

pointed out that such phenomena in the sky are presented constantly all over the world, and that to men of a certain stage of culture they may very well suggest the same thing, namely, a universal flood in which only a few persons escape death. The last proposition, however, is by no means self-evident. On the contrary, it would be a mere piece of unscientific dogmatism to assert that all savage, barbarous, and semi-civilized races regarded the sky as a sea, and the sun, moon and stars as a man with his wife and chil- dren escaping in boats. If even one nation en- tertained this belief it ought to be shown that this nation transferred its conception of a flood in the sky to that of a flood on earth. And even if it could be proved that one people actually made this transference, it would not follow that to all other peoples so strange an idea would occur.

Therefore, unless we are to take refuge in vapid theories, the case is one in which plain and con- vincing evidence ought to be afforded, and to this evidence I now pass. The two best state- ments that I know of the ether-myth as an ex- planation of the flood legend, are Gerland's in Waitz' '' Anthropologic " and Canon Cheyne's in the article '^ Deluge " in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and in the new Encyclopaedia Bib- lica. Gerland confines his argument to the group of islands loosely called Polynesia, while Canon Cheyne's articles, though necessarily brief, are more general in their application. As Cheyne evidently depends on Gerland a good deal, and as he expressly states that '' the most plausible arguments for the celestial deluge theory are derived from the Polynesian mythol-

(442)

Criticism of Gerland's Argument

ogy," * I shall glance at Gerland first. Gerland begins his discussion by remarking that the in- habitants of Polynesia called the Milky Way a long, blue, cloud-eating whale (which Foster, however, translates ''sail"). "So," Gerland con- tinues, " we have here the conception of the sky as a sea, as in so many other places. Further, one may mention the Hawaiian myth of Hiralii, ac- cording to which the moon caused a powerful overflow." " According to all this, it would not be too bold if we derived from this source all flood myths, which in Polynesia are innumerable, and characterizing them as myths which refer to the vault of heaven, not to the earth." f

This may not be too bold for Gerland, who has an immense store of Polynesian lore at command, but it appears to be altogether too bold a de- duction from any facts he has as yet vouchsafed to communicate. Suppose the Polynesians do regard the Milky Way as a whale, and even that the New Zealanders, as Gerland asserts, saw in one of the constellations a full-rigged ship — the Babylonians saw in the constellations a virgin and a crab, but it does not follow that they regarded the sky as a girl's school or a crab pond. Even granting that the cloud-eating whale proves the belief that the sky is a sea, it does not follow from this that the earth is visited by a flood, nor does the Hawaiian tradition that the moon caused a powerful overflow prove anything in itself be- yond the fact that the moon influences the tides. Gerland, however, after criticising Schirren for referring the Flood stories too exclusively to the

*Encyc. Brit., vol. vii., p. 57.

f Waitz, op. cit., vol. vi., pp. 268-273.

(443)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

myth of the setting sun, comments on a few Poly- nesian Flood legends. He brings forward only two or three incidents which have any bearing on his theory. He cites the narrative of the fish- erman who caught the sea-god by the hair, and calls attention to the fact that the little island, Toa-Marama, only two feet high, means " moon- tree." This at least is a connection between the flood and the moon, but it is very indirect. Ger- land sees in this *' moon-tree " a counterpart of the Yggdrasil, or world-tree of Germanic myth- ology, which had its roots in Hell and its branches in Heaven. This may well be, as the myth of the world-tree is found all through the Pacific isl- ands from Borneo to New Zealand.* In the story, however, nothing is said about the fisher- man climbing up to the moon, and Toa-Marama is not a mythical spot, but a small island to the east of Raiatea. Further than this, we can prove conclusively that the moon-tree as a means of escape has at present nothing to do with the story of the Flood. For, as Ellis testifies, when the inhabitants are asked why such a low-lying island was not submerged, they know not what to say, but point to the corals and mussels em- bedded high on the mountains as a proof that the Flood was there.f

Gerland's second example is taken from a Flood story of Tahiti, and is based on the cir- cumstance that when a man and his wife are flee- ing from a flood, the husband wishes to take ref- uge on a mountain called Owfena. The wife ob- jects, and says "No, we, too, on the mount round

* Tylor, " Early History of Mankind," p. 354. f Ellis, " Polynesian Researches," ii. p. 58, ist ed.

(444)

Ether-Myth Not Well Founded

as a breast, on Pito-Hiti," which ElHs translates '' alone," and which Gerland regards as a myth- ical mountain. I confess I can see little to the point in this allusion. The story goes on to say that after the subsidence of the waters, the man and his wife were threatened by a new danger from falling stones and trees which had been thrown high in the air. This would lead one to suspect a volcanic eruption.

From these slender premises Gerland con- cludes that '' to explain these sagas of the Flood one must think of rain clouds covering the heav- en with their dark water, bringing sun, moon and stars into greatest danger." * Unfortunately for this statement, EUis, that thorough observer of all things Polynesian, on whom Gerland him- self frequently depends, expressly asserts, '' I have frequently conversed with people on the subject [of the flood], both in the northern and the southern groups, but never could learn that they have any account of the windows of heaven being opened or the rain having descended." f It appears to me that an extensive idea was never reared on a slighter foundation of fact. It may very well be that more pertinent facts are forthcoming, but certainly without a good deal of encouragement, one would hardly be tempted to carry this sort of thing much further. Ger- land confined his observations and theories to the Polynesian Islands. He invited other more ambitious scholars, however, to apply his ether- myth theory to all other Flood traditions. This invitation Canon Cheyne accepts in his article on

*0p. cit., vi. 272, 273,

f Op. cit., i. p. 394, 2d ed., in 4 vols., London, 1831.

(445)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

^^^^■— —————— ^—■—■^^^^^——— ■——^™^

" The Deluge " in the Encyclopsedia Britannica. In itself this circumstance should lead us to treat the theory with respect. I fully share the ad- miration of the English-speaking world for our greatest living Old Testament scholar and critic. In this case, however, we are concerned not with admiration for men's persons, but with facts. Does Canon Cheyne in his brief but comprehen- sive article adduce any new facts in support of Gerland's theory of the ether-myth, which he un- hesitatingly accepts? It is true. Canon Cheyne rather stops the mouth of the adversary by his definition of a Deluge, '' by which," he says, '' I mean to exclude the theory which would account for Deluge stories as exaggerations of local in- undations," and he states the ether-myth theory with a confidence that might well cause a layman to hesitate in attacking it. This, however, I am not doing. I repeat, I should be perfectly will- ing to accept that theory on sufficient grounds, by which I mean a convincing evidence of pertinent facts. I do not regard it as evi- dence merely to say, '^ It is agreed by my- thologists that the exclusive subjects of really primitive traditional stories are frequently recur- ring natural phenomena." When we come to matters of fact we find the evidence very slender, and not always unimpeachable. Canon Cheyne repeats Gerland's arguments on the Polynesian myths without adding anything new to them. Then he passes to the Babylonian Flood story, on which his criticisms do not appear to be very happy, although it is to be remembered that his article was written before 1878. Relying on the not always sate guidance of M. Lenormant and

(446)

Cheyne's Criticisms

Dr. A. H. Sayce, Canon Cheyne assumes that the ideographic symbol for Sit-napistim (or Par- napistim), which he calls Tamzi, but which is usually written Ud-zi,* or Ut,t means " Sun-of- Life." Jensen, however, questions this on the ground that Ut is not preceded by the determina- tive of the sun, and that such a name for Sit- napistim would be meaningless. The father of Sit-napistim, Ubara-Tutu, or Kidin-Marduk, Cheyne translates " Splendor-of-Sunset," but according to Schrader,J Jastrow,§ and others, it means only '' servant," or " client," of Tutu, who is identified with Marduk. So most of Canon Cheyne's other remarks on this story fall to the ground. '' The Flood is a rain flood, and the ' father of the rain ' (Job, xxxviii. 28) is the ce- lestial ocean, which in the original myth must have been itself the Deluge, and the ship is like that in which the Egyptian sun-god voyages in the sea of ether. The mountain on which the sur- vivors come to land was originally (as in Poly- nesia) the great mythic mountain . . . which joins the earth to the sky and serves as an axis to the celestial vault." There is little truth in these statements. The Flood, as I shall soon show, was not caused by rain alone. Professor Cheyne may have knowledge of the ship in which the Egyptian sun-god travelled which I do not possess, but I never heard that he sailed the sky in a house-boat six stories high with compart- ments. Lastly, whatever may have been Berosus' conception of the landing place of the ark, the version contained in Izdubar speaks of Mt. Nisir,

*Schrader, " K. A. T.," p. 65. f Jensen, " Cos. der Bab.," 384. X Schrader, " K. A. T.,"p. 67. § " Relig-. of Bab.," p. 488.

(447)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

or rather a mountain in the land of Nisir. The mountain of Nisir, far from being '' the mythical Mountain of the East, which unites the earth to the sky," was a range of very moderate height, east of the Tigris, beyond the Lower Zab, in lati- tude 35 °-36°, as we learn from an inscription of Ashurnasirbal, who tells us how he marched with an army to the land of Nisir, fought with the inhabitants, and pursued them into these very mountains.*

The only other piece of evidence that Canon Cheyne mentions is the fish in the Hindu version of the Flood contained in the Mahabharata, " whose horn," he thinks, *' reminds us of other horned deities whose solar origin is acknowl- edged." In reply to this it may be said that if, as Canon Cheyne believes, this Hindu story is of Babylonian origin, the fish-god is not a solar deity, but Ea, the god of the deep, who is usually represented in the form of a fish. We also notice in the various Hindu recensions of the story how the horn of this fish grows. From an ordinary horned fish in the Satapatha Brahmana it be- comes, in the Bhagavata Purana,t a " golden fish with a horn a million yojanas long." In this ver- sion the fish begins to look like the sun, but we must remember that this is the latest form of the Hindu tradition. To this I will only add that if the Babylonian Flood story had been based on a solar myth, we might have expected a solar deity, rather than Sit-napistim, to be the hero of it. I should not have commented on views presented

*Schrader, " K. A. T.," p. 75, and " Cuneiform Inscriptions of West. Asia," vol. i. pi. 20.

f Muir's " Orig. Sanskt. Texts," i. p. 210.

(448)

Ether-Myth Theory Untenable

so long ago were it not that they stand in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and that they are not withdrawn in Cheyne's article in the Encyclopae- dia Biblica. In his new article Canon Cheyne reiterates Gerland's theory, though apparently he tries to combine the ether-myth with Dr. Brinton's theory of the Four Ages of the world. He calls attention to the fact that in the poem of Izdubar, only Shamash, the sun-god, can cross the sea in which Hes the Island of the Blessed. As the sea is plainly the mythical ocean which surrounds the world, this in itself is not surpris- ing; nor did Sit-napistim make the voyage in his ship. He was supernaturally translated. Canon Cheyne also quotes from Brinton examples of Flood legends of the New World in which birds and a muskrat assist in rebuilding the earth. This, however, has nothing to do with the ether- myth.

For the present, therefore, I lay this explana- tion aside. It is by no means improbable that the view of the heavens described by Gerland con- tributed to the formation of Flood legends. We know that many nations did regard the sky as a sea, and it is not impossible that the sight of the luminaries overwhelmed by clouds may have sug- gested the overwhelming of the earth by water. It is also possible that more than one Flood story bears evidence of solar origin, and Canon Cheyne has overlooked the best example of all; namely, the Algonquin hero Manabozho, who is plainly a solar deity. But to conclude from such slight and questionable evidence as Gerland and Cheyne ofifer, that all Flood stories are derived from this one source is, to say the least, premature.

29 (44Q)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Within the past year another mythological ex- planation of the Flood legend has been presented by Usener,* which gains somewhat the same goal by a different route. Usener devotes himself primarily to the Flood traditions of Greece. Whatever may be thought of the success of his attempt to account for the Flood myth, no one will deny that he has executed a beautiful piece of work, and I think most of his readers will be sur- prised to learn the volume and variety of the Greek traditions of the Flood. The very copious- ness of Usener's illustrations, for which he seems to have exhausted classical mythology, renders it impossible for me to do justice to his presenta- tion, and I must confine myself strictly to his main contention. Usener, while not able to dis- cover evidences of the Flood tradition in Greek literature earlier than about 600 B.C., regards the legend not as a Semitic loan but as indige- nous to Greece. He explains the difficulty of its late appearance by supposing that it was long cherished by the common people in out-of- the-way places before it became a theme of litera- ture. This, however, hardly explains the igno- rance of Hesiod, that master of folk lore, or the fact that the Flood story is the theme of no im- portant Greek poem. Usener begins his argu- ment by an elaborate study of the name of Deu- calion {^evnaXioDv, or ^evnaXoz), which may be divided thus, Aev-xaXo^. The first portion of the word he takes to be Asv?, the Spartan and Boeo- tian form of Zeviy and the second portion, JiaXo?, he regards as an old Greek diminutive corre-

* " Die Sintfluthsagen, untersucht von Hermann Usener," Bonn, 1899.

(450)

GrREEK Legends of Divine Children

sponding to the Latin cuius. Deucalion, then, is Httle Zeus, just as Herakles is Httle hero. Hera- kles is an example of a man who, by the develop- ment of perfect strength worthily employed in life, after death was raised to the gods. Deuca- lion, who was saved from the Flood in an ark, is little Zeus (das Gotterknablein), and is to be com- pared with the infant Zeus of Crete. He is a god who has sunk to the rank of a hero, only to be exalted again among the gods. His escape from the Flood in an ark is on a par with numerous Greek stories which relate how certain divine children were exposed to the sea in chests, from which they were afterward rescued.

Perhaps the most celebrated of these narra- tives is the story of Perseus. Akresios, King of Argos, having been warned by an oracle that his daughter Danae would give birth to a son who would cause his death, confined Danae in a sub- terranean chamber fitted with brazen plates. Zeus, however, passed through the roof of this vault in a shower of golden rain. From the union of Zeus and Danae Perseus was born, and re- mained concealed with his mother until he was three or four years old. When Akresios became aware of Perseus' existence he caused Danae and her child to be placed in a chest and the chest to be thrown into the sea, where it drifted to the rocky island of Seriphos. Perseus became a great hero; in fact, he is a solar deity.

Quite similar is the story of Auge, who bore Telephos to Herakles, in consequence of which her father, Aleos, caused Auge and her child to be thrown into the sea in a chest. They were driven to the coast of Mysia, where the ruler of

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

the land received them and made Auge his wife. Auge, as her name impUes, was a Hght goddess.

Other heroes, Hke CEdipus and even the god Dionysos, underwent the same fate. They were thrown into the sea in chests, from which they were rescued; they became great heroes, and afterward were raised to the gods.

This, then, is the nucleus of the Flood story, not only in Greece, but also elsewhere. A child who is the offspring of a god, or who, Hke Deucalion, is a god in the form of a hero, is exposed to the sea and is saved in a chest, after which he assumes a place among the heavenly gods. That the new- born child is sometimes taken to heaven is shown in the case of Dionysos. The voyage in the chest, however, is not a voyage from one part of this world to another, but from this world to another world. Hence the necessity of the pilot in the Flood story of Babylonia, and for the same reason Xisuthros' pilot was translated with him to guide him to another world. At bottom the Flood myth is the myth of the rising sun. The child exposed and tossed on the waters and after- wards raised to the gods, is the young sun rising out of the waves and mounting to heaven. Xisu- thros is translated immediately after his depart- ure from the ark. Sit-napistim is taken to the Island of the Blessed, etc.

While I feel far from competent to discuss the wealth of mythological material that Usener has collected, there are a few points in his argument to which I may allude.

A great deal is made to depend on the etymological significance of Deucalion's name. It would ill become me to say that Usener is not

(452)

Usener's Theory Criticised

right, but a more natural derivation, together with a simpler explanation of Deucalion's con- nection with the Flood, is suggested in Roscher's Lexicon, where Deucalion is derived from Ssvgd^ moisten, and Pyrrha, from TTvppo?, the red earth. According to this view, Deucalion was the per- sonification of water and Pyrrha of the earth, and from their union came the Hellenes.''' Use- ner's theory fails altogether to account for Pyrrha. It also seems a little forced to place Deu- calion's escape in the chest on a par with the es- cape of Perseus, Telephos, Dionysos, CEdipus, etc., for these were all young children, while Deu- calion is an old man. Moreover, if the purpose of Deucalion's Flood story is to show how a hero is exalted to the gods (i.e., how the young sun rises, for which an old man is not very suitable), it is a little singular that nothing is said of the translation of Deucalion. I think the strongest concrete example Usener can point to is the translation of Xisuthros' pilot. He, indeed, re- minds us of the pilots of Greek mythology, Nau- sithoos, Phaix, and Charon, the pilot to Hades ; but, on the other hand, Xisuthros left his vessel behind him, and no pilot of Deucalion is men- tioned. On Usener's hypothesis that the nucleus of the Flood is the exaltation of a hero to heaven (the rising of the sun), the taking of the animals becomes sheer nonsense which Usener is obliged to regard as an afterthought. f Charming as Usener's treatment of the subject is, I do not

* To this it may be objected that the Hellenes did not spring from the union of Deucalion and Pyrrha, but from stones.

f It is right to add that in the Greek Flood legend the taking of the animals occurs only in the latest versions, and in versions which plainly betray their Semitic origin.

(453)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

believe that his deHcately wrought theory is strong enough to sustain the weight of the Flood traditions of mankind. The true parallel in Se- mitic literature to the Greek children exposed in chests, would seem to be the exposure in little arks of infants like Moses and Sargon.

Very much more terse, robust and striking are the observations of the lamented Dr. Brinton, than whom few more profound students of prim- itive manners and beliefs ever lived. Dr. Brinton begins his discussion by calling attention to the natural tendency of the human mind to account for the existence of things, and the inability of primitive peoples to imagine a creation out of nothing. A simple primordial element and a deity to shape it, are the data of all early Creation stories. As to the nature of that substance, all nations agree that it was water which held all else in solution, which covered and concealed all. Earth, on the other hand, is conceived as already in existence, although covered by waters, and the first act of Creation consists in separating the earth from the waters. This is as true of the He- brew and Babylonian cosmogonies as it is of the Creation stories of the American Indians. The myth of Creation, then, is only a myth of con- struction. It arose, on the one side, from the im- possibility of imagining a creation out of noth- ing, and on the other from the difficulty of con- ceiving the eternity of matter. But further, the thought that the world has existed in its present form from the beginning and that it will always so exist, is oppressive to the human soul, so men have sought relief by breaking up the illimitable

age of the world into cycles or periods of time,

^^■^— — ^— ^— ^"— — ^^■^■^^— ^— -I

(454)

Brinton's Theory

each followed by a world-catastrophe. " Not physics, but metaphysics, is the exciting cause of these beliefs in periodical convulsions of the globe." '' In effect, a myth of Creation is no- where found among primitive nations. It seems repugnant to their reason. Dry land and animal life had a beginning, but not matter. A series of constructions and demolitions may conveni- ently be supposed for these." '' Hence arose the belief in epochs of nature, elaborated by ancient philosophers into the Cycles of the Stoics, the Great Days of Brahm, long periods of time rounded off by sweeping destructions, the cata- clysms and ekpyrauses of the universe. Some thought that in these all beings perished; others, that a few survived. The latter and more com- mon view is the origin of the myth of the Deluge." In this I venture to think Dr. Brinton confuses two well-defined classes of phenomena. The Flood story, whatever its origin, is a free and spontaneous creation of the people, a simple tale, the subject of an epic poem. Such conceptions, however, as the Four World Ages with their cor- responding catastrophes, the Cycles of the Stoics and the Great Days of Brahm, are concep- tions emanating from men who passed for phil- osophers, which never became popular or ex- panded into a genuinely mythical form. To de- rive the Flood tradition from conceptions of this kind which psychologically occur much later, is to put the cart before the horse. This is easily seen in the case of Hesiod. The most popular statement of the doctrine of the Four Ages is Hesiod's and he has not a word to say on the subject of the Flood. The same thing is true of the Persians,

(455)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

who possessed the doctrine of the Four World Ages, but no Flood story. Even in India, if, as we suppose, the Flood tradition was imported, it failed to form the necessary counterpart of the Hindu doctrine of the Four Ages. Neither, we may be sure, did the Flood story arise from any such abstract cause as the attempt to escape from the eternity of matter. The germ of the Flood story is moral, not metaphysical. Even the doctrine of the World Ages is not merely an attempt to make eternity less long by breaking it up, but rather to show through what successive stages the world has deterio- rated. It is also a weak point in Brinton's theory that out of all possible fates to which the world is consigned in its several cataclysms, there is such a vast preponderance of tradition in favor of a destruction by water. The doctrine of the World Periods, whether we select two, four or five, throws no light on this curious unanimity of opinion. Neither is there the slightest connec- tion between a desire to cognize eternity and a flood. And yet Brinton is right over and over again in asserting that the Flood story is closely connected with Creation. It was the perception of this truth and the gradually growing convic- tion that the Flood myth throughout the world is the companion-piece of the Creation myth that led me to see the inadequacy of all naturalistic ex- planations of the Flood. In the majority of Flood stories the religious myth is unmistakable. The Flood marks a chapter in the history of the world. The Flood hero stands in a peculiar rela- tion to God, by whom he is warned, guided, pre- served. In almost all cases he is represented as

(456)

Motive of Flood Story

the ancestor of the human race, the father of the new humanity, either by procreation or, in the case of the Aryan Flood heroes, by creation. The part played by birds in discovering or recovering the lost earth is similar to the part taken by birds in Creation.

What motive, then, can we suggest that will account for and satisfy so many conditions? What mental or moral conception can we find equally operative among the most diverse peo- ples, which will enable us to make our way through this labyrinth of fact and fiction ? With- out hesitation we turn to the simplest and most universal article of ancient belief, operative in the new world as well as in the old ^ — belief in a past of Edenic felicity, with its necessary corollary of deterioration and ultimate perdition. It is not necessary for me now to review the evidence I brought forward in an earlier chapter of the al- most universal tradition that the Golden Age of the world came first. f Formal statements of this opinion are found in the doctrine of the World Ages in Aryan mythology, in the age of Ra in Egypt, and in the mythological systems of the new world. Coupled with the thought of the perfection of the first age is the thought of the growing deterioration of subsequent ages. But given this premise, the destruction of the world is certain to follow. What form would this de- struction naturally take? The myth could not contradict the testimony of men's physical senses. Their belief was that in consequence of the de-

* " Myths of the New World," 103-106.

f See Pfleiderer's " Die Idee eines Goldenen Zeitalters," Berlin, 1877.

(457)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

terioration of the world and the growing iniquity of man, the world had been destroyed. But their senses revealed to them the fact that the world is still here. How can those facts be reconciled? And how does it happen that out of all possible dangers with which men are threatened, prac- tically all nations that possess the tradition of the destruction of the world are silent as to earth- quakes, fire, pestilence and wind, and speak only of the destruction by water? In reality the reconciliation is simple — yes, unavoidable. One of these beliefs explains the other. The earth has been destroyed, yet it is still here. Evi- dently, then, the earth has been recreated. The problem of recreation, therefore, is almost ex- actly similar to the problem of creation. But to this problem, as Brinton truly says, there has never been more than one answer. The world came out of water. We find this belief from one end of the world to the other, among Babylo- nians, Hindus, Hebrews, Greeks and Egyptians, as well as among the inhabitants of the American continent and the islands of the Pacific. It is as widespread as the Flood tradition itself. The same train of thought, therefore, which con- strained so many nations to picture the world as rising out of the water at its creation, constrained them to picture it as rising out of the water in its re-creation. In short, there is in this explana- tion the nucleus of the Flood myth; namely, (i) A universal deluge ; (2) The moral motive of the deluge ; and (3) The relation of the Flood story to the Creation story. The salvation of a hero and his wife would naturally be described by the race that pretended to descend from that hero, as we

' '^ (458)

A New Explanation

see in Greece. In time, other picturesque inci- dents, such as the warning of God, the preserva- tion of the cattle, etc., might follow. But the essential features of the Flood myths which are found in many parts of the world rest, through the simplest induction, on beliefs that are shared by a large portion of humanity. The world was said to have been destroyed by water because that destruction was not permanent, but was fol- lowed by a new lease of life. According to the belief of the most diverse nations, another de- struction is in store for the world, which will be final. It will be a destruction by fire, from which no new world will emerge. That destruc- tion is naturally still in the future. The Flood story, then, is connected with the creation of earth on one side and with its final perdition on the other.

The advantages I claim for this explanation are the following:

1. The rehgious character of the Flood myth is explained, which in the best examples of the myth cannot be explained by the naturalistic hypothesis, or by simple nature-myths.

2. The close connection between the Flood and the Creation of the world now becomes ap- parent— a most important point, on which neither the nature-myth nor the naturalistic ex- planation throws any light.

3. The moral motive of the Flood, which plays so important a part in the mythology of the higher nations, is supplied. This also the ether- myth leaves untouched.

4. In the face of all other catastrophes which threaten the earth — earthquakes, tornadoes, etc.

(459)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

— this view explains why the universal myth of a world destruction is a Flood myth.

5. Lastly, I may mention the shadowy connec- tion between the Flood and the end of the world, of which we find traces in so many religious lit- eratures.

In offering this theory I am far from imagin- ing that I have discovered the sole cause of the Flood myths of mankind. Of the naturalistic causes that contributed to the development of a Flood myth I shall soon speak. It may be ex- pected that the lower we descend in the scale of humanity, the less important becomes the deter- mining moral factor that I have suggested. On the other hand, among a brilliantly imaginative people Hke the Greeks, new motives would cer- tainly be discovered, and, as Usener suggests, the myth would be transformed by other myths of different origin. Other nature-myths, sug- gested by the struggle of winter and summer, the sight of the land emerging from the water in the spring, etc., may well play a part; and we must also remember the transformation which the orig- inal myth undergoes in passing from one people to another. The great mistake almost every writer in this field has made is to be satisfied with too simple a solution, whereas the material for which one explanation is deemed sufficient is the richest and most composite imaginable. Al- though I am convinced that several of the mos-t striking features of the Flood myth cannot be accounted for either by simple nature-myths or by naturalistic hypotheses,* I am far from deny-

* The two strongest arguments against supposing the Flood myth to be developed merely from the recollection of actual dis-

Natural Causes

ing the part that natural causes have played in the formation of the many-sided Flood legend. On the contrary, as in the Flood story of Izdubar, we frequently see reminiscences of historical fact grafted on to the stem of the general myth. This circumstance, which is notorious to all who have made a careful study of the question,* can have no place in the theory of those who place their Flood solely in the sky, hence they are obliged to close their eyes to the most striking descriptions of terrestrial deluges. Let us see, however, how the matter really stands. From the very nature of the case, the materials out of which the ether- myth is spun are open to all. All nations see the setting sun, above all the great sea of heaven is spread out, with its islands, peaks, canoes, man and wife and what-not. All nations see the sky covered with clouds which conceal the lumi- naries, and the very nucleus of the theory is that people at a certain stage of culture reason on these facts in the same way. How does it happen, then, that all nations do not interpret these phe- nomena similarly ? If that is the way the Flood myth is created, why do not all nations possess it ?

asters are : i. Its essentially religious character and its close con- nection with Creation. 2. The fact that earthquakes are nearly as frequent as deluges and are even more disastrous and mys- terious, yet that no true earthquake-myth exists.

*So great a master of primitive folk-lore as H. H. Bancroft ascribes the Flood traditions of the American Indians to the fol- lowing sources : i. The sudden rising of a river. 2. The dis- covery of sea shells on elevated places. 3. The submergence of land by earthquake. 4. Scriptural tradition (" Native Races of the Pacific States," v. 138). The author of the brief but masterly article on "Die Flutsagen " in Meyer's " Konversations Lexi- con " also recognizes only naturalistic causes in the formation of the Flood legend. Richard Andree also declares himself unqual- ifiedly in favor of a physical cause of the Flood myth.

(461)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

This, it may be said, is going much too far. It is enough and more than enough that so many na- tions have the Flood myth. No doubt this is true, and yet it is not a little singular that as a rule only those countries have the Flood story where floods actually occur, while in those parts of the world, like Africa and Arabia and Central Asia, in which floods rarely happen, the Flood story can scarcely be said to exist at all. In few parts of the world are Flood stories more common than in the islands of Polynesia, and nowhere are those stories more satisfactorily accounted for by geo- graphical and cHmatic conditions. The same thing may be said with less emphasis of North America, and I call attention again to the fact that many of the Flood stories we have examined in different countries well describe the peculiar characteristics of local deluges to which those countries are exposed. If the Flood myth were merely transferred from the sky to the earth, or arose from the belief in the growing sinfulness of man, there ought to be no such congruity be- tween the myth and the event. There would be no reason why Flood stories should not arise in the heart of Africa or Arabia as freely as in Poly- nesia or America. That, however, is not the case. There are exceptions, it is true, but as a rule, in countries where destructive floods occur, tra- ditions occur, and conversely. Egypt is a case in point, as to which the advocates of the ether- myth observe a significant silence. It is the very country of all others where we should expect to find the ether-myth in operation. The Egyp- tians had the idea of the sky as a sea, which the sun-god, Ra, traverses in his boat. But in Egypt,

(46^)

Influence of Geographical Conditions

as Plato's Egyptian priest remarks, severe rain storms do not occur, and the only flood they know, the rise of the Nile, is a beneficent source of life and fertility. Hence no Flood story exists there. Perhaps the same thing may be^said of Persia. Consisting to a certain extent of high table-lands, shut in from the sea in both direc- tions by lofty mountains, and with few large riv- ers, Persia would suffer little, if at all, from del- uges; but in winter its plateaus and mountains are intensely cold. Accordingly, the only story we find of a general destruction of human Hfe is not a destruction by water, but by a series of terrible winters. The same general geographical condi- tions prevail in the great steppes of Central Asia, and the same absence of Flood traditions. As for China, it is true floods occur there frequently, and yet we have no true Chinese Flood myth. That is probably because the Chinese, having learned to write at a very early date and being a people but Httle addicted to mythology, have re- corded their floods in the form of history. Al- though I do not pretend to say that Flood and Flood myth go everywhere hand in hand, yet they occur too often together to encourage the supposition that they have nothing to do with each other.

Among the physical causes of great deluges, the fall of rain is one of the least important. There is a point beyond which rainfall cannot go. Far more dangerous than rain are gigantic waves propagated by earthquakes, tornadoes and cy- clones, and the sudden subsidence of the shores of lakes and seas. In many true flood stories, for example, in a Peruvian story I have related,

(463)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

in tales from the islands of the Pacific, and, I believe, in the flood story of Izdubar, lively recollections of these horrors are unmistakably present.

There is another factor which undoubtedly played a large part in the evolution of the Flood tradition. I mean the impression made on sav- age minds by the remains of sea animals, fossil fishes, marine shells, etc., deposited on high places which now are never reached by the sea. Cheyne speaks of this as a rationaHstic idea, which would occur only at a comparatively late period of reflection. It would seem, however, an exceedingly simple inference that where the re- mains of sea animals now are, the sea must once have been. In support of this opinion, I remind you of several Flood stories related in the last chapter, in which the Eskimos in one case and the inhabitants of the Leeward Islands in another, actually pointed to the fossil remains of sea ani- mals deposited on mountains as a proof of the reality of the Flood. To these examples I will add a few others, taken mostly from Andree * and Tylor.f The Samoans believe that fish formerly swam where the land now is, and that when the waters abated many of the fish were turned to stone. The first missionaries to Greenland found a tolerably distinct version of the Flood story in support of which the inhabitants affirmed that far up in the country, where men never dwelt, there were found on a high mountain remains of all sorts of fishes and even of whales. The same in- ference, as we know, was made by the ancients,

* " Flutsagen," 149.

f " Early Hist, of Mankind," 326 ff.

(464)

Naturalistic Causes

for example, by Herodotus ''' and Strabo.f The most natural conclusion to be drawn from the presence of marine fossils on mountains is that the sea once covered those mountains. But such a flood would be a universal, or a well-nigh uni- versal deluge. In this way many of our Flood stories doubtless arose, aided and enlivened by recollections of lesser actual deluges. Whatever mythical or religious explanation is ultimately adopted as the necessary cause of certain features of the Flood traditions of mankind, a large place must always be left for the experience of the catastrophe and inductions from physical facts such as we have described.

*ii. 12. fi. 3. 4.

(465)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Chapter Twenty-one:

The Physical Causes of Our Deluge. The Discovery of the Vine

After a rather long digression among the XJL Flood traditions of mankind, I am glad to return to our own Flood story of Genesis. It seemed to me important that we should know what a part this venerable tradition has played in the mythology of the nations, and from what ideas and experiences the various Flood myths originated. In this last study we saw that, although most Flood stories contain mythical elements, other elements in many of them plainly had their origin in fact. This applies also to our own tradition. The reasons for this assertion I shall give immediately. Here I may merely say that, regarding our Flood as an event that actually took place, I shall attempt to dis- cover the physical causes of that Flood, so far as it is possible to determine them at the present time. We have, as you know, two great sources of information in regard to the Deluge. One body of tradition is preserved in the Book of Genesis, the other is contained in the literature of Babylonia. Unquestionably, both these tradi- tions refer to the same great catastrophe. Both the Babylonian and the Hebrew accounts have come down to us in two forms, the Hebrew, in

(466)

The Four Accounts

the documents of the Jehovist and the Priestly Writer of Genesis ; the Babylonian, in the history of Berosus and in the epic poem of Izdubar. Of these four forms of the tradition, the poem of Izdubar is by far the oldest. While Berosus lived under Alexander the Great, and the Jeho- vist, our earliest authority, lived certainly not before the ninth century B.C., the poem of Izdu- bar is believed to date from about 2000 B.C. It is therefore entitled to be regarded as our oldest authority for the Flood, and I shall treat it ac- cordingly. But the Flood episode in the poem of Izdubar is not only the oldest account of the Flood, it is also, as we should expect, the most exact in its description of events. A good many specific features which are of great value in de- termining what actually took place, fade away and are obscured in the later versions. This also looks as if the story were founded on physical facts, which were well remembered when the Iz- dubar version was written, but which afterward were forgotten. There is one other feature of the Flood story of Izdubar which is of some im- portance. When we were studying that poem I pointed out a good many times that the original conception of the Flood was not that of a uni- versal destruction, but of a local deluge, sent to destroy the single city of Surippak, on the Eu- phrates. As time passed the Flood grew in mag- nitude and put on greater proportions. But it is very plain that the original story was not a story of a world-deluge.

This may be disappointing to some, but, on the whole, it is reassuring. It is now admitted by all that no such universal Deluge has taken place.

(467)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

If our story spoke only of a universal Deluge, we could hardly suppose that it had any foundation in fact. But by admitting that the story was not originally a story of the destruction of the world, but of the destruction of Surippak, we cut the ground from under every mythological explana- tion of our Flood. .No one would invent a world-myth to account for the destruction of one little town. This, I conceive, to persons who prefer fact to fiction, is a distinct gain. What- ever mythical features our story afterward took on, and there are plenty of them, it had its origin in a physical fact, not in a mere idea. With this preface I turn to the story itself, in the hope of being able to separate its physical elements from the mythology in which they were afterward clothed. In this study I shall depend largely on the judicious remarks of Ihering in his '' Evolu- tion of the Aryan," and on the brilliant treatise of Edouard Suess, the Swiss geologist.* It will be necessary for us to review, to a certain extent, the Flood episode contained in the eleventh tablet of Izdubar.

The scene of the Flood, as we know, is Surip- pak. Sit-napistim says to Izdubar:

" Izdubar, I will tell you the secret. . . . The city Surippak, which you know, on the banks of the Euphrates, the same city was already old when the gods were minded to send a flood."

The exact site of Surippak has not been dis- covered. It lay, as the poem says, on the Eu- phrates, and scholars believe that it is to be looked for on the lower course of the river. We

* "Die Sintfluth," Prag, 1883, _

Situation of Surippak

must also remember that at the time of the Flood, which was certainly earHer than 2000 B.C., the Tigris and the Euphrates did not unite as they do now, but each flowed independently into the Persian Gulf.* It would appear that Surippak, which means '' shiptown," was a seafaring city, both from the readiness with which Sit-napistim set to work to build his large vessel and from his fear of the criticism or ridicule of the townspeo- ple when they should see him constructing so strange a craft. You will remember his reply to the command of Ea to build a ship :

" My lord, what you have commanded I will hold in honor , . . but what shall I answer to the town, the people and the elders? "

In fact, every feature of Sit-napistim's prep- aration, the taking of a rudder and a pilot, the use of the birds in finding land, etc., seems to have originated among a seafaring people that well understood the construction and navigation of ships. In this connection the caulking of the ship with asphalt or mineral pitch, which Sit-napistim did of his own accord, is very interesting.

" Six sar [large measures] of asphalt [bitumen] I poured on the outside, three sar of asphalt on the inside."

This circumstance is mentioned in Genesis, but there Noah is commanded by God, '' Thou shalt pitch it within and without with pitch." f The Hebrews, not being a maritime people, would not expect Noah to think of that him-

* See Suess' remarks, pp. lo, ii ; and Frd. Delitzsch, "Wo lag- das Paradies?" 1883, pp. 173-182. f Gen. vi. 14.

{469)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

self. The employment of asphalt is a correct historical allusion. The heights along the Lower Euphrates are rich in bitumen, and it is still used for the purpose of making vessels watertight.* The use of mineral pitch would make Sit- napistim's vessel black, as the poem asserts. It is also significant that the warnings of the com- ing destruction are given by Ea, who is repre- sented first as sending a dream to Sit-napistim, and then as speaking to him by a voice. Leaving the dream to one side, we should naturally under- stand by the voice of the god of the deep some of those preHminary warnings of the sea which be- token the coming storm, or the first trembling which precedes the earthquake.!

The description of the catastrophe itself is full of meaning. Unfortunately, on account of our ignorance of the minor deities of the Babylonian pantheon, part of its meaning escapes us. It is very plain, however, that the Flood was not caused by rain alone, nor by an overflow of the Euphrates River. In fact, the violent downpour of rain only served as a signal that the Flood was about to begin.

" When he who sends the whirlwind sends in the evening a terrible rainstorm, then go into the ship and shut the door."

The description of the oncoming Flood Jensen translates as follows :

* See report of Joseph Cernik, Expedition for Technical Study in the Euphrates District, quoted by Suess, 12, 13. In regard to the art of navigation among the Babylonians, see Ihering, pp. 162-169. Ihering beheves that the Babylonians possessed sea- going ships and some knowledge of navigation as early as 4000

B.C.

f Suess.

(470)

Causes of Flood

As soon as the glow of dawn appeared,

A dusky cloud rose on the firmament of Heaven.

Ramman thundered in it.

Nabu and Marduk went before,

Went as leaders over mountain and land.

Urugal tore the ship's [rudder] loose.

Ninib advanced, let the raging storm follow.

The Annunaki raised their torches,

By their streaming brightness they made the land to

sparkle. Ramman's swelling waves rose to heaven, Turned all brightness into darkness [?]. He overflowed the land like a [ ]. For one [day the hurricane smote]. Swiftly blew hither . . . the waters [?] rose to the

mountains, Bore down on men like a battle storm. Brother saw not his brother, men were not regarded in

heaven.

The general meaning of this seems plain. The Flood begins with a terrific atmospheric dis- turbance. Thick clouds obscure the sky, the day is like night. " Brother could not see brother," save only for the flashing lightning. In short, we have here a vivid picture of a violent storm, perhaps accompanied by a waterspout. The gods that are mentioned in the earlier parts of the description are mostly elemental deities, gods of the upper regions. Ramman is a storm god, Ninib a solar deity; the storm sun, Marduk, also is a heavenly deity. This remark, however, does not apply to all. The Annunaki, who play such a prominent role and who are later held chiefly responsible for the Flood, are spirits of the earth.* Urugal, who tore the ship from its moorings, is a god of the lower world. It would appear, then, that the Flood is represented as surging up from below as well as coming from

* Jastrow, p. 184.

(471)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

above. This tradition is more clearly preserved in Genesis, where it is distinctly stated that before the rain fell '' all the fountains of the great deep were broken tip." "^ Unfortunately, Berosus' account of the oncoming of the Flood has perished. But so much emphasis is laid on this fact in Genesis that we are rather surprised that the Babylonian poem does not mention it more distinctly, especially as it was an idea which must have originated f in Lower Babylonia. This gives us the impression of an earthquake. It is well known that in alluvial soil of recent formation one does not have to go far beneath the surface to find water. Sir Charles Lyell re- minds us of what took place in 1812 in New Madrid, which Hes on the bank of the Mississippi, a little below the mouth of the Ohio, in the State of Missouri. There the ground continued to quake for several months. The inhabitants say that the earth rose in great waves, and when these had reached a certain fearful height the soil burst, and vast columns of water, sand and coal were discharged as high as the tops of the trees. At one time the ground swelled up so as to turn back temporarily the great volume of the Mississippi River.$ When we hear of the waves of Ramman rising to Heaven, and the fountains of the great deep breaking up, we naturally think of a violent earthquake. If its centre of action, as it would appear, was in the

*Gen. vii. 11.

f We must remember, however, that in the Babylonian poem the causes of the Flood are stated mythically, and the allusion to the part played by earth spirits would be nearly equivalent to the allusion to the bursting of subterranean waters in Genesis.

X " Principles of Geolog-y," nth ed., ii. io6 ff.

(472)

Three Physical Phenomena

Persian Gulf, great waves would certainly be formed which would strike the low-lying banks of the Euphrates with frightful force. But be- fore such waves made their presence felt, it would seem that the alluvial soil of Lower Babylonia itself experienced a shaking somewhat similar to that of New Madrid, in consequence of which the waters confined beneath the shallow crust of earth burst forth, giving the impression that the fountains of the great deep were breaking up. At all events the three following physical phe- nomena apparently were before the minds of the authors of Izdubar and of the writers of Genesis :

1. A severe storm, accompanied by wind, thick darkness, thunder and Hghtning.

2. A seismic disturbance of the alluvial soil of Babylonia, in consequence of which considerable volumes of water were driven upward.

3. The action of this same disturbance beneath the waters of the Persian Gulf, at that time not far distant from Surippak, which propagated great waves up the Euphrates, completely sub- merging its banks and spreading far inland.

I shall speak in a moment of the necessity for this last supposition. Here I wish to remark that every feature of the Flood story of Izdubar speaks for a sudden and brief catastrophe, not for a slow accumulation and abatement of waters like that described in Genesis. We see how suddenly the Flood came, as swiftly as in Galveston. In a single day the damage was done and the coun- try was submerged. This fact in itself forbids us to think of rain as a principal cause. The Flood also abated suddenly.

(473)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

For six days and nights went the wind.

The flood-storm, the hurricane smote the earth.

When the seventh day broke, the waters abated,

The flood-storm ceased,

The storm, which had fought Hke an armed host.

The sea was quiet which the hurricane had stirred up.

I looked out on the sea, I let my voice sound;

But all men were turned to clay.

Everything here speaks for an irruption of water from the Persian Gulf. The presence of '' the sea " so far inland can hardly be accounted for by a hurricane. We should think rather of gigantic waves launched by a submarine earth- quake. This becomes plainer as we go on.

After twelve [days, or double hours?] a strip of land ap- peared.

The ship reached the land Nisir.

The mountain of the land Nisir held the ship fast, and would not let it move from its place.

One day, a second day the mountain of Nisir held it.

A third day, a fourth day, etc.

A fifth day, a sixth day, etc.

This passage proves conclusively that the Flood was not caused by an overflow of the Eu- phrates, produced by rains, however extraor- dinary. Had that been the case, Sit-napistim's vessel would have been carried in a southerly di- rection, into the Persian Gulf. But according to all our accounts, the vessel or ark sailed, or was driven, to the north. The later versions (Genesis and Berosus) speak of Armenia as a landing place, which, from the point of view of natural science, is out of the question. It is too far and too elevated to be submerged by a deluge pro- duced by natural causes in the region of the Per- sian Gulf. The earher tradition preserved in Izdubar is, however, much more moderate. It

(474)

Possibility of Earthquake

places the landing of Sit-napistim's ship in the land of Nisir, which lies only about three hun- dred miles northwest of the Persian Gulf and in the direction of its axis. Considering the nature of the intervening land, which is a low, alluvial plain, it would not appear impossible that a series of gigantic waves set in motion in the Persian Gulf (which we must remember then extended much further inland) might penetrate so far, and even deposit a vessel of light draught on the first range of mountains it encountered. It is not stated in Izdubar that the vessel rested on the summit of the mountain, but only that it rested on a mountain in the land of Nisir. The vessel is carried northward over the low plains between the rivers, reaches the bed of the Lower Tigris, which would be equally affected by such a dis- turbance; then it is carried further north and northeast to the adjacent mountains. Remem- bering, as I have said, that at the time of the Del- uge the Persian Gulf extended nearly a hundred miles further inland than now,* the distance traversed was perhaps two hundred and fifty miles and the time consumed was about one week. In view of the far-reaching effects of earthquakes recorded by Sir Charles Lyell and other geolo- gists, there does not appear to be anything im- probable in this. At all events, the excellent ge- ologist, Suess, who has investigated the subject more thoroughly than any one else, finds no

* In primitive times the Persian Gulf extended much further inland than it did later, and to the present day the recovery of submerged land goes slowly but steadily on, in ancient times at the rate of one English mile in thirty years, now at the rate of one mile in seventy years. — F. Hommel, " Geschichte Babylo- niens," pp. i8i, 182.

(475)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

difficulty in accepting this hypothesis. That this was the actual concatenation of events which brought about the Deluge, I do not dream of as- serting, but I believe it is the most probable ex- planation yet offered of the physical phenomena described in the oldest version of the Flood story. Whether or not we feel Uke admitting that the effects of an earthquake in the Persian Gulf could carry a vessel so far inland, it seems reasonable to beheve that such an earthquake was the prime cause of the Deluge. On this supposition, the preliminary warnings, the bursting of subterra- nean waters, the surging waves of Ramman, the presence of the sea so far inland, above all, the course of the vessel or ark against the current of both Tigris and Euphrates, become intelligible.

It ought not to be objected to this that the combination of earthquake and storm is an im- probable coincidence, another tax on our cre- dulity. Sir Charles Lyell speaks frequently of the fact that severe earthquakes are accompanied almost always by violent storms ; " sudden gusts of wind . . . violent rains at unusual sea- sons, reddening of the sun's disk and haziness in the air often continue for months." * Several of the earthquakes recorded by him and by Suess were attended by storms of the most violent char- acter.

Although I do not know that earthquakes have occurred in the Persian Gulf in modern times, the region of Mesopotamia has been fre- quently shaken. Perhaps its most celebrated earthquake was that which in the year 763 B.C., the year of the eclipse, made itself felt from As-

* " Principles of Geology," 281.

_

Time of the Year

Syria to Palestine,* and which the Prophet Amos describes in these remarkable words : '^ Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turn- eth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night : that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth : The Lord is His name."t It is to be remembered, however, that our Flood is described as a catastrophe of unusual severity, in fact, as an altogether unique occurrence. It took place in a portion of the world which even then was thickly populated, and it was probably attended with fearful loss of life.

I will add two other incidents that make for the view of the Deluge which I have adopted from Suess. Berosus, you may remember, asserts that the Flood began in summer, in May or June. This, it has been conjectured, was the mistake of some copyist. It has been considered impossible that the Flood should have begun in summer, be- cause at that time the rivers are at their lowest. If, however, the Flood was caused by an inunda- tion from the Persian Gulf, it might have occurred at one time of the year as well as another. Lyell speaks of violent storms at unusual times of the year, accompanying earthquakes. It is true that the Flood story of Izdubar is contained in the eleventh tablet of that poem, corresponding to the eleventh month, November, " the month of the plague of rain," yet it is not impossible that Berosus has preserved an older tradition.

* Determined by Lehmann and Oppholzer's calculation of an eclipse of the sun, which occurred on June 14, 763 B.C. See Suess, p. 59.

f Amos, V. 8.

(477)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

My other remark is this : In the Book of Gen- esis, the coming of the Flood is introduced in a rather awkward manner. God says, " Behold, I, even I, will bring a flood, namely waters upon the earth." * And again, in the next chapter, the expression is repeated, " And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood, namely, waters, was upon the earth." f It is generally supposed that the reason for this circumlocution lay in the fact that the Hebrew word for flood {inabbul) is very unusual in that language. The author, therefore, felt it necessary each time to add the word '' waters " in explanation. But it has been suggested that the word '' majim,'' which we translate waters, by a very slight change would read '' jnijjam,'' which means '' from the sea," so that both these passages would then read, " I am bringing a flood from the sea." J

In this connection I must mention the frag- ment of a Babylonian Flood legend discovered by F. E. Peiser in the British Museum and pub- lished by him in i889.§ Unfortunately, the text is brief and exceedingly mutilated, but what makes it of peculiar interest is the fact that it is accompanied by a map of Babylonia which must be one of the oldest geographical representations in the world. || It seems to be generally admitted by Assyriologists^ that this fragment originally

* Gen. vi. 17. f Gen. vii. 6.

X J. D. Michaelis, 1775, quoted by Suess. § " Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie," 1889, pp. 361-370. II Peiser regards it as " hardly later than goo B.C." •jf This statement is made on the authority of Dr. George A. Barton, of Bryn Mawr College. Zimmern (" Encycl. Bib.") ex-

(478)

Peiser's Map

described a flood. According to Peiser, Zim- mern and others, a portion of Sit-napistim's name appears in the text, and the map itself rep- resents Babylonia as surrounded by water. I re- fer to the translation of the descriptive portions of the map and the valuable notes most kindly prepared for me by my friend Dr. Barton, which are published in the appendix of this work. The more important portion of Peiser's text is as fol- lows :

Fallen (?) towns . . . which Marduk the lord . . . sees. And the fled (?) gods, who, in the midst of the sea . . . sit (?) they; and in the year (?) of the great ser- pent in which Zu . . . have . . . gazelle . . . panther . . . lion, hyena . . . goat and . . . stallion . . . pagitum, antelope . . . forsaken the interior of Babylonia."

The beasts seem to have left the doomed plain, even the gods appear to have taken flight, as in Izdubar.

The animals which live on the great sea . . . Mar- duk ... [at the time of] Samas-napistim-usur, the earlier king to whom Dagan [had given] the kingdom of Dur, etc. (Peiser's translation).

What makes this ancient map so interesting to us at this point is the fact that it depicts Baby- lonia overwhelmed by the waters of the Persian Gulf, called here, as in Babylonian and Assyrian texts generally, " the bitter stream." The Per- sian Gulf is represented on the map as entering Babylonia at the mouth of the Euphrates, through the *' canal of reeds " and " the outlet; "

presses himself more strongly. Dr. Jastrow, however, in a pri- vate letter, doubts whether this fragment really contains a Flood legend.

(479)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

and th'e very manner in which the Bitter Stream is depicted as entering the land through channels on each side of the river itself, might seem to indi- cate that the mouth of the Euphrates was com- pletely inundated. Babylon is correctly repre- sented as lying on both sides of the river. To the north rises the great mountain which Zim- mern regards as the landing place of 'the Flood hero, but which Dr. Barton considers the moun- tain boundary of the world. Dr. Barton, how- ever, believes he finds Artu, or Ararat, in the map, to the northeast of Babylon. Although it would be unwise, in view of the incompleteness of the text, to insist on the evidence of this frag- ment, it is certainly a matter of interest that we should possess an ancient Babylonian map ex- hibiting the Deluge, and that this map should represent Babylonia as surrounded and sub- merged by the Persian Gulf.

To this I will only add that the explanation of the Flood here offered is entirely compatible with the fact that Egypt was not affected by it ; for this flood, originating in the Persian Gulf and passing inward for a few hundred miles up the course of the Euphrates and the Tigris, would not affect Egypt on the Mediterranean basin at all. The conditions of Lower Mesopotamia are altogether favorable to such an occurrence. They are quite similar to the conditions in India at the mouths of the Ganges, where frightful deluges, involving great loss of life, take place to the pres- ent day. If, then, an unusual and long remem- bered deluge did occur in Lower Babylonia, which there is no reason to doubt, the foregoing explanation is probably the best it has received,

(480)

Noah's Sons

as it follows closely the literal statements of the most ancient tradition, without violating scien- tific probability. In the Book of Genesis, as in the Babylonian accounts, this well-known catas- trophe seems to have served as the substratum of reahty on which was reared the great religious myth, the destruction of the world as a judgment for sin.

Before concluding, I wish to complete our study of the Deluge by examining the curious passage with which the Flood story ends (Gen.

18-27):

18. And the sons of Noah who went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth, and Ham was the father of Canaan.

19. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was overspread.

These two verses evidently follow immediately on the story of the Deluge. They take for granted that Noah and his family are the only human beings living. The same names are as- signed to the three sons of Noah as in the pre- vious passages in which they are mentioned.* The only thing that strikes us as peculiar is the abrupt mention of Canaan as the son of Ham, although none of the children of Noah's other sons is mentioned. The reason for this, however, we soon see. For, as we read along, we observe that these two verses are intended merely to in- troduce a very peculiar little story in regard to Noah, in which the names of his three sons are not Shem, Ham and Japheth, but Shem, Japheth and Canaan. It was doubtless to soften the con- tradiction between the names of Noah's sons that

* Gen. V. 32 ; vi. 10 ; vii. 13.

31 (481)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

the verse we have just translated added " and Ham was the father of Canaan." The story re- peated below runs as follows :

20. And Noah the farmer began to plant a vineyard.

21. And he drank of the wine, and became intoxicated; and he was uncovered within his tent.

22. And Ham the father of Canaan saw his father's nak- edness, and he told it to his two brothers outside.

2^. And Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it on their shoulders and covered the nakedness of their father, going in backwards with their faces averted, so that they did not see the nakedness of their father.

24. And Noah awoke from his wine, and became aware of what his youngest son had done to him.

25. And he said, " Cursed be Canaan. The meanest slave let him be to his brothers."

26. And he said, " Blessed be Jahveh, the God of Shem.* And let Canaan be their slave, f

27. God enlarge Japheth,

And let him dwell in the tents of Shem; And let Canaan be their slave."

This little composition is very ancient, prob- ably much older than the rest of our Flood story in its present form. If anything besides its abso- lute na'iveU is needed to prove this, it is found in the singular poem of Noah, which is evi- dently one of those little antique chants like Lamech's song, which antedate writing and come down from the earliest times. It is plain that this prophetical chant, containing a blessing for Shem and Japheth and a curse for Canaan, is the nucleus of the whole incident, from which the strange story of Noah was evolved. But this story presents Noah in a totally new light. In- stead of the rather shadowy character, the right-

*0r, as Budde translates, omitting the word Elohim, "The blessed of Jahveh is Shem." f i.e., the slave of his brothers.

(482)

Canaan and Ham

eous man whom we have known, we find Noah here in a state of intoxication which, to say the least, surprises us. The abrupt mention of Noah the farmer is entirely unexpected, and it is also strange to find the father and his three sons still dwelling together in one tent, as, ac- cording to the Flood story, Shem, Ham and Japheth were all married men, who after the Flood would naturally have homes of their own. But this is not all. When we look at Noah's song, which is, as we have said, the oldest part of the composition, we find that the three sons are not Shem, Ham and Japheth, but Shem, Japheth and Canaan. It is said in the introduc- tion to the poem that Ham, the father of Canaan, beheld Noah's nakedness. But in the poem itself it is not Ham who was cursed, but Canaan. Ham's name is not mentioned at all. '' Cursed be Canaan, the meanest slave let him be to his brothers." If Ham committed the crime, why was not he cursed instead of his child, who had done nothing? The only answer is that it was Canaan, not Ham, who was guilty of this fault, and in the poem Canaan is distinctly called the brother of Shem and Japheth. In the twenty- fourth verse the perpretrator of the deed is def- initely called the youngest son of Noah. Accord- ing, then, to the most ancient tradition preserved in this poem, the three sons of Noah were not Shem, Ham and Japheth, but Shem, Japheth and Canaan. Of course this does not agree with what was said of Noah's family in the Flood story, and it was with the intention of softening this contra- diction that some editor changed the words Shem, Japheth and Canaan, to Shem, Ham and

(483)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Japheth, adding by way of explanation, " and Ham was the father of Canaan."

It would therefore appear that the episode of the drunkenness of Noah had nothing to do with the story of the Flood, which now precedes it. It was merely one of those very old Israelitish tra- ditions that describe the beginnings of human culture and the transition from the nomadic to a settled life. Noah was a farmer. He made the discovery of the wonderful properties of the grape and began its culture. That was an im- portant step in human progress, but, as our Je- hovist loves to show us, every step man takes in this direction is beset with danger, and Noah be- comes the victim of his own discovery. Closely connected with this is Noah's curse of Canaan, his youngest son, and his blessing of Shem and Japheth.

Although all this has nothing to do with the story of the Flood, and though it contradicts the statements of the Flood story, it is a very interest- ing tradition of ancient times. The question is, Where does this episode belong? If it has no natural connection w4th the Flood, is there any other portion of the history of Noah with which it combines more naturally? I think there is. Turning back to the fifth chapter of Genesis, where the birth of Noah is described,* we read that his father Lamech " called his name Noah, saying, ' This same will comfort us for our work, for the sore labor of our hands which comes from the ground which Jahveh has cursed.' " How was this prophecy fulfilled? Certainly not by Noah's escape from the Flood in his ark. That brought

* Gen. V. 29, (48^0

Noah's Discovery

little comfort to Lamech, for Noah saved only himself and his immediate family, while Lamech appears to have been drowned. Moreover, the building of an ark has nothing to do with the hardships of a farmer's life, of which Lamech so bitterly complained. This obscure saying of Lamech's, however, becomes clear in the Hght of the fact that Noah discovered the use of wine and first planted the grape. In antiquity generally, and also in the Old Testament, the vine was al- ways regarded as one of the choice gifts of Heaven and as expressly intended to mitigate the hardships of man's lot. '' Give strong drink," says the proverb, '^ to him that is ready to per- ish, and wine to those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink and forget his poverty and remem- ber his misery no more." * Among the best blessings Isaac could invoke on his first-born was "plenty of corn and wine."t The Psalm speaks of " wine that maketh glad the heart of man." % Although the terrible effects of the abuse of wine are truthfully displayed in the Old Testament, yet the vine and grape are praised as good gifts of God, not only for their own sake, but as the symbol of a peaceable and settled life. So Noah is represented as making this discovery by which the prophecy of his father Lamech was fulfilled, " he shall comfort us for all our toil and for the sore labor of our hands which comes from the ground which Jahveh has cursed." This seems to be very plain. We have seen already that the story of Noah and the vine has nothing to do with the Flood, but it is quite consistent with the notice of Noah's birth. Lamech prophe-

* Prov. xxxi. 6, 7. f Gen. xxvii. 28. ifPs, civ. 15.

(48s)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

sies that Noah will bring comfort to his contem- poraries in their hard struggle with the earth, and Noah fulfils that prophecy by causing the earth to bring forth wine, which Jeremiah calls '' the cup of consolation." * We may therefore conjecture with much confidence that the story of Noah and the vine originally followed the account of his birth, that it was written without reference to the Flood, and that it was placed where it now stands at a much later time.f

This disposes of one of the difficulties of the passage, but there remains another. Almost im- mediately after the story of Noah and the vine, occurs the celebrated genealogical table in which all the nations of the ancient world known to the Hebrews are derived from the three 'sons of Noah: Shem, Ham and Japheth. Now one thing is very plain. If, as we have seen, the story of Noah and the vine was not written with reference to the Flood, the descendants of Noah described in this episode would not have been regarded as the ancestors of the whole human race, but only of a small part of it. This also is fully corrobo- rated by the story itself. One of Noah's sons, as we have seen, is Canaan, by whom we can under- stand only the ancestor of the people of the West Jordan land which Israel knew by that name. The eldest son, Shem, whose God is Jahveh, is, of course, the ancestor of Israel, to whom alone Jahveh revealed Himself. But it cannot be im- agined that the writer of this passage believed that two-thirds of humanity had descended from

* Jeremiah, xvi. 7.

f So, Budde, " Urgeschichte," chapter ix., and Bohmer, " Das erste Buch der Thora," p. 140 f. ^

(486)

Shem, Ham and Japheth

these two nations. The Hebrews never pre- tended that many of the nations of the earth were closely related to them, and, in the genealogical table which follows, far from asserting that one- third of the human race had descended from Canaan, they mention the Canaanites along with the Egyptians and other inhabitants of Africa as one of the nations descended from Ham. The conclusion to be drawn is this: As the story of Noah and the vine had nothing to do with the Flood, the three sons of Noah in that story had, if I may say so, entirely different values from the Shem, Ham and Japheth of the genealogical table. In the story of the vine, Shem, Japheth and Canaan were not regarded as the ancestors of all humanity, but only as the ancestors of three nations, of which Israel was one and Canaan was another. In the genealogical table of the na- tions, however, the condition was wholly differ- ent. After the Flood, Noah and his three sons are represented as the only men alive. The whole human race, therefore, must be descended from them. It would never do, however, to say that one-third of the human family came from an in- significant people like the Canaanites. Accord- ingly, the name of Noah's youngest son was changed from Canaan to Ham. What is certain is that in the genealogical table Shem, Ham and Japheth have acquired a kind of symbolical mean- ing as the progenitors of the whole human race. They are the ancestors of the most diverse peo- ples that are grouped together, not through ties of blood and language, but for the most part be- cause of mere geographical contiguity. We should look in vain for any man or nation that

(487)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

had given birth to races so unlike as those we encounter here. When, however, our story of Noah and the vine speaks of the three sons of Noah, Shem, Japheth and Canaan, it means something entirely different. It does not as- sume that the whole human race was descended from these three men, but only, in accordance with ancient ideas, that they had given birth to three nations, of which Canaan is one and Israel is another. Up to this point the argument is per- fectly plain.

Now let us return to the story. Noah is over- come by his own discovery ; the wine — which he tasted for the first time, and of whose properties he was ignorant — was too potent for him. Canaan takes an immodest advantage of his father's help- less condition, beholds Noah's shame and irrev- erently relates his act to his two brothers. They, however, moved by filial piety, enter the tent with averted eyes and protect their father from fur- ther mortification by covering him with his mantle. When Noah awakes and becomes aware of what has occurred, he utters a solemn and pro- phetical speech. He curses Canaan for his in- decency and condemns him to a life of perpetual servitude. " Cursed be Canaan, the meanest slave let him be to his brothers." And, on the other hand, he rewards the honorable conduct of Shem and Japheth with a blessing. The richest blessing belongs to Shem. Either Noah declares him to be the blessed of Jahveh, or he blesses Jah- veh, the God of Shem, for his sake. Then, turn- ing to Japheth, he says, " God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be their slave." Much of this is per-

(488)

Japheth and the Phoenicians

fectly plain. The inspired writer wishes to con- demn the immodesty and sexual immorality of the Canaanite, of which we have such terrible ex- amples in the earlier parts of the Old Testament. As Dillmann finely says, " the fortunes of peo- ples are determined in accordance with their deeds." Our writer, then, justly traces the weak- ness and servility of the peoples of Canaan to their unchastity and shameless customs, which made them an easy prey to nations more robust than themselves. As Canaan certainly repre- sents the Canaanites, so by Shem, the blessed of Jahveh, we can understand nothing but the pro- genitor of Israel. The only question remaining is, who was Japheth? We are accustomed, on the authority of the genealogical table, to regard Japheth as the progenitor of the Indo-Germanic family of the nations, but in this passage, which does not extend its horizon beyond Palestine, the Indo-Germanic race is not thought of. We must think rather of a Palestinian people closely re- lated to Israel and the Canaanites. Japheth, in all probability, was conceived as the ancestor of the Phoenicians. The Phoenicians, while speak- ing a dialect differing but little from the Hebrew idiom, were decidedly superior to the other na- tions of Canaan in natural endowment and in all the arts of civilization. As their interests seldom clashed with those of the Hebrews, the two na- tions as a rule were on the most friendly terms, and our author prays that this friendship may be perpetual. The Phoenicians, separated from the rest of Palestine by a wall of lofty mountains, which they had the good sense not to attempt to cross, were a bulwark rather than a menace to

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Israel. All their conquests were beyond the sea. On these the Hebrews could afford to look with complacency. Hence the paternal blessing, in- fluenced, doubtless, by a profound sense of kin- ship, '' God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem."

It is of interest to remember that the Greeks also possessed a myth of the discovery of the vine, and that their myth was connected, though indi- rectly, with the Flood. Hekataios "^ informs us that a dog belonging to Orestheus (the mountain man) brought him a twig from which the vine grew. According to Hekataios the genealogy is De-ucalion, the Flood hero ; Orestheus, the moun- taineer; Phytios, the vine grower, and Oineus, the wine man. Apollodorus,t however, relates the descent of Oineus differently. I have not been able to find any Greek legend that accuses either of these vine discoverers with being over- come by the effect of his discovery, but judging from Oineus' association with the wild orgies of Dionysos the thought is not far off.

* " Athen.," 2, p. 35. f Apoll., *' Bib. " i. 7.

(490)

The Descent of the Nations

Chapter Twenty-two:

The Tradition of the Tower of Babel

THE tenth chapter of Genesis, which follows the story of the Flood, is one of the most obscure portions of the whole Bible. It is not only obscure, it is for us indecipherable except by conjecture. In that chapter the author wishes to show how the earth was repeopled after the Deluge. Accordingly he constructs a general chart for the purpose of showing how the various races, peoples and tribes with which he was ac- quainted descended from the three sons of Noah. He describes the relationships of the nations pre- cisely as if they were individual men, and so in- deed he regards them. Mizraim, for example, the dual name which the Semitic nations be- stowed on the two parts of Egypt, is plainly con- ceived as a man. One people is supposed to be the father, the grandfather or the great-grand- father of another. This comparison, however, is misleading. Individuals and generations suc- ceed one another in time, while races and peoples possess at least some permanence. Yet I by no means wish to imply that our author was not in- fluenced by ancient tradition and to a certain ex- tent by profound considerations of language and custom. The real difficulty is that we do not know many of the peoples to which he refers, or

(491)

A Map of the City of Babylon.

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

we know them only by conjecture. Who were Magog and Elishah, and Tubal and Sabtecha? Probably we shall never certainly discover. It seems to me, therefore, perfectly useless to at- tempt to discuss these problems within the brief compass of a lecture. I therefore refer you to the marvellous wealth of learning lavished on this difificult theme by Lenormant in the second and third volumes of his " Les Origines " (which, I venture to say, not a dozen persons living have read through), and I pass over this chapter alto- gether. Instead of wearying you with conjec- tures on mere names, I will conclude with a story full of life and energy, the last of those fascinating notices of the beginnings of human culture. In the eleventh chapter of Genesis we read :

I, 2. The whole earth had but one speech and one kind of words. And it came to pass as they were journeying around in the East that they found a low plain in the land of Shinar [Mesopotamia] and settled there.

3. And they said to one another, " Come now, let us make bricks and burn them hard." So brick served for building stones and asphalt for mortar,

4. And they said, " Now, good! we will build us a city and a tower with its top in the heavens [on the sky], and we will make us a monument so that we may not be scat- tered over the whole earth."

5. Then Jahveh came down to inspect the city and the tower which the children of men began to build.

Here something is evidently omitted. Jah- veh's return to his lofty abode and the assembling of his heavenly counsellors are not mentioned.

6. 7. And Jahveh said: " One people are they, and they all have the same language, and this is [only] the beginning of their doings, and soon they will be debarred from noth- ing which they wish to undertake. Come, now, let us de- scend and confound their language, so that one shall not be able to understand the speech of another."

(492)

The Tower and the Flood

This is one of the most distinctly polytheistic verses in the Bible. It expresses not only Jah- veh's need of taking counsel with his associates, but of securing their cooperation in the execu- tion of his plan. It reminds us strikingly of the conferences of the gods in Babylonian and Greek mythology. This strange element (which one feels must come from a foreign source) disap- pears in the next verse. It is Jahveh alone who really acts.

8. So Jahveh scattered them abroad from thence over the face of the whole earth, so that they left ofif building their city,

9. Therefore was it called Babel [confusion], because there Jahveh scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

Before we go any further we ought to deter- mine at what point in the history of mankind this singular occurrence is supposed to have taken place. There is one great event in the Book of Genesis which, so to speak, cuts the history of the world in two; that is the Flood, in which almost the whole human race is supposed to have perished. How stands the Tower of Babel with reference to the Flood? Strange to say, there seems to be no relation between the two. The Tower of Babel could not have been erected be- fore the Flood, for the very purpose of the story is to show how the various nations and languages now in existence arose. Neither could the build- ing of the Tower and the miraculous dispersion have taken place after the Flood, for the author of the tenth chapter, which also contains Jeho- vistic material, has been at great pains to inform us how all the nations known to him descended

(493)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

from the three sons of Noah in a perfectly nat- ural and orderly manner, without a hint that the dispersion of the nations was caused by so sin- gular a miracle. What proves this conclusively is the fact that in the tenth chapter the founding of Babel is mentioned as an act of Nimrod, but no allusion is made to the building of the Tower or to the confusion of tongues. We are therefore obliged to suppose that the story of the Tower of Babel, like most ancient traditions of this sort, is complete in itself, and was composed without reference to the Flood. The only allusion to the time at which the event took place is a very gen- eral one, '' It came to pass as they were journey- ing around in the East." This reminds us of the introduction to the story of the Sons of God (a narrative of the same order), '' It came to pass as men began to multiply on the earth," and evi- dently points to the earliest times. The whole human family is still together, forming one horde, speaking one language, and without a settled habitation.

From the exclusive employment of the word Jahveh, it is evident that our narrative forms part of the Jehovist's document. From certain verbal indications, and more especially from its rehgious conceptions, it appears to have been written by the author of the Garden of Eden narrative. Jahveh is conceived even more naively. The conception of God, indeed, is one of the crud- est in the whole Bible. Jahveh is obliged to come down from his lofty abode to see what men are really doing. His invitation to his com- panions, " Come, now, let us go down and con- found their language," is expressed in terms

(494)

No Babylonian Tradition

that scarcely veil the polytheism of the thought. Moreover, his naif fear of the invasion of his realm is stated with a candor that far surpasses the language of the Garden of Eden narrative. The question therefore arises, whether this is a native Hebrew tradition of great age, or whether our author had before him a Babylonian legend of somewhat the same scope, whose mythological allusions were still cruder and more naif. I must say at the outset that the Babylonian legend of the Tower of Babel and the confusion of tongues, which George Smith thought he had discovered and which Sayce has repeatedly announced, has proved to contain no allusion whatever to either of these myths, and up to this time no such Babylonian tradition has been discovered. Aby- denus pretends to have found a description of the Tower of Babel in the history of Berosus, which adds nothing to our story except that the Tower was destroyed by wind. But on this point the silence of Josephus is decisive. Several Sibylline poems describing the Tower of Babel have fre- quently been cited, but they also depend exclu- sively on the story of Genesis, elaborated in the manner of the Jewish Haggada. There is no doubt that the Genesis narrative implies some familiarity with the general conditions of ancient Babylonia. The land of Shinar, which is properly described as a low-lying plain, is a Hebrew form of the southern Babylonian shumir,'^ sumer. The conception of Babylonia as the dwelling place of a composite population speaking Semitic and non- Semitic languages, is also historically correct. The enormous ziggurats which once rose hun-

*Schrader, ''K. A. T.," ii8.

(495)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

dreds of feet into the air above low-lying Baby- lonia, might well be described as towers, and the description of their materials, burnt brick ce- mented with asphalt, is also quite accurate. These, however, are points of general informa- tion which would be known to people dwelling in the neighborhood of that country. On the other hand, the purpose for which the Tower was raised, almost as a defiance of Heaven, is alto- gether opposed to the Babylonians' conception of their temples; and the care of the writer in describing the building material also implies that he was a foreigner. A Babylonian writer would have taken the brick and the asphalt for granted. We also notice that a distinctively Hebrew word {chemar) is used for the asphalt, not the Babylonian kupru (Hebrew, kopher^ of the Flood story. In any case, the connection of Babylon with the Confusion of Tongues never originated with a Babylonian writer, because it rests on a misapprehension of the meaning of the name of Babel. The writer of Genesis evidently associated Babel with the Hebrew word balbel (from balla), which means about what we under- stand by a babel of sound, whereas, according to all scholars. Babel was really Bdb-il, or Bdb-Uu; later, Bdb-ildni, Gate of the Gods. The concep- tion of Babylon as the first centre of humanity might be natural to a Babylonian writer, but not the idea that the first inhabitants were driven abroad by a curse. It has been frequently con- jectured that the tower in question was the cel- ebrated tower of Borsippa, which, after lying in a state of decay for many generations, was re- stored by Nebuchadnezzar. Although it is ob-

' (496)

Analysis of Story

jected that we ought to look in Babylon itself rather than in Borsippa, for the site of our Tower of Babel, it is tempting to suppose that our tra- dition was suggested by this gigantic ruin, which was no longer employed for religious purposes, and whose original use might have been forgot- ten. If any Babylonian tradition similar to ours had attached itself to this old ruin, we might well expect some allusion to it in Nebuchadnezzar's detailed account of the restoration of the build- ing. As to the discontinuance of the building of this temple in consequence of a divine warning or a divine judgment, Nebuchadnezzar says noth- ing, but merely affirms that his god put it into his heart to restore the temple which a former king had begun but had not finished. I do not there- fore believe that any complete parallel to the account of the Tower of Babel existed in Baby- lonian literature. If any story of this nature is found in Babylonia, it will lack several important features of our narrative, as Canon Cheyne rightly affirms. We must therefore consider our story by itself.

Short as it is, this story is composite, and con- sists of three distinct parts, w^hich I shall consider separately: (i) The myth of the confusion of tongues and the dispersion of mankind; (2) the founding of the city of Babylon ; (3) the building of the tower, which is closely connected with the myth.

I. It has been freely asserted, I know not on what authority, that the myth of the confusion of tongues, in connection with the erection of a tower or pyramid, is not an uncommon tradition among the various nations of the earth. I ob-

32 (497)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

serve, however, that the authors of statements to this effect do not seem to be very sure of their ground. Cheyne * asserts that one of the best authenticated examples of this was found by Liv- ingstone in Africa. On turning to Livingstone, I see that he says he has come across a story similar to that of the Tower of Babel, but he omits to tell us what that story is, and we are therefore unable to judge as to its merits or its source. t Andrew White, J who, in 1896, ought not to have repeated Sayce's fable of the Tower of Babel, cites among other authorities for this opinion, Brinton, Franz Delitzsch and John Fiske. Brinton, § however, dismisses the subject by saying that the American myth of the confusion of tongues " is of doubtful authentic- ity " ; Delitzsch II says pointedly that up to this time no independent parallel has been discovered in profane literature ; and John Fiske |f merely compares the play on the word Babel with a sim- ilar mythical pun on Antwerp. Liiken, whose work on the '' Traditions of Mankind " would be of incomparable interest were it not written in a spirit of childish credulity, discovers parallels

* Art. Babel in Encyc. Biblica.

f "Missionary Travels," Harper Bros., 1858, p. 567. From the fact that Livingstone mentions on the same page a native story resembling that of Solomon and the harlots, and as he tells us he found traces of European traders among this tribe, we may suspect Biblical influence, as he evidently suspected it.

X " Warfare of Science," etc., ii. 173. I cannot help express- ing my surprise at Dr. White's treatment of this subject. So far as I can ascertain, he bases his argument almost exclusively on the unscientific work of T. W. Doane, " Bible Myths," and does not even take the trouble to verify Doane's references to obsolete works.

^ " Myths of the New World," 240.

II " Neuer Commentar liber die Genesis," 233.

■JT " Myths and Mythmakers," 72.

(498)

Myths of Confusion of Tongues

to the Tower of Babel from one end of the world to the other, in ancient and modern literatures. But all his examples that I have been able to verify either fade away utterly or reduce them- selves to faint and shadowy resemblances.* So far as I have been able to ascertain, independent myths of the confounding of tongues are by no means common. Grimm, for example, in his great '' Deutsche Mythologie," cites no instance of confusion of tongues (sprachverwirrung). The best authenticated instances of such a tradi- tion, I suppose, are those of the Mexicans and of neighboring American tribes, at which I shall now glance.

A Flood tradition of the Toltecs mentioned by IxtHhochitl states that after the Deluge men built a zacuali of great height to preserve them in the event of future deluges. '' After this their tongue became confused, and not understanding each other, they went to different parts of the world." t This Flood story bears unmistakable resemblances to Genesis, even in the incident of the water standing fifteen cubits over the moun- tains. In general, I would say that any so-called parallel to the Tower of Babel narrative that is closely connected with the story of the Flood (as

* E. g., the " Persian Tradition of Babel " reduces itself to the fact that in the reign of King Takhmorup (Tahmuraf) men are said to have passed on the back of the ox, Sursaok, to other re- gions (" Bundahesh," ch. xvii. 4), which is at most a tradition of dispersion. Gerstacker's "Australian Language Myth" and Kohl's "Cooking of Languages" bear not the slightest resem- blance to the Tower of Babel. In Gerstacker, an old woman dies and is eaten, and those who eat different parts of her body speak different languages.

f Quoted by Bancroft, " Native Races of the Pacific States," vol. V. 18-21.

(499)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

are several Mexican tales, the story of the tower of Conan in Ireland, the tradition of the Basques,* etc.), ought on its face to be re- jected. In Genesis the connection between the Flood and the Tower of Babel, as we have shown, is purely fortuitous, and the recurrence of this connection in other literatures is proof positive that the tradition is not original. From the regions of Arizona and New Mexico, among the curious myths related of Montezuma, we read that this legendary hero once attempted to build a vast house which should reach to Heaven itself. The Great Spirit, irritated by his under- taking, sent an insect flying to the East, which brought the Spaniards. There is no very strik- ing resemblance between this story and ours, be- yond the attempt to scale Heaven. Yet the fact that the very name of Montezuma is supposed to have been introduced into America by the Span- iards renders the myths related of him obnoxious to the suspicion of Christian influence. f

Still another Mexican tradition is related of a certain giant Xelhua, the architect, who, after the Deluge, built an artificial mountain at Cholula as a memorial of the mountain that had shel- tered him. As the huge pyramid rose slowly to the sky, the anger of the gods awoke. They launched fire on the builders and the work ceased. This legend contains no allusion to the confusion of tongues.

By far the most celebrated of all these Mexi- can Flood and Babel traditions is that of Coxcox,

* See Luken, "Die Traditionen des Menschengeschlechts," 316 ff.

f See Bancroft, op. cit., iii. p. 77.

(500)

Babel Tradition of Mexico

which I have already discussed. After the Flood, it is said, the children of Coxcox and Xochi- quetzal were born dumb, " and a dove came and gave them innumerable languages. Only fifteen of the descendants of Coxcox, who afterward became heads of famiHes, spoke the same lan- guage or could understand each other." Ban- croft, relying on the authority of Don Jose Fer- nando Ramirez, Conservator of the Mexican National Museum, beheves that the whole story of the escape of Coxcox in a flood, the multipli- cation of languages, etc., rests on a false interpre- tation of the Mexican picture-writings. Rami- rez asserts that these picture-writings, from which such wonderful tales have been con- structed by von Humboldt, Clavigero, Kings- borough and others, really relate nothing more than a migration of the Mexicans along the Mex- ican valley. The little bird merely says, '' Let us go " ; the boat, the mountain, etc., are only hieroglyphic signs indicating proper names.* If this be true, as Brinton also seems to think,t the Mexican story of the Tower of Babel, and with it the most popular Mexican Flood story, collapses.

There are, however, two conceptions contained in the Tower of Babel narrative which are widely diffused. One is the attempt of mortals or giants to scale Heaven, and the other is the tradition that all men originally spoke the same language. As to the first, it is enough to remind ourselves of the Greek stories of the Titans and the Aloadse. The Titans' attempt to storm heaven belongs

* See Bancroft, op. cit,, iii. pp. 67, 68. f *' Myths of the New World," 240-1.

(501)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

rather to the mythical cycle of Tiamat and Rahab. It is the revolt of the elements, the resistance of the wild, uncurbed forces of Nature to the reign of law. The Aloadse, Otos and Ephialtes, at- tempted to pile Ossa on Olympus and Pelion on Ossa, and so to rise to the gods. On account of their youth, they were not able to execute their design, and Apollo killed them.* Whether we regard them with Creutzer as revolutions of the earth, as light deities, or as forces of Nature, they bear shght resemblance to the heroes of the Tower of Babel.

The closest parallel to the Tower of Babel that I have been able to find in Hindu literature is the attempt of the Asuras to imitate the great fire altar of the gods. This fire altar, which is de- scribed at wearisome length in the Satapatha Brahmana, is represented as rising from the earth to Heaven. The Asuras, the enemies of the heavenly gods, tried to imitate it, and, as we are repeatedly assured, their undertaking came to nothing. Dr. Hopkins kindly informs me that when their altar nearly reached the sky, the gods overthrew it by withdrawing one of its founda- tion bricks. The description of this event runs as follows:

The Asuras then constructed the fire-altar . . . think- ing, " Thereby shall we ascend to the sky." Indra then con- sidered, " If they construct that [fire-altar] they will cer- tainly prevail over us." He secured a brick and proceeded thither, passing himself ofif for a Brahman. " Hark ye," he said, " I, too, will put on this brick for myself." " Very well," they replied. He put it on. That fire [altar] of theirs wanted but very little to be completely built up.

Then he said, " I shall take back this [brick] which be- longs to me." He took hold of it and pulled it out; and on

* Homer's Iliad, 5, 385 ff., and Od. 11, 305. (502)

Hindu and African Babel Myths

its being pulled out, the fire-altar fell down; and along with the falling fire-altar the Asuras fell down. He then con- verted those bricks into thunderbolts and clove the [Asuras'] walls.*

In one place in the Satapatha Brahmana f the failure of the Asuras is attributed to the fact that they did not lay the bricks of their altar after the manner of the gods. It is also said that the Asuras built themselves three castles — an iron one in this world, a silver one in the air and a golden one in the sky J — which the gods besieged and overthrew. It is also stated in another place that the gods de- prived the Asuras of speech. § These resem- blances, however, are very remote. The mar- vellous story of the Hindu world-tree described as a source of confusion of tongues and disper- sion (which Dr. White borrows from Doane, and Doane from Baring-Gould, and Baring-Gould from Niklas MiillerU), appears to be a modern fable. At least, Dr. Hopkins informs me that he has no knowledge of it in Sanskrit literature.

One of the best primitive stories bearing on this theme which I have been able to discover, is contained in Petermann's "Mittheilungen." The tale comes from Akwapim land,1j in Africa. It is true, the collection of folk lore in which this story occurs was communicated by a Christian missionary, but the other myths and legends contained in it seem to be quite original.

* Sat. Brahm., ii. i, 2, 13-16. X Ibid, viii. 4, 4, 3. X Ibid. iii. 4, 4, 3 and 4. § Ibid. iii. 2, i, 23.

II " Warfare of Science," ii. p. 171 ; Doane's "Bible Myths," 36 ; Baring-Gould's " Legends of the Patriarchs," 148. % North of Akkra, and belonging to Ashantee.

(503)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

The negroes relate that their old ancestors used to tell them they once wished to undertake something which should enable them to rise to Nyankupon [the high town or heaven]. To carry out this project they heaped up all their fufu mortars [fufu is a favorite dish composed of yams or pisang fruit beaten into pulp]. One more mortar was necessary to reach up, but they had not another one. Then they decided to draw out the lowest mortar and to place it on top. They did so, and behold, the whole struc- ture fell in a heap, and they escaped death only by running away. In their sudden terror they spoke new languages. Hence it comes about that so many tongues are spoken. Formerly there was only one speech.*

This is either the Hebrew story profoundly transformed, or a very curious parallel to it.

The belief that all men originally spoke one language is so natural that we might expect to find it widely diffused. In Genesis it is tacitly assumed that Hebrew was the language of God, of Paradise and of the earliest human beings. What an incredible amount of talent and labor has been bestowed to prove this thesis true! Nowhere in the world do we find this conviction more firmly established than in Egypt. The Egyptians, hke the Hebrews, beheved that their language was, in a peculiar sense, the language of Heaven. This is proved by many statements of pyramid-texts. The very language of these texts, the so-called hieroglyphic language which differed widely from the spoken and written ver- nacular, was called '' the language of God." f The Chinese, Hkewise, entertained a similar con- ception of their tongue. Plato, in the oft-cited passage of " Politicus," % in his beautiful myth of

* " Mittheilung aus Justus Perthes' Geog. Anstalt,"von Dr. A. Petermann, Gotha, 1856, S. 466.

f See Brugsch Bey, " Steinschrift und Bibelwort," S. 42.

t P. 372. _____

(504)

Examples from Greek Literature

the children of Kronos, assumes that all human beings were once able to converse with one an- other and also with the animals. This, however, took place in a former cycle of time, which was ended by a world catastrophe. In ^schylus' *' Prometheus " * there is a highly scientific ac- count of the process of civilization and the begin- nings of culture, in which the invention o'f letters is ascribed to Prometheus. Perhaps the closest parallel in Greek Hterature to the problem of the Tower of Babel is Herodotus' celebrated story of the Egyptian king Psammetichus.f Psam- metichus, you will remember, in order to ascer- tain which was the original human language, caused two children to be brought up absolutely out of sound of the human voice. The first sound they uttered was bekos, which was regarded as the Phrygian word for bread. Phrygian, there- fore, was considered to be the original language of man. From the selection of Phrygian as the original language rather than the manifestly older Egyptian tongue, it would seem that the experiment was actually made as Herodotus de- scribes it. In any case, we have here a plain allusion to an ancient belief in one universal, original language. But we may assume that if Herodotus had been aware of any other legend similar to that of the Tower of Babel, he would have related it here. Pliny, in several passages, refers to the astonishing diversity of human lan- guages, but offers no theory to account for their origin. $

* 440-483. f Book ii. ch. 2.

J I am indebted for these allusions to the kindness of a thor- ough student of classical literature, my friend, Dr. J. H. McDan- iels. Professor of Greek in Hobart College.

(5^5)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

In the Old Testament, community of speech and intercourse has a decidedly religious mean- ing. Not to be able to understand another is, if not exactly a curse, a punishment.* In our story the confusion of tongues is regarded in that light. The prophets f look forward to the time when the dispersed of the Gentiles shall flock from the four winds to the Mount of Jahveh, when the veil shall be taken away and the whole world shall hear the voice of God and shall speak one language. J This hope was believed to be realized on the day of Pente- cost, when representatives of every nation heard the Apostles speak '' every man in his own tongue." We remember, also, that the '' inter- pretation of tongues " was one of the peculiar gifts of the Holy Ghost, and, in the light of this old tradition, we can better understand the nature of the mysterious gift of tongues. Now, there is a very curious conception running through the Zend Avesta, even in its oldest parts. Few names occur more frequently in the Avesta than Sraosha, one of the chief spirits in the service of Ahura Mazda. His name is translated " Listen- ing obedience." Burnouf § af^rms that the word includes the ideas of listening, obedience and

* Deut. xxviii. 49 ; Jer. v. 15.

f Is. xix. 18.

X The Zoroastrians likewise entertained the belief that one uni- versal language would come into being at the Resurrection. It is said in Denkart (2, 81, 6) "that all men will become of one voice, and administer praise to Ahuramazd and the archangels." So also Plutarch in the Isis and Osiris (47, 9) says : " The earth will become smooth and level ; there will be one life and one state of all mankind, who are then blessed, and have one speech."

I am indebted for these two references to the kindness of Dr. A. V. Williams Jackson of Columbia University.

§ " Commentaire sur le Ya9na," p. 42.

(506)

Counterpart of Babel Myth

speech. He is the incarnation of the word of God. " The Word of God is his body." He re- ceives and transmits the word of Ahura Mazda. He it is who makes the word of God intelHgible to men. In short, the doctrine of the Word which appears in so many hteratures is the very anti- thesis to the Babel of Genesis, the necessary re- ligious counterpart to the confusion of tongues. A similar conception was entertained by the Buddhists of India. When Buddha preached to thousands and tens of thousands, whatever their nationality, all comprehended him, and every one felt that Buddha was addressing him alone. The very animals understood him. You will observe that Plato also speaks of animals as understand- ing the speech of men, and in the Garden of Eden also this seems to have been the case. The ani- mals received their names from Adam, and the fact that Jahveh brought them to him to see if among them a helpmate might be found for him, seems to imply that Adam could communicate with them. At all events, the conversation of the serpent ex- cites no surprise, and is accepted as a matter of course. Before the dispersion Jahveh is repre- sented as speaking to different men, even to sin- ners like Cain, and as speaking Hebrew.* But after the confusion of tongues he speaks only to the chosen descendants of Shem, to Abraham and his seed, while to the other members of the human race he is dumb.

He has made known his word to Jacob, His laws and statutes unto Israel:

* That Hebrew was conceived as the original language of the world is proved by such plays on words as are contained in the names of Eve, Cain, Seth, etc.

(507)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Not thus has he dealt with any other people, No other knows his commandments.*

The Parsees also spoke of birds as " the tongues of the gods who spoke the language of heaven," and who at the bidding of the Magi ut- tered the word of righteousness to the king of Babylon.f The belief in a universal language, understood even by animals, seems to have been not uncommon in antiquity. What rendered this belief religious is the fact that this language was conceived as the language of Heaven. In this tongue God spoke to men, and, when the lan- guages were confounded, the majority could no longer understand Him and their religious fel- lowship was broken. This thought is plainly brought out in our narrative, especially if we con- sider this chapter of Genesis in the light of the belief entertained at the time it was written; and it invests the myth with a religious meaning which, so far as I know, has not been recognized.

2. The founding of Babylon.

We pass now to the second element of this narrative. Why the confusion of tongues and the consequent dispersion of the human race were associated with Babylon it is not difficult to see. The city of Babylon, although probably not the oldest city of Babylonia, is old enough to be re- garded by the Hebrews as the first rallying point of the human race. In the bilingual Creation tab- let it is spoken of as coeval with Erech and Nip- pur, cities which existed before the dawn of his- tory.J At the time of the composition of this

* Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20. See also Deut. iv. 7 and 8. f Philostratus' " Vit. ApoUonii," i. 25. X Encyc. Bib., art. Babylon.

(5^8)

The First Cities

portion of Genesis, its commanding importance would cause Babylon to be preferred to other cities as the first centre of mankind. It is true, cities have been mentioned before the Flood, but these cities naturally cannot be identified. This tradition, therefore, is that the first actual city of the world was Babylon, and that the founding of Babylon marks the transition from a nomadic to a settled life.

Why is it that among the mythical recollec- tions of our own family of the nations we find no such tradition as this? Obviously because in the most ancient times our Aryan ancestors pos- sessed no cities. The Romans had a singular and interesting story to tell of Romulus and the founding of Rome. The Greeks possessed tra- ditions of the founding of Athens and other ^ cities. But neither Greeks nor Romans pre- tended that their cities were the first cities, be- cause they knew better. As late as the first cen- tury after Christ, when our Teutonic forefathers came under the eye of the Roman historian Taci- tus, they were still wandering without a perma- nent abode. The plain fact is that from time im- memorial the Babylonians had cities and lived in them, and this fact is the key to their wonderful development of all the arts and sciences of civ- ilization, which passed from Babylon to the rest of the world. On this point Ihering's arguments are decisive, one or two of which I here repro- duce. The motive given by our author for the building of the first city is that it may be a place of permanent abode. This motive is absolutely correct. The more man puts into the soil the more firmly he is anchored to it. Nowhere in

(509)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

the world is the contrast between a wandering life and a settled life in cities more striking than in America. Our ancestors very soon made per- manent abodes for themselves. When it was pos- sible they built cities, and those cities proved to be centres of civilization, which in an incredibly short time have transformed this continent. In a city, as Ihering says, a thousand times, ten thousand times as much is entrusted to the soil as in an agricultural district of the same area. Therefore every city is built for eternity. '' No people ever abandoned a city it once inhabited unless compelled to do so by the most terrible misfortunes." We know the strange and sad im- pression produced on us by a deserted village, a hamlet, a few houses; but a great city voluntarily forsaken by its inhabitants no one has ever seen.

The second great result of the city is the de- velopment of the arts of civilization. The very word civilization means the condition of life in cities. Outside the charmed sphere of religion and poetry, few important discoveries have been made by nomadic peoples. Why is it then that our author regards the building of the first city with so much dislike? First, I believe, because the ways of city life were strange to him. He belonged to a people that only recently had emerged from its pastoral stage. All their fondest associations were with a simple pastoral life, a life so exquisitely portrayed in the biog- raphies of Abraham, Jacob, Moses and the youth- ful David. The Hebrews in the Jehovist's day possessed no great cities, and but one small tem- ple; they had no science, no art, and little worldly

Hebrew Dislike of Cities

knowledge. But they possessed a conception of God and the moral life of man which their more civilized neighbors never attained. Their God, whether He was called Elohim or Jahveh, was destined to become the absolute and sole God of the universe, the God whom all men who are not heathen adore, whether they call themselves Christians, Jews or Mohammedans.

We should remember also what civilization meant in those days. The two forms of civiliza- tion best known to the Hebrew were the Baby- lonian and the Phoenician, and to his simple and serious way of looking on life their cities seemed the very dens of impurity. Both these nations possessed enormous riches, but in a life without ideals, riches lead to corruption. They had re- Hgions fascinating to the vulgar on account of the splendor of their ceremonies and the sensual intoxication of their rites. But to the eye of the stern Hebrew monotheist a large part of these religions seemed a tissue of ridiculous and de- grading falsehoods. They possessed an art without beauty, used to depict a multitude of gods and goddesses whose very names sounded abominably in his ears. They had mag- nificent temples, but those temples were the seat of an impure service. In short, the pious and thoughtful Israelite found in the cities with which he was acquainted little to admire and much to condemn. Comparing the life of his civ- ilized contemporaries with his own traditions, he felt that every step taken in this direction was an affront to God. This may account for the atti- tude of our writer toward the city of Babylon, which fascinated and terrified him.

(Sii)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

3. The Tower of Babel.

The motives which led our author to associate the confusion of tongues and the subsequent dis- persion of the human race with the building of a tower, are not so apparent. The reasons why Babylon was selected as the scene of the disper- sion have already been given. As we have seen, they rest on good and genuine tradition. The association of the myth of the confusion of tongues with a tower in Babylon, however, seems to have been more fortuitous. The Babylonian style of architecture, which was unique, must 'have struck the Hebrews with surprise. In par- ticular their gigantic ziggurats,^ or temple towers, which dotted the low plain of Babylonia like mountains, seemed to them too vast to be normal, while their great age was very apparent. The Hebrews, therefore, were inclined to refer them to a more powerful race of beings, or to men living under different conditions from those which now prevail. The thought might also occur, — if men performed such feats in the infancy of the race, what might not such proud and dar- ing beings have undertaken if their pride had been allowed to develop unshackled? Towers so high seemed almost an insult to Jahveh, and as if intended to invade his domain. We know very well the impression made by the great architec- tural monuments of the past, especially on peo-

* Ziggurat is a Babylonian word, now generally employed to describe the huge pyramidal structures which rose above certain Babylonian temples. It must not be supposed that all Babylo- nian and Assyrian temples were built with ziggnrats. On the contrary, the number of temples which once bore these gigantic superstructures is relatively small. See Dr. J. P. Peters, "Jour- nal of Bib. Lit.," 1896, p. 107.

Origin of the Story of Babel

pie who had no sense of their original purpose. How many legends arose during the Middle Ages to account for the buildings of pagan Rome! What emotions have not been caused by the sight of a number of large stones laid in a circle ! Much more were the gigantic temple-towers of Baby- lonia calculated to strike astonishment into the heart of the Bedouin of the desert, or the pastoral tribes of Canaan. Having only the faintest idea of the purpose of these strange structures, the Hebrews naturally invented the most singular stories to account for them. Some one ruined or incomplete ziggurat (it is hard not to think of Borsippa) seems to have been the historical nu- cleus of the story of the Tower of Babel. Such a work must have required the strength of a united humanity, which would have carried its bold project to completion had it not been foiled by Heaven. The last incentive, in fact, to the formation of the narrative, would be furnished by the conglomeration of races which from the earHest times jostled one another in Babylon,* and by the name of the city itself, whose mean- ing, as we have seen, the Hebrews wholly mis- took.

What particular structure suggested this nar- rative we cannot say. An interesting Septuagint reading of Isaiah x. 9 mentions " the country

* It is very evident that previous to the Exile the Hebrews were totally ignorant of the languages of Babylonia and Assyria. This fact Jeremiah employs to add terror to the approach of the invader. " Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from afar, 0 House of Israel. It is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say." — Jer. v. 15. Deut. (xxviii. 49) also speaks of " a nation as swift as the eagle flieth, whose tongue thou shalt not understand."

33 (513)

Genesis in tHE Light of Modern Knowledge

(514)

Various Mounds

above Babylon and Calneh (an unknown city- near Babylon), where the tower was built." Nothing, however, can be inferred from this at present. Among the various mounds associated

BIRS-NIMRUD

at different times with the Tower of Babel are :

1. Tell-Nimrud, west of Bagdad (Balbi, Fitch and John Cartwright).

2. The great mound now called Babil on the left bank of the Euphrates, in the northern quar- ter of the city.

3. The so-called Birs-Nimrud of Borsippa,

(515)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

which lay at the southwest corner of the city proper.

4. More recently the hill called Amran Ibn Ali, south of the so-called palace. Only the last three need be considered. Of these, Babil is said by travellers to be the most impos- ing. It still rises, according to Oppert, forty metres above the surface, and is over five hundred feet long. Oppert believes it to be identical with the temple destroyed by Xerxes, which Strabo called Belus' tomb. Its sheer form renders this probable. Schrader * is of the opinion that this mound represents the great temple of Babylon, originally called E-sagila, or lofty temple. It is true, Strabo speaks of this temple as dedicated to Bel, while E-sagila was really a shrine of Merodach, as we know from the inscriptions.! It is well known, however, that the name Bel, or lord, was applied to Merodach as a title of honor. Rawlinson's idea that Babil is the Temple of Belus, described by Herodotus, is incorrect, as Schrader shows, for Babil displays no signs of the terraced stories of which Herodotus speaks, and, moreover, it lies on the left (east) bank of the Euphrates, on the same side as the royal palace, whereas Herodotus states that the river flowed between these buildings. How old Babil may be (still supposing it to be identical with the great E-sagila) J we can only conjecture. We know from Nebuchadnezzar's inscription that it was restored by him. It is mentioned a hundred years earlier by Tiglath-pileser III. and Asarhaddon, the latter of whom found it in a dilapidated con-

* See his fine article, Babel, in Riehm's " Handworterbuch." f Collect. Ea. India House, col. ii. 40 ff. ; iii. i ff.

(1^6)

BiRS-NlMRUD

dition and rebuilt it. Dr. Peters, standing on this mound in 1889, picked up a brick bearing the inscription " Nabopolassar." * We may sup- pose it to have been a very ancient sanctuary. Richjf however^ beHeved that the mound Babil is rather to be associated with the celebrated hanging gardens of Babylon, and since Rassam has discovered four wells of granite one hundred and forty feet deep beneath this mound, which it may be presumed were used to water the gar- dens, this opinion has gained ground. If, how- ever, we give up Babil as the site of the Temple of Belus {E-sagila), we must then look for the re- mains of that great building in the mounds of Am- ran ben AH, or El Kasr, where, so far as I know, nothing of consequence has as yet been found.

I turn then to the celebrated Birs-Nimrud, or Nimrod Tower of Borsippa, which lies on the other side of Babylon in a suburb called Barsip, or Borsippa, but, according to Schrader, still within the southwest angle of the wall. After Babil, this is, perhaps, the chief ruin of the city. It consists of a great mound of yellow sand and brick which, according to Layard, still rises 198 feet above the earth. Its upper surface is surmounted by massive brick walls, 37 feet high and 28 feet thick, so that its total height is about 235 feet. Its original height is estimated thus : Base, 75 feet, plus seven stories of 25 feet each, making 250 feet.J The terraced formation

* " Journal of Bib. Lit.," 1896, p. 106.

f C. J. Rich, on the topography of ancient Babylon, in his "Babylon and Persepolis," London, 1839. See pp. 43-104 and

107-179-

X It is astonishing- that in all these centuries this great mass of brick has subsided so little.

(517)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

of its several stories is still visible, especially on the eastern and southern sides. It is believed by most scholars that this temple was the subject of Herodotus' celebrated account. Although he calls it a Temple of Belus, this is to be explained as above. The sanctuary really was consecrated to Nebo and bore the name I-bitu, or E-bitu, " fortunate " or '' firm house." This temple, after having been in a decayed condition for ages, was restored by Nebuchadnezzar about the middle of the sixth century B.C. About a hun- dred years later it was seen and described (as we beheve) by Herodotus * in the following words :

In the middle of the enclosure was a tower of solid masonry, a stadium [606 feet] in length and breadth, upon which was raised a second tower and on that a third, and so on up to the eighth. The ascent to the top is on the outside by a path which winds around all the towers. When one is about half way up one finds a resting place and seats. . . . On the topmost tower there is a spa- cious temple and inside the temple a couch of unusual size richly adorned, with a golden table by its side. There is no statue of any kind set up in the place, nor is the cham- ber occupied by anyone but a single native woman, who, as the Chaldeans, the priests of this god affirm, is chosen for himself by the deity out of all the women of the land.f

Nebuchadnezzar's own account of the restora- tion of his several temples, found in the ziggurat

* Herodotus' account of Babylon, i. 178-187. See also J. Briill's " Herodot's Bab. Nachrichten," Aachen, 1878.

f The religious origin of these singular structures seems to have been somewhat as follows : The Babylonians, like other Semitic peoples, conceived of their gods as inhabiting lofty mountains. As the low plain of Babylonia contains no mountains, it was necessary to build them, since it did not seem possible that the gods would descend to men in the plain. These buildings, there- fore, may indicate that the Babylonians were originally a moun- tain-dwelling people.

" (5^8) ^

Nebuchadnezzar's Inscription

Birs-Nimrud by Sir Henry Rawlinson, is as fol- lows :

Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, the rightful ruler, the expression of the righteous heart of Marduk, the ex- alted high priest, the beloved of Nebo, the wise prince, who devotes his care to the affairs of the great gods, the unwearying ruler, the restorer of Esagila and Ezida, the son and heir of Nabopolassar, King of Babylon, am I.

Marduk, the great god, formed me aright and commis- sioned me to perform his restoration; Nebo, guider of the universe of heaven and earth, placed in my hand the right sceptre; Esagila, the house of heaven and earth, the abode of Marduk, lord of the gods, Ekua, the sanctuary of his lordship, I adorned gloriously with shining gold. Ezida I built anew, and completed its construction with silver, gold, precious stones, bronze, musukkani wood and cedar wood. Timinanki, the ziggurat of Babylon, I built and completed; of bricks glazed with lapis-lazuli (blue) I erected its summit.

At that time the house of the seven divisions of heaven and earth, the ziggurat of Borsippa, which a former king had built and carried up to the height of forty-two ells, but the summit of which he had not erected, was long since fallen into decay, and its water conduits had become use- less; rain storms and tempests had penetrated its unbaked brick-work; the bricks which cased it were bulged out, the unbaked bricks of its terraces were converted into rubbish heaps. The great lord Marduk moved my heart to rebuild it. Its place I changed not and its foundation I altered not. In a lucky month, on an auspicious day, I rebuilt the unbaked bricks of its terraces and its encasing bricks, which were broken away, and I raised up that which was fallen down. My inscriptions I put upon the kiliri of its buildings. To build it and to erect its summit I set my hand. I built it anew as in former times; as in days of yore I erected its summit.

Nebo, rightful son, lordly messenger, majestic friend of Marduk, look kindly on my pious works; long life, enjoy- • ment of health, a firm throne, a long reign, the overthrow of foes, and conquest of the land of the enemy give me as a gift. On thy righteous tablet which determines the course of heaven and earth, record for me length of days, write for me wealth. Before Marduk, lord of heaven and earth, the father who bore thee, make pleasant my days, speak favor- ably for me. Let this be in thy mouth, " Nebuchadnezzar, the restorer-king! "

' (5^9)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

As we have seen, Birs-Nimrud is one of the most considerable ruins in Babylonia, and since Nebuchadnezzar is careful to inform us that he did not alter its foundations, we may presume it was from the beginning a vast and impressive structure. How old it may be, who can say? Nebuchadnezzar afiirms that it was the work of a former king, and his silence as to the name of this king points to the fact that the original builder had long been forgotten. As to the past history of the tower, tradition seems to have wav- ered. At the beginning of his inscription Neb- uchadnezzar tells us that at the time of the erec- tion of the tower, its summit had not been com- pleted, but at the end he says, " as in days of yore I erected its summit." All this gives the impres- sion of great antiquity, and Nebuchadnezzar's own description of this weather-worn, decayed and abandoned mountain of brick, which evi- dently had made a deep impression on his mind, seems to mark it out especially as a subject of fable and legend. Cheyne, it is true, strongly objects to Birs-Nimrud on the ground that it lies in Borsippa, not in Babylon proper; but, at all events, Borsippa was a suburb of Babylon, and we need not suppose that the Hebrews, to whom the tale was probably carried by merchants and other travellers, would be very exact on such a nice question of topography. In any case, it was from Babylon, the centre of the Chaldean world, that the dispersion took place, for which the tower and the confusion of tongues furnish only the picturesque motive. In ancient times this monument, with its mouldering, bulging, weather-stained walls, must have presented an

(520)

Appearance of Birs-Nimrud

appearance weird in the extreme. Perhaps Neb- uchadnezzar did not improve it as much as he supposed when he dyed its hoary walls all the colors of the rainbow.* Time, however, which spares nothing, has erased all Nebuchadnezzar's bright colors, and its tooth has eaten so deep into this venerable structure that no future king will restore it. What a pity that such monuments should perish! Had nature not withheld from this talented people the building stone she lav- ished on Egypt, we might still possess those in- comparable buildings, not much smaller f ^nd even more interesting than the pyramids. Now that man has become free, works tha-t require so prodigal a sacrifice of human life will never again be executed.

* This temple of the Seven Lights was dedicated, as its name implies, to the seven Planetary deities. Each of its stories was associated with a heavenly body, and bore its own color, thus :

1. Saturn =i Adar black.

2. Venus = Ishtar white.

3. Jupiter = Merodach orange.

4. Mercury = Nebo blue.

5. Mars = Nergal scarlet.

6. Moon silver.

7. Sun gold.

f It is frequently stated that the great Babylonian ziggurats were even vaster than the Egyptian pyramids. This, however, does not seem to have been the case. The perimeter of Babil, which is the largest, including the accumulation of debris, is about 740 metres, which is less than that of the pyramid of Cheops.

(521)

<1	\	^^
		BabylonJ
		^

,@.

e

A Babylonian Flood Map.

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

curved stream also leads from the Euphrates into " The Bitter Stream." The name is perhaps in- complete; it seems to be the concluding syllables of the Babylonian for " exit " or '' outlet."

4. The seven points which extend like the points of a star are marked " Districts." The Babylonians divided the world into seven zones (Jensen, " Kosmologie," p. 174 fT.), a division which is copied in some late apocryphal writings (cf. Ethiopic Enoch, Ixxiii. 5-8; 2 (4) Esdras, vi. 50, 52). There are seven places marked on the map, one for each zone or district. Each point corresponds to one of these places.

5. The " Mountain " marked at the north of the map represents the mountains at the boun- dary of the world, those marked K in the last chart of Jensen's " Kosmologie " (or possibly those marked g, h). The district on the far side of these is, of course, the region where the sun is at night, hence " the region where the sun is not seen." It is said to be six Kasbu between this and the next region. The Kasbu was a space of two hours. An astronomical tablet from the palace of Assurbanipal tells us that at the time of the equinox '' six Kasbu was the day and six Kasbu the night." The time when the sun is not seen is therefore six Kasbu long. As in Europe an hour is used as a measure of distance (mean- ing the space one can travel in an hour), so in Assyrian a similar use was made of Kasbu. Peiser translates it " Doppelstunde." In most of the tablet it probably means the distance a man would travel in two hours, but " where the sun is not seen " is probably its primary meaning.

6. Habbu is, perhaps, as Peiser suggests (Z.A.,

Appendix I

vol. iv., p. 367), to be identified with Habban (spelled also Halman, Halba, and Helba, see W. Max Miiller's '' Asien und Europa nach altagyp- tischen Denkmalern," pp. 256, 257, and map), which was situated in northern Syria near (ac- cording to the Babylonian point of view) to the Mediterranean Sea.

7. Bit-Yakin was the birthplace of Merodach- baladan, and is frequently alluded to in the in- scriptions. It was situated in the region of " The Bitter Stream " (cf. Delitzsch, op. cit. p. 203).

8. The place south of the Canal of Reeds is marked in Peiser's copy with a sign which may be read '' Bi " or " Gasg "; in Haupt's, it looks more like '' Nap." It lacks the determinative for either city or country. The sign seems to have been obscured in the original. The name cannot now be made out. It seems to have been a place in the general region of Erdu, one of the oldest of the Babylonian cities.

9. The first place marked to the right of the " Outlet " is given in the tablet a name, a part of which is broken away. What remains looks like the beginning and end of the ideogram for Kutu or Kutha, the name of an important centre of civilization in early times in Babylonia (cf. De- litzsch, op. cit. p. 217). It lay to the east of Babylon.

10. A little above Kutha, '' The country As- syria " is plainly marked on the map.

11. Peiser's text places the name " Urash " just above Assyria, but he tells us the reading is uncertain. I suspect that the sign he has read *' ash " is a crowded writing of the Babylonian " ar-tu," which would give us U-ra-ar-tu for

(525)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Ur-ar-tu, the name of Armenia. This would complete the circuit from the mountains of the world-boundary and the far northwest at their junction with the Mediterranean (regarded by the Babylonians as a continuation of the Persian Gulf or " Bitter Stream ") around the Babylonian world by the south to the limits of their world, on the northeast, where the boundary mountairT was supposed to be.

George A. Barton.

(526)

Appendix II

Appendix II.

(From Schwarz's " Sintfluth und Volkerwanderungen.")

Table of Traditions Relating to the Flood,

Original Inhabi- tants of Greece.

Greeks.

RACE AND STOCK.

European Race.

West Asiatic Race, Indo- Germanic

GEOGRAPH SITUATION

Greece.

Greece.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

Istros counted four great world catas- trophes. One of these opened the straits of the Bos- phorus and Helles- pont, causing the waters of the Black Sea to burst into the ^gean, to overflow the islands and neighboring sea- coasts, and finally to break through the Pillars of Her- cules into the ocean.

I. Flood of Ogyges. In the reign of

King Ogyges of At- tica, there sprang from Lake Copais a flood which reached up to heaven and destroyed most of the people. Ogyges escaped in a ship with some compan- ions.

II. Flood of Deu- calion.

When Zeus de- stroyed the whole sinful race of the bronze age by a great flood, Deuca- lion of Thessaly,son of Prometheus and progenitor of the

Strabo : Eustath. ad Dionys. Perieg.

Akusilaos

Pausanias: ix. 5.

Apollodorus

I.

Pindar:

Olymp. IX. Ovid:

Metam. I. Strabo IX. Apollon. Rhod. III. Pausanias I.

(527)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

RACE AMD STOCK,

GEOGRAPH, SITUATION,

Loeris. Argos.

Sicily. Delphi.

Megara.

Thessaly.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

Hellenes, escaped with his wife Pyrrha in a boat which he had built for himself by his father's advice, and landed, after nine days, on Parnassus. In memory of the flood of Deucalion and of those who perished in it, every year, on the 13th of the month An- thesterion, a me- morial festival was celebrated at Ath- ens with libations of water.

According to Hellanicos, Deuca- lion landed upon Othrys.

The Locriansheld Opontus or Cynos to be the landing- place of Deucalion.

In Argos also was shown the place where Deucalion had left his ship and had erected an altar to Zeus Aphesios.

The people of Sicily said that Deu- calion took refuge on .^tna.

According to the Delphians tradi- tion, their ances- tors, in fleeing be- fore the deluge, followec^ a number of wolves, and so reached a cave on top of Parnassus, where they re- mained in safety.

Megaros, son of Zeus, according to the tradition of the people of Megara, found safety on Mount Geranion.

The Thessalian Cerambos escaped by rising into the air on wings given him by the nymphs.

SOURCES.

Ap. schol. ad Pindar: Olymp. IX.

Pindar:

Oly77ip. IX. Strabo IX.

Etym. Magn.

NiGiD. : Ap. schol. ad Genn. Caes., A rat.

Pausanias X.

Pausanias I.

Ovid : Metam. VII.

(528)

Appendix II

Scandi- navians.

Cymri.

34

RACE AND STOCK

West

Asiatic,

Indo-

Germanic.

Germans,

Goths.

West Asiatic,

Indo- Germanic. Germans,

Celts.

GEOGRAPH SITUATION

Dodona.

Cos.

Rhodes.

Crete.

Samothrace.

Arcadia.

Scandinavia.

England.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

Perirrhoos, son of .iEolus, was res- cued from the deluge by Zeus in Dodona.

The inhabitants of Cos told how Merops escaped from the flood with a number of people and, with them, founded a state on Cos.

In the tradition of the people of Rhodes only the Telchines escaped from the deluge.

According to Cretan traditions, lasion of Crete escaped.

In the tradition of the Samothra- cians, Saon, son of Zeus or of Hermes, was saved from the deluge.

Dardanos took refuge in Samo- thrace from the flood in Arcadia.

According to the younger Ed d a, Odin, Will and We, the sons of the god Bor, killed the giant Ymir. From the wounds of the dead giant flowed so much blood that the whole race of giants was drowned, ex- cept Bergelmir alone, who, with his wife, escaped in a boat and thus be- came the founder of a new race of giants.

When the lake of L 1 i o n overflowed and deluged the whole land, all men were drowned but two, Dwyfan and

Bekker : A necdot. Graec. I.

Schol. ad. Il- iad., A .

DiOD. Sic.

Schol. ad Odyss. E.

DioD. Sic.

DiONVS,

Halic. and DiOD. Sic.

Edda: Vafthrud- nistnal.

Edwin

Davies:

Brit. Mythol.

Grimm :

Deutsche

Mythologie.

(529)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Lithua- nians

Gypsy.

RACE AND STOCK.

West

Asiatic,

Indo-

Germanic.

Wends.

Lettes.

West

Asiatic,

Indo-

Germanic.

Hindus.

GEOGRAPH, SITUATION,

Lithuania.

Hungary.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

Dwyfach, who es- caped in a boat into which they had taken a pair of every kind of creature.

When the highest god, Pramzimas, looked down upon the world from a window of his heav- enly house and saw nothing but war and injustice among men, he sent to earth two giants, Wandu and Wejas (water and wind), who, for twenty days and nights, desolated every- thing. When Pram- zimas looked down again as he was eat- ing heavenly nuts, he let fall a shell. It dropped on the top of the highest mountain, upon which several pairs of human beings and animals had taken refuge. They all climbed into the nutshell, which now floated about on the fiood that covered all things. Here- upon God caused the storm to abate and the waters to subside once more. The people whohad been saved immedi- ately separated, and only one pair, the progenitors of the Lithuanians, re- mained behind in that region.

An old man who had been given a night's lodging with a family, left to his hosts a little fish, charging them

SOURCES,

Narbutta : Dzieje starozytne narodtc litew-

skiego.

Grimm :

Deutsche

Mythologie.

Hanusch :

Slavischer

My thus.

Wlislocki :

Vo7it Wan'

dernden

Zigeuner-

volke.

(530)

Appendix II

PEOPLE.

Woguls.

RACE AND STOCK

East Asiatic, Mongols, Northern Division, Western Branch.

Finns, Ugrians.

GEOGRAPH SITUATION

Ural Moun- tains.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

to take good care of it until his return. Notwithstanding this injunction, the wife, being eager for a dainty dish, cooked the fish against her hus- band's will, when suddenly there came rain and a great flood, and the disobedient woman was killed by light- ning. On the ninth day the old man again appeared be- fore his host and advised him to take another wife, and with her and his kindred to escape in a boat, at the same time taking with him animals and the seeds of trees and plants. The rain lasted for a year and nothing could be seen but water and sky; only at the end of a year did the waters sub- side.

In consequence of continuous rain af- ter a seven years' drought, a general deluge occurred. In this all the giants perished except those few who had made themselves boats out of cloven poplars and fas- tened them to the earth by means of 500 braces of long rope made out of willow roots. On the seventh day the water began to sub- side, and those who had survived could again set foot upon the earth.

SOURCES.

Lenormant:

Origines de

rhistoire

d'aprcs la

Bible.

(530

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

PEOPLE.

Kalmuks.

Babylo- nians.

RACE AND STOCK.

East Asiatic, Northern Division, Middle Branch. Mongols.

West Asiatic,

Aramaeans, Semites.

Northern Family,

Mesopota-

GEOGRAPH, SITUATION,

Europe and Central Asia,

Babylonia.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

The traditions of the Kalmuks record a general deluge.

I. Chaldean ac- count :

Sit-napistim of Surippak,on the Eu- phrates, by the ad- vice of the god Ea, built a ship in which he secured "seeds of life of every kind," as also his family, his servants, his friends, and the necessary provi- sions. The deluge followed amid tem- pest, thunderstorm and earthquake ; it reached up to hea- ven, but on the sev- enth day subsided. The ship came to land" upon a moun- tain in the country of Nisir (in the northeastern part of Babylonia), and Sit-napistim left the ship after he had convinced himself by thrice sending out birds (dove, swallow and raven) that the flood was abating.

II. Account of Berosus (about 260 B.C.) The Baby- lonian king Xisu- thros, at the com- mand of Kronos, built a ship and en- tered it with wife, children and friends, as well as birds and four- footed beasts. On the 15th of the month Daesius, the flood began, but soon subsided. Of

SOURCES.

Malte-Brun

Precis de

geogr.

Cuneiform tablets of the 7th cent. B. C. collected by Haupt: copies of older tab- lets restored about 2000 B. C.

Alexander polyhistor, and Abvde-

NUS.

(532)

Appendix II

PEOPLE

Israelites.

RACE AND STOCK.

West Asiatic, Aramaeans, Semites. Northern Family, Hebrews.

GEOGRAPH. SITUATION.

Palestine.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

this Xisuthros re- ceived intellig-ence by repeatedly send- ing- out birds. The ship remained standing- upon the Cordyaean moun- tain range in Ar- menia, and its re- mains could be seen as late as the time of Berosus. Those who had been saved with Xisuthros af- ter this went back to Babylon, while Xis- uthros himself,with his wife, daughter, and pilot, were taken to heaven.

Also traditions preserved in frag- ments, discovered byScheiland Peiser.

At Jehovah's bidding Noah built an ark which he entered with his whole family, and with specimens of all birds, reptiles andfour-footed beasts, after sup- plying it with pro- visions for all its in- mates. After Noah had entered the ark it rained forty days and nights without ceasing-, so that at last the highest mountains were covered by the wa- ter and all living creatures perished, except those saved in the ark. When the ark had come to a standstill on Mt. Ararat, and Noah had been con- vinced of the ebb- ing of the flood by repeatedly sending out birds, he went out of the ark with all those belonging

SOURCES.

ScHEiL and Peiser.

The Bible, Genesis,' an imitation of the Chaldean

account.

(533)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Iranians.

Persians.

RACE AND STOCK.

West

Asiatic,

Indo-

Germanic.

West Asiatic,

Indo- Germanic. Iranians.

GEOGRAPH. SITUATION.

Turkestan.

Persia.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

to him, and with all the rescued ani- mals.

In the ancient sacred books of the Iranians, which form the founda- tion of Zoroaster's teaching, it is told how the good god Ahuramazda proph- esied to Yima, founder of the hu- man race, that the earth would be laid waste by a series of terrible winters. Yima, therefore, at Ahuramazda's com- mand, made him- self a square garden surrounded by a wall, and in it found place for the seeds of human beings, animals and plants, that he might save them from destruc- tion.

In the seventh chapter of the Bun- dehesh, one of the sacred books of the Persians, it is re- counted that in the earliest times of the world, during the war with Ahriman, Tistar, genius of the star Sirius, at Ahur- amazda's bidding, appeared three times in the world, first in the form of a man, then in that of a horse, finally in that of a bull ; and each time there was a ten days' rain, that the harmful creatures formed by the evil principle might be blotted out. When at last these waters were driven apart to the

Vendidad II.

Bundehesh, Cap. VII. Part of the sacred litera- ture of the Persians.

(534)

Appendix II

Modern Persians.

Hindus.

Tadjiks

or Tajiks.

Bokhari.

Afghans.

RACE AND STOCK.

West

Asiatic,

Indo-

Germanic.

Iranians,

West

Asiatic,

Indo-

Germanic.

West

Asiatic,

Indo-

Germanic.

Iranians.

West Asiatic,

Indo-

Germanic.

Iranians.

West

Asiatic,

Indo-

Germanic.

Iranians.

GEOGRAPH, SITUATION,

Persia.

East India.

Turkestan.

Bokhara.

Afghanistan.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

ends of the world by a great wind, there arose from them 4 great and 23 little seas.

The modern Per- sians believe that Noah went out of the Ark upon Mount Elvend, near Ram- adan, the old Ekba- tana.

Tales of a deluge are found in the prose writings of the Brahman period, in theSatapatha Brah- mana, in the later epic poems and in the still later Pura- nas. Three of the incarnations of Vishnu are con- nected with a del- uge. In all three cases Vishnu saves the human race from destruction by water by taking first the form of a fish, then of a turtle, and lastly of a boar.

Mount Kasykurt, in the range of Karatau, is consid- ered a sacred moun- tain by the present inhabitants of Turk- estan because on it the ship of their pro- genitor came to land after the great flood.

The people of Bokhara make their Noah land in the mountains of Nura- tau, northeast of Bokhara.

Mount Nargil, near Dschelalabad, plays the same part among the Af- ghans.

SOURCES.

RiTTER :

Erdkunde Asians^ VI.

Veda {Sata-

patha

Brdkmana^

Mahd-

bhdrata,

Bhdgavata-

Purdna and

Matsya-

Purdna).

Popular iegetid.

Meyendorff: Voyage d''Or- enbourg a Boukhara.

BURNES :

Travels into Bokhara. I.

(535)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

d	PEOPLE.	RACE AND STOCK.	GEOGRAPH. SITUATION.	SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.	SOURCES.
i8	Kash-	West	Kashmir.	Kashmir was	V. Hugel:
	mirs.	Asiatic,		once entirely	Kaschmir.
		Indo-		covered with water.	II.
		Germanic.		Vishnu gave an out-
		Hindus.		let to the water by opening th^ moun- tains near Bara- muUa, whereupon Kasyapa, a grand- son of Brahma, populated the land left dry.
19	Thibe-	East	Thibet.	Thibet was once	Turner: An
	tans.	Asiatic,		wholly inun-	Atnbassador
		Mongols,		dated. The god	at the Court
		Southern		Gya, out of pity for	of the Llama
		Division.		the inhabitants of Thibet, then few in number, allowed the waters to flow off toward Bengal.	of Teschoo.
20	Chinese.	East	^ China.	The Chinese cal-	Yi-King, al-
		Asiatic,		endars state that in	leged to have
		Mongols,		the year 2297 b.c,	been written
		Southern		under the Emperor	4;/ Confucius.
		Division.		Yao, a fearful del- uge devastated the land, and that mul- titudes of people were drowned. The waters rose as high as the mountains.
21	Leptshas.	East	Dardschiling	During a flood a	Hooker's
		Asiatic,	in the Hima-	pair of human be-	Himalayan
		Mongols,	layas.	ings took refuge on	fourn.
		Southern		the top of Mount
		Division.		Tendong.
		Thibetans.
22	Karens.	East	Burmah.	Ages ago the	Mason: Re-
		Asiatic,		earth was inun-	port on Ko'
		Mongols,		dated by a flood	Thah-Byu.
		Southern		which finally
		Division.		reached to heaven.
		Burmans.		Two brothers es- caped on a raft.
23	Changrai.	East	Kamboja.	The flood tradi-	Bastian in
		Asiatic,		tion of the Changrai	Zeitschrift
		Mongols,		is similar to that of	far Erd-
		Southern		the Bible.	kunde at Ber-
		Division.			lin, 1866.
		Isolated
		Branches,
		Moi.

(536)

Appendix II

25

26

PEOPLE.

Banar.

Binnas.

Kam- chadales.

RACE AND STOCK

East

Asiatic,

Mong-ols,

Southern

Division.

Isolated

Branches,

Moi.

East Asiatic,

True Malays. Malays, (/. e. S.)

East

Asiatic,

Siberiacs.

GEOGRAPH SITUATION

Kamboja.

Malayan Peninsula.

Kam- chatka.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

During a great flood the father of the human race was saved by shutting himself into water-tight chest,

In the opinion of the Binnas theearth is liquid within and has only a thin cov- ering on the out- side. In ancient time God broke this crust in pieces so that the earth was flooded with water and destroyed. Later God caused Mount Lulumut and other mountains to rise. When Mount Lulumut had risen out of the water there ap- peared upon the waves a Prahu (or flat boat), entirely closed, in which God had placed a pair of human be- ings created by him- self. From this pair mankind is de- scended.

Not long after Kutka, the Creator, had departed from the Kamchadales,a great inundation of the whole country occurred and the people were drowned, except a few who bound trees together and thus made rafts on which they es- caped. When the flood abated these rafts were left standing on high mountains.

SOURCES.

Bastian, ibid.

Cameron: Our Tropical Possessions in Malayan India.

Steller's Description of Kamchatka.

(537)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

28

Mundas.

Eskimos.

RACE AND STOCK.

Dravidians

East

Asiatic,

Siberiacs.

GEOGRAPH. SITUATION.

East India.

The northern part of N. America.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

Singbonga, the highest being, sent a great flood to de- stroy the corrupt people ; only one brother and one sister were saved, having hidden themselves under a Tiril tree.

There are flood traditions among all the Eskimos, on the mainland as well as on the is- lands. Petitot was told by the Tschli- gites on the lower Mackenzie, that the waters once poured over the globe, so that the Rocky Mountains were flooded, and the earth and the world disappeared. Only when a man called Son of the Owl threw his bow and his earrings into the water did the flood cease. Franz Boas heard the following account from the North American Central Eskimos: A long time ago the sea suddenly began to rise until the whole land was cov- ered. The water rose to the tops of the mountains and the ice floated away over them. When the waters disap- peared the ice re- mained lying upon the mountains and '01 red their sum-

i. j. A great num- ber of Eskimos per- ished at this time, but many others were saved, having at the beginning of the flood taken

SOURCES.

NOTTROTT :

Die Gossne- rische Mis- sion unterden Kolhsy Halle, 1874.

Hall : Life among the Eskimos. Franz Boas : The Central Eskimo. Petitot: Vocabul. frangais-es- quimau^ Con- gres inte7-n. des Ameri- can.., Nancy, 1875.

(538)

Appendix II

29

PEOPLE

Aig^on- qums.

Chippe-

was, Dog-ribs and Slave

Indians

Hare Indians.

RACE AND STOCK

East

Asiatic,

American.

East

Asiatic,

American.

Athapas-

East

Asiatic,

American.

Athapas-

cas.

GEOGRAPH SITUATION

North America.

North America.

North America.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

refuge in their kajaks.

Among all the branches of the Al- gonquins the de struction of the world by a deluge is ascribed to an evil spirit who is symbolized by a ser pent. He stands in opposition to Mena- boshu, a power ful demigod, the grandfather of men and created beings.

In the beginning of time there was a great fall of snow. Then a mouse gnawed through a leather skin con- taining the heat, which now spread over the earth. In an instant the whole mass of snow melt- ed, so that the high- est tir trees were submerged and the water finally cov- ered thesum- mits of the Rocky Mountains. One person only, an old man, had foreseen the deluge and had built a great canoe, in which he floated about, picking up all the animals he met.

Kunyon, i.e. "the wise one," who had foreseen the flood, built himself a great raft and escaped with the animals that he had gath- ered upon it, while his friends, whom he had warned in vain, were drowned , for the flood rose

SOURCES.

Squier : Histor. and Mythol. Tradit.ofthe Algonquins.

Petitot : as above.

Petitot: as above.

(539)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

33

PEOPLE.

Lou- cheux.

Chero- kee.

Crees or Kniste-

RACE AND STOCK

East

Asiatic,

American.

Athapas-

East Asiatic, American. Appala- chians.

East

Asiatic,

American.

Algonquin,

Lenni- Lennape.

GEOGRAPH, SITUATION

North America.

North America.

North America.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

over the Rocky Mountains.

Etoetchokren es- caped from the flood in a canoe which floated on the waters until they evaporated ; the canoe ran aground on Mount Tschan- eguta (Place of the Old Man) in the Rocky Mountains.

Once, in conse quence of a heavy rain, there occurred such a deluge that every one was drowned except a single family, who by the advice of their dog, had built themselves a boat.

At the time of the great deluge, which occurred many cen- turies ago and blot- ted out all the peo- ples of the earth, the tribes of the red men assembled on the Coteau des Prairies, in Minne- sota, in order that they might escape from the water. When they had come together here from every direc tion, the water con- tinued to rise until it finally covered them all, whereupon their flesh was turned into red pipe clay. While they were drowning a young woman, Kwaptahw (virgin) by name, seized the foot of a great bird that flew by, and was carried to the top of a high cliff not far from there, which rose

SOURCES.

Petitot: as above^

(540)

SCHOOLCRAFI

Notes on the Iroquois.

I

Catlin: Indians of North Amer- ica : Smith- son. Rep. 1885,

Appendix II

36

PEOPLE,

Tuwanas.

Lummi Indians.

Tolewa Indians.

RACE AND STOCK

East

Asiatic,

American.

Algonquin

Lenni- Lennape.

East Asiatic,

American. Algon- quins, Lenni-

Lennape.

East

Asiatic,

American.

Califor-

nians.

GEOGRAPH SITUATION.

Washiington Territory.

Washington Territory.

California.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

above the water. Here she bore twins by the warrior eagle, and they be came the progeni tors of the present human race.

During a flood caused by heavy rain showers which inundated all the land, the good In- dians escaped in boats to the highest mountains of the Olympic Range and when the water rose even over these they bound their boats to the high trees by means of long ropes made of cedar bSaa^es, order not to be swept away.

Once the whole land was inundated except a single high mountain in the Cascade Range, upon which an old man escaped on a raft. This moun- tain, lying near Steilacoom, is called by the Indians "the old land."

During a rain of long duration, the water rose until all the valleys were in- undated. The In- dians, who at that time were very numerous, fled to the highlands, but even here were overtaken by the water and drowned. Only one pair were saved, having reached the highest mountain peak. This peak has vari- ous names with the

'^-

SOURCES.

Eells : Tradit. 0/ the Deluge : A merican A ntiquarian^ 1878.

y

l!0-'

Eells : as above.

Contributions

to North Amer. Eth- nology., 1877.

(541:

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

PEOPLE.

Maya Nations.

Asho-

chemie or

Wapo

Indians.

Zufii.

RACE AND STOCK.

East

Asiatic,

American.

Califor-

nians.

East

Asiatic,

American.

Califor-

nians.

East

Asiatic,

American.

Isolated

branches of

Sonora and

Texas,

Pueblos.

GEOGRAPH. SITUATION.

California.

California.

New Mexico.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

various Californian tribes. Among the Mattoals it is Tay- lor's Peak.

In the old time the Indians lived in the valley of the Sacramento. Sud- denly there arose a mighty flood, so that the whole val- ley became like a sea. The Indians fled, but were drowned neverthe less. Only two es caped to the moun tains. Later the Great Man (God) opened the side of a mountain and the waters flowed down into the sea.

A long time ago, in a great flood which covered the whole land, all liv- ing creatures were drowned with the exception of the coyote (prairie fox) which then repopu lated the earth by planting in the ground the tail- feathers of birds, which grew into human beings.

The Zunis were once driven by a great water flood out of the valley to the rich and beauti- ful mesa (slope of the tableland) ; the flood rose ever higher and had al- ready reached the edge of the mesa, when the son and the daughter of two priests were thrown into the waves to placate the angry element; j

SOURCES.

Contributions to North Ainer. Eth- nology^ 1877.

Contributions to North Anter. Eth- nology., 1877.

Moses Stev-

ENSOHN : Fifth Annual Rep. Bureau of Ethnology^ Washington^ 1887.

(542) ^kP^^^p^.l>A)

:.v4 ^

Appendix II

PEOPLE.

Thlin- keets.

Bella-

Coola

Indians.

RACE AND STOCK

East Asiatic, American. North- western Tribes.

East Asiatic, American. North- western Tribes.

GEOGRAPH. SITUATION.

Alaska.

North America, along the

Pacific Ocean.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

Jelch the raven, the great creator, had caught a great cuttlefish for his uncle, who was seeking to kill him. The cuttlefish swelled until it filled the whole house. At the same time the water rose and all men perished. Jelch, however, put on a bird-skin, and gave another to his mother, then both rose into the air. Jelch flew so high that he touched the heaven with his beak and stayed hanging there for ten days. The flood rose so high that it came up to his feet. When the water subsided he came down again to earth.

According to another legend of the Thlinkeets men escaped in a great floating building, which, when the water went down, was dashed to pieces on one of the rocks lying below the surface. It thus caused the dis- persion of men and the various lan- guages.

Masmasalanich, the mightiest god of the Bella-Coolas, had bound the earth to the sun by a long rope, which kept each at a suitable distance from the other and prevented the earth from sink- ng in the ocean. Once he stretched the rope, in conse-

Krause : Die Thlinkit- IndianeVy Jena, 1885. Holmberg: Ethnogr. Skizzen, Hel- sing/ors^i^SS-

SOURCES.

r.

(^'

<■ ti

v^ ''\. v*^ ^j., ^

'>'l>^^^<^>

Boas: Origi- * .fikyv^" nal Mitthei- ^^ ^

lungen, from . "^

the Ethn. De- \p^ . ^

parttnent of i"" sJ •

the Royal )r

Museums in Berlin, 1886.

(543)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Mexi- cans.

RACE AND STOCK

East

Asiatic,

American.

GEOGRAPH SITUATION.

Mexico.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

quence of which the earth sank so deep that the waters cov- ered all the land up to the mountain tops. Many men who had fled to their boats were de- stroyed ; others were driven far away. When Mas- masalanich short- ened the rope once more the earth rose again out of the waves and men once more spread over it. The differ- ent tribes had now, however, new abodes and many languages.

r- The most detailed Flood traditions of America are found among the different civilized peoples of Mexico, among whom in every case Noah appears, be- ing saved from a great flood. Aztecs, Tlascaltecs, Zapo- tecs, Mixtecs, have their Coxcox, Teo- cipactli, Tezpi, Nata, who, with their wives, escaped from the flood in boats and continued the human race. The most common of the Mexican Flood traditions is the following : In the Atonatiuh, i.e., Age of Water, a great flood covered the whole earth and all men were trans- formed into fishes. Only one man and one woman es- caped by taking refuge in the hollow trunk of a cypress. The man was

."^'^

•^.>

Herbert Howe Ban- croft:

Native Races of the Pacific States, III. Humboldt: Vue des Cor- dilleres, II. Clavigero : Storia A ntica del Messico, III.

Mac-Cul- LOCH : Philos. and A nti- quarian Re- searches.

y

(544)

Appendix II

PEOPLE.

Quiche

Peru- vians.

RACE AND STOCK.

East

Asiatic,

American.

Mayas.

East

Asiatic,

American.

Andes

Tribes.

GEOGRAPH, SITUATION,

Guatemala.

Peru.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

named Coxcox, his wife Xochiquetzal. When the water re- ceded they landed on the peak of Col- huacan.

The gods at first created men out of clay, but as these were very imper- fect, the gods de- stroyed their work by a flood and crea- ted new human be- ings, the man of wood and the wo- man of resin. Since these also were not perfect enough the gods again de- stroyed them by an earthquake and by burning resin which rained from heav- en; only a few es- caped, who were transformed into pigmy-apes. Fin- ally the gods formed men out of white and yellow maize, and from these the Quiches are de- scended.

The Peruvians had various flood traditions, among them the following : A shepherd had learned from his llamas, through their knowledge of the stars, that the world was to be de- stroyed by a flood. He fled, therefore, with his family and his flock to Mount Ancasmarca, whither many other animals had already taken flight. Hardly had the shepherd arrived here when the sea left its shore and destroyed all

SOURCES.

Popol Vuk, le livre sacre et les mythes des Quiches^ edid. Brasseur de

Bourbourg;

Paris. 1861.

Bancroft : Native Races of the Pacific States, V.

35

(545)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

46

PEOPLE.

Arauca- nians.

Caribs.

RACE AND STOCK

East

Asiatic,

American.

East

Asiatic,

American.

Arowak-

Carib

Tribes.

GEOGRAPH SITUATION

Chili.

Haiti.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

living creatures, The mountain was lifted up by the waves and floated like a ship. On the fifth day the waters began to subside again.

After a severe earthquake, accom- panied by volcanic eruptions, there came a great water flood from which only a few men es- caped. These found safety on a high mountain with three peaks, which floated on the water and was called by them Thegtheg, z'.^.,"the noisy one, ' or "the lightener." Now, as soon as the Araucanians feel the approach of a violent earthquake, they try to find safety on a moun- tain, in order to pro- tect themselves from the eventual rising of the sea. At the same time they provide them- selves with food and with woodendishes, that they may cover their heads with the latter, if perchance the mountain on which they stand should be lifted by the flood up to the sun.

Jaia, a cazique on the island of Haiti, had interred the bones of his son, whom he killed be- cause of a crime, in a great gourd bottle, according to the custom of his country ; and in this

Molina: Eroberung von Chilly Leipzig^ 1791.

Washington Irving's Co- lumbus y Book VI.

(546)

Appendix ll

PEOPLE.

Acka- wais.

Arowaks.

RACE AND STOCK.

East

Asiatic,

American.

Arowak-

Carib

Tribes.

GEOGRAPH. SITUATION.

British Guiana.

East

Asiatic,

American.

Arowak-

Carib

Tribes.

British Guiana.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

gourd-bottle the bones had turned into fishes. Injaia's absence his curious brothers looked into the pitcher and let it fall, so that it was broken in pieces, Out of the broken pitcher there poured an endless flood, which covered the whole earth, so that the mountain tops alone, the pres- ent Antilles, looked out above it.

Makonaima, the great invisible spirit, had created a wonderful lofty tree which bore all possible kinds of fruits, and he had given it into the care of his wise son Sigu. While Sigu was felling the tree from out the hollow trunk, which was connected with sub- terranean springs, there flowed water which covered the whole earth. Sigu fled with his flock to the highest point of the land until the flood subsided.

The world has been twice de- stroyed in conse- quence of the evil deeds of men ; the first time by fire, the second time by water. The wise prince Marere- wana, to whom the coming of the flood had been foretold, escaped with his family in a boat. This he had fas- tened to a tree trunk by a long rope made

/9

..v=<'V

I^J^

Th

Brett : The Indian Tribes of Guiana, London^ 1868.

4 f*^"

4^'

:4^

(^

Brett, as above.

.-«--

(547)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

56

Maypuri

Tupi- namba.

Tupi.

Botoku- dos.

Carayos.

Mesaya.

Dayaks.

RACE AND STOCK.

East

Asiatic,

American.

Arowak-

Carib

Tribes.

East

Asiatic,

American.

Tupi

Tribes.

East

Asiatic,

American.

Tupi

Tribes.

East

Asiatic,

American.

Isolated

Tribes.

East

Asiatic,

American.

Isolated

Tribes.

East

Asiatic,

American.

Tupi Tribes.

East Asiatic, Malays. Genuine Malays.

GEOGRAPH. SITUATION.

Along the Orinoco.

Brazil.

Brazil.

Brazil.

On the Araguay.

On the

Amazon

River.

Borneo.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

of lianas, in order that he might not be swept out to sea.

During a great flood all men per- ished except one pair, who escaped to Mount Tama- naku on the shore of the Asiveru.

During a great deluge all the an- cestors of the Tupi nambas were drowned except a few, who saved themselves in a boat and on high trees.

Awiseman,Tam- anduare, at the counsel of Tupe, the Tupis' highest be- ing, climbed palm trees with his fam- ily and there waited for the end of the flood, in which all the rest of the hu- man race perished.

The Botokudos also tell of a great deluge.

Among the Cara- yos Dr. Ehrenreich found a Flood tradi- tion.

Marcoy found a Flood tradition among the Mesa- yas.

Once when the Dayaks had killed a great boa-con- strictor and cooked it,there came heavy rain which lasted

SOURCES.

Humboldt : A nsichten der Natur I.

Hans

Staden :

A usgabe von

Stzittgart^

1859.

SiMAM DH

Vasconcel- >v

LOS: Noticios^\''^ a curicsas de X^ jg' \J^

Prinz Wied : Brasilien II.

Verhandlun- gen der Ber- liner ^ Anthr. Ges., 1888.

Tour du Monde, XV.

Perham : A Sea-Dyak tradition of the deluge.

\

{548)

Appendix II

PEOPLE,

RACE AND STOCK.

GEOGRAPH, SITUATION

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

SOURCES.

Sandwich Islanders

Mar- quesas Islanders,

Pelew

Islanders.

60

Society Islanders,

East Asiatic, Malays. Polyne- sians.

East Asiatic, Malayans. Polyne- sians.

East Asiatic, Malayans. Polyne- sians, Mi krone-

East Asiatic, Malayans. Polyne- sians.

Sandwich Islands.

Marquesas Islands.

Pelew

Islands.

Society Islands.

until all the moun- tains except the highest ones were under water, and the whole world was drowned. Only one woman escaped upon a high moun- tain, and brought forth descendants by a flre-drili which she had' invented.

Bastian gives a Polynesian song which treats of the great flood.

On the Marquesas Islands the English sailor, Lawson, found songs about a great flood.

The gods having been ill received on a visit to earth, sent in punishment a ter- rible flood at the time of the full moon. An old wo- man, Milatk by name, who had har- bored the gods, by their advice took refuge on a raft, but perished likewise. The gods, however, brought her to life again later.

The sea god Rua- hatu sent a flood which covered all the islands and the highest mountain tops, and destroyed all the islanders ex- cept one fisherman. This man, at Rua- hatu's command, had escaped with wife, children, and one friend, and with the few domesti- cated animals of the island, to the small

Bastian : Die heilige Sage des Polynesier^ Leipzig^ 1881.

L. Palmer in Proc. of the Lit. &= Phil. Soc. of Liver- pool, XXX L

J. KUBARY in

Bastian ; Semper: Die Palau-Inseln.

W. Ellis: Polynesian Researches, II.

(549)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

Fiji Islanders.

New Guineans.

New Hebrides Islanders.

Mincopis.

RACE AND STOCK.

Papuas. Mixed Papuas, Melane-

Papuas. Unmixed Papuas, Genuine Papuas.

Papuas.

Mixed Papuas, Melane-

sians. New Cale- donians.

Papuas. Unmixed Papuas.

GEOGRAPH. SITUATION,

Fiji Islands.

District of

Kabadi in

New Guinea

New Hebri- des Island, Aneytum.

Andamans.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

coral island Toama- rama, which was spared by the flood.

The Fiji Islanders tellof a flood which, according to some, was a general one ; according- to others, however, it em- braced only parts of the earth. All agree in this, that the highest mountains were covered with water, and the peo- ple who were left alive, eight in all, escaped in a boat which, after the flood subsided, was left standing upon Mbengga.

Once the earth was flooded so that only the tops of the highest mountains remained uncov- ered. Lohero and his younger brother were angry with men and threw a human bone into a small stream. Soon came forth the great waters, which formed a sea, cov- ered all the low land and compelled men to flee to the mountains. There they lived until the waters subsided.

On the island of Aneytum there is a tradition of a gen- eral deluge.

Pulugu, the crea- tor, being angry with men, sent a great flood which covered the whole

SOURCES.

Th. Wil- liams : Fiji and the Fijians, Lon- don, i8s8.

Chalmers AND Gill: Work and Adiienture in Ne7v Guinea, Lo?idott, 1885.

Zeitschr. d. Ges. f. Erd. kundezu Ber- lin, IX.

Jour. Anthr. Institut. XII.

(550)

Appendix II

PEOPLE,

RACE AND STOCK.

GEOGRAPH. SITUATION.

SUBSTANCE OF LEGEND.

land and destroyed all living things. Only two men and two women es- caped, as they hap- pened to be in a boat, and after the waters had abated they landed in the neighborhood of Wotaemi.

SOURCES.

(551)

Appendix III

Enoch

Since this book was written, in fact within the past few months, Heinrich Zimmern, the well- known professor of Semitic languages in the University of Leipzig, has published what may prove to be an important discovery in regard to the Patriarch Enoch.* Before mentioning this discovery, let me remind the reader that accord- ing to Babylonian tradition ten mythical kings, and according to one Hebrew tradition ten patri- archs, existed before the Flood. Between these two lists, one of which is found in the history of Berosus, and the other in the fifth chapter of Genesis, a certain general similarity has long been recognized. In each list the tenth patri- arch or king (Noah or Xisuthros) is the hero of the Flood story. Further, the name of the third Hebrew patriarch, Enos, means " a man " ; and the name of the third Babylonian king, Amelon, has the same significance. The fourth patriarch in the Bible is called Cainan, or " smith/' and the fourth Babylonian king is called Ammenon, which is interpreted " workman," or " master- workman," etc.

It is, however, in regard to the seventh patri-

* " Biblische und Babylonische Urgeschichte," Leipzig-, igoi. (553)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

arch, Enoch, that this comparison is most inter- esting. Now Enoch has always been a dark and puzzling personality to students of the Bible. It is true, little is related of him in the Book of Genesis, but that little is very strange. We read that Enoch was the seventh from Adam, that he lived 365 years, that he '' walked with God," and then *' was not, for God had taken him." Tantalizingly brief as these notices are, they evi- dently set before us a great hero, a man distin- guished above all the other patriarchs in that, like Elijah, he did not taste of death. A fate so singular, however, would never have been as- cribed to an obscure personage. From this bare account of Genesis we may be sure that Enoch was a man of renown in antiquity, of whom many strange adventures were once related. This im- pression is decidedly strengthened by the great cloud of myth which gathered around Enoch's head in later times, and which at last expressed itself in the Apocryphal books which bear his name.* In these books Enoch passes as a great prophet, a mighty seer to whom God revealed the future history of the world. He is repre- sented as the inventor of writing, arithmetic, and astrology. The credit enjoyed by the Book of Enoch is shown by the fact that St. Jude un- hesitatingly quotes it as an authentic work of prophecy, as does also the author of the Epistles ascribed to St. Barnabas.

Now the difficulty has been that nothing we know of the life of Enoch suffices to show why he should have been singled out for such dis-

* " The Book of Enoch," composed in the second and first centuries B.C., and " The Secrets of Enoch," i to 50 a.d.

(554)

Appendix III

tinctions. The motive of the statements of Genesis, and still more the motive of the vast myth of the Book of Enoch, has been altogether lacking. His place in history as the seventh from Adam, to which St. Jude so pointedly calls atten- tion, was doubtless assigned him to single him out for peculiar honors. The 365 years of his life have frequently been compared with the days of the solar year, though up to the present time this comparison has thrown no real light on his character. His translation to Heaven, which is plainly hinted at in the words '' he was not, for God had taken him," sets him apart as one of the most highly favored of mankind, and the fact that this honor was conferred on Enoch rather than on Noah, after the example of Xisuthros, is still more surprising. We may also remark, that as far as the character of Enoch is depicted in the Book of Genesis, it is depicted as the character of a religious man. Enoch's greatness did not consist in worldly ex- ploits, or in deeds of arms, or in the discovery of human arts, but in his relation to the Most High. '' Enoch walked with God." In this re- spect he reminds us of the mysterious priest Melchizedek. The Book of Enoch confirms this impression, and represents him consistently as a man of God, a prophet free from mundane cares and occupations. We may sum this up by saying that the meagre but very striking allusions to Enoch in the Book of Genesis mark him out as a man of renown, a religious hero, the subject of a popular myth, and that this character is well sustained in the books which bear his name. The origin of this myth Zimmern believes that

(555)

Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge

he has discovered. He remmds us that in Be- rosus' catalogue the seventh mythical king of Babylonia is called in Greek, Evedoranchos, and also in a ritual tablet recently explained by him.* Zimmern recognizes the cuneiform equivalent of Evedoranchos in the great prophet-priest, Enmeduranki. In this tablet Enmeduranki, or Evedoranchos (for we may regard this point as proved), is hailed as king of Sippara, the city of the sun-god, Shamash. Shamash has taken En- meduranki into his fellowship, and has instructed him in all the secrets of Heaven and earth, and especially has bestowed on him power to pro- phesy future events from signs in the earth and heavens. Enmeduranki is evidently regarded as the prototype and progenitor of the prophet- priests of Babylonia, whose business was to fore- tell the future from dreams and omens, and especially from the movements of the heavenly bodies. This, it will be remembered, is the role assigned to Enoch in the Apocryphal books. Even the 365 years of Enoch, which are so far below the average term of life of his contem- poraries, Zimmern plausibly explains by Enme- duranki's intimate association with Shamash, the sun-god.

On examining the text from which Zimmern derives his argument, the reader will probably be disappointed by the vagueness of its allusions. Zimmern's identification of Enoch with the seventh Babylonian king, however, is decidedly

* "Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Bab. Religion," von Dr. H. Zim- mern, Leipzig, 1899 ; 2te. Lieferung, Erste Halfte, Nr. 24. Zimmern asserts that Enmeduranki was pronounced Evedoranki, which would make the resemblance complete.

(556)

Appendix III

strengthened by certain linguistic considerations. It may be granted that Enmeduranki and Bero- sus' Evedoranchos are the same person. It would also appear from the tablet that Enme- duranki was regarded as the prototype of the Babylonian prophet-priests, and that he was the subject of an extensive myth. Now the name of the god Ea was, in Sumerian, En-ki (lord of the earth). Enmeduranki appears to be an expan- sion of this name, signifying, " Thou art lord, lord of all the earth." If, however, this old mythical priest-king of Sippara bore a name which was only an expansion of the Sumerian name of Ea — i.e., En-ki — his name might easily be contracted again to En-ki. The resemblance between En-ki and Enoch (Chanok) is, of course, very striking. Enoch is probably a corruption of En-ki. The '' E " would naturally be repre- sented in Western Semitic by the guttural cheth, or ajin, which were sometimes interchanged, so that the resemblance is really much more close than in the case of many names which in ancient times passed from one language to another. I am indebted for these suggestions to Dr. George A. Barton.

It is true, neither Berosus nor Zimmern's tab- let mentions the translation of Evedoranchos or Enmeduranki. That element of the story of Enoch appears to have been transferred from the myth of Xisuthros. But for the rest, the above explanation of the strange personality of Enoch is probably the best it has as yet received.

(557)

INDEXES

Index of Authors

A

Addis, W. E., 169, 271, 288, 304, 326, 327. Andree, Richard, 417, 422, 424, 425, 426, 429, 433, 435, 461, 464. Arnold, Matthew, 23, 93. Astrus, Jean, 21.

B

Bacon, B. W., 35, 352. Bancroft, H. H., 432, 437,

461, 499, 500, 501. Barton, Geo. A., 478, 479,

480. Baudissin, W. W., 106, 107,

108, 211, 215. Benzinger, 336, 350, 351, 402. Berteau, Ernest, 288. Boas, Franz, 425. Bochart, Samuel, 282, 344. Bohmer, 486. Boscawen, W. St. Chad, 201,

385. Bourbourg, Brasseur de, 430,

435, 436, 437. Brinton, Daniel G., 126, 417,

445, 449. 454, 455, 456, 498,

501. Brugsch Bey, 19, 98, loi, 216. Buckley, Edmund, 436. Budde, Karl, 239, 267, 288, 304,

313, 350, 376, 395, 401, 482,

486. Burnouf, Eugene, 368, 370, 506. Buttmann, P., 282, 363.

/Carpenter, D. W., 414. ^ Cernik, Joseph, 470. Cheyne, T. K., 270, 348, 442,

445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 497,

498, 520. Clavigero, 431. Cory, L. P., 215, 226, 281, 300,

309, 344, 346, 369, 376, 383. Creuzer, F., 214.

Darwin, C, 2. Delitzsch, Franz, 257,291, 304, 312, 498.

Delitzsch, Fried., 213, 386, 401, 469.

Dillmann, A. (T. and T. Clark, 1897, translation from 4th ed.), 86, 150, 175, 223, 270, 272, 276, 288, 298, 301, 302, 304, 308, 321, 326, 330, 337, 351, 385, 401, 406, 489.

Doane, T. W., 498, 503.

Duncker, Max, 384, 406.

■puis, W., 422, 444, 445.

Encyclopaedia Biblica,

345, 442, 478, 498, 508.

Fergusson, James, 211. Fiske, John, 498. Furtwangler, A., 224.

36

(561)

Index of Authors

/^erland, Georg, 441, 442, 443, ^^ 444, 445, 446. Gesenius, W., 304, 325. Goldziher, 401. Grimm, J., 208, 328, 357, 419,

424, 499. Gubernatis, A. de, 211. Gunkel, 130, 132, 138, 406,

H

T Tahn. Joh. Georg von, 415. -tA Halevy, J., 325. Hastings (Diet, of Bible), 332,

344. Haupt, Paul, 226, 228, 375, 401,

523. Heine, 236. Holtzinger, H., 263, 304, 321,

327. Hommel, F., 475. Hopkins, E. W., 368, 370,

502. Hughes, T. P. (Diet, of Islam.),

315, 316. Hultsch, Friedrieh, 336. Humboldt, A. von, 430, 431.

Thering, R. von, 296, 297, 329, 370, 390, 392, 394, 406, 468,

509-

7

Jastrow, M., 226, 227, 232, 233, 248, 251, 252, 375,

377, 382, 386, 387, 388, 389,

393, 394, 396, 400, 406, 408,

447, 471, 479- Jensen, P., 241, 250, 325, 348,

375, 387, 388, 392, 393, 394,

395, 396, 406, 447- Jensen, Peter, 337. Jeremias, Alfred, 226, 227, 235,

241, 248, 375, 386, 389, 406.

K

Kant, I., 50, 79, 80. Kautseh, E., 304, Kingsborough, Lord, 430, 432. Kohl, Johann Georg, 429, 499. Kosters, 385. Kuhn, Adalbert, 223.

T ayard, A. H., 8, 517.

■L' Lenormant, F., 28, 189,

210, 222, 264, 272, 282, 292,

316, 377, 378, 422, 431, 433,

436, 446. Luken, H., 498, 500. Livingstone, D,, 424, 498. Lubboek, Sir John, 416. Lyell, Sir Charles, 341, 472,

475, 476, 477.

M^

M

aspero, 187, 216, 387.

Meyer (Konversations Lexieon), 328, 329, 362, 461. Movers, F. C, 106, 363. Muir, 448. Muller, J., 370, 440.

N

Nowaek, W., 316, 336, 350, 351.

o

r)ldenberg, H., 370. Oppert, J., 516.

Peiser, F. E., 478, 479. Petermann, A., 503, 504. Peters, J. P., 512, 517. Petitot, Emile, 425. Pinehes, T. G., 227, 229. Preller, 363.

(562)

Index of Authors

R

Rassam, 517. Ratzel, 417, 420,

421,

E., 2, 51, 52, 77, 94,

422. Renan,

106.

Reymond, Du Bois E., 79. Rialle, Girard de, 432. Rich, C. J., 517. Roth, Rudolf von, 108, 370.

Sayce, A. H., 227, 251, 400, 447. Scheil, Fr. V., 346, 400, 407,

408, 409. Scherzer, Karl, 435. Schirren, K. C. I., 441. Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe, 429. Schrader, E., 270, 345, 395, 447,

448, 477, 495, 516. Schultz, H., 17. Schwarz, Franz von, 417, 439. Siegfried and Stade, 304. Smith, George, 8, 10, no, 197,

375. Smith, W. R., 332. Stade, B., 263, 316, 407. Stoll, O., 435.

Suess, Eduard, 468, 469, 470,

477, 478. Symonds, J. A., 191.

'"pylor, E. B., 384, 416, 422, J- 427, 444, 464.

u

TTsener, H., 361, 366, 367,450, ^ 452, 453.

w

Txraitz, Theodor, 417, 441, VV 442, 443. Warner, William F., 151. Weber, A., 370, 371. Wellhausen, J., 262, 313. White, Andrew D., 414, 498. Wilson, Horace, 282. Winchell, A., 259. Windischmann, F. R., 206.

^immern, H., 251, 375, 386, ^ 387, 388, 389, 393, 396,

397, 403, 478, 479, 480. Zockler, D. O., 414.

(563)

Index

Abel, 37, 258-278 ; mean- ing of name, 268. Aben, Ezra, 20, 21. Adapa, tablet discovered, 251 ; problem of everlasting life, 252-253 ; comparison with Genesis, 253-255; Adapa not Adam, 255.

Algonquin flood myths, 426- 429.

Altar, first mention of, 331.

Aloadse, 501, 502.

Amos, description of solar eclipse, 436-437, 477.

Angels, fall of, 307 ; called sons of God, 304, 307-308 ; in Greek food myth, 450, 453.

Animals, in Eden, 159, 166- 167 ; in flood, 339, 390 ; in Greek flood myth, 453, 470 ; animal food permitted, 353-

354.

Annunaki, 393, 471.

Antediluvian patriarchs, 278- 282, 381-382; classical heroes, 281, 282 ; age of, 283 ; fate of, 288-291 ; meaning of names, 297-298 ; age limited, 3 10-3 1 1 ; table of, 289.

Appollodorus, on flood, 362,

365. Ararat, 343 ; identified with Elburg, mythical sky-moun- tain, 345 ; Berosus' tradition supports Biblical tradition, 345, 346 ; not identical with Mt. Nisir, 344-346 ; why

Ararat chosen, 347-348 ; evi- dence of Scheil's fragment, 346 ; evidently mythical mountain, 347-349 ; Isaiah on mythical mountain, 348 ; vast height in Genesis, 348.

Ark, 325, 334 ; window of, 330, 337 ; description of, 334-339. Deucalion's, 362, 365, 367, 451, 481, 484; Babylonian, 350, 378-383, 389, 392, 440, 469-470 ; course of, 345, 346, 462. See Deluge.

Armenia. See Ararat.

Astruc, discovery of the three documents, 21.

Atlantis, myth of, 364.

B

■pabel. Tower of : text of story, ^ 492-493 ; no reference to flood, 493-494 ; no Baby- lonian counterpart of, 495- 496 ; story composite, 497 ; myth not widely diffused, 497, 498, 499 ; Mexican leg- end of, 499-501 ; Hindu par- allel to, 502-503 ; African parallel to, 503-504 ; Greek legends, 501-502, 504-505 ; confusion of tongues and logos, 505-508 ; founding of Babylon, 508 ; the first city, 509 ; temple towers, 512 ; mounds associated with Tell- Nimrud, Babil, Birs - Nim- rud, Amran Ibn. Ali, 515, 516.

(565)

Index

Babil, description of, 516-517 ; age of, 516.

Birs-Nimrud, description of, 517-518 ; age of, 520 ; Her- odotus on, 518 ; Nebuchad- nezzar on, 518-519 ; connec- tion with Tower of Babil, 520.

Babylon. See Babel.

Babylonian literature, in Ca- naan, 401-407 ; discovery of,

lO-II.

Behemoth, 138.

Bel and Dragon, 213.

Berosus, 375-385 ; editions of, 376, note; genealogical table, 281 ; account of deluge, 376- 380 ; peculiarities of deluge story, 380-383 ; later origin, 467 ; landing place of ark, 346-347.

Birds, in ark, 326-330 ; in crea- tion story, 457 ; used by navi- gators, 328-330.

Bitumen, 469. See Babel.

Blood, significance of, 354.

Bundahesh, Persian flood tradi- tion, 190, 194-195, 371-372 ; Mashya and Mashyana, 194- 196 ; serpent, 217.

Cain, 37, 38, 258-277 ; story mythical, 259-260 ; mark of, 261, 264, 276; fratricide of, 271-277 ; Wellhausen's explanation of, 260-263 \ Lenormant's explanation of, 264-265 ; Budde's explana- tion of, 267-268 ; author of story, 258; a city builder, 295; not son of Adam, 290 ; gene- alogy of, 293 ; translation of story, 270-277 ; summary of argument, 269-270. Calendar, Babylonian, 264-265, existence of assumed, 339, note; Lunar month, 350,

note ; solar year adopted in Canaan, 350, note.

Canaan, son of Ham, 481 ; son of Noah, 483. See also, 486-489.

Chaos, all creation stories begin with, 89, 125, 126, note ; as overcome by God, 1 19-140; personification of evil, 130- 142 ; its nature unknown, 142 ; represented in all myth- ologies, 140-141, note. See Tiaffiat, 128.

Cherubim, no example in He- brew art, 218 ; in Solomon's temple, wooden in brazen sea, metal, 218-219 ; animal form of, 219 ; winged, 219-220 ; in i8th Psalm, 219 ; in Eze- kiel, 219-220; two functions of, 219-220 ; which older, 222 ; origin of name, 222 ; association with Griffin, 223.

City, first city built by farmer, 295-297 ; founding of Babel, 492.

Climatic conditions differently represented by Jehovist and priestly writer, 156-158.

Colenso, criticism negative, 23; trial of, 23.

Cosmology, Babylonian, 240 ; priestly writers, 339. See Chap. I.

Cosmogony. See Creation.

Covenant, 338, 355.

Creation, 70 ; a practical ques- tion, 71, 77 ; attitude of science toward, 75-78 ; order of life, 83-84 ; Not e nihilo, 104, 127, 454.

Accounts of: Priestly Writer, 89-93 ; Jehovist, 140, 148-155, part lost, 140; Egyptian, 96-102 ; Hindu, 95 ; Greek, 96 ; Babylonian, 109-124; agreement with Genesis, iii, 115, 116-117, 119, 120, 127, 130; differ- ences, 119, 127, 156 ; Persian,

(566)

Index

part of Zoroaster's system, 102-105 ; Phoenician, 105- 109 ; Damascius, 120-121 ; Berosus, 121-124.

Critical method, results of, 24.

Cuneiform inscriptions, 8-9 ; Adapa legend, 251-253, Tel- el-Amarna tablets, 251, 335, 402-403 ; creation tablets, 110-118, 129, 241 ; epic of Izdubar, 228-251 ; Peiser's fragment, 407, 478-479, also appendix ; Scheil's fragment, 407-410 ; on Sabbath, 143-

145. Cubit, 334 ; borrowed from

Babylon and Egypt, 335. Curse, primal, 162, 175, 177,

178 ; partly remitted, 332.

B

T^ead, condition of, Babylo-

-'-^ nian conception, 246.

Death, not caused by fall, 177, 181.

Deucalion. See Deluge.

Deluge, two Hebrew accounts, 317-318 ; accounts inter- woven, 317-318 ; inconsis- tencies between Hebrew ver- sions, 318-322 ; no universal deluge, 412, 415 ; wide dif- fusion of tradition, 412, 415 ; fossils, 413, 414-415.

Jehovist's account of, 324- 333; naif conceptions in, 325, 327, 332; mention of ark, 325 ; vegetation not destroyed, 327; duration of flood, 329, 358- 359 ; employment of birds, 327-330 ; building of ark omitted, 325 ; exit omitted, 330 ; altar mentioned, 330-

331 ; Noah's sacrifice, 330-

332 ; Jahveh's promise to Noah, 332-333.

Priestly Writer's account of, 333-357 ; cause of deluge

stated, 334 ; description of ark, 334-338 ; mentions cov- enant, 338 ; mention of ani- mals, 339-340 ; physical causes of deluge, 339-340 ; universal, 340-341 ; vegetation uninjured, 341 ; height of Ar- arat, 341, 349 ; Ararat, site of, 343-349 ; duration of flood, 349-352, 359-360 ; in- terest in animals, 352 ; cov- enant sign of rainbow, 355- 356; completeness of ac- count, 357 ; less original, 357- 360.

Diffusion of flood tradi- tions, in antiquity ; found among Babylonians, Hindus, Hebrews and Greeks, 361 ; Persian doubtful, 361 ; Phoe- nician lost, 361.

Traditions : Greek, 361- 367 ; Hindu, 368-371 ; Per- sian, 371-373 ; Egyptian, no tradition, 373 ; Arab, no tradition, 373 ; Babylo- nian, from two sources, Bero- sus and cuneiform inscrip- tions, 375; discovery of cunei- form account, 375 ; text of, 375; translations of, 375-376 ; compared with Hebrew, 397- 407 ; other Babylonian flood traditions, 407-410.

Primitive flood traditions, nature of, 416-417 ; geo- graphical distribution of, 417; Lithurian, 418-419 ; Austral- ian, 419 ; Hawaiian, 419-421; Caroline Islands, 420 ; Lee- ward Islands, 421-422 ; Asiatic, 423-424 ; European, 424 ; African, none, 424 ; Chinese, 423, note; Ameri- can, 424-427; Eskimo, 424- 425 ; Algonquin, 426-427 ; Ojibway, 427-429 ; Mexican, 429-434 ; Guatemalan, 435- 436 ; Peruvian, 436-437.

(567)

Index

Discrepancies explained, 6, 7.

Dove, employment by naviga- tors, 328-329 ; in Izdubar epic, 395 ; in Mexican tradi- tion, 431 ; introduced into Greece, 367.

Dragon, 132, 136, 138, 141 ; story of Bel and Dragon, 213.

Ea, Babylonian god, 387-388 ; in Adapa legend, 251- 252. Eabani, 229 ; Babylonian Adam, 229-234 ; death of,

239. 251.

Earth, centre of universe, 83.

Eden, Garden of, supernatural, 151, note; site unknown, 151- 153; rivers surrounding, 152, 153; Jehovistic conception of , 153. 156, 157 ; sources of Je- hovist's account, 154, 155 ; universal tradition of, 186- 203; traditions of : Egyptian, 186, 187 ; Zoroastrian, 189- 190; Hindu, 188-189; Greeic, 190-191.

Eloist, 40, 46, 49 ; style of, 40 ; passages from, 48, 49; dreams,

47.

Enoch, 39, 266, 290, 291, 295, see also Appendix III.; seventh from Adam, 291 ; solar deity, 292 : Book of, 305 ; Peter and Jude, 307, 308.

Eve, creation of, 154 ; moral significance, 159-162 ; refer- ence in Talmud, 160; referred to by our Lord, 160 ; Baby- lonian counterpart, 230, 232, 251; children of, 258.

Evil, source of unexplained, 183; connection with Tiamat, 133, 139-140, 142, 143.

Ezekiel, 219, 223, 242, 335, 356, 407; cubit, 334.

■pall of man, dogma of, 15-16 ;

^ how regarded by Biblical writer, 16-17 ; Jehovistic ac- count of, 168-176 ; death not caused by, 167-168, 181, 254 ; a moral difficulty, 167 ; con- sciousness of nakedness, 171- 172 ; moral responsibility be- gins, 180-182; double motive in story, 180 ; sin and knowl- edge, 180-181 ; Babylonian account, 196; parallelism with Genesis not complete, 196 ; Zoroastrian account, 192-195; discussion of cylinder, 196- 202.

Firmament, 81, 82.

Four ages of the world: Egyp- tian, 188 ; Hindu, 188 ; Zo- roastrian, 189 ; Grecian, 188 ; not mentioned in Bible, 191- 192; Mexican, 430; Dr. Brin- ton on, 417, 454-455 ; rela- tion to deluge, 455-456,

/Genealogical tables of antedi- ^ luvians, number of, 278 ; first, 279-284 ; second, 279- 284, 288 ; third, 280, 281, 284; comparison of first, second, and third, 284 ; Berosus, 281 ; Hindu, 282 ; Chinese and Egyptian, 282 ; Phoenician, 299 ; comparison with Greek deities, 282, 299, 300. Genesis, date of, 42, 46, 49 ; compared with other sacred books, 7,8; documents of, 19 ; evidence of prophetical books and Psalms, 15, 17 ; repetitions prove different authors, 25-28 ; proofs of three sources, 28-40; charac- teristics of Elohist, 40 ; dis- tinctions between Elohist and

(568)

Index

Jehovist, 46, 49-50, 155, 158 ; accounts of flood inter- mingled, 267, 268, 318 ; not history, 55-57 ; a collection of inspired myths, 68 ; proof of divine inspiration, 75; mi- raculous element of, 57; study of creation, 79 ; difficulty of accepting statements as facts, 82, 84; time consumed in creation (controversy), 84-87; resemblance to epic of Izdu- bar, 249-250 ; proof of com- posite authorship, 278, 280- 281; genealogical tables, 278- 281 ; sons of God, 303, 304 ; life of man limited, 312-314 ; an anthropopathic concep- tion, 324 ; Redactor, 324 ; lit- urgical distinction, 326 ; part of Jehovist's cosmology lost, 140; curse of ground remitted, 332; pre-exilic, 401. Geology, controversy ended,

413 ; upheaved fossils, 413-

414 ; a source of flood tradi- tions, 425.

Giants, 304-306, 314-316 ; Mo- hammedan myth, 315 ; tradi- tions of, 315, 316 ; origin of Hebrew traditions, 315-316.

God, priestly writers' concep- tion of, 44; Jehovist's concep- tion of, 45 ; development of idea in O. T., 58-59; con- ception in Genesis, 74 ; sex- less, 93; anterior to creation, 93.

H

TTam, son of Noah, 481 ; fa- "*^ ther of Canaan, 482; not

son of Noah, 483. Herodotus, unacquainted with

flood, 362; on language, 505 ;

account of Babylon, 516, 518. Hesiod, unacquainted with

flood, 362, 455 ; "Catalogue

of Women," 362, note; on creation, 96 ; four ages, 190. History, 55-57 ; not imme- diately religious, 60; sources of, 60-61.

Inspiration, definition difficult, 13 ; test of, 14 ; prophets' and psalmists' conception of, 15-16.

Isaiah, 132, 135, 348, 407.

Izdubar epic, 225-249, 384- 397, 467-476 ; antiquity of, 226, 385-386 ; signs of zo- diac in, 226-227 ; a collec- tion of narratives, 226, 228 ; creation of Eabani, his re- semblance to Adam, 229-230 ; mention of Uhat, her resem- blance to Eve, 231-233 ; Isle of the Blessed, 238, 239, 241, 243, 381 ; a reminiscence of Ezekiel, 242 ; Izdubar visits the dead, 247-248 ; a simi- larity to Genesis, 249 ; Haupt's text of, 375 ; trans- lators of, 375 ; more exact than Berosus, 467.

Japheth, 486-489 ; ancestor of Phoenicians, 489. Jehovist, 40 ; style of, 40, 44, 52, 358, 359 ; subjectivity, 49; philosophy of, 50; idea of sin, 51 ; aversion to cities, 510-511; anthropopathic conception of God, 57, 158- I59» 308, 309, 324, 327, 332, 492-493 ; conception of Eden, 148, 149, 153, 158 ; water a friendly element, 156; does not mention firmament, 156 ; superiority to Elohist and priestly writer, 49 ; gene- alogy of Cain, 279, 284, 285,

(569)

Index

292-293 ; account of deluge older, 360 ; follows more closely Babylonian account, 385.

Jeremiah, 235, 261, 262, 513.

Jerome, 344.

Josephus, 308, 344, 346, 376.

Jubilees, Book of, 308.

K

K

enites, descendants of Cain, 261-264 ; aversion to wine, 262.

T amech, 38, 264, 267, 26S,

^ 295 ; song of, 40, 264, 267, 298 ; translation of, 298.

Language, myths of primitive, 504-508.

Leviathan, mythical monster, 134-137, 156 ; Lord of Te- hom, 137; mentioned by Isaiah, Job, Psalms, 134-137,

139- Life, infused by God, 150, 312,

313 ; blood, essence of, 354 ;

sacredness of, 354, 355. Light, 80.

M

Man, creation of place in Na- ture, 84 ; not deathless, 177 ; according to Zoroaster, 192 ; in the Bundahesh, 194- 196; Lithurian tradition, 418 ; Guatemalan, 435.

Metals, Hebrews ignorant of, 299.

Mexico, traditions of flood in, 430-431 ; Coxcox, its mytho- logical Noah, 430-431 ; myth of confusion of tongues, 500, 501 ; Montezuma, 500.

Mizraim, 491.

Moses, not author of Genesis,

II, 12 ; not named in Gene- sis, 29. Myth, history idealized, 192 ; importance of, 63, 66 ; more true to life than critical his- tory, 65 ; not the work of one, but of humanity, 66 ; German and Norse, 208 ; composed with a purpose, 260 ; Schir- ren's sun myth, 441, 443 ; Gerland's ether myth, 441- 445 ; Cheyne's ether myth, 445-449 ; Usener on sun myth, 450-453.

N

TS^isir, 344, 345, 447, 448;

-•-^ landing place of ark, 394, 395, 474, 475.

Noah, 305, 306, 315, 319, 320, 321, 325-330 ; translation, 382 ; prophesies concerning birth of, 484-486 ; a farmer, 482, 484 ; discovers vine, 482, 484-486 ; drunkenness of, 482-484 ; Coxcox, Mexi- can Noah, 430-431 ; a right- eous man, 333, 358. See also Deluge.

o

Ogyges. See Deluge. Oineus, 490. Ojibways, flood traditions of, 427-429.

■paradise, Ezekiel's conception

-t of, 220, 221. See Eden.

Pele, legend of, 420.

Pentateuch, Aben Ezra's criti- cism, 20 ; evidences of three documents, 40 (see 19) ; com- pilation late, 29-35; composi- tion of, 29-35 ; Samaritan, 288, 327 ; Septuagint, 288.

(570)

Index

Peruvians, civilization distinct from Mexican, 436.

Philo Judaeus, 308.

Phytios, 490.

Plato, on heroes, 309 ; Scholiast on, 363 ; flood traditions in, 364 ; on language, 504-505.

Polygamy, 94.

Polytheism, 158.

Popol Vuh, Guatemalan writ- ing, 435 ; antiquity of,

435.

Preadamite man, origin of idea, 259, note.

Priestly Writer, 40, 41, 45, 46, 323 ; style of, 41, 357, 358 ; objective, 49 ; period allowed for creation, 85, 86 ; water a hostile element, 156 ; multi- plication of the race, 162 ; narrative broken, 286 ; gene- alogy of Cain unknown to, 292 ; sons of Noah first men- tioned by, 333 ; account of deluge resembles Berosus' account, 384.

Priests' code, 40.

Psalms, 133, 134.

Psammetichus, 505.

R

"Dahab, 132-134, 156; men- -'^ tioned with Leviathan by

Isaiah, Job, and Psalms, 138,

139, 143- Rain, ancient idea of, 81-82 ;

Jehovist's explanation, 157 ;

as cause of deluge, 326, 327,

339-340. Rainbow, token of covenant,

355 ; Gentile ideas, 356-357 ;

in Lithurian legend, 418-419 ;

in Ezekiel, 356, and Sirach,

356. Raven, 326-329, 396 ; super-

stitiously regarded, 328. Redactor, 302, 318, 324, 326,

327.

Sabbath, place at end of cre- ation, 143 ; observed by Babylonians, 144 ; Jewish,

145, 147.

Sacrifice, first mentioned, 258 ; originated with Cain, 271 ; of Noah, 330-331 ; difference between Jehovist and priestly writer regarding, 331 ; in Izdubar epic, 396.

Sanchuniathon, 105, 106, 299, 300, 309, note.

Satan, late allusion to, 165 ; ser- pent not Satan, 165.

Satapatha Brahmana, 349, 369.

Science, obligations of to Gene- sis, 2-3 ; methods of, 77-78.

Septuagint, on patriarchs, 288 ; variation, 327.

Serpent, symbol of evil in mythologies, 164 ; not a spirit, 165 ; a mythical being, 167, 212 ; in Babylonian tra- dition foe of God, 213 ; in O. T., 212-213 ; in Apoc- rypha, 213 ; sacred object to Greeks, 214 ; as regarded by Phoenicians, 215-216 ; among Persians, 217 ; worship origi- nated in Egypt, 215 ; in Iz- dubar epic, 245 ; in Algon- quin tradition, 426 ; Ojibway legend. Serpent King, 427', 428.

Seth, Adam's son, 301 ; father of Enos, 302 ; posterity not contrasted with Cain's, 305.

Sit-napistim, Babylonian Noah, 239 ; resemblance to Enoch, 239 ; reference to deluge, 244 ; identical with Xisu- thros, 377 ; translated, 241, 380, 382, 397 ; Cheyne's al- lusion to, 447 ; Berosus' story, 377-380 ; cuneiform account, 384-397.

Sodom, destruction of, 405.

(571)

Index

/i f^9 7

Sons of God, linguistic difficul- ties, 303-304, 312-314 ; an- gelic beings, 308 ; resem- blance to Gentile myths, 308- 309 ; nature deities, 311 ; in late writings, 308.

Sun, ancient idea of, 82-83.

Surippak, 467-469 ; meaning of name, 469.

Sword, flaming, not ordinary weapon, 224 ; possesses in- herent energy, 224 ; akin to sword of Jahveh, lightning, 224.

T

'T^almud, 29 ; on creation of

J- Eve, 160; on Adam's death, 168.

Tatian, the Diatessaron, 4.

Tehom, Hebrew chaos, 127, 138^ 139, 140, 339 ; equiva- lent to Babylonian Tiamat, III, 130 ; word used by Isaiah, 132 ; subject to Levia- than, 137.

Temptation, 164, 167-171 ; pos- sible representation in Baby- lonian seal, 197-201.

Tiamat, Babylonian principle of chaos. III, 112, 115, 128, 130-131, 136, 156 ; equiva- lent to Tehom, iii, 129-130 ; Hebrew counterpart in Ra- hab, 129, 130-138 ; destruc- tion of, 114-115, 129-130; original role of in creation story, 138-139.

Titans, 501.

Traditions of savage nations unreliable, 415-416.

Tree, of knowledge, 210 ; origi- nal conception of Jehovist, 211^212 ; prophetical trees

in O. T., 210-212 ; of life, 178, 184, 207 ; Babylonian representations, 202 ; wide diffusion of idea, 203 ; origin of Gentile belief in, 203-204 ; Soma plant of Hindus, 204 ; Germanic myth of Induna, 205, 208 ; Haoma plant of Persians, 205-206 ; nectar of Greeks, 206 ; apples of Hes- perides, 206 ; ancient name of Babylon, " Place of the Tree of Life," 210 ; in Izdu- barepic, 238, 244, 250 ; name in Izdubar epic, 245 ; Adapa and food of gods, 252.

w

Water, hostile element in first account of creation, 156 ; friendly element in sec- ond, 156.

Williams, cylinder, 136.

Wine, 482.

Woman, creation of, 159-160 ; relation to man, 160-161 ; destiny of, 175-177.

Word, doctrine of, 507.

Xisuthros, identical with Sit- napistim, 377; translation of, 380, 381, 382.

Zend Avesta, 190, 194, 205, 371. Ziggurats, 512.

Zoroaster, four ages of, 189 ; creation of man, 192 ; Bun- dahesh, 194-195.

f^ yf

H

(572)

Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide Treatment Date: June 2005

PreservationTechnologies

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive Cranberry Township. PA 16065 (724)779-2111