The book of Genesis in the light of modern knowledge

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